 So everyone has had a chance to review the minutes of the run during the November 7th, I want you to turn the motion on those minutes. We will approve the minutes. Second. Motion is moved and seconded in favor of the discussion. Do not all in favor. All opposed. And all abstain. So that passes with one abstention. The next item on our agenda is the 705. I'm here. Thank you. Thank you, our chef. We'll just move down our agenda for a second. Do we have any focus under item six? All business topics not reasonably anticipated? No, all business topics. Thank you. Do we have any new business items on topic we reasonably anticipated and better than 705? No, we really need business items. Here. We'll move down to the planning board community. We're going to see back vacants. We can discuss that in the later item on our agenda about officers and committee assignments. Yes. Mr. Burt Wistel has volunteered to be the see back representative and the board nominated him to bring the new program on the agenda. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. No comment. Okay. So you have a pending appointment there. We'll be here. I had a commission. That's for survivors no longer with us on the board unfortunately. So I know before they were designing a new board. No current board. Thank you. Housing trust. Similarly, no report. We will be meeting tomorrow. I think it's close enough to 705 now, and we're going to get started with our public team. Do we have a free handle? I'm so sorry. I didn't have a free handle. Oh, no problem. In accordance with section or... In accordance with the relevant section of the annuals by-law, as you can hear, it's been held. It's a joint bearing with the tree wording, and this is on the topic of trees no longer providing screening. In accordance with the relevant section of the annuals by-law, as you can hear, it's been held. It's a joint bearing with the tree wording, and this is on the topic of trees no longer providing screening due to losses of lower branches. In accordance with the tree, it's been known on utility wires, and some trees are leaning. 194 Strong Street, which is a map of 11V, parcel 107, and the public tree is impacted by this project following approximately 16 to 18-hour writing in the clumps slash heads down. So, typically, we get a summary report from the tree warden of the project, and then we'll talk a little bit about the site visit. And I was contacted by the property owner who wished to move from this full row of arborvide so that they could plant new arborvide on their property that would provide the screening that they desire. These trees as stated have lost their lower branches, and they're just starting to walk into the utility wires. I don't have much more to say about that, but we did have a site visit today with the public tree committee. They didn't have enough numbers there to have them revoked. But there are members of the committee here who could discuss what they saw. Okay, thank you. So, first I'd like to staff and your planning board members who are present at the site visit for any comments about that site visit. And then we'll turn it over to Shane in 15 minutes. There were four members of the planning board. Ms. Gray-Mullen, Mr. Gemsick, Mr. Burtwistle, and Mr. Levinstein. Well, we observed the trees in question and the house that is behind them. They are indeed spindly and growing taller and growing into the wires. They do not particularly screen the house since the lower branches of all were dropped off and taken off from one another. Behind them, there was a significant amount of tree removal that had been completed on the owner's property as opposed to on the town right away. So the house is now much more open than before. The tree removal seems to be a reasonable extension of the landscape and the plans that appear to be in process. Thank you very much. Anyone from the shade tree community that would like to speak? Any comments from the shade tree community? Any comments from the planning board? No. Is there comments from the public on this matter? Any comments from the tree warden? I would say that I have obviously looked at these trees every time. I agree with the property owner as tree warden. I would mind seeing these trees out of the public way. They eventually grow into the public way or as everybody do, they kind of split and fall apart. So if the property owner wants to plant these similar trees when their property gets further away from the way away, it's a win-win for the town. Thank you very much for this point. Christine. Can we have a motion to... I don't know. Let's choose. All those made. And seconded. Do we have a further discussion? I think we had a motion. To that we approve the normal pull-up of trees. Do we close the public hearing also? Yeah, close the public hearing. Thank you. Okay. Further discussion? Yes. I have a question for the tree warden. Will the property be just planted by the town or by the previous owner? They were planted by the previous owner. On-town property. Any further discussion? No. In favor? Yes. I'll call the tree warden. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. The same tree committee. Excuse me. I really appreciate... We seem to have with some regularity a scenic road by way issue that come up in the years. And we always get very helpfully the memo from previous planning board, planning director, and copies of the... I would request that we save these in our files and that we don't always reproduce them to save that much paper and toner or whatever. A little ironic. Yeah. So I'll make that a fact that I'll be... That's not undoing burdensome. Or... That being, Chris and the new system can bring a folder that has like seven copies and they're like, I can give mine back to the end of this and then you guys can just have it in the back of the screen. Okay. SPR 2019-01. SPP OMP-01. And in accordance with master system of law, check of 4-8 and some of the bearings will be advertised. And notice I've been posting in the town a sense for butters. The bearings are being held to provide the opportunity for the citizens to be informed of that in the comment on the recording site plan. And then SPR 2019-01. SPP 2019-01. Grayspeed LLC. We have 236 in our pleasant and 12 palace street. The joint public hearing is to request such plans as the approval for construction of the office building. Two lots to be combined is provided by the left side to accommodate the new building and renewals previously in order to modify dimensional requirements. In the front setback, 0 feet versus 20 feet. In the side setback, 10 feet versus 20 feet. Maximum floors, 4 feet versus 3 feet. And maximum height, 45 feet versus 35 feet. Located in Appalachian Sea, 227 and 228. There are VL zoning districts. Are there any board members or others? Cap. I recuse myself during the original hearing because I have a relationship with them. I don't know about their proponents and they like to have no such relationship. I just wanted to bring it to you. Okay, thank you very much. Any other board members for this? If not, we move on to the applicant's presentation. The applicant present. Can we stand? Yes. This is the new cell, I think. If the applicant could position himself somewhere within the scope of the camera behind you, perhaps I'll have to on the side while you make the presentation. This is the free chair. Yes. So, my name is John Kuhn. I'm the Kuhn of the Walk of Texting Analyst. I'm here with Barry Roberts, Kurt Shumway, and Tom Reedy out in the hallway. We were before you two years ago for a special permit site plan review for a new office building on the corner of Halle Street and Pleasant Street. That was a two-year permit. Nothing has happened there, so we are looking to renew the special permit and I guess that entails another site plan review as well. I'm not sure we had our site visit today with several of the members of the planning board, and I thought what we would do is just do a quick review of the application and then if you have any specific questions, we can get into the details. I'm not sure who's... It's time to find that presentation right now. I expected it would come up on a removable drive here, but I didn't see it. So, everybody has a copy of it on their desk. We could just look at the copies. That's too bad. It has a lot of slides that aren't even for you, Kent. Sorry, we had to use this room. Let's see if that works now. Oh, there you go. Okay. There we are. I should say planning board presentations or something. Yeah, the upper one. More presentations. Do you want to take this... Will it work from here? Yeah. Should we turn the lights down or is that good enough? No, this is okay. Well, you're looking at a map of the downtown and the speed and the advance. This is the way. Let's go on the bottom. Oh, yeah, okay. I'm okay. You want to switch these? Oh, sure. So, those are the two parcels of land. The one on the right is owned by Barry Roberts. The one on the left is owned by Kurt Shumway. We did go through a review of the historical commission at the time. It had a one-year demolition delay, which was up well over a year ago. It's in the limited business zone. There are three limited business zones as you are. We're in town here. We went up on trying to speak to alumnus at the same level and this one, which extends from Colesley and up just past Clown. Keeps clicking, slipping out of here. That's the general business zone. The point of showing that is just that this, especially the southern section of that limited business zone is really contiguous to the downtown in many ways as part of the downtown. Under you? Yeah, just the page you have. Oh, yeah, okay. No, just down, yeah. Check page. It's not the best. Yes. The professors know these things. You know where you can go. I should also point out that this is in the municipal parking zone, which is the black line there. So while parking is not required for this project because of the municipal parking zone, there is parking for circumstances included with this application. The dimensional regulations are important here because they're really the driver of this building. You are required to have 20,000 square feet if you're doing residential. The four boxes in gold are all modifiable through footnote A. So the coverages there are modifiable, sorry, not the coverages, but the height and the setbacks are modifiable. The coverage of 35%, and in this case it's 85% because it's adjacent to a residential zone, are not modifiable. So these parcels are, when they're combined, are just over 15,000 square feet. It's a relatively small parcel. So to cover just 35% of that, you really have a maximum footprint of about 5,000 square feet. These are hard to see here, but the point of this slide is to show you that in this particular zone, none of the parcels meet the setback requirements. So I think you have a zone here in the future that really needs to be looked at, but it certainly was a factor that played into how this building was designed, where it's located on the site. So our parcel, the two parcels put together are just over 15,000 square feet. We pushed the building towards the east end of the site and used the west end of the site for parking. We're sitting the building back about 13 feet from the front. There's really two front setbacks here because we're front-hallock and we're pleasant street. On the north side, we're setting the building back four feet. So that's one of the setbacks that we're modifying. On the east side, we're setting it back approximately 13 feet. So it's somewhat in line with the other adjacent structures. Most of the structures there, along that side of the north pleasant street, are closer to the setback than zoning allows. The side yard setback, which would be on the south, is 25 feet, and we are doing a setback of 10 feet. Because of our being limited in terms of our footprint, we pushed the building as far to the east