 Okay, Mr. Marshall, 634, you have your forum and we have attendees coming in. So we are good to go. All right, thank you, Pam. You're welcome. Welcome to the Amherst Planning Board meeting of December 21st, 2022. My name is Doug Marshall and as the chair of the Amherst Planning Board, I am calling this meeting to order at 634 p.m. This meeting is being recorded and is available live stream via Amherst Media. Minutes are being taken. Pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended by chapter 22 of the acts of 2022 and extended again by the state legislature on July 16th, 2022. This planning board meeting, including public hearings will be conducted via remote means using the Zoom platform. The Zoom meeting link is available on the meeting agenda posted on the town websites calendar listing for this meeting or go to the planning board webpage and click on the most recent agenda which lists the Zoom link at the top of the page. No in-person attendance of the public is permitted. However, every effort will be made to ensure the public can adequately access the meeting in real time via technological means. In the event we are unable to do so for reasons of economic hardship or despite best efforts, we will post an audio or video recording, transcript or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the town of Amherst website. Board members, I will take a roll call. When I call your name, unmute yourself, answer affirmatively and return to mute. Bruce Colton. I'm here. Tom Long. President. We have been told that Andrew McDougal will be absent this evening. I, Doug Marshall, am present. We've been told that Janet McGowan will be absent this evening. Johanna Newman. Present. Karen Winter. Present. Thank you all. Board members, if technical issues arise, we may need to pause to fix the problem and then continue the meeting. If the discussion needs to pause, it will be noted in the minutes. Please use the raise hand function to ask a question or make a comment. I will see your request and call on you to speak. After speaking, remember to remute yourself. For the public, the general public comment item is reserved for public comment regarding items not on tonight's agenda. Please be aware the board will not respond to comments during general public comment period. Public comment may also be heard at other times during the meeting when deemed appropriate. Please indicate you wish to make a comment by clicking the raise hand button when public comment is solicited. If you have joined the Zoom meeting using a telephone, please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star nine on your phone. When called on, please identify yourself by stating your full name and address and put yourself back into mute when finished speaking. Residents can express their views for up to three minutes or at the discretion of the planning board chair. If a speaker does not comply with these guidelines or exceeds their allotted time, their participation may be disconnected from the meeting. Okay, so the time now is 6.38. We'll go to the first item on the agenda, which are minutes. And it looks like we have minutes from November 16th that were included in our packet. Did anyone have any comments on those minutes? All right, I do not see any hands raised with comments. Does anybody wanna make a motion to accept these minutes as drafted by our staff? Johanna. I move to accept the minutes as drafted. All right, thank you. And Tom. Any second? Thank you, Tom. All right, we have a motion on the floor to accept the minutes. Any discussion? I do not see any hands for discussion. All right, in that case, we'll go through and have our first vote of the evening on the November 16th minutes. Bruce. I approve. And Tom. Approve. And Johanna. Approve. And Karen. Approve. And I'm gonna approve as well. So that's five in favor, no abstentions, two members absent. All right, time is 6.39. We'll go to the second item on our agenda, our public comment period. And let's see. All right, I'm seeing that we have at the moment five members of the public in the public attendees. I do see one, actually I've been reading who is in the public attendees for the record. And at the moment I see actually six. Renata Shepard. Eric Wright. Jonathan Gerfine. And I know he's here for the second public hearing. Kyle, I assume is Kyle Willislin is here for the first public hearing. Maura Keane and a Tim A. All right, so Renata Shepard has her hand raised. Actually, Bruce, I see your hand raised. Do you wanna make a comment before we go to public comment? You are muted. Yes, Doug, you didn't say that the comments should be restricted to general items, not on the agenda, is that correct? Well, I have a recollection of having read that in the introduction. Okay, so I just wanted to make sure that, because I think I know why Renata Shepard is here. Oh, okay, well then I can certainly repeat that this comment period is for items that are not on our agenda for this evening. So it should not have comments right now for items related to the Archipelago Project on Olympia Drive or on Mr. Gerfine's project on Belcher Town Road. So, Bruce, it sounds like you were correct. Renata has removed her hand and so it sounds like her comment may come later. All right, I don't see any other hands raised for public comment at this time. So I guess we'll go on to the third item on the agenda. Let's see here. Okay, so the time is 6.41 and we're opening a public hearing. This is for site plan review and special permit. In accordance with the provisions of Mass General Law, chapter 40A, this joint public hearing has been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted and is being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity for interested citizens to be heard regarding SPR 2023-01 and SPP 2023-01. Archipelago Investments LLC 47 Olympia Drive. This is a joint public hearing to request site plan review approval under section 3.326 of the Zoning By-law to construct a private apartment-style dormitory with 68 dwelling units and associated interior and exterior spaces and associated site improvements, including waiver of onto-site parking, including waiver of on-site parking requirements, a special permit to modify building, maximum building coverage and height requirements under section 6, table 3, footnote A of the Zoning By-law, located on map 8D, parcel 18 in the RF zoning district. This hearing has been continued from August 3rd, September 7th, September 21st, October 19th, November 2nd, and November 16th, all of this year, 2022. All right, do we have any board member disclosure? I do not see any hands raised. All right, Mr. Wilson, you are back and I hope you have at least a couple of things to say to us. Yes, thank you for having me again. I appreciate it. Thank you. Since we were last before you, we've been before the Conservation Commission a couple of times. We are in a position with the Conservation Commission where we had two items outstanding, which were the connection to the utilities on Mather Drive and the mitigation fee for an imposition beyond 20% in the buffer zone. The mitigation fee has been given to us by the town and I think we've clarified the deeded rights that we have for utilities on the connection of Mather. So we are extended our public hearing at the Conservation Commission until January 11th. So we expect to go back for them on the 11th and hopefully get a vote and be through Conservation Commission. So I appreciate you guys