 Welcome to the Wednesday, February 6th 2019 meeting of the Amherst Planning Board First item on our agenda is minutes. I don't believe we have minutes to review today. Chris. That is correct We do not have minutes tonight. Okay. Thank you And this is our new item on our agenda a public comment period This is for any items which do not otherwise appear on the agenda if any public would like to comment on such items Now is the time All right, I see no public comments under this item We'll move on then to item 3 planning and zoning zoning subcommittee report The zoning subcommittee has not met since our last planning board meeting. So we do not have an update Is there any public comments on planning and zoning issues? And are there any other planning and zoning issues? The zoning subcommittee will next meet on February 20th before the planning board meeting on the same date Next item is for old business item a this is SPR 2014 dash 00006 Amherst College Service building 40 Dickinson Street review of vehicular and pedestrian circulation plan as required by condition number six of site plan review decision Welcome Thank you very much I'm Aaron Hayden. I work in the facilities department at Amherst College Really, I have very little to add to what you the material you have in your packet already Basically four years ago or so this board put a couple of requirements on to our project One of them was that we would look at it again Four years hence, which is now so while I haven't anything to add directly I'm here to answer your questions if you have any about it Thank you so much Are there any questions from the board? Chris I Just wanted to note that I did invite Matt Cornell who owns the property Just to the north of this property I let him know that this discussion would be happening tonight and invited him to come and I don't see him in the audience And he did not write back to me that he had questions or concerns. All right. I see no other comments Oh Aaron, could you walk us through the the way the traffic circulates around this? Yes, because it's not really clear from the map that we see yeah circulates is a bit of a broad term North of the the building there's a right of way Which generally we don't use that is for the whiting oil folks to be able to get back to their their terminal So when I don't know how often that is I've actually I've never seen a truck back there I'm not sure they're using the tank anymore, but that's that is why that way remains on the south side of the building that is where our folks come in the morning in park and Some of the trucks well most of the trucks Our service or a start there and so the southern driveway the wider one is where the trucks come and go As they're going across College Street to service the campus Really, that's that is the circulation This is not connected to the parking lot on the corner at all is it there's a What's not shown on the plan is a an informal? Graveled path between the parking lot and the the parking I mean look to see what I sent. Oh, I'm sorry. So the I sent a drawing the one label January 2019. Yes, exactly You can see there's a sort of a white Piece that connects the two parking lots. That's an informal gravel path mostly that's used by the the I'd we call them gators there they're not they're made by all kinds of different companies But they're the small utility vehicles their four-wheel off-road vehicles that We use to plow our sidewalks and to carry the sand for the custodians The that's the only thing that that's used for is road for vehicles which are not Licensed to go on the road so in order for those gators to get from Forty Dickinson Street to the campus they're allowed to cross the road of course but not not to travel on any great distance So that's kind of a back way for them to go So I don't see any issues with the plan myself. I do have some questions I believe mr. Hayden you mentioned that it had the condition was four years from the issue. I don't remember the time exactly Right, so it's been four years. So I'm guessing that's about the bottom time I believe so the condition says three years and number seven condition number seven also says three years and that would be Asking the applicant to submit a landscape plan to this board and if I go by the filing date of the record of decision It's actually been five years. So I'm just curious what might have prompted this Submission and also if we did in fact receive the submission mentioned under condition seven that in three years If the use of the property does not change the applicant shall submit a landscape plan to this board for review and approval the I don't know I The reason I'm here is that this breast strip gave us gave the office a call and said by the way This needs to be done and that task fell to me to do and the only Landscaping that has been done is the green space that you see here The so one of the things that has changed that is different now than then is that the Dickinson Street has been repaved and as part of the repaving you know this this landscaping was changed and made this way and The road was narrowed and the sidewalk widened and some other things like that So this is I'm going to I'm going to offer this as our landscaping plan The green stuff is where the landscaping is that faces the The road itself so that the big green rectangle there. It's green Great. Thank you for that Chris In your packet you had a letter from Jonathan Tucker and he stated that on March 5th 2014 the planning board did review a lighting plan and a landscape plan and Approved those two and reference was made to conditions eight and nine, but I'm thinking That this landscape plan if nothing is changing may Satisfy the requirement of number seven the landscape plan that was approved back in 2014 that's for your consideration So should I take that to mean