 The appointed hour is six o'clock. Having been reached, I call this meeting of the Amherst Zoning Board of Appeals to order. My name's Steve Judge. I'm ZBA Chair. I want to welcome everyone to this meeting. Pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Acts of 2021 and extended by Chapter 22 of the Acts of 2022, this meeting will be conducted via remote means. Members of the public who wish to observe the meeting may do so via Zoom or telephone. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted. But every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means. Additionally, the meeting recordings may be viewed on the town of Amherst's YouTube channel, as well as the ZBA webpage. In accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 48, and Article 10, Special Permit Granting Authority of the Amherst Zoning Bylaw, this public meeting has been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted and mailed to parties at interest. We will begin with a roll call of the ZBA members and panel for tonight's meeting. Steve Judge, present? Ms. Parks? Here. Mr. Maxfield? Here. Mr. Gilbert? Here. Ms. Marshall? Here. Also attending the public hearing tonight is Marine Pollock Planner for the town and Rob Mora, Building Commissioner. The Zoning Board of Appeals is a quasi-judicial body that operates under the authority of Chapter 48 of the General Laws of the Commonwealth for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, convenience, and general welfare of the inhabitants of the town of Amherst. One of the most important elements of the Amherst Zoning Bylaw is Section 10.38. Specific findings from this section must be made for all of our decisions. All hearings and meetings are open to the public and are recorded by town staff. The procedure is as follows. The petitioner presents the application to the board during the hearing, after which the board will be asked questions for clarification or additional information. After the board has completed its questions, the board will seek public input. The public speaks with the permission of the chair. If a member of the public wishes to speak, they should so indicate by using the raised hand function on their screen. The chair with the assistance of the staff will call upon people wishing to speak. When you are recognized, provide your name and address to the board for the record. All questions and comments must be addressed to the board. The board will normally hold public hearings where information about the project and input from the public is gathered, followed by public meetings for each. The public meeting portion is when the board deliberates and is generally not an opportunity for public comment. If the board feels it has enough information and time, it will decide upon the applications tonight. Each petition heard by the board is distinct and evaluated on its own merits. The board is not ruled by precedent. Statutorily for a special permit, the board has 90 days from the close of the hearing to file the decision. For a variance, the board has 100 days from the date of the filing to file its decision. No decision is final until the written decision is signed by the sitting board members and is filed in the town clerk's office. Once the decision is filed with the town clerk, there is a 20-day appeal period for the agreed party to contest the decision with the relevant judicial body in the Superior Court. After the appeal period, the permit must be recorded at the Registry of Deeds to take effect. Tonight's agenda, ZBA FY 2023, Muhammad Malan Kanai's to request the appeal under section 11.42 of the building commissioner's decision of a notice of violation under sections 11.45 and 12.172 of the zoning bylaw located at 25 Nutting Avenue, map 11C parcel 104, general residence, RG zoning district. ZBA FY 2023-08, Johnny Ben Tran and David Hine-Tran for the review and approval of the updated management plan submitted by the prospective buyer, pursuant to condition six from the approved special permit ZBA FY 2018-04 and to transfer the special permit to Rageed Jog subject to purchase and sale located at 320 West Street, map 20A, parcel 103, neighborhood residence, R and zoning district. And a public hearing on ZBA FY 2023-04, Redwood Construction Inc. requests a special permit to modify the previously approved special permit ZBA FY 2018-21 for the proposed modifications to conditions one, six, 11, 12, 19, which is condition four, condition 21, 22, 23, 25, 28, among possible others as they relate to proposed changes to the site plan, site amenities, building plan and management plan under section 10.33 and 10.38 of the zoning bylaw located at Renew, Amherst, 266 East Hadley Road, map 16D, parcel 13, neighborhood residential, R and zoning district. This is continued from our October 13th, 2022 meeting. After that, there'll be general, our general public comment period for matters not before the board tonight and other business not anticipated within the last 40, before the, prior to the last 48 hours. Are there any disclosures regarding tonight's agenda? The first order of business is FY 2023-07, Muhammad Mal, excuse me, I'm butchering his name, Malin can eyes to request an appeal under section 11.42 of the building commissioner's decision of a notice of violation under section 11.45, 12.172 of the zoning bylaw located at 25 Nutting Avenue, map 11C, parcel 104, general residents, RG, zoning district. We have received a letter from Mr. Seiko, Esquire, representing the appellant, or the app, yeah, the appellant, requesting a continuance of this matter until the first ZBA meeting in January. The application has requested, the applicant has requested a continuation of this matter to our January meeting. The reason for the request for the continuation is that there is some litigation pending. Under regular procedures, the board is required to hold its meeting within 65 days and make a decision within 100 days of filing with the town clerk for an appeal of the decision of the building commissioners. Those time limits will be exceeded during this litigation, neither the building commissioner nor the town objects to the continuation. My recommendation is that we approve the request for a continuation until our first meeting or until our meeting in January. We have to decide that date. And since today we are only dealing with a procedural matter, I see no reason to discuss the merits of the appeal at this time. So I would entertain a motion to continue this matter to our January meeting, either the 13th or the 26th, which we can decide tonight and to authorize the staff to memorialize that decision through a letter back to the appellant's representative, Mr. Seiko. Do I have a motion? So moved. Mr. Maxfield, Ms. Marshall seconds. Sure. Now we can discuss the motion. Mr. Chair, Attorney Soco is in attendance. I mean, it's raised. Oh, I didn't see him. I am. Great, all right. I honestly, I don't have anything to add. Just to let you know that I think we'll have the entire matter resolved by January. So we'd appreciate that January date. And hopefully I'll be withdrawing the appeal. Thank you. The one reason I'm asking the staff to memorialize this is that it requires, the bylaws are operating bylaws require that there be a memorialization of this in writing. And even though the letter from Mr. Seiko has indicated their desire to do that, it doesn't necessarily follow if the town has approved it. So a letter back would be a written agreement and memorialization of that. So this motion would be to approve the continuation. I think the discussion should be what the date is. Our meetings for January are the 13th and the 26th. Given the 13th is close to some, yes, Ms. Marshall. I believe the 12th and the 26th. The 12th and the 26th, okay. The 12th and the 26th. Members of the board have a preference for either date. Will you be in town on the 13th? 12th. Excuse me, on the 12th, yes. Ms. Marshall, will you be in town on the 12th? Yes. Ms. Parks, do you think you can be in town on the 12th? Mr. Gilbert, will you be in town on the 12th? I believe so. All right, and Mr. Maxfield? I can do it. I will as well. So we will continue this meeting, this matter until the 12th. At six o'clock. At the meeting will start via Zoom. Ms. Parks. Would the attorney prefer that we pick the further date in January? Thank you for asking. Honestly, I have an agreement right now in principle with the parties that the relevant occupants will be vacating December 31st. I think maybe the later date might be a safer thing, but I'm okay with the 12th. So I'll really, I'll leave it to your discretion. I expect this to go pretty smoothly, but my expectations have been dashed in the past. So... So let's make it safe. Let's make it safe. And given that you never know what happens over the holidays. So I'll amend my motion to the 26th then. Does that change anybody's ability to attend? I better check. I only check myself for the... For the, actually the 13th, but I'll check myself for the 26th as well. And so far so good. All right. Great. So the motion before, unless there's any further discussion, the motion before the committee is to continue this to the 26th of January 2023 at six o'clock via Zoom. It's a roll call vote. If there's no further discussion, a roll call vote. Chair votes aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Mr. Gilbert. Aye. Ms. Marshall. Aye. Okay. All right. We'll see you on the 26th, Mr. Seiko. Thank you. Hopefully not. Have a great, have a great holiday season. You said that I didn't. All right. The second order of business is ZBA FY 2023-08. Johnny Ben Tron and David Hooniek Tron with a review and approval of the updated management plan submitted by the prospective buyer, pursuant to condition six from the approved special permit ZBA FY 2018-04. And to transfer the special permit to Rajiv Jog, subject to the purchase and sale, located at 320 West Street, map 20A, parcel 103, neighborhood residential district, R and zoning district. We have received one submission regarding this application. Mr. Z Huang, who is the owner of My Group LLC, the company that has been and has been and will continue to manage the property, submitted a new management plan pursuant to the requirements of section six of the special permit. Is there a representative of the applicant who wishes to speak? My name is Z. I'm here attending the meeting today. Yep. Rajiv is in the call as well, but I think he's just attending. Okay. Mr. Huang, would you like to present anything on this or is this pretty straightforward? It's pretty straightforward, keeping everything as is, as the same, just transferring it to the new owners. So this is our personal sales agreement. It's actually contingent upon the name being switched over to Rajiv, the new prospective buyer. After that, I mean, everything is pretty straightforward and we're just continuing everything as is. As I reviewed the management plan, the only change I noticed was the new owner. Is that correct? Yes. And then also the only change that was really in there was the landscaping company. They changed their name. Yeah. From Crossman to something else. Yeah. And then another one was a trash bin. Instead of Amherst trucking, it's now USA waste. And that's the only two changes. Yeah. Oh, I didn't notice that. Okay. Anything else? As of the management plan, the new one, no, there isn't. Is there any questions for members of the board regarding this? Ms. Marshall. Not a, excuse me, not a question, but if the sale for some reason does not go through, I assume you would still want to make these changes to the management plan that changes in company names that your contractors. Yes, most likely. Yes. But we are actually, we extended our closing for this meeting as well. All right. Any further discussion? Ms. Paula. I just wanted to clarify, I guess a slight error on my part in the public meeting listing. So the permit holder is Johnny Bing Tran and David Hoonang Tran. And I say part of the request to transfer the special permit to the prospective buyer, Joving Dong, subject to the purchase and sale. Since this is a public meeting, I don't believe that you would be handling that you, and so it would just run with the land. So the permit holder would still be the trans, but it would extend over to the new owners. But if in the future they need to amend their special permit, they could transfer it to a new name, I think. Perhaps Rob could clarify that. Sorry. I, for one, did not understand that at all. So the current owner is Zee Hoot. James Wong, I actually have the public meeting here. I could show you on my camera if you'd like. We did the meeting, I think it was in 2019. We had them here. His name is James Wong. We transferred the special permit to his name and then I think it was just always, when we checked with our attorney, during the time was David Barrison and Bacon Wilson. He told us that this was all that we needed to do regarding the public meeting, regarding the switching the prior owner to the current owner. And then now we're switching from the current owner to the new buyers, which is Rajiv Jog. But when we were, the lawyer told us that the permit will always be the original applicant needs name. Is that correct? Yeah. Mr. Mora, can you clarify this for me anyway? Sure. And I think that's exactly correct. So the original permit doesn't change. It's not amended to replace the names of the original owner with current owner, or prospective buyer or so. And this isn't filed under the transfer provisions of the by-law. So it is just heard under condition six of that original special permit to accept the management plan and acknowledgement of the new owner and their management firm. And it will produce a summary similar to what Zee was just holding up another updated document just like that with today's information on it. Okay. Good. All right. It looks to me like everything is by the book. Unless there's any other discussion, I would entertain a motion to approve the management plan for condition six. Do I have a motion? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Motion has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? There's no further discussion. The vote occurs on the motion. The chair votes aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Mr. Gilbert. Aye. Ms. Marshall. Aye. Motion is unanimous. It carries. Congratulations. You guys have your amended management plan approved. Yep. Thank you. Good luck. Yep. Thank you. Have a good holiday. You too. Before we start the next order of business, I just want to announce that if it extends in time to be, it looks like it's going to be a long meeting, we will take a break about 7.30 just to give everybody a chance to stand up and move around and get a glass of water. And we've been doing that more recently in our meetings and I like that. We're going to continue to do that if it looks to be a long meeting. So the next order of business is a public hearing on ZBA 2023-04, Redwood Construction Inc. requesting a special permit to modify the previously approved special permit ZBA FY 2018-21. With the proposed modifications to conditions, one, six, 11, 12, 19, condition four, 21, 22, 23, 25, 28, among possible others as they relate to the proposed changes to the site plan, site amenities, building plans and management plan under section 10.33 and 10.38 of the zoning bylaw. Located at Renewa Amherst 266 East Hadley Road, map 16D, parcel 13, neighborhood residential, RN Zoning District. This is continued from our October 13th meeting. So first I'm going to go through the submissions we've received for those of you on the board. The new submissions are in bold red type. The new submissions include an email from Tyler White to the planning staff dated October 28th. Number 33, Renewa Amherst Management Plan Addendum revised date October 28th, 2022. An email from Tyler White to the planning staff dated October 28th. A project application report dated November 2nd. An email from planner Maureen Pollock to the applicant dated October 18th. I think those are the extent of the new submissions since October meeting. Is that right Maureen? Did I miss any? I believe that is it. What about the emails you just forwarded? The email thread this afternoon containing communications between Attorney Reedy and Captain Ting of the Amherst Police. So we've already approved numerous conditions on this application and we've done a lot of the work already there's I think there's quite frankly just a few issues outstanding that we have to go through. Of course, board members are more than permitted to ask questions about any matter on the application but I'd like to focus if we can on the outstanding issues and some of the questions we asked of the applicant of submission of materials. And that involves since the last time we all met parking and EV stations, snow removal plans, security procedures including onsite security guards, job descriptions and schedules for when Redwood construction personnel or their agents are actually on the property site. Outreach to residents regarding a community group, outreach to residents and community groups regarding a community garden on the site. Those are the ones that I think that we've asked for a responsive from the applicant on and gotten some responses back. Mr. Reedy, are you representing the applicant? I am, Mr. Chair. Would you like to make a presentation about those items that are still being considered? Yeah, we'd love to. So for the record, Tom Reedy, attorney with Bacon Wilson here in Amherst, here on behalf of Redwood Construction and its application for modification of their special permit with me, Tyler White from Redwood Construction and also Carlos Nieto from Berkshire Design who's handled the site planning for this site. So yeah, Mr. Chair, as you've noted and hopefully we're completed before the 730 break. I think Ms. Pollock, as always, did a wonderful job in her project application report identifying the items that were brought up at that September 22nd hearing and then the applicant's responses and then even further the additional information that was requested and then the responses that were provided. So it's probably simplest just to turn right to that project application report. And if I've got Tyler here with me and Carlos, so if I don't give you a sufficient answer or you need more meat on the bones, ask and we'll have the answer for you. So with that, I'll turn over to the list, so-called. So the first one was tenant demographics. And so I understand that there was a request from the Zoning Board of Appeals about what is the breakdown of folks with children without children at the site, as I understood it, which may inform the amenities on the site. And so Renew came back with their response that the number of units with school-aged children under 18 years of age is 62 units of the 182. And the number of units without school-aged children under 18 is 120 units of the 182 units. And so obviously there's double the amount without children under 18, then with children under 18. The next, and we can pause at any point, but the next one is about the community garden. And so it was a couple of fold and this will bleed into some of the information that was recently provided in October. Confirm the size area of the community garden. If guidance is needed to help create and manage the community garden, we are encouraged to talk to Healthy Hampshire. So the response is, there's an updated site plan and the community garden is 58 feet by 31 feet in dimension, which is approximately the same size as the community gardens approved in 2018-21, which is with the previous owner. It's comprised of 16 total planting beds, each 32 square feet, four by eight in dimension with three foot rows in between. In addition to composting areas will be provided in the garden, water will be piped to a spigot at the garden and residents will be required to use their own tools for planting. The applicant had reached out to Healthy Hampshire and we're awaiting response as an update if you go to on that project application report, the third red bullet point. There was an email from Tyler, from Healthy Hampshire, really just saying that Renew wanted to provide an update on the community garden plan. They met with Clark Bankert from Healthy Hampshire on October 20th and had a good discussion about the project. Clark oversees the Healthy Hampshire program and Renew is in discussions with her on partnering to develop the garden design and management policies. And then we will continue to stay in touch with her and we can obviously provide the planning department and update as the partnership is formulated. So it seems like good, I mean, the communication has been made. There's good faith efforts that are being undertaken. And I know that there's, I think a condition to that end that Ms. Pollock had drafted that seems acceptable to Renew. So that's the community garden piece. The next one is the snow storage areas. So Shumway Services provides the snow service. They use a mixture of salt and sand for snow removal. They don't use chemicals in the process. They referenced the management plan and then under the revised management plan, I think revised as of October 28th, which goes again to the red text that Ms. Pollock had added. There was a little bit of clarification in the management plan itself. So the Renew hires an outside snow removal company to plow the driveways, parking lots and roadways. All sidewalks, unit entrances, dumpster areas, fire escape routes and fire hydrants are also cleared. Snow banks will be maintained so that they do not pose a danger to pedestrians or vehicles and do not limit emergency vehicle access to the buildings. The main roadway has kept being clear of snow or other obstacles and is a priority for snow removal after each storm, as you'd expect. Snow removal contractor clears the snow once two inches have accumulated. If the snow begins to accumulate to the point that it cannot be contained on site, it will be relocated offsite. So removed from the site. Roadway salting is done before, during and after storms in addition, tenants are asked to move their vehicles after each storm to allow for safe snow removal. And the maintenance staff is also responsible for salting and shoveling the walkways through the complex. And I think you had after that September 22nd meeting received an updated site plan showing plants replaced that had some salt sensitivity. And so all the plants shown on that plan are salt and sand tolerant. And most of the American horned bean trees have been replaced with thornless honey locust trees. And most of the American red maples have been replaced with red oaks while the horned beans and pink flowering dogwoods while beautiful have been replaced altogether with Sergeant Cherry trees. So that's their response to the snow storage, snow removal piece. And as I stated, that's part of the management plan. So an approval would include that management plan. And so if the snow got to be too much it would have to be relocated from the site. The next one is about EV charging station. And the request was to update the site plan to show the EV charging station located in a nine by 18 foot parking space within the Jason five foot wide clear aisle which is what's required. And so the response is that the EV charging station has been relocated to accommodate a five foot wide clear aisle as requested. And then there was a screenshot with the updated site plan showing that five foot area available next to the EV charging station. On site staff. So confirm on all on site staffing roles and work hours per day provided. And so on site staffing roles is the applicant response, including property manager, facilities manager, leasing consultant and facilities technician. Each of these employees work Monday through Friday nine a.m. to 6 p.m. In addition, the leasing consultant works each Saturday from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. And in this, this is in the management plan they go through and identify property manager roles and responsibility, regional manager roles or responsibility, facilities manager roles and responsibility, facilities technician, leasing consultant. And then there's on call services for emergency issues, lockouts and other urgent requests that are available 24 seven. And so that last one hits the second bullet point of the red text that Ms. Pollack had asked for. And then the last piece that I think we wanna talk about is probably the email that I had submitted today. I had a conversation with Captain Ting. We had provided him some information and then frankly, he just spoke today. And he said he wasn't wedded to, he wasn't, that 9 p.m. to 3 a.m. wasn't something that he thought was required. Instead he said, we can start with surveillance cameras and communication because it seemed like if you had read the email and I'm happy to read it into the record if you need to, but I don't wanna bore everybody. It seems like he has been impressed with what Renew has done as far as onsite staff, tenant selection, and really I think communication with the tenants. And that's, you know, I'm here before you often and it really is about tenant selection, communication with the tenants and enforceable lease