end of the lot as we could and provided space for 14 parking spaces, which are accessible off a new curb cut on our hallowed street. Can you go back one slide for a moment, please? Yes. Any particular question? No, I just wanted to see the setbacks and relationships at the adjacent building. Yeah, you can refer to that and that's talking to this spot. There's new plantings. We can go into all the details and lighting. All that is part of the package that was submitted a couple of years ago. I won't get into the details of that unless you are interested in that. This is just highlighting the differences in terms of what's required and what has been proposed here. Our coverage will be about 79%, our lot coverage, and our building coverage is just under 35% at 32.9%. Floor plans are pretty much identical up through the building. We clustered all the circulation in bathrooms and elevators along the south side of the building to create as much surface area on the east and north sides and south and west sides as possible. The building is a combination of materials. It's got a brick base and a brick tower. And then the siding is two shades of their clavards, but they're two different colors and probably different sizes. Double hung windows. So we're using materials that are similar to the surrounding residential area, but also trying to up the scale somewhat because we really are downtown. And of course, at the time we made this application, the building across the street, which is now there, it was just a design at that point. Now it's back there and a five-story building. This is four, of course. The limitation on the height, which is the other requirement that it comes with a special permit, is what's allowed is three stories and 35 feet. We're allowed through a special permit to build four stories, but the height that you can increase is limited to 10 feet. So 45 feet is the maximum height allowed except for things like towers and poop lists. So the tower is three feet higher. And that's allowed because it's not occupied space up there. But we did it really to sort of anchor the corner. The idea is the first floor would be commercial tenant, maybe not looking to do a restaurant or a bar, but it could be some kind of coffee shop or something like that. It could be travel agency, any kind of retail space. And then the upper floors are looking to be commercial office space. That gives you a general sense of the scale to the adjacent building, which is also on my back, Mr. Chen Wei. This is the north elevation facing Halak Street. The west elevation facing the parking lot. And then the south elevation. This is a street view looking up the opposite street. The building is set back about the same, set back as the other adjacent buildings and creating sort of an outdoor space. If there were a coffee shop, there'd be a great place for tables. This is just a 3D image that gives you a sense of the building as it sits in downtown and also adjacent to the across the street from One East Pleasant Street. That was just there to give you a sense of, there are other four-story buildings that are not in the general business zone, the Ferry House being one of them. Four-story residential building. That's the street from the library. This gives you a sense of the scale of this building next to One East Pleasant Street, not creating a gateway as you come into town from the north. And that's the view from the south looking north. I think we use other slides about something else. So that's the quick overview. I'm happy to answer any questions about what we're really looking for here as a renewal of this for two more years that you would agree with that. Great, thanks for that information. Much appreciated. Just want to clarify. Well, one is a clarification. There's no change to the proposal since the last submission. And the second is just a point of information for those that might not be familiar. Now, you mentioned that there's some issues with this zoning district that all of the vast majority of the surrounding parcels and nonconforming zoning regulations there and you showed the setbacks. Just out of curiosity, there's no residential units proposed in this building. How many residential units under current zoning could be in that building under current zoning? Zero. In fact, Mr. Shumway's parcel, which is to the west, his parcel is here. There's a two-story wood frame building there now that has, I think, four one-bedroom apartments that couldn't be built today. If you combine those two lots, that's 15,000 square feet. In fact, most of these parcels, you couldn't even build a single family house. So I do urge, I know this is a little off topic, but I really urge the planning board to look at this, at least this part of the limited business zone. Perhaps it has to be tweaked to be somewhat different from the others. But housing should be allowed here without having to have a half acre to build one apartment. And in fact, many of these parcels don't comply with the setbacks, but they also don't comply with the housing portion. There's lots of housing units that wouldn't be allowed in the zoning of that kind of thing. Great, thank you for that. So the next item here, we're going to do a report on the site visit. I don't believe we have a written report, so any board members that were present in the site visit care to report on their visit today? There were four of us the same four that went to the previous site visits of myself, Jack, David, and Michael were there. It was the two existing buildings were there. We walked the site. We looked at property lines and were set back to be. We were shown approximately where the building outline would be and where the parking lot would be and where the new, the curb cut would be made for the driveway. And I can't think, if there weren't any big issues, just some questions, questions, and any other questions. We'll move on now to general questions from the board. Yes. Yes, there'll be multiple. We'll have this first opportunity for questions and then a second for questions and comments. Michael? Yeah, I have some questions. It would be helpful if Mr. Robertson, Mr. Shemway were here to answer anything as opposed to who they are here and if any other interrupts come in. Do you just want to come in? It's possible that either of both of you will be able to join us at the sides of the room so the camera can record any questions. Good. Thank you so much. Have a seat. Right here. That's perfect. Thank you. When we discussed this project two years ago, the plan at that point was to lease two floors of the building entirely to one tenant and the objective was to build a building with a clear fan space within the floors so that the proposed tenant could suit themselves within those two floors. Apparently that did not materialize that tenant did not satisfy his obligation in terms of rent. Now we're back to reviewing this project again two years later and there appears not to be from our conversation there appears not to be a tenant involved. In fact if I heard you correctly this afternoon you are not really planning to build a building until you have tenants available that you are confident will be able to carry the weight and that proposed tenancy is not available at this point so that am I correct in assuming that you do not plan to build the building right now? That is correct. Right now we would love to build the building right now. Right. We're not going to build it on spec. So why then is it necessary to approve this plan if you in fact have no plans to build to start building right away? That's one question. The second question has to do with this is not so much a question it was a sustainment at this point with the notion of repairing or adjusting the zone requirements for the new business history. It seems that all concerned suggest that those regulations ought to be modified in some significant way or in some way in some way. My concern is in attempting to approve this building which I find to be very attractive actually it's quite a good looking building and I think it would be an asset to that part of town if it were built the way it's proposed. I'm wondering if it would be better to wait until the LB district is dealt with in some way either by proposal from this body to the town council or by the town council itself. It seems to me we're putting the cart before the forcing perhaps what not to have been approved in the first place that's another matter but at this point since there seems to be no real impetus to build the building right now I think it might be smarter to wait until there is a reason to build the building or that the zone has changed at which point the owners of the property might prefer to build another kind of building a residential building perhaps if that were possible under the new zone that might or might not occur I think we're just there are too many balls in the air here I think we're asking to put the wrong put the cart before the force I think and that's a suggestion that I'd love to hear the board's responses to whether we should in fact deal with the LB district first and deal with this proposal at some later date. Questions from the board? If I may I think that our interest in building a building is without question we currently had have approval to build the office building which we'd like to do it's nearly impossible to market the building for commercial use if we don't have approval because timing was a big part of it before as well I'm not sure if it was the owner of the issue but it was a part of the end of the delay and we don't know to not allow us to do this means we sort of wasted what we've done which is a lot and we have no guarantees that this next opportunity may even become available to us so we make very well tomorrow we get a phone call where we get a very significant tenant that's just the way this market works it's not a high demand market but when that angel tenant person comes in that tenant comes in we'll go immediately because most people aren't planning 2 years out they're planning a year maybe 16 months so we take 3 or 4 months to negotiate the terms of the tenancies we break ground and go so to not have approval to come back at another time it's effectively just shutting it down and to do that would be a shame because you've done a lot of work and you like building and others do as well but with no guarantee it was the only change there could possibly be nothing so we would like to proceed and try to get a great tenant for this building if that continues to not go well and the other opportunity is available to us then we have that opportunity at that time but to not give the approval means we just have nothing that wasted everything that doesn't seem to be fair or the right the most effective way to take advantage of whatever opportunity is available if someone does come available for commercial we're ready to go if not and it happens to become a residential opportunity we're ready to go with approvals and modifications and such either way we're ready to go but to take some of that option in a way I think would be a mistake if I could just add by letting this slide and losing the commercial permit that means for instance going back to the historical commission and perhaps facing another demolition delay of the year as we did before so there could be a phone call tomorrow and I think this is a great opportunity to for some office space downtown most of the office space in town is very small and it's unfortunate that the tenant that was going to move in here was going to take about 10,000 square feet of room for the town so the opportunity is still there and by having the special permit in hand if the tenant does come along we can jump on this quickly if we don't have a special permit we're starting all over again it could take another year to get back to the starting point Maria, I have a comment and then Jack and then David I was