that the board will not consider this new submission or revision to the landscape plan the landscape plan was in fact previously Approved and although it was noted as satisfying condition eight you Chris believe it satisfied condition number seven at that time That is for your consideration In the interim three years have passed and if you feel that the landscape plan that was presented back in 2014 is adequate Three years later. I would say that you could approve it as Satisfying the condition seven Approved the prior landscape plan. Yes, that's correct. Thank you All right any further comments or questions from the board on this If there are not I'd entertain a motion to approve the vehicular and pedestrian plan as submitted So moved. Thank you. I'm mr. Bert whistle moved and Scream all in seconded Motion has been made in seconded. Is there any further discussion? If not all in favor And that's unanimous. Thanks so much. Thank you very much and good luck. Thank you So we'll now move on to old business item 4b topics not reasonably anticipated 48 hours prior to the meeting No topics new business item 5a planning board rules and regulations review and update to bring in the compliance with Amherst home rule chart or another issues schedule public hearing So this is an item we had discussed Previously acknowledging that in the planning board rules and regulations. There are some Passages which should be updated to bring them into compliance with our new charter and we need to Schedule a public hearing to do so the planning board can make those amendments at public hearings with a majority vote Chris did you have some dates in mind or any further information on this issue? I? Was thinking that you may want to discuss the rules and regs now at this meeting and Tell me about things that you might want to include in a In the rules and regs once they're revised miss gray mullin did submit some ideas for adding things to the rules and regs and then after You all come up with your ideas for adding things I would come up with another draft and then perhaps at that point we would talk about Scheduling a meeting and I'm thinking maybe late March or early April might be an appropriate time to do that and So the documents in our packets today represents a staff draft of language that should address any Issues of conflict with the new charter That's correct. It seems reasonable to me to schedule a hearing on this at our second meeting in March Are there any member questions or comments now on what language we might include in the amendments? Our Miss best rep suggested that this grand mullen had some suggestions Can we hear those or how should we approach discussing them? Chris there was an email in your packet from miss gray mullen, which I included and she mentioned the possibility of including more information about screening fencing of parking Location of dumpsters and HVAC units and particularly ground-mounted HVAC units She wondered if we wanted to include reference to those in our Requirements for submittals for site plan review Christine I also mentioned that design Review board said appointment of three years and I was just pointing out that some of the planning board appointments Aren't even that long so maybe two years would be better and I didn't write this down But I just noticed this under meetings. It says that we will meet on the first and third Wednesday It doesn't actually say the third like we always sort of assume the third. It says more meetings is deemed necessary But so I didn't know that's I guess another thing whether we want to add the third week if it's there Chris Would that be the fifth Wednesday? Could we could add that with reference to the design review board? That would have to be a zoning amendment if you wanted to change the number of years that the design review board is Appointed for it wouldn't be in the planning board rules and regs because they really don't They don't operate under the same rules and regs that the planning board operates under Did you find something in the rules and regs that referred to the design review boards term? I thought it was referring to just the planning board appointment To the DRB not anything to do with their membership just I Think the point Chris may be making is that so I think you're right Christine That that could be seen as falling under section five of the rules and regs planning board appointments But if I'm not mistaken the composition and length of terms of the DRB members It's also mentioned in the zoning by-law and so that's the change we would have to make Christine so The the our rep to the DRB is actually a member because sometimes They're not a member to some of our appointments So far other appointments to other bodies you mean that's that's correct So I guess that's what makes the difference that you're actually a member of the DRB when you come from us Is that worth it? So we have to apply to their rules That's somewhat the point. It's not so much of their rules per se is that the length of the of the appointments is specified in the zoning by-law Which we can't make a change to by a simple majority vote of our own like we can with the planning board rules and regulations Other appointments may not have their term length specified in the zoning by-law So do we know looking at our liaison and committees? Are there any others that are like the DRB or is the DRB the only one? Like them in that their term lengths are specified in the zoning by-law Chris the representative to PVPC is appointed for one year And others are appointed to fill particular terms for instance if someone Resigns then you might nominate somebody to be appointed to fill the term of somebody who had resigned So I would say it sort of varies depending on which group you're talking about Sorry, so on the DRB if someone like it's Michael, right