 Okay, Mr Marshall I forgot to tell you that Pam Rudy sent an email and said that she would be joining us late this evening. And above that let's see you are a co host we are recording attendees are coming in and it is 631. Okay. Welcome to the Amherst planning board meeting of May 4, 2022. My name is Doug Marshall and as the chair of the Amherst planning board I'm calling this meeting to order at 632pm. This meeting is being recorded and is available live stream via Amherst media minutes are being taken pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended by chapter 22 of the acts of 2022. The planning board meeting including public hearings will be conducted via remote means using the zoom platform. The zoom meeting link is available on the meeting agenda posted on the town websites calendar listing for this meeting, or go to the planning board web page and click on the most recent agenda, which lists the zoom link at the top of the page. This meeting attendance of the public is permitted. However, every effort will be made to ensure the public can adequately access the meeting in real time via technological means in the event we are unable to do so for reasons of economic hardship or despite best efforts. We will post an audio or video recording transcript or other comprehensive record of proceedings, as soon as possible after the meeting on town of Amherst website. This meeting will take a roll call. When I call your name unmute yourself and answer affirmatively, and then place yourself back on you. Maria Chow. Jack Gemsec. Tom Long. Andrew McDougal. Johanna Newman. Present. We know Janet McGowan is absent and I Doug Marshall and am present. Board members if technical issues arise we may need to pause temporarily to fix the problem and then continue the meeting. If the discussion needs to pause it will be noted in the minutes. Please use the raise hand function to ask a question or make a comment. Please be aware of your raised hand and call on you to speak after speaking. After speaking remember to remute yourself. The general public comment item is reserved for public comment regarding items that are not on tonight's agenda. Please be aware the board will not respond to comments during general public comment period. Public comment can also be heard at other times during the meeting when determined appropriate. Please indicate you wish to make a comment by clicking the raise hand button when public comment is solicited. If you have joined the zoom meeting using a telephone please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star nine on your phone. When called on please identify yourself by stating your full name and address and put yourself back into mute when finished speaking. Members can express their views for up to three minutes or at the discretion of the planning board chair. If a speaker does not comply with these guidelines or exceeds their allotted time, their participation will be disconnected from the meeting. So item one on our agenda this evening is minutes. And I believe we have the minutes from our last meeting on April 20 that are available for review and approval if we want to approve it. Board members do you are there any comments on the minutes from April 20. Other than that they were timely and accurate. Okay, I don't see any hands. Can I have a motion to approve the April 20 minutes, Andrew. So moved. Thank you and Johanna. I'll second. Thank you. Okay, we'll run through a vote. To approve the April 20 minutes, Maria. Approve. And Jack. Tom. I abstain. I was not there. Okay. Andrew. Hi. Johanna. I will approve the minutes or vote. Yes. Okay. And I also approve. So we have. I believe it's five in favor and one abstention. The motion passes. The minutes are approved. Okay. Okay. So the time now is 637 and we'll move on to item number two, which is our public comment period. I see we have seven attendees in the public. Attendee area of the zoom screen. Do any of you wish to make a public comment at this time? Okay. No one is raising their hand. I will assume no one wants to make a comment. Okay. Okay. So item number seven. Is a public hearing for definitive subdivision plan. This is continued from April 6th. And it's for SUV 2022-07. Brought by John Roblesky for 446 and 462 Main Street. Requesting approval for a three lot. Subdivision plan. The motion passes. Chapter 41, sections 81. L, O, R, T, U and V. Let's see, including one street with a total length of 100.89 feet to the center of cul-de-sac. And that area appears on map 14. to introduce this topic or do we have participants here to discuss. Thank you. I can say a few words and then I think probably Mr. radio will carry the carry the ball. So last time you met, there were some issues that needed to be resolved. The planning department had reviewed the subdivision plan and had come up with a list of conditions possible conditions that could be imposed. If you chose to approve this plan, this plan was submitted. Not because Mr. Roblesky wants to construct a subdivision on this site, but because he wants to take advantage of a certain aspect of the state law, which allows landowners to freeze the zoning on their property. If they file a definitive subdivision plan in a timely manner. So he has done that and he's freezing the zoning with regard to the next use building zoning bylaw. So we had submitted a development application report to you. And then that was in response to a number of waivers that Mr. Roblesky had requested and recently, I think it was yesterday last night, I received a revised set of subdivision plans. I haven't had a chance to really scrutinize them yet, but I glanced at them and they look like they answer some of the things that we asked for. We've also received a stormwater management report. That was one of the things that was missing last time. And we've received soil information, test pits and other information about the soils on the site. So those were important additions. In addition to that, the last time we met, we had not had an opportunity to meet with the board of health. So anytime someone submits a subdivision plan, it's necessary that the board of health have an opportunity to review it. And I think it was last week, Mr. Reedy and Mr. Roblesky and I attended the board of health meeting. Maybe it was two weeks ago. And they had a number of questions and comments. And so we're going to be meeting with them again tomorrow evening. And they will be, we'll be speaking with them about the answers to their questions and comments. So we had asked that the planning board hold off on its final review of this subdivision in order to, for them to hear from the board of health and also in order to be able to accept the new information that Mr. Roblesky has submitted. So with that, I would like to turn it over to Mr. Reedy and he can give a more full explanation of what's been going on in the last two weeks. Thanks, Chris. Hello, Tom. Hello, Mr. Chair. How are you? I'm great. What a wonderful performance at the Drake the other night. That's a plug for the Drake who haven't, who haven't been there. Yeah, I finally, I finally was in an actual physical room with you, Tom. I know. I needed a screen. So who's that? For the