 Okay. So, Jack, I have a co-host we're recording and Amherst media is in the house so you're good to go. Very good. Welcome to the Amherst planning board meeting of April 21 2021 based on Governor Baker's executive order, suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law. General all of chapter 30 a section 20 and signed Thursday, March 12 2020. This planning board meeting is being held virtually using the zoom platform my name is Jack jumps like in his chair that Amherst planning board I'm calling this meeting to order at 630pm. This meeting is being recorded and is available via Amherst media live stream minutes are being taken board members I will take a roll call when I call your name. Meet yourself answer firmly but then place yourselves back on you. Maria chow. Here. Tom long. Here. Andrew McDougal. Present. Marshall. Present. Janet McGowan. Here. Yohana Newman. Here. And myself, of course, board members if you have technical issues. Please let Pam know if there are technical issues. We may need to pause temporarily to correct the problem and continue the meeting. We may be suspended while the technical issues are addressed and the minutes will note if this occurred. Please use the raise hand function to ask a question or make a comment. We'll see you raised hand and call you on you to speak after speaking. Remember to remute yourself. Opportunity for public comment will be provided during the general public comment item and other appropriate times during the meeting please be aware the board will not respond to comments during the general public comment period. I just want to note, in addition that the, the banks center ramp project will be continued under old business. So topics, not reasonably anticipated 48 hours prior to the meeting. So, please reserve any public comment on this project to that portion of the meeting. We will not be taking public comment as part of the preview of the proposed zoning article 16 on a temporary building moratorium. So, with that said, if you wish to make a comment during the public comment period you must join the meeting via the zoom teleconferencing link this link is shown on the slide and can be entered into a search engine by typing as shown. And the link is also listed on the meeting agenda posted on the town website via the calendar listing for this meeting, or you can go to the planning board webpage and click on the most recent agenda which lists the zoom link at the top of the page. If you wish to make a comment by clicking the raised hand button when public comment is solicited if you have joined the zoom meeting using a telephone please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star nine on your telephone. If you have called upon, please identify yourself by stating your full name and address, and put yourself back in a mute when finished speaking so residents can express their views for up to three minutes, and at the discretion of the planning board chair. If a speaker does not comply with these guidelines or exceeds their lot of time, their participation will be disconnected from the meeting. So with that, we can get into our agenda and we have no minutes. Correct Pam. That is correct. Alright, so I'm just bringing up the participants here. So, oops. We have a public comment period, and I do not see any, any hands raised. Oh, Susanna. Hi Susanna, can you unmute yourself. Yes, thank you. Can you hear me. Yes. Yes. I'm a Musprat 38 North Prospect Street. I just want to say generally that I hope all the goals of the master plan are being pursued as you make decisions about Amherstown Center, not only those related to housing densification. The arts and culture historic preservation, encouraging small businesses, fostering community, and favoring climate friendly materials and practices. I think that quality of life will have a bigger impact on the town's long term success than tall buildings that pack in as many residents as possible. Thank you very much. Thank you Susanna. And I see no other hands raised. So let's proceed into the public hearing. Let me bring up the preamble for that. Jack. Oh, did you see that? I read. Yeah, so higher hand. Okay. I read brick please. Hello Ira. Hi, how are you. Very good. Good. Thank you so I just want to urge again that people just consider the highest and best use for downtown, not the tallest and best use but really what we want for generations considering all the changes that are happening to the world to college populations to towns that have gone down the route that Amherst is going down and the results are sad. I encourage a moratorium, not to hurt any business or any developer, but actually to just pause a minute so that they don't go down the wrong road. The town that a lot of people want to live out the rest of their lives and I know a lot of people that are very discouraged that living in Amherst, you know, if you live in a hilltown you say I use Greenfield I use North Hampton. There's more and more people that live in Amherst that say I use Hadley I use North Hampton. We need to pause and figure out what is the right balance. Thank you so much. All right, with that. Kristi have your hand raised. I just wanted to remind people that we're not taking public comments on the moratorium tonight. The public hearing for the moratorium will be on May 19. Tonight is just an opportunity for the board to become familiar with the zoning amendment. So I just wanted to remind everybody about that. Thank you. Very good. Again, let me get that preamble together. Oh, where'd it go. I'm sorry. Just give me a minute. Check you don't really need preamble you can just read the description from the agenda and say no I have it. I have it. So, um, but I can do either. So, we're continuing the hearing for SBR 2021 dash 06 North Amherst library at eight Montague road. It's continued from March 17 2021 and April 7 2021. And it's a request for the site plan review approval to add an addition to the existing building and add new parking walks utilities drainage and landscaping. It's on map five a parcels 37 and eight. It's the bead dash VC zoning district. And any board member disclosures since the last session. And there are none. And so who's going to present from, from the applicant. Chris Farley. Okay. I think you do you want to start off Chris. I, I, I'd be happy to Mike and Jack. Well, thanks so much for letting us join you again this evening. So between our last hearing and tonight we submitted some modified site plan drawings. We submitted a modified lighting plan, photometric plan. We submitted written responses for the design review board suggestions as well as the DAAC suggestions. We submitted a written response to how we were proposing treating the northern edge of the parking area. Yes, I, my question would be, would you like us to go through each of those review each of those with you now? Or, or, or would it be, I'm not sure if everyone has had a chance to review those. Or would you like us to review each of those items. I think you should review each of them. I mean, it's just, it just be easier for all of us, I think to be on the same page. Okay, now be happy to do that. Yeah, I think, I think what I would like to suggest is that maybe Mike, if you are willing to review the drawings that have been modified in your, in your site drawing package. We could start with that. And I would be happy to go through the other written responses to the other boards suggestions after that. Okay, great. I just also want to add Chris that we also submitted a revised management plan which, you know, we updated information about the, the lighting parking and signage. Yes, but I don't, I don't know if we, you know, I don't think we necessarily need to go over over that information. You should have it in your packet. All right, Mike, I think I thank you for reminding me about that. I think what I would suggest is maybe just a very quick review of the of the items that have been updated those items you mentioned, and just a quick description of how those items have been updated. I think that would be a good, a good start before you dive into the site site package. Okay, I'll start with that and I'll just try to describe what we've done instead of sharing it but basically we've updated the parking information to reflect that there's 25 spaces, 22 of which are on site and three on street parking spaces. And that we're, you know, using those 25 total spaces to comply with the, what we calculated, you know, as being required by the zoning formula for public square footage in the building. And then on the lighting, we did quite a bit of work on the site lighting but basically, we just reiterated that we have the two site, the pole fixtures along the sidewalk, these have been slightly moved away from the entrance and I'll put up the site lighting photometric plan shortly. But we also noted that the there's going to be ceiling mounted l small led fixtures at the entry. And we had those added to the photometrics so that lighting contribution from those ceiling lights is also included in the revised photometric plan. And then we also noted that the addition is trying to have like build a building mounted sign with like a low light wash but on the site lighting plan you'll see that there's some examples of like backlit lettering so you get the glow of the letters. I think you, you've hopefully you've seen some examples of that on different projects. And then with the signage also, you know, just to reiterate we change that or revise that to note that there'll be, you know, individual letters on on the north facade of the building at the entry that say, and hopefully this is still correct Chris North Amherst library or North Amherst public library. Those are the words that were shown in the, the color rendering that Chris wrote in the plan. So those are those correct changes in the management plan and so that was just brought up to date so to speak. I will find, let's see. Whoops. My, are you guys seeing the photometric plan on your screen. Okay, so this is the revised photometric and I plotted it out in color, or with color so you can kind of see the, you know, the intensity of the lighting but I just want to first go over. So this is the you know the poll fixture, the acorn style poll fixture, and the photometric plan we had added 180 degree shields on the backside. You'll note here in the key in the table. Those fixtures are indicated on the plan by the notation be 180. And then at the entry canopy the smaller pink circles labeled DL. I guess, maybe it stands for downlight. I didn't come up with the nomenclature, but those are right here you'll see those at the entry in in the ceiling of the canopy and then these be 180 fixtures. We pushed them a little bit farther away because the overlap in the lighting here in the center at the park at the handicap parking spaces you know there was a lot of overlap. Another reason was, you know, to read, you know, we didn't need all that lighting concentrated there. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but we could get a little bit of lighting out toward the sidewalks on Montague Road and Sunderland Road here you'll see in the green, where there's kind of I guess we'll call that a medium level of light. One thing that this does also is previously this particular pole was kind of a few feet maybe five feet to the to the east, and that essentially kind of you know block the view of where the sign building sign building mounted sign was going to be so we pushed it out a little bit away so it's you know off of the edge of the off the corner of the building so it wouldn't you know cause a visual obstruction and as an example of the individual letters, these are numbers but of course you can see that they're basically solid facing the front and they're basically have a back their back lit, and so they create a glow against the plaque on which they would be mounted on the building. It's quite a really quite a nice effect. It's a very low level of light. And then the wires would come in from you know from the probably I'm not Chris I think that these would come out. They might come out of a couple of different penetrations through the wall, and then you know go to the back of each letter I'm not sure if each letter gets a hole, you know in the wall. Yes, that's exactly right. Because we don't want wires running right in the letters in the sign. Yeah, you will have its own illumination its own wiring but that wiring will will will have its own penetration through the sign panel behind. So, so so the wiring won't be seen right and each letter will have its own illumination. The idea being that what we really want to highlight here is the letters and not necessarily anything on the building itself, and this is a very targeted way of providing illumination and and and allowing those letters to be silhouetted in a way that makes them extremely readable at night right and it's a low level solution so there isn't a lot of, or there isn't any extraneous light and really is light that's focused directly on on each of those illuminated letters. So yep the wires would all be hidden and then you know you'll see that you know in the red obviously this is kind of like where you're going to get the higher intensity over the parking lot coverage. On the north side here, you know, in a parking lot such as this you