meeting with us in advance of that. I expect that once we're through that, we should be near the end of this. I think for 47 Olympia, I think what we could do, Chris obviously sent the draft conditions of the site plan review and the special permit. And I thought I could answer any questions that might be outstanding. And again, I appreciate you guys meeting with us in advance of Conservation Commission. All right. And I just wanted to ask you one question. Sure. I noticed in the draft conditions that Chris had put together, she added a couple of conditions that relate to the outstanding issues with the Conservation Commission. Is it helpful to you for us to, if we are going to approve this, is it helpful for you for us to do that tonight? Or are you neutral on whether we do it now or after the Conservation Commission? Obviously it's always helpful for us to proceed as quickly as we can. I understand the quorum issue that the Conservation Commission is trying to juggle. I don't wanna impose on the process too much, but if we could proceed tonight, I would appreciate it. Okay, thank you. All right, board members, are there questions for Kyle that have relate to whatever's happened since our last meeting or on something you forgot to ask at the last time we had him before us? Anything new? Not seeing anything. Okay. Let's see, Bruce. Not too much a question. It's a couple of comments, those things that have cropped up in the interim. Kyle, I know, I think I asked and encouraged you so far as bicycle storage was concerned to whether you were going to make provision in the building for, I think I said specifically electric bicycles. I was concerned that, whereas those types of bicycles are valuable and may not be, people might not be comfortable storing them outside in the bicycle storage provided, even though now it's intended to be covered and they clearly heavier than can be carried up to the rooms, which is what you've advised us that residents will do if they've got bicycles that are more than minimal value. In the interim, I've been reading reports from, particularly from New York City, where there is some considerable danger apparently with the current generation of electric bikes and batteries and so forth, causing fires and so forth. So I thought I should add that in that I am no longer pushing you for that in the near term anyway. You can decide in the future with your market and how it goes and so forth, whether you wanna do that. So I'm now stepping back from any advocacy of that particular, sorry, that particular feature, shall we say. Secondly, apropos parking, and this is not a question so much for Kyle as a piece of information for us as board members or as a board and staff. I have been concerned about the prospect of granting parking waivers and I've been, people have been asking me questions about that too, not least of which is Renata Shepard who was in the audience because I sent her a link. But because of that and because of Andrews, I think it was Andrew or Tom said, this is likely to be a self-correcting problem. And I thought, well, what is the prospects of overflow or problems in association with that self-correction if somebody can't find parking, Andrew was not noting that then they would probably be less inclined to rent from Kyle and Kyle would be motivated to make amends in some way and this would be a process. And I thought, but what are the opportunities for predatory parking around here? And so I thought to go and talk to the way finders, people who are the owners and managers of the Olympia Oats next door. And I managed to get in touch with their CEO of Wayfinders, Keith, gentlemen named Keith Ferry. And I had a really long discussion with him. He turns out to be a Amos resident. So he's not unfamiliar with this process. But in brief, he told me two things. One was that they have, they Olympia Oats have had no problems with the current situation so far as 57 Olympia drivers concern. And second, he said that they have no concerns about us, about the prospect of parking and us weaving a parking and depending on the students being able to get their parking permits from the university under the terms or under the circumstances that we previously discussed. He has no concerns about us creating a situation like that, providing he says that the management of the 47 Olympia Drive proceeds similarly to the way in which it has with Olympia Place, I guess. So I also gave his office and he personally are linked to this meeting thinking that he could either say it himself or argue with that represents that representation of the way the organization feels, but that's... So my concern about heritory parking seems to be not be one that I'm thinking is a significant impediment here. And I thought that both of those, that that also would be something that the board might like to hear. I don't know whether it would rise to a finding, but maybe it does, but we can decide whether it should go in findings or not. I think we might want to get the CEO for the next couple of years or so. We want to get the CEO Ferry to confirm what I said before we elevated it to a finding. Okay, thank you, Bruce. All right, well, before we go to the findings and conditions, I think I would like to let the public comment if there are folks in the public that would like to comment. Members of the public, are there any comments you'd like to make? Okay, now I do see Renata Shepherd's hand. Pam, if you could bring her over. Please give us your name and your address, presumably in Amherst, and you would have three minutes for your comment. Welcome. Thank you, Renata Shepherd, Justice Drive Amherst. I would like to express my opposition to granting a waiver for parking for the Olympia Drive project. Due to all landlords in Amherst are required to provide adequate parking for tenants. I don't know what rent prices will be, but based on other projects, some rents won't be any lower for lack of parking. Relying on tenants purchasing UMass permits is not really adequate or sustainable, especially because student passes are more expensive than staff, for instance. Students have expressed concern before in rental permits and stuff because of high rent costs, and this extra expense just seems very unreasonable. And it's also unreasonable to assume that they won't have cars or their guests won't have cars. We just would like to express that. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Ms. Shepherd. Are there any other members of the public that would like to make a comment? All right. I do not see any. All right. Board members, if you have any additional comments or questions for Kyle, this would be a good time to do it. If not, I guess the next step would be for us to move into review of the findings and conditions that were drafted. Nate, do you want to take the lead on that? I guess the- You don't sound very excited about it. No, I can do that. I was gonna say too, a few things. One, Erin Jacques, the Wellands Administrator, told staff that she's pretty comfortable with having the planning board approve this project. So it really is kind of a, I don't want to say perfunctory at this point review by the Conservation Commission, but they've gone through most, the project to the point where it's just like it was one or two remaining items. And so they're, she's pretty confident that it can move forward. It was a quorum issue, not necessarily anything else that delayed their review at the recent meeting. So they actually didn't have enough members present to actually hold the meeting. So they had to continue it. And then just, it's in the conditions. I was just gonna say that the address or this property will be known as 47 Mathers Drive. So we're calling it Olympia, but there is that change. So that's, just for clarity. So I mean, I guess I had one small comment or question about that. Since all of the advertisements and the announcements and agendas have all referenced Olympia, will those be changed to Mather so that in the future, somebody can find when they're looking for the permitting of Mather 47 Mather or will it just vanish? No, it's a good question. I think we all just can link it. I could be corrected, but we'll have to have something where there's a, the property itself isn't changing, right? So the property ID parcel ID is the same. And so it's just more of an internal change. It's something we could have in our permitting history. We could have some way to track that. It's just like an A&R or writer, a condominium association that then changes addresses. We can track that. Okay. All right. Let's see, Pam, why don't you bring up our findings and conditions? I was gonna do that, Pam, just so if we have to type on it, I can... You can edit it as we go. I can edit it. Which ones? Sorry. All right. I can make that a bit larger, that's... Well, it's good and big for me. Did you wanna do conditions first or findings? I think we've done findings first usually, right? We do, but I don't know a bit. Geez, these are, I have the conditions, the findings, sorry for the scrolling. I'll stop share and I see, I don't have the findings right now in a Word document. Pam, if you bring those up, I'll grab them. Okay, hold on. Okay. All right. Can you enlarge it slightly? Too much. How's that? That seems good. Nate, now can you take control of it? Well, I wouldn't be able to edit it. So I was just trying to find... You want Pam to email it to you and then you can open it? Yeah, I'm just trying to find it quickly, but it might be better if you... That's gonna take a minute, so hang on. At least, yeah. Can you not find it in the packet? Well, hold on, hold on. I think I have it now. You got it? Yeah, it was taking me a second to pull it up. So Pam, you can stop share. And we'll walk through the site plan or view findings first and then we can move on from there. All right, so here are the draft findings. They have a provisioned at 1215 as the most recent one, so it's been revised a few times. So I'll start reading through them. Is that... Yep, that's been our practice. Actually, Bruce, I see you raised your hand. Yeah, yeah. Yes, Doug, I think we've reviewed these once as a board, probably as I recall correctly, some of these things, but it seems that there are other... There have been some edits and so... So which date of the three revision dates would be the date of our previous review of these as a board? Is that included in the three dates? Is that one of the three dates on the top here? Just FYI, so I can see whether I should be looked... Because if it's the last one, then I'm imagining that we've seen all this before, but I couldn't remember that we had or not. So I believe it is 12-7. Let's see. The last time that you reviewed them and there have been some small changes based on... That's helpful, Pam. Thank you, I think that's all I need to... Okay. Right, I agree. So it's probably everything just showing in track changes is really what's been... I mean, maybe it's been a few deletions, but really it's just the changes that are visible are the recent ones. So I can start reading. So the board found under section 11.24 of the Zoning By-Law site plan review as follows. 11.2400. The project is in conformance with all appropriate provisions of the Zoning By-Law with the exception of the provisions requiring waiver of onsite parking requirements and the special permit for modification of building coverage and height. The special permit has been applied for concurrently with the site planner review. Although the applicant has requested a waiver of the requirement for a signed plan, a signed plan will be required as a condition of the site planner review approval. The applicant has provided a plan to show the location of handicapped parking in front of the building along Mather Drive. The applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement for onsite parking. And so, we had asked last time or discussed showing that the handicapped parking in front in the parking area. 11.2401. Count amenities and abutting properties will be protected because detrimental or offensive actions are not planned for this site. The site plan appears to minimize the possibility of detrimental or offensive actions. 11.2402. Abutting properties will be protected from detrimental site characteristics resulting from the proposed use. Lighting will be downcast and will not shine onto adjacent properties. 11.2403. Adequate recreational facilities, open space and amenities will be provided because the property will include a recreational space within the building. The property is located near a town on property with access to a trail to a trail that connects through Olympia Oaks to the town on trail system providing additional recreational opportunities. The building proposed for this site is large and takes up much of the property but there is a courtyard proposed near the entry which is available for use by the tenants. 11.2410. I'm just gonna scroll for a minute. Not applicable. There are no unique or important natural historic or scenic features on the site. 11.2411. Proposed methods of refuse disposal are described in the management plan. They are considered to be adequate. Trash will be stored inside the building in a refrigerated storage area. 11.2412. The ability of the proposed sewage disposal and water systems, water supply systems to serve the proposed use is considered to be adequate. The property is connected to the town sewer and water systems via a connection in Mather Drive. Mather Drive is owned by the University of Massachusetts. The town engineer has reviewed the project and has not expressed concerns with the proposal regarding these issues. 11.2413. The ability of the proposed drainage system within an adjacent to the site to handle any increased runoff resulting from the development is considered to be adequate. The town engineer has reviewed the project and has not expressed concerns with the proposed system. The project has also been reviewed by the wetlands administrator and the conservation commission. The conservation commission agrees with the connection to the drainage system in Mather Drive. That's a new piece that they can make that connection. 