 Okay, Mr. Marshall you should be good to go. Okay, thank you. Ms. Field Sadler. Welcome to the Amherst Planning Board meeting of January 19, 2022. My name is Doug Marshall and as the chair of the Amherst Planning Board I am calling this meeting to order. At 6.34 p.m. this meeting is being recorded and is available live stream via Amherst media. Minutes are being taken. Pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021. This planning board meeting, including public hearings will be conducted via remote means using the zoom platform. The zoom meeting link is available on the meeting agenda posted on the town's websites calendar listing for this meeting or go to the planning board web page and click on the most recent agenda, which lists the zoom link at the top of the page. No in person attendance of the public is permitted. However, every effort will be made to ensure the public can adequately access the meeting in real time via technological means. In the event we are unable to do so for reasons of economic hardship or despite best efforts we will post an audio or video recording, transcript or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the town of Amherst website. Board members I will take a roll call. When I call your name unmute yourself. Answer affirmatively and then place yourselves back on mute. Maria chow. Jack gem sec. Tom long. Andrew McDougal. Andrew. Okay, it doesn't sound like he has the video operationally yet. I dug Marshall and present Janet McGowan. I'm present with my dog. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Board members if technical issues arise we may need to pause temporarily to fix the problem and then continue the meeting. If the discussion needs to pause it will be noted in the minutes. Please use the raise hand function to ask a question or make a comment. Please remember to mute, remute yourself. The general public comment item is reserved for public comment regarding items that are not on tonight's agenda. Please be aware the board will not respond to comments during general public comment period. Public comment could also be heard at other times during the meeting when determined appropriate. If you wish to make a comment by clicking the raise hand button when public comment is solicited. If you have joined the zoom meeting using a telephone, please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star nine on your phone. When called on, please identify yourself by stating your full name and address and put yourself back into mute when finished speaking. If a speaker does not comply with these guidelines or exceeds their allotted time, their participation will be disconnected from the meeting. Okay, before going further, I'd like to check on Andrew McDougal is he Andrew has audio issues he's rebooting his computer. And he said he'll speak up when he can hear everybody. And I suggested that he joined by phone if nothing else works. Okay, thank you very much Chris. All right item one on the agenda this evening are minutes approval for minutes. The first minutes to be approved are from March 31 of last year, catching up on our backlog. That's Chris and Pam for getting these caught up. Does anybody who has anybody does anybody have any comments on the March 31 minutes. All right. Looks like Andrew's trying to connect again. I mean, you're in and we can hear you. Okay, so it's now 638 and Andrew has arrived so we are fully present for this meeting. So Andrew I was just at the point of the first set of minutes, March 31 of last year. No one else had any comments. Do you have any comments. I do not. Okay, then we'll go right into a boat. May have a motion to approve the March 31 minutes as written by by Chris. Jack. How about your honor. I moved. Excuse me, I moved to approve the minutes from March 31 as written. Thank you, your honor. Do we have a second. Andrew. All second. Thank you. No more, no, no, no comments yet. So we'll go right through with the roll call Maria. Approve. Jack. Approve. Tom. Andrew. Approve. I'm an approve. Janet. Approve. Johanna. All right. Second set of minutes are from April 14th of last year. Are there any comments on those minutes? All right. Why don't I make the motion to approve those minutes. Tom, you want a second? Second. Thank you. And no comments yet. So we'll go in reverse order. Johanna. Approve. Janet. I'm an approve. Andrew. Approve. Tom. Approve. Jack. And Maria. Approve. All right. Thank you all. The last of the three sets of minutes for this evening is from our last meeting. January 5th of 2022. Why don't we start with just a motion and then I'll ask if there's anything else that we can do to make a motion. Janet, I saw your hand first. I moved to approve the minutes of January 5th. Are we on? Yep. 2022. Thank you. Andrew. I'll second the motion. All right. Thank you. Any comments by anyone on the board? Andrew. I would say that I really liked the detail of the public comment. And it's been a great time. And I'm glad that we got that recap, especially since I was late. So thank you for. Putting that in. All right. Good. Okay. This time we'll start. Let's, let's start with Tom. This is a proof to approve these minutes. Andrew. Approve. Janet. Approve. Johanna. Approve. Maria. Approve. Jack. And I'm going to prove. All right. So that was item one on our agenda this evening. Next, we will go into. The public comment period. I see that there are 15. Members of the public who are tuned in. So at this time we'll take comments on items, which are not on the agenda for this evening. So that would encompass the public hearings that are related to Wagner Wood. And Amherst college. We also have later in on our agenda. More for conversation about the solar bylaw. Hoping, assuming we get there. And so are there any comments about topics other than those comments than those topics I've just named. All right, I don't see any public comment. And the time is 6. 43. For the record. All right. The next item on our agenda this evening. Is a public hearing. And the time is 643. In accordance with the provisions of mass general law, chapter 40 a, this public hearing has been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted. And is being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity. For interested citizens to be heard regarding. Site plan review 2022 dash 07. From James and Joseph Wagner of Wagner Wood. At 305 North East street. Request site plan review approval. Under section 3.312 of the zoning bylaw. We will now move on to the next item. To construct a two-story addition. To the westerly side of an existing barn. For use as a class one farm stand. Including office space. For the agricultural uses. Existing on the premises. And associated site improvements. Concerns map. 12 a parcel 15. Thank you. All right. So I ask F.C. Zoning district. All right. So first are there any board member disclosures? I do not see any. And we'll go right into the applicant presentation. I assume that's why Tom Reedy has appeared as a, as, as a panelist. So Chris, unless you have a comment to introduce this, we can go right to Tom. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, members of the board. I'm Tom Rede. I'm an attorney with Bacon Wilson out of Amherst here on behalf of the Wagner's and their application for site plan approval for a farm stand at their property on Northeast street. With me this evening, Barry Roberts who's working with the Wagner's on this project. So if you've got any questions, both Barry and I would happily answer them. So for those of you who are at the site visit and maybe what I'll do is share a screen if that works and if everybody can see. I've highlighted the property in yellow. This is the Northeast street property. Strong Street is the cross street up here. If you kept going southerly, you'd come to the intersection of, I think it's Maine and maybe Pelham Road. So this is the property that we're talking about here. As I will show you in a little bit, this does not exist anymore. For those of you who are at the site visit, it's a concrete foundation only. But this is about the area where the farm stand addition is proposed to be. So this is for those of you who are familiar with the site, accesses off of Northeast street, not looking to change really anything in here. As you'll see, we'll have some parking over here. The ADA parking will be here. We'll have some parking over here for the residents and the store will have some parking over here. And this is a little bit of a dated photograph. So those board members who were at the site visit know that this is not happening on site right now. There was the ability to park in the proposed conditions. There will be the ability to park in this area. And then as you'll see, there will be, there's a little bump out to what is being proposed. And so I'll probably switch if you can still see what I was talking about. Existing house here, the milling surface, Northeast street on the left side, west side as it were. Here you've got store parking with signage and you'd have the ADA van access accessible route to, here's where the main entrance would be to the farm stand. If you'll recall, that's about the footprint of where that existing structure was, less that bump out, which the existing structure isn't there right now except for the foundation that's all gonna be taken out. And this structure with a basement is going to be put in. As we had talked about at the site visit, the existing barn is staying. It's a hay storage with a full basement under it where the cows are. And so we would just have an exterior wall, the existing exterior wall of the barn up against an existing exterior wall of the new structure. So they would just be butted up against each other. We're proposing some stairs over here to access and you'll see the floor plan momentarily and you'll see where that access is. Ultimately, they'll be to look under the roof. There's a loft on the second floor for storage. On the first floor, there'll be some offices here and open hallway and then the farm stand will be in this area here. So that's why that main entrance that will be at grade will be in this area here. There will be lights over the entries. I'll show you a photograph actually of what those lights will look like. And along with that porch light right there. There are motion sensor lights. So if you were out there yesterday at site visit, you saw that there's, boy, it looks like at least three motion sensors, high enough on the back of the residence pointing out into the parking lot. And there's an existing light over here. It's like one of those Womiko lights, the somewhat goose neck that you would see is a street light that goes on from dusk to dawn. There are five parking spaces proposed for this westerly side of the parking area. Four parking spaces proposed for this northerly side of the parking area. The store would be open essentially from dawn to dusk, except probably during the winter, they'd wanna stay open a little bit longer than dusk because dusk is so early during the winter as we're all experiencing right now. So I don't know if we wanna put a time on it. I think they'd want the maximum flexibility to be open from as early as they can to as late as they can with the condition that they provide adequate site lighting when it is dark, when it's getting dark and it's dark. So these lights would propose to be on from dusk until closing. Same thing with this one and these motion lights are obviously motion censored. If you can see, this is what that fixture will look like and Chris and Pam, I can send this over to you. We hadn't submitted this yet, but this is really what that fixture, downcast, dark sky compliant, quaint and we think effective for the use. Let me get to... So here's the floor plan. Existing barn here. If you were at the site visit, you saw those barn doors. And so there's a question about, well, where is this going to start? And so it starts, there was a window on the barn. It'll start just to the right of that window or to the left of these barn doors. They still utilize this barn and so they would need to have access and be able to open those barn doors. The footprint, if you remember that L shape, you've got that entrance that we talked about here that will be at grade, so it'll be accessible. You've got the retail area here. You've got the coolers along this northerly side, the left side in the plan. You've got your checkout area here. Stairs not accessible to the public because there's no public spaces. There's no public bathroom. So really the public is only gonna have access to this area right in here. There's that porch, if you recall, you saw those steps with that porch light. There's the porch, there's a doorway into this open area with the hallway and then you've got three offices, 100 square feet each to be used for the existing agricultural uses on the property. So Wagner Wood obviously operates at this site. They also have an office in their house. They'd like to keep that office. They have, Buzzy and Jamie have five kids. So what I had said yesterday is, it's important for Jamie to be able to watch the kids in the house and probably also to get away from the kids. So they'd like to maintain that same office in the house and also utilize these offices. They would be to compliment the farm stand and also for just the agricultural uses on site. Here's just an elevation of what that building would look like. So again, you've got the existing barn if you're following, you've got the doors here. Here's that entrance. The sign that we would be proposing is no greater than four square feet. And I'll flip back to the other page to show you where the other sign being proposed is up along the road. And so we've got that downcast lighting. You've got the windows. We've got vertical planks, I'll call them, which if you saw the barn, they also have vertical planks. I don't know, there might be eight inches or more and Barry, if I'm way off, let me know. But vertical planks and the waggers would be looking to use native lumber, lumber that they actually saw at their mill on site for this property here. You'll see the porch. You see the loft area, that second floor, which again is just going to be for storage. So this is just the second floor. It's open above, so it'll appear as a two-story open space. When you're walking to the farm stand, you'll have the roof, two stories above, and then that loft is over where the offices are. This is looking from the northerly side. It's not shown, but there is that porch right over here. You see that the grade slopes off ultimately. What we'll have is there'll be an access into the basement because that's where the waggers are going to store their freezers. And so I probably should say, because it's most important, at least at this time, so I'll say we'll comply with the bylaw. And so we just accept the condition that we comply with the language of the bylaw as it's written. The intent is to have 100% of the products from onsite, so they raise cattle. And so the idea would be to send that cattle out and then to bring the cattle byproduct, the meat back for sale at the farm stand. They'd like the ability in the future maybe to get complimentary produce that's not grown onsite, but it's from Massachusetts. So they'll comply with the bylaw just so you know that the intent right now is to just sell the wares from the farm at the site. Oh, there you go. There's the north elevation with that porch, which is the right way to look at it. And then you've got that south elevation. This is the existing barn. Here's that other side of that entry, if you'll recall. And it's a two-story in appearance from that side. And then just to go back, the Wood sign Wagner's farm stand right here, four by two, so eight square feet is what this would be. And it's proposed to be right here. We're also thinking about putting a safety sign, you know, caution, pedestrian traffic in about this area. We're happy to update the plans. And then I guess if that's deemed as exceeding the square footage for the signage, I'm not sure that safety signs are like traffic or informational signs are. I'd have to frankly look into the in the bylaw. Assuming it is, then we'd request a waiver from Article 8 for the ability to put in that additional safety sign. If it's not, then we'd just like to put in that safety sign. There are trucks that travel through this path. Most of them are Wagner's trucks, or they're folks who come here often to pick up the mulch to or to drop off other tree products. So a lot of the times it's people who know. And so they'll certainly let, you know, people who are coming know and let their drivers know there could be pedestrian traffic. And so the route is really, it's coming in and looping around. Not often do they use this southerly access here. So, you know, we thought that a signage here, just alerting motoring public to pedestrians was the, was the wise thing to do. So that's, it's not shown on the plan, but that's what we would be proposing. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions or linger on any of these plans. But that's, that's what we've got right now. All right. Thank you, Tom. Sure. Does anybody have any questions for Tom off the bat? No, Hannah, is that you? I'm here, but I'm not doing anything. All right, fine. Oh, okay. Here's the hands. Andrew. Mine's real quick. Tom, thanks for the presentation. Good seeing you yesterday. I forgot, should we go into the site, the site visit report first? Sure. So I don't know who was, who was there, but if someone that was at the site yesterday could volunteer to give us a little report. Andrew, you still have your hand up. Yeah, that's fine. I can, I can do the report. So I was there along with Johanna and Janet and Chris. We met with Tom and Buzzy Wagner and Barry Roberts. We were able to see the site. It's currently, as was explained, an existing solid concrete foundation that's going to be demolished. We got a general sense of the overall, that's probably a better look. So we saw essentially where that roof line is now that's existing concrete. We parked around where that red truck was. So agree with what Tom mentioned in his introduction that in its current configuration, that's a logical spot for people to park. That's where we all did. We had some questions which were related to traffic flow. So we asked about how the large vehicles and trucks get through, who drives those trucks and some general safety questions which Tom alluded to in his presentation that the truck deliveries are generally aware of the situation given the fact that Buzzy and his family has five kids. Traffic moves through slowly, but they had acknowledged that it would be useful to put up a sign as Tom already alluded to. We did have some questions relative to ADA access. So the material, I can't remember what we decided to call it the existing kind of paved material whether or not that was going to be changed. It was shared with us that the surface would remain as it is. It's generally flat. The distance line from the ADA spot to the front entrance is generally level. As you saw in some of the elevation views, as you wrap around the north of the building the elevation does drop, but they have acknowledged the need for ADA parking will have a designated spot and also indicated that given the nature of the area it's quite possible that somebody who has difficulty moving around might just park close to the building anyway so that they could get quick access to it. The lights on the house were pointed out and the motion center lights and then there was also the indication that there will be some lights that are also, yeah, that post that Tom just pointed to and then also that there would be the coach lights on the side of the building as well. There was a couple existing, there's I think actually one existing temporary structure that's moved around that's in kind of the shadow line of the barn there now, but I think that was about it. Janet, Johanna, anything that I may have missed? All right, so if I could, if I could ask my question real quick Doug. Sure, go right ahead and into it. Thanks, which is the one thing that I wasn't sure about was a lighting plan. I believe you'd mentioned that you'd have something a bit more formal is just those spotlights. How far, what is the distance from those lights to the front door? And is that, that seems like that will be kind of the primary lighting for the parking area at this point. So it looks like here it's a little less than 60 feet from those motion sensors. I think it's one of those things where, and if you wanna put a condition on it that there's adequate sight lighting and then we can just review it to make sure that, once this thing gets built, we can come out there at night, take a look, turn the porch lights on, let's see what these motion lights do if they install new ones. Cause you know, there's some really bright ones that you can get. It's not gonna, the Wagner's own this property as well. So, and everything's facing back into here. So you're really, you're not gonna have any light trespass. They're gonna be downcast, but you know, they will travel a certain way. So, you know, we