setting expectations and then following through with those expectations. And I think Captain Ting had seen changes over time. So he was willing to allow, and I had provided Ms. Pollock a suggested conditional language to allow for surveillance cameras and then to continue to work with the Amherst Police Department. And frankly, if they come out and I told Captain Ting this today, I said, you know, Gabe, if you say you need to have these onsite security, we'll have onsite security. And so he didn't think that was appropriate now, but in the future, should he want it, that's what's going to happen. And so as much as, you know, I think deference to the police department here is needed. And it was what he suggested. So that was, that's kind of that last piece. I think that was outstanding. So, you know, with that, we're happy to answer any questions on any of this. That's a little bit of a summary of what we've been up to. Mr. Eady, I want to just run through a couple of quick things and we can get back to the just clarifications. I read through the new management plan addendum, a couple of new points. It says that redwood construction or redtail multifamily land development, I'm not sure which already manages housing in Amherst. I wasn't aware of what that is. So your company already manages housing units in Amherst and which ones are those? For the record, Tyler White, redwood construction, 2082, Michelson Drive in Irvine, California. Thank you, Mr. White. So our company also manages a property called the social Amherst. And that property is a student housing property located in the town. I believe that's the only one in Amherst that we manage. All right. One of the things we've discussed were additional bicycle racks. And in the management plan it talks about, the supplement talks about two bicycle racks located in buildings 97 and 105. I seem to recall at our last meeting that the site plan included bicycle racks at each in front of each building. Is my memory correct? That is correct. I felt update that in the management plan and can do that. And but you'd be governed by the site plan anyway, but that's, I just wanted to make sure that I was remembering that correctly. All right. So those are the kind of cleanups that I had on the management plan, the supplement plan. And I think you've satisfied, for my, I was the one that raised the question about snow removal. And I think that you satisfied my concerns about that. I think you've done a good job with that. Couple of moving on to the other items. So let's talk about the community gardens. I know that the, you had a conversation with Healthy Hampshire and just for clarification, we're not saying that Healthy Hampshire is the only one that you should talk to. We're using Healthy Hampshire as an example of a community group that you could work with if you so chose to do so. I think that the proposed condition, which is in the condition, I think it's condition 80 in the project application report, condition 79, excuse me, lists several steps to take whether you work with Healthy Hampshire or not that are important for the design and success of a community garden. I'd like to know if those are amenable to you. And I would encourage you to continue to work with community groups to try to create, who have done a lot of work in town on community gardens, which is kind of an amorous thing. Community gardens are popular here and several developments have them. I wonder if those conditions are your copacetic with them. Yes, we are. Yep, okay. Then I think we need to, the one big issue that remains, and the EV sites as well, the new parking plan contains the EV site, so we don't need to condition that, I don't think separately, but the site plan requires that it has it as well and you'd have to live up with that. So let's talk about security if we can. Originally, there was the original application, you bought this property under the, with the condition that there'd be a security guard to be evaluated after security guard on the weekend to be evaluated after a certain amount of time and then to decide whether it would be there or not. You asked us to remove that provision. You subsequently said agreed to the provision, not asked us to remove it and now you're coming back and saying, ask us to remove it again. My problem with, my problem along with this security provision was that I felt that the the focus of the organization on the number of police calls and the transparency and commitment to providing us with a fulsome presentation on security and police presence and that was not sufficient for the first two meetings. And we had to go back to the police to get the calls and there was, there's some of these calls are routine, some of these calls are real, but there's 200 calls within the time of 200 up incidents of police presence on the property in the 18 months you own it. Your folks didn't think there was any police activity or represented there was no police activity. That's the first thing. So I am concerned about the management not putting sufficient focus on the security concern of the property. That's my first concern. My second one is that the police have said that a combination of on-site presence, additional security cameras and other facilities as well as improved management, tenant selection is what's worked in other places. And they gave several examples. Mill Valley, your neighboring property had was represented to us in our meetings and discussions with the police as a problem property for a while until they did all those in combination. And they now find that it's a very valuable or very much improved property. And they found the same thing in several other places. They don't say that it's just the lights. They don't say that it's just the, Captain Ting doesn't say that it was in his letter to Mr. Reedy either, I think, or is maybe his memorabilization of your conversation. I don't, doesn't say it's one of those alone will do it, but it's the combination of all of those. And I kind of think that's right. So my inclination at this point is to require the on-site security from nine to six, seven days a week when you don't have other people there. And if you wish to do other kinds of work, I think it would make sense to put in security's cameras and you're already doing them more, seems to me you're already have the ability to have more vigilant tenant selection and that's up to your company to do that. You can do all that and come back to us at some point when you think that you don't need the additional security presence on board, we can, you can make a motion or make an application to change the special permit to amend it. My inclination is to go with the security presence from nine to three on seven days a week and see how that goes for a period of time and then you can reevaluate it and if it's appropriate, we can consider it as an amendment in the future to the special permit. Can I respond to that, Mr. Chair? I would expect you would, Mr. Reed. Thank you. I guess a couple of things and I can't obviously speak for representations made or not made in the first couple of meetings. I understand that there was an issue with the GIS system and so that's still, you know, I don't think excuses an ownership group from knowing what's happening on the ground. And so regardless of GIS working or not working, you know, Tyler and I have had the conversations and he totally understands where the issue is there. And I think it's a valid issue where I would say to require, you know, I think one of the rubs is if we were to have on-site security from nine PM to three AM, seven days a week, and then we were to come back to you six months later and say, hey, we don't need it. Look how quiet it is. I bet the board is gonna say, well, yeah, of course it's quiet. You've got security. So the discussion with Captain Tink today was why don't we start at the other end? And if there is issues, then we know we have to do something else. But if we start with kind of the hammer, so that's what I had said to him. I said, you know, do you want us to use the hammer right off the bat? Or he said, no, no, no, you can work up to it. And I just, I'm sensitive to deferring to the police. They're the professionals here. You know, you've got something in writing. We're not making it up. We didn't twist his arm. They said, start slow. And so to me, that's incumbent upon Renew. And I think they'd be fine. I'm talking a little bit out of turn, but I think they'd be fine coming back in let's say three months and having a conversation because what I understand about this complex and part of my conversation with Captain Tink today, and it probably came up in previous hearings, it's not like a puffed in or a townhouse where you probably have college students. And then you're talking about Thursday, Friday, Saturday nights, something like that. This is, and if we were going to do it that way, you'd look for school breaks, you'd watch out for the summer, right? It's just a different calendar. If it's really student-centric housing, which this is more purely multifamily than it is student-centric. And so I think if you give a three-month litmus test, you're going to get a real read on, you know, have they cleaned up their, and then after the three months, you could do another three months. Like there's nothing preventing those check-ins starting slow with surveillance and then having Renew prove their worth. And if they're not able to, you know, the expectation has been set. And if they're not able to meet those expectations, then the result is going to be having to pay private security for 9 p.m. to 3 a.m., seven days a week, which I'll tell you is very expensive. And so that's, that would be our idea. That's what I talked about with Captain Ting today. And then even if it's, you know, weekly meetings between Renew and the police, I don't want to put unnecessary burdens on the police. I know that they're strapped for staff anyways. But when Captain Ting said that he talked to his patrolman, because now he said he's behind the desk, when he talked to the patrol officers, he said they don't really get, they haven't got called there very much, was his, the way he represented it to me. So it would just be a request to the board to start slow, have a check-in period. And then like I said, if they aren't meeting expectations, you know, let's have that conversation at that point, knowing that we just had this conversation. The problem with that is that then the burden is, the initiative is with the applicant to come back and say he wants to change the special permit to include a security guard. Let's do it the other way. Let's keep the burden on the applicant to try to say, everything is going well. I don't think I need it anymore. Let's improve it to us that way. We lose our ability to adjust this if we give it to the applicant to come in and start the process to have a security guard. If that is needed, we lose our ability to do that because we can't start the process for amending the special permit. That has to come from the applicant. And so- Unless there's a three month check-in would be the response, right? We're busy enough, and the police are busy enough that I don't need to have, I don't want to put three month check-ins, three month check-ins on something that I think if the applicant bought the property with the knowledge that there was going to be security guards. Two days a week. Right, but there was going to be some security guards. From our view on this, we found that there was a hundred calls, whether 200 calls, a hundred of which were not just the check-in with the police self-initiated, calls in 18 months. It's not insubstantial. And if that improves dramatically and that can be proven to us, I think then we can come back and take a look at it. But I think that obligation now should reside upon the applicant and not upon us to start that process. Mr. Maxfield. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was just gonna one say, I'm still inclined to keep the security guard as well. The reasons that you had mentioned, but I know prior to some of the public statements that you received from neighbors were issues with noise complaints that did have to go to the police on this. And I do really want to take the neighbor's opinions into consideration on whether or not to have a security guard there. And I, unless any of those people who had spoken previously about their desire to have the security guard are here to say, well, we've looked at what the applicant has put forward and we're okay with not having it. Unless anyone's here to say that, I'm inclined to keep the security guard on as well. Are there other questions for Ms. Marshall? I have a question for the applicant, but then also any questions for the board. First about the surveillance cameras, maybe a couple of questions. Are they being watched in real time, somewhere by somebody? Or are these just making recordings which might then be reviewed if necessary? And secondly, is there really only one entrance to each building? I'm sure there must be fire exits, but is one camera for building adequate to see who's going in and out? So perhaps the applicant can answer that and then I'll express my concern or an issue ahead. Howard, you want to talk about the structure of the buildings? Sure. We would definitely need to chat with the police department to kind of figure out the best way to monitor those security cameras. And we're open to doing what they advise us to do. So that's what I would kind of say to the first question. And would you mind repeating that the second part of your question, please? Oops, sorry. What can I just make sure I understand? So you, when you're proposing surveillance cameras, you don't at this moment have an opinion about whether those are being viewed in real time or just taping? I mean, my sense would be is that they're taped. I think what Tyler's saying is, and I'm gonna be pretty clear here, the financial burden of having on-site security seven days a week as this board is requesting is a big issue. And so if the alternative is to have, I would imagine some, in discussion with the police, because I'm not convinced that the police want on-site security at this point is to have live, the surveillance cameras monitored live, that probably would be more economically feasible than having on-site security during those times. And so I think the hierarchy, the preference would be Ms. Marshall would be record it. If there's an issue, let's check it, just like a typical security camera in most of the residential complexes and Amherst. But if it's between the on-site and the live stream, so to speak, I think live stream far and away. And I mean, what I'm going to say also is if the requirement is going to be 9 p.m. to 3 a.m., I think we're gonna frankly ask the board to continue the hearing because we have to reassess some things. I think Renu is gonna have to take another look at some things because it is that great of a financial burden to do, seven days a week for those six hours. So, and I'm just, you know, I'm always honest with you guys, so that's really what we're looking at. Okay, thank you. The other part of the question was how many cameras for buildings are really just one entrance? There might be multiple exits. Sure, so the language that we suggested provided and today to Ms. Pollock was that we provide one camera per building so that we would have a great view of the property from multiple angles and be able to see all the entrances and exits that there are. So having multiple cameras spread out throughout the whole property. Should give us enough coverage to monitor the security. And I'd imagine Ms. Marshall, if the police department said we need more for better coverage, then there's gonna be more for better coverage. Sorry, Tyler, but I mean, I think that's right. That's the reality of it. I agree, yep. Thank you. And then my thing I wanted just to raise is that I'm like whatever the security program ends up being, I'm concerned that we don't seem to have and I don't think anyone suggested and I don't know if any other housing development has these is some metrics for deciding what is the goal. I mean, you could say zero police calls would be certainly be a goal, but I don't know if that's reasonable. So what's too much? What's too little? I'm concerned that we might be asking something for something that isn't defined. And so neither we nor the applicant can know if it's that condition has been met or not. So that's my concern right now. Thank you, Ms. Marshall. Are there other questions, comments from board members? Mr. Chair. Yes, Mr. Maxwell. I mean, are we just committed to that? This has to be seven days a week for the security yard. It was already two days a week. So I think my concern still is gonna be more for weekend days. I'm not necessarily attached to the idea of having a security guard there Monday, Tuesday night, for example. Do we have flexibility on that or the rest of the board if we're going this way, do they wanna stay with seven days a week? Well, I don't know what the, I guess the question is, that's a question for all the board members, Mr. Maxwell, I'm not sure. I mean, I think the thing that I come away with from my discussions with Captain Ting and from his representations of other apartment complexes for lack of a better term is that it's the combination of all three things that work best. It's a combination of on-site security guards, combination of increased surveillance and a combination of better tenant selection processes. That's what seems to work best. And it's not one or just one or two of those, but it's all three that work the best. And that's where they've seen the improvement. And I guess it's about starting out and then having the applicant come back and say, we don't have any problem. We haven't had any use of the security guards on Monday, Tuesday night. Can we move to Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday nights? I mean, that's the way I would prefer to go that way. I would prefer to have them come back to us and say, you know, this hasn't been needed that much. We've done this a good job on this and we'd like to amend that special permit to change the coverage. But right now there is nobody there. I mean, if we don't do this, there is nobody there between five o'clock and eight o'clock the next morning. And that could be a problem. It was not what they thought was gonna happen to begin with. They'd at least have two nights worth of coverage. And I think that it's not unreasonable to ask for seven days a week coverage for those hours. And if it proves to be unreasonable, they come back and they can tell us based on their experience. And I think at that point we'll have a better sense of what is the on property experience than we have right now, which we don't have local representation here. Tyler is very good, but he's in California and he's not the local, you're not on ground there, Tyler. And I know that we don't have your resident manager here talking to us. We don't have your facilities manager here talking to us. So we don't really know. I mean, you try your best, I'm sure you do. But we don't have that local experience and that's one of the things we're looking for. So we will have a better idea down the road and they will have a better idea down the road. They can come back to us at that point and say it should be changed. That's my shielding, Mr. Maxwell, but I wanna hear from the rest of the board members to either now or during the public meeting portion. And Mr. Judge, we do have a representative from our property management team, if that's all helpful for the board to respond to any questions that would be targeted at property management. So that's a Rachel window. Maureen, if anyone needs to ask a question to Rachel. And what's Rachel's position, Mr. White, I'm sorry. Yeah, she's a regional property manager and this property is one of her assigned properties. But the regional property manager isn't nine to five on site, right? She's there sometimes, which is not there more than 40 hours a week. Shimmy, Rachel, can you clarify kind of how often you're on site? Thanks, Tyler. Yep, I'm on site roughly one time per week for one business day. If you wanna know the exact hours, I can dig in and see. But I do personally live about an hour away from the property. So I am the closest person to the site apart from the actual manager who works on the site every day. Got it, thank you. Ms. Parks. I would be all right with a compromise of having a security guard Thursday, Friday, Saturday. Having lived in downtown Amherst, I know that's when the high activity is. And so I would be okay with that three days of the seven. What about Sunday? Have you noticed it? I don't think it's necessary. No, Thursday surprisingly is almost as busy as Friday. Oh yeah, Ms. Marshall. Yeah, I don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good. I think, I'm not sure if Ms. Parks was also contemplating cameras. Perhaps it is possible to do cameras and weekend security guard on site. And review that after three months or six months and see if the guard is not particularly busy or in fact, quite busy and maybe should be there more off. It seems to me that seven days a week, that strikes me as burdensome. All right, other comments from board members or other questions? This is really, we can discuss this more also in the public meeting portion of this, but other questions for, and we can continue on this now, of course, but other questions or other comments for the applicant before we go to public comment. Great. Maureen, do we have anybody, any members of the public who are, so let's open this up to public comment in case there are any public members who wish to speak to this. I don't know if we have any. So if anyone wishes to speak, you'll have to use the raise your hand feature on Zoom to indicate you wish to speak. I'm seeing a couple of hands, okay. We'll start with Clark. Clark, I'm gonna allow you to, if you could state your name and your address. Sure, hi, it's Clark Bankard and I live at 15 Fairfield Abbey Stampton, Massachusetts. I actually had a comment about the garden. So I wasn't sure if you're opening this for public comment for all the issues or just the specific. Yes, any of the, anything regarding this application? Oh, okay. So would you like me to go ahead then? Yes, please. Okay. Yeah, so I just wanted to note a couple of things with regards to the community garden. I do work with Healthy Hampshire, which is a program of the Collaborative for Educational Services located in Northampton. And just confirming that Tyler and I have met and discussed the project. My organization is interested in a partnership with Redwood to develop a garden on the renew property. Right now, we are looking at where to find funding for that because my understanding from Tyler is that their timeline was to build a garden this spring. And so we are 100% grant funded and we don't have any funding written in specifically for this project right now. So we are interested in a partnership, but we don't actually know if we can commit at this point because we're, we need to secure some funding first. So that's kind of the status of the partnership at this point. And I have really two questions about the garden, the proposed garden. So my understanding is that the ZBA has asked for a design from Redwood. I did get to see it on the screen share with Tyler. Typically Healthy Hampshire's approach for working with communities is to gather a group of interested residents to actually work on the design together and to solicit more as much community input as we can about their design preferences. And so one of my questions is for the ZBA really, like how much leeway, if we do end up moving forward with a partnership with Redwood and we do work on developing a garden, the spring or sometime in the future, how much leeway will we have to modify the design that they have already submitted, based on community feedback? So that's one question and should I pause or would you like me to just go through the other question before I? I think go through both of them, Ms. Banker. And so then the second question is, I understand that the original permit included two gardens and that Redwood is proposing to build one garden at this point from a community development perspective and sort of the model that we typically work with around gardens, starting with one really makes sense because we don't actually know the extent of community interest at this point. However, if there is substantial interest that would merit a second garden, is there any way we can ensure that this would be supported in the future by Redwood? Is there a role for the ZBA? Could it be in the permit? But a timeframe given like within five years based on demonstrated community interest, just some way for us to, if we do have success with that one garden and there's demonstrated interest from residents, could we then continue to partner with Redwood if they're interested in building a second garden? And could that be included in the permit or is there some way to ensure that that could be made a possibility in the future? So that's the second question. Some of those questions, well, let's, we can have an