record, Tom Reedy, attorney with Bacon, Wilson, here in Amherst, here on behalf of John Roblesky, two different entities that John's in control of for a definitive subdivision plan. And it's, I think Ms. Dr. Ms. Breastrup did a wonderful job really explaining where we've been and where we're going. Ultimately, we're not expecting approval this evening. We just submitted the material yesterday. I think the, if there's one takeaway for the board from this evening, it's that, you know, originally we came in asking for waivers. We heard what the board said. We, we heard what Ms. Breastrup said. We heard what the building commissioner said in the import of. Not getting waivers and actually providing this information. And so we're providing the information. And so. I think one of the other items that Ms. Breastrup received was from the town engineer. He had looked at, you know, there were a couple of items in the project application report that we needed his opinion on. He opined and they were really relative to. Plan submission requirements, not necessarily substantive aspects of the subdivision. He provided that opinion. The plans have all been updated to reflect those. What we have to do is we just have to go through and it might be with Ms. Breastrup to say what waivers, if any, are still out there. We're going to provide that information. And then one other piece is the performance guarantee that I know Ms. Breastrup is going to be talking to the town council about, with yes, not to see Joe Bard. And then we will find out what the preferred mechanism is for that performance guarantee. So, you know, I think overall, we're moving in the right direction. I would fully expect that your next hearing when this is in front of you to hopefully receive the approval. I think we're going to be able to, essentially as drafted, I think some of the things will be able to come out because we've already provided it. So it doesn't need to be approval, provision of additional material, and then endorsement. It can be approval, a lesser list of additional material potentially, or we might have it all solved for, and then endorsement. So I would, we would not ask you to vote on this tonight, especially just receiving the material yesterday. So more of a check in. We do have the board of health, which we, we expect we've answered their questions pretty comprehensively. All right. So thank you, Tom. Chris, I see your hand again. Is that a legacy or? No, it's, I wanted to make the point that I believe that the 90 days, which the planning board has to review this project is going to be up soon. And we would ask Mr. to request an extension. I don't think you've done that yet, Tom. And so maybe he could do that this evening verbally and then follow it up with a letter, but the planning board could then vote tonight to agree to this extension. I think that the 90 days is up sometime around May 18th, and that would be your next meeting, the planning board's next meeting at which you would be able to kind of wrap this up if, if all of the information is available and we've had a time to scrutinize it by that time, but we don't want to be caught, um, you know, not having met the 90 day deadline. Yeah, and you're right, Ms. Bressrop, we have not yet asked for it. Nothing nefarious. Just, we haven't asked for it. So I guess we'll formally ask for it this evening. I'll follow up in writing. You know, and I'm at the whim of the board here 30 days from today. So your first June meeting is probably sufficient. And if for some reason, you know, something comes up between now and then we can always request another extension because we're not looking for any sort of constructive approval here. So this would be 30 days from the expiration of the 90 day period, which I think that would be, I would prefer to do that as an extension of 30 days. On the original 90 days. All right. So you've made that request. Chris, should we have a board member make a motion to extend the 90 day approval period? Board member could make a motion to accept Mr. Reedy's request and to approve that request. Okay. All right. I briefly saw Tom's hand. Tom, you want to make that motion? Sure. I'll move to approve the 30 day extension to the current 90 day deadline for this particular approval. Thank you, Tom and Andrew. I'll second the motion. All right. Is there any board discussion of this request for an extension? Not seeing any. We'll go ahead with a, another roll call. Working from the end of the alphabet. To the beginning. And one, two, three. One, two, three. Donna approve. And Andrew. I, Tom. Jack. And Maria. And I'm going to prove as well. So that is 30 day extension is approved. Six, all all members present voting in favor. Thank you very much. All right. Do we need Tom or Chris? Do we need to do anything else on this this evening? Probably a continuation to a date certain, I would think. Continue the public hearing to a date. Good point, Tom. Thank you for that. To May 18th, although that day is very busy. So you might want to continue until June 1st. Is that all right with you, Tom and John? June 1st is fine. That's fine. Okay. All right, so we'll need another vote to continue. Anybody want to make a motion to continue this hearing to June 1st at what time, Chris? I don't think we have anything else. We don't have any others scheduled for a particular time. So why don't we say 635? We have to ask Pam. Have we sent out any notices? We haven't sent out any notices for June 1st yet, right, Pam? We have not. Chris, we expect 463 West Street. Right. But we haven't sent the notices out for that yet, have we? No. No. Okay, so why don't we go 635 for this? All right. All right. So the motion will continue the hearing to June 1st at 635 p.m. Tom, your hand is up. The move. Thank you, Tom. Maria, you got your hand up next. Thank you. Okay, we'll go ahead with another vote. It's time. We'll start with Maria. Approve. And Jack? Approve. And Tom? Hey. And Andrew? Hi. And Johanna? Hi. And I'm an I as well. All right, six in favor. No opposition. Thank you very much. Motion passes. Tom, I hope you have enjoyed the rest of the month. We'll see you in June. Probably even sooner. Probably before that. Yep. Thanks to all the board members. Okay. Good night. Okay. That was that was item three on our agenda. So if time is now six 50. And we're up to item four. Discussion of a zoning amendment. Under the agenda, it says the public hearing was canceled and rescheduled. And that this is likely to be rescheduled to May 10th. This concerns article 13, the demolition delay by law. Chris, do you want to introduce this? Yes, it was rescheduled because of a notification. A flaw in the notification process. So we had to reschedule it. And what the board will be considering is only the rescission of article 13. And once it is rescinded, it goes to well, I'm not making any sense. The planning board will vote to recommend rescinding. The CRC will vote to put new language into the general bylaw. And they're working on that. In fact, Nate and Rob Mora and Ben Breger just had a meeting about that today with me. And we'll be meeting with the historical commission, a few members of the historical commission tomorrow about it. So