would typically have lighting on both sides like along this edge and along that edge of the stalls but knowing that you know the north side is going to change to some degree in the future you know we didn't add any lighting there that's why we have kind of like these, you know, point two to point three to point four foot candle levels of light. But you'll have to keep my I think I think the new guidelines for parking lots is is point two foot candles. So we are meeting that across all across that northern edge with this light and one thing you'll note is with the 180 shields, you'll see that you know with the pole poles right here, there's very very little backlight. If you note these this weird shape this is kind of like a template the template of the light distribution at, you know, I think it's point point to five or something or point three, and then this inner line is like basically point five foot candles. But in the back here you'll see that that line. It's a real sharp cut off so there's very low glare or back or like you know going backwards from light from the source with these 180 degree shields. And so that helps control the light, you know, that we don't need, you know, in the back and especially on this side, we don't need light, you know, in the back and glaring off the building so I think that this. It turned out rather well, and we actually have the, the lighting rep. I think he did for iterations for us, you know, in terms of, you know, 180 degree shield or 120 degree shield. He, you know, he moved the light poles around actually a couple of times. He couldn't mimic the the individually backlit letters here, but all along the building I think we have like basically point one foot candle of light back here at the building wall. There's point two right there. And then these are point one, the next kind of row or the next grid back so for somewhere between point one and point two, you also have to keep in mind, you know that this these are ground level measurements. There might be some light on on the wall at knee height or something for instance but you're not going to have a conflict with, you know, with this, you know, wonderful glow effect for the for the signage. So that's basically the only plan that really change we can talk about the comments about adding green space on the north but I can't. I remember Chris if that was addressed in one of your comments we might want to talk about that or do you want me to mention it now. I, I'm happy to address that as part of my review of the comments we provided. Okay, I guess I'll let you take it away with the, you know, responses to the DRB and the AC. All right. Okay, thanks Mike. I'm going to see here I am going to, let's see. I'm going to share my screen. So what what I did was I took all the comments from the DRB and the DA AC. And then provided our responses in, in blue. So I think what I'm going to do is I'm going to, I'm going to identify the issue on each of these items and and read our response. And I'm happy to take questions. If anybody has questions afterwards. The DRB had 14, I believe it's 14 suggestions. Number one was making sure that the roof could structurally support roof mounted solar panels. And we will certainly make sure that the roof trust design and the structure of the roof will allow those PV panels to be installed, either as part of the initial build out or in the future. Number two was whether the, the river birch, the proposed river birch would, would be too large. Mike and I reviewed that. And we did remove that as part of the planting plan and changed it to a smaller tree of a service berry tree. Which, which will have a, I think it's a, it's a, it's a height of 12 to 15 feet of maturity, something like that. Right. And it's a native cultivar and it's one of my favorite trees, actually because they produce really delicious berries, and I, I have to fight with the birds to get at them. Okay. So, so that tree should not really begin to compete with the addition or overshadow the entry. Number three was suggesting to consider staining or painting of the new wood shingles on the addition. And what, what we are proposing is that in the next phase of design work, we will in fact, explore a painting or staining those shingles. And this will be done in conjunction with the possibility of repainting the existing building. It's not uncommon when a new addition is added to an existing building, even if the existing building is in pretty good condition that the existing paint job starts to look a little shabby and comparison to the new construction. So we will explore the idea of repainting the existing building. Yeah, our feeling is, is that the final color choice, color choices will be made probably during the construction phase and I say that because we will, we will have a section of the building that will be painted in the proposed color. We will do it on site in the actual light conditions, etc. And then we'll make a final decision at that point. But we will explore some options in the next design phase for for painting or staining as opposed to the natural natural shingles. Number four was a color, reconsider the color choice for the proposed building trim. And I would say essentially the same thing that we will reconsider that as part of the overall color scheme for the addition. Number five, reconsider the layout of the and size of the larger windows and the addition. So, our feeling is, is that we have provided as a base as kind of a foundation of fenestration and windows in this edition. We have taken the exact window from the existing building, the double hung window with the eight light transom above, and we have replicated that around this building and a number of places. But our feeling is, is that the meeting room that we really would like to provide a larger window to provide a better view into the building. And also to provide more light to come into that space, especially on the north side where there will not be direct light, and also to provide a better connection to the surrounding landscape and surrounding site. And our feeling is that the addition as a whole is has a very, very strong connection to the existing building in terms of its massing in terms of its proportion in terms of its materials trim. Most of the windows and our feeling is that it's, it's, it's really very appropriate to, to kind of break out of that existing condition mold. We have provided these just these two double windows as a larger, more contemporary window. And our feeling is that it's, it allows the addition to be seen as, as a more contemporary addition that it's not something of the same time period as the existing building. Number six is provide signage for the library. We did review that we will have a building mounted sign that will be re illuminated. Number seven, provide a buffer or a vegetative buffer between the walkway and the parking spaces as a safety measure. We reviewed that and we believe that the curve that's provided. That will be the dividing point between the parking spaces and the five foot wide walkway will be adequate as a safety measure. It's certainly a typical detail for head in parking that can be seen throughout the town of Amherst and we believe that it will provide a safe barrier between vehicles and and pedestrians. Number eight, the style of the proposed benches should be consistent with the existing benches on site. The proposed bench is similar in style, the existing benches on the south side, have a metal frame with wood or composite slats for sitting. That's what the new bench will be as well. So we feel that that is consistent. Number seven, determine the condition of the existing benches and consider replacing them. As part of the next design phase, we will do an assessment of the condition of those benches. I believe they're in pretty good shape, although the wood does need to be looked at a little more closely, and we will make a recommendation to the town as to whether they need to be refinished or replaced at that time. We can provide a bike rack on site. We do have a bike rack that's been added to the north side of the proposed addition next to the bench location. Number 11, the existing building walls are to be repainted the colors should be more consistent with the colors of the proposed building addition. So I would just say that, as I said, we will consider repainting the existing building as well as painting or staining the addition in the next design phase. Number 12, make sure that architectural style and details of the proposed building addition are consistent with the existing building. I do think that largely they are I know that there are a couple of instances where we have taken some some liberties, but again in the next design phase we will certainly review that. And anything that seems really out of place. We will take a look at trying to make that more compatible and more harmonious with the existing building. We removed the circle under the round arch in the gable to the left of the entry that's been removed. And we simply have a straight piece of head trim there. And that was represented in the in the drawings we shared last week. I mean, if the town decides to seek a an architectural access board variants request to maintain the south entry that the DRB supports that we will be talking with the town and the next design phase to see if we will in fact be seeking an AB variants for that, but it's certainly good to have the DRB support for that. And then the DAAC suggestions, number one, a bell should be replaced should be placed at the chairlift location so that operator can alert staff, library staff for assistance, we will place a bell as part of that chairlift assembly. We do look into whether backup generator for the chairlift is feasible to provide. In the next design phase we will certainly look at that. There are some, some code requirements and possible code restrictions as to whether or not, as to what can be put on the backup generator, but we will look into that. And if it's, if it's feasible to do that, we will certainly explore explore that. And if the code allows it and and budget permits, it seems like that would be a good, a good idea. Number three, keep this out facing doors and entrance and the DAAC supported that as well. So we will determine in the next design phase if we're going to be seeking that variance. And again, it's certainly good to have the DAAC support for that. If we try to place a refuge interior of the library building. We really the only place that we can see doing that is in the existing entry vestibule at that south entry. We do believe we can place an area of refuge there potentially if the stairs to the basement and the stairs to the attic are removed. So we will explore doing that. And, and if we can get the required rating of those of those walls and those assemblies in that area. I think that we can provide at least one wheelchair space area of refuge space there. So we will look into that in the next design phase. I've widened the hallway leading from the lobby to the restrooms in the addition. We will in fact, widen that hallway to meet the AB standards, we're just a little bit shy in that hallway and so that'll be enlarged. Number six, which was added by the planning staff to provide to hearing aid compatible receivers in the new community meeting room. That is in fact what the AB requires and so we will provide to assistive listening systems to that meeting room. So those are, those are all the comments and responses. Before I dig into the approach for how how we're proposing to handle the paving on the north side of the parking lot are there any questions or clarifications I can make on these. I am just the place of refuge I'm not familiar with. The place of refuge. It basically is a waiting area for someone who is wheelchair bound, who cannot go downstairs or, you know, get out of the building a building like this that that may not have an accessible path. It can be done with a fire rated place where they can shelter in place until emergency services can come and safely get them out of the building. The way it works is that the fire department and emergency services of the town will be told about this place of refuge. There is an emergency at the building. And that's one of the first things that they do is try to make sure that anybody who is sheltering in that space can be safely safely removed from the building. Very good. Thank you, Chris. Yep. So I think there was a little misunderstanding about number seven under DRB comments. Yes, I think Tom long brought this issue up so he was talking about providing a vegetative buffer. I believe he was talking about it. I could be wrong. I think he mentioned the northern row of parking. Maybe he could clarify that, but that's what I thought he meant that he wanted a bit of a buffer up there in lieu of that grassy swale. So maybe you could ask Tom, what exactly meant by by or what the DRB meant by this comment because I think it was. Those are two different comments and so I think Chris is going to address the northern edge of the parking lot in a moment is what I just gathered. This was more about a safety measure assuring that the sidewalk and the parking lot at the front of the building so this is on the south side of the parking lot. So we can be able to drive up onto the parking area, or