applicant respond to that at the end of the public comment. We've got your questions out and perhaps board members will also respond at the end for your public comment to those questions. What's in, we have another request moorings for public opinion from Mr. Matthew Barron. Yes, yep. Matthew, if you could state your name and your address. Good evening, my name is Matthew Barron. My address is 76 Barnsville Street in Swamsgate, Massachusetts. I'm a technical assistance provider for the mass in motion program and one of the grantees does happen to be Healthy Hampshire. I too have a question about the community gardens and my question is just more related to what I saw as a potential inconsistency between the presentation from attorney Reedy and the condition. So I would just look at for some clarification whereas in the presentation, attorney Reedy mentioned that all residents would use their own tools, but condition 79, which was agreed to verbally required that Redwood purchase supplies for the community gardens. And so knowing that community garden members oftentimes do have shared tools, at least some of the larger and heavier ones, would condition 79 require there to be some common tools provided for the community gardens? Cool question. All right. Thank you, Mr. Barron. Is there another, I see there's another request for public comment from Ms. Moranny Parker. Moranny, if you could continue. Hi, this is Ronnie Parker. I garden in the community garden in Amherst that Healthy Hampshire has helped develop with the town of Amherst. And I think that one of the important things about that garden is the way that Healthy Hampshire goes about gathering input and sort of including all kinds of people. And the reason this is important for you all, I think is that it's not just about food security and whatnot, all the great things about community gardens that we know, but it's also about a very different kind of community building that happens when people garden together. And that will contribute to greater security for you because more people will know each other and I've seen each other and done things with each other. So I think that one garden or two gardens, if you could find a way to work with Healthy Hampshire, I think that's a really good way to go. I also had a similar comment to Clark that, I think it's great to start with one garden because you don't want to like overdo it. But I would really like to see some sort of system in place or monitoring or some point of assessment to determine how well it's working and how well it's not. And I know that there were some concerns. I'm not sure where I heard this about community gardens being ugly or not being well cared for. And I just wanted to say, because I've worked in community gardens and let them and where I lived before for over 10 years, there are just so many things you can do to beautify the area around the community garden that are not dependent on whether some portion of the garden gardeners are maintaining the garden or not. So I think that concerns certainly can be alleviated if it's one and if it's known upfront. So there's a lot that can be done and certainly Healthy Hampshire has experience with that. And I've found, anyway, so I would very much support having the garden. And I think it will be an asset to your potential tenants, not a problem. Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. Any other public comment? This is an opportunity for the applicant to respond to the points made by the public. We've got the first question about commitment to getting residential, resident input and secondly about some kind of a mechanism to require an assessment as to whether a second garden is needed or would be worthwhile, a question about tools and then a general discussion about the value of community garden. Sure. Well, I appreciate all of the public comment and definitely value the feedback that was given just to address some of the questions. We welcome input from the local community especially tenants at Renew Amherst to provide input, design input and feedback on how to best design and manage the garden. That being said, we do and the reason that we requested only have one garden is we wanna gauge the feedback and test out whether or not there's sufficient demand to construct a second garden. If it is, we're open to input from tenants if there is enough demand for a second garden. So that's something we're definitely willing to consider. In terms of the question about tools being provided, so the condition as suggested actually it is a little vague. It does say purchase supplies for the community garden. So we're happy to... So it's a little unclear exactly what supplies mean. We're happy to provide seeds and places to put trash and rubbish as illustrated on the site plan. The only reason that we talked about and I think this question about tools came up before but tools undoubtedly end up being lost and misplaced and from a property management perspective, it just from our perspective can be easier for tenants to provide their own tools. So they have ownership of those. And so those tools that are provided by... If tools were provided by management don't keep getting lost over and over again. So that's I guess our response to that. In general, we are happy to work with Healthy Hampshire or other community groups to design a great garden and great management policies and principles and think that with the community's help, with Healthy Hampshire's help we can have a great garden that's useful for everyone and that is beneficial and kind of mitigates any concerns we had with becoming unsightly and so forth. So that's, I think that's covered. If I missed anything, please let me know. I would add one thing. I think one of the provisions of proposed conditions in the 789 is former planning committee on site residents to help to manage the garden and sketch out a design for the community garden based on community feedback requirements and the owner's preferences. So I think it seems to me that the involvement of the community is already required through the conditions that are proposed. Lastly, I'm not inclined to require a second garden five years down the road based on some kind of a metric that we don't know what it is. I think this is the kind of thing that if it really takes off and does well, enlightened management, we'll see it as a attractive amenity for the complex and I'm not, I don't know how we would put a metric in much to Ms. Marshall's point to evaluate whether there ought to be a second one at some trigger point down the road. I see there's another hand up, but we tend to keep public comment to one comment per person, Ronnie. So we're not gonna, Ms. Parker, we're not gonna take a second comment unless it's to correct absolute mistake on the part of the, either me or the staff or the applicant. Other questions, are there any other comments regarding the public comments for the applicant from board members or any other comments from board members before we go into the public meeting portion of our consideration? Ms. Marshall. Just that I think we should clarify and I'm not sure if it happens in the hearing or the meeting, what is meant by supplies? Our supplies are not tools, is it mulch, is it topsoil, is it, you know, just to make it clear what is included there and what is not included. We can do that when we consider the conditions. That would be the appropriate time to do that. Mr. Chair, if I could before, I don't know if there's any other comments on anything else, but before you do go into public meeting, I think what we would say is probably two-fold, one. I can't help myself, but to note that safety is always a big issue, just like noise or lights or water trespass, right? And you have been doing this long enough, the board has been doing this long enough to know that if there are concerns, folks show up to voice those concerns. And I think it's worth noting to the board that nobody has shown up to talk about feeling unsafe at the property. And while there may be a number of police calls and that may be frustrating in the board may be frustrated by representations, misrepresentations, lack of representations. I think we have to look at the testimony or frankly the lack thereof with folks saying they feel unsafe. If folks came here and it was overwhelming that there was a sense of a lack of safety at the site, I think we, I would have a very different conversation with Tyler and I'm sure he would have a very different conversation with you, but that's not what we're hearing. We're not hearing that people are saying they feel unsafe and that they need onsite security. This seems to be somewhat unilaterally imposed by the zoning board of appeals, even despite what the police department has said. And so with that, before you go into a public meeting I think we would ask for a continuance because security onsite is going to be a big deal and renew is going to have to rethink several things including potentially the construction of this building all together because it's that type of burden. So I just don't want you to, because I know how deliberations and findings and all of that go and I want to be sensitive to your time. Let us go back, have a discussion, see where we really come out and then come back and if this is the one discrete issue that we're talking about which it sounds like it would be then we can have that discussion at that point but I don't know where renew is frankly on this. I know Tyler and I have been communicating and I think the best thing to do right now is to request that continuation. Unless you want to go along with us by all means then you can proceed but short of that which I'm not expecting right now we would ask for a continuation. I sense that there are sufficient votes to require some amount of on-site presence from the board members. I'd have a question for you as to what the cost is for a per hour on a per hour basis of a security guard. I mean the representation is that it's expensive. If you don't have that now and we do a continuation it's something that we would want to know. If that's $20 an hour, $15 an hour, $25 an hour that is something we should probably know but I don't know the impact of what that decision is financially that's your call and if you choose, if it's imposed and you choose not to build a building because of that that should inform our decision. That should be something we think about but I'd like to know what those numbers are. Mr. Judge, would you mind if I clarified? I have done some research on the cost of hiring security guards and I think it can be anywhere in the neighborhood of $40 to $50 an hour and if you for six hours a day for 365 days a year. You said that's about $80,000. And so from that range. From a financial perspective, every dollar of expense for a multifamily owner has a big impact on informing the decisions of whether or not to build something. So $80,000 to, I think if it's $50 an hour that's $100,000 a year. So that's not only a burdensome expense every year but also impacts the valuation of the building. If any future sales are contemplated then that's taken into consideration by any potential buyers and kind of hurts our position from a valuation standpoint. So that's just kind of all the things that are going through our head when we're making this decision is not only the burden that it places on an annual basis, $80 to $100,000 a year but also for a valuation if any sale is gonna move forward. I understood just two points. One, you bought this property with a condition that there'd be two or three nights worth of security guards. So it's the delta between whatever we decide and what was in the original condition. That's the first thing. And so I just wanna make sure that all the board understands that but that was already there. And secondly, that sounds like a high per hour number. I have no idea though. It'd be good to know what that is. And lastly, you still got 96 bedrooms that you're gonna be putting people in and the question, it's your question it's your decision to make whether the 47 units would generate sufficient rent to offset that cost. But so I guess we should, unless other people have questions for the applicant or wanna discuss another provision that some of the conditions, I would suggest that we move to the public meeting portion, discuss the start out with discussing whether there is a desire to continue this or whether we should move forward with conditions and findings tonight. It's a discussion amongst the board members. Agreed? Okay, we'll go to a public meeting portion which is generally- As long as we're not closing