we're hoping to have some good language to present to CRC at their meeting on May 12th. But the planning board is certainly welcome to review the language and make recommendations, but you don't have to hold a hearing on the new language because it's a general bylaw. In any event, we will be bringing this to you on May 18th. Okay. So no action this evening. No action this evening. All right. All right. Moving along. Item number five on the agenda. The time now is 6.52. Request for release of lots, SUB1989-13, Amherst Hills, brought by Tofino Associates. And Chris, do you want to introduce this? I know we have some folks from Tofino in the attendees list. Yes. So this is a case that's been going on for quite a while. As I told you last time, I think I gave you a whole rundown on the history of the Amherst Hills subdivision. Essentially, we're moving closer and closer to seeing all of the work at the Amherst Hills subdivision, all of the roadway work and infrastructure work being completed. Tofino has done a good job. Andrew McDougall and I toured with Ted Parker, a representative of Tofino the other day and we looked at the roadways and we looked at one of the detention basins and the work all looked like it had been done very well. The town engineer has come up with a punch list for $14,000 worth of work that is remaining. And there's an additional amount. I think it's $11,000 worth of work that needs to be done on cleaning out the drainage structures. So those would be the catch basins and the manholes that provide the drainage for the site. So what Tofino is asking for at this time, and you received a letter from Ted Parker to this effect. He's asking for release of nine lots that were the subject of a letter that was sent to the building commissioner, the letter that was sent to the building commissioner, I believe it was in 2019. Asking him to refrain from issuing building permits on these nine lots. And the hope was that that would spur the developer on to finishing the subdivision infrastructure. And so that letter was filed at the registry deed. So now you're being asked to release those nine lots from this restriction that you've asked the building commissioner to impose. You're also being asked to accept a letter from Tofino Associates, which makes that request. And the letter goes on to say that Tofino is willing and offering to give the town a deposit, an escrow deposit, in doubling the amount of the work that needs to be completed. So the work that needs to be completed is the $14,000 that the town engineer had on his punch list, plus the $11,000 to clean the drainage structures. And so that amounts to $25,000. Tofino is offering the town $50,000 to put in an escrow account to ensure that that work gets done. So the letter includes offering that amount, $50,000, requesting the release of the lots. And they're also asking or stating that as a result of this escrow money that's being put in place, that the town acknowledge that the three-party agreement would no longer be enforced or no longer apply. There's no more reason for the three-party agreement. The developers, developers are allowed to choose their form of security when they develop a subdivision. And there are numerous different types of security. One of them is to put a covenant on all of the property. And the covenant allows the developer to ask for release of lots as he finishes the roadway. Well, he does have a covenant in place, but things got a little out of off kilter, I would say, a few years ago where it wasn't enough to just have that covenant in place. So the town and Tofino and the bank agreed to have this three-party agreement where the bank would make available $288,000 to finish the infrastructure work. In any event, Tofino is now asking or is really stating that as a result of the town accepting the $50,000, that is a performance security deposit. And so that would take the place of the three-party agreement. And I agree with that. And our town council agrees with that. So we think that's appropriate. So that is written about in Tofino's letter. I think that's what else? Yeah, I think that's about it unless Mr. Parker, who's here, has something more to tell you about or to request. Mr. Parker, do you wish to speak? I don't. Chris, as usual, has done a great job of summarizing the current status. Okay, thank you. So Chris, you provided me with the text of three motions. And I guess I'd like... So I just wanted the board to know that's available for... And I can read that if we're ready to make a vote to act on this letter and the release of the lots and the acceptance of the escrow amount. Chris? I wanted to acknowledge the fact that James Master Alexis is here. He's the representative of the residents of Amherst Hills. And he's been very active in this whole process as we've moved forward. I had a number of exchanges with him today. And I think he may want to make a statement to you. And he's also brought to my attention the fact that there was a fence that was required as part of the definitive subdivision plan construction drawings. And the town engineer has waived the requirement or has said that he would not insist that the fence be installed. I guess that's the best way to put it. And he hasn't included it on his punch list. There's differing opinions about whether a fence is needed around detention days since these days. I understand from talking to the building commissioner that most subdivisions these days don't require fences around detention basins. And the reason is that these detention basins don't hold water for very long. They hold them for 72 hours and then they're released. So there's not the concern about a danger. So anyway, this is something that Mr. Master Alexis may bring up to your attention. And the building commissioner and I don't feel that it's necessary for the planning board to vote on this, but I think Mr. Master Alexis is going to suggest that you might want to vote on it. So maybe you could recognize him and he could say what he needs to say. Thank you, Chris. Pam, do you mind bringing Mr. Master Alexis over? Mr. Master Alexis, you'll be bringing you over into the panelists and please state your name and your address. You are muted. Good evening. Good evening, everybody. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Is it my turn to speak now? Yes, it is. All right, great. Thank you very much. I'll be brief. And I'm going to just talk about the fence issue last, just so we can go down here at the list, just so you know where I'm coming from here. I think the $50,000 in escrow is a good solution. So I support that. And I've talked to a number of my neighbors and they support it as well. I just want to note in the letter in your packet, from Tofino Associates, it didn't have an amount and it just said XXX. So I don't know if that's just a number to be added in later or if that is in fact the $50,000 number, but the cash in hand to the town is a good solution here. What I wanted to talk about with the fence, I want to be clear. I have no opinion one way or another if a fence should be built or not. That's not my concern. And I'm not pushing Tofino to build a fence, okay? On the definitive plans and construction plans in our neighborhood, it clearly shows that there was a fence to be built around both detention ponds that we are going to accept. And the reason why, how this came to my attention, Tofino Associates and our attorneys are exchanging deeds because eventually the association that hasn't been reformed yet are going to take control of the detention ponds. And our lawyer at Bacon and Wilson, Mark Tanner and his partner Mark Burland, said, okay, we're reviewing the deeds. And they asked me, where's the fence? What's the issue with the fence? Have they been built? And on the engineer's initial punch list, there was one in 2019 and then there were subsequent punch lists. It's said right on there and it's in the record, fence to be built. And on one of them, there was a cost of the fence. And I believe it was $26,000, but that's just from my memory. I found the punch lists in my records. So at one point, the town engineer says, fence needs to be built. They're in the plans that a fence needs to be built. We're going to assume and take control of the detention ponds. And we understand we have to do that. We're happy to do that. We're trying to settle this case and do that. But the plans say fence. I don't care if there's a fence. I'm not an engineer. But if there's not to be a fence, I don't think the town and my attorney say, and I'm an attorney as well, I don't think the town engineer, a staff member, I respect him, but he's the town engineer, can waive a requirement that's in the subdivision plans. So, and what I don't want to happen is we take the fence, excuse me, we take the detention pond and then two years from now, God forbid, someone's hurt. And people look at the plans and say, where's the fence? So what I'm suggesting here is I think you need to talk to your engineer and maybe town council to see if you need to vote to eliminate the requirement of the fence. That way, there's no argument that Tafino should have built it or the association subsequently should have built it. So I just want to make clear, I'm not trying to push anybody to build a fence. But if it's in the definitive plan, was on the engineer's punch list, it should be officially removed. And this issue again, sure it comes from me, but it's also from our lawyers at Bacon and Wilson that say, in order for this to be off the list, the planning board has to vote. And so that's the issue with me at the fence. There's just one other minor issue, and I promise Mr. Chairman, I'll wrap up here really quickly. In Mr. Parker's letter, and again, I'm very happy that he's done all the work that he's done in the neighborhood. He says that the work will be completed by December 31st. I understand that he, to some degree, is at the mercy of contractors and other people that are going to do that work. But if we're going to release their lots today, it seems to me that the work now, that a majority of it has been done, there's only 14,000 that needs to be done, is now we'll do it at the very last day of the calendar year. I mean, it's May 4th, you know, May 4th. We have eight more months left to go on the calendar year. I would hope this work gets done before that, because Tafino, and we're happy that this is done, has requested that the town council consider accepting the roads. So if they've got a hard day of December 31st, and they don't do the work until then, that's going to push back town council consideration of acceptance of the roads. And I would think, given the fact we have eight months, given the fact that there's only $14,000 worth of work to be done, that that date could be accelerated or moved up. So I hope you understand where I'm coming from. I'm not trying to push them to move. Someone said somewhere a fence was required. And I don't think the engineer can just remove it. And I think the date should be quicker. But other than that, I think that the moratoriums have served their purpose here. So, and again, I don't want anyone to think here that I'm trying to be obstructive. I'm just trying to be thorough on what we're doing. Okay, so thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for listening. Thank you, Mr. Master of License. Mr. Parker, I see your hand. Thank you. Our letter says nothing about delays caused by contractors. The only delays mentioned in our letter have to do with getting information, approval inspections from the town. And the other thing I would add, well, I'll reserve any further comments until I hear what you guys discuss. Thanks. Okay, thank you. All right, so Chris, so I assume we have a definitive subdivision plan for Amherst Hills that includes, shows a fence and that our approval of it had conditions that it be built according to the drawings that were submitted. This issue just came to my attention today. And so I believe that the planning board reviewed these plans and probably voted to approve them sometime in 2003. And they do include the fence. When I spoke with Rob Mora today, who's the building commissioner, he was of the opinion that it's often the case that a town engineer can make a field decision on something like this and determine that something does not need to be built that is shown on a plan. So it was his opinion that the planning board didn't need to vote. I have not spoken with our town attorney about this. So I don't know what the town attorney's opinion would be. And then there's the question of if we have to have a public hearing to revise this plan. Is this the kind of thing? Does this rise to the level of needing a public hearing? So I'm a little bit hot, sort of flatfooted on this. I just need to wear this today. You know, I tend to trust the town, the building commissioner. He is also a developer. He develops subdivisions in Belcher Town and other towns around here. So I kind of trust what he says about these things, but it's really up to you to decide what you want to do about this fence issue. You could vote tonight to not require the fence. You could postpone the vote and hold a public hearing to decide and then vote. And I don't have any further recommendation for you about that particular topic. And am I right that I also saw an email from the town engineer that he was not going to actually make a statement one way or the other about whether a fence was required? That's correct. Mr. Parker, I see your hand. Thank you. A couple of points. Standards change in a bunch of ways from the time that the subdivision was approved. For instance, the town engineer required us to put in tactile ADA-compliant handicap ramps at the sidewalk intersections that work. That wasn't the standard when the subdivision was approved. We didn't bother to argue about it. We just put them in because we felt like it was best practice, current practice, and we absorbed the cost of that. The fence issue, I discussed at length with the designing engineer who said at the time that it was a practice at the time, they no longer do it. It's pretty hard to find a subdivision that's been approved in the last 15 years that has a fence around the detention basin. Both of these detention basins are on private property. The fences have no function. They don't contribute to the function at all of the detention basins' purpose, which is to retain water and recharge the aquifer with the water that's been retained. They serve as an impediment to wildlife who find the detention basins to be a convenient place to move around. A lot of municipalities have said that they prefer not to have the fences. They make the detention basins slightly harder to maintain because you have to work around it and clear a brush around it and take care of them around the fences and maintain the fences themselves. In light of all of that, we decided that it made no sense to put the fences in and move forward. I just thought that might be helpful. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Parker. Mr. McDougal. Actually, thanks. It's great to hear from both sides. I like the way Mr. Master Alexis put it. You're not trying to be obstructive. You're just trying to be thorough. I mean, what I'm hearing, you don't care about the fence at all. It's just it's like a matter of future liability. I mean, I would love for us to release these lots, take the money that Mr. Parker's offered to put into escrow and move forward. I'm not a lawyer, but I think that it makes sense from a liability perspective, just to make sure that the language is appropriate. Nobody's saying to build a fence from what it sounds like, so is there a way that we can just go ahead and release a lots, let this work happen and then address that language in a satisfactory way so that liability is mitigated would be where I'd love to see things. Also, I was going to say, I think that December 31st date, so Chris and I were on site with Mr. Parker and he just shared, I think as many of us know, some of this work is best done at certain times of the year. I did not get any impression that he was going to delay any of the work. He just wanted to make sure that he had the flexibility to bring in people to do it during the right season and then also, for his letter, making sure that he had some time budgeted to allow for any other questions relative to the town. Those are my thoughts on the matter. Thanks. Thank you. Mr. Gemsack. Yeah, I think Ted's explanation for not needing the fence seemed pretty reasonable and I'm just thinking maybe for a commercial property, commercial industrial property where you might have some contaminants in the runoff that you would want to isolate it, but I don't, yeah. So I agree, the fence I don't think is necessary for again the reasons that Ted spoke to. I don't think it rises to a level of us really needing to address it. I'm good with Chris's suggestion that it be handled on a level that is fairly informal as they see fit. And, yeah, I'm also going to agree with what Andrew said. Jack, by informal, we do have a request from Mr. Master Alex is that we vote that we don't, we are not going to require the fence. Does that, is that what you're talking about? Yeah, yes. I mean, I think we can come to an agreement that, you know, the board feels that way and give it over to the town to deal with it in a way that kind of, you know, tightens up the loose ends, whatever, because it is was an approved division plan as as Jim master Alexis said, so. Okay, thank you. So board members, other than the fence, which it sounds like we have two members that are fine with voting to not require it. Are you ready to vote in terms of releasing the lots, accepting the escrow amount? Um, Tom. Thanks, Doug. Yeah, no, I, I agree that we should release the lots. I agree with the escrow number and I agree we should vote to not require the fence. Okay. There are other members of the board that would have any comment on that question. Jack. Was that a motion by Tom? Not yet. Okay. All right. Never mind then. All right. So not hearing any clamoring from any other board members. Chris, if we vote about this fence this evening, would you be okay with us, with subsequently talking to the council and to KP law and seeing whether we needed to take any other action? Excuse me. Yes, that would be fine. Okay. All right. So, Chris, so would you also think it would be okay for us to make a, well, I guess a four part motion do this all together or should we do them one at a time? I think I would do them one at a time just because they're kind of involved. Right. Okay. All right. So and I just wanted to point out that nobody else has seen the motions except you and Pam. Right. So maybe you might want to put them up on the screen and these are just drafted in the last hour. So you probably may want to change some of the wording. Okay. I haven't seen the motions. Oh, sorry. That's okay. So I don't have those. All right. Can you see a Word document? Yes. All right. And I don't, okay. So is it large enough for everybody to read? I can try to blow it up. Let's see. If you go to the bottom, Mr. Marshall, you can just move it up. There you go. I don't know if that worked. All right. But I assume I'm going to read this anyway. All right. So why don't we start with the first one? I will read it and then I will ask board members for a motion and a second. Move that the board accepts the letter from Tofino Associates dated April 21, 2022, requesting release of the nine lots in the Amherst Hill subdivision, lots 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 29, 39, and 41, and including the statement of the intent to deposit $50,000 to the town of Amherst to be put in escrow as a performance security. Under mass general law chapter 41, section 81U, and to accept the $50,000 security deposit, which will be delivered to the town by May 6, 2022, the money to be released upon completion of the work on the punch list produced by town engineer Jason Skeels dated April 13, 2022, for $14,000. And adding the cleaning of the drainage structures for $11,000 for a total of $25,000, which amount will be doubled to $50,000. So that's the first motion. May I have someone who would be willing to move that motion? Andrew. I had a quick question. Should the punch list be included in the I'm just thinking how we've indicated that the letter, let's see, I'm ringing this right. A letter dated April 21, and the punch list, the 13th. I guess should the punch list be part of the exhibit of things to include? In principle, I'm fine with this. It's just more of a question around how it's structured, but the list exists. Should that be tied to the motion as something that's formally submitted? Yeah, we could certainly ask that it, I mean, it's referenced here in the motion, which will be part of the minutes. And then we can certainly ask the staff to add to include the punch list in the minutes, you know, as an attachment to the minutes. And it probably would be good to add include that letter too. So that this, you know, a century from now when historians are very interested in this seminal moment of Amherst's town history, they can find everything they need. With that, I would be happy to make this motion. Okay, thank you. Does anybody want to second it before I call on Ted Parker? Tom? I'll second it. Thank you, Tom. Mr. Parker, did you want to speak? I just wanted to address one brief concern that Mr. Master Lex has had, which is that Chris does have a copy of the letter with a signature and with the $50,000 mentioned, specifically referenced in it. She has that letter