11.2414. Provision of adequate landscaping will be satisfactory because a landscape plan has been submitted. The landscape plan has been prepared in accordance with Amherst Landscaping Guidelines. A condition of the site plan review approval will require that the applicant submit a landscape plan showing quantities of plans prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11.2415. The erosion control plan has been submitted. It has been reviewed by the town engineer and the conservation commission and has been found to be satisfactory. Let's see. 11.2416. It's on two pages here. Adjacent properties will be protected from the intrusion of various types of nuisances including air and water pollution, flood, noise, odor, dust and vibration through appropriate site and structure design and the use of appropriate design materials for containment, ventilation, filtering, screening, soundproofing and sound dampening and other similar solutions. The use of the property apartment style dormitory is not expected to produce air and water pollution. The stormwater drainage system has been designed to prevent flooding. Noise within the building will be contained by the building's outer walls and windows. Noise from the site will be contained by the courtyard which is surrounded by five-story building sections. Odor is not expected to be produced by the new building. Dust and vibration will not be produced by the finished building and will be controlled during construction by requirements of the construction logistics plan. Screening will be provided for the loading area. Hey, Nate. Yep. On the second line of the new page, the word buildings should have an apostrophe. Is that? Yep. Yep, all right. Yes, I have buildings outer walls, okay. 11.2417, protection of adjacent properties by minimizing the intrusion of lighting has been discussed. All exterior lighting will be required to be downcast and dark sky compliant. The applicant shall submit catalog cuts on all exterior lighting fixtures for review and approval by the planning board prior to installation of these fixtures. The applicant shall submit a photometric plan of the site lighting for review and approval by the planning board prior to installation of the exterior lighting fixtures. So, Nate, I guess I note that this paragraph is saying the later submittals would be submitted to the planning board for approval, but the earlier reference to the landscape plan did not say we would see it or approve it or anything like that. And I guess one of my questions is, how many times do we wanna get, how much more involvement do we want or need to have? Right, and so, and why aren't we being consistent about whether we see things or not? Right, and I think there is, yeah, so in some of the conditions as well, it says that it would be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit and then essentially it'd be reviewed by the building commissioner and staff. And so I think for the lighting, it could be a similar language, it could be that all lighting needs to be downcast and dark sky compliant and it has to meet certain elimination requirements. And so the findings and the conditions could say that they just be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. I mean, it may be that sometimes the planning board wants to see a photometric plan to make sure that the light, there isn't light spillage onto other properties or that there's a sufficient illumination in parking areas or walkways. And perhaps the findings could say that or the conditions could say that and then that has to just be clear on the lighting plan. Right, Bruce, I see your hand. As far as the landscape plan is concerned, I seem to remember asking Kyle last time about the numbers because on the sidebar, on the landscape plan, all of the plants were, everything was meticulously and thoroughly done. The only thing that was missing was the column giving the numbers of the particular plants. And that's why I think at the time, I always said that that column should be filled in. But I do recall Kyle's answer and it was that, well, actually the numbers are there. It's, you just have to add up the numbers on the actual plan. So maybe it was because the plan is very close to being complete with the numbers that we may not have mentioned it in the earlier situation. Right, it's considered, right. It's such an insignificant change that essentially the plan where it has reviewed it, there's enough of a plan here. We're saying that there hasn't, the photometric plan hasn't been submitted. Yeah. All right, so members of the board, do you want to see the site, the lighting plan and have approval, an approval opportunity for that? Or do we want to leave that in the hands of the building commissioner? How do people feel about that? Well, I personally always like to see photometric plans because I have a sense of what I'm looking for. But so if it was, but that your question probably is, do we need to have up a, I mean, I'd be happy to look at it and just send a comment to the, or so I don't necessarily need to see it as part of the whole board if that would streamline the process. Well, this is saying at a planning board review. So I thought saying out of public hearing, this could be at any public meeting, a regularly scheduled meeting of the planning board that these plans could be submitted. All right. Well, I guess we can receive them, put them in a packet, and then as part of the meeting agenda, we can ask if anybody had any comments or not. Tom, I see your hand. Which? Thanks Doug. Yeah. I think there's a stipulation as well. We're going to need to see a signage plan in the future and approve that before those are installed as well. So, I mean, I think it's fine to assume that I think it would be good for us to see it, especially since we're near wetlands and forested areas. So I'd like to just at least see it before it goes out. But I think as Bruce said, I don't necessarily think it needs to hold up the process. I think as long as it's something that comes our way. Okay. Well, why don't we leave the language this way and we'll get the material and have a chance to comment. All right. So we can move on then to 11.2418. It's not applicable over right here. The property is not located in the flood zone in the conservancy district. 11.2419. Wetlands will be protected by building in accordance with the provisions of the Wetlands Protection Act, Chapter 131, Section 40, and the Amherst Wetlands Bylaw. The project has been reviewed by the Conservation Commission. The Conservation Commission has reviewed their proposal and be issuing in order of conditions. 11.2420, that's not applicable. I'm just going to scroll for a second. By the way, you had an extra semicolon at the end of 2419. Yeah. There we are. Thanks. 11.2421, the development is reasonably consistent with the respect to setbacks, landscaping, entrances, and exits with surrounding buildings and development. There will be no on-site parking. Tenants who own cars may purchase parking permits from UMass and use the adjacent UMass parking lots. Although there is no on-site parking, there will be a significant number of bike racks on site located along the northern property line. Two handicapped spaces will be provided in the parking lot along Mather Drive with a crosswalk leading to the new building entry port. There are already two existing handicapped parking spaces in the parking lot, which will remain. 