the public hearing, right? No, no, we're not closing the public hearing. Just them? Nope. Make sure. This is the portion where we're proceeding to a public meeting. We're not closing the public hearing. And if that public meeting is typically a point where the board discusses the application before us it is generally not a time for public comment. We do reserve the right to get public comment or comment from the applicants for clarification. So I'd like to hear people's thoughts on where we stand currently. Number one, whether we wanna continue with the application going through conditions, findings and others or whether we condition this and give the applicant a chance to come back and submit a different approach. So I'd like to hear what people think. Mr. Maxfield, your hand is up. Yeah, do we want to at least now get rid of everything else other than the security guard issue? It sounds like there's no more issue on that. We wanna, like we did previously, vote on those conditions and just have that last one hanging. So when we come back to that that's the only thing we need to review. That's certainly a possibility. That would make a lot of sense. You can use the time tonight, but I guess the question is do we continue the meeting generally and we can figure out how we do that, but I think that makes sense to go through and yeah. My preference would be to take care of the, just the last thing we can take care of tonight, get a general consensus of where we stand on seven days a week, four days a week, whatever it is and then continue it and let the applicant go from there. That would be my preference. I think the problem, we can do that. We can do that through conditions. I don't think we can make findings at that point, either 10.38 or the 9.2 until we deal with the security. Yeah, so remaining conditions, security guard condition and it probably makes some clearway some deadwood before we. The question I have is do people want to grant a continuation or and give the applicant a chance to come back with another alternative or are we comfortable where we are? And that's really a question for all of you. My feeling is it's best to give the applicant a chance to come back and propose something. I think I've made my feelings known. I think people on the board have made their feelings known as well and we can vote on it and see if they want to take it or leave it, but it's probably makes sense not to have a fate or complete if we can avoid it, but I am not inclined to move much of my concerns that I stated. I'd like to hear from other folks about whether we do that. Ms. Parks, do you have a thought on that? I don't mean to put you on the spot, but we need to kind of get a sense of where people are on continuing before we move where the other I think. I'm okay with continuing. I will say that in Amherst we don't really, most jobs do not pay $50 an hour of that sort. It's not, it's different pay scale here, but I also just wanted to say that here we're very impacted by student housing or issues with densely populated apartments. And so that's why we're very sensitive to this issue. Mr. Gilbert, do you have a thought on this? Yeah, I mean, my quick thought is, no, the security guard pay scale is not 50 an hour, but I think that the point remains that, there is a concern amongst the board members for security guard, right? I think that reason of speaking that is not a seven day a week ask from any of us. I think that's pretty clear from the discussion. I do feel as though a three day a week, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, as has been proposed, I believe by Mrs. Parks is fairly reasonable. That's something that I sort of agree with based on the complaints that have been received over the history of time. I don't think that that's sort of an unreasonable ask. And I'd be happy to vote on that, should the applicant be amicable to that. I mean, I'm sure that they're not interested in returning yet again to necessarily debate this, but of course it's a decision to be agreed upon by both sides here, those are my thoughts. Ms. Marshall, do you have thoughts on this? Well, I already expressed some, whether we want to talk about three day a week guard plus surveillance cameras or just or not, but as for the continuing, I'm I'm I'm I'm unclear. Is it that we want would want more information from the applicant about the cost of a guard or they want more time to consider? I mean, I'm fine continuing, but it's I don't know how we know if that's needed. For is for them to reevaluate and come back with a proposal that they think meets our concerns. But once we once we've decided what? No, I think they would come back. I think what they're asking and is they're asking for a continuance so they can reevaluate and come back with a proposal for us. Maybe that proposal would be three days a week with security cameras. Yeah, I don't know. Maybe that proposal, maybe that proposal will be what was originally proposed that there would be a security guards, whatever. You know, I don't know what it is, but that's what they are because part of that we would like to know what the reasonable cost is. I mean, saying that it's outrageous or that it's expensive is one thing. Knowing what that cost really is, is another thing. And we can have a better sense of what that is in Amherst versus, I mean, an assertion that it's expensive and I don't doubt that there is some expense to it, but I don't know how big it is. So that's what the continuation would get us. Or we can proceed and we can say, you know, our judgment is XYZ, take it or leave it and you don't like it. Come back at some of the date and time and tell us what you want or don't build the thing. I mean, that's not a very good option. That's a complete one way or the other and I prefer not to do that. But what we don't wanna do as a board is be afraid to make a decision on the safety of residents of the area because of concern that it might, just based on a question that the building won't be built without some more knowledge, without more chance to try to reach a compromise here. I don't want that, none of us want that, but at the same time, we don't wanna be backed off from our responsibility to make sure that the application addresses all the needs of the community and the residents. And I think that's what's important. So I don't know quite how to proceed in this case, but what I'd like to do is put a test. What I seem to look at is we've got four votes continuing and having the app will come back. I'm not sure Mr. Gilbert, if you were in that vote or not, but I think there's four people, I include myself allowing them to come back. That makes sense. I also would like to go through the rest of the conditions, not the findings, but the conditions and get those out of the way. So if and when they do come back, that's the only issue that's out there. And then at that point, we can make a decision on security. We can make the findings, which the findings are dependent upon all the conditions before we make the findings and we can move forward at the next meeting. That would be my proposal to members of the board. So we proceed that. Is there anybody that would object to that? If not, I'd like to proceed that way. Okay. So what we wanna do then is go through the conditions that have been proposed by staff, many of them, but we have taken care of a huge chunk of these conditions. If you'll go to the project application report, you will note that every condition that we approved in a prior meeting is identified as with either a lower case or uppercase okay at the beginning of the condition. So for example, the first one, we've already done that. The second, we really can't do that until all of the plans are included, which in this case may include additional security cameras or other things. So I'm not prepared to, this is kind of the final thing this identifies which site plan is actually, they have to build it by, I don't think that should be done until we have the end of the hearing. So I don't think we can do condition two at this point. Condition three, four, five, six, seven and eight have already been approved. Under marketing and lease agreements, condition nine and that's already been approved. 10 has been approved, 11 has been approved, 12 and 13 have been approved. 14 has been approved, 15 has not, 15 is new as of October. All right, this came up because of new information which we gathered, which was made, we became aware of at the last meeting requiring some of the, one of the units to be affordable for houses earning 60% of area median as opposed to 80. They quite frankly have to comply with this. So I would argue that that has to be approved. Are there objection to that or discussion? If not, 16 is done, 17, 18, 19, 20 are done, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33 are all taken care of, 34, 36, 37 are taken care of, 38. We've already talked about this. We have not voted on this condition yet. The applicant has agreed to it. It seems like that is a condition that we can approve at this point unless it's an objection from any member. Number 39, pretty much boilerplate language, normal sort of discretion giving to the building commissioner prove any minor changes to the parking layout needed to accommodate the placement and so many vehicle charging stations on the premises. We have it on the plan and modified. This gives the opportunity to make significant changes but minor changes to that. I think that flexibility is probably valuable. I do have one question. We do not need to condition bike in front of each building because the site plan already includes that. Am I correct? Marina Robb? There is a condition that sort of mentions the various amenities like benches and picnic tables and perhaps the bike racks. And I think we haven't reached that one yet. So you could take a look at whether you think that needs to be included or not. But if the bike racks are identified on the site plan that's the approved site plan, I think they are and they would have to be built according to the site plan, is that correct? Yep. Okay, yep. All right, the management plan is number 40. So 41, that's a new all snow within the parking area. It would probably move from the site as a part of the cleaning process. You know, this probably occurs because of some concerns I had. I'm comfortable with the amended management plan and the snow plan in that. I don't think we need this condition because I think it conflicts with what's in the amended management plan. And so I would say we should remove this unless somebody objects. All right, 42, 43, 44, approved, 46 is approved, 37, all new on-site parking places. So it'll be constructed and maintained by the applicant and shown as shown on approved LC 200 overall site plan date on October 6th. And this is all the second one is also parking. All right, so the plan, that's just saying that it has to abide by the most recent site plan. I guess the only question there is, is that date still the most recent or does that date need to be changed? That is the most current one. That's the most current and that includes the handicap, the EV as well as the compact spaces. Is that right? Yeah. Okay. All right, so that I think is approved in a case unless there is objection. So I'm just reading, I'm reading 48. Yeah, I don't think there's no objection from the hit on that. Number 48, the parking spaces. So that should be approved unless there's objection. Mr. Riedi, I'm just your share. Is that? No objection to that. No objection. Okay, 49, okay. So we approve 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 are all approved already. 53, 54 are approved. 55, 56, 57, 58 are approved. 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, up to 63 have been approved. 64 is up for discussion. Benches, bike racks, picnic tables, community garden and trash bins shall be provided as shown on approved plan sheets. LC, okay, replaces modified language. All right. So what it says is that the, this says you got to build it to the plan. And that plan includes bike racks in front of every community garden, trash bins, an increased number of picnic tables and increased number of benches. Is there any objection to that condition? If not, I think we should approve it. 65, 66, 65 has not been, 65 needs to be considered. This goes back to the 9.22 finding that we have to make. Let's put a circle around this, but then we have to go up requires, we have to make a finding to go above 35%. There's, they want to go to 35.2. This gives them a little extra 35.3. I don't think this is controversial. It has to be done for the building to be built and no parking is what requires that. But as part, it ties into a finding. So let's keep 65, just in case we make a, we have to make a finding that we are on it, not anticipating or amend a finding. So Maureen, that's one that will keep all 66 has been found. I mean, been 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 have all been approved. 