onto the sidewalk area. So as more people concerned with safety in terms of vehicles, entering the pedestrian area. So that was addressed in this particular case. Thank you. So good, Johanna, you. Are you there. Your, your hand is raised has been raised. I want to make sure. Thanks, I'm here. I just had a quick question about the lighting plan. I don't know if now is the best time to do that or not. Sure. We go back to that. I feel like I'm like the squeaky wheel on bikes, but having rummage through a pannier on the back of my bike and I'm just noting that the lighting seems to be really focused on the car centric parts of the parking lot and doesn't really reach the bike spot. And I wonder if just a little adjustment could fix that. So we do have you can see the numbers represent, I believe the foot candles. So we do have, you know, between 0.4 and 0.3 foot candles here at the bench and at the, at the bike racks. I believe that is within the guidelines. Mike, did you say of the town. Yeah, for right for a sidewalk. They're trying to get points, level of point three on the walkway. And I think that those are point three there. I mean, you know, this is a pretty, I think the lighting rep just basically use the same setup for each pole. But, you know, if I mean, I don't I don't want to, you know, I certainly would hope that we could get an approval with a condition to change I would look at not having the shield or using a 90 degree shield or you know something less than a 180 on this particular fixture, and then you'd get some of the backwash, which would help a bicyclist at night. That's a good point. I guess just being the devil's advocate here, I do think that while the point four point three foot candles that is represented in this photometric plan isn't as high as the 0.5 to, you know, 0.8 or even 0.9 out here of the parking area. It that is still a perfectly serviceable amount of light, even though it's lower than the parking area. These these rack this this area where the bike rack is will not be a dark area right it's hard to I mean obviously when you're out there there's obviously, you know, a gradual fall off of the lighting where it's most intense versus where it's most dark. It doesn't just stop all of a sudden and you know there's no light. So, you know, but Chris, you bought yep that's very true it's not completely dark there there is a serviceable level of light. You know, but we, you know we can offer it to change that if if you're really, you know concerned about it. I mean, it's so hard because we live in a world that isn't built for bicyclists and so when you know and but like when I see the 0.1 right next to the spot where I think maybe the front wheel of the bicycle would go it's a little hard to say how the racks are oriented. I presume that the racks would be going perpendicular to the walkway. We might turn right now there's two racks shown toward the back of that pad and honestly I might, I might switch that back. They got drafted that way I might turn them 90 degrees. You know, so they're there side by side if you will, rather than end to end right because as it is right now you could at max park two bikes there whereas if you put them perpendicular you could park for one on each side of the rack. In the middle, if you try to get for there the two middle ones would be pretty tight and touching each other for instance so I think, you know, they back got changed, and they got turned, but I think I would turn them back to be anyway, food for thought you know it's not it's a little bit of a tie on so. Okay, I think, I think what I would suggest is that we will certainly review. Yeah, you know the lighting requirements and the lighting recommendations for for this sort of a condition. I mean I will say that our intention is absolutely to provide adequate light for anyone using this site, including by so bicyclists and including pedestrians. And if we do find that these light levels are low. As Mike says I think there are a number of ways we can talk with the lighting manufacturer to ensure that we get a higher level of light here to meet the requirements of that bike rack area. Thank you so much for your attention. Yeah, you bet. Thanks, Janet. I'd like to join Johanna on the lighting dying on the lighting hill I think that it's really important that the users of the library. You know, however they get there have enough light to see by so I think I wonder if you could just pull the pole back a little bit it would give some more light to pull it sort of southward it might help. I'm not sure I thought this was brought up at the last meeting, or I think it was just in the draft conditions but the draft condition had all exterior lighting shall be dark sky compliant exterior lighting shall be downcast shielded and not shine onto adjacent properties and streets and so those acorn lights which I know are in the downtown. Those aren't down like downcast and so I was hoping that I mean I'd like to see that light being downcast and not shining into the sky because that's not dark sky compliant. And then also to add a condition that we turn off the lights after business hours except for site security and visitor and employee safety. I don't know that necessarily means that all the lights have to go off when the last person leaves because it seems to me that people might be using a library to drop off books after hours as I do and I'm not quite sure where the book drop off is. But I would like to see that condition reflect the bylaws requirements and also just to have downcast lighting and I was kind of wondering if the design review board had looked at those acorn lights because they seem kind of Clark Kent Lois Lane and not really the ear of the building but so I just wanted to that's I'm worrying about that condition I don't want to have light shining up into the sky at night. Sure. No, that's a that's a valid concern and you're absolutely right that I think we are required to have a dark sky compliant fixture. My, my understanding of the acorn light was that, while it does in fact have the kind of historic glass globe that it didn't that it didn't illuminate all up into the sky that it was shielded so that it focus light downward is that I mean the the original or old style of this, you know this kind of acorn, you know, well, all the old lights had a bulb. So the bulb in itself was casting light, you know, in all in 360 or, you know, a spherical direction, the LEDs are laid out or set up so that the light source is actually on a plate that's mounted in the light, you know, so it's, it's like, there's the plate inside. It's inside the globe, if you will, with the LEDs, you know, mounted on the bottom of the plate so they're, they're directed, their light is directed downwards and outwards. So that's my understanding of how these are, you know, but we can. So are the knobs at the top just decorated that glass. Yeah. So I would just add in that you turn the lights off at night but I also think the lights on the door would be security, and then I'm not sure your book drop is but I would love to not have people creeping around in the night looking for the book drop. So that could keep your lights on all night. So these, these two lights, which are recessed in the ceiling their recessed down lights. These are what will provide illumination, you know, from the walkway into the entry of the building on this west side of that entry that's where the after hours book drop is. So, we could certainly look into keeping these lights on maybe at a reduced level of illumination, so that, so that that front entry is always illuminated but not at the same level as when the library is open. Yeah. So if someone does come and wants to return a book. There'll be, you know, a certain amount of illumination in this general area. Okay. And I'm not sure I would object to having the taller lights because it seems like. So, yeah, I mean I think that the LEDs on my understanding is I'm not the lighting expert but with the LEDs you can program them to so that, for instance, at a certain time they can go down to 50% power. Yeah, support, you know, I don't know if you have to pay extra for that package of controls to be able to do that. But, you know, it's, it's, it's supposed to be very easy to do this with the light so that's that's a really great advantage for energy savings, while still providing that security, you know, low level of security on on a site. Yeah, I like the idea of lowering the lights at night but still having people be able to see the walkway so they're not just stumbling up to the, you know, the entrance and things like that. So that change would be fantastic with me because I think it would comply with the bylaw and then, you know, also be helpful. So, I'll have a talk with Guilford about that and see what you know how they're, how, you know, what the account is currently using and if they have that option to, you know, dim the lights, and if not, you know, whether they are doing that. I don't want to shroud the walkways and night at, you know, two in the morning if people are using that and I know people do drop off books in the middle of the night. Oh, there's some, I guess you must be a night bird, dropping off books. They have a lot of Catholic guilt. I'll just reiterate what Mike just said, we will certainly talk with Guilford in the town about exactly how the site illumination is programmed, you know, to make sure that it's safe, even after hours, and to make sure that, you know, we're providing a welcoming environment for anyone using the library, even after hours for the book drop. Okay, thank you. Sure. Is there any other, any other, you know, Janet. Chris you had your hand up briefly and it's down but now it's up okay. So there was, there was one issue that Chris Farley wanted to talk about with regard to the treatment of the pavement on the parking lot I think a suggestion had been made with regard to using porous concrete pavers and he has, he sent an email which I forwarded or maybe Pam forwarded it to everybody. It arrived at about six o'clock at night I think but anyway, Chris could explain what that email said. Sure. Yeah I'm happy to do that so there was a fair amount of discussion at the last meeting about trying to reduce the amount of pavement on this northern part of the site, which you know I think is certainly our, our ultimate goal as part of this project. However, what we are proposing is that is a is a is a slightly different kind of phased approach to how how the development of this northern part of the site is treated so when we added these these 12 spaces here to the north side. The intention is and what's represented in this plan is that that those parking spaces would largely be on existing paving so we wouldn't be removing old paving and putting new paving in we would be utilizing the existing paving and, and our feeling that makes it that makes it economical it makes it ecological, at least in the in the short term for the for this project. And that's with the understanding that when the realignment of Sunderland Road over to Montague Road comes along. And we've confirmed this with Guilford. This entire north end of the site including these parking spaces will likely be part of that construction project so it is very possible that these spaces. will will will be maintained, but they may be repaved as part of that project, and that everything to the north of them will also be redeveloped and, and I think the intention is that at that time, we would be able to increase the planting, do the grassy swell do the the rain gardens or additional plantings. It's difficult to say exactly what that landscape plan might be but I think we and Guilford have acknowledged that that would be one of the goals of that read that realignment project. And part of the reason why we're proposing not doing it now is that the the two schedules for the project, the library project and the realignment project are only a couple of years apart and what we would what we would like to to propose is not to do not to put a lot of money and resources and to redeveloping that northern part of the lot only to have that torn up as part of the realignment project. So we'd like to try to live with what's there now. Again for for economical and ecological reasons and look a little further down the line at providing something that is that is greener and and more more ultimately more ecological and more beautiful to look at as part of that larger realignment project so so that's our proposal at this at this point. Very good. Any other questions from the board. Janet. I'm not sure if this is the right moment but I was hoping that in the conditions that we would include the commitments made in the letter of April 20 21 instead of like putting them individually into the conditions just referencing a letter, but I don't want to talk about that now or like what the next phase is. And then Chris has any guidance. I think you can talk if you can start to talk about conditions and findings if you're finished asking questions well you also might want to take some comments from the public if they have any comments. Yeah, we'll do that first. Okay, so we will move on to public comment any. Any of the attendees in the public have any comments on this project. Okay, I see none. So, um, any other comments by the board. If not, I think Chris you were going to go through the, the conditions and site plan review country area. Chris and the board, would you like me to go ahead and keep this site plan up or should I stop sharing. It would be helpful to keep it up. Yeah. I'm happy to do that. So, I can go through the findings first and then Janet can make suggestions about how to reward the lighting finding she wants to do that. So these are the board finds under section 11.24 of the zoning bylaw site plan review as follows, and you all received a copy of this in your packet. 