can certainly make sure that it is adequate. But we didn't, frankly, we didn't go through and have a photo project like this. We're not really gonna do a photometric plan. So yeah, I mean, I think we think they're okay, but if they're not, then we certainly will upgrade. We don't, you know, safety is a priority here. Yeah. And I was, I was the area that I just wasn't really positive about was, you know, sort of the parking component here, right? Is whether that the people as they park there, whether they're getting lighting as they travel all the way around. Yeah. Okay. So yeah, happy to hear that you will address that. That was, I think the only question that I had. Okay. Thanks, Andrew. Janet? So I, the site visit was really helpful to understand how things, how cars would move and where things were. And I think it's exciting that they're, you know, opening the farm stand and there's more local food and local beef. And I've noticed there's more local cows on that site in the last like five years or so. So it seems like a great thing to me. I did, I did have a question or a concern about the ADA spot because it seemed to me that it should, there should be spots like one or two spots closer to the entrance way. And in the surface did seem very, I was concerned about the service but it does seem incredibly pounded to flatness and it doesn't, it doesn't get muddy. But I felt like it should be much closer to the store and that going, if you were, had some ability issues or visual issues going across maybe to that store, there, there should be a parking space closer because there's trucks coming and other cars coming back and forth. And I just wondered if the sheds could be moved and maybe a space or two made, you know, next to the barn. So someone could just drive up there, you know, walk 10 feet and get into the store and do their business without, you know, risk or, you know, struggling to get across and things like that. So that was my major concern was just ADA access. And I, it's going to be my concern the next project too. But I would love to see some parking much closer to the building that someone's not going across a lane with a large truck or cars moving. And most, you know, most times we have parking right as close as you can get. Yeah. And you know, it might make sense for us to put up a space right here in front. We can look at the space over here. The only issue is, so there's a basement underneath this barn. And so there's a certain grade from the entrance to these doors back down to this parking area, this traveled area. Yeah. Because underneath it is the cellar where the cows are. And so we just want to be mindful of maintaining the appropriate grade for accessibility purposes. So I don't know that, you know, something over here would work just because I think it's probably like maybe minutely but maybe a little too steep. So we'll look at something right here because this is probably all along the same grade. Yeah. So I think we'd like to put something like, you know, a space right here, probably to me makes the most sense given everything just the site itself. Yeah. So that would be a condition I would support just having a space very close either next to the building or maybe where the sheds were. I forget about the slope. I didn't, I forgot about that. And then, you know, they have to get into the barn. Yeah. Yeah, but that's an acceptable condition. We talked about that yesterday and that's the wagons are fine with that. I have a quick question. Is there's a light on the building itself, right? Yes. Oh, OK. There are two. Yeah, there's there are two lights. You know, it's nice that we have this roof line here, the one about right here and then one about right here. There'll be two of those, the porch lights that we had shown. OK. Thank you. Sure. All right. Thanks, Janet. Jack. Hello. I had like three things I want to talk about, but the ADA, you know, people have asked, you know, a bunch of questions. But I guess one thing I'm not clear on is in terms of the access to the building, because I know there's stairs. Is there just a house of like a wheelchair accessible entrance to the building? Where is that? Pull this back up, Jack, if you can see. Here of the building, I'll go back in a moment or the aerial, really. So it's in this corner. OK. All right. So it's it'll be right over here. And so that's why we're talking with what, you know, we had proposed the accessible route and it's relatively flat and basically flat from these parking spaces, you know, to have van access over to this corner. But what we just talked about with Janet, Janet was putting something right here, you know, potentially an ADA parking space there. This is where there's a little bit of a slope, plus they do need access to that barn. So that's why I think, you know, this space right here probably makes the most sense. And then this, the entryway here will be at grade with the surrounding area. Thank you, Tom. The second question is the the the surface of that of the drive and parking and, you know, given the the the size of the trucks that come in and out of there. So how often do, you know, does Wagner have to kind of resurface in terms of, you know, bringing in additional, you know, milling material and planning and and that sort of thing? Because I just thought that the trucks were pretty pretty large there. It would tear up, you know, that kind of surface. Yeah, I mean, they are and Barry, I'm gonna ask you in a minute to, if you know the answer, but, you know, Jack, yes, they are pretty large and I don't think the Wagner's want to have any of them stuck. So they probably make sure that it's a pretty compacted and the trucks in their nature will compact the surfaces there because this, you know, it's their livelihood to get that wood, which I can only imagine how much, you know, the trailer's way with that wood. So I don't know, Barry, I don't know if you know. Yes, so they use millings on the surface there and what the trucks tend to do is really, really pack it hard. And I have never been there to see it soft because the trucks compact the millings, millings being the stuff that's ground off the highways when they resurface thing. So it's actually black top, but it's, you know, loose and they put it down and then the trucks, excuse me, packed it like a roller one. So I find it to be always really, really hard. Okay, thank you. And last thing with regard to the additional signage, I'd be all for that and maybe even putting like some temporary, you know, permanent temporary type features like safety cones with signs on them, just, you know, scattered around there would be, I think not a bad thing to do as well. So thank you, it looks like a good project. Thanks, Jack. All right, Jack, next we have Tom. Sure, thanks guys. This is a great presentation. I'm excited about the project. My question came up just a moment ago. I had a question about the surface and ADA and some other things, but in regard to the second level, is there a reason why that does not need to be accessible? If that's an office space and in what form, how would one define office space in terms of accessibility? Yeah, so I believe because it's not open to the public that it doesn't have to be accessible. And so- So if people are being employed there, don't they need to be, we need to hire for accessible people or for people who need access, right? Yeah, and I mean, I don't even want to go down the road of thinking about discrimination and all of those reasonable combinations, et cetera. You know, there would be the ability to access these offices through this door. This second floor is, as I understand it, for storage. Again, not to go down the road, but I would imagine that any employee who is not able to go up to the second floor would not be required to go up to the second floor. And I don't know if Barry, if you've got a, and this is what our architect tells us as far as what the accessibility code requires. Sure, it was just a question and a thought, thanks. Sure, sure. All right. I guess I had a couple of questions. One is, and this is really just, I'm just curious, what Barry's role is in this? I know, I understand, Tom, you're the legal counsel and is Barry in partnership with the Wagners or something? I am not in partnership with the Wagners. I'm just helping facilitate the bill and working with John Kuhn to design the project. Okay, thank you. No, I guess. And then I guess it was a question for Chris and how this commercial use fits in with the zoning of the farm of the agricultural land. And by approving this, what happens if this grows and becomes successful and turns into something of the scale of the Atkins Farm Shop in South Amherst? You want me to answer that? Sure. So they need to adhere to the requirements of the class one farm stand, which requires that 25% of the products that they're selling be grown on the site and that 50% of the products be grown in Massachusetts. And then they can find other products that are compatible with what they're selling to fill up the other percentage. So the building commissioner is gonna ask for proof of what it is that they're selling and we'll be checking on them periodically to make sure that what they're selling complies with those requirements. So if you have a property that's five acres or more and you're doing farming on it, it's considered a farm according to state law and this property is a farm according to state law. It's bigger than five acres. So the class one farm stand is allowed here even though it's a residential district. I think if it ever got to the point of being much larger or much busier, it may have to be moved elsewhere because this is not a place that it would be necessarily compatible to have something like Atkins. But for the purposes that we're looking at now, I think that this fits well in this environment. But again, if we're starting to see hundreds of people and we're not going to see hundreds of people, but if it went in that direction, I think the building commissioner would have a conversation with the Wagner's and say, you really need to find another location for this because it doesn't fit within the residential district. Okay, and it sounds like you've started to answer my next question, which was, will this building not need review and approval by the building commissioner for the code, for the Massachusetts architectural access board for the plumbing code, if that actually applies. Yes. We don't need to actually get two down in the weeds in terms of the layout of the building for this site plan review. No, and I did talk to the building commissioner today about the fact that the bathroom wouldn't be accessible, handicapped accessible, and that the downstairs and the upstairs wouldn't be. And he said, well, as long as the public isn't invited to go there, that would be satisfactory. As long as the area where the public is invited to go is handicapped accessible. That's what he would be looking for. And there would be a building permit required to build this building and all of the usual things that are looked at when a building permit is requested would be looked at here. Okay, great. Thank you, Chris. You had your hand up, do you wanna say anything else? Me? Oh, I don't, I think I might have been wanting to answer a previous question. Okay, Maria. Thanks, Doug, and thanks, Tom. I think all my questions were answered very adequately as far as lighting and accessibility and then the level of quality of the ground flame. So I think that's all been covered. And I was trying to quickly look up the definition of farm stands while you guys were chatting, but so I guess farm stands would never, like you were saying, Chris, never get to level actions and there wouldn't be like events here where dozens of people would show up and be parking all over the place, right? Cause farm stands really just to sell a small quantity of site produced products, right? So it wouldn't, I don't know if there's a question. Well, I was trying to look up the definition of farm stand really quickly, but it's never gonna get to that level of use. In other words, it's just a small retail space, right? Chris, do you wanna answer that? So the kinds of things that Maria was talking about, like events, those are not allowed in, you know, the residential districts. We've had questions about that before from other landowners who own farms. And unfortunately, those kinds of events aren't allowed, but we may want to change our zoning bylaw to allow those types of things, but right now they're not allowed. So this is unlikely to, you know, become a place where there's a lot of traffic coming to it. And certainly if things were to become problematic, people would complain to the building commissioner and then we would know that there's something going on here that it doesn't fit within the scope of what is now being proposed. The definition of the class one farm stand is in section, what is it, 3.312 of the zoning bylaw. So it's part of that use category chart. And it's one of the first few things in that use category chart. So there's a pretty clear definition of it. And I actually think that we did define it. Yes, we did. On page two of the development application report, there's a definition of a class one farm stand and what is required to go on there. You know, what kinds of things can be sold there. So you might wanna refer to that. It laps over into page three, but that's a pretty good description. And that's also taken from state law. So our zoning bylaw matches state law with regard to the farm stand definition. All right. Thank you. Are there any more board comments or questions? All right. At this time, I will ask for any public comments on this project. I guess I don't see any. Chris, I assume that a butters were notified that this hearing was gonna be taking place. Yes, they were. Okay. All right. So I don't see any public comments. All right. Any final comments from the board? All right. What does anybody wanna make a motion? Johanna, go ahead. Well, I guess I'll just say it seems it's a huge property overall, the idea that they're gonna start selling some of their meat that they produce locally kind of on the farm seems, it just seems cool. Like it's consistent with kind of the historic usage of that land and kind of making it possible for people who live in Amherst to be even more connected to the food and the farms that operate here. And so I recognize that that's, it's a little bit outside the, like our job is to look at lighting and surfaces and structures, but like overall, I think it's gonna be, has the potential to be a neat feature in addition to our community. I guess you reminded me of one thing I wanted to ask which had maybe it's really not our purview, but there is a restroom in this building. And I was just wondering how you were dealing with the effluent from that facility. Barry connected it to the sewer, right? I think the sewer goes on Northeast street. And so we have to figure out whether we need a sewer pump. I just don't know what the grades are gonna be when we ultimately build, but we're gonna make sure it's either pumped up or it flows downhill, preferably the ladder. Okay, so it'll go to the sewer. There won't be a septic field in association with this. Before they redid Northeast street this last year, we connected in a stub, a sewer stub into the town sewer and ran it into the property line. We talked with Gilford and Jason about that and that's what we put it where they wanted to go. And so it's all set to connect to the town sewer. Okay, great. All right, would anybody like to make a motion about this application? Janet, I see your hand. Should I, I'll close the hearing and then make a motion to approve. So I move. And we did talk about various potential conditions as well. So Chris, should we go ahead and make the motion now and then talk about conditions? Why don't we talk about conditions first? I think that would be helpful. All right, sorry, Janet. It's okay. So I wrote down that we had some conversation about the lighting and potential condition for the adequacy of that. And I guess the code compliance in terms of the illumination for a pedestrian path in the vicinity of traffic. And then Janet, you would raise the issue of a potential condition for a revision to the site plan to have an ADA parking spot closer to the entry. Were there any other conditions that were, that I've missed? I think, I didn't have a chance to write up conditions for this project, but I think that it would be worthwhile to state a condition that says that the entries to the building must be handicapped or the main entry to the building must be handicapped accessible because there's no grading plan associated with this site plan that wasn't submitted. So. And that wouldn't automatically come up in the building officials. It would, it would, but I think it's worthwhile to put something in here about that. Okay. And then Chris, I guess the other question would be relative to that additional sign. So we're using, you know, eight square feet along the road, another four square feet on the building and then we're gonna have that pedestrian safety sign or maybe signs as Mr. Gemsick had suggested. I don't know if we need an article eight waiver. We'd ask for one now if you think it necessary, just so, you know, when we have it out there, there's some record of the planning board being okay with the addition of, you know, the safety signs, so-called. How many safety signs do you expect to install like between two and four? Do you want to say that? Yeah, I think that's probably a fair number. So you could say the planning board could have a condition stating that if the applicant wants to install between two and four safety signs that that would be satisfactory under section 8.5 of the zoning by-law, but you might want to give some limit to how big they would be. How big do you imagine those signs to be, Tom? You think two by two? Barry, you think that's, is that too big? Two square feet? I mean, I think that's a little bigger. I envision it like a regular traffic control sign, like a, almost like a stop sign. Like one by two? One wide two high or something like that? Yes, I think that would be fine. Like that draft diamond over your shoulder, Barry? Yeah, like that one. Perfect. One by one or one by two? And you'd install between two and four of those. And if those needed to have a section 8.5 waiver, the board would agree to grant that waiver. There were some other things that I was interested in, like providing information about the products that are gonna be sold to the building commissioner at the time that the building permit is requested. Chris, I'm doing a little math in my head and I'm thinking if we made the safety sign limit two and a quarter square feet, then it could be 18 inches square rather than two feet square. Okay, so that makes sense. Two and a quarter square feet, 18 inches square and between two and four of them, depending on what the applicant feels like they need. And I don't remember the actual allowable square footage of signage in the bylaw, but the... It's 12 square feet. So we're using eight of those square feet out at the road and we're using the other four on the building. Yes. Is there any maximum distance from the road where beyond that distance, it doesn't matter what the size of the sign is? I know. Okay, so on a parcel like that parcel, which is probably 50 acres, if they had a sign at the rear, at the east edge of it, that would apply? I believe so, yeah. Seems strange, but that's true. Okay. Thank you, Janet. So you agree to have a condition about the products, a description of the products to be submitted to the building commissioner at the time of the application for the building permit? Yeah. Oh, and if so, it should be managed according to the management plan built according to the plans that were submitted. And if the plan changes, then they would come back to the planning board for review, right? Those are the kind of standard conditions that you have. And Chris, I'll update the management plan just because we had 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., but we've now represented it's gonna be dawn to dusk and then maybe a little later during, you know, when dusk is early. So I'll update that and get you a complete management plan for the file. And will you also update the plan of the site to show a new parking space location? I will, yes. So when those plans come in, I can bring them to the planning board for review and they can be approved at that time, right? And then we'll put a date in those conditions. Okay. So if that's the case, do you want us just to hold off on a vote this evening? For us, if you could have the vote, that would be great just so we can... Yeah, I think it's okay to have the vote and then bring the plans back. And, you know, they can't get a building permit until they update the plans. Okay. Janet, you have your hand up. I was just going to read to the board the waiver language in section 8.5. And it says basically, you know, there are sign regulations are very detailed, but it says that we could waive the sign regulations for compelling reasons