now Let's just say Michael has only two year appointment on planning board But he gets a three-year appointment on the DRB. So if he leaves here does he stay on the DRB? I guess that's what I'm asking Chris I think that has not been dealt with in writing and it's probably something that would be dealt with once that Occasion arises Michael I think the DI may be mistaken, but my assumption is that the DRB Appointment from the planning board need not be a member of the planning board. It can be anyone in which case the three-year appointment of the DRB would apply whether or not someone is continues to be on the planning board Chris that is correct in the past you have Nominated someone who was not a member of the planning board and that I believe that's outlined in the zoning by-law that you may do that So that may Solve the riddle that miss Graham Mullen is bringing before us Christine so let's just express it here. So let's say that did happen Michael left planning board that stayed on the DRB then does the planning board not have a representative for The rest of that time on the DRB or does another member get at it or we just don't have one Well, I think what Chris was just saying was that our appointee need not be a member of the planning board So that if our Appointed member of the DRB should cease to be a planning board member. There's no inherent conflict there They simply are a DRB member and not a planning board member as I understand it So they come back and report to us still is that because that's the whole point that we know what they're doing and we're getting a report, right? As I understand it. Yes Chris So usually when things like this come up, which we don't have a clear answer to the planning department consults with the town manager and Figures out a solution and often Consults the town attorney If it's if it's not really clear which direction we should go so I would say that's probably what would happen and Then we would bring it to you for explanation or questions and concerns okay other Comments questions suggestions some rules and regs. Yes, David Can we look at the voting requirements section? And just make sure that at least I understand it because it seems a little and I'm tired so I may just be confusing myself What section number oh, it's on page 14 section section section to yes under article 4 on page 14 second to last page page 14 sorry Chris for the special I'm just I'm just My I'm spinning my head is going in circles here And so I just want to see if it makes sense the for the vote The concurring vote of at least two-thirds of the full membership of the board shall be required for any decision on a special permit application In the case of the seven-member planning board two-thirds of the full membership shall be construed to be five members So for a special permit to be approved five of seven members must say yes However, what if one or more members of the board are not present and are not able to vote? Then what does that mean? How many votes are needed for approval of a special permit when there are not when there is not a seven person? Michael then Jack. Yeah, I think the full membership applies and that's why five of the seven is required So regardless of how many members are at the public hearing five is the is the Minimum is the minimum number that that's my understanding of the way that's written. Yes Jack, did you have a comment? Oh? I do I do What about the provision where you watch the the the meeting So the mullen rule would allow a member who had not been present for the first Public session of the public hearing to vote, but it wouldn't change as I think David is asking the voting requirement of five members voting in the affirmative affirmative for the passage of a special permit Both One and two have that paragraph only members who were intent and attendance at the public hearing Is that clear enough that that I forget the name of the the mullen rule mullen? So you mean because there's no reference in these sections to that rule that was later adopted correct Is so is this still accurate considering that we have the mullen rule in effect? I think it could be clearer. We could insert some reference to the mullen rule here Chris had something to say and so the MGL 39 section 23d is the mullen rule it does describe I see with the voting Allowance is and that you can take advantage of that by you know writing out that you have reviewed the material Thanks for that clarification David that answer your question on voting requirements Perhaps, but I still don't understand then the set the next paragraph So I take your point Michael and that makes perfect sense that no matter what it's the full membership That is the number and so five is an absolute number for a site But then the next sentence the next paragraph only members who are in attendance at the public hearing may vote You know and then if you're warrant in attendance, but you observe the requirements of the mullen rule You're you're allowed to be you're deemed in attendance. Okay, that's fine, but but in a situation in which An absent member does not adhere to or more than one absent member does not adhere to the mullen rule Exception or Five is still the number Chris You have to be present to vote Does that help to explain it you can miss one session, but you have to be present to vote In other words, you can't vote by phone on the melon on using the mullen rule I'm not that's not that's not a confusion. I think it's just my confusion and I'm ready to Sort of live with that I suppose you know, I can understand where your thought is coming from or concern for instance if we were to be short a member Full membership of the board So say we had six members in that case The voting requirement would change or is full membership meant to mean the full potential membership Chris in the past