11.2 400. The project is in conformance with all appropriate provisions of the zoning by law and the goals of the master plan. And if you find that something isn't to your liking. You can raise your hand and Jack will recognize you. 11.2 401 town amenities and a budding properties will be protected through minimizing detrimental or offensive actions. The proposed use of the property is unlikely to create detrimental or offensive actions. 11.2 402. A budding properties will be protected from detrimental site characteristics, resulting from the proposed use a condition of the site plan review approval will require that lights be downcast and shielded. 11.2. Did Janet have a question about that or come. Oh, she did. Yeah. Yeah, I'm sorry. I kind of I kind of spaced out. And I would just say adjacent properties and extinguished after business hours, except for a site security and user safety. This is ours. Except for site security and user safety. That was kind of general enough. Okay. Okay. 11.2 403 is not applicable. The provision of recreational facilities is not relevant to this use. 11.2 410 unique or important natural historic or scenic features will be protected. The North Amherst library is an historic feature of the North Amherst Village Center. The building would be protected by the construction of the new addition because the addition with its bathrooms meeting room and wheelchair lift and its improved parking will extend the use of the library to more residents of the town, and we'll extend its use into the future. The demolition of a portion of the North wall has been reviewed and approved by the historical commission. 11.2 411. The project provides adequate methods of refuse disposal as described in the management plan. 11.2 412. The project will be connected to town sewer and water. The town engineer has reviewed and has not expressed concerns about the town services or their ability to serve the proposed use. 11.2 413 proposed drainage system within an adjacent to the site will be adequate to handle the stormwater. The town engineer has reviewed and has not expressed concerns about the proposed stormwater management system. 11.2 414 provision of adequate landscaping has been addressed. The project includes new plantings on site. 11.2 415. The soil erosion control methods are considered to be adequate to control soil erosion during and after construction. 11.2 416. Excuse me. Adjacent properties will be protected by minimizing the intrusion of various nuisances. 11.2 417. The site is surrounded by roadways and to the north by property owned by the applicant in the town which is the town of Amherst. Chris, do you want me to read any things like you? I think I can get through it. Take a drink of water or something. Okay. 11.2 417. Adjacent properties will be protected from the intrusion of lighting because the condition of the permit requires that exterior lighting be downcast and shielded and not shine onto adjacent properties. Anything to add to that? I see no hands raised. 11.2 418 is not applicable. The property is not located in a flood prone conservancy district. 11.2 419 not applicable. There are no wetlands on or within 100 feet of the area proposed work. The project has received a negative determination of applicability from the conservation commission with regard to its impact on nearby wetland resources. 11.2 420. The planning board did not choose to refer to the design principles and standards set forth in sections 3.3040 and 3.2041. I think that first one might have been 3.2040. But anyway, the design review principles and standards because the project was reviewed favorably by the design review board, which has transmitted its findings to the planning board. 11.2 421. The development is reasonably consistent with respect to setbacks, placement of parking, landscaping and entrances and exits with surrounding buildings and development. 11.2 422. Building sites shall avoid to the extent feasible, the impact on slopes, flood plains, scenic views, grade changes and wetlands. There are no steep slopes or flood plains on the site. The applicant has located the proposed addition behind the existing historic building to avoid affecting scenic views. The profile of the addition is smaller than that in the existing building. And there are no severe grade changes proposed and there are no flood plains on site. 11.2 423. Not applicable. The existing garage building located to the north of the library is expected to be demolished. 11.2 424. Screening has been provided as appropriate via a wood fence proposed to surround the mechanical units on the west side of the connector. 11.2 430. The site has been designed to provide for the convenience and safety of the vehicular and pedestrian movement, both within the site and in relation to adjoining ways and properties. The additional parking has been added to the site so that library patrons will have access to onsite parking and fewer patrons will need to cross the street to gain access to the building. 11.2 431. The location of the curb cut has been designed to minimize turning movements and hazardous exits and entrances. The town engineer has reviewed the location of the curb cut in relation to the adjacent roadways and intersections as and has found it to be satisfactory. 11.2 432. The location and design of parking spaces, bicycle racks, drive aisles and sidewalks has been provided in a safe and convenient manner. There are no loading areas. Excuse me, I have a dog here and I'm watching what he's doing. 11.2 433 not applicable provision for access to adjoining properties is not an issue. 11.2 434. The proposed access driveway is appropriately located. There are no access driveways across from the site on the west side of Sunderland Road. The driveway into Monte onto Montague Road is proposed to be eliminated. 11.2 435 not applicable joint access driveways between adjoining properties is not an issue. Access to the existing garage building site is off Montague Road north of the library site. 11.2 436. The requirement for a submittal of the traffic impact statement will be waived. The applicant has submitted a letter prepared by the Berkshire design group indicating that the amount of traffic that is expected to enter and leave the site is relatively small. 11.2 437 not applicable because no traffic impact report will be required. 12.2 437 not applicable. Okay, thank you. I appreciate it. Any comment on that portion. And we have discussed the conditions. If you I can read them or you can so. I'll read them until my boss is out and then you can. Okay, general conditions. The first one is development shall be built substantially in accordance with plans submitted to the planning board and approved on. And if you approve it tonight, I'll put tonight's date in. The development shall be managed substantially in accordance with the management plan submitted to the planning board and approved on. Again, it will be tonight's date if you approve it tonight. Janet may have some more wording for this number three. All exterior lighting shall be dark sky compliant. Exterior lighting shall be downcast shielded and she'll not shine onto adjacent properties or streets and what. What language should we add to this? I think it's the same thing and be extinguished after business hours except for site security and user safety. Is that the dog? It is. That noise when she is happy to see me. Excuse me. It's a, it's a dog that we're babysitting. Number four changes to the project and or substantial changes to any approved site plans. The planning board. To approve changes to the site plan review. Or to the exterior of the buildings shall be submitted to the planning board for its review and approval. Prior to the work taking place. The purpose of this 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 this. Oh, of the site plan review. Approval. I guess it must have written this before. Okay. So scratch that scratch special permit. Number five 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 loaned and seated unless otherwise specified. And then the application shall return to the planning board to present the color choices for review. The next conditions are all about construction. Number eight, prior to the issuance of any building permit, a pre-construction meeting shall be scheduled with the applicant. The application shall be submitted to the planning board to establish a new property line at the north side of the addition. Number seven. When final colors are chosen for the addition, the applicant shall return to the planning board to present the color choices for review. Number eight, prior to the issuance of any building permit, a pre-construction meeting shall be scheduled with the applicant, the applicant's contractor, the town engineer, building commissioner, superintendent of public works, planning staff, fire chief, and any other staff personnel that may have a role in construction of the project. Number nine, a written construction fire management plan shall be submitted to the fire chief and building commissioner prior to the issuance of the building permit. Number 10, a plan to the planning board and the building commissioner for review and approval, describing visitor parking and safe access during construction. Number 11, a construction logistics plan shall be provided at the pre-construction meeting and shall cover the following items. Construction timeline and expected completion dates for each phase, location of parking for contractors, location of on-site and off-site staging, such as for construction vehicles, including cement trucks, location of fencing around construction site, details and locations of directional marketing and job signs related to construction, emergency contact information such as name and cell phone number of the developer and contractor, information about construction signs including advertising signs for contractor, developer and architect, the company affiliation name and address and business telephone number of the construction superintendent who shall have overall responsibility for site activities on the project site. Proof that dig safe has been notified at least 72 hours prior to the start of any work. Any other relevant information that they may request. The construction logistics plan shall be subject to the following conditions. Construction activity shall occur only between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Monday to Saturday. The parking for contractors shall be restricted to the project site. I'm not sure if the architect has any comments. And I see that two hands are raised. Yes. So Janet, do you have a comment? I'm sorry. I was going to wait until you're done with that, but not this construction section. I was wondering if we could add the language to. Condition number seven where it talks about the, you know, coming back to the planning board for, you know, final color choices. And maybe we could just, you know, without having to add another condition number, just say the commitments made in the Coon Riddle letter. Of April 20th. 2021 shall be implemented. That's an easy way to stick that in. I would put that as a separate condition, I think. Okay. Maybe it gets its own number, but then it changes all your numbering. That's okay. Okay. Can read a letter of April. 20, 21. 20, 2021 shall be implemented. We implemented. Is that awkward? That's good. Okay. Andrew. Thanks. Yeah, mine hopefully be pretty quick too. I guess first of all, is there any logic to the bold face. Pattern in here and italicized is that. Just curious if that's meant to call anything out particular. There were changes made to this set of conditions. I think I issued this several weeks ago and recently changed it as of April 16th. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. Bold italicized things that were changed. Got it. Okay. Very good. Yeah, I was insure. I guess on seven in terms of returning to the planning board to present the color choices for review. So. Will we continue to keep this open until that time? No, once you. If you approve these conditions and findings, you would be closed. You would approve the application. And then in the future, the building commissioner would make sure that these, that these conditions are adhered to. Very good. And then on 12 B. That one as well in terms of the contractors should be restricted to the project site. Would we envision them using the municipal like. Well, I guess let me start. Do we, do we feel like. The town is going to be interested in keeping this library open during construction. I know that was referenced in here as well. One of the other conditions. We don't know. And I'm viewing as the project site encompasses the. Property to the north of the library, which is the area that includes the former garage. So in my opinion, it looks like there's enough room. On that parcel. North of the parking lot to accommodate contractors parking, but that's why I put this little note. This condition may need to be amended. And I was going to ask. Mr. Farley and Mr. Liu, if they thought that the contractors needs could be met. I think that the site needs to be met. I think that the site needs to be met. On these two sites, five a 37 and five a 38. I, I. I would imagine so given the fact that the project is relatively small. I think that the onsite needs can be, can be met here. If there is offsite staging that is needed or offsite storage that is needed. I think that the site needs to be met. I think that the site needs to be met. And I think that the site needs to be met. As a contractor. As to whether or not the library will remain open. I don't know the answer to that. We will certainly. Engage with the town. On, on, on that issue. I will say that. I don't think there's any way that any of this parking can be utilized during construction. Just because it's in such close proximity to, to the, to the new addition. I think we're going to be able to provide any onsite parking during construction. And that may or may not play into whether the town decides to keep this library open during construction. Makes sense. So then that, that 11. D around the location of the fencing, that would essentially encompass the construction site and that surface parking and five a 37. Well, yeah. I think most likely. Yeah. Very good. That's all I had. Thanks. Okay. Let's see. I think. 12. Is that everybody? Yes. Okay. So 12. There should be no parking about for idling of construction trucks and equipment. It may be public right of way. D any blasting or hammering of rock or material will be. Shall we notice. The, the construction site. The construction site will be closed. And a butters 24 hours in advance and completed between nine and three. That's probably not applicable, but we'll leave it in anyway. Unless there's an objection. 13 as part of the building permit application, the applicant shall provide the building commissioner. The name, address, and business telephone number of the project manager or onsite supervisor, which shall be responsible for all activities on the project site. On the project site. On the project site. 13. There shall be no exterior construction activity, including fueling of vehicles on the project site before seven a.m. Or after seven p.m. Monday through Saturday. There shall be no construction on the project site on the following legal holidays. New year's day. Memorial day. July 4th. Labor day. Thanksgiving and Christmas. The applicant agrees that the hours of operation shall be approved by the Department of Public Works. 17. All catch basis shall be protected from soil and debris contamination during construction. 15. The project site shall be fenced during construction. Is that the same as one other of these? No. Sorry. 16 appropriate measures shall take place to control dust, dirt, debris and construction materials on the site. Water for dust control should be trucked in from offsite, unless otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. 18. No dumps, demolition material or construction debris shall be buried. We're disposed of at the project site. 19. The town engineer and building commissioner shall inspect the construction of the entry driveway. And all onsite paved areas for conformance to town standards. 20. The applicant shall provide as built plans that show building location, grades, access ways. Parking areas, sidewalks and walkways. Curbing stormwater management facilities, lighting. And utilities to the building commissioner, town engineer, and to be placed with the site plan review decision in the planning department. 21. The final certificate of occupancy shall not be issued until the final top coat of paving for all driveways and access areas. Sidewalks and berms has been completed. Landscaping as shown. On the plan of record has been installed. And as built plans have been submitted to the building commissioner and town engineer. By all design professionals for the site and building construction and have been approved by the building commissioner and town engineer. Looks like Doug has a. Question. Mr. Oh, Doug. No, I have a comment. When I first came on the board a little over a month ago, and sat through the first site plan review that I experienced, I was frankly astonished that these boilerplate construction conditions. Were. Custom custom written and custom read. Every time we did a site plan review. And so since it's been more than a year since I was said that I'd like to say it again. And especially while we're. Doing a hard look at our zoning. Regulation or bylaws. I think, you know, if we have to, I think there ought to be a better way than to have to have Chris read this. Every time we do a site plan review. So I'm going to. Do my once a year review. Advocacy for, you know, somewhere else. The towns. General terms and conditions for construction. That we can just reference once. And not have to. You know, read every time. Thank you. Any comment on that, Chris? Well, it actually helps the building commissioner a lot to have these conditions. Imposed. And I think it is probably a good idea to. Consider putting them elsewhere. And we'll have to think about where that is. Is that in the zoning bylaw? Is that in the. Planning board rules and regulations. Is that some general. Bylaw that we have. And so. I can talk to Rob more of the building commissioner about that. And he actually is here tonight. In case he has any comments, you may want to ask him if he has any comments to that. Well, I do remember when I mentioned this before that, you know, he said there really wasn't any other place where these appeared. But I can't believe there isn't somewhere we could park them so that. You know, you have one line to say. That the, those general terms are. Included. And then we can go on. And then, yeah, then only mentioned that the. Deviation. And stick to that. Good point. I will review that. Issue with Rob. And we'll try to think of another place to put them. And then we can go on. It's sort of like saying. A litany. Isn't it. For those of you who know about. Would this be a good place to make a motion to accept the findings and can, or adopt the findings and conditions that. Chris has read with the edits that Janet. Requested. To approve the. Site plan. Application with the conditions and the findings as read. And Janet has amended. All right. I'm happy to do that. Good. Any second. Second. All right, Janet. Any discussion. With the board. All right. We don't. Okay. I think we just can move on to the, to the vote then I'm just. I'm just going to move on. You can get all my different windows here. So. Let's go to a vote then. Maria. Andrew. Hi. Doug. Hi. Tom. Hi. Janet. Hi. And Johanna, I think. She told us that she wouldn't be absent. For partial portion of the meeting. Myself. Yes. So it'd be six zero. With one absent. Thanks. Okay. Thank you, everybody. I'm going to miss you guys. Mike and Chris is like. Hang out every, every couple of weeks for a few hours. Well, we're happy to be here. We're happy to be here. I'm sure they'll be back on some other project. Happy to be working on this too. Absolutely. Yes. So. Take care. All right. Well, thanks for all the comments. You guys always come up with some insight. So. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for all your consideration and all your time. Very much appreciated. Good night. So we can move on to old business or no. How about taking a little break right now? It's almost eight. Five minute break. Or let's just meet back at eight. So I guess that's more like an eight minute break. Okay. Hi, Chris. Hi, Pam. I joined a little late. So I missed part of the Tom's story around his daughter's name, and we have a dog, a golden named Cooper. The next street over has a golden named Cooper. And I guess there's a third golden named Cooper. That that's within like two streets of us. So I don't know. Somehow this, these things happen. Yeah. Small world. Right. We're all back. Pam, you want to get us back online? What time did we go on break? Was it like. Yeah. It is now eight o'clock on the dot, which is when we said we were returning. So we are good to go. Great. Okay. So proceeding on to old business. And topics not reasonably anticipated 48 hours prior to the meeting. And we do have the bank center ramp to discuss that, that Chris. And take the lead on. So Rob will present the changes that he's made to the bank center ramp. Good evening. Rob, Rob more building commissioner. Pam, if you could go ahead and display our plans. That'd be great. Okay. Can you see it, Rob? Yes. Okay. Thanks, Pam. So last, we were here a couple of weeks ago and we talked about the proposed ramp. Over at the bank center. And there were a number of comments, questions, and just wanted to give you an update on what we looked at. And we held off on putting the project to bid until we did that. And now we're, we're hoping to maybe Friday or Monday, the latest advertise this, you know, we'll talk about that in a little bit more detail. So what we found after we heard some of the comments was, we went back and looked at the existing conditions. And on the, the upper, the north side of this. This area near the new Sancti health center, we did find that the existing conditions. Didn't reflect what was actually out there. It was, it was outdated and didn't include the, the more recent work that was done as part of the, the process of building the block and made a couple of modifications. So I also went a little further south with the existing conditions shown here to pick up the existing storage shed and some of the electrical equipment just to give a better idea of the, the activity that's on this 9,000 square foot parcel property line is now shown with its proximity to Johnny's tavern. So I'm going to go back to that. Pam, if you could scroll to the next page, please. Go into many. Yep. There we go. That one. So this is our, our revised proposed plan. So a couple of comments that were made during our last discussion, one of them was, you know, why is the, the, essentially why is the ramp bisecting this, this parcel rather than maybe meandering a little bit more. And making it a more convenient walkway rather than a ramp. And, you know, thinking about that and talking about it with others. I was reminded that, you know, the primary goal of this project was to provide an accessible entrance to a better accessible entrance to the new Santhe health center. That's why we started it years ago. The health center does have hours or had hours. And, you know, outside our normal hours for the bank center, certain weeknights and Saturdays, particularly with dental appointments. So there isn't always an option, even outside of COVID, COVID times there really isn't always an option to enter the building and travel the hallway to the elevator down to the new Santhe health center. And the only other option right now is to travel from the east side of the building near the west entrance around to the east side of the building and across this long sidewalk, which is about 300 feet of travel. So this, this proposal, you know, cuts that, that travel distance in half from the accessible spaces up on the parking deck. So that, you know, reminded me why we actually looked at this precise location to get the closest point to the health center entrance. So a couple of other comments that were made included why not align the lower section of this ramp with the existing walkway that runs along the east side of the bank center. It was a great comment, never thought of why we didn't do it, but now we've made that adjustment and lined up centerline with the five foot walkway that runs to the, along the east side of the building made those adjustments. And by doing so ended up eliminating the, the larger landing at the midway point and just make it a, you know, a ramp with a traditional or standard five and a half foot landing turn 90 degrees down to the walkway. Another comment that was received or a couple of comments on this was about saving that London plane tree. So I took a look at that and we certainly can protect that from the construction activity and make sure that that tree doesn't get removed. So I went ahead and made a note to save that tree. You'll see that's the tree that's halfway between the bottom of the stairs and the bottom of the end of the ramp. That's not shaded out in the center of the work area right there. Thanks, Pam. So there will likely need to be a little trimming to that tree. One of the branches will be hanging over the ramp that, that could get trimmed back and one over the other walkway in the opposite direction. And we'll talk with Alan snow about doing that properly, but the tree will remain. So the other trees indicated there, four of those are white pines, Linden and something else right now the stairway, though those will be removed as part of this project. I took out the landscaping. We had a couple of areas of shrubs that there was a, there was a comment, a couple of comments about the landscaping were that make sure we use a shade tree and make sure we use evergreen plantings. And, you know, what we decided to do was let's, we're just going to remove that from the contractors portion