11.2421. Oh, I've made a car in Sam. Oh, yes, yeah. Yeah, I should have asked just before. Significant amount of bicycle parking. I never got a sense of also I'm grateful that there's now covered on-site bicycle storage for the tenants. But what does significance? Could you could you give me a ballpark number? How many bicycles? I mean, we know how many tenants there are. Is this 15? Is it 20? What do you estimate? Kyle, that might be a question for you. Do you know how many bike racks? It hasn't changed on the landscape plan. I don't have it in front of me. I believe it's 22 at last. Yeah, I was going to do a new share and share the. Here's the site plan. And this is the bank of bike racks right here. So that's a pretty big pad. Yeah, so it's my hope that we're going to really transition these dormitories to be really bicycle friendly and that with time, the university and others realize that bicycle paths should be dedicated bicycle paths that are safe and not necessarily sharing the road and that everything should be done to kind of push that forward. So that's why I'm just mentioning this. I'm comparing it to places where people that live in this proximity to a university really do embrace this kind of transportation. So I'm hoping that there's going to be enough room. That's why I'm mentioning this. Thanks. Nate, I will say that the imprecision of that language is a little bit kind of less than ideal. I wondered whether we might change that sentence to just say bicycle racks will be provided or there will be bike racks on the site. So is the language visible again? Yes. You could say there will be bike racks on site. Yeah, I mean, we're approving a site plan that shows how many there are. So right. All right, so I deleted it will be a significant number. And now you say there'll be bike racks on the site. Yeah, I mean, Kyle has the app that has mentioned to that tenants have a tendency to also bring bikes into their units for security or for personal reason. So some are left outside and some they carry up. They bring to their units. Bruce, I see your hand. Why don't we just put they will be covered by racks on the site? You may as well make that point. I think it's worth making. So add the word covered. Yes. Can we confirm if those are covered or not? That's been Mr. Wilson's assertion in the last meeting where we reviewed the plans. Kyle. Sorry, muted. Yeah, so there's a request for covered bike racks. We've looked at that with Jodi Burser, who's the architect from MODIS. We've got an approach to do that. I think that that's something that we could also review when we come back before you with photometric plan if we wanted to talk a little bit more about how we look to cover the bikes in that same location. We're obviously not impacting the amount of coverage or the amount of concrete or the amount of bike racks. It's just how would you install structurally something that gives the cover and provide some screening looking north to 57? OK. Yeah, I mean, I was just going to say that it's pretty close to the setback. So depending on what happens there, you might need. Might need another permit? Yeah, waiver or you know. We're putting a structure within the setback. Yeah, I mean, right now the pad is looks like it's feet, a foot or two right from the property line. So if you're just go back to that. So here is the property line and here is the bike rack or the concrete pad. I suppose I mean, I suppose since both parcels are owned by Archipelago, I suppose it's possible they could adjust or eliminate that property line location too. Yeah, we wouldn't have a there wouldn't be any problems with the neighbor to the north. Well, I would like to have the word covered in that finding. But is that because I think that's fine. And I and then I would defer I would defer to Nate on how best to manage that subsequently, which I'm open to. Relative to all the other things we have to do to make the building work. If we're just reconciling how to best cover that and manage the setback, I think we'd be in good shape. All right. Where are my share? What am I sharing? We're seeing the plan at the moment. All right. Let's go back to all right. So covered bike racks that was changed. And we'll move on to 11.2422 is that? Well, I think it sounded do we need to have language that the exact solution for the covered bike racks will come back to the planning board? Well, I would think that that could be a condition. So the findings is that there's covered and then the condition would be that final plans need to be reviewed and approved by the planning board. Okay. So 11.2422, the building site avoids to the extent feasible impact on steep slopes, flood plain, scenic views, gray changes and wetlands. 11.2423, not applicable. There will only be one building on the site. 11.2424, screening has been proposed for the mechanical systems on the roof. They'll be located on the roof and surrounded by a parapet wall. Trash will be stored in the building. So there'll be no dumpster on site. 11.2430, the site has been designed to provide for the convenience and safety of pedestrian movement both within the site and in relation to adjoining ways and properties. There will be pedestrian access at three points into the building from the courtyard area. Okay. Does that mean there's three doors into the building from the courtyard area? Yeah, that's the way, right, there is. I just actually, I guess, Kyle, can you confirm that? I thought I wasn't sure. I wanna make sure that there's both, that all three are also our entrances and egresses, I thought two of them might be just egresses. I think it would just be how we handle the card readers. We'd want them to be secure, first of all. So if we want most of the traffic to go through the main lobby, we might limit those to just egress, but we want people to use the stairs. So they may very well, once you come into that courtyard, those two side doors on the stairs may have card readers and just for allow for entrance right up into the stair. So yeah, this is visible now. So here's the main entrance here, the walkways in gray, and here is one entrance to a stairwell and then another door. So those are the three points. All right, so if we go back to that language, I think you could lose the comma after three entry points. Right. Where am I? Go up. So you're saying there will be potential access at three points into the building? Into the building, yeah. Yes. From the courtyard area. We don't, I don't think we need any of those commas. Yeah. Yeah, all right. Yeah, those commas chipped me up a bit. All right, so Kyle, so you think that's accurate for now that there are three points into the building? Looks like he's nodding his head. Yeah, thumbs up. That's fine, sorry, sorry. Okay. 11.2431, the location and number of curb cuts is designed to minimize turning movements and hazardous exits and entrances. There will only be one curb cut for the service area at the side of the building and there is an existing curb cut in the vicinity of this location. There will also be provision in the parking area along Mather Drive for two new handicap parking spaces and a crosswalk to the new building. This is in addition to the existing two handicap parking spaces along Mather Drive. 11.2432, the location and design of parking spaces, bicycle racks and drive aisles will be provided in a safe manner. Bike racks will be provided on the north side of the building along the Northern property line. A waiver has been requested from the on-site parking requirements. And it looks like we'll have to clean this up a little bit due to track changes. So there's some remaining punctuation in spaces. Right, I'm seeing Johanna's hand. Thank you, Doug. I'm just trying to figure out what does it mean to provide in a safe manner the location and design of parking spaces, bike racks and drive aisles? Right, so for instance, having, if the bike racks were between the parking lot and Mather Drive, right on the opposite side of the site from the building, then people who parked their bikes would have to either cross the parking lot or a drive aisle. But because they're already on-site next to the building once you dock your bike, you don't have to then cross the street to get into the building. Could we maybe just say we'll be provided to, I don't know, maximize pedestrian safety or something like that? It just seems, it's awkward boarding. Maybe it doesn't matter. A lot of this is awkward because it's sort of parroting the bylaw. Yeah, right. And so, we're trying to say that we've addressed the issue raised in the bylaw. I mean, we could say something like bicycle racks and drive aisles are provided in a safe manner by minimizing conflicts between pedestrian, you know, demand paths and, you know, vehicles or something. Right, yeah, what we've done is we've recycled the criteria and the bylaw to become a finding that it does get a little clunky sometimes. Is there any, is there a strong desire to rework this or is this, you know, make enough sense? Seeing three heads shaking now. So let's go on, I guess. Sure, 11.2433 is not applicable. 