of public convenience, public safety, aesthetics or site design. And so it seems clear that public safety would be the reason to waive. Because obviously we want people to be able to walk safely and to alert the trucks that people are gonna be walking around. So do you want me to try to make a motion to close the hearing and list all these conditions? If you've been making notes, I mean... I have been making notes, but I'm not sure they're gonna be great notes. Well, I think, I mean, you could make your motion and then we could have Chris go through her notes of all the conditions that she's got. That would be lovely. So I'll make a motion to close the hearing. All right. Jack, are you raising your hand to second that? Yes, I'll second. Thank you. All right, Janet, do you wanna go back and make a motion to... Actually, let's vote to close the hearing. All right. All right, Johanna, we'll start with you. All right. All right. Maria. Yes. And Jack. Yes. Tom. Hey. And Andrew. Hi. And Janet. Hi. And I'm an I. Sounds good. All right, the meeting is closed or the hearing is closed. Now, Janet, would you like to make a motion to approve the site plan review with the conditions that Chris will be reminding us of in a moment? So I so move. Okay, anybody wanna second that? All right, Jack. Yeah, I'll second that. And do you want to include waivers as well as conditions? They've asked for waivers from the landscape plan, soil erosion plan, traffic impact statement, construction logistics plan, pollution and hazardous materials plan and demolition and historic preservation plan. Anybody object to those waivers? Janet, your hand is up. Are you? Oh no, sorry, residual. Okay. Okay, so now you'd like me to read conditions. So first condition would be built substantially in accordance with plans submitted to the planning board and approved. And the approval date will be some date hence once you get the plan back, then the development shall be managed to substantially in accordance with the management plan submitted to the planning board and approved on that subsequent date. Changes to the project and or substantial changes to any approved site plans or to the exterior of the building shall be submitted to the planning board for its review and approval prior to the work taking place. The purpose of the submittal shall be for the planning board to approve the change and to determine whether the changes are de minimis or significant enough to require a modification of the site plan review. This is one that we've been putting in lately. You can decide if you want to put it in or not. This site plan review approval shall expire within two years of the date that it's filed with the town clerk unless it has been both recorded at the registry of deeds and substantial construction or use has commenced within the two year period. I don't know if you want to do that or not. Any objection to that, Tom? No, that's fine. We just have to pull a building permit I think is what the law requires. Yep, and begin construction. I think, and then you had a condition about lighting that it would be dark sky compliant that it wouldn't shine onto adjacent properties and that it would be adequate for the purpose of lighting the area where people are walking and driving. Right, for the safety of the pedestrians. And then you had a condition that you wanted to see a revised plan that has the ADA spot closer to the building. So that would be an updated site plan prior to the issuance of the building permit. Then there was another one that we talked about that said that the entry shall be ADA accessible. And there was one that said that you were approving the ability to have additional safety signs under section 8.5 of the zoning bylaw for reasons of public safety. And you would approve between two and four signs each of which could be 18 square inches. And what else? 18 inches square. 18 inches square, yes. That's what I wrote down, I just said the wrong thing. And that information would be provided to the building commissioner at the time of the building permit application to describe the products that are proposed to be sold here. And that you would update the management plan, that you would receive an updated management plan along with an updated site plan before the issuance of the building permit. And that's it. Okay. All right. Does anybody else wanna say anything before we vote on Janet's motion and the conditions? Can I just also say that you would approve the fact that this complies with the relevant sections of section 11.24 of the zoning bylaw. Okay. Did we get a second? I can't remember. I think Jack did. Okay. Okay. Well, then why don't we go ahead and have that vote? Jack, why don't you go first? Hi. And Tom. Was that me? Yes. Hi. I'll vote, I too was. Andrew. Hi. And Janet. Hi. You know, Hannah. Hi. Maria. Hi. And I'm an I as well. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you, Tom. Thank you, Barry. Good luck. All right. So with that, we move on. The time is 7 36. Why don't we go ahead and move into the Amherst College hearings? Let's see. All right. In accordance with the provisions of mass general law, chapter 40A, this public hearing has been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted and is being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity for interested citizens to be heard regarding SPR 2022-08 Amherst College, 197 and 205 South Pleasant Street and 38 Woodside Avenue and 155 to 175 South Pleasant Street. Request site plan review approval under section 3.330.0 of the zoning bylaw to renovate and expand an existing building at 197 South Pleasant Street to create an academic building to be known as the Aliki, Parati and Seth Frank Lyceum and to construct a service drive from Woodside Ave across the property at 38 Woodside Ave to the Lyceum and a woodland path across property at 155 to 75 South Pleasant Street to connect to the parking lot and Newport House, including waivers to sign regulations under section 8.5 of the zoning bylaw and associated site amenities, lighting and landscaping, map 14A, parcels 190, 191, 194 and 195. So Chris, do you want to do these together? That would be great. So what we're prepared to do is to introduce the folks that have come here. I'm sorry, which Chris were you talking to? Yeah, I was actually talking to Chris Prestor, if I'm sorry. We're gonna have to make sure to go with Christine. Okay. Yes, I think at least the first two should be done together and it probably makes sense to do all three of them together so they could be a joint public hearing. All right, then I'll go ahead and read the second one. Now the time is 7.38 and we're gonna open the hearing for a second Amherst College project or application. In accordance with the provisions of Mass General Law, chapter 40A, this public hearing has been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted and it's being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity for interested citizens to be heard. Regarding this, special permit 2022-03 Amherst College at 197 South Pleasant Street. Request a special permit under article six, section 6.60 and table three, footnote A of the Zoning By-law to modify the front setback requirement for a new academic building to be known as the Allakey, Karate and Seth Frank Lyceum, map 14A, parcel 195 in the RG Zoning District. And then the third hearing, also in accordance with the provisions of Mass General Law, chapter 40A is for site plan review 2022-09 Amherst College at 32 Northampton Road. Request site plan review approval under section 3.330.0 of the Zoning By-law to expand existing parking lot at Newport House from 17 spaces to 28 spaces, including two handicap spaces, including lighting and drainage improvements and stormwater detention and infiltration. Map 14A-189 in the RG Zoning District. All right, so for these three hearings that we're gonna conduct together, are there any board member disclosures? I do not see any. All right, Chris Chamberlain, you are now on. Great. And actually, go ahead. I was gonna say over in the attendees, Chris is a Brunner caught zoom. Is that person supposed to become a panelist? Yes, and also there was a late addition if you could let Jessica Alpert in also as a panelist. Absolutely. Great. So while they're logging on, I am Chris Chamberlain. I'm Principal Civil Engineer with Berkshire Design Group in Northampton. I'm gonna apologize in advance for my scratchy voice and I may have to mute myself and cough. It's not COVID, but my five-year-old did bring a cold home to share with us last weekend. But we'll power through. Here with me are Tom Davies, Director of Design Amherst College. Mark Andrews, Project Manager for Amherst College. Lauren Stimson, Principal Landscape Architects with Stephen Stimson Associates. Jess Alpert, Project Manager for Stimson. Jason Forney, Principal Architect with Brunner caught architects and Christopher Nielsen, Project Manager for the Brunner caught architects. And so what we're gonna do is give an overview of the site's background of the project. I wanna step through sort of in our own words what the permit requests are, because as was clear from Doug's introduction, there's some complications just because of the number of properties involved and what we need to do. And then we'll give you a detailed overview of the primary site, which is for the proposed Lyceum. Go through some of the site engineering and then look at the architecture and specifically around the purpose of our special permit request for the reduced setback. And then toward the end, we'll look at the Newport House lot, which is on route nine where the parking expansion is, which is technically a separate site plan review, but is really part and parcel of this overall project. So to start, I'll turn it over to the folks at Amherst College to give sort of an overview and background of this project. And I'll also share our screens and start with sort of the neighborhood plan. Again, with this the core of downtown Amherst College campus and we are looking at this block right here and specifically this site of the Lyceum and this building, which is known as Newport House. Tom? Great. Thanks, everybody. You'll of course, many of you anyway, will remember this from June of 2021 when we did a preliminary review with you. And I guess I just wanna say that this has been a little bit complicated, but it also has been a real model for the town working with us and we've had many, many meetings with various town staff to talk through the different issues, what might come up, how to best deal with things. Chris and everybody else has been terrific to work with and we've counted it up. And I think that there are 10 different meetings over the course of the last year working through all these different things. So hopefully there's no surprises here. I just wanna compliment everybody. It's been just a model for how to work effectively together even when it's a little bit of a tricky problem to solve. So with that said, I won't, I mean, I can go into anything that anybody would like to go into. This is an academic building. It is going to house the history department and the Center for Humanistic Inquiry, both of which of course exists today. Elsewhere on campus and create a little bit of a different academic feel and extend the academic buildings that march along South Pleasant Street, another lot to the South. So I'll stop talking there and get on with the process but just know that I can go into any aspect of this, a big picture or detailed at the board's direction. Thanks. And so just big picture overview of the site. This has rotated 90 degrees from what we were looking at before with North to our right, looking at the screen. And as Tom alluded to, existing Amherst College institutional buildings here with the president's residence being the closest to our site on the Categin Hall to the rear here. This would be the new Lyceum building which incorporates a remodel of an existing formerly single family home in this location. The site also had a single family home that was relocated elsewhere in town already in this location here. This is that Newport lot we mentioned with our reconstructed parking lot. There's a woodland path connecting these sites through this wooded lot and as well as a service drive here to Woodside. I do want to highlight because this was on the plans. It was noted in our cover letter and in the application that the plans do show as a bid alternate, a new alternate material crosswalk in this location. What we submitted were our bid plans with everything that is proposed to be on this work down to every detail. And it was a large drawing set that included this alternate which was for pricing purposes. The college could understand whether this was something that could be pursued. It is not proposed as part of the site plan review because it's in the public right of way. If the college decides that they want to pursue this it does have to go through town council review. So we acknowledge this is on the plan but it's not part of the proposal. And I just want to make that clear upfront. And so the request for the project at large is a new academic building on this West side of South Pleasant Street. The planning board previously endorsed an ANR that set the property lines as they're shown on the screen here. And we require three separate approvals for the planning board, a site plan review for the main project site, which is the Lyceum inclusive of the driveway here and the Woodland path. The existing house that is being renovated and added onto currently meets the zoning setback for the residential zone that it's in, which is 15 feet. The house is about 20 feet back. The educational use of this project doubles the setback. And so therefore the setback for the front yard on this property would be 30 feet for this project but the planning board has the ability to reduce that setback through special permit which is what we've requested to reduce it down to allow and we'll talk about this in a little bit more detail in a little bit down to the approximately 20 foot setback that we have here so that this building, the new addition of the building and the existing building can remain consistent with the existing site and as we'll demonstrate a little bit later consistent with the other buildings on the block that is a special permit action, very narrow one that we're requesting for this project. And then finally, just because it was sort of cleaner permit-wise to do this separately, we have applied for site plan review for a separate project which is on this Newport house lot. There is no change whatsoever proposed to the building that is on this lot. We are simply taking an existing 17 car parking lot, primarily rearranging it with a small expansion of the area and creating 28 spaces in this location. Broadly, the zoning compliance, I know the development application form showed the dimensional regs for each of these lots. We are in the RG zone, general residents because on this side, we're outside of that educational zone. This existing use is single family residents and the proposed use is educational nonprofit under 3.330 and we've provided information on all the basic zoning compliance. And so with that, we're gonna turn our focus to the Lyceum site itself. And I'll ask my colleagues at Stimson to walk us through sort of the design aspects of this. Sure, hi everybody. My name is Lauren Stimson. So Chris already mentioned that the approach to the project is gonna be coming from the east side of campus. So North and Main Street downtown is to the right. And so we've got a new approach. Can I actually draw on this? It might be helpful because it's so zoomed out. A new walk that's coming. Also bring you in. Yeah, that's helpful. Thanks, Chris. We've got a new walkway that's coming up to the front of the building, which is seen here. And a new terrace, stone terrace at the front of the building, the new main entry. And there's a Lyceum garden, which is on the west side of the building, which I just highlighted. And another walk that he pointed out that's coming from the Newport House parking lot that comes through this woodland and connects to the front of the building through the Lyceum garden. The service drive comes from Woodside Avenue and it comes to the west side of the building where we have one accessible handicap spot and then also a spot for service vehicles and an area for utility enclosure. So we've got our recycling and trash totes at the rear side of the building. And access for that would be from the side. And the back of the building has a walkway to enter to the rear, but that is only for maintenance and for access for facilities. And there's another side walkway that comes off of the town sidewalk right here to the front terrace. So these are the two main paths. The probably better, if we were to flip to the other plan, Chris, to show, there we go. This is a little bit easier to see the intent here. There's a lawn to the south, a self-facing lawn off of the Lyceum terrace. And there is vegetation, new vegetation on the north side as screen planting, the west side along the property edge for buffer planting, and also on the south side of the property for screen and buffer planting. New street trees are proposed, but that would come under separate review through the town Tree Warden, who we've already been in contact with. You wanna add anything? So I'll take away the pretty picture and, oh, can you check with the lighting? Yeah, sure, site lighting. There's a few types of fixtures that are proposed and the ballard fixtures are located on the main path up to the front door of the building. So I'm just gonna circle these. And they're also located along the Woodland path, connecting back to Newport lot. And then there's a second type of fixture, which is a light pole, a light pole, which is taller. And those are located in key moments along the service drive near the back of house at the service area. And then also coming from the main, I think there's another one. It's hard to see this here, right there, I believe. And then there is a third type of lighting, which is wall lighting. So that's flush-mounted wall lighting. These are two seat walls that hold up the terrace at the edge of the building and define that front terrace. And those would be flush-mounted wall lights. And then the fourth type is, it looks like fifth type, actually, coming off the building, these are actually building mounted lights. Architect can talk about them further, third questions. Okay, I just had one thing, Chris, before you zoom too far out. Yes. People probably know this, but all the notifications went out to the abutters and they all came to us because we are the abutters. We got a big pile of them. Presumably you didn't have any issues. So looking at site utilities, we will be replacing the existing utility connections onto the site as they're sized for a single family home and they need to be increased. Water service will come directly off of South Pleasant Street. Sanitary service will discharge to Walnut Street where it then runs south through New Sewer. The site electrical and communications is gonna come off of Woodside, underground, coming off of a pole and then underground along this driveway up to the main site. There's no gas, the college is obviously moving away from fossil fuels everywhere. So this is pretty much an all-electric building. And so those are the connections here that we have to deal with. And then the stormwater management overall on the Lyceum site, the drainage from the roof of the building and some of these hard surfaces are a combination of piped and overland flow which incorporate, we work closely with Stimpson to create a series of bioswales and rain gardens. There's a lot of slope to deal with on this site, especially once we've created a flattened terrace area. And so there's gonna be a series of logs that have been designed almost as steps to bring this water down on the surface, allow little pools for settling temperature attenuation and those sorts of things as we exit the site. And if you're up for a walk in a rainy day should be actually a nice dynamic site feature. The sort of backbone engineering-wise of the drainage system is actually occurring on the Newport house lot. This is a lot that already contains quite a bit of impervious area that's currently uncontrolled. And so we're proposing an underground detention and infiltration basin within this parking lot which is gonna capture the vast majority of the impervious area from this lot and attenuate it over attenuate it really so that on net for this project as a whole we'll reduce runoff, improve water quality and increase stormwater infiltration. And of course as always the engineering plans have been sent to DPW I understand you've received copies of the comments notwithstanding a few comments about the crosswalks and infrastructure in the public right of way which we've already sort of touched on the comments related to the engineering of the interior of the site were quite minor and we're more than happy to incorporate all of those into the plan. The as was noted, the main Lyceum site includes