The rule was that you had to have two-thirds vote but in no less than six So when you had a nine-member board two-thirds was six and That that was it right so that is a parallel situation to this Two-thirds of nine is six two-thirds of seven is five if you round up So you have to have five members voting in the affirmative to approve a special permit Michael I would like to suggest that The requirements under B site plan review Revert to the original two-thirds Instead of changing it to majority as that we have presented to us But retain the not fewer than four as opposed to the not fewer than five and add at the end of that three-line sentence the same Three two-line sentence that ends the special permit that is to say in the case of seven-member planning board two-thirds of the four-member membership Shall be cons construed to be five members I think the Requirements for Softening the requirements for site plan review as opposed to the special permit requirements Is inappropriate given the fact that we're now a smaller board and I would prefer to see A two-thirds majority of of us all when we're all here as five and if fewer than Seven are here in voting then If there are only six that would that would be a high bar to Take if we if a five with a little bit with the minimum, so I'm willing to go with four I would I think I would prefer five, but I'm willing to go with four as long as we replace two-thirds We place majority with two-thirds and then add that second sentence in special permit one to the Sentence in into this first sentence in To site plan review. Is that clear what I'm suggesting? I Think maybe not It's clear, but I think one of the reasons that the number is lower is because the Denominator in this case is the members of the board participating in voting as opposed to in the special permit application It's the full membership of the board well if If all seven members of the board are participating a majority means that four members of the board can decide and I would suggest that five members of the board deciding Is a more appropriate number to decide on a site plan review? Christine Can I ask her? Why did it get changed from two-thirds to majority? This one is confusing to me and that's why I put the note the section needs review by the town attorney the way This section needs review by the town attorneys. This section is confusing to me So I I know that in the past we have said there has to be a two-thirds vote and no less than five For a nine member board So if we have no less than five for a nine member board I was thinking well we should have no less than four for a seven member board and Then I wasn't really sure what to do about the two-thirds or the majority so the majority is offered to you as a as a Way to deal with this, but if you disagree with that you can go back to two-thirds So it's really up to you. This is your rules and regulations you you decide, but I think we do need some input from the town attorney Michael Do we still need input from the town attorney if we remain with the two-thirds as the number? Chris I'm going to ask the town attorney to review this anyway once we come up with a draft that you all are comfortable with So yes, either way. I think that we're going to go back to the town attorney and have him look at this So Chris is that to say when you're suggesting that once there's a draft that we are all okay with you'll pass it on to the town attorney that are you suggesting that we Have another session of reviewing this prior to the public hearing being held or are you talking about the work? We do at the public hearing Yes, I think you want a clean document before you go to a public hearing so You know if you're going to make changes tonight That would be added to the draft and then if once we come up with a draft that everybody is happy with I would send that to the town attorney and then you would bring that draft to the public hearing because I think you Don't want to be having a discussion about things that you're not really comfortable with or sure of In a public hearing you want to hear from the public, but you want to be pretty clear on what what it is you're proposing Christine So on the site plan review we had it previously said two-thirds, but we always used five It says majority So sorry the original one said can concurring vote of at least two-thirds, but not fewer than four Not fewer than five. That was the original language That's which is not two-thirds. I'm just asking so there must have been an interpretation before from something else that it ended up that way But that's why I'm at Chris so I'm not really sure what the origin of that was I wasn't here when that language was put into the rules and regulations But that's what the previous language did say no fewer than five Christine I Would appreciate if you could you know dig out the stories or try to find out how that came about and ask legal counsel and If this comes from some kind of planning board Standards other comments questions on this Jack Are we done with that? Anything further on the voting requirement? I Would like the planning board to we're all here all seven of us and to give Ms. Grestrup some Sense of what the board feels like about whether we want a majority or a two-thirds Plurality on site plan review. I'm I'm quite Adamant not a atom. I'm not in a position to be adamant. I'm I'm firmly convinced that a two-thirds Majority is appropriate for the kind of major decision to site plan review involves and I think we should have that number stated whether it is move to four or five in terms of a Less than a full contingent of the planning board voting. I'm less concerned about that But I think if there are seven of us here, it should be a two-thirds majority, which is to say five rather than a majority Which is to say four and I would hope that we