11.2434 and 2435 are also not applicable. 11.2436, a traffic impact in an access study prepared by Vanessa and associates was submitted with a site plan review application for the previous project at 57 Olympia Drive. A new traffic impact and assessment dated November 2nd, 2022 has been submitted for the new building at 47 Olympia Drive to be known as 47 Rather Drive in the future. The new proposed project is not expected to result in notable impacts to area traffic operations. Hey, Nathan, that's a potential way of handling the addresses elsewhere if needed to in parentheses, you know, to be known as. Yeah, I'm hoping that, you know, usually we have the property card and our permitting software usually has a secondary field where we could keep that. So it's just a matter of making that connection once and then having it carry through. Okay, it's almost better to have both rather than one. Yeah, no, I think parenthetically in the decision and everywhere else we can have this a few places so that it is, it's noted. 11.2437, a traffic impact assessment dated November 2nd, 2022 has been submitted. The requirement for a traffic impact report as described in section 11.2437 of the zoning by-law will be waived. Is it a traffic impact and assessment as stated in 2436 or is it a traffic impact assessment? I think we call it. I mean, doesn't it have a title on it that we could just reference? Yeah, I'd have to just see what exactly it's titled. I would guess it was a traffic impact assessment. Yeah, it's going back through the... I think if you wanted to just note that and if it takes a while to find it. No, I have it from the previous meeting where they're calling it a traffic impact assessment. Yeah. So we can lose the and. The and. Yeah. All right. And so those are the draft binding. So that's, if we're, if we're feel good about that, then we can move on to the conditions. Board members, any other comments on the findings? Bruce. Doug. Might be time to raise my question about whether in any of those reference to the comments of the Chairman of Wayfinders about the absence of predatory, any parking problems associated with the previous project? Is that a finding? I guess it's a question for you, Nate. Is that something that would find its way in here or is it just better left in the minutes? I mean, 11.2432 is where we state that a waiver has been requested from our site parking requirements. That's the only reference I see in here. You know, I think this one mentioned very much closer to the beginning. OK. But I didn't say anything because I wanted to take it right through to the end and see whether we would. There we go on. But but it's more a question for for. So it is because I found that relevant. A number of people have expressed concern about people parking willy-nilly if they can't get and that would affect the neighborhood. And I thought, well, the neighborhood here is basically the parking areas that we're talking about that some people will feel would be full. And therefore there will be overflow. And the only place that we could be overflowing that would be concerning to people would be. Olympia Oats and the finding that for me personally, anyway, is that that doesn't seem to be a problem. At least it's not a concern. So for me, that's a significant. That was a significant quote, unquote, finding. But I also recognize that the way we do the findings here are, as you said earlier, Doug, you know, chapter and verse from the bylaw. So maybe it's maybe it's a small left finding and not a big, I guess that's my question. Is that a big finding or a small left finding? Well, I think that, you know, there's a few areas in the condition. So right now we're seeing one, it says that, you know, there will be no on-site parking tenants who own cars may purchase parking permits from UMass. It's 11.2421. And I mentioned it, you know, in a few other places. So 11.2430. And then, as Doug mentioned further on, 11.2432. So if, you know, I don't know if we have to cite, you know, your conversation with Keith Barry, but, you know, if the board, you know, feels that, you know, the, that there's sufficient off-site or, you know, reason to assume that there is, you know, a reason to grant the waiver, then it could be here or it could be a condition, you know, might be here. I mean, I feel like I don't think it's really appropriate for us to put into writing what's kind of anecdotal, you know, secondhand, you know, I heard from Bruce that Keith is okay with... You know, but more than that, Doug, I sent you an email with his quotation of what he told me and I copied him. So it's a little bit more anecdotal, but... But, so I think it's relevant to the record, but I'm thinking let's just keep it in the minutes. I'm happy with that. I mean, I just, I'm just asking and I think I know what the answer should be now and that's that we should proceed without putting it in here because there are some other problems too. I mean, it is a, it may not be anecdotal, but it is attributable to an individual. It's not a finding of facts as a finding of, I don't know what you'd call it, but... Opinion. Yeah. I mean, we, you know, there was a section about, you know, deleterious impact on the neighbors. Right. I mean, we could say, you know, the board has not, you know, is not concerned that overflow parking will adversely affect the neighborhood or something like that if we want to go there. Right. Or, you know, in the waiver request, you know, the board would have to grant a waiver for the parking requirements. And so I think that's where you could say that you've, you know... I agree. Thank you. ...discussions, you found that, you know, there's adequate provisions for either offsite parking or that there won't be impacts to the neighborhood. And then, you know, that's why you can grant the waiver. Okay. I added... That's Kyle. Quick, when you were scrolling there, Nathan, or Nate, I must have missed it, I'm sorry. On 11.2411, it says trash will be stored inside in a refrigerated storage area. Yes. We don't have a refrigerated storage area next door at 57. We're not proposing a refrigerated storage area here. I don't know if that's a remnant from something else. You are storing the trash. The trash is inside. It's just not refrigerated like the word in a bolt one. Same thing as next door. Are you sure you don't want to have it be refrigerated? You could store other things. Well, so what number was that, Kyle? 2411. Yeah. Yeah, I did. Yeah. When I read that, I was... I just saw it when you scrolled again. And then I looked and I saw it too. Yeah. Sure. Thank you. I didn't say that on the plan. So, all right. Thank you. All right. Why don't we go ahead