just two parking spaces and ADA space adjacent to the building as well as the service space. The way to think about this is that the campus parking is the parking facility for this project. The college obviously has several hundred parking spaces for their students, staff and visitors. A part of that campus parking supply is located on this Newport house lot which is also being expanded but the reality is that people arriving to campus park somewhere on campus and then generally navigates pedestrians from there. And so really the majority we anticipate of all of the traffic coming to this building is really pedestrian traffic, some of it from the Newport lot but actually probably a majority of it coming from the core of campus and crossing South Pleasant Street. We've noted that this crosswalk is not part of the proposed project. If this is not built due to cost or any issues with getting it permitted or anything like that there is an existing high visibility crosswalk at this location right here which then connects through sidewalks to the site. The existing site has two driveway curb cuts for the single family homes on South Pleasant Street. Those are both to be closed. There will be the addition of course of the service drive curb cut on Woodside Avenue. And so overall we actually think that traffic, literal traffic to this site is probably decreased compared to the two single family homes but at the very least we include that there's minimal changes to this portion of the site. And so with that I wanna turn it over to the architects just to talk a little bit about the appearance of the building from the public and then also to get really specific about the setback question. Thanks Chris. So my name is Christopher Nielsen. I work for Brunner Cott. I'm one of the architects on this project. And I think the main consideration here from the site plan perspective is talking about the setback on the east side of the building and our public facing architecture. And so what we have on the screen here and I think I can actually annotate it as well. The face of the building right here in green, this is the existing brick residence. And our approach was to create a volume adjacent to that along South Pleasant Street just to the south of that, that wind up with that building in equal sort of scale and being respectful for that building. So Chris, I think if you can go actually to the next slide clear those. We did some early study just sort of looking at the scale of this neighborhood. So on the top it's the elevation that's looking at the existing buildings on this site. On the right-hand side, you see the buildings up the hill, President's house, Morgan Hall, College Hall. And then our building is the Lyceum, the gable roof portion here is the existing building. And then the addition is off to the south or just to the left. And down below we look in plan. We did a study to just look at what is the actual setback of these buildings and where can we be most respectful of the neighborhood in our addition to 197 South Pleasant Street. Chris, I think there's one more image. And so in the end, what we think we've come up with is a building that is reflecting the scale of the existing building and a bit of the rhythm of the windows that still is maintaining an institutional academic building for the college. Thanks, Chris. Being, I'm gonna have to jump back a little bit because the last part that I wanna talk about is the Newport House lot over here. We touched on most of the main points here but just sort of pause on this as a separate site review. This is an existing non-profit educational use. There is no change proposed to that use. Previously this building was used for had some classroom and meeting space. At present it's entirely a dorm. The proposed work includes stormwater management, lighting as well as a small amount of planting. The lighting is consistent with the overall lighting plan which Lauren stepped you through. There is a proposal to add a small amount of planting at this intersection of the Woodland path with the parking lot which also highlights this ADA crossing as we get from the path and the ADA parking spaces into the building. And this questions came up about sort of the traffic associated with this parking lot. What we want to just highlight is that as part of the overall campus parking supply, these are spaces that are typically used to have turnover of once or twice a day as people arrive to campus and then circulate around campus primarily as pedestrians before leaving at a single time. So those are the key points that we wanted to highlight. I will keep these plans up but we're more than happy to address any questions that you may have. All right, thank you Chris and your entire team. That was a nice presentation. For Chris, Chris Prestrup. I just wanted to point out that we have Nate Malloy here as a panelist and he wrote the development application reports for both the Lyceum and Newport House. So he's probably the staff member who's most familiar with the project if you had questions for staff. Okay, thank you. Board members, I see we just passed eight o'clock and we usually take a break around that time. Would anybody like to in fact take a break at this time or shall we just continue until we finish with the Amherst project? Jack? Yeah, I'd like to take a short break. All right, great. So we will take a five minute break. Looks to me like it's eight o'four. Why don't we come back at eight o'nine or at the worst, eight 10. Please turn off your video and mute yourself. When you return, please turn on your video. Thank you. All right, I'm seeing eight 10 on my clock. So if you're hiding without your video on please turn it back on. Johanna, do you wanna say something before Andrew arrives? Yeah, I just wanted to let you know that I'm gonna turn off, I'm here, but I'm gonna turn off my video while I scarf down some dinner really quickly. Okay, thank you. I want to comment on the fact that there are many more panelists tonight than there are attendees. We usually have the opposite situation. So there are 18 panelists and five attendees. Yeah, the public doesn't seem all that interested in this project. Although all the abutters are here. It's gonna make the same joke. Okay, good. Well, I hate to have Andrew miss anything here. There he is. Yes. I'm gonna stop video, I'm just eating some food here, so. Okay. I am listening. All right, does anyone from the college wanna say anything else before we get into questions and discussion? Okay. All right, so board members, any questions for our panelists? Or am I the only one who wrote down some questions? Maria. Was there a site visit? Oh, good question. Chris. There was a site visit and we had, let's see. We had Andrew and let's see. Probably Johanna. Johanna, Andrew, Johanna and Janet. Well, Janet, you may be the only one who's not eating dinner. Would you mind doing the site visit? I will start. It was very icy on the lot, but we did, we looked at the existing crosswalk and the possible crosswalk. And then also we examined the old building, which is sort of boarded up. It's like a very traditional brick building. The site is quite, has quite a bit of slope. We didn't really walk around that much because it was so treacherous, but we could see where the area where the gardens were going to be and the, I don't want to say brickwork, but the stonework kind of patio. What else did we do? We talked about the setback where it would, you know, where it was going to be versus where it should be. The proposed setback is pretty much in line with the current building. We discussed there's going to be flat solar panels on the ceiling, on the roof. They're going to do splits and, you know, be all electric. Chris, what am I forgetting? We didn't look at the long path, which is going to cut through the college president's backyard over to the dorm where the parking spaces are going to be. I actually drove around and looked at that. It's a fairly long path through some woods. I don't think we really talked to, most of the trees that were going to be removed from the Lyceum site were already down, so that wasn't really a topic of discussion. And then I drove around and I looked at the dorm building and the parking lot, which looks like a dorm building. And, you know, I could see the parking lot. I don't think we talked about the lighting. Am I forgetting something? I'm trying to, we talked about how students would get to the building and then also, because across the street is quite steep, so they would have to really come down a hill and, you know, fall into Route 116. So they probably would go around or start from Main Street or Route 9 and South Pleasant and come around that way. And then also we discussed the parking issue where they're not, I was a little confused by this statement in the development report that there's not going to be any more parking than there already is, because there's not adding staff. And it turns out that they're obviously adding some parking spaces over there, but they expect the staff to park there and just kind of walk up. Is that everything, Johanna? Johanna? I'll say the one other piece. Sorry, Doug, is it okay if I jump in? Yeah, sure. I think Janet did a really nice summary of our conversation from the site visit. We did spend just a little bit of time talking about the different grades. So the grades, you know, downhill, looking over at the Amherst College campus and the, you know, connection with footpaths there. And then it was noted that the new gradual path would have, you know, undulations, but overall doesn't have quite the same challenges with grade as some of the more, the paths towards South Pleasant Street. Oh, and then we talked a bit about the building that's, you know, which is planned to be used as an office along Walnut Avenue and that would just return to being a dorm. So it wouldn't be really disruptive to anybody there, the construction and things like that. So it was kind of a short visit. We were really cold, you know? Okay, great. And I'll assume Andrew, you don't want to add anything? No, I was going to just mention the staging of that house. I think that was something that was addressed in the plan as well, whether they would be able to use that as an office instead of having to bring a trailer on. I think Janet, you would ask about geothermal if I remember right. Just in terms of whether that would be something that would be considered at the site and was shared that that was not in consideration. But otherwise, I think it was a great summary and it was cold. It was really cold. Okay. All right, so board members, any questions for our team from Amherst College? Maria. And thanks to everybody who attended to the presentation. It's really beautiful rendering. The 3D rendering are really just amazing. It's going to be a gorgeous addition to the campus. I think that the setbacks are not an issue in my mind, that it really sets with the scale of the street and adjacent buildings. The 3D rendering is not that we'd ever be, you know, 80 feet up in the sky, but I think it's really lovely to wait, just sort of respects the adjacent building. I think also that the parking is not an issue in my mind. Just disclosure, my husband works for the college and the staff and faculty park in one spot and then it's a walking campus. They walk into town for coffee, they walk everywhere. So, you know, the parking in my mind is not like, you need parking next to every building that you're going to use. They literally, you know, walk for miles all over the place daily. So I think that's the way this building will function as well. And I think the entries, it's hard to see from the rendering, you know, how clear the entries will be, but I think in reality it'll be obvious with the sort of that glassy centerpiece. But some of the landscape, yeah, it's kind of hard to see exactly where, you know, signify come into this corner of the building. But I think once, you know, the reality of it is in the space, it'll be clear sort of where the circulation is. I do have a little concern about that huge retaining law. I always, you know, we see the renders of see these plans and elevations, and then suddenly when it gets full, I'm like, oh my gosh, did we approve an eight foot retaining wall? And like what's being built on the corner of a university, I didn't realize there was this huge retaining wall that was going to be there, the first thing you see. And this is really nicely mess with what you have right now with the landscaping, but there will be a railing at the top of that huge retaining wall, I imagine. But hopefully the landscaping will hide that. And no one will wander there because there's no sidewalk or anything. But I guess my only questions are any of the, in plan it shows a few seminar rooms and meeting larger meeting spaces and think tanks. Will any of those be used after hours? Like after, you know, the normal sort of school day, not that, you know, things close down, but will that be accessed beyond like dark and is it something that's only for, you know, I guess like nine to five or something or will there be events or any kind of larger gatherings after dark in those larger spaces? I'm not sure who would answer that exactly, but just putting that question out there. But otherwise I love the building. I think it's, I'm really excited. I can't wait to see it in reality. I'm happy to answer the question about the schedule, the functioning. So there are two things that we would anticipate happening after hours. The first is just students using the building, kind of like they do the science center now as a place to hang out and study. You know, there's really nice open study space, the classrooms, seminar rooms will be available to them, you know, through cards, wipe access to be able to use those for group work and that type of thing. The second thing is on the ground floor, the space that you're looking at right here, the Center for Humanistic Inquiry, does have, you know, kind of late afternoon is there, one of kind of one of their normal practices is to have guest lecturers or talks by the staff or for the staff and faculty in late afternoon. They generally started about like four 30 or something like that, you know, kind of toward the end of the academic day and might drift into like the six 30 timeframe or so. And those are something that happened, you know, you know, if we don't have a pandemic going on maybe once a month or so. And so, you know, they might be attended by 50 people, something like that. So that we think will continue. But beyond that, there really aren't kind of, you know, it's not a function space. It's not gonna be used for, you know, banquets or anything like that. So we don't anticipate very regular building usage in the evening other than as I say, student study. All right, thanks, Tom. And thanks, Maria. Andrew. Thanks, Jack. Oh, thanks, Doug. Just muscle memory. Great presentation. The materials were very well done, but very exhaustive. So I will be honest, I didn't make it through in probably as much details as maybe some other folks. I wanted to start with just a comment. And I think I made this the last time we talked about this as well. I think the architecture looks stunning. I really do think it's beautiful. It's very different though than what is currently there. And, you know, to the extent that this approach into town is sort of more classical architecture, this is gonna be something that's quite different. And it looks like even with the street plantings from the views you provided us, it'll be something that's very visible. I'm happy with it again. I think it's beautiful. But curious whether that came into consideration at all, like just how it fits in with the broader context of buildings in kind of this stretch of South Pleasant Street. Tom, or anybody on your team? Well, I guess maybe that's best for Jason. The short answer is no. We didn't consider a traditional form, but I think Jason's probably much better than me at describing the design process. I'll be happy to do that. So I'm Jason Forney, a principal with Brunnercott Architects. And it's always been our sort of approach to think about the two pieces of this design sort of working together on South Pleasant Street, one new and one old and sort of having a conversation with each other. And a lot of those approaches are good preservation practices when dealing with old buildings. Clearly the new building is below the eve of the existing one, in which way it defers to it. We think of them as compatible, but still clearly distinct because that allows the old building to kind of shine and be itself and the new building to be something different. And so there are a lot of regulating lines and window sizes and shapes, as well as the materials. And this is a stone building. And so we worked hard to really think about how each side of this composition of this conversation is speaking with each other so that it looks and feels the way that it does. I think another important element is the, what we call a sort of hyphen in the middle, which is more transparent, that allows them to not be too close to each other, have a relaxed sort of meeting there in the middle. So it was sort of intentional to be distinct, but compatible. Okay, thanks for that answer. I will say, I guess just this view, you can see the distinction, but for most people driving up and down the road, you won't probably, right? Because if you're driving southbound, that house is, the brick side is kind of quite hidden as you're coming from the south into town. I don't know that you'll actually see much of the brick building at all, but again, I think it's a beautiful building, so no complaints. A couple of other real quick ones would be, there was a page in our packet that talked about subcontractor parking, which was way, way, way far away. And I'm just curious, is that where the people who are actually working on the building are going to be parking past the tennis courts and almost on like Southeast Street? Is that the case? Yeah, exactly. Okay, and they get shuttled. Subcontracts are bought out with transport of the workers included in their bids. Okay, so like if they arrive with tools or things like that, they'll be shuttled to the job site. They're not gonna have to lug a toolbox for a mile. Okay, the sidewalk, I know you mentioned that that was out of scope for discussion today. I did wanna point out, I mean, yesterday, it was very icy, it won't be every day for sure, but the nature of the current sidewalk crossing being on the south side of Walnut, and this was explained very well to us yesterday. But as you, let me see if I can just kinda, you know, as you cross this, oops. Oh, there you go, yeah. It's just this goes down and that goes down. And so, you know, I was in a walking boot yesterday like it was icing kinda tough to manage it. And someone almost fell who was trying to cross it as well. So just a vote to try to get that crossing set up whenever you can. I think it'll make it much safer of access for somebody who is certainly having trouble walking around. And then I guess you have just the status of using the house as a construction office is that has that been approved or is that something that's still under consideration or just don't remember what the status of it is? Hey, I can speak to that if you want to, Tom. I had conversations with DOC today just to get an update for our meeting. You're still talking to Amherst Inspection Services, but we anticipate approval pretty quickly. Everything looks like it's falling into place. Great, thanks Mark. Okay, that was all my questions and comments. Thanks. Thanks, Andrew. Chris, did you have a comment? Yeah, I spoke with the building commissioner about the use of that house at 211 South Pleasant Street today. And he said that it can be approved as a construction and accessory construction use for an educational use under article 14. So unlike 11 and 13 East Pleasant Street where that had to come before the planning board for use of an adjacent parcel for construction staging and an office. In this case, it can be approved under article 14 and the building commissioner seems inclined to approve it. So I think that's gonna go ahead. Okay, thanks Chris. Janet. I had a few questions or issues. One of them was, and I asked this yesterday, was you're in the RG and you're building a building of X square feet with three stories. How many parking spaces are you required to provide? So through a basic- I understand your concept of yourself as sort of a campus, but if you're in the RG and you're required to put in X amount of parking spaces. So did someone do that calculation? Yeah, based on the zoning requirements, it's approximately 45 spaces would be associated with this use in that zone. Okay, and so I think you need to get a waiver for that or we need to talk about that sort of separately because you're adding more spaces to this other building but you're not adding 45. So I think that's an issue that we need to address. In very particular, and then of those 45 spaces, I'm not sure how many need to be ADA compliant but I would think at least two or three. So