going to say I hear your point Michael a very good point about we don't want to miss a future opportunity we've been talking in the zoning subcommittee about the new genes with town council and how we do want to look out all of downtown and think through ways we can improve the zoning maybe the form-based zoning so we are thinking about re-looking at this very sort of contentious area of our downtown how we can fix certain zones so that's a process and we are definitely just don't know how the council I would worry that even though it does seem like there could be future things that are possible to be more residential changing the zoning right now we know we want to head that way but it's a very careful and slow process we all know but I do hear your point about we might be missing a future opportunity but at the same time we are coming in a very careful and sort of public way where everyone is involved but we are definitely headed that way Jack? I was just thinking that the design seems pretty solid for that location given the presence of the development across the street but I guess an anticipation of what the BL could become if this building couldn't fit into that we'd be able to do something wrong again in my opinion so I'm good with what has been presented but I do have a question if you have a tenant obviously they may have they may want something done to clear purposes of that in this situation it's as internally some alternative design for use of the space but that you would anticipate that the exterior would change based on that annual tenant coming in and to clarify the idea they'd have to come back to it if there were any changes that were like that would we come back here most of the time it's not a lot of these windows and we put walls up into blackout walls and they don't fall right things like that but we try not to have any one tenant control the whole building some of them might come in and take the entire building over and there were some whatever interesting and they wanted some different looked in would we come here and go through the process My question really this is a renewal of a previously approved site plan or a special permit I had a couple of questions I think they would fall from that because I wasn't around but has anything what has changed in the context from 2016 to 2018 and I can think of a few things it was perspective tenant that didn't happen the building across the street was built that sort of gives a different perspective and makes it a little more concrete the gateway aspect that you're talking about and this is not necessarily just to you the proponents but has anything else changed from 2016 to 2018 that's relevant in anyone's mind in your minds besides those two big things industry as you go on I would also say exploration of the demolition delay as well so there was a delay you put on in that expired beginning of 2017 then my so I'm assuming then that the same conditions from the original decision will apply for this decision as well that's the board decision to me that's the board decision to me and then I would have a question about the conditions or a question are there any kind of sustainability features that you imagine for the design or the that's what I jot down this afternoon I'm not sure if that's the right term but features that would make this more a sustainable feature for instance there's a biker application that's to be determined and another for instance that occurs to me is if you are intending to put in parking spaces are there any of those parking spaces would be for electric cars electric charging stations those sorts of things I don't know that we do need to add a bike rack I think that was noted at the last time and we have not talked about having a charging station in the parking lot but that could very well happen by the time this development there's a lot more detail that has to be developed once this becomes a real reality but no more detail that would need to come back to the border I don't think so so this is our chance at that any further conditions I don't think there's anything that would require us to come back signage I think would be handled through design and capability I think the short answer to the game is if something arose playing staff building inspector would notify us that there was something that rose to that level on how to fire an RFU did that answer all your questions I think so a little I would like to suggest putting in a charging station for two of these parking spots so I want to raise an issue that was my concern a long time ago when we did this and I want to go over it again and discuss it one more time I do have a lot of sympathy for having a commercial building downtown I think that in a way it might add diversity to the possibility of inhabiting the space in a very different way and I also understand that setting myself in your shoes there's of course interest in being able to use the maximum number of square footage but I also think that the good architect that you are you could address the issue that regardless of how tall the building is across the street this building is way too tall and even if you are keeping it as tall as you are I could imagine that you could probably move the last floor further back or do something to mediate the fact that this building once built will be the tallest building in that corner and then that side of the street and I wish that there would be more people who would pick up that issue two years ago or whenever we approve this but since this seems to have different ways and we reconsidered I would really urge you to do that regardless of whether other people approve the system in and out because I think it's an issue that at least I have been constantly thinking about since we saw this project and to my view the fact that there's a taller building and that the street does not address how tall this is going to be in relation to the rest of the building so I think that you could address this architecturally and try to solve it with a different way and I don't think that just changing the color around the elevation will do it Going along with the public eye said when the design of the board met two years ago about this issue it was not unanimous about its recommendation to the planning board as you may recall and one of the issues was the height of the building it was some disagreement among members of the design of the board about this very issue some felt that the building was too tall some felt that that was not the case I agree with that the building is larger than it needs to be given the scale of that particular part of town I'm particularly concerned with the relationship to the building just to the south of it it appears very close to that building particularly to be viewed from places like the platform in front of the design and the administrative building looking from that point of view at the current of the building and imagining another 5 or 6 above that building as the beginning of the floor it appears to me to overwhelm the building right next to it clearly it's in scale that the building crossed the street from it because it's smaller than that building but that's one side of the street and not the other side of the street and to go back to the notion that all of the buildings all of the loss on this part of the town cannot be built because they're grandfathered in terms of the zoning what we're doing here is we're zoning by special permit and creating another exception to the existing zoning which may or may not be appropriate in a given situation I think it's questionable I'm concerned about the height but I'm really concerned about the fact that we're de facto rezoning the area without giving attention to a uniform view of what would want that area to be I don't want the area north of the palace street to be like this building I have I'm not sure what I feel about the area south of the palace street but that's a separate issue for me if we rezone, if we allow this building as it's proposed to go in that spot, it's right in the middle of that section of BL does it impact does it set the precedent for what's north of it or does it set the precedent for what's south of it that's a good that's a question and that's why I think we should really look at rezoning the area fixing the zoning in the area that's a particular project if I could I'd like to push back on your statement that you're doing a rezoning here you're not doing a rezoning what we're doing is complying with the zoning bylaw that we are dealing with now we hope at some point that the bylaw does change and these gentlemen most of the property along that strip are very interested in that we also have to look at this building in the context of what might come in the future and not look at just what building it sits next to right now so I understand and respect your opinion party but I think we, I feel that this building sits in there very nicely and the fact that 35% is our coverage that really tightens this up into a very tight box and economics does have to play a part here in terms of the amount of square footage that you actually develop Christine I just so breaking down the layout of the building I'm looking at the schematic that shows the heights of each floor so we're talking about 45 feet and you want four floors because it makes sense when you run your numbers a fourth floor as in a 45% of area that you're going to get run from so you want the fourth floor and when I look at the heights it says the first floor is 12 and then it's 10, 8, 10, 8 and 8, 9 one question I have was the joist like so if it says 12 feet for the first floor is it actually lower because there's the joist you know holding up the next floor and just then industry standards and as my other part is 12 feet or whatever it is is that standard for what coffee shop you know restaurants would want and then same thing which is 10, 8 doesn't seem really high to me so if you were to shrink it I mean you take a foot off each floor and then we're talking about three feet or so if you could elaborate on that I think this is this is squeezed into comply with zoning I think if you have freedom you probably add to the height a little bit here in terms of the comfort of those spaces usually you want more height on the first floor in our commercial space then and it's required for an office space or a residential space usually first floor 10 is a little more height and also in terms of the architecture of the building and it looks better when the first floor has a little more mass of that to it than the upper floors so I think we're comfortable with what's here I think often the heights of buildings are established by laws without necessarily required for the real world of building a building dealing with the depth of structure mechanical systems and sprinklers and so on so I don't think I think this is about as high as we could go I don't think shrinking the building in terms of just taking space out alright I was just going to clarify something I wasn't talking about shrinking the building I was talking about something I understand one question Mr. Coons said a minute ago a little bit about the notion of zoning by special permit yes indeed a 45 foot height is allowable but only in case that the exception is it fits into the neighborhood and my contention is that 45 feet is not given that it's absolutely and the other buildings on those right so I think we are in fact by allowing this to be a 45 foot building actually a 47 foot building in one place we are setting standard for that area which will be used by subsequent applicants in that area and that's why I think it's absolutely critical that we fix the zoning first fix the ham I don't know that's a question so Christine and Jack could we just put it back on 21 because I'd like that one that shows the topography and how it fits in 21 yeah I think it was turned on you're okay thank you you have a