and move on to the findings. The conditions. I'm sorry. The conditions. Yes. Thank you, Pam. You're welcome. All right. So here. Here are the, you know, it starts with waivers and then, then conditions. So would we want to, you know, start with conditions and then do waivers second? Except, I mean, it doesn't matter to me. Me neither. So I think, you know, there's, you know, right now to two waiver requests, it's the, you know, we're initially the application had assigned a plan, but we're saying, you know, that there will come back with one. So there's two remaining waivers. One is a traffic impact report. There's a traffic analysis, not a, you know, not a full report. And then a request to waive the onsite parking requirements in accordance with section seven and seven point nine. Right. Bruce, I see your hand. Yes. This is a question that I had in my head for the past week or so. If we're waiving the parking requirements, we haven't actually established what those requirements are. Or maybe we have because it's. I mean, you know, I'm not sure if that's what you're talking about. Section seven point three O's and seven point nine zero. Are those, those, I guess, are the two sections with competing with, with, with the. The generate one generates two hundred and thirty odd and the other generates one hundred and thirty five. Is that so are we happy just saying. This or do we feel that I guess my question was. Are we happy to establish exactly what the parking requirements would be that we are waiving, or are we happy just deciding the two sessions, sections that give different numbers. What would you typically, you typically just do the section reference. Right. I think here. You know, essentially the, the bylaw seven point. You know, zero, zero, zero, zero. There are two parking spaces for each dwelling unit. Although the permit granting authority shall determine the adequate number of Austrian parking spaces based on criteria and they can, you know, then change that, that, that ratio. So. You know what the applicant can also then wave. With seven point nine wave that requirement. And so that's what's being requested here is that, you know, there's no onsite parking. Provided. And it's, you know, they're saying, you know, the applicant saying that it's not necessary because within the vicinity, there's, you know, permit parking through UMass that the tenants can apply for. There's public transit. There's bike racks. And so, you know, in the, in the, in the zoning bylaw, we, we list, you know, parking needs generated by onsite uses proximity to public transit or to downtown available availability of all alternative parking spaces. So, you know, there's, you know, there's, you know, there's lots of transportation, tenant lease restrictions. Relative to parking, you know, shared or lease parking. So. There are all the reasons why we might do it. Right. My question was. Do we need to establish the brick that we're. We're forgiving or we're, we're waving. And maybe the answer is we don't. It just seemed to me that at some point we, we don't need to do it. We don't need to do it. We don't want something that we will regret for some reason that I don't know. Not having done. If we don't do it. So it's, I'm not interested in all of the reasons because I think I understand them pretty well. It's simply this technical matter of do we have to establish a number that we can then wave. I don't hear it be, you know, the, the requirement in the entirety 7.000. Okay. So it sounds like. You know, it's not acceptable with the way. You don't think that we're going to. Find ourselves in any invidious position. Anybody down the road for. For proceeding with basis. If we proceed exactly as it's currently stated. No, no. Okay. Thank you. And, and Nate. Do we need to state anywhere that we find that having no parking in the two additional handicapped spaces. Is an acceptable. Condition. So I guess it could go in the findings or it could go here relative to the waivers that the waiver. Did. You know, with, you know, like just like what you said, Doug, so. Well, it's kind of a follow up to what Bruce was saying, you know, let's, let's say that let's say section seven requires a hundred and sixty spaces. And section seven point nine requires a hundred and thirty. And in fact, what we've decided is we needed 50. Well, wouldn't we want to say that somewhere? And I mean, maybe it's just going to go in the conditions. And if so, that's fine. Right. Yeah. No, so seven is the third section called waivers. But it's kind of doesn't really fully tell the story about the waivers. So seven point zero zero zero is the one that has the number of parking spaces per unit. And so that's where you would. Or could establish what would be an appropriate number. Seven point nine zero typically. You know, it says that any section of the parkings, any subsection of seven point zero parking regulations. Maybe waived or modified by the permit granting board or special permit granting authority. For compelling reasons of safety, aesthetics or site design. So typically when the board would approve a seven point nine waiver, we would just say, you know, the vote or the waiver would say for safety, aesthetics or site design. And for seven point zero zero zero. You could say that you found there is no. Minimum number of parking spaces. You know, required or. So you could fold it into the. The language for why the waiver is being granted. Well, Bruce, I see your hand and then I see Kyle's. Yes, I, what I think I'm hearing is that we need to the, what we have here is simply that there is a request to waive parking requirements. And so now we have, if we, we, we have to have the language that grants the waiver and presumably the basis upon which we grant it. And so I guess we're, so who's going to write that? Is that something we write tonight? Or maybe you're going to draft it and send it around and we can review it, which sounds like a better idea. But it does seem to me that, that we're missing the language. We're missing the decision and the language supporting the decision. Is that correct? Well, I think that could be a motion for why to grant the waiver. Or just, you know, be the motion on what you great vote to grant the waiver. All right. I, I don't know. I guess I'm kind of with Bruce. This waiver section. You know, it doesn't have any complete sentences in it. And, you know, is it actually a stating something? Is it something we're supposed to approve? Or is it simply. It's the documentation of which waivers were requested. You know, and if that's the case, you could have an introductory sentence that just says the following waivers have been requested. Right. And then you've got a sentence. So I don't know, maybe we should go on to the conditions and see how they're written. Right. So, right. So typically, you know, if this, once this becomes a decision, we, there would be probably an introductory line or two, like you mentioned that the following waivers were discussed. And voted on. And it would, you know, then have a bullet point. Or two. Yeah. And I guess I'm. I don't know whether we want to belabor this tonight. But, you know, the way 7.000 is written. I'm not sure this is a waiver. From that section. All it says is that. That two, two parking spaces are required and until, unless we deem otherwise. So somewhere in the conditions, we could say we deem that no spaces are required. And there's no waiver. 