I haven't done that calculation. I was hoping to find that somewhere in the report or get that information, but I really do think the distance from, if you were a person who had trouble mobility or even sight, that's a really long way to go from the dorm all the way down the wooded path to get into the side of the building and getting around to the front. And so I would really like to see at least two, maybe three ADA spaces right next to the building for visitors or professors or staff or students who have trouble with mobility. I just think it's way too far to expect anybody. And I speak from a lot of experience of having walked along with somebody with a walker. That's a really long way. And then Andrew yesterday was having trouble getting around a short distance. So I think that to me was a big kind of jump out that there's not spaces right next to the building that people can get access to it. Although I do appreciate the hearty walking of the Amherst College professors. So that was one big issue. The second one was I couldn't read the lighting plan. Like I tried everything I could to see the detail on it. I couldn't find a single number. I had some magnifying glass. I put on extra readers and I just could never see that. So I think that would be good to see the lumens. And I couldn't see it on the computer today even though I tried to get it bigger. So I just couldn't read it at all. And I also am very like, I think I'm not sure if this building has changed its appearance or if I have changed because when I first saw it nine months ago I was like, hmm, not that interesting but I do think it seems beautiful to me. And I love all the light in the glass and it's very different from the building it is now connected to. But it's much more attractive than I thought nine months ago or else it's changed or some way. So I just wanted to make that comment. Another comment I have is I wonder if the plantings along the street are too different from the street itself. Like the grasses, it doesn't, I know the building that you're building isn't like a New England style but people are gonna come along and see a lot of shrubs and the traditional stuff kind of have this brief moment of grasses and very regimented plantings and then they're gonna go back to the other thing. And I just wondered, does that kind of work or does that seem sort of strange to people? And I would defer to the landscape architects on the panel about their thoughts. So those are my big three comments, parking, I can't see the lighting plan and then just wondering about the plantings being too inconsistent from the rest of the street. All right, thank you, Janet. Andrew, since she referred to the landscape architects on the board, maybe I'll put you on the spot at least for that third point of Janet's. Relative to the consistency. That's the way I interpreted it, yes. Yeah, I mean, I think that from a consistency perspective the street front with the street trees will maintain a consistent feel along South Pleasant Street. And I think that the nature of the kind of the oval is like 50 or 60 feet off of the street, off of the sidewalk. I think it's gonna feel something that's part of the Lyceum and not part of the streetscape. I think it's done quite well. Yeah, I think the garden looks really good. I was just thinking about just along the street with the grasses in front of the buildings. This is the grasses that were disguising the big retaining wall. Yeah, and part of it looks like you're landscaping for low maintenance, like things that you don't have to trim every 15 minutes, but I just wondered if it just seems too different or, but the entire garden and swale area just seems beautiful to me also. Yeah, I mean, I would say also currently in front of 197 now is kind of tall grasses. It's kind of the existing conditions are already similar to that. Okay. Okay, thank you, Janet. Chris, Chris Prestra. You're calling on me to comment on the planting. Yeah, if you have your hand up. Oh, I'm sorry, I don't. I didn't mean to. That's a legacy. All right, so Andrew, we're back to you. I had different questions. Did the panel or did folks want to answer, Janet's first? Okay, yeah, so. Regarding the ADA, you know, the number of spaces, the number of total parking spaces. Right, so I guess I'll put in two points and then I'll defer to Lauren in terms of what's feasible in the site. In the development report, and I think this was reflected in the application, we do note that we need a waiver for parking. So that is accounted for. I agree that that is something that the board needs to take action on. If there were 45 spaces provided, my memory of the code, which is always a dangerous thing would be that there'd be two ADA spaces required associated with that. Thank you. Could you put those two spaces close to the building, maybe where the trees are? Or can we configure that? I'd like to talk to parking in general because I think that this is a, it's difficult to, I think, conceptualize of the fact that this is a building on a college campus as opposed to a building, you know, we're talking about this building in isolation. And so it's tough to zoom out. So, you know, we've talked about the fact that the parking facility or the campus is all of the parking on the campus. There is no designation. There is no, you know, people coming to this building are gonna park in a certain area. It is a system with hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of parking spaces distributed around, you know, to the south of this, there's a large lot at the athletics area, wraps all around the athletics drive, obviously. There are a number of lots larger than the one at Newport that are kind of scattered up around north of this building on the other side of Northampton Road. There's a, you know, 150 spots or whatever it is at Converse, you know, it's part of a system. So we do not view any building as having parking of its own per se. You know, if this was Chapin Hall, you know, on the middle of the campus, which is about the same size, Chapin's, you know, a little larger than this or maybe it's about the same size. I picked that because that's where the history department is located now, you know, there's no parking. And so it's just a fact of life, of college life that parking is not provided at buildings, you know, with some exceptions just by happenstance really. And when it comes to accessibility, we really go out of our way to provide accessible spaces where they're needed. And so we worked hard to get a fully compliant accessible space right at the building here, despite the challenges associated with all the topography. You know, the reality is that space is really, really important, but it'll be empty 95% of the time. And that's fine, you know, it needs to be that way. We have a fully accessible route that connects to the parking lot at Newport where there'll be additional, fully compliant accessible spaces, which also generally will be unused, but you know, that's a good thing. They're available when they're needed. So we feel very, very confident that from kind of the functional, the practical side of it, you know, what's necessary and what is important to provide for the users to satisfy the need. And also from kind of any moral perspective, we think that this is very adequate in addressing that. Accessibility is a high priority for the college. We're making, you will probably all know this from other hearings. We're making significant strides in improving accessibility left, right and center around the campus with an annual allocation associated for that and a number of projects every year, probably most of which don't come before the planning board, but you know, that is an ongoing priority for the college. And so I just want to just kind of speak to the logic behind why there aren't three spaces at the building and, you know, and there's one fully accessible space at the building and others nearby. Doug, could I have a follow-up question and a comment? Sure, Janet. So I think that, I think I don't, I'm not going to die in the sword of the 45 spaces because I understand your point that this is a college and every building doesn't have to meet our code. And so I do think that's a, there's an adequate number of spaces, but I do think that if you, I think having two accessible spaces on the corner of College Street, and I can't remember the name of the road, would something, is really not accessibility to that building. And so I would like to see a condition to have at least two spaces next to the building. You know, that's a long way to go in a wheelchair or a walker or, you know, it's just a really long way to go. And so that would be really important to have enough space there. And it looks like you could move a tree or two or a shrub and find that. The other question, the question I do have though is if you were a visitor to that building, could you park in the lot near the dorm and walk up there? Or is there some sort of special arrangement for visitors? Because I'm sure you'll have speakers and things like that, like, or would they be directed somewhere else? Or would they know where to go? So we don't have any kind of allocation of parking that's allocated for any, you know, the president doesn't have a parking space. You know, we're pretty unusual in that regard, I think, for colleges, but that's just how we are. So the way that that's handled is if there's going to be a VIP showing up to give a talk or something like that, they'll arrange it to put a cone out and preserve a spot and, you know, have communication to that person to say, hey, there's going to be a cone and a parking lot for over in this location and you can move that and park there. That's just how it's been done. All right, thanks, Tom. Chris, does anybody from your team want to talk about the lighting levels? Since I agree with Janet, they were basically indecipherable. Nate may want to talk about it. I think he studied it pretty closely and he's had conversations with Chris Chamberlain about it. So you might want to call on Nate. All right, well, either Chris or Nate, I don't, it doesn't matter. Sure, I'll make something up. The, no, I think the, you know, they've, there's five types of lighting. There's pole lights, which, you know, according to the spec sheets were, you know, 19, almost 20 feet tall. There's, you know, wall lighting, like Lauren mentioned, and then there's building lighting and then ballards along the walkways. And so, you know, I think it's a low light scheme. So nothing's too bright. You know, the lighting along the path is, you know, something that meets standards for like a garden walk, you know, walkways. You know, this isn't a high residential or urban street. So along the South Plaza, along the building, those two main walkways leading up to it, it's, you know, it's well lit. You know, it's not as well lit in the South lawn, right? So for functions at night, you know, the lighting is really on circulation paths and along the building to illuminate, you know, the building and, you know, probably for security reasons. So I think it's, you know, a respectful lighting plan. So it's not a glaring lighting plan, right? It's not the whole site's not illuminated at night. It's not in the urban core of the campus or in a downtown. So, you know, right along that South entrance in those walkways, it's, you know, the lighting, the lumens that are shown here, the numbers meet the, you know, the standards of lighting. All right, thanks, Nate. Chris, did you want to, Chris Chamberlain, did you want to add anything? I don't think we have too much to add. I know that Christopher from Brunerkott, you know, circled back with our lighting consultant to verify a few questions that came through Nate's comments. I think he summarized it really well, is there's a tendency to think that more light is better sometimes for safety, but when you talk about glare and certain settings that are in the existing condition, low light, just enough light is typically better than too much. And that's what we've really gone for. And I admit that it is hard to see on the electronic version. It is possible to zoom in and get a better view of some of these numbers, but generally speaking, those paths are seeing, as you can see here, this is pretty representative, is you've got between, you know, mostly clustered around one and two foot candles. I'm gonna say. All right, thank you. Tom. Tom Long. Thanks Doug, and thanks guys for your presentation. I think a lot of my questions were already asked, but I just wanted to chime in on a couple of things really quick. One is that I think the aesthetic is right on what Amherst has been doing over the years in terms of keeping their architecture in a contemporary fashion for that time, but in a nice pairing with its history and the historic buildings on the site. So I appreciate where this building is coming from where it's headed. I wanted to also another point, comment that I support the waiver on the setback. I think that having that building flushed with the existing building is the appropriate thing to do in this particular case. I think it does help reinforce that street front and I'm okay with that revision. I think in terms of parking, I did teach at Amherst for about 10 years and you just kind of park somewhere and then you walk like what's the closest building and you have guests come all the time and you send them a campus map and you tell them that spot's the closest if you could find one, but otherwise you'll find your way. But I do hear you in terms of accessibility, Janet. I do see that there is one spot and then there's a drop off. So there is the possibility of if someone is with another person to be dropped off in that location at the site and then the car can be parked elsewhere. So I think that's adequate for the particular purposes on the site as well. There is a loop across the street by the gym. That's actually a place where I would commonly park that go all the way up to Sealy Mud, but that's actually, there's a lot of turnover there. It's easy to park there and it's literally not that far. So yeah, right around that loop. Yeah, as you get towards the top of that loop, it'll come out to South Pleasant and I... The site is here for reference. Yeah, it's not super far either, given campus walks. And then I do agree about lighting. I do have a concern, not so much about the general lighting but about the path in the woods lighting and for safety concerns, I'm wondering if there is a safety pylon or emergency call button or something in that long walk through the woods from a dorm building to a public building. I'm wondering what light levels are there, how much space there is between, because I don't see any renderings of that space. So are there places to hide? I'm just, I'm not sure what that experience is like. So I'm just, I have a concern for safety in that particular place. That's all. Thanks, Tom. Tom Davies, do you want to respond to any of that? We might be getting a little bit tripped up by the poetic naming of it as Woodland pathway. It's really a sidewalk. It is relatively flat. There's not much grade from one end to the other. And it's running through what shows here are canopy trees. Of course, in an aerial view like that, you see the canopy, but when you're walking through the space, you see the trunks of the trees. So there's not a lot of undergrowth. It's a fairly open, there you go. It's a pretty open space walking through there. That said, safety obviously is a primary concern for the college, for students, faculty, and staff and visitors. And lighting needs to be appropriate. So we're certainly committed to appropriate lighting levels, whatever that means. And we rely on experts that are lighting designers to design that for us. So I'll defer to them. But I did want to just mention one thing about the blue light emergency lights. I'm pretty sure we do not have anything involved here. Is that correct, Mark? And the reason for that is that because the college really has been getting away from them, they're never used. Everyone has an emergency phone in their pocket. And so the use of those blue light emergency phone things is really fading away on college and university campuses. So that's why you don't see it here. 10 years ago, absolutely, it would be part of this plan. We had a plan to have them kind of always within eyesight of the next one kind of a thing. But we really stepped away from that in the last, at least five years. Okay, thanks. I think that view in chair of the forest was helpful in terms of seeing how open it was. So I think it was helpful for me to see that. Thank you. All right, thanks, Tom, Janet. So getting back to handicapped spaces, is there space in that back area that you could put another space if you move things around? Cause I do see the three trees or shrubs planted there. And I know you have some dumpsters and things like that. But I do think it's not really accessible if someone has to drop you off. There has to be someone to drop you off and then find a parking space. I just think that I think I would just like to see two spaces there. But it looks like there's space to me because I'm looking at some plantings. And I wondered, could you do that? Could you fit that in there if you move the plantings or things around a little bit? Not if you want to, but could you do that? Is that a question for Lauren? Tom, is that okay if I answer this? It's a little bit difficult, Janet, only because we need this, I'm just gonna draw here. It's a little bit difficult in this location. We'd have to study it further. But you need this turnaround. So when the car pulls in, you need to turn around to be able to get out. So it's not as easy as just putting another space here and paving this because there's no place for it to turn around. The car would have to back all the way down. So I think it's a really good point. And I think we will certainly talk further about this. But to answer your question, it's not as simple as just paving that location. All right, thanks, Lauren. Yep. Janet, are you maintaining your hand for further questions? Okay, Maria. So I think this was brought up a while ago and you just said, oh, it might have been the last time Tom Davies was at the planning board meeting where we were saying, well, could we one day relook at all the college properties and think about what currently is an RG should go over to ED. Because it's been like that for decades. Maybe it was you, Doug, that brought that up. And I remember Tom was like, oh my gosh, jump that. And the 44 parking spaces or however many spaces requirement is because of an antiquated zoning that's just been around and the campus, the college has grown into the adjacent zone. So to use that as the number to go by to figure out the number of parking spaces and the number of ADA spaces seems outdated as well because this is a ED building in the RG zone. The zone doesn't really match what the use of that parcel has been for the last, I don't know how many decades. So I feel like that conversation is not really the right sort of big picture conversation that I have. It's more like, how is this building used? How will it be used? Are there things provided that are taking into account those possible scenarios? And I think they are just like Bruce saying about the drop off and the fact that there is one right next to the building. And that there are times when you can pull up into other side streets and be closer to the building if you can't get right up to that loading zone ADA space. So I feel like, if you step back and look at the whole like, why is this in the RG versus ED? That kind of makes the whole calculation moot in a way. So I wanted to say this earlier when we were talking about the Woodland sidewalk. So I wonder if there's enough lighting to make sure you can site or spot the moose walks that go through that property. I know that that's been an issue in the past. And then what is the other thing? Something about lighting. Hmm, no, I lost it. That's all right. Anyways, yeah, I personally don't think that we need to ADA spaces right up against the building when that property is already very tight. They've done so much work with the grading and getting all the site slopes to work with the entrances and as far as people and cars. I feel like more paving is not the right place, right sort of direction for this project. Maybe it'll come to me. I forgot what my other point was from my earlier question, but that's all right. But that's it. All right, thanks, Maria. I guess I'm gonna make one comment about that. And I don't think I would use the RG requirement as the basis for that conversation. I wonder what the expected occupancy of the building is kind of on, you know, in the mid-morning on a class day, you know, is it, you know, if there's a class going on, are there 70 people in the building or are there 40? Anybody have a sense of that? I think those are both good guesses, Doug. The, you know, the class schedule has peaks and valleys. So on a Monday through Thursday from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., there could be 70 people in the building. There could