could either Agree that that two-thirds is the appropriate number or majority is the appropriate number and Let Ms. Brestrup know about our feeling about this before she consults with the town attorney Jack I was curious Chris with regard to the ZBA they are now five and what In terms of the permits that they extend what is the situation for the majority versus two-thirds majority? Chris So they don't have something like site plan review they have special permits and variances and Comprehensive permits and appeals from decision of the building commissioner So most of their requirements are for two-thirds But in the case of comprehensive permit it is less than that I'm not exactly sure what it is, but they don't have such a thing as site plan review David I Appreciate Wanting to come to some sort of what I would propose what I would feel more comfortable with For the is to and I don't have them with me now is to have a chance to look at and Think for a moment about what the zoning bylaws say about site plan review and About special permits because it's my sense But I want to confirm that or feel comfortable with that sense that a site plan review has a lower love lower threshold for approval Than a special permit and that makes sense And if that's the case then I would it makes sense to me that there are different require. There's a different Require for approval And I could see great that you're pulling him up, but being Tired and a slow thinker I'm not quite sure if I'm going to be able to sort of I feel more comfortable if perhaps we could Having had this conversation Revisited at the next meeting and then come to sort of a more informed rather than rushed Deliberation on it Christine I Would appreciate hearing the history of how this evolved and or if there's an error or I just I would need more data before Really determining which way I feel Chris The zoning bylaw does state That with the current with the previous makeup of the planning board that the concurring vote of at least two-thirds But not fewer than five members of the board shall be required for any decisions So this would have to be changed if you were to change your Rules and regs this probably has to be changed anyway But I'm not sure if it's one of the things that the bylaw review committee picked up on and I should probably check that So I will check that Sorry is that the site plan of the special permit section of the zoning bylaw Chris? That's the site plan section It's section 11, and I can give you an exact reference Yes, the section number is section 11 point two five zero and we don't happen to have a copy of the amended bylaw or the changes that were in process to the bylaw based on the bylaw review committee's recommendations I Don't have that here, but I could possibly put my fingers on it It's probably better to Wait for the next meeting though rather than having me fumbling around in my office trying to find that I'm sorry. I didn't bring it tonight. It didn't occur to me Okay, so I do agree that we should have that information ready the next time we discuss this Which would be ahead of our public hearing on the issue in late March? Would members like to revisit this issue at our very next planning board meeting? All right, so I think I'm seeing some nods Put down the agenda for the 20th Chris and did you want me to draft something with regard to miss gray Mullins comments on screening HVAC and The other items that she brought up in her email Yes, please and I did have one other item. I wanted to look at which was article 5 on page 15 expedited review Is that something Chris that has been used in your experience? It occurs to me over the past several years There have been a number of cases where the board felt that something didn't Necessarily rise the level of significance that it should have been brought before the board and we have Addressed that in a few zoning changes over the years that give the building commissioners some more Authority to make those types of decisions, but I don't recall Using this section of the planning board rules and regs Chris I Would say we often don't wait the full 65 days that you're given to review something after it is filed The 35-day review period is really an opportunity to give staff and a chance to review applications. So You know, we usually do try to schedule things as early as possible And I would say that we actually probably most of the time are in the ballpark of this expedited review We're not, you know extending the time that we have for For the review period so You know, sometimes you do waive the site visit requirement if you're familiar with the property Sometimes you wave some of the requirements for submission if you don't feel like they're appropriate You do render an opinion on the night of the hearing and on occasion if you have enough information and so You know, I think that in my opinion already you are taking advantage of Expedited review when it's appropriate Thank you All right anything else Jack. I was curious on page three. There's a reduction the number of paper copies and As our review and materials is it is there a template kind of not go entirely paperless, but Something where we're using Like iPads or tablets and things like that is that under consideration Chris So it really doesn't have anything to do with the materials that the planning board sees It's really more of a question of what do we want to have in our office and we used to require that People submit six full-size copies and then we would send them around to the town engineer the fire department the building commissioner, etc And now we're using an electronic transmittal. So we transmit these things to all those Staff members via email so they don't really need the full-size copy anymore Except for the town engineer he often asks for a full-size copy We like to have one in the