7.9 is where you get into waivers. Yeah, I agreed. Although 7.9. You know, I'm sorry, but we didn't we revise 7.000. In order to not require waivers. I mean, that was part of the discussion when we had that bylaw revision. That some applicants were put off by having to go to waivers. And we wanted to put it up in the front and make it clearer and not require a waiver. In order to negotiate the number of parking spaces. So it seemed like we were trying to simplify it rather than. Drag waivers up to the front. So that's just, I guess that's a side comment. Let's go on Kyle. Just real quick, I think that with the findings that. The findings show what are on the plans and what's been agreed to. So it does. Regardless of what's a waiver or not, I think it does. Clearly state what is being approved. I think that's a good point. Thank you. Karen. Yeah, I have no problem with this. I, I see it as being completely clear that these are the waivers. And then I think I agree with Bruce that because we are waving it somewhere in the conditions. We clearly state. Because of the place where this is being built and et cetera, et cetera. And I think that we are not requesting this. This requirement. But to have waivers to me, it's, it's very clear and concise. I don't have a problem with it. I just to put that in. Sorry. Okay. Good. All right. Why don't we go ahead and read through the conditions. Sure. So conditions, there's a few subsections. So we have the general here. Okay. The development shall be built substantially in accordance with plans submitted to the planning board and approved on. You know, whatever date that may be. Was it December 7th was when we had our last set of plans. Was it the seventh or the. This, I believe it was November 16th. I think I made an error when I said that you reviewed it last on this seven. Okay. So, I think that would go in there would be the date that you make a motion and vote. All right. So it'll be today. Correct. And the development shall be managed substantially in accordance with the management plan submitted to the planning board and approved on. Again. Could be tonight's date. The property address shall be 47 Mather drive. So that's a new addition. I'm seeing Bruce's hand. Just because of what was how we've addressed this in the conditions in the findings, these would we not say the property address formally known as 547 Olympia drive shall now be shall henceforth be 47 Mather drive. Just kind of seem to like the clarity of connecting the two Plastin present. So I was thinking at least in this document, it might be good at least once and this would be the place to say formally known as and henceforth shall be. Is that is that sound reasonable? Yeah. What was that wording the property address? We remember the property interest. So formally known as formally referred formally known as 47 Olympia drive shall henceforth just put, I mean, that sounds a bit legal with, I think it works. How many times can you use that in a sentence? So, you know, that's what ran son yesterday. Yeah, that's good to have that there. Yeah. So, can we move on to number four? Sure. Occupancy of drawing units at 47 Mather drive shall be limited to matriculated students enrolled at the University of Massachusetts. Amherst college or Hampshire college. And their family members and the resident manager and his or her family members to the extent allowed by law. And so that's, you know, really. The type of use it is requires that the be matriculated students. And so that's what we're going to talk about. Number five parking for tenants at 47 Mather drive shall be provided as set forth in the management plan. For 47 Mather drive. If the availability of parking for tenants changes from what is set forth in the management plan, the owner shall submit a new parking proposal to the planning board for its review and approval. Okay. Ali shall be submitted to the planning board for its review and approval. Number four. And the information regarding parking, including a statement in the lease that students have the responsibility for obtaining parking permits for their own vehicles. Number seven upon a change of ownership, or if the property is no longer managed by our fellow resident manager, or if the property is no longer managed by our resident manager, she'll submit a new management plan to the planning board at a public meeting for his review and approval. The purpose of the meeting shall be for the board to determine whether conditions of the permit are being complied with and whether any modification to the site plan or view approval or management plan is required. All right. Yeah. And that's, you know, so that's right. So once the, you know, the board approves this site plan or it does any permit, it should be submitted to the planning board for its review and approval prior to the, to the work taking place. The purpose of the submittal shall be for the planning board to approve the change and or determine whether the change. The changes are de minimis or not de minimis. So, you know, this provides an opportunity in the future. If there's any outside something else, this is an opportunity to see if it's going well. Number eight substantial changes to the project and or substantial changes to any approved site plans or to the exterior of the building shall be submitted to the planning board. So, the changes are de minimis or significant enough to require modification of the special permit or site plan or view approval. Number nine. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the landscape plan prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. And once installed shall be continually maintained as needed. All disturbed areas shall be loamed and seated unless otherwise specified. So, we will be able to see the efficiency codes and the regulations of the stretch energy code. In addition, low plumbing, low flow plumbing fixtures shall be installed throughout the project. Number 11. The site plan or view approval shall expire within two years of the date that it is filed with the town clerk. Unless it has been both recorded at the registry of deeds and substantial construction or use has commenced within a two year period. Number 12. The building permit. If more time is needed, the applicant shall come before the planning board at a public meeting for a view and approval and an extension of time. Okay. Number 13. Maybe it's number. What? Maybe number 13 is really number 14. What is. I won't change the numbering right now. It looks like it could get. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Okay. Two. Parts in brackets about the applicant has submitted this plan. What are they referring to? Do you know? I am. What was, what was deleted? Yeah. So it's like the, the drop off entrance in front. We said we're comply with mass AAB regulations. Those plans were submitted. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. A landscape plan. Should be submitted. So we could take those two. Clauses. Sentences out. Right. Those are really just for this meeting for us to. Be reminded that those have already been submitted. Yes. So I think that would, this is the way I would read next. I think that would be good. I think that would be good. I think that would be good. I think that would be good. I think that was all set because that's been. You know, those changes have been made to the handicap parking. And really what's left is this landscape plan. So condition. 13 says the applicant shall submit a landscape plan showing quantities