further question on that? no I just want as we're talking Jack I just want to look at the slide that we just talked about with the BL showing the extent it was a few the BL is only a small portion of that slide yes is the one with the outline of the BL oh you want me to add to that okay Jack? alright so now we're going to take some comments and questions from the public so with the comment thing please go to hand identify yourself yes my name is Suzanne Fabin I live at 38 North Prospect Street so I'm in the neighborhood that this is on the edge of and I appreciate the comments that this is an attempt to zone and to set a building on this side of the street that will become a new standard for other applicants to build over there it's just out of scale with the more residential texture of that street the other side of the street is far away and it really is different it's one thing that we can experience now that we couldn't two years ago when we were here we can see the impact of those five buildings and those buildings that don't have a setback there are a big setback from the street and there was a lot of discussion around the castle the how to satisfy people in town are with those big buildings changing the character of our town architecture and I would like to say I'm very appreciative of your comments on that point Mr. very personally thank you for your comments questions from the public James North Prospect 38 North Prospect Street James North Prospect 30 North Prospect Street as a resident of that area I'm concerned about the atmosphere of the street I think my grandchild went down to feed the cow at the corner it is a large building and I find it alarming when I read this first thing with setbacks by special permit we've gone from 20 feet to 0 feet now I was set correctly on the street now at 13 feet however we slipped up to 48 feet adding the 3 feet on the tower rather than the 45 that may be very little in the building but it does have a visual impact and it is really disingenuous to argue with a large building comments please be directed to the chair to suggest to us that the large building now on the other side of it allows not quite as large building on the west side we're going to have a canyon it is particularly disturbing when the closeness of that building is left difficult so the same sort of special permit has allowed the encroachment of a commercial building onto the public amenity and I think it is a very dangerous situation of perpetuating as Mr. Berthelsoros pointed out thank you very much other comments questions from the board Dorothy Pan Amity Street 229 Amity Street I am very very concerned about what I see threatening the residential neighborhoods about that and that the thought of Kendrick Park being faced with these tall buildings on both sides I think would be horrible the building is described as an office building it reminds me of a actually a bull of a watch company which is a high class manufacturing place it does not really look like it should be on the edge of the residential area and I can just see an inch by inch just saying oh we're kind of like this building next to us we're kind of like the building across the street and then you have the erasure of a very lovely row of houses across from the park I was hoping that the large buildings in the downtown would not cross the park and that we could keep that as a residential area where there could be some changes but as a residential area in keeping with the character of the town so I do agree that we shouldn't zone by special permit but we do need to look at things and to look at it again and make some decisions I know a lot of people have been very disturbed about the changes in downtown they speak to me they call through their email thank you so much I'll do the comments yes sir JoLynn 35's I'm in agreement with the other people who just spoke and the other citizen concerned citizens and I just wanted to add two things one is the word metastasis which I think applies it sums up the concept that they were trying to get across but first you have a big a big building on one side of the street and another one is not quite so big on the other side of the street and then there'll be something else and so on and so forth so it's something we should consider very seriously what's actually going on and the other things I don't see any I missed the first part of the discussion I didn't see any solar panels on the roof of this building and I'm wondering if it's a LEED certified net and zero building or if the town allowing a zoning exception wouldn't want to require to build the super green state of the art and if you could answer that would the applicant care to respond we haven't gotten to the issue of dealing with all the green aspects of the building there may be solar panels up there and hopefully you wouldn't see them I don't mind seeing them some people do other comments, questions from the public this would be an opportunity for the applicant to respond and your all questions have been asked well I would like to just make a comment that in Amherst and probably the master plan just about any town that we're seeing proposes densifying where there is already density and not densifying in outlying areas what we're doing here is building downtown this is downtown and you can say well it's residential neighborhoods and yes there are residential neighborhoods by nearby but this is downtown and it may be a limited business zone but we feel that this building will fit in here very nicely I think we are setting it back further than the existing building is it's not a zero set I appreciate the fact that there's concern about the building across the street because it's right at zero this building is 13 feet back and is in line with the other buildings on that side of the street so this is when we're going to turn to final comments and questions from first the public and the applicant and then the board so this is an opportunity for final questions and comments from the public this would point out that you are taking down residential buildings right the building that actually isn't allowed by zoning but yes we are but it's residential you say it's not a residential neighborhood I mean not residential but it is a residential neighborhood well that's an Amherst choice to do thank you any further comments questions from the public yes 13 we will now have a comment standing before the other side of the street it already is in fact none of the buildings that are there meet the setback now I understand that but your building is going to stand is the final board satisfied with that is that big enough the main alley of the town thank you for that final comments from the applicant I could just on a final point what we're asking the board for is renewal of the special permit which was approved back in 2016 on the special intent 133 so it's not an entire finding that you have to go through it's just that renewal and then obviously the site plan approval for the battles of it which your bylaw does not have renewal provisions so it is a new site plan review thank you for that and that's for your time for final comments questions from the board I have a question relating to that though this is a renewal of the special permit but there are a number of different line items in that the request for the special permit the the permit to change the from the zoning bylaw to the design of the setback the front setback maximum floors and maximum height must we is the renewal for all of these things or can we can we address a concern about can we address them separately that is can we address the and vote on the setback issues differently than excuse me the floor and the height issues or is it because it's a renewal of the one we have to renew all of it it's all or enough did that was I being clear there I believe it's one special permit for all the modifications you were just describing and my understanding is that we can vote separately on the site plan review approval and the special permit approval but not individually on those items you described we can certainly discuss them individually just say other comments questions from the floor yeah I like when this first came across when he's pleasant tree was there and this building being smaller seems like a gateway concept for the north side of town really resonates with me I mean I know BL is north of Halleck but I can't I really can't imagine these types of building of this nature being north of that with Cedric Park that area but definitely this really sets up I think the northern side of the downtown in an area where I think the town needs to densify important I guess that's all I got a question for Chris actually Chris can you remind us how are your requirements to change the town charter? so for the site plan review we need a majority vote we need four out of seven and for the special permit we need a two thirds vote which is you have to round up so it's five out of seven if I could circle back to some comments part of me I'd definitely agree that I think that they've done that to a certain extent so far I'm sure there's ways that it could be done further I was wondering part if you have specific examples of what might have been done to try to break up that could articulate you this more familiar with them than I am but I think it's just another what I had in mind was just really moving the volume further back and so kind of I understand the constraint that you're working against I understand that you have to be able to build this project and work at it and I just want to say one thing and that is that I in essence I do believe in what you're doing in combining the logic all for the density of the downtown but I just wish that there was a smarter way to really kind of consider the larger populations reaction to the height of the building and address that and I can immediately think of going back and reconsidering this corner so that's what I have in mind but I'm not supposed to make that picture just the general don't want to get out there thank you David I'm sympathetic to the concerns about the height the perception of the height with the fourth floor because that seems to be that's where I'm not quite sure in deliberation I'm not persuaded that that is Lawrence Grant otherwise it does seem I agree with the densification and the design seems quite nice what I know is but the height that's asking for something that we don't know if we're getting back for what you're going to get from it my recollection of the design review board two years plus which is a little bit faint was that the one point of contention at the design review board was the height most people felt that the setbacks were appropriate and not problematic and that the the place of the building on the site was appropriate the real question was the height and that was where the division came from and I think many members many members some of them worked out that a three-story height would be more appropriate now part of my hope in deferring or not granting site value approval at this point is that the owners and designers might come back with the building which is more in tune with the public comment that we've heard too large and still allows for the kind of densification that I think we in downtown densification I think all of these is appropriate and that delay combined with what I suspect will be a relatively urgent to redefine the zoning regulations in the BL district or perhaps change the boundaries of the BL district those two things could work in combination to in fact result in a building that was more satisfactory to the owners of the property thank you I having had a lot of experience with trying to change zoning in town would caution against being too optimistic about changing the zoning quickly I think it's going to take quite a long time it's going to take a while for the town council to get its feet under itself and has a lot