office because it's easier to read and you all are welcome to come in and look at it If any of you at any point feel like you would like to have a full-size copy as opposed to an 11 by 17 Which is what we usually give you in your packets Please let me know and I can request another copy or as many as you want from the applicants I know sometimes the 11 by 17s are a little hard to read But we just felt like we didn't really want to have all that much paper floating around our office And that we would try to take advantage of electronic trans transmittal as much as possible All right anything else on the rules and rigs Okay, so we'll revisit this at our next meeting Moving on to the next item on our agenda. This is new business 5b PVPC request for comments on the top 10 resolves which we discussed at our last meeting and are included again here Has there been any movement from PVPC or? representatives to that group have any updates on this Jack Christine none Any comments? Not seeing much comment on this so we'll move on to the next item which is topics not reasonably anticipated in our new business None There any for me and our subduers and applications. No for maze upcoming ZBA applications We do have some of those and I'll list them for you I think you know that Hickory Ridge is going before the ZBA. They were planning to Go before the ZBA tomorrow night February 7th, however because of some information that's still missing from their application They've asked to have the hearing open tomorrow night and continue to March 14th So if the ZBA agrees with that then that's what will happen Then we have the herbology group, which is a group that is proposing to sell medical marijuana and marijuana for recreational use at the rafters site on Amity Street and They I believe are coming before the ZBA tomorrow night We also have mass alternative care, which is another marijuana retail and medical establishment and they are Preparing their application and we'll be submitting shortly They're going into 55 University Drive Where the the hangar used to be? So those are the ZBA applications that I know about Thank you Michael clarification on the Hickory Ridge application the entire Discussion of that was postponed until March 14th. Is that correct? Chris That's what the request has been and I understand that the applicant is is not proposing to make a presentation tomorrow night But is hoping that the ZBA will agree to continuing the public hearing to March 14th And I I believe that they will Approve that Jack What was outcome of the conservation Commission the second? hearing with them Chris they're going back to the conservation Commission There are still some outstanding items. I think you know flooding of the of the pathways is one of them the issue of the wildlife The endangered species and the accommodations for them and some other issues, so they're going back to the conservation Commission I'm gonna say in some time in March like perhaps March 13th, but I'm not exactly sure I can find out that information for you So they haven't closed the public hearing with the conservation Commission. All right Are there any upcoming SPP SPR sub applications? Yes, yes, there are we have one application from the Wagner's on Northeast Street they would like to establish a farm stand and one of their barns and Increase the size of the barn They are missing some information in their application. So we've asked them to go back and and look at those things and Submit more information. We have another application from the Emily Dickinson Museum Which recently bought a property on triangle Street right next to the Emily Dickinson Museum property and they're proposing to turn that into Offices for the Emily Dickinson Museum We have Amherst media which has just submitted an application to build their Studio building along with some offices on the two properties along Main Street That are just opposite where elements hot tub tub spot is those two properties that were carved out originally So they are they've submitted their application We haven't given it a hearing date yet and then Amir McChie had come before you last summer to present his project on Southeast Street across from the Cumberland Farms And he's proposing to build a mixed-use building there with 60 I believe it's 62 or 65 apartments and Parking and some retail space down below He's been to the Conservation Commission and been approved by them. So he's kind of refining his Project and will be coming to see you relatively soon. He's also proposing some work in the public way there He's proposing a little plaza right by where the bus stop is and So, you know, there's more to the project than just what's on his site. So it's kind of interesting project And then two other things scenic roads Amir McChie is also proposing to take down some trees in front of his property So he'll be coming to you with the scenic roads public hearing for that And we also have chapter 61 B withdrawal request from the people who own the Hickory Ridge Golf Club And they're going to be coming back to our coming to request To have their property removed from chapter 61 B, which is recreation So I think that's oh, then there's one more thing a sign that's going to come to you for a new restaurant where wings used to be by the big Y Grocery store those are all things that are going to be coming before you Do we expect any of those to be before us at our next meeting No Michael Chris I the according to my calendar the Conservation Commission is meeting about the Hickory Ridge project on the 14th. I'm sorry on the 13th of November is of February is that incorrect now? Chris you're probably correct Michael. I'm sorry that I said March. I think it is February. Well, if they are in fact postponing the Hearing for the ZBA. They may well be postponing the hearing for the concom as