be 100 people in the building. You know, of course, all pedestrians, but I think that, you know- How many of those are likely to be staff? What's the typical staff occupancy? I think there are only two staff members. There are two administrative people, one associated with the history department and one associated with the Center for Humanistic Inquiry. The number of faculty is, Mark, you have that up the top of your head, 15, something like that. But of course, they're, you know, I didn't say this. They're rarely in their offices, right? So there's maybe at most there would be, I mean, if they were all there, I mean, there would be maybe 20 staff and faculty. Yeah. Okay. So, you know, I will say the older you get, the more likely it is that you're gonna have temporary mobility issues. You know, you can twist your ankle and then for six weeks need to, you know, have some trouble. I assume, Tom, you have some sort of, I wouldn't call it a program, but an approach to how students with mobility issues are supported in their movement around campus. Yeah. Whether that's golf courts or, you know, where they're assigned for their dorms or, you know, all of the above. And maybe you even move classes if, you know, you have somebody who has a particular need in the class. So I'm less worried about students and, but faculty and staff, I could imagine, you know, maybe there wouldn't be times where you need, where two people in the building need assistance either getting from their remote parking lot or they need a close location. So I guess I think Janet's concern is reasonable, but I assume you may have this same issue on multiple locations on campus and that you have some way of dealing with it that doesn't run afoul of the federal ADA legislation and doesn't keep your staff and faculty from quitting. Yeah, we actually have a transport system that is on call and has an accessible van. And so that is available to the entire college community. And I think they just got a new van, you know, with the side that drops down with a kind of an elevator kind of a lift thing built into it. But yeah, so that's, you know, something that you just see around campus and, you know, used for getting people to athletic events across campus or whatever the case might be. All right. Janet? So this just occurred to me as a question for Chris Brestrup. Is there some kind of requirement that handicapped spaces be some distance from the building they're associated with? Is, I mean, like 250 feet seems really far to me. I think it's actually longer. I can't remember. But is there some kind of federal or state requirement that it has to be within 20 feet or 25 feet? Or is there, I don't know the answer to that. Maybe. Thanks, Janet. Chris? It's supposed to be within 200 feet of the handicapped entrance. And I think Nate figured out that this space that's provided next to the building is within 200 feet of the entrance. All right, thank you. Janet, your hand is a legacy now. Oh, I mean, I meant the spaces that were at the dorm. There's a couple of handicapped spaces. They're probably well in excess of the 200 feet. Okay. Well, let's see, not seeing other hands. I'm going to just ask a few questions. Am I right about, could someone just draw on, say this plan what the route is from the accessible spot that's on the west side of the building to the nearest accessible entry? Is it around on the south side of the building or is it on the west side? I'm going to, perfect. Okay. All right, so that's the distance that's probably less than 200 feet. And I haven't opened up my packet to see, is there a door at the hammerhead there on the west side of the building? So there's no entry there. Okay. Doug, quickly on the plans you'll see on the concrete ramp there is a door on the west side. It's probably an exit only because there's a landing inside. So right where the cursor is there just about there's a door and then there's a service instruments on the north side. So there are, if you look at the plan there are entries but they're not for visitors or students or anything. So that's right. I can speak to this briefly. So the one that I'm circling right now this is for access to the mechanical room which is actually at a different level than the first floor. And then there's another one at the bottom of stair two and this is egress only. So exit only to that. And on this plan north is up which is rotated from the cyclins. Yeah. So the exit from stair two is on the west side of the building. Yeah. Okay. Has this project needed historic commission review and did it receive it? Chris, press trip? Yes, this did receive historic commission review. There was an addition to the existing brick building on the south side of the building and also an addition on the west side. And the historical commission looked at the removal of both of those items. And they also talked to the applicant about the proposed plan. So the historical commission is aware of this proposal and has approved the removal of those two additions to the building. I'm not sure what the conversation was about changing to changes to the facade on the west and south side but perhaps Tom Davies or Chris Chamberlain could talk about that. Okay. Tom or Chris, either of you want to say anything? I'm sorry, I didn't catch the question. Chris, could you repeat that? Yeah, the question is did Amherst College talk to the historical commission about, in addition to removing the white structures that were on the south and the west side of the building, did you talk to the historical commission about changes to the facade of the existing building? In other words, the brick facades on the south and west sides and what was that conversation like? I don't recall anything along those lines, Chris, but anybody else in the team recall anything along those lines? I don't think so. Chris, this would simply be a conversation about the fact they are now interior spaces, interior surfaces and are now not visible. Yeah, so I can speak quickly, Doug. There is three demolition applications for this project. There was the removal of the house at 205 South Pleasant Street, which has since been removed. So that satisfied the demolition request there. There's a barn on the property where the parking lot is being proposed and the commission found that that removal was, the barn has some powder post beetle and other deterioration. So they voted to allow that demolition. And then at a later date, there was a demolition application just for the house, the brick house, and they found that the removal of the deck in the western addition was that could move forward. And typically the commission does not look what's happening in its place, unless there's possibly some other demolition to the structure. So they're aware that there's gonna be a new building connected to the house and they didn't find any reason to put conditions or delay that demolition work because of the proposed addition. Okay, thank you. Chris, I assume, Chris Brestrup, I assume your hand is now a legacy. Oh, sorry, gotta keep on top of that. All right, so my next question had to do with the pedestrian traffic across the street, across 116. Is this the first academic building on the west side of 116 or do we already have students crossing for classes on a regular basis? Yeah, the latter. We have a couple of buildings on the west side starting up at the North Corners College Hall that has students going there for financial matters and whatnot, but more importantly, the whole first floor is the career center. So students are going back and forth that out all the time. The next building south from that is Morgan Hall, which is an academic building. Couple of different departments there, classrooms there. The president's house, even though it's called the president's house, it's used for other functions. So faculty and staff primarily, but occasionally students going to events there. And then of course, the whole athletic complex further to the west. And so, yes, we do have people going back and forth from the kind of the core of the campus, if you're to say, if someone's coming from, say, Frost Library, they would be using the crosswalks at Quadrangle Drive there up near the president's house. There are two crosswalks there from the athletic space and from the greenway dorms further to the east of those, students would most likely be, yeah, coming across that Walnut Street. So there are three different ways to get across. Of course, the slope of the hill between those crossings is super steep. So we do not imagine any kind of problem with students kind of cutting across the hillside and dropping down that embankment. It's too steep even for students, which is saying a lot, but we're not imagining any kind of problem with that. All right, great. So my next question had to do with the stormwater as dealt with on the Lyceum site. I know in Chris Chamberlain's summary, you mentioned that some of the stormwater provisions up at the north end were compensating, let's say, for the work that's happening down at the south end around the Lyceum. But since I think the slope is to the south off of the Lyceum site, I just wanted to be sure you're confident that we're not gonna be creating new runoff issues toward Walnut Street. Maybe Chris Chamberlain, do you have any comment about the stormwater design for the southern part of the- Yeah, I started to answer and then realized I was on mute, sorry. Oh, good, all right. Yes, and I'll note that while there is an increase in impervious area in the core site, replacing two houses and a driveway and a barn, it's not as much as you would think looking at this site. But yes, we did look at concerns on the sort of distribution of stormwater between Walnut and Woodside and sort of noted those in our submission to DPW and it's comparable enough that we're not concerned and the storm drains in both of these streets do meet up very quickly at this intersection here. And I'll just note that there were no concerns on DPW's part in their comments on it. Okay, all right. So at the worst, you're a butter can take care of that problem. Yes. Okay, and then I guess I was, I'm just interested in the rationale on the expansion of the parking lot at the north end, I'm forgetting the name of that parcel, but if you're saying there's no net demand increase for the campus because the people that are gonna work in this new building are already working on campus, but you are increasing the size of your built foot of your space on campus. And presumably the people that are gonna move into this building are gonna be vacating space somewhere else on campus, which might receive new people. So I'm just, I'm curious why was this the time to expand this parking lot if in fact there's really no change in demand? Hey, Tom. The, how do I say this? Politics is actually the honest answer. The folks who are moving to this site, you know, felt that there was actually requests for considerably more parking. You'll be shocked to hear this, I'm sure. There was a request for considerably more parking approximate to the building. And it was kind of scaled back to, well, let's just work with the parking that's there and clean it up a little bit, get a few more spaces out of it, and that'll help. So that's kind of how this came down. To the point where we actually did look at parallel spaces on this incredibly steep driveway in order to offer something. Okay, all right. That's all that I had for the moment at least, Andrew. Thanks Doug. I had, I just had one other related question to the ADA piece. So Tom, you mentioned that right now you can cross South Pleasant at Quadrangle, at Walnut Street, and then by the athletic field. Do you think, I know that Quadrangle leads to a staircase. Do you think someone from a wheelchair if they crossed at Walnut would be able to go up the sidewalk and access the building since it sounds like Woodside is too steep for someone to be able to take a wheelchair up. So could somebody approach a building from a non-motorized wheelchair reasonably if there wasn't an available drop-off for them? So, sorry, I just wanted to be clear that the pathway connecting over to Newport is fully accessed. It's quite low. So access from that, from the accessible parking spaces at the Newport lot are definitely available to somebody in a motorized or unmotorized wheelchair. But the issue of accessibility from the rest of the campus. First of all, we are creating an accessible pathway that adds to our overall network. We didn't talk about this because it's not part of this purview here, but it kind of runs along the side of the athletics loop drive and connects in with the rest of the accessible pathways. Okay, it's coming up here. You're still on my screen anyway. You're pointing to something that you're not meaning to point to, but okay, now it's catching up. Yeah, so connecting to the whole accessible network pathway to get someone with mobility impairments to South Pleasant Street and to that crosswalk all along accessible pathways from the rest of the campus. Now, the way that things work is that municipal sidewalks don't have the same requirements of accessibility. You probably all know that. And so there is a little situation there where at that crossing where it kind of goes down and then comes back up again. We've had, we started to have conversations and they haven't really moved very far yet to try to improve that. The primary reason that we were looking for an additional crossing was to make a fully accessible pathway from the college's network of fully accessible pathways to the fully accessible pathways that we're building as part of this project. That was the primary motive, not because we need another place to cross the road. And the hope is that we can make some, working with the town, make some adjustments to the municipal sidewalk at that intersection for the existing crossing to improve it so that it is more accessible. Long winded answer. I don't know, obviously it's very difficult. I don't know that the challenges of getting that new crosswalk approved. So I feel for you, that certainly does seem like that would answer a great deal of the question. Cause then I think, you could very, very, you could very realistically say the access is at least similar to other buildings on campus. I think just right now, it's not. And that's why I think the request and ask for investigating second ADA spot seems reasonable if these are the circumstances that we're operating on. Thanks. Thanks, Andrew. Janet. I just remembered something from the site visit. And I think it's an issue in terms of the construction. We talked about how construction vehicles will get onto the site and get off the site. And I forget, I think it was Mark Andrews was there. And I think he's in discussions with Rob Mora about having the construction vehicles come from 116 and also exit that way, which seemed preferable to me at least because it's a main road. And I just wanted to say that was a question that was raised and I wonder if there's, you know from Mark, if there's any more progress on that because it seemed to me like having the exit of large vehicles, you know, over months onto a small residential street would be a little burdensome to the residents. Sure, sure. So it's a little bit of a chicken and egg. And what allows us to bring the large construction, the large heavy trucks on from 116 and push them back onto 116 is not having the office trailer there. So as soon as we get green-lighted to use 211 self-puzzle then we can implement that plan. Thanks, Mark. All right, do we have any more questions from the board? All right, why don't we go and see if there are any questions or comments from the public. This is the time for public comment on the Sammers College project. Do not see any hands from the public. Chris, you had put together some draft findings and maybe conditions. Do you wanna share those at this time, Chris Prestrup? Chris, you are muted. Yeah. So we can go through the conditions, the draft conditions that I have for the Lyceum project if you would like to do that. And then I have also conditions for the Newport project. And Pam, can you bring them up on the screen? I think I emailed them to you. You did. And I'm gonna see if I can get them on my screen. Okay, can you see them? Yes, that's great. Yeah, why don't you blow them up to maybe 130% or something? Oops. That's plenty, yep. Okay, good. Can you see the whole document? Because I can't, you guys are... We can see the first three items. There, that's about half the page. That's better, yeah, okay. So I drafted these conditions based on conditions that we've put on similar size projects. And then I asked Rob Mora to review the conditions and also Nate reviewed the conditions. So this is what we came up with. Number one, I'm going through general conditions now. The development shall be built substantially in accordance with the plan submitted to the planning board and approved on ex-date. The development shall be managed substantially in accordance with the management plan submitted to the planning board and approved on ex-date, whatever date that was for approval. Number three, changes to the project and or substantial changes to any approved site plans or to the exterior of the building shall be submitted to the planning board for its review and approval prior to the work taking place. The purpose of the submittal shall be for the planning board to approve the change and or to determine whether the changes are de minimis or significant enough to require modification of the special permit or site plan review approval. Number four, landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the landscape plan prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. And once installed shall be continually maintained. All disturbed areas shall be loamed and seated unless otherwise specified. Number five, the building shall meet all local required energy efficiency codes and the regulations of the stretch energy code. In addition, low flow plumbing fixtures shall be installed throughout the project. Number six, this site plan review, excuse me, what approval shall expire within two years of the date that it is filed with the town clerk unless it has been both recorded at the registry of deeds and substantial construction or use has commenced within the two year period. Construction shall be completed within 24 months from the date of issuance of the building permit. If more time is needed, the applicant shall come before the planning board at a public meeting for a review and approval of an extension of time. Chris, can I ask you about number four? I know that there are times when you might wanna wait to install some of your landscape plantings so that they are more likely to survive. Amherst College, do you have any problem with this? I don't know exactly what your schedule is and whether you're, for instance, looking for a certificate of occupancy in June or July when you might wanna wait until the fall to plan. Yeah, it's a great point, Doug. And if everything goes according to plan, we will be looking at a certificate of occupancy kind of the other way around, maybe counter-intuitively, but we're gonna be looking for a certificate of occupancy in July, August, and we will not wanna do a majority of the plantings until the fall. So, Mr. Mora, the building commissioner, has been known to grant temporary certificate of occupancy, or, yeah, I think that's what he calls it. So that if everything isn't completed, but he feels like you're well on your way to completing things, he can issue a temporary certificate of occupancy, allowing you to move into the building without having everything completely done. And that's a conversation that you work out with him. And Chris, you think he would rather do that than have this read that, you know, the landscaping needs to be installed within four months of the CFO being issued? It's harder to chase that. Yeah. So I think if the applicant is really eager to get the CFO, they'll get the landscaping in a timely manner, or they'll work out a deal with the building commissioner about the timing and about a temporary certificate of occupancy. But if we have to chase them, it's more difficult. Okay. All right, go ahead. On building exterior and site improvements, the town engineer and building commissioner shall inspect the construction of the entry driveway and all onsite paved areas for conformance to town standards. Number nine, all onsite utilities shall be underground. Number 10, all exterior lighting shall be dark sky compliant. Exterior lighting shall be downcast, shielded, and shall not shine onto adjacent properties or streets. Completion of work. Sorry, I'm feeling like asking you questions at the end of each section here. Oh, that's fine. Number eight, is that all the, all paved areas, even those off of the public property? Yes. And do we have, why would town standards apply to a sidewalk on Amherst College property? It's in the section seven that talks about, well, this is particularly for driveways and parking. So it would apply to the driveway and it would apply to any place where vehicles are moving around. Okay. Yes, I