of other things to deal with and the planning board and the zoning have been looking at the BL's only district now for quite a number of years I would say at least five years maybe more than that and kind of unclear about what direction to go and I think they have an idea that they would like to change the dimensional requirements and they have an idea that they may want to just rezone these areas that are adjacent to this general district completely into a new zone but they don't know what that new zone would be they talk about the transition zone so my comments are really directed at the at the hope that these areas could be re-zoned in any near-term time frame I think as I said the town council is busy with other things the planning board has a long list that it thinks that need to be addressed in terms of zoning this is one of those things I don't necessarily see it rising to the top although that would be completely up to the planning board and then the town council but I'm just questioning against being overly optimistic about quickly changing the zoning I think it's wise to point out that the great push for the determination of town meeting and substitution for the town council was that things would move along much more quickly to the town council that there would be a long delay having to deal with town meeting only once a year or perhaps twice a year I suspect that since the zoning and the nature of downtown was a very significant part of the development of the new charter and the resolution of the town council that issue will move along very quickly to the top of the town council's agenda a comment I would have to add is that we do have to live with the zoning that we have in place now and we have to dispose of these applications as they come into us and if it becomes our policy to not approve zoning requests because the zoning may change in the future that takes us down a path well that would be fine if the zoning requests were absolute components with what the zoning was but here we're being asked for exceptions we're going from 35 to 45 to changing the setbacks that's yes, it's within the rules the rules of the zoning but it's granting the exceptions to what are existing established requirements Mr. Regie just to respond to that point they are exceptions that are built into the zoning bylaw by town meeting to allow this sort of relief and design in these appropriate circumstances but I want to back up to really what standard we're looking at because we're not asking for setback and height and stories we're asking for a renewal of a previously approved special permit that you can grant if that action is consistent with the purpose and intent of the bylaw and the public hearing has been held and I don't want to speak for John but I think we're hearing the comments about maybe take a look at that fourth floor mass and maybe see if there's a way to pull it back or to do something different but I think just the board needs to understand that this was approved some time ago conditions I would think especially with the erection of one east pleasant have gone in a different direction to maybe make it arbitrary or capricious at this point the board says wait a second it actually doesn't comply with the zoning we can understand and we can appreciate all the points that have been made but I just want to make sure that the board is clear about what it is that they're voting on and that's the renewal I just wanted to respond Michael I appreciate your thought that the Newtown council will be more nimble in terms of dealing with zoning but I agree with this press I think it's still going to be a very long and slow process to change zoning especially downtown yeah I was going to say something along the same line that says that would happen more quickly than we would have as an option but to wait for that it could be however long and until then we should try to find a tenant for this building and move forward with it but if it continues to be unsuccessful and zoning pops up to give us another opportunity for a different type of opportunity we'll be all for that but to not just to sit and wait for something it could be for a while people the Newtown councilers are very concerned about redoing zoning they're talking about it they're looking at things they're working on it right now I do think it's one of the at the top of the list I just want to speak up for the public's right to sunshine and light already when you come down from the north to the downtown a big shadow crosses the street and I don't think we want to see more shadows I think we want sunshine in our center of downtown and sunshine in the park because that is a place for people to get together and to be part of Amherst for Sunshine so I would suggest at least a partial approach here which is that we have at least two things to consider the site plan review approval on the special permit approval it seems to me that there isn't a lot of dissension or controversy about the site plan review approval which is not going to allow a hike which is I think primarily what we're discussing so if one we move it our entertaining motion relates to that site plan review approval alright I'm going to do you close the public hearing do you close that section okay the public hearing review and to put forth a motion that we approve the site plan review section as it is that's moved and seconded is there further discussion on that motion there are none all in favor all opposed all standing that passes 6-1 so now I can turn to discussion about the special permit removal for the comments and questions from the board I believe I heard a willingness on the part of the applicant to consider some of the proposals to look at reducing the massing or looking at reconfiguring the massing as it affects the appearance of the height is that reasonable to say it will be up to the owners to tell me to take a look at that now okay Chris can you think of a way we can configure a condition to approve the height as proposed with further review where we can figure the massing or if it requires us to see if it continues bearing and ask for those revised plans if that's what you really want I don't think that I don't think I can have to condition that we make sense of this in this case you do have another hearing next week you have a public meeting next week on the 12th you could continue this public hearing to the 12th and consider something do we have a meeting on the 19th as well there's nothing scheduled for the 19th good, okay, thank you I wasn't proposing that someone clarified what we're talking about so if you look at the plans, you'll see that the faces several of the vertical faces of the building have broken out by color and if I understand that is one way to break up the massing and make the building appear less a contiguous face as far as I was suggesting perhaps the applicant could go a little bit further than delineating colors in trying to cut down the appearance of the height I appreciate the comment I'm afraid this is a little bit of a dangerous road we're going down here if we start designing by committee like this I think that becomes a very dangerous person I understand the design is important here but the design is what it is here and to start tweaking it or try to make the planning board happy what we're really here for is a renewal of the building that was approved two years ago and I think now asking a system to redesign it is a dangerous person a couple options we discussed here approving as is approving of some conditions to be drafted so I entertain motions or for discussion renewing the special permit not renewing the special permit that's another option isn't it that's what the application is for renewal we can deny the renewal we can renew with the same conditions we can renew with new conditions we can renew with no conditions I just wanted to say that it sounds unfair to me to not approve and examine very carefully and vote for it so I think to entirely reject the proposal sounds unreasonable to me well that's why I was asking whether it was like a line whether it was a package or whether they were separate lines but I just wanted to say I was very aware of the suggestion and I told you that I'm not trying to design your building I'm just trying to address an issue one of the most major issues that people have made over the past couple of years to me and it's something that I've gone back to and looked at very carefully so the last thing I wanted to do was to design your building but to me that's an issue that could be addressed in good faith and that the building in a way it's in such an early stage that I could do that I don't know how to condition it or what to really ask for but I really want to insist on the genuine and considerate comment that I'm making to you and I want it to be heard because I'm not trying to design your building or I'm not trying to reduce the number of floors probably what I'm asking for is something that will be of a reduced square footage on the fourth floor but I think I can't speak for the owners but I think it's something worth looking at and I think we would however if we get into a situation where that's a condition and we come back and is this good enough there would be like this and we could start getting into this thing where we're trying to design it in meetings like this and I think that could be a difficult thing to do Chris Another option would be that the applicant withdraw a special permit application and come back with another special permit application in the future there would no longer be a renewal it would have to be a new special permit the current special permit expires December 16 so what they were hoping to do was get a renewal tonight so that we could write up a decision and have it filed with the town court by December 16 so I don't know if that's possible but the applicant could choose to withdraw and come back the later date with a new design and could I put a motion forward to see if they're welcome to make a new motion forward a motion forward to close public hearing and to ask for approval of the special the renewal of the special permit passes moved seconded motion has been made and seconded is there further discussion not all in favor I'm going to explain why I'm going to do it now I like the design of the building I wish it were somewhere else I think the precedent setting nature of this particular building on this particular site is detrimental to the future of sensible development in downtown Amherst I did not have the opportunity to quote one way or the other when this proposal came to the planning board two years ago I spoke more or less the same way in the design review board and did not carry the day there I'm certain that I will not carry the day here as well nonetheless I I understand and appreciate your willingness the architects willing this to hear what's being said and I certainly don't want to design the building by committee that would be as an artist that would be offensive to me and I'm sure this to you and I would not want to put you in that position I would not want to put us in a position of asking you to do that nonetheless I feel that I must vote against this because I think the height is the real issue here I'm not so concerned about the setbacks but that's an issue but I am concerned about the height and its relationship to its nearest neighbor and I think that relationship is different from all the other relationships of the buildings on that side of the street and I don't want this particular building to set the precedent that will then apply to buildings to the south of it and buildings to the north of it it could and we don't know because it's all BL and if this is approved as an exception to the standard height requirements of the BL district then any owner can reasonably ask for the same kind of consideration in any part of that BL and I don't think that's a good idea so