of the project and work with those that are interested. So we're just going to move on to that. The shade tree committee certainly had, had some thoughts and opinions. Alan snow is office. We'll have some opinions and, and probably some volunteers from the bank center. And we can all work on, you know, purchasing plantings and getting those installed. Either during or towards the end of this project. So we just want to head for simplicity, remove those. The last comment that we had was about the lighting, the light pole from the town's inventory of this light pole that we use. We do believe, especially with the removal of the white pines and the tree near, near the existing stairway that the location that we're showing will cast enough light or can be made to cast enough light. To properly provide safe travel through this ramp area. to finalize any detail. If there's any needed additional lighting, we'll certainly consider that when that time comes. But we think this is going to work fine. So that's all I had for an update. This really doesn't require any action of the Board. I really appreciate getting the approval and being able to move ahead. I'm happy to take comments, questions. If there isn't any great opposition to what we're doing, we're going to go ahead and bid it later this week or early next week and hope we get some interest in it. And we're also more than happy to come back at a regularly scheduled meeting time if we wanted to talk about this in any more detail or in particular aspect of it. Thanks. Chris, yeah. With regard to this is not a public hearing meeting. It's just more recommendation. Well, you already approved this. I think by a, it was either five to one or six to one. I can't remember. But anyway, so you've approved it and this is just an update to show you what changes we've made prior to putting it out to bid. But I also wanted to mention that we're currently going to rebuild the stair. Last time we came to you, I think we were talking about just resurfacing the stair and we're not moving it or anything like that. So you don't have to approve that, but I just wanted to point out that we're actually rebuilding the stair and the wall, the concrete wall that is on the southeast side of the stair. That's all. Okay, Andrew. Thanks, Jack. Thanks, Rob. I just had two quick comments. One would be on the path or the ramp, sorry, that's kind of oriented north-south. Any reason why we wouldn't just put that landing in the midpoint? It looks like from your contours that it's a pretty even grade and just thinking that that would be easier for someone to travel. I don't use a wheelchair, so I couldn't say, but it would seem like rather if you can have a 225 instead of a 30 and a 20 that that might be useful. So just a thought. And then I was also wasn't sure again, not not being a wheelchair traveler, but by eliminating that ramp, is that looks like a five foot path. Is that that's navigable for like two people going through in wheelchairs or not? That makes sense? Yeah, I understand your question and no, it wouldn't be. So if a wheelchair is heading up the ramp and one heading down the ramp, it would not be wide enough to pass by each other. At any point or just at that corner? I think it'd be really tight at the corner as well. So five and a half feet is the width of the ramp, but it's really what you need to get the four feet clear between the handrails once they're corded into the concrete walk and mounted a few inches in from the edge. That's really about the minimum width that you can build this. So I don't think that would be enough to pass by somebody walking by could navigate that, but not to wheelchairs. Okay. All right. Any idea how long it would take for a wheelchair to travel at? Just out of curiosity? I don't know. Yeah, just like thinking if you're at the bottom, you're waiting for somebody to come up or down, like if you have to wait for a minute. I get it. It's like tough to make this fit, but that would be my just additional comment as you take this out to bed. But thanks for bringing this back. I appreciate the extra thought and consideration of our comments. Thank you. Yeah. I mean, I want to ask a thank Doug who has this hand up for going back out and assisting Rob as my understanding. So Doug? Yeah, I was just going to say thanks to Rob for, you know, hearing us and putting some effort into accommodating some of our comments. I hope we didn't jeopardize any state funding by delaying this project. But I do appreciate it. Thank you. Oops. Great. All right. I apologize to everyone for not knowing that we already had the hearing on this and we approved it. So this is more disinformational. And I appreciate Rob, your presentation. So thank you. Thank you. Any other old business, Chris? Unanticipated? I don't think so. Okay. So let's move on to new business. We have the proposed zoning article 16 temporary moratorium for 180 days on building permits for construction of residential buildings with three or more dwelling units. So we're just going to have a discussion. I'm not really super comfortable with having the discussion right now because we have a hearing coming up. But it's on our agenda. We will not have public comment. And again, I really don't have anything to say. And so I'll open up to the board. May I get an introductory statement? Yes. Okay. So I just want, well, I'm Chris Brestra planning director. And I wanted to introduce this article to the board just so that they would know what's coming up. It's titled as article 16 temporary moratorium for 180 days on building permits for construction of residential buildings with three or more dwelling units. The public hearing for this zoning amendment will be held on May 19th at eight o'clock. So mark that down. It will be a joint public hearing of the planning board and the CRC. The planning board and the CRC each need to make a recommendation to town council on whether to adopt this moratorium or not. Tonight's meeting is not a public hearing, but rather a chance for the planning board members to become familiar with the proposed zoning amendment and to ask questions and possibly discuss the topic prior to the public hearing. We did put it on the agenda. The building commissioner Rob Moore is also here with me to answer questions that the planning board may have about this proposed zoning amendment. The moratorium proposes to ban for a period of six months the issuance of building permits for residential buildings with three or more dwelling units in the BG general business, BL limited business and RG general residence zoning district. This would include subdividable and converted dwellings, apartment buildings, townhouses, and mixed use buildings. The idea behind the moratorium is that the petitioners want to provide time for the town to address certain zoning issues prior to granting permission to construct new residential buildings in the zoning districts that I just listed. The zoning issues that they want to have addressed during this period are design standards related to streetscape sidewalk width and green space for new multi-unit developments, building heights and setbacks, inclusionary zoning, the definition of mixed use buildings, changes to the municipal parking overlay district, and the climate action resiliency criteria for new construction that is expected to be recommended by the upcoming climate action adaptation and resilience resiliency plan. The proposed zoning amendment includes an extension for 90 days of the ban if the town is not able to implement the zoning amendments listed. The moratorium does not affect the planning board or the ZBA's ability to review and approve proposed projects. It merely prevents the building commissioner from issuing building permits for those proposed projects. So I just wanted to give you that background information. This was put on the agenda at the request of one of the planning board members. Andrew? Yeah, I actually just had a question in terms of how this is written and like what we think kind of the definition of done is on this thing. Because it reads to me like the moratoriums in place until we change the zoning. And what if we don't, we decide to not change the zoning? I think it's in place for a specific period of time. But I mean, if we sit idle, it's 270 days, 180 plus the 90. If it's adopted. Yeah. Wait, if it's adopted, if article 16 is, okay. Article 16 is adopted. Got it. Okay. I'm just also curious whether just in conversations, you know, other board members have had with residents, is the driving concern the design slash architecture? Is it the fact that the residential units in the new construction are so high priced? Is it the lack of like vibrant ground floor retail or something different? I'm curious what folks have heard in just some of their conversations. To me, a lot of the, a lot of the comments I hear just seem like people don't like the design, right? And I get that. But it's also that's like a matter of opinion and taste. And so I'm just, I'd love to hear anything folks may have heard or just their own thoughts on that. Chris, you have your hand up. Yeah, I just want to caution people against talking about this with members of the public. The planning board will be holding a public hearing. And you know, when you go into a public hearing, you're supposed to be, I won't say neutral, you can have your own opinions. But you're supposed to hear what is presented at the public hearing. And obviously you're reading newspapers and things like that, but having conversations with people outside of a public hearing about it, that's not sharing that information with the other planning board members. So not everybody's hearing the same thing. And you know, if you do hear something on the street, it's probably a good idea to bring it to the public hearing. But I'm just discouraging people from having, what do they call it, ex parte conversations. Thanks for clarifying. I think one of the things that's helpful, Andrew, is the last few days I've been going back through all of Chris's emails over the last month or so. And you can aggregate a sense of what the concerns are. And they're very broad reaching. And interestingly, not many of them actually apply to the things we're trying to accomplish here. So that's something we want to pay attention to. These updates referring to streetscape, building heights, inclusionary zoning, and so on. Other things that we're focused on, we have to pay attention to the fact that a lot of the commentary is necessarily targeted towards those things. So I think it's sort of figuring out sort of the making sure we're incorporating and listening to this really broad range of feedback that, again, is in those comments. Some of them are for, some of them are against, but they have different things that they're trying to address. But I do think that we have to be careful because this sort of the bylaw that we're proposing or the amendment doesn't necessarily address a lot of those things. So I think it's just trying to find the right balance there. So it's just something. But again, I'm the one that raised this because I felt like we might have a lot of questions that Chris could answer. One of them is about the origins of this and sort of how it got from someone's idea to the table in front of us that we're going to talk about it now, and then going to have a joint meeting. What was that process? And I've read anecdotal things, but I want to make sure that I understand when it was proposed, by who, who brought it to who, and how did it get to us so that we have a little bit of an understanding of the genome events that brought this to us. I can give you some background on that. So originally there were three town council members who thought this was a good idea to present this zoning amendment and they were getting ready to present it to town council. They had it all written up and they actually did submit it and they submitted it pretty much in the form that you see it currently, obviously on a different date with different signatures. But when town council members submit a petition or it's not a petition, when they submit a suggestion, recommendation, whatever you want to call it like this, they have to get the whole town council behind them to, or I shouldn't say the whole town council, they have to get a significant number of town council members to put this forward as a town council proposal. And in conversation they decided that they probably weren't going to get the full town council behind them to actually put this forward. So what they did was they decided on another tactic which was to seek petitioners to sign a petition and they did get, and then a lot of petitioners to sign this petition. They needed 10 signatures and that's by the charter. The charter says that a number of citizens can submit a zoning petition if they get 10 signatures. And so the people who initiated this went out and got, I think over, last number I heard was 283 but I'm sure it's over that now. So they got a significant number of signatures on this and so it was able to be brought to town council and then town council didn't have a choice but they had to automatically refer it to the planning board and the CRC for a public hearing. So that's what they did and I can't remember exactly when that occurred but it was probably in early April. I think it might