72, the staff recommends that this be removed as condition one covers this. I don't think it has to be repeated. I think the staff is right here. Same thing with 73, condition is the building should be constructed along the design sheets that are the most current. 74, it deals with the maximum number of visitors per unit are 10 people with a maximum stay of five consecutive nights. I guess the question there is what's in the lease? And is this that you currently have? And is that, are we comfortable with 10 people per apartment building, per apartment in the, as visitors in the site? So number one, is this in the lease, Mr. White or Mr. Riedi? Yes, this is in the lease. Okay. Mr. Riedi, can I ask? I'm sorry. Yes, Ms. Marshall, go ahead. If unit, if unit means an apartment. Yeah. 10 people overnight, I mean, overnight visitors that's 10 additional people in one apartment that has no more than three bedrooms. This doesn't even seem like would anyone try to do that? This is not, this is not like a party. It's not visitors. Overnight visitors in one apartment, 10 people for five nights. The only thing I can say on this, initially I had the same response to it. So this seems, you know, way too big. The only thing I can think of is that this is trying to accommodate perhaps families coming to visit. That if you have, these aren't just students. We have families living here too. You may have family members coming to visit for holidays or graduations or something for a short period of time. I'm guessing that's what it was, but we should leave that. I shouldn't put my characterization on that. We should ask the management what they were thinking of when they, and I will do that now instead of imposing my thoughts on it. Sure. This is actually a condition of the currently approved special permit to add this language to the management plan and the lease. So that's where those numbers came from. So condition 24 of the 2018 special permit has, new language shall be added to the management plan and lease agreement limiting the stay of guests to five days and a maximum of 10 guests per unit unless otherwise approved by management. So this comes from, you know, four years ago. Well, Ms. Marshall. I'm sorry. You can't imagine that it would be a problem. Well, that someone would wish to have more than 10 people for more than five days. Oh, I see. Yeah. Okay. I was just... What do other people think? I mean, you thought about it, it seems like a lot. And it doesn't seem like something that's a management is pushing. I mean, it seemed that they'd be open. What would you prefer? What do you, 10 people is a lot for one bedroom or two bedroom apartment, even if it is family. What's your inclination on this, Mr. White or Mr. Riddie? Is Rachel still on? Maybe she can add some input here, if that's okay. Yeah. Maureen, I'm not seeing her. Hold on one second. Maybe she became a 10D again, hold on. She's not there. She's still, she might have left actually. Left. Let me go through that one more time. Well, let's not delay this. Come, we will leave this on, you're coming back. We'll leave this unsaid. Come to us with that. You are comfortable with next time we meet, all right? Mr. Chair, Dylan, Maxfield has raised his hand, I thought. Oh yeah, I was just gonna say I'm fine with 10 people. I don't think that's a problem I could see in the event of a large family, like now they're up against the lease because they, is all they can afford is a smaller apartment. Like, I don't know, it's not, I don't think it's a problem. It's five consecutive nights, maybe around Christmas time. It's not the worst, but I'm not married to it either. I just, I don't see it as a problem. Okay. Well, I think you're not opposed to having them come back with a number they're comfortable with, are you? Okay, let's do that. No, I'm not gonna shoot that either. So leave 74, something to come back with, when you come back, all right? 75 is taken care of, six is approved, 77 is approved, 78, we'll leave that for later. 79, that's the community gardens. You've verbally approved, agreed to that. Is there anybody that opposes, or Ms. Marcia, if you do to the definition of supplies? It looks like Maureen has already written some new language in there, purchase seeds. Seeds, I think, I don't know, I think people would, seeds are cheap, and people have, you know, on particular varieties. I was thinking more of, you know, mulch, like for the paths. Yeah. But I think of here is, I'm sensitive to the need for the people living in apartments don't always have shovels and other kinds of things that you would need to till the lamp. It may not be something that's available to them. And others may, that this may be, tools may be something down the line that the community is going to ask the ownership, the management to provide them and try to figure out some way that they can keep them from walking off from getting lost. But that's probably something we should leave up to management to do, and not say that this not compel them to put tools on this list. I guess I would also want to make sure that there are supplies include sprinkler heads for the hoses so that people can water and they don't need to bring their own watering can and those kinds of things. And I'm assuming that that is what's contemplated by these eyes, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the kind of thing that everybody bring their own sprinkler down to the community garden and bring it back. But that would be something that's on the end of each hose. Am I correct? Yeah, can I add to that? In our site plan, it's currently proposed that we pipe water to the community garden and so there'd be water right there at the garden. Right. How that water gets to each plot. If there's a spigot that you turn on and you fill up your watering can, that's one thing. If there's a hose, you can put that over and use that thing that you have to decide based upon what the community is asking you and that's potential, all right? Potential and the price for that is to not have to buy shovels or anything to do that later, but that's a good trade for you, it seems in my estimation. Yeah, that's- But keep it open for what the community wants and that would also make- I think the one thing I would like to stress here that we've talked about, you just go up Maureen a little bit too, I think it's number, it's C. Yep, C and Applating Committee of Residence, community partners, if you choose to work with somebody in the community and allowing the community to design the garden really makes sense. It's something that we are committed to and we put it here for, well, I think we'll help to ensure the success of the community garden. I want to just highlight that for you guys. Any objections to number 79 as amended? I would just note that seeds is repeated in H and is that necessary? You're good, Ms. Marshall. Seeds seedlings, I mean- I would take it, you know what I would do? I take it out of supply, seeds aren't so much supplies as in H, I take it out of E and leave what are in H and I would say purchase supply such than those with trash to talk to them all. That's what I would do. How's that? Does that meet your needs, Ms. Marshall? All right, good enough. Any other changes to number 80? All on-site residents in the prominence still have access to two community rooms located in the Loop 47 unit building. I do have a question up for the management on this. If you have key cards that only allow you into the building that you live in, how are residents going to be able to access the community rooms in the new building? Are they, do they have a separate entrance and outside entrance or what do you, how is that going to work? No, that's a good question. I would have to defer to property management on that one and it's Rachel's still not on the call. I can definitely get an answer on that. All right, so let's, one of the things we will discuss when you come back is number 80, but it would be valuable to figure out a way to provide everybody in the amenities of the community rooms, not just the people in the new building. And before issuance of the building permit, the applicant will submit an updated LC-402, which is Drainage and Utility Plan associated with stormwater management report to the Amherstown Engineer for Review and Approval. The approved plan and report shall be filed with the planning staff. That just has to be done. So we should, without objection. Okay, we've gone through, I think, Ms. Marshall, yes. We went, I was, took me a while to catch up at the beginning, could we go back to nine, condition nine for a moment? Cause I just don't, I don't understand what happened. Condition nine. It's set, it's about the leases. It says, okay. But then there's the staff review language and then it says that the applicant wishes to modify it. So I don't recall that we just, did we reach a decision? And I'm just forgetting that we said no, no change. It's kind of, they're going to be 12 month leases without exception. I'm trying to remember that it seems like a long time ago, Ms. Marshall, doesn't it? Yes, well, I think it was a long time ago, but I do remember there was, Rob, was there some discussion about why 12 months is preferred, or is kind of standard practice in these apartment complexes and Amherst? Is that, do I recall that? I remember us talking about it, but I also think we agreed that a little bit of flexibility for situations that we can't think of, in a condition wouldn't be okay to have built in there. But I couldn't think of anything else right now, other than it has been a standard condition that both the planning board and zoning board has been using in a number of their permits. We see it pretty regularly. Yeah, regularly, that's right. Yeah. So it didn't strike me right away as a problem, but as the last sentence of the view, which is the applicant's proposed modification, expected to be 12 months, however, at least less than 12s may be approved by the applicant as circumstances require. There's not much of a guideline there for the applicant as except what's required, but it does speak, if all the leases in the building are three and six months, you're not being, 12 months aren't being expected. So I guess there's some yards to get switched to judge your judgment on circumstances requiring it to be less. What do people think? I would move that we amend nine to incorporate the applicant's suggested modification to number nine. What do people think? If there's no objection, no objection will do that. All right. Okay, so any other questions, any other proposed conditions or any concerns that members have regarding that question, that they want us as part of the conditions. All right, then discussion earlier, we have gone through all the conditions with I think three, one can't be done until the end, one deals with security and one wanna do a later point when we have more information that they're gonna get back to us on. Now is the time to decide whether we wanna continue it the later time for them to come back as a request or whether we wanna forge ahead. So I would entertain a motion to continue this meeting. Maureen. Let's see here. So I believe the next DBA meeting would be on Thanksgiving. So we're probably not doing that. Not happening. Not happening. So then the following one would be December 8th. Okay, now that's a problem for me. If I think I could, is there a chance people keep earlier on the 5th, I'm just not, I may not be able to do it on the 8th for family reasons. So the 5th, the 6th, or the 12th, or the 15th would work, but the 7th, the 8th just are not gonna work for me. I cannot commit to it working for me. I don't know for sure, but I cannot commit. Oh yeah, and then the dates would work for you, Steve, sorry. Five would work, six would work, 12, 13, 14 would work, 15 would work, and 16 would work. Yeah, and then... I don't think anybody wants to meet on Thursday before Christmas. Maybe you do. Yeah, probably not, but... Would we meet on the 15th? Just have one meeting then in December? Does that work for you, Tom and Tyler? For sure. Dylan, you serve on other town boards. Will that work for you? Yeah, that'd be no problem for me. I think we can, if I have to make it, that my Board of Licensing meeting is a little short that day. I've got no complaints