my vote is no respectfully understanding that this is a well-designed building and an attractive building but I just don't think it's in the right place Mike, I'd really be interested in where the right place would be given that we only have one downtown and I think the concept of this gateway is a real thing and it seems quite appropriate I can't imagine like a three-story building a two-story building really doing the job for setting that north side of the town and having that that look I'm asking for me it most definitely fits and like I said before I don't envision north of how like buildings like this but going toward the center of downtown I think this is pretty key and it really sets that part of the downtown for me and we do have one east pleasant street right across the street I think it fits and again densification is a big and important detail and I think it has to follow through with given hard limited areas to develop I mean it's like if not here where I just want to say before we pass to the vote that I do have my reservation and I maintain my point but I will vote for the project so I think that the positive points of the project put me up under the negative points but I really hope that we collectively here doesn't try to address it because this is something that will point to all of us for the rest of our time and I think as responsible residents that you are this is something that you could address without creating too much damage and I hope that will be that and in good faith I will vote for the project so I will give you a comment Michael Marshall I have to ask yeah I kind of imagine it's going north of Palitz too but there's no reason that it wouldn't people are granting this exception why not grant that exception on the other side of Palitz there's no precedent we can talk about that and discuss that and keep that in mind when we propose what to do with the BL to be continued again first and first this is on the table it's not necessarily the first thing thank you is there any further discussion before we come to a vote seeing none all in favor all opposed all abstain that passes 6 to 1 thank you very much thank you thank you show your shoes yeah I think it's our preferring right because it's otherwise then why thank you it's not your stress yeah yes I mean safe law limited now we're going to use the town as a little bit and I don't like the idea that we're going to use the town as a little bit you know at my point that the standard for renewal is something that I would consider doing something about here in town less than what it is for a special purpose I'm generally going to make all of those findings here it's just to put the zone in place so my suggestion is that if the bill is worth it then not I think it's very right for some that to come in I appreciate that but I'm not quite sure where it was on the bottle so it's a little standard standard because it's no secret okay okay and you're ready to move on okay okay the right so I'll So the next item is a four plan zoning, the zoning subcommittee report, zoning subcommittee met today, Maria and I, we're sadly down our chair, Rob has moved on, he's been joining us as a member of the public and continuing to contribute, so we thank him for that. And today we mostly discussed continuing our work on the list of priorities we're planning to form into a report to be presented to the town council, so test subcommittee members will be working on that and we'll also be talking some more about the zoning subcommittee when we get to the action of officers and committee assignments because it's just the two of us now and we definitely appreciate some more help from anyone on the board who's willing to join us. So we'll get to further discussion on that shortly and is there any public comments on zoning? I just wanted to mention that I put something in your packet tonight that has to do with the bylaw review committee, we look with recommendations for changing the zoning bylaw so that it concludes with the new town charter and we have the first seven pages of the memo in the packet and we'll be over the public hearing on this next Wednesday. I sent you in the email to the full document which includes the draft zoning bylaw with all the changes for the line, so I just wanted to bring that to your attention and to note that you really have to discuss this at the meeting next. Is there any public comment on that? So then we'll move on to item five, which I just mentioned and that's the election of officers and committee assignments. So not only has Rob moved on, of course our chair has moved on. So currently I would be the only officer on the planning board as the vice chair. So we need a chair, vice chair and a clerk. We also have some committee assignments to fill. Mike has taken on the role of leading on to CPATH, AG commissioners and vacants. For AG commission? Okay. So we'll just talk about all the nominations and perhaps move them at the end. As mentioned also, there's vacancy on the zoning subcommittee. We don't have a fixed membership, but for some time we've been operating as a group of three. It may be a topic of discussion at the town council and the planning board and the future whether it can have a zoning subcommittee can kind of work, but for the time being we're feeling it's really not a lot of people having big issues. So if anyone else would like to join us, we'd certainly welcome to. So any nominations for that position would be welcome, as would be for the three officer positions on the planning board. Christine? Can I nominate you for chair? Sure. Thank you. There is the monitor. And then just to clarify, so the three positions, chair, vice chair and clerk, essentially vice chair fills in for chair and so on. Clerk fills in for vice chair. So there's four vice chair and a clerk position for nominations. I know. Second. Okay. So anyone interested in the clerk position? What are the dudes? You have to keep your paper. You're supposed to take notes and write minutes, but you do have to do that in the beginning. I'm sorry. Can you chair the meetings with the president of the chair and the vice chair, Matt? Since you've already nominated yourself, Christine, if I didn't mention already, I will likely not be in next week. So that puts you in the next week, potentially. So, Jack, is that a self-realization? I have to be in party. I have to be appointed. I guess I can do it if people are comfortable with my position. I'm nominating the chair. Second. Thanks. Can we rewind for a second now? Was it the zoning subcommittee usually has three people? It has recently had three. We've actually had as many as five when I joined. And right now it only has two people. So the zoning subcommittee has been a subgroup of the planning board. And there are only two people. Yeah, I'll volunteer for that because that seems like too few people. And we should recruit a couple of others. All right, so if I could run down the nomination if someone would have mind, moving them, it was for David to zoning subcommittee for Maria to act commission. Jack, you are down. Jack to clerk, Christine to vice chair, myself to chair. Michael's already on seat. I'm the notified to that effect. He's been nominated. Yes, I believe that either the town manager or the town council has to actually appoint him. He's been nominated. Yes. So is there a motion? So moved. Thank you. Second. Second, all right. For discussion. All in favor. All right, thanks everyone. Volunteer. We're all doing a lot more now. There's only seven of us. So reality. All right. And the next item on our agenda is new business. The environmental notification form relative to the golf course. Thank you. So this is a requirement of the state that the golf course environment There were a couple of reasons why they had to do that. One has to do with the area of the property that's been developed. Area of endangered species that's being developed. And I forget exactly what the other one was, but it was explained in the link that I sent you. So anyway, they have to file a mistake to declare what they're doing here. And they have a lot of details about their project. They pretty much covered what they needed to cover. They are supposed to, as Jack probably knows, or as Mr. Joseph probably knows, this couple of work done on this before, but they're supposed to give a rendition of what would happen in a state where you don't do anything, what happens in the state where you do more and then this preferred option, which is what they're proposing. They said that for the no action case where they're not proposing anything, that someone might come in and develop parts of this property that are not prone to flooding and that that would probably cause more disruption in what they're proposing. And then they also said, well, there's the other option where we could do something even more than what we're proposing in it would mean that our, so I guess I should have started off by saying this is a solar project. I kind of duped over it into the details. Anyway, the bigger project would be put the solar panels farther apart. So they're saying this is the preferred option to develop the property using solar panels and have them be closer together than they might ordinarily be. So they're proposing to develop, did they actually show us? Yeah, there's an earlier slide which we'll show you. There's an earlier slide that will show the whole thing. Is that it? No. That's not a good one. That's not a good one. Yeah, it's the other document. You show us two links. Is there no equity presenting us tonight? No, because they, it's really up to the planning board as to what they want to make recommendations. You'll have another bite at this when it goes to the CDA. When it goes to the CDA, it's required to get a special permit through the Zoning Board of Appeals. And at that point, the planning board can choose to have the applicant come here and give a presentation. At this point, it's really just reviewing this submittal that they've made to the state, this environmental notification form that they required the state law to make. And if the town has comments on the ENF, the town hits a good comment. So staff has some comments. The conservation commission may choose to review this and have comments. And I'm offering you this opportunity for you all to make comments. It's, I agree that it's hard to understand this project thoroughly without having the applicant here, but it's not really necessarily something that they would be required to do. So let's see. So you wanted me to show you the report. Where is that? I'm just using the exact, there are comments before the two, it's making the decisions on the state. The Massachusetts Environmental Protection Agency. So let's see. I'll get this, get this, get this. I'll get the board. It's beautiful, huh? I know. I can put each of this in that board if you all feel the same. I'll get it, I'll get it. I got it to a different state. I'll get it, I'll get it. Oh, yeah, it was a gorgeous walk, actually. I've got a bunch of questions. Yeah, I heard that. That's what I thought too. So to this email, this was the first? Yeah, it was very early. So let's see. I need to print. I would pull. It would be a shame that I'm not able to find where it was. Something to do. Although, it's going to be a flood problem, so there is a limit. Naturally, it's going to be open. I mean, I don't know why I want to see this. I don't want to see the map. This is a good one. Oh, it's great for speeding. Let's try the handles. This is good for walking. I've seen it before. It's after the test. After the test. Yeah, it's like 20 pages. It was very crazy. It seems to me it was a little better. There it is. All right, so here's West dollar. This is West Pomeran Lane. This is all the Hickory Ridge Golf Club. You can slide that in the right corner. Lower right corner. You can make it pretty good. Do you want to do that? Yeah, I do