in the file and the draft that Mr. Master Lexus was referring to was just simply that a draft. She has the final version. Okay. Thank you very much. And is it Chris, is it correct that that final versions is dated April 21st? The letter is dated April 21st. I believe I forwarded it to the planning department, planning board members late this afternoon. If I didn't, I apologize. But we did receive it and it's a signed letter and it does refer to the $50,000 and it's dated April 21st. I think Mr. Mr. Parker just filled in the $50,000 and signed it and he didn't change the date from when he had first written the letter, but that's okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. So we have a motion and a second for this particular first motion. Board members, is there any further discussion of this? I do not see any. I will say that when I share my screen, it's a little bit harder to see who the participants are. Oh, there we go. Okay. All right. So I don't see any hands. Why don't we go through and do a roll call? Maria? Yeah. And Jack? Tom? Andrew? Aye. Johanna? Aye. And I am an aye as well. Thank you all for that. All right. The second motion is that we move to release lots 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 29, 31, 39, and 41 in the Emmer Still subdivision upon deposit with the town of $50,000 in performance security from the restriction imposed by the letter to Rob Mora dated November 14, 2019 and filed at the Hampshire County Registry of Deeds book 13459 page 214. Why don't I go ahead and make that motion? Would anybody like to second that? Johanna? I'll second. Thank you, Johanna. Any discussion by the board? Any comments from Mr. Parker? I'm not seeing any. Just one question. Sorry. Yes, thank you. The town will record that deed at the registry? I mean, record that document at the registry? Chris? I've been, it's been recommended to me by a town council that we record a document at the registry that does what this motion does. And I've spoken with Joel Bard. I'm going to draft something, and then he's going to review it. And then I will, I will record it at the registry. Yes. Will I need to sign that, Chris? I don't think so. I signed the last letter that put the registry on notice. So I believe I can sign this letter reporting about what the planning board did. Okay. Okay. Could that be, could that be part of the motion that is going to be recorded? Sure. Let's see. So something to the effect of this motion shall be recorded or filed with the Hampshire County Registry of Deeds. This motion and vote. Yes. Yeah, that's fine. Yep. All right. Christy, you have enough for that amendment to the motion? I do. Yes. Thank you. All right. I accept that amendment. Johanna, are you right with that amendment? I see her thumb and her smile. Fine with that amendment. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So why don't we go ahead and vote on the second amendment, second motion. Maria? Okay. Jack? Approved. Tom? Hey. Andrew? Aye. Johanna? Aye. And I'm an aye as well. Okay. Then the third motion moves that the planning board agrees that once the performance security of $50,000 has been deposited with the town of Amherst, that the town has no further interest in the three-party agreement titled Performance Secured by Lenders Agreement dated August 2, 2017. Would anybody be willing to make that motion? Johanna? So moved. Thank you. And Tom? One second. Thank you. Any comment? Chris? I wanted to make clear that the cul-de-sac, which is the end of Lindenridge Road, which hasn't been built yet, is still covered by the original covenant. So in other words, when that cul-de-sac is being built and Tafino wishes to have a lot to develop, then they will come to us and ask for a release of the lot, and then we will go to the town engineer and say to him, is the roadway completed enough to allow this lot to be developed? And if he says yes, then we will recommend to the planning board to release the lot. So I just wanted to reassure you that that piece of the subdivision is still covered by the covenant and doesn't need to be, you don't need to worry about that with regard to the three-party agreement going away, because that part of the subdivision was actually excluded from the three-party agreement. Okay. Thanks, Chris. I actually have one question for you, Chris, about the three-party agreement. Does the bank need to make a similar statement to this motion? I think they will, yes, but I think they've shown an interest in making that statement already. I've been in touch with Mr. Parker about that. So we don't need to wait to get evidence of their agreement before we, you know, before we say we're done with it? I don't think so, but I can answer. Mr. Parker? No, I don't think so. Mr. Parker? The bank has already called me about the three-party agreement, and they're happy to have to be released from its obligations. In fact, they were eager to be released from its obligations. And I'll take care of communicating with them. I'm sorry. Yeah. I guess I'm just wondering how do we pull together that all three of these parties are agree that the agreement is now void or, you know, no. Is there a need to do that at all? Are you asking me? Well, I'm asking, I guess, either you or Chris, for your opinion. I don't think the three-party agreement was recorded at the registry. I think it's a document that just exists as an agreement among these three parties. And we could, I can write a letter to Tofino and to Greenfield Savings Bank making this statement that the planning word agrees that once the security deposit of $50,000 has been deposited, that the town has no further interest in the agreement. If that would be sufficient for me to write that letter and to send it to those other two parties. Mr. Parker, would you find that of value at all? I think it would make it clean. Yeah. I think that would, the bank would like to see that. I don't think that there are any rights that Tofino Associates has under that agreement that it could exercise, nor does the bank have any rights that it could exercise to the detriment of the town that need to be renounced or released. I think only the town had rights to call the money if they felt like the performance needed to be guaranteed. And so once you vote to renounce the right to that, to those rights, then I don't think there's any other action really that needs to be taken. Okay. I guess where I was headed was I, since the original agreement was signed by three parties, you know, whether there was value in having a sort of renunciation memorandum that all three parties signed at, you know, at this, the close of this proceeding. Chris. That will require that all three parties have their attorneys review this, this agreement to, to dissolve the agreement. And that will prolong this process. And I don't really think it's necessary. I think that I've heard from the town, our town attorney that, you know, once the town has this $50,000 in escrow, you know, that really takes the place of the other agreement because we can really only hold one surety on this subdivision. Okay. All right. Well then, we, let's see. Now I can't remember. Did I, did I read this motion as we, we have, we have