with that. All right, well, there might be a few. Anyway, and Mr. Gilbert, how about you? That worked for you? The 15th? Yeah, I think the 15th's all clear for me. How about you, Ms. Parks? That's good, all right. So I'm sorry to put everybody through this. I just cannot commit to be, I can't promise I'd be there on the 8th. So the 15th. May I ask, so since the applicant seems to want to provide updated materials, is there a deadline for submitting that in preparation of the 15th of December? Well, 10th, I think December 1st would be a good date. That's three, that's two weeks to one, two, three weeks to put your materials together. I can't imagine that it's gonna take you that long to do it. Yep, that works great. All right, and that way we have materials ahead of time that we can look at, all right? Okay. So it would continue until December 15th at six o'clock via Zoom, right? Via Zoom, and that the materials, understood materials to us by December 1st. Mr. Maxfield. Mr. Chair, before we make that motion, do we want to make the motion to approve the conditions that we reviewed here tonight as well as the amendment to condition nine? Well, I kind of went through, I mean, I kind of went through and said, unless there's an objection, we approve each of those. Okay, so I think I did it. I think I'd better formally do it, that's wonderful. No, I'm good with that. I think we did it. Yep, I think we did it. Another, I just don't, I was trying to avoid votes, but making sure that we had unanimous, and we will at the end approve all the conditions. We will satisfy the need for a roll call vote on all the conditions, but going forward, this is a step in. All right. Okay, so I would take a motion to continue this for the request of the applicant to the 15th at six o'clock, and that the applicant, the deadline for materials submitted was December 1st. Do I have such a motion? So moved. Do I have a second? Is there any discussion? All right. The motion, it's a roll call vote. The motion occurred, the vote occurred on the motion. Chair votes aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Ms. Marshall. Aye. Mr. Gilbert. Aye. Votes unanimous, the motion carries. We'll see you guys on the 15th. Perfect. Thanks a lot. Have a good Thanksgiving. Yep. You too. Thanks. Morning, and Rob around if you can. Do we, do we slay to adjourn? No, we're not, we're not ready to adjourn yet. But I just, I talked to morning and Rob afterwards. So we've dealt with all the applications before us. The next order of business is comment on any matter, not before the board tonight. So this opens up, this is every meeting, we allow comments on anything that public wants to talk about, except for those matters before the board. So is there anybody who wishes to speak? Not saying. Not, okay. Then there's no public comment. The last is responses from any, any non, any business that was not notified prior to the 48 hours. I have two quick things, report on the fees that we talked about. We're trying to get those done on by middle of October. We come up with an agreement with the planning board of a $500 fee with exceptions for a single family homes. That's with the planning department. I've talked to Maureen and she's, she knows that we were trying to get this done. There's, I would encourage Maureen, if I need to, I should, I'll talk to Chris that we're looking to get their reaction. We don't have the reaction from the planning department yet. That's not Maureen's fault. I've been bugging her about it. And it's not, it's not her fault. So it's still in the process. I hope to have it for our next meeting on the 15th, the planning department's response. That's the first thing. So I wanted to give you that update. We haven't gotten about it. We did what we were supposed to do and we just need some reaction from the staff at the planning department. Secondly, there is, go ahead, Ms. Martin. Is that something we will need to vote on? Or is it just for part? We need to vote on it because of amendment to our bylaws. Those fees are set forth in our bylaws. We could do this without the planning department's comments if we just felt we wanted to do it, but we could. But my inclination is to see if there's an objection to it before we move ahead. But I don't want to wait too long because we're missing income that could otherwise be coming in to the town. So I'd like to have that in the present for the town. We'll give them some additional revenue as Christmas present. First thing is I understand that we had a discussion about a change in the zoning bylaws regarding food. Couple of weeks, several meetings ago. Can you hear me? Yeah, you cut out there for a moment. All right, now can you hear me? Technically, yes. Now you can hear me? Yeah. Okay, good. Yes, well, I think I've got a good microphone's dying on me, but I could still hear myself. Several months ago, we had a discussion with Rob and on changes to the zoning bylaw regarding food and liquor establishments. The effect of the change is to change the current bylaws provide that certain restaurants downtown that are in the business district, I think, general business district would go for site plan approval rather than special permits. The thought being that this has been done administratively the last two years successfully and it hasn't involved a special permit and that the inclination that the, that most case those restaurants in that area that do not serve after 1130 at night and who have food or liquor or drive in windows, those a nuisance to residents except for people who live in the large apartment buildings right downtown who decided to rent there where that was probably something they knew was there when they rented in probably an amenity they like is having restaurants around. Restaurants that are more than 250 people, restaurants that go after I think after 1130 at night or open or nightclubs, nightclubs not dance halls, there's something like three things nightclubs, bars and music like the Drake or nightclubs such as the one by the parking lot in back where you get the good Dylan, that's like with the food, the jerk chicken, right? That's the hazel blue lagoon with the great jerk chicken. Those would still require a special permit. I think I'm describing this correctly. Am I not Maureen? You are in a general sense. I know there's been some updates. My colleague Nate Malloy is working on this draft proposal and there's been, you know, tweaks along the way as he's been meeting with both the planning board and the CRC. So I can't really speak to the particulars of the draft bylaw to be honest, but I do know that there are opportunities to attend future planning board and CRC meetings. And I believe the planning department does hope to have this go forth to the town council for public hearings and for a final vote by the end of this calendar year as article 14 does expire at the end of this calendar year. But I, and I can certainly email everyone what is the current draft version and let you know the particular date that the next time either the planning board or CRC takes this up. I don't have that information in front of me though, but I can email that to you. Oh, we can't hear you, Steve. We can't hear you. Meh. Sarah, you had something to say. Yeah, maybe more or you can answer it. I'm curious what the impact, if any, on the ZBA's work is, is this going to move some things out of special permits that we would ordinarily be doing or this is just informing us about changes to the zoning? Yeah, some of the uses would actually be by site plan review through the planning board. But again, I don't really want to speak to the particulars until I have the draft proposal in front of me, but there would be definitely some of the uses would go through the ZBA, such as nightclubs and then a restaurant or bar that is over a certain capacity. But again, I'll email you the current draft by-law so you can take a look. Now can you hear me? Okay, how many choices do I have to get a microphone on this? It's too complicated. The fact, my point was one, you're right, it does change the kinds of things we had done in the past. We haven't done for three years, right? And arguably it's functioned well without us doing this because it's in the commercial district and it isn't the kind of thing that we really have to be concerned about typically and let the planning board or the staff deal with it. That's the argument. Now I'm not one who just wants to give up our sort of jurisdictional areas. So what I wanted to do is make sure that this was, you were aware of this, get the staff to try to distribute it to all of you to look at it, assess what it is. If you're concerned about it, let Maureen know, she can then communicate that to me because we can't talk about this individually. We have to go through staff, let Maureen know that you're concerned, she can then compile those concerns and we can either have a meeting before or we can represent ourselves at the town council if it's something we really are concerned about. My judgment on this is that it's not, that it's probably stuff that we don't need to be approving special permits for restaurants on pleasant next to the large apartment complexes. I'm not sure that that's the best years of our time but that's up to you guys to kind of take a look at and decide. So take a look at it, let us know your thoughts. I've just learned about, I just learned that the schedule is fairly quick on this. I just, I didn't know that until recently. So when you get this, look at it quickly and let Maureen know what your concerns are. And then we'll decide whether we should, whether I should or we should represent our opinions to the board. Okay, town council I mean. All right. And you can certainly ask Nate if you have questions about it, call Nate up too as well. He's the guy that's doing this, right Maureen? Yeah, and I'm emailing him right now. So I don't forget. So I can get the draft by-law and presentation and let you know when the next meeting will occur. And of course everything is on YouTube so I can find out when was the last meeting and you can watch that if you wish. But I think the CRC committee is dealing with this fairly soon. So take a look at it if you're concerned. Let us know whether we should express our concern about it. All right. So I think that's it. Is there any other oldest, yes, Ms. Parks. We have a training coming up next week, right? Yeah. Just to remind people next Thursday. Yes, thank you. That's good. Yeah. Is that all that's on the agenda? Can we add anything to the agenda at this point? Such as this just got this item here to put on all we can have about new business. I would say, let me talk to Rob. I feel like the solar training could be lengthy, to be honest. So it might be a bit too much, but I'll talk to Rob on Monday because town hall is closed tomorrow. Planning board is attending too. I believe, yeah, they are. It's unclear of whether they will have forum or not. So I did send a special invitation to the planning board and to the solar work, solar bylaw working group. So the town is currently drafting a bylaw section pertaining to solar permitting. So they've been invited. If they both those boards or any boards do have quorum, they'll have to post their agenda. And there may be some procedural things that we need to think about with Steve about like the planning board did have quorum. I think Doug would actually have to formally open the planning board meeting at the next Thursday. I've never dealt with that before, but perhaps some members could just tune in afterwards or what have you. It is recorded and it will be featured on the town's YouTube channel under the ZBA YouTube channel. Will there be material that we have in advance? That's a good question. I did ask Jonathan Murray, attorney Jonathan Murray to send any materials in advance, if possible, so we can distribute it and put it on the town calendar for any members of the public that would like to see the presentation in advance or any other materials. So I'll touch base with him and hopefully get you anything in advance by Tuesday. Okay, thank you. So we all get to see each other next week. I've been seeing each other for a month and a half. That's good. All right, any other old business or any new business? Any other items for discussion? All right, guys, good to see you. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Is there a second? Second. It is not debatable to vote a curves on the motion to adjourn. Chair votes aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Gilbert. Aye. Ms. Marshall. Aye. We are adjourned. Thank you. See you next week. Thank you all.