this all the time. I bet you did. Oh, there you go. All right, so the Hickory Ridge Golf Club house is here. And there's a sort of a sling area right around the Hickory Ridge Golf Club. It's owned R.O. And then there are a couple of pockets in the northern part of the site that are zoned R.N. And a lot of land in the middle that's zoned F.P.C. for the current conservancy. So what they're proposing to do is put the solar arrays in the northern part that are mostly zoned R.N. And they're proposing to have an access drive that comes off the existing parking lot. It's here. And then another access drive that comes off Humber Lane, which is here, West Humber Lane. And those would be the only two driveways that they would propose. And the solar arrays themselves are really just something that's a big flat panel and it's on a post and they stick the post in the ground and they don't really have any kind of heating or anything like that. So they're not doing a lot of excavating or anything, they're really just placing these things in the ground. Similar to what you saw for the Hampshire College application when they were doing their solar array. So, you know, there are some beneficial aspects of this. Global warming is one of them obviously. Some aspects which are someone troubling where we are taking this beautiful site that is permanently used as a gulf club and it also has tremendous natural resources and, you know, animals and plants, things that are really, that we want to save. It's got a river going through with the Fort River and so it's a site that has a lot of really great attributes. So you kind of have to balance things. Most of the site would not be developed for solar arrays. Most of it would be north there which, you know, that property isn't really very accessible for other uses. But has there been any discussion about what might happen to the clockhouse parking lot area? So there could be development there. There could be, you know, someone could, a developer could purchase that property and develop it. I think we thought there might be as many as eight house sluts that might be developed in that location right after Tummer Lane. So that's a possibility. It's always possible for the town to acquire open space like this, you know, parts of the property that are being developed. There hasn't been any real serious plan yet before. Is there a deadline for submissions and was the concom plan to acquire their submission? There is a deadline for submission. I think it's December 1. Which is like, next week. That's Wednesday. Concom is meeting next Wednesday. Yeah, so they are probably too late to submit. They may just have to rely on their staff to submit their comments. So again, you know, this is coming to you now. It's the ENF. Who knows whether what you say here will have any effect on the state at all. But it is an opportunity but I wanted to offer you to make comments to the state. But you will have another opportunity to make comments to the zone where it appeals when this goes before the CDA. I think it will go before the CDA in January. At that point, you could ask the applicant to come here and give you a presentation. So, David? I would like just to the applicant to come to the board fire to their appearance before the zoning board appeals. So, I mean, I would just move or ask that we sort of extend that invitation to them now instead of leaving. It seems to me that where we I mean, I don't feel really fully qualified or competent to speak to the environmental protection aspects of the proposal. There are four endangered or protected species. There only seem to be concerned about the wood turtle. I don't know whether it's because of those three other types of muscles just aren't present there and so it's not an issue. What do I know about environmental protection? But I do have other questions about the project. I would agree with your question if the applicant can come to the planning board before the CDA. If it all possible after the CONCOM can we get by all the time? Yeah. And so you just mentioned some of the they're going to be combined to the immediate corporate banks and things like that. The turtles have some laboratory aspects. But I did want to disclose that I'm on the board and actually the president of the Andrew Scull Club and I could refuse myself but I don't feel that I'm I'm supporting paper-richage in this aspect and there's things where we can discuss but I don't understand this project from the owner's perspective or in light of the highest best use of the land from the town's greater good sort of thing. Maybe I can provide a little background for everybody. In light of full disclosure I've been a one-time member and sometimes not other times. At the moment I'm not a member but I'm a regular player there and I have been for 25 years or so. And the history of the property is that when I first knew about it back in 1900 about when I got 2,000 dollars it was owned by the man who essentially built it back in the 1960s and he was kind of an absentee ogre and the club was run by a resident manager quite effectively that at the height of around 2,000 there were something like 20 members so it was a very busy place at that point. Sometime on my day to suspect you because I'm not exactly sure sometime around 2005 or 2006 the original owner sold out to a man named Doug Harbour who bought it out of his savings and a mortgage and with his wife as a business and they did so for about 8 years and with modest success and with a more or less stable membership we got to about 300 I think but again it was I think not a great money making operation but it was a breaking even at some point he either got tired of it and didn't want to do it any longer I'm not quite sure what the circumstances were but then it was gone I was a member at the time so what happened is his loan went upside down and TD Bank called no well that's one story yeah but TD Bank did that to other golf course yes they did whether his note was upside down or not is another issue I think he was consistently paying off oh he was he did never miss the payment I think you should let's keep the discussion well you're such a good chat this is an answer to a context which was raised earlier I thought it's not on by absentee owner out of immigration who has been consistently losing money because of one because he hadn't put enough money into maintaining it two because he hasn't put enough money into trying to attract new clientele and new membership and three because the weather has been terrible for the last two years he's really taken a bath on the weather particularly this year so for those reasons he wants to get out and the only way he can get out he can't sell it as a golf course he's been trying to sell it as a golf course for three years at least I'm not quite sure this seems to me the only way he can figure out to get out from under I didn't know all the details but it seemed to me that golf is a difficult business I mean the tap has already acquired one golf course in this history as a friend of mine once said you can make a small fortune in the golf business if you start out with an OR fortune there you go okay so if I understand our action on this is not to make any sort of submission at this phase but to ask the applicant to come to us prior to the ZVA like in January but if we have environmental concerns should we note those now okay I have a couple one is that the applicant proposes stone filled access drives between Pomeroline and the west array and parking lot and the east array I wonder my question is going to be have they thought about what happens when those access roads flood as they do continually in the last six weeks those access roads would have been under water for about 15 days literally under water and then swapping for the rest of the time I don't know what that does to a stone driveway I don't think that's a very good thing to have on a stone driveway would you repeat that six weeks it was under water for 15 days Michael would it be reasonable that you submit those concerns as a I can't if you rather I don't feel comfortable enough with the environmental science surrounding that to kind of give me a promoter playing board well it's not a bunch of science I think it's a question of what are you going to do about these facts questions is it appropriate for there to be a stone road in a flood prone a piece is that just a little and that's the question oh I'm sorry do you have other environmental I'm one of the big ones which is to say that I don't think they proposed to use two existing bridges and I can't imagine what they're going to carry across those bridges industrial equipment to build a solar field the bridges that exist I do not believe are capable of carrying and heavy they're designed for golf carts and golf course maintenance vehicles one of them I think is probably big enough to sustain a truck the other one I don't think is and I wonder whether they've had the town engineer what kind of engineering expertise they've had I don't think they've actually had an engineering study of bridges what they've told us is that they feel that they can drive across those bridges with small equipment that will bring pieces of these solar arrays to the site they'll deliver them in a big vehicle and then when they get to the bridge they'll have a smaller vehicle come and pick up the material and drive it up the town has concerns about emergency access to these solar fields not that they're going to catch a fire or anything but if someone gets hurt out there the town has concerns that the ambulances may not be able to go over the bridges so that's something that the fire department has commented on okay good the project in the narrative the applicant was asked to comment on providing direct and indirect impacts including construction carrying impacts of duration of frequency and reversibility proposal provides not about information and I think that's what's going on in the way the proposal is developing and then undercut it on the real-world issues well, if they're planning on using existing bridges then that's a real one I can speak on some things so I'm looking at the landing section section within the ENF and because the environmental sections they do need some technical review and some value in that but the land section is what brought me because they're referencing the master plan within some of the sections but there's one for economic development and the state project incentives have a negative to minor beneficial impact on economic development by supporting employment for construction and operations and diversifying the town's energy sources it really would not have much it would be negative whereas if the current use does have some impact it's a destination part and people it brings in people from many towns away it has an economic impact on the town, there's no doubt about that so that's a good point, I just want to try to speak with the environment because I don't think we would see this as part of the ENF but is MEPA going to be considering this is part of the ENF the land development section right and when I was looking through this too, I think it's I didn't bring my tablet so I can't read it on this thing but I thought that all of their references to the master plan seem to me filler they seem to be really really negligible gestures that this was neither sort of speaking to or addressing the master plan objectives but it was just a mere gesture I thought they were thin I just wanted to finish I'm sorry and also diversifying the town's energy sources the energy won't necessarily go to Amherst it's going to go to whoever they can sell it to Amherst may not have the capacity for the interest so that's a non-starter and the open space impacts they talk about the golf course being previously disturbed and does not provide significant value for the services listed above I'm not sure what they're talking