need to look at section seven. Thank you. There are specific details about how, how paving is built for driveways. Okay. Completion of work. The applicant shall provide as-built plans that show building location, grades, access ways, sidewalks and walkways, curbing, stormwater management facilities, lighting and utilities to the building commissioner, the town engineer and to be placed with the site plan review files in the planning offices prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Digital CAD plan, number 12, digital CAD plans shall be required for final ass belts for the DPW. These plans shall depict all property lines, pins, easements and utilities. The utility information shall include rims, inverts, pipe sizes and slope, all water valves, shut off, water service locations, sewer service locations and all clean out locations. Now, Doug, you had sort of, what should I say, thought that we shouldn't have to go through all of these construction related conditions. So if you want to skip them, I think it's okay to skip them, but the building commissioner has looked at them and he thinks they're important. So how would you like to proceed? I'm not gonna drag everyone through them unless there's more support from other members of the board. Anybody object from the board? Do you have anything on them? Okay. All right, so let's say 13, 14, 15, all the way to 18. So 19 we could read. This may not be applicable given what we've heard tonight from Emmer's College. So the board will have to determine what it wants to do about this condition. The building commissioner felt that if Emmer's College was not going to proceed with the second crosswalk or if the town council didn't approve the second crosswalk, then it might be worth it to have Emmer's College return to the planning board at a public meeting to discuss issues of safety access and connectivity to the project prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. So these would be things like what Andrew was talking about and what Tom Davies was talking about with regard to making the existing crosswalk and its connection to the sidewalk be more navigable by someone who has disabilities. So, you know, this is in light of the fact that the secondary crosswalk may not be built. So you may wanna discuss this a little bit and see if you want to have this condition in here or not, but given what we've heard about the difficulty in navigating from the existing crosswalk up to the new building, it may be worth it to have this condition in here. All right, why don't we... Well, let's see. I don't know how many more of these there are. It looks like you're about halfway through. Are all the rest of these related to construction? Yeah, I think so. Let's quickly skim through the rest of them. I don't think there are that many. Just, oh, here's one. 29, the project site shall be fenced during construction. Do you wanna say anything about signage that goes on the construction fencing or any other temporary construction signage? Often contractors will put large, colorful signs on the construction fencing. We've seen that with some of the archipelago projects downtown. So if you wanted to have some control over that type of signage, this would be the place to put it. You would ask to have any thing like that come back to you for review and approval, but if you don't care to be getting into that, then just say that the site should be fenced. Okay, so that's a second topic we should come back to. Tom, do you wanna comment on that now? Just truth and advertising, there's already a sign that says DOC. It's probably four feet high and six feet wide on the fence to identify the site to vendors and suppliers. Okay. All right, why don't we scroll through the rest of these and come back to this and question about the crosswalk. Okay, so keep going, Pam. Okay, so number 36 is just acknowledging that Emmer's College is having ongoing conversations with the use of 211 South Pleasant Street. And you're saying that use of the adjacent property shall be subject to conditions provided in article 14 temporary permit. And then we would fill in whatever permit number the building commissioner granted for use of that property. Okay, so. Chris Chamberlain. Yeah, it looks like 33 is a repeated condition. It's about inspection of the paved areas. That's right, so next 33, okay. All right, and is that it? That's it, yep. All right, so why don't we, board members, how do you wanna deal with the second crosswalk? It sounds like Emmer's College would prefer not to, I mean, maybe not prefer is probably not the right word, but at the moment you're not sure you're gonna build that. So do you want Emmer's College to come back to talk to you about these issues of access and safety if they definitely decide not to build that second crosswalk or do you want it just to be left up to them? Right, Janet? So I think this is a hard question because it's about the use of the building and how people get to it safely. And I wonder, if Emmer's College is not gonna ask for the crosswalk, we should talk about it and have a good plan in place. If they are gonna ask for it, it still looks like a long ways, it's gonna take a while to get to the town council and all that kind of stuff. So I feel like a little bit of a dilemma, but I do think that it sounds like they don't wanna ask for it because it's too much of it, whatever. And then it isn't, I would have a lot of questions about the steepness of that from all that avenue and crossing and where students were coming. So we did talk about that at the site visit. So I'm wondering what the Emmer's College is thinking. All right, thank you, Janet. Ander? I don't know if someone wants to answer Janet's question first or... Well, I was hoping to get the rest of the board comments about... Yeah, no, fair enough, fair enough. Yeah, I mean, I like this provision. I thought kind of what I was hearing from Tom was that addressing the wood side crossing or walnut crossing, I'm sorry. Was something that you would consider that, but that the crossing, the new crosswalk was really the more of the challenge because there's aspects of that that weren't under your control but you acknowledge if you wanna make this work and I know that you do any of you guys, the college is working hard to do that. So I think it would be a reasonable request to have them come back and discuss with us how they think they can address that. All right, so you'd vote for keeping it in? I would, yes. Okay. Any other comments? Nate? Sure, yeah, in the town engineer's letter, there was some concern about the secondary crosswalk further up the hill just in terms of stopping distance and sight lines and I think it becomes a bigger conversation than what we can deal with tonight. So there's also, if it's not a condition, the planning board also has the ability to make recommendations if this were to come forward as another product and review by town council. So I think there's, there would be time in the future if this were to move forward to provide comments. May I just point out that this doesn't require approval by the planning board and it doesn't necessarily hold anything up with Amherst College. It's just an opportunity for the planning board and Amherst College to discuss the issue once a decision has been made. All right, Chris, Tom Davies, you are muted. Thank you. I guess I want to say that two things. One is we're of course happy to come back and talk about this more and it is our intention to improve the connectivity between the two sides of the street. But I also wanted to mention, because I don't think it came up previously. Maybe it did when we met back in June, but that's a long time ago and I can't remember. But we are in conversation and have been working with a traffic engineer on traffic calming measures for the entire stretch from the intersection at Northampton Road South down to where the rail trail is. Because it is, the design of the roadway is, I'll say it's not best practice for traffic calming. And so related to this is an effort to make some changes there that will slow traffic down through kind of visual cues using best practices. That's not part of this at all. But I figured I'd mentioned that because it ties in with the goal of making a safer, more pedestrian friendly campus connection. All right. Thanks, Tom. So I guess we've heard a couple of people on the board thinking this was a good provision to keep in. I guess at the moment I'd like to know, actually, Tom, go ahead. I'm fine keeping it in there. Okay. And I think I am too. So that's at least four of us that are supporting that. So unless there's strong objection from anyone else, why don't we leave this in for the moment? And sounds like it's likely we'll have more conversation about this at a future meeting. Then we wanted to talk about the signage drawn the construction fence. Does anybody feel the need to dictate the characteristics of that signage at this time? I'm seeing Andrew shake his head, no. Tom shake his head, no. Maria, no. And I'm probably a no. So Chris, I think we can remove the bracketed red text and just leave number 29 with the single sentence in black. All right. So this was the conditions. I wanna go through the findings for this morning, Eli-Sam. I mean, is it realistic to think that we're gonna get through this tonight and make a proof of everything and move on? Well, what you would have to do is go through the findings for the Lyceum. Then you would go through the conditions of which I don't have any, no conditions, but I do have findings for the special permit related to the front setback. And then I have conditions for Newport House. Now, if you wanted to postpone this discussion till your next meeting, you have another meeting on February 2nd. So we could go through the remainder of these things on February 2nd. And is that a fairly full agenda on February 2nd? So far, the only thing you have on that agenda is hearing about the demo delay zoning bylaw from Ben. But we are, we have kind of got the solar bylaw. It's lingering in the background and we haven't had a chance to talk about that yet this year, I guess I could say. Amherst College, does it matter particularly to you whether we finish this up tonight or not? It matters greatly, Doug. I'm sorry to say, it matters very significantly. We've got millions of dollars of contract that are being put in place in the very near future. And this matters to us. All right, thanks for that clear expression. Unless the board, Janet. Before we move on to, I think if we're going to go through all the documents, we're not going to get to the solar bylaw. I think that's, I agree with you. We're not going to do that tonight. I would like to add a condition of just putting in the second parking space because it's a requirement state law that there'd be within 200 feet of the building. So I don't think we can waive that. And I just think we should do it. But, you know, otherwise I'm happy to plow on. All right. Board members, how do you feel about Janet's almost move that we add a condition for a second parking space? Andrew? Yeah, I would like to know whether it actually can fit. I think Lorne said that it's something he could look into. It's not preferred, but I wonder if, you know, something could be added on the, not adjacent to the building, but adjacent to the basically third spot out. And if the trail could just meander a little differently to make it fit, it seems like it's something that probably could, could at least be researched. I don't know. Yeah, I'd like, I would love to kind of see the results of that, yes. Okay. So I would be supportive of at least some language that asked them to come back. And I could probably also be supportive of Janet's language as well. All right. Other board members, Chris? I was just gonna say you could have a condition that says that you, that Emmer's College shall study of the location of a second parking space and come back and discuss it with you at a future date or prior to the issuance of a building permit or something like that. Okay. Tom? Tom Long? I support the investigation, but not a condition that it has to be built before permit. Okay. So that would be a condition similar to what Chris described, that Emmer's College shall investigate the possibility of adding a third, a second accessible space and come back to the board with their findings or something like that. Correct. Yes. Whether it can or it cannot be done. I just would love to see that tested. Okay. Janet, do you have a quick thing? I wanna pull the rest of the board on it. Okay. I just wanted to say very quickly, I think they can obviously do it and I don't think we can violate state law. And so let's just say, please do it. So I don't know how we can approve something that's against state law and why we'd want to. Well, can you quote the chapter or verse or guideline or whatever you're citing for the state law? I thought that that's what Nate had said and Kat and Christine had said. Can I say something? So if you're providing parking at a site, then you have to provide handicap parking, but in this case, they're not providing parking at the site. So they're voluntarily providing a handicap space at this particular site. So I don't think they're actually required to provide two parking spaces adjacent to the site. I think it's kind of a bonus that they're providing one parking space adjacent to the site. If they were providing a parking lot adjacent to the site, then they potentially have to follow the state law. That's my understanding. Nate, did you have a comment? No, I wasn't, I mean, Chris said it. I spoke with the building commissioner and there is no requirement, as she said. So what they're providing is exceeds the requirement. So if they did have a parking space or parking lot, they would have to meet those requirements. But in terms of the accessible route, the number of parking spaces, they're providing all what is required. So there isn't anything that's illegal or against state law. Okay, thank you. Chris, I'll assume Chris Brestrup, that's a legacy hand. Sorry, yes it is. So I'll make that addition. I'll say quickly that Chris Chamberlain had said that in the Newport parking lot that they were providing two handicap parking spaces. So that's, you know, and according to our bylaw, we have, you know, the zoning bylaw has a little stricter requirements than the AAB, Mass Architectural Access Board. So the two parking spaces required or that are provided in the Newport parking lot meets, you know, our bylaw standards and the AAB standards. So those two spaces are required in the Newport lot, but they don't necessarily have to be adjacent to the ICM building. All right, thanks, Nate. I guess I'll, why don't we, I'll propose, I'll move that we add that condition. Chris, as you articulated it, that they investigate the possibility of a second space and return to us with their findings. Tom? I'll second. Okay. Chris Chamberlain, do you want to comment? Yeah, I just want to be clear because there was talk about tying the building permit to that condition, which I think would be very problematic for the project. You want to tie the certificate of occupancy? The study need to be done before a building permit is issued. How about before a certificate of occupancy is issued? I, that, that's certainly fine for us, I do. Okay. All right, Johanna, you're muted. Sorry, thank you. Doug, you have a motion on the table right now, right? I think so, I could use a second. I think I seconded it. Yeah. Okay, good. Thank you, Tom. All right, so why don't we run through any more conversation on my motion before we quickly vote on that? Johanna. I mean, I think, I don't know that it does much harm for Amherst College to investigate it, but my guess is they've already kind of looked at it and decided they're already going above and beyond. And it's not going to get used most of the time. And so, you know, happy to have the vote, but it feels a little bit, I don't know, like they're going to investigate it and they're going to decide, you know, we like what we did, what we're originally proposing better for all the reasons that they've said tonight. So, you know, my inclination is not to send them on a wild goose chase and just accept that they're above the standard and it complies with the law and this is their proposal. But those are my thoughts. All right. All right. Anybody else want to comment or why don't I just run through our roll call here? Maria? No. All right. Jack. I have to admit, I'm utterly confused. I think I might just have to recuse myself because I'm all twisted up. And I mean, for me, it's like Amherst College does so much, you know, independent of us. And it's odd that this isn't, you know, educational districts. And anyway, I just feel like we've been deliberating excessively on the project. So I'm going to abstain. Okay. Tom? Hi. Andrew? Hi. Janet? Hi. Johanna? No. All right. I guess I will vote I. So that's four in favor, two opposed and one abstaining. So Chris will add that condition. All right. I'm going to tackle the findings now. Yeah. Let's go ahead to the findings. Okay. Pam, can you find the findings and put them on the screen? Bear with me. Let's see. Oops, that was fine there. Okay. Are you looking at them? Yes, thank you. Perfect. So these are the findings for the Lyceum project. The board found under section 11.24, the zoning bylaw site plan review as follows. 11.2400, the project is in conformance with all appropriate provisions of the zoning bylaw. The applicant has applied for a special permit to modify the front setback requirement under footnote A of table three. 11.2401, town amenities and abutting properties will be protected through minimizing detrimental or offensive actions. The proposed academic use of the property as a location for the center for humanistic inquiry and the history department is unlikely to create detrimental or offensive actions and is expected to be a relatively quiet and unobtrusive use. Exterior lighting will be downcast and will not shine onto adjacent properties or streets. 11.2402, abutting properties will be protected from detrimental site characteristics resulting from the proposed use. Lights will be downcast and or shielded. 11.2403, provision of adequate recreational facilities, open space and amenities has been addressed because the property is part of the Amherst College campus where such amenities are readily available to the Amherst College community. 11.2401, unique or important, natural historic or scenic features will be protected. The demolition of portions of the historic existing residential building has been reviewed and approved by the historical commission. The demolition of the historic house at 205 South Pleasant Street was approved and the house was relocated to Baker Street. 11.2411, the project provides adequate methods of refuse disposal as described in the management plan and on the site plans. 11.2412, the project will be connected to town sewer and water. The town engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and has issued a letter of comment dated December 16th, 2021. A condition of the site plan review approval will require that the project comply with the town engineer's comments and recommendations outlined in his letter. 11.2413, the proposed drainage system within an adjacent to the site will be adequate to handle the stormwater. The town engineer has reviewed the project and has issued a letter with comments dated December 16th, 2021. A condition of the site plan review approval will require that the project comply with the town engineer's comments and recommendations. I should have put in that he didn't have any comments about stormwater. So I will add that. Okay. 11.2414, the provision of adequate landscaping has been addressed. The project includes new plantings on site as well as proposed new plantings in the town right of way. 11.2415, the soil erosion control methods are considered adequate to control soil erosion both during and after construction. The town engineer has reviewed the plans and has not expressed concerns about soil erosion. 11.2416, adjacent properties will be protected by minimizing the intrusion of various nuisances. The construction logistics plan is required to be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. They did already include a construction logistics plan but I'm not sure how closely that the building commissioner has looked at that yet. 11.2417, adjacent properties will be protected from the intrusion of lighting because the condition of the permit requires that exterior lighting be downcast and are shielded and not shine onto adjacent properties. 11.2418 is not applicable because the project is not located in a flood prone conservancy district. 11.2419 is not applicable. There are no wetlands on or within 100 feet of the property. 11.2420 is not applicable because although the property is in a residential zoning district, it is not within the boundaries of a National Historic Register District. Therefore can be struck. 