have been April 5th which would make sense given that the petition was dated March 19th but I'm not sure of that date. So anyway that's how it got to you and so we talked with, I talked with, Mandy Johanike, she's the chair of the CRC and Jack talked with her too and we determined that May 19th was a suitable date for this public hearing and that's how it got here but as I said at least one member of the planning board indicated that he or she thought it would be a good idea to bring this to you and have an initial discussion about it just so you understood what it was about. One more quick question Chris, thank you, that was very helpful actually to sort of track that backwards. Thinking forwards, there are, there's commentary around the relationship of this to the archipelago project that the DRB is reviewing. Is this something that would be, would this decision have the capacity to block that project or was that project submitted before this or tell me what the relationship of this to that particular project might be? I would like to stay away from how this moratorium would affect any particular project. I think that's kind of treading on thin ice especially because the planning board will be holding a public hearing about that project and then the public hearing is going to open on May 5th. I think we should consider those two things separately but what I can say is this moratorium is about building permits. It's not about whether the planning board can grant approval of a project so the planning board can hold its public hearing and come to its conclusions. The building permit for a project cannot be issued until this, if the moratorium is adopted the building permit couldn't be issued. Now what I would say is that what I've observed is that it often takes developers a while after they receive their land use permit they have to work their way through their construction documents and they are usually not ready to submit construction documents until several months after they receive their land use permit. My gut feeling is that this moratorium is probably not going to be significant deterrent for buildings that are being proposed. What would affect buildings that are being proposed is the zoning amendments that the planning board and the CRC are considering. So if a zoning amendment is passed and adopted by Town Council and goes into effect during the review process there is a relationship between the timing of a zoning amendment and the approval of a particular project and I can go into that if you're interested in that. No, that's very helpful. Thank you. Just at the outset I just want to encourage people to talk about this on the planning board and not feel like you can't because it's very often that the planning board discusses zoning amendments many times before it comes to a formal state hearing. Like we would normally be talking about it with the zoning subcommittee. The zoning subcommittee would bring stuff to the planning board. The planning board would suggest revisions and so that process it's not like we're not in a trial or in trying to sequester ourselves. So I would encourage people to talk about it now because I think there's not going to be a big chance to talk in depth when we have like 12 people with the CRC and so that's my first thing is let's just talk about it. Let's talk about the gist of this and openly. I think that I mean my understanding just by reading this and you know following the process is is the sense that the town is looking to hire an consultant for $100,000 to work on downtown issues and mixed use buildings and design guidelines that we should have passed you know 11 you know 10 years ago. As the master plan said don't increase density unless you have strict design controls you know or do it simultaneously and so I think there's a feeling of you know buildings are going to get built without you know design controls that people support and so I think that you know it seems I think there's like a timing question so you know all these permits might come through and then we hire a consultant and then we say let's do this set back and have this good sidewalk let's have some green space you know all the issues that are raised like let's do inclusionary zoning you know all the things that we're talking about as zoning changes and that will happen you know in too late and so why not take a pause especially since we have a few buildings downtown that have you know not a lot of public support like if you can you know what you're probably hearing from people and also the two downtown meetings that the planning board held I think in 2016 but I might be wrong they did kind of a survey and those you know those buildings were kind of panned for how they looked and so I think people are really afraid to keep that things are going to keep going forward and we're not going to address problems that have been you know like basically we all know there's problems with downtown and the planning we haven't been doing downtown planning and it's just going to keep rolling along and not get addressed and I think this is a lot you know hundreds of people saying please wait please put the zoning things in that we support and it's you know and then go forward and so I think you know I mean you know Darcy Pam is here and she's one of the originators so it would be great to have her talk maybe I would like to hear from the public but I think that you know people want to talk about party parking I know Darcy Dumont's committee that she's working on is going to come in with different climate recommendations and was just looking for a pause for that and so I do think there's a lot of meat to this and there's like I think the problem is that we just haven't addressed the problems for a really long time and then I think my personal experience is we have gotten sort of from the town council zoning priorities have just sort of taken over us taken us by storm as a planning board in the planning department and a lot of people are seeing that process doesn't really address downtown problems either and so I think this is trying to put the focus on what is a really important issue to Amherst residents but I really would like people to talk about it I mean I'd like to hear what people think about it I don't have a super formed opinion about it and I sort of did maybe a version of what Tom Long did where I started just read through the letters and write down like what what are people's concerns and there is a lot of repetition and I didn't get a chance to do like a big synthesis but then I started to do the mediators think about like what do people want to see like every can say what they don't like but can you turn that into what people want to see and that got me sort of looking forward you know people want to see adequate parking right you know they want to see design standards they want to see buildings that have setbacks or well-designed buildings you know a lot of people wanted to see more retail downtown and more you know small small stores you know people were looking for mixed income housing you know some people very specifically wanted non-student housing other people wanted housing with year-round residents a lot of people wanted mixed income housing and affordable housing so I could kind of go through this whole thing but I think I think as a board it's it's actually a great opportunity to listen to the public and you know as the Spiegelman said let's just take a pause and focus on some problems and analyze them and we're the pause that we're what we're focusing on has nothing to really to do with downtown until the planning department brought the IZ and the mix used to us I mean I feel like I'm getting sprayed with a fire hose and then we're going to be permitting a building or buildings that all these issues are going to become incredibly live for so that that's a big piece of information but I feel like I'd love to hear people's thoughts on it to help think through it. Thanks Janet Doug. Yeah I actually would like to take Chris up on her offer to talk a little more about how zoning changes that are approved depending on when they happen in the process what their impact is on on a project and I'm thinking specifically that you know there's two of these six items on six of these two of these bullet points where you know I think we've heard that CRC is about ready to take zoning changes amendments on those topics back to town council and I'm referring to inclusionary zoning and the definition of mixed use buildings and so let's just use those as the hypothetical you know if if if we have the hearing and get through the permitting with a project and and then town council adopts a couple of zoning changes between the time we approve the make approve the site plan review and before the building permit is issued do those zoning changes affect that project thank you. So I can answer that partially and we also have Rob Mora here if I can take an opportunity to speak Jack. Yes, Joanne is back so I just want to note of that. So yes. Essentially a zoning amendment affects a project if it's the advertisement for the public hearing the first advertisement for the public hearing appears before the project gets either a special permit or a building permit I think that's right but Rob might be able to clarify that but anyway so when a zoning amendment is being proposed you know that the planning board holds a public hearing and the planning board has to advertise that public hearing twice in two successive weeks prior to public hearing and so the first advertisement is the key and so a project is moving along a zoning amendment is proposed the advertisement is in the paper and usually we have the first advertisement on a Tuesday which is about 15 days before the public hearing for the project so that project is needs to comply with that zoning amendment if it is finally adopted if it's not adopted they don't have to comply with it but if it is adopted it has to comply with it. So a project really needs to get through its site its land use permit process and if it is receiving a special permit it needs to receive the special permit and I think the special permit has to go through its 20 day appeal period but again Rob might clarify that or if it's just a site plan review project it has to receive a building permit so it's a kind of complicated relationship and it's not at all clear that the projects that are currently out there are going to be finished with their public hearing process receive a special permit or receive a building permit during the time that zoning amendments are being approved or considered unapproved so can we call on Rob to have a few words about that and make sure that I said that correctly. Okay Rob. Yeah Chris I think you said that correctly I think you know what I get asked all the time is if a site plan review is issued does that protect you know the applicant from the zoning change and the site plan review alone does not so it would have to move ahead and actually receive a building permit if the special permit is granted before that first advertisement that Chris just described if the special permit is granted the applicant has 12 months to receive their building permit and start construction and not be subject to that change if they don't do that within the 12 months then they would be subject to the the new bylaw to ended up being adopted but otherwise I think Chris added exactly right. Great Tom. Yeah sure I just wanted to follow up quickly on this I guess some of the questions that Doug is raising but also what Janet's speaking of and kind of what I referenced earlier I think that the Jenny you're right I think listening and paying attention to what people are saying is important and I want to be cognizant of the fact that there are lots of opinions out there and then our job is somewhat to to listen and pay attention I think what what I'm what I was cautioning about earlier is that many of those things are not actually going to be remedied by this so even though we might wait six months and we might delay and we might have a consultant we might do all these things there's very little that people are asking for that are going to just automatically be remedied by waiting six months right so I think I just want to caution people from thinking the moratorium's going to fix the problem there's still another process in this you know that might not protect them from a building that looks like one of those buildings and that might not be in our design standards that might not help people it might not solve the problems that people are asking for so I I think I'm just asking us where I'm asking us to think about separating some of those things from what we're actually trying to accomplish here the moratorium is not going to necessarily solve their problems it might just defer those problems six months down the road so I just wanted to raise that good thank you um jenna so one of the things I've been mulling over is the building permit language because this is um this is a petition by you know residents you know 284 of them and I don't know if they know that there's a difference between a special permit a site plan review permit and a building permit so um and so I kind of thought you know their citizens broad construction they probably just think a building permit like a site plan review permit that we