about but again this open space here is significant they do not find attractive land like this that can accommodate this type of recreation use and and other compatibility and adjacent uses they state the same thing that it's being started on an existing open space that has been previously disturbed and does not provide significant value and they reference the master plan I'm not sure and then there's economic development again the same section and they admit it's going to have a little impact on the regional economic development which is a big deal so I think there's this open space aspect to it which is unique very unique for the town and then there's the economic one where exactly there are a lot of people that come into town that use this course and then do other things but it's potential I think it's just unrealized and I don't know the extent to which they put the effort in terms of preserving it as a golf course I mean it was always rumored that it was being marketed and I'm not sure who it was I know some of the business folks in town I don't think were ever approached on this so one thing we don't know is whether the current owner is going to continue to own the property and lease it to these solar people or whether they're going to sell parts of it that's another thing I don't understand the use of this from an owner perspective because if they are leasing the property for solar arrays that money is from my experience and knowledge is maybe 40,000 60,000 somewhere in there they have 25,000 taxes that are due for that property I just don't see how it doesn't make economic sense for the owner for that little money if they are leasing of course we don't know but I'm baffled by this could some of this go into conservation and like I said earlier we'll talk about this front area could be developed into house blocks or something so maybe there's a whole plan that we're not moving to at least half of the courses inflate money so that obviously can't be developed and we could in conservation which would reduce their taxes and if it's leased it not that I don't know if it would but I mean it could go back to being a golf course not if they build those solar arrays in 20 years it's just pipes and you just put because the how long are they going to have they're talking about taking the turf up in those areas and going back to natural vegetation oh they probably want to do that but that's to enhance the growth of the environment to come back because right now it's a it's a herbicide pesticide if they did that you'd have to rebuild at least half of the conference if you were turning back into the conference what would you suggest just in this back area I mean they're just talking about taking up because the grass is not a natural grass it impacts 7 out of 18 I'm just saying 20 years from now when the lease is up and this company asks them to decide whether or not they're going to put new panels and who knows where we'll be with energy anyway maybe it won't go back to it I'm just saying like if it was a lease agreement this is still land that could easily go back to either being recreation or a golf course or you know this isn't it's not tough demo work to take these out so I've made some comments here some that seem relevant to the MEPA issue at hand and some that aren't so if we want to advocate for the town taking a position to prolong the use of this as golf course for recreation the town council I think we need to solidify what if any comments we're passing on to MEPA I had suggested they'd be submitted as individual comments I see Chris is a very long list of things we've discussed here so Chris the town is submitting comments to MEPA is that right? and are those being consolidated from all board committee's and forwarded on or are they? I don't know the system town manager and the guidance administrator is that we might put together a letter from staff that would go to MEPA and then you know if the plan board wants to put together something of its own I could go to MEPA I would suggest I just felt that if you're going to make comments you might be able to see them because otherwise I can't really distinguish between the history and the environment of the comments and so on and so forth I would rather see the staff comments first and then see them present so how about if staff takes those comments they've heard from us tonight incorporates them into the comments staff plans to submit on behalf of the town and any of us can respond individually to staff with their feedback is that reasonable? I don't know if everybody saw that the flood line is right there so there could be some lots right along the road there and then have you driven along that lightly? I haven't so this is where it floods there's no possibility of households there so it's the steepness also the steepness along plumber right there yeah but it's also versus so that's not really buildable so now we're just I think the first time she thought there might be 8 lots they obviously looked at it so they might all just be around the flood it would be buildable from about here over to there that area is probably the floods into there that little stretch this all the stretch from here to there is essentially underwater 15 days from the last 2 months Christine is that the new flood line that no do we have those yet? no it's his name Jeff Berman okay so this is the old line okay it's one of the past experience one of the riverfront area this is riverfront area and land underwater this is not really the 100 year flood no the 100 year flood things well as I said it's boring when it's flooding in that condition it says 100 foot and 200 foot riverfront this does not reflect the actual conditions on the ground and also we have the flood road conservancy district which is a zoning district and then we have the USGS and FEMA flood planning so those are two different things okay they are worried right now one of the environmental issues that may be of interest the proposal asks for the form asks for common on solid and has these waste disposal and they say the project will not generate solid waste or construction and the recycling issues are asphalt, brick, concrete, chips and metal wood the project will cut down at least 50 huge mature trees and they don't discuss how those might be disposed of and also when we're on the trees and we're talking about the negative impact of cutting down that many mature trees that are mostly healthy, a few of them may not be but most of them are healthy and the environmental loss of carbon absorption has to be somewhat significant relative to the amount of generation of electricity that will come out of the solar field and how that exactly balances out I don't know if they have lots of good comments there go back in terms of that being a quarter a lot quarter and you're putting up these large areas where it's a disruptive right now the way for rivers it's quite a resource from that perspective with Beaver, aren't right there I don't know Chris so I know that on other solar fields in Amherst the Hong Kong has asked to have the fences set up six inches from the ground so that there's enough room for small animals to go through but it is true that these solar arrays are surrounded by fences that are 6 or 7 feet high so the larger animals will not be able to migrate that that's what I was going to ask on the fence normally they can walk under the panels but there's fence hanging out there they're deer and fox and probably other than that deer obviously can is that behind on pulpit that one's about the same size as this one I assume they're putting is that fence requiring the fences to set up six inches so that the smaller animals can go back further comments can be submitted to staff staff can wait for them to get out of the submittal and we'll see these folks in January you think Chris? I have a question which is not really kind of Chris what if the concom was meaning after this response is submitted what is the concom responsibility the concom will be reviewing this as a notice intent I don't think they're going to have an opportunity to comment on the environmental notification form if the comments are going to have to come from the conservation staff which is we'll see who surrounds the administrator and Dave Zomek was the assistant town manager but what will the concom be deciding what is their function in this whole process if the concom was intended for this project they've already received it I don't think they're doing it next Wednesday and they're going to be looking at are there impacts within the buffer zones of the river and in this case it's a it's a river and so does riverfront and are there impacts within the first 100 feet or 200 feet and are those acceptable usually no impact can occur within the first 100 feet and there can be some impacts in the second 100 feet if the areas are already degraded so we'll be looking at that we'll be looking at wetlands that have been mapped here and noting whether there are any impacts to the wetlands if there are any proposed changes to bridges that will be noting whether there are impacts to the water and the bank and all of that so they're going to be doing their usual evaluating impacts to wetlands and the federal resource areas here do they have the authority to deny the project they can deny aspects of it and request and demand modifications just as we do so you may want to go to the conservation ocean meeting anything else on this slide let's say what sort of lens would CVA be looking at this well the CVA is going to look at it the way they look at all the other things that they look at they'll have a 10.38 they have to go through all the findings that the use on the site it's going to have to do with surrounding uses that doesn't have a negative impact on surrounding properties lights, traffic increase in drainage sewer and water all those things that they don't look at so if you look at section 10.38 and the zoning byline you can see all the things that the CVA many of them will be applicable probably traffic isn't going to be applicable because there can be people driving in here but other things will be applicable and you can look at some of the other projects I thought the hill that was going to be by the CVA so if you go on the GIS you can find that site and if you click on the site you can find the one where it deals decision for that site you could also look at what Plainwood did for the Hensher college array that was approved by SIPHONE on board there was another one that went through between Sunderland Road and Montague Road PRP land that was on board with fields reviewed of a solar array out there so that might give us indication of the kinds of things that they looked at we're moving on to this topic there's another topic there's another topic that is for my A&I subdivision there's no four days right now what's the name of the A&I subdivision this and Porto the restaurant that we know about for two weeks is that not an original title original title is still in appeal in the ideal process did you ask me a question Porto there was a minority Porto has not already been approved it had some glitches in the submittal and so we're going back to get a complete submittal and we're moving on to topic will that be decided will you board again Porto will if it's been to decide if you're already and if you ask them to come back they'll come back but if you haven't asked them to decide it doesn't start the whole process over again when the SPP is PRCB applications anything we've already done putting board communities on the ports Porto the chair thanks for making me the chair I've missed you a lot but our work carries on for staff congratulations on the new slate of officers and we'll be probably working with you alright thanks everyone would you say would it be a general or January what are the ways that would be a general so you can decide we don't have any applications there