well. I don't know Chris I Think Some of the material that they were missing for the ZBA is not relevant to concom But I could be I know that some of the things are relevant to concom So I don't know if the concom is Also going to be continuing their public hearing again. I don't think so I haven't heard that from the staff person for the Conservation Commission But if you'd like me to find that out, I will that's okay I'll keep track of it. All right. Thanks for those updates Next item on our agenda is nine planning board committee and liaison reports PVPC No update. No update. I Wanted to bring up something that mr. Jim sick brought up last time, which is the healthy aging Program that is being promoted by AARP and I had something written down about that They're promoting something called age friendly community designation and several communities in Massachusetts actually tens of communities in Massachusetts Including North Hampton are proposing to apply for this age friendly community designation And it has to do with a lot of different things like programming a Transportation Handicap accessibility, etc. So I do have a document here if you're interested I can send it to you. There are several links. I'm not sure if I sent you the links or not but anyway, it's something that I'm going to be talking to the council on aging about on actually tomorrow morning and Trying to see if they wanted to partner with us with the planning department and the planning board on Examining whether we wanted to be an age-friendly community. My sense is that we probably do I don't know what all the ins and outs are of the application process But it seems like a good a good thing to do a good thing to be Especially given the aging of our population and the fact that we have become somewhat of a magnet for People who are retired. They really find that Amherst is a nice place to move to after they retire I appreciate that I had forgotten but I I was kind of moved by that by the presentation of the gentleman with the Is it healthy healthy aging? It's the healthy aging collaborative and age-friendly community designation But I hope we move forward with it seems like a good thing Would that be something that the planning board need act on or does it require being ratified by some other body in town? To move forward with that designation Chris. I'm not exactly sure what all the ins and outs are I know that you have to get approval from the elected officials But I would think that they would want to hear from the planning board about this process So hopefully the next time we meet I'll have more information on exactly what is involved with the application Process and haven't spoken with the council in aging I'll have a sense of whether they want to partner with the planning board on on this effort Is it something that you think you'd be interested in? I think we absolutely like to hear about the process and what it involves Great. All right. Thanks for that. Next is community preservation Act committee, which like the Ag Commission is vacant pending appointments, I believe Do we expect the council to be acting? It is the council that would act on these nominations? Chris so I was in a meeting with the town manager last week, I think and he was very interested in Making sure that the applications or excuse me the appointments were made to CPAC and so I believe that that will go ahead because the comptroller is Eager to hold the CPAC meetings and get those recommendations underway. I Have a related question for to that and Chris, I'm not sure if you would have the answer, but it's with CPAC and our new form of Government, do they plan to change their cycle? Which in the past had been built around town meeting and making their recommendations at spring town meeting and receiving Fundly funding a month or two after that. All right. Do they plan to keep the same cycle that they've had in place with the new form of government? Chris so there has been some discussion about that about whether they want to keep with the the spring time voting in of the CPAC projects I think for now that's probably the track We're going to be on because the town council is considering budget items this spring and they're Thinking that they will consider zoning items in the fall. At least that's the general trend of things but I think that The topic is still open as to whether that will carry forward into the future or whether CPAC will become more of a You know every month there will be a consideration of some projects So for right now, yes, they're keeping with the spring Term, but it may change in the future Thank you right design review board We have the design review board has not met since I last reported its activities to the planning board Okay, the same is true of the affordable housing trust and the zoning subcommittee and UTAC Christine Downtown parking working group has met and actually it was announced the town announced they had hired rehired Nelson I guard to Do parking study work and they've started and last week they held some stakeholder Meetings and they'll be public meetings coming And that's all for now. I did have a question on that I believe I read in the Gazette or an online publication that Specifically included in the scope of that consultant's work was assessing the need or feasibility for a new parking structure Is that the case? That will be part of their, you know generals about how much it would cost and sort of like If you're considering What you'd need to do a feasibility study like what areas could it happen about how much is the industry standard right now That kind of thing so they're trying to do an awful lot of work on of course a small budget, but that is part of it Great. Thanks for that Report of the chair no report part of staff. I don't have a report. Okay, then we'll be adjourned. Thanks everyone