issue or a special permit or the building permit that's all the same thing it's permitting building and I can see rob's like no this is really different and I think it is if you're on the inside if you're on the outside maybe it's not it isn't it's incomprehensible so it's they might just think oh we we were covering those permits but I just want to raise that issue and and push it aside um so I guess tom's point is if people really wanted to do inclusionary zoning or change the definition of mixed buildings or they don't like the building heights and setbacks you know even if the consultant is recommending that um it's not going to capture these buildings um you know because they still can get permitted in some way or they at least they can't get their building permit I guess for you know you know nine months and things like that and so I don't know I just I just think that maybe that's okay for them you know maybe this is a way of them trying to push some changes that they'd like to see um that actually we'd like to see you know like the inclusionary zoning and we'd like to work on the definition of mixed use buildings and so we the planning board could actually very quickly decide to hold the the public hearing on the mixed use building um you know amendment zoning amendment that the planning department had presented to us even knowing that it may not be the one that you know goes to the town council or it isn't changed but we might want to do a notice of hearing very quickly a statutory hearing just to you know put in a placeholder I don't know if we we're in the mood to do that but we don't have to wait for a long process you know to happen and things like that or maybe this is just the way the public saying this is what we really care about and we just want to we want to do some planning downtown and see some changes and not see all these changes so um I always kind of taken back by how many letters or emails that we got in such detail and it just was it just I didn't know most of the people I knew some of the people that were writing but there's a lot of strong feeling of people and they had very specific and sort of well thought out ideas you know some people just wanted more information you know more more information on housing needs and things like that and you know this just seems like a lot of passion for people you know in the in the center of Amherst and people were really worried about major changes to Amherst so um I just you know I just there's so much stuff in there and I just think you know we need to do the best by our town and and also listen to people I would also like if we have time I know it's you know people don't want to stay forever but maybe some people in the public would like to talk or we could or we'd like to listen to them Chris did you have a comment yes um so if the planning board decided to hold a public hearing on its own it wouldn't have any meaning because what has to happen is that again our current form of government in the way zoning amendments have to go through the process someone has to propose a zoning amendment to the town council and then the town council has to refer it back to the planning board for a public hearing so the planning board could hold a public hearing but it wouldn't be on that path to eventually having an amendment come to be and therefore it wouldn't suffice to put a stake in the ground as of you know this is the first public hearing this is the first publication of the date of the public hearing it wouldn't be affected I meant I meant the planning board could send the the zoning amendment to town council and then have it come back and hold the hearing so the planning board was unclear because we we have that we can do that too okay yes thank you for correcting next I thought um Maria please um more of a you're on mute oh yeah okay sorry sorry um this is one procedural question for Chris um tonight we weren't supposed to be deliberating on opinions and what our thoughts were because this is not a public hearing I think what Tom was asking was you know more administrative and history and questions about like how this moves forward but I didn't think we're supposed to be uh discussing it and delivering and giving our perspectives tonight um am I wrong in that Chris um it's just because Janet's asking us to talk about it and I thought we weren't supposed to do that I think you can give your perspective just like you would on a mixed use building zoning amendment that we brought to you but I am not inclined to listen or take public comment at this time this wasn't advertised as a public hearing the planning board is just becoming familiar with what's being proposed and I just feel like we shouldn't take public comment tonight but I think the board as a body can discuss this and share your opinions oh okay and it's a public meeting that you're holding and it's just like if you were talking about inclusionary zoning or mints or mixed use buildings or whatever then I would like to share my opinion I thought we were supposed to hold off on like our ideas because we needed to talk as a group publicly but if it's just for us to discuss informally I guess um I really appreciate the bid's email um send a Jones's email uh most of you want to forget his name but it was just from people who sort of saw the bigger picture and saw it from the perspective of how we make Amherst a sort of more thriving community of not just individuals but businesses and it's all got to be balanced you can't just have people saying I don't want this in my backyard being the loudest and sort of not thinking about sort of uh you know that Amherst is a town for everybody so I really appreciated the emails that were coming from you know the working class in a way the people who are just you know keeping things running um and so I think that that perspective often is a minority as far as the voices we hear and so um yeah I really appreciate those emails and I wish we had received more of them but I think we're well they're also busy working that they don't have the time to you know come to these uh meetings and to keep up with everything in the Daly Hampshire Gazette or on the Amherst website so um that was my opinion I just sort of appreciated people who are sort of trying to keep businesses running and the community going to have time take time to to make their voices heard thanks Maria you know it was we opened up the meeting saying that we weren't going to take public comment on this because we have a hearing um I'm not this is just informational so we can prep for it uh so we can learn about you know the topic which again I think we have by the questions presented by Tom and Doug and and Janet and etc but um I I'm not comfortable with really I don't want to present my my thoughts on the matter because we have a hearing coming up and I just uh it's it's you know with the CRC and and as I as I look at the agenda I was just you know I had in exchange with Chris wondering why we're doing this when we have a hearing but um if anybody else has um went to you know get more information about you know the specifics on this and the inner workings and you know the timing of the nature of this with regard to you know projects coming online let's talk about that um but uh Doug yeah I was gonna just mention that I find the timing actually kind of hard to understand uh because if people were so upset by uh Kendrick Park and One East Pleasant Street uh why didn't this petition show up right after One East Pleasant Street um I know that there was another project proposed back in the summer of 2018 for the parcel that has the spoke on it and I think it also included Bertucci's um that project didn't go forward I think in part because the historic commission imposed an 18 month delay on the demolition of Bertucci's but I guess it just doesn't feel like this is the first time uh that we've had a big project proposed downtown since the first two buildings were built so you know why now as opposed to two or three years ago thank you Doug um Chris I just wanted to say um that I think I know why now and it's because we're talking about um hire we're we're asking for money um capital funds to hire a consultant to help us with some of these issues the consultant isn't going to be able to solve all of these problems for us we're asking for a hundred thousand dollars and in this world today a hundred thousand dollars doesn't go all that far so we may be able to solve some of these issues I hope that we can solve others of them by ourselves and I think everybody's energy would be best focused on working on zoning amendments so that's all I wanted to say okay Janet I have a question for Christine which Jack you you emailed me um so I sent out I didn't know that there was a previous building moratorium um past and Christine do you know what happened afterwards like what was the the effect of that like were changes made during that interim period or just does anyone have the history that's 1986 I think so yeah it was way way back in my youth really I think that had to do with a sewer moratorium um there wasn't enough sewer capacity to accommodate what was being proposed auto paparazzo a developer from california came to town and proposed 2000 units of dwelling units in the what is now Amherst woods Amherst fields area and people didn't feel that they could that the infrastructure in town could accommodate that and so they put the moratorium on I think it was on for two years and auto paparazzo I think he went bankrupt and went back to california so part of the project got built but it never really came to pass and that's what that was about so that was a specific um issue that the town needed to deal with having to do with infrastructure and I believe they did eventually deal with that and so the moratorium went away and we've been developing property since um so that's my understanding of what what that moratorium was about I can research that a little more if you're interested yeah thank you I anybody else want to ask a question of chris or brab and it's a may but what's the date again may 21st may 19th may 19th okay and said eight o'clock um there was one town council member CRC member who couldn't meet before then so we're meeting at eight o'clock we may have I don't think we're going to try to have anything else before that but I guess it's possible yeah joint joint meeting with the CRC though um and so that legal ad will be coming out soon but um I'm not exactly sure when and then is there going to be a limit on the time for public comment or are you going to take everybody with you know two minute or three minute comments is that if that's the only thing on the agenda I think you can take everybody who wants to speak with some limitation on how long they can speak we could become a town council meeting how much is 283 times two minutes is how much 560 we are getting a lot of written comments both you know you know uh against and and um you know for but okay I think it'll be nice to have CRC I think this is really not you know particularly within our wheelhouse as a planning board to to to look at something like this it seems like more of a town council thing um but we are going to have our hearing on it you will need to make a recommendation to the town council about this because it's warning amendment and it's good to find out about it a little ahead of time so you can think about it and then when you read something in the newspaper or you see a comment that comes via email you'll understand what's being talked about and you know you can form your own opinions any other discussion on this topic good all right so um let's move on to topics not reasonably anticipated 48 hours prior to the meeting for new business no topics great for may subdivision applications we have one but we're not presenting it to you tonight Pam has been dealing with it and we'll bring it to you at your next meeting very good uh becoming zba applications I'm nothing new that I'm aware of all right I'm cutting SVP SB RS UB applications I think you know about them oh well actually you don't um there is you know about the 11 East Pleasant project but there's a new project at the Emily Dickinson museum they're proposing to install some mechanical equipment behind the barn and so they're going to be coming to you with um information about that it involves erecting walls to screen off the mechanical equipment so that it's you know doesn't impinge upon their landscape and there may be a few other things associated with that so we just received that today and um there may be a couple of other things out there in the wings that we haven't received yet okay and uh I don't really want to go through all the committees because we just you know went through this last week uh unless anybody wants to raise their hand with new information okay uh reported the chair uh I have nothing but I look forward with the warm of weather that we can get together in some fashion uh and and uh as the the planning board used to do back you know pre pandemic um report of staff I would like to announce that we are not having a planning board meeting next week and I think that's reason for celebration all right okay I will have to delete that on my calendar and that's the 28th okay very good okay so um I think we adjourn thank you everybody thank you have a good evening bye