moved it and seconded, I believe. Okay. Mr. Parker, you still have your hand up. Did you want to say anything else? Okay. All right. All right. Thank you. Chris, do you agree that I did read this? Yes, you did. I just went back and checked my notes. Okay. Thank you. All right. So we can go ahead and vote. I don't see any more hands starting with Maria again. Do you approve this motion? Approve. Yes. Thank you. Jack. Approve. Andrew. Hi. Johanna. Approve. And I'm going to prove as well. Thank you all. And it sounded like we needed one more motion that this, this board does not, will not compel the installation of a fence as shown in the subdivision plans. I'm sure there's a little bit more text that ought to go into that motion. Chris, can you help me with that? I can refer to the definitive subdivision plans and the particular pages that they're on and the lot numbers. Okay. That'd be great. Is that something you can, you want to do now or you would do it when you write it? I would do it later tomorrow to get it right, but I understand what the gist of this is that you're not going to require the fences and those are shown in two different places. There are two different two different detention basins. One is near lot 37 and the other one is up at the end of the cul-de-sac. So you could refer to them that way if you wanted to, you know, give a geographic location. One was near lot 37 and the other was at the end of the cul-de-sac. Yes. Right. Okay. Okay, Jack, do you want to make a motion? Yeah, I just want to move with the motion that you laid out. Okay. Tom. Like it. All right. Chris, do you have enough definition for this motion? Yep, I do. Okay. All right. Any discussion of that? Chris or Jack? Okay. Your hand is gone. Voting again. Mr. Master Alexis. I just want to say for the record, thank you to the board for doing that. And I think that handling that issue informally, so to speak, although we do have a motion and you're going to call for a vote, I think that's fine by me and thank you for taking that action. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Master Alexis. And Chris, you will still follow up with town council about whether any more formal action is needed. Yes. Okay. All right. So we'll vote on this last motion. Maria? Move. Thank you. Jack? Move. And Tom? Move. And Andrew? Aye. Johanna? Aye. And I'm an aye as well. All right. Thank you all for bearing with us through that process. And Mr. Master Alexis, thank you for joining us. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Parker. Mr. Parker, good luck and Godspeed on finishing up the work. Thanks. I appreciate the good wishes. All right. Thank you. All right. So the time is 7.36. We will move on to item 6 in our agenda, a public hearing extension request. These are requests to extend the 65-day public hearing period for the following site plan review and special permit applications. SPR 2022-10 for Amherst Office Park, LLC at 463 West Street. Map 19D-3. And in the BVC, the Village Center Business Zoning District. And also the special permit review SPP 2022-04 for the same property. Chris, would you like to make an introduction on this? I would like to ask you to recognize Nate Malloy because he's more familiar with this case than I am, and he can explain to you what's going on. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Nate. Sure. Thanks, Chris and Doug. Yeah, the applicant had submitted, you know, site plan review application quite a while ago for this project, and we entered it into, you know, the system and followed with the town clerk, you know, and after the fact realized that the plans were insufficient. And so it required a new survey for the property for 463 West Street. And it's just taken a while to get, you know, a survey around site to complete this. And so, you know, we have a time limit that would be next week to have opened the hearing and, you know, started this. And so, you know, we've asked the applicant to agree to an extension. And that's what's, you know, was submitted in writing, a letter requesting that the hearing, you know, not, you know, that can be opened beyond that date. And so we're planning on having the hearing on June 1, which is slightly beyond the, you know, the required time frame to open the hearing. Is there a duration you want to extend this? No, the, you know, in the packet, there was a letter disagreeing to extending it. So I think, you know, you know, we'd want the board to acknowledge that. Well, don't we need to pick a duration for the extension? Well, it was left somewhat, you know, open-ended. It said just extend beyond the 65 days. So, Well, I assume if we extended it for one day, that would not achieve the objectives. Sure. We could just agree to, you know, to an extension beyond the 65 days. Chris has her hands raised if she wants to actually have a date certain. Yeah, I think you could extend it to a date in June by which the public hearing would be open. And I don't feel like you absolutely have to give a date certain, but you could say that the public hearing will be opened in June. Okay. And do you know, excuse me, Nate, do you know what the actual date of the when the 65 days elapses? No, I mean, I think it was, you know, I think it was like next week. I think it was, you know, like early May is 65 days. So if you said that the public hearing must be opened by June 15th, would that be reasonable? Right. So there's, yeah, we have, there's a meeting, you know, June 1st and then June 15th. And June 15th. So if we said by June 15th, that, you know, that gives the planning board, you know, two meeting dates to open the hearing. I guess I'm just kind of puzzled by the ambiguity of this particular motion because we've always been so very specific about the deadlines and the number of days that we were extending. And why is this different? Yeah. So this hearing hasn't started with this project. So essentially, you know, there was an application received and it was filed with the town clerk. And so that starts the 65 days to hold the hearing. However, really there is incomplete information to open the hearing. So staff has asked the applicant to submit new information. And it's just taken this long to get information to be able to open the hearing. So, you know, in essence, the planning board could have opened the hearing within 65 days and then said we'll continue it and then maybe we'll continue it again. Instead, the hearing was just never brought forward because there wasn't enough information to make a decision. Okay. So that's why we really don't need to date certain because the hearing actually hasn't been open. May I make a recommendation? Sure, Chris. I recommend that you extend the time to open the hearing until June 1st. And then if it turns out we can't open it June 1st, then we'll ask Mr. Loverty or for another letter. So I think that will give you some certainty. His letter says just beyond the 65 days. So I think, you know, I've been communicating with him that it would, you know, the hearing would be opened in, you know, June 1st, preferably, but at least in June. Well, I mean, we had June 15th for a while in the conversation at least. It sounds like that might be more comfortable. It