11.2421, the development is reasonably consistent with respect to setbacks, placement of parking, landscaping and entrances and exits with surrounding buildings and development. The applicant has applied for a special permit to modify the front setback to make it consistent with the existing building to which it will be attached. A plan has been submitted to the planning board showing the front setbacks of other buildings along South Pleasant Street in the vicinity of the proposed project, showing that the proposed setback is compatible with the setbacks of the surrounding properties that semi-colon should turn into a comma. 11.2422, buildings type. Can I interrupt you here? Is this section that you just read about the special permit, is that a place where we could put more reasons that would support the special permit or would that come later? That would come in the findings for the special permit. Okay, good. So we can put those there, yep. Okay. 11.2422, building sites shall avoid to the extent feasible, the impact on steep slopes, flood plains, scenic views, grade changes and wetlands. There are no steep slopes or flood plains on the site. There are no severe grade changes proposed. There are no wetlands on or near the property. Scenic views within the property consist of views to other Emmer's College buildings or to Emmer's College properties across the street, which will not be affected by the proposed project. 11.2423 is not applicable. There's only one building on the site since the new structure will be added to the existing building. 11.2424, screening has been provided as appropriate. All trash and maintenance equipment will be stored within an enclosed area. 11.2430, the site has been designed to provide for the convenience and safety of the Hickular circulation and pedestrian movement both within the site and in relation to adjoining ways and properties. The Hickular access to the site will be from Woodside Avenue. New pedestrian walkways are proposed to connect with the parking lot at Newport House and the main campus of Emmer's College. 11.2431, the location and number of curb cuts will be such as to minimize turning movements and hazardous exits and entrances. There will be only one curb cut from Woodside Avenue. 11.2432, the location and design of parking spaces, bicycle racks, drive aisles, loading areas and sidewalks will be provided in a safe and convenient manner. There will only be one parking space on site while that may change. So maybe I should strike that. Parking, the parking space will be accessed via Woodside Avenue. Walking paths will connect the new building with parking spaces at Newport House and with the main campus of Emmer's College. Bike racks are located to the west of the Lyceum at the end of the driveway and the loading area is located to the west of the Lyceum. 11.2433, provision for access to adjoining properties is provided via a driveway through the property that houses the Categan Center for Religious Studies and via a walking path to the Newport House parking lot. 11.2434 is not applicable. The property is located in a residential district not in a commercial or business district. 11.2435, not applicable. Joint access driveways between adjoining properties is not an issue. 11.2436, the requirement for submittal of a traffic impact statement is requested to be waived. There's no significant traffic expected to enter the site. And 11.2437 is not applicable. No traffic impact report will be required. Is that okay? All right. Janet is your hand up. Yes, Janet. So Chris, I have an ad to, let's see, I lost track of it now. 11.2403 about the recreational facilities because I would add in the garden that they've provided and even the seating and steps out front because those are really lovely additions to the site and they'll be used by students. Okay. I just thought, okay, thank you. All right, would this be a good time to have the board adopt the conditions and findings for this particular site plan review? I think what you would want to do is close the public hearing on this project. And approve the, what is being proposed with the conditions and findings as we just went through them. And also that you approved the waivers. So this is site plan review 2022-08. Tom. I was going to move to close the public hearing on the Amherst College Lyceum project. Okay. This is the site plan review, right? Oh, sorry. We have three hearings that are open at the moment. Two are on the Lyceum and one is on the other property. So say that again, Tom. Yeah, I don't have the, I mean, I'm looking at the document and the document just says the Lyceum project. So I don't have the actual number. It's 2022-08. Yeah, that's the plan review. So that's, so Tom's moving that we close the public hearing for site plan review 2022-08. Yes. And I, did I hear you right that we were, you were moving that we adopt the findings and conditions as modified with the minor changes that Chris noticed as she read it and that there were several waivers of submittals like the traffic study and such that would need to be waived under that site plan review. So moved. And that you approve the project? So moved. Sure. Jack. Second. All right. Thank you both. Any more conversation on this, on the site plan review for the Lyceum? I don't see any. All right. All right. We'll do a roll call. Maria. Jack. Hi. Tom. Hi. Andrew. Hi. Janet. Hi. And Johanna. Hi. And I'm an I as well. That's unanimous. So that's 2022-08. All right. And we'll go through the special permit findings and conditions. Okay. So this is special permit SPP 2022-03 request a special permit under article six, section six and table three footnote A of the zoning by-law to modify the front setback requirement for the new academic building to be known as the Aliki Parati and Seth Frank Lyceum. And so I sent you this in email today. And the first two paragraphs are really just for your reference. So you can see what footnote A says. And also footnote A refers to section 10.395 of the zoning by-law. So I put that in there too. But the findings start where it says findings under footnote A. So if Pam could scroll down, that would be helpful. Great. Thank you. Oh, and by the way, I felt that there weren't any conditions related to this special permit. You had all your conditions for the site plan review, but I didn't think that there were any conditions related to the special permit. Perhaps there are, but I wasn't aware of any. So anyway, okay, findings under footnote A. Number one is the front setback requirement is 15 feet in the RG zoning district. Number two, for educational and religious structures, article six, section 6.60 of the zoning by-law requires that all structures approved after January 1st, 1994 by a permit granting authority for educational and religious uses shall have a minimum front side and rear setback twice the distance shown in table three for that zoning district, except in the BG districts where setbacks in table three shall apply. Number three, therefore section 6.60 would typically require that the front setback of 15 feet be doubled to 30 feet for an educational structure. Number four, the Lyceum will be an educational structure and therefore the required front setback is 30 feet. Number five, the applicant has requested that the front setback for the Lyceum be modified to allow the building to be built with a front setback of 20.4 feet to match the front setback of the existing brick building. Number six, the front setback of the existing brick building on site is 20 feet. And number seven, other existing buildings in the vicinity of the site have front setbacks as follows and then I listed the ones that Nate had shown in his plan. And number eight, therefore the planning board finds that the proposal to modify the front setback from 30 feet to 24.4 feet does not create disharmony with respect to the terrain and to the use scale and architecture of existing buildings in the vicinity which have functional or visual relationship there too. Now that was taken from the first sentence of section 10.395 which was something that you needed to refer to in order to approve a foot node A modification. So, all right, thanks Chris. Any conversation from the board? Any modifications to these findings that you wanna make? Seeing at least one head shaking and seeing no hands. All right. All right, so this is site special permit application 2022-03. I need a motion to close the hearing and approve the special permit for the deviation from the setback. Andrew. So moved. Jack, you were muted. Sorry about that. Before I second, I was wondering if there's any public comment on this particular hearing. All right. Do any of the public wish to comment on this? You don't see any hands, Jack. So do you also wanna include that you're approving the findings? Yes. And then, yeah. Jack. Yeah, so I second with that amendment. So close the hearing, approve the request for the waiver and adopt the findings. Is that right, Chris? Yes. Okay. All right, let's do a roll call. Johanna. I. Janet. I. Andrew. I. Tom. I. Jack. I. Maria. Approve. And I will approve as well. It's unanimous. All right. So two down, one to go. This motion is taken upon. This doesn't have as many conditions. Conditions and findings for the Newport House property. Yep, and that is, let's see if I, so I plan to review 2022. Oh, no. Yep. So if Pam can bring up the conditions, that'd be great. Yep. So number one, the development shall be built substantially in accordance with plans submitted to the planning board and approved on X date. Number two, development shall be managed substantially in accordance with management plans submitted to the planning board and approved on X date. Chris, can I say these look remarkably like the earlier conditions? They do. There are fewer of them. Okay. Number three, changes to the project and or substantial changes to any approved site plans or to the exterior of the building shall be submitted to the planning board for its review and approval prior to the work taking place. The purpose of the submittal shall be for the planning board to approve the change and or to determine whether the changes are diminished or significant enough to require modification of the special permit or site plan review approval. Number four, landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the landscape plan prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. In this case, there wouldn't be a certificate of occupancy. So I'm not sure. I guess we'd just leave that out. And there's a very little bit of landscaping here anyway. And once installed shall be continually maintained. All disturbed areas shall be lumped and seated unless otherwise specified. Number five, this site plan review approval shall expire within two years of the date that it is filed with the town clerk unless it has been both recorded at the registry of deeds and substantial construction or use has commenced within the two year time period. Number six, construction shall be completed within 24 months from the date of the issuance of the building permit. If more time is needed, the applicant shall come before the planning board at a public meeting for review and approval of an extension of time. Number seven, the town engineer and building commissioner shall inspect the construction of the entry driveway and all onsite paved areas for conformance to town standards. Number eight, all onsite utilities shall be underground. Number nine, all exterior lighting shall be dark sky compliant. Exterior lighting shall be downcast and shielded and shall not shine onto adjacent properties. The rest of these things I think are mostly related to construction except we have that one item about number 17 is the site fence and whether you want it to, whether you want signage to come back to you and you decided on the other project that you didn't. So I assume that would be the case here as well. I would agree with that. Any objections from others? No. I don't think you'd need to review the other items. And number 21 is a duplicate of number seven. All right, so we could have a, so there are no conditions that we've imposed at least. These are the conditions. I'm sorry, there are no findings then. So the only findings I would recommend are that the, you find that the proposal for Newport House parking lot meets the relevant findings of section 11.24, the zoning bylaw. Okay, that's kind of a blanket that you use. Nate? Sure, one possible condition too would be that the dumpster location is being moved. So it's further east of the house of Newport house and that it'd be screened from view from Northampton road. So it wasn't clear in the plans if, you know, how visible the dumpster would be and if there was any plantings around it or enclosure that would be screening it. Chris, do you wanna comment on that Chris Chamberlain? Sure, yeah. It is, it does become slightly more visible in the new location. It's set quite a ways back from the road and there is some existing vegetation screening it. We are more than happy to add a few more shrubs to screen it if appropriate. Okay, thank you, Janet. I'm wondering how to handle the waiver, the parking waiver. Do we need language in here saying what we're waiving and why or that there's a waiver? I don't think there is a waiver. They've told us that this parking lot is not directly associated with Newport house or not Newport house with the Lyceum. So they're improving this parking lot, they're adding spaces, but I don't feel like we can really determine the number of spaces that would be required because it's an overall calculation based on, you know, the campus in general. But did you, did Janet have some particular language that she thought would be helpful here? You know, I think I might have missed the boat because on the Lyceum because the Lyceum is the one that's supposed to have 45 spaces. And even though I understand that the theory of the campus wide idea, but they are, it is in the RG. And so that is the requirement, which, you know, we could wave, but I think we just failed to wave it at the right time. Does that make sense? For some reason, I thought that would come here, but now that I think it through what you're saying makes sense. Chris or Nate, do you have a- We should we have done a waiver previously? I don't think a waiver is really necessary. I think every time we review an Amherst College project, they state that they have an overall campus parking plan and the planning board approves that. If you wanted to put some language in that said that, you know, you waive the parking requirement for the Lyceum in this, you know- I don't think it makes sense here. Yes, and connect. Yeah, I'm sorry. I should have brought that up earlier then because I know that this should, you know, we want this to be an ED, but it's not. So I think I missed that vote. Chris Chamberlain? Yeah, I would just suggest that by approving the site plan with conditions, you know, that was approved with the parking as shown. I just, I know working in many other towns that rarely do they tick off each and every waiver if that is helpful. All right, thank you. Next time then. All right, so, all right. So we need, unless there are other comments, we need a motion to close the hearing for site plan review 2022-09. Accept these conditions as modified while Chris was reading them and approve the site plan review application. Do you want to add a condition about screening the dumpster? How do folks feel about that? I mean, it does seem fairly far back from the road. Andrew? I was just gonna say, Chris suggested he wouldn't have a problem with it. I think if he doesn't have a problem with it, let's go ahead and put it in. Okay. Anybody want to nod their head or shake their head? Jack? I'd second what Andrew. All right. Justin. All right, I'll take that as enough of an indication that we will add it unless somebody objects now. All right, Chris, you have that. Yep. All right. Does anybody wanna give me a make a motion? All right then. All right, Andrew. I will make the motion. I don't. Close the hearing. Accept the findings as modified in the discussion and approve the site plan review application. Accept the conditions. So there are conditions. Oh, I'm sorry. And then the finding was that this Newport House parking lot meets the relevant criteria of 11.24. All right. I would say that or Doug, since you said half of it, you could do it and I'll second it, but... All right. Either way. I'll let you, you made the motion and Jack, are you gonna second it? Yes. Pretty much so moved from what Chris has said. So I think that's what Andrew is saying as well. Yep. We have Jack, you seconded it. Yes. All right. So we'll vote. I don't see any hands raised at all. Maria. Jack. Hi. Tom. Hi. Andrew. Hi. Janet. Hi. Johanna. Hi. And I'm an I, unanimous. All right. So we have closed all of our public hearings. The time is 10, 18. And I think we can go to an old business. Thank you everyone. Yeah. Thank you all from Amherst College. I hope this lets you get on your way. Thank you. All right. Oh, the next item we had on our agenda was more discussion about the solar bylaw. Unless anybody objects, I think we should postpone that to the next meeting. Janet. I'm not objecting, but I was a little confused about this agenda item and what we should be doing to prepare for it or what we'd be working on. So I did read a whole pack of bylaws, but I just wanted to know like, what are we doing? Well, at least the way it's written here, you know, we were gonna be generally continuing our discussion, but we were gonna be talking about some of what we saw in some of the examples from other communities and from Pioneer Valley Planning Commission in their models or their adopted bylaw. And so I think we received a lot of those for the last meeting. So if you still have that packet available, you probably ought to read, look through some of those things. Chris. So just to let everybody know, the CRC will be taking up the moratorium on next Thursday at their meeting, which I think is the 26th of January. Is that right? 27th of January. 27th of January, yeah. So they're having a meeting in the evening to talk about that. We've had a lot of internal discussions about the solar bylaw and we're moving ahead with thinking about that and working with Stephanie Ciccarello and trying to get the solar study off the ground. And so there's movement here in town hall, but we haven't presented anything on that to you yet. And then Doug asked me under item D for D to give you an update on zoning priorities. And I'd be happy to do that at the next meeting. If I did it tonight, it would probably take a while. So I think it's probably better to postpone that till the next meeting, but hopefully I'll be able to write something up before the next meeting, okay? Yeah, and as a part of that, I was hoping you would give us the status of all the zoning initiatives that we talked about last year, just so we can all be clear about what passed and what was adopted and is yet what didn't get completed. All right, so we'll move on. Time is now 10, 21 and old business. Do we have any old business, Chris? No old business, nope. All right, new business. Any new business? No new business. Not anticipated? Nope. All right, Form A, A&Rs? Nope. Nope. Upcoming ZBA applications, any changes? Nothing new. All right, upcoming special permit, site plan review, subdivision applications? Yes, we just had a site plan review submitted, excuse me, for Ronald Verdeer's property down on West Street and he's reconfiguring access to one of his buildings and the little planting area there. So we'll be bringing that to you in the next month or so. Okay. All right. Item 10, Planning Board Committee and Liaison Reports. Jack, anything you wanna say about PBPC? I have no news, but I did have a conversation with Chris with regard to the technical assistance funding and using Pioneer Valley Planning Commission's expertise with regard to that zoning bylaw or excuse me, solar bylaw. So we have a meeting later on this week, I think maybe Friday to talk about the DLTA application, the District Local Technical Assistance Application. So we have a number of different ideas about how we could manage that or take advantage of that. And now solar bylaw is one of the things. Okay. Other than that, nothing. Okay. Yeah. Andrew, CPAC? No significant updates. Our report was finalized that the kind of Friday. We may hear from the high school. So they've submitted an application which they then rescinded and indicated they might come back. If they do, we'll get the band back together, but right now it's quiet. Okay. Thank you. Tom, DRB? No news. All right. And Chris, anything else you want to say about CRC? Nothing else, no. All right. I have no remarks this evening as chair. Any report of staff, Chris? I'd just like to say that this year is starting off with a bang. I was expecting to have a month of kind of quietness, but it seems like that's not to be true. So anyway, fasten your seat belts. All right. Well, let's try not to make our 1030 adjournment regular thing this year. All right. So the time is 1024. And unless anybody has anything else to say, we will adjourn. Thank you. Thank you all for your time. Good night, everyone. Good night. Good night. Good morning. Good job, Doug.