gives us another meeting, you know, within that period. Would you say by June 15th? Yes. Okay. No, not later than. No later than, yes. So this would be a motion to extend the 65 day required by which we're, which by which we are required to open the public hearing for these two applications to no later than June 15th. Did that seem adequate, Chris? Yes. And we will file this. We will write a letter to Mr. Loverty and file the letter with the town clerk so that it's clear that you've made this motion. Okay. Tom. We'll move. Thank you, Tom. I guess Andrew. Second. Thank you. Okay. Any discussion by panelists, by the board members or by attendees? There are very few remaining. Okay. I don't see any, any hands raised. So we'll go ahead with a roll call to extend the period by which we need to start the public hearing to no later than June 15th. Starting with Johanna. Aye. And Andrew. Aye. And Tom. Aye. Jack. Approved. And Maria. Approved. And I'm an aye as well. Six votes in favor. The motion passes. All right. That was the conclusion of item six on our agenda. Moving on to the next item. It's, it's item seven. Old business. Chris, do we have any old business? No old business. Item eight. I guess I'll mention the time is 744 in case anybody wants to know. Item eight is a new business. Any new business, Chris? I can't think of anything. Pam, is Pam think of anything? No, I can't think of anything new. Thank you. All right. Moving along to item nine, Form A and our subdivision applications. Any none, none, no. None, none tonight. None, none tonight. Upcoming ZBA applications. Nothing new to report tonight. All right. Upcoming SPP, SPR, SUB applications. I think I've told you about most of these. You will be getting an A&R application on 11 and 13 East Pleasant Street. The new building that Archipelago is building, they're putting all of their properties together in order to get a building permit. So you'll be seeing that soon. And then there's another A&R that's going to be coming along, which is Ellen Keckley has owns property that is about Jenk Street and Pellum Road, I believe. And she's going to be bringing an A&R to you, probably by the next planning board meeting. But no, none of the other things are in the offing. Okay. Thank you. All right. The next item, item 12 is planning board committee and liaison reports, starting Jack with you, PVPC. Anything to report? Yeah, we had an executive committee meeting and essentially approved monies for various and sundry grants, a lot of CDBG grants. And then there was also one item that referenced Ten of Amherst. We're going to, we have money coming in to update the town's historic preservation plan. Or at least we're outsourcing that to the PVPC. So that's about it. Okay. Thank you, Jack. Andrew, CPAC. Thanks, Doug. We're working to get some meetings on the calendar in the June, late May, early June timeframe. One of the previous year recipients has decided not to move forward with their project. So they're essentially returning about a quarter of a million dollars. And then where we've heard that there may be another project that's being brought forward. So details will be forthcoming, but we are looking to get the band back together in the coming weeks. I can't wait for the reunion. Okay, Tom, DRB. Nothing new. All quiet. All quiet. Thank God. And then board members, you'll notice that we've added to the agenda, the solar bylaw working group. At the last meeting, for those of you that were not present, we voted to appoint or to nominate Janet to that working group. So as that develops, I'm sure we'll hear from her. And then Chris, the CRC. So the CRC met last week and talked a lot about the rental registration program. And in fact, Town Council just approved raising the rate, the fees for rental registration. They're raising them to, I think, $250 for most rental properties and $100 for properties that are owner-occupied. So that's going to be good because it will help the town to potentially hire more inspectors to do more inspections of rental properties, which have not always been able to be inspected because we don't have enough manpower. So that was one thing. And the CRC is meeting again this coming Thursday, May 12th. And they're going to be discussing the preservation bylaw. We're hoping that they're going to be discussing that if we can get a resolution on some items with members of the Historical Commission with whom we're meeting tomorrow. So CRC is going to be discussing the preservation bylaw next Thursday. And then they're going to be continuing their discussion about the rental registration. So that's good. I'm following along with all of the CRC work. All right. Thanks, Chris. Jack, I see your hand. Yeah, I was interested in one of the emails that Chris sent with regard to students and landlords. Or no, actually, it might have been Nate, but students were limited with regard to being able to rent certain apartments based on the landlord's decision. But I guess the town, I mean, the town can't like hardwired that into the approval of a particular project. It's really up to the landlord to put such a restriction with regard to whether they want undergraduate students or not, as just looking for clarification on that, because that has come up in the past. Okay. Chris, I see your hand. So I think Rob Mora is going to be talking to our town attorney about that and what the limitations are. There is a conversation about limiting the number of undergraduate students at one of the projects that's coming before the CBA at this time. So that's a topic, a current topic. But going forward, we want to know whether this is possible or not. It came up when you all reviewed John Robleski's project, his first project, the blue building at 462 Main Street. I think that was the question that Janet asked if he could limit the number of undergrads in that building. And we didn't have a clear understanding of the issue back then, but it's becoming clearer that, yes, you can limit them, but it appears that you have to be very strict about it. And if you have an undergrad who's 30 years old, you have to treat that person the same as an undergrad who's 18 years old. So you have to not discriminate. So anyway, we're going to try to get clarity on that from our town attorney. But I think that that was a really good article. Whoever brought it up, it was either Jack or Nate or somebody in this group here that who sent that around. Okay. Nothing else on CRC, Chris, I assume. Nothing else on CRC. All right. Report of the chair. I really don't have anything. Uh, report of staff, Chris. I'm amazed that we have eight minutes left until eight o'clock. I wasn't going to say anything in case, you know, I jinxed it like talking about a no-hitter. So congratulations, Doug. This is a new record. All right. Well, what if I have a 10-minute announcement that we're adjourning? Okay. So the time is 7.52. At least this seems to be a record in my limited experience on the board. Jack, you might have a more Maria, you might know better, but under 90 minutes. And so I can only imagine how happy Pam is. Well, these might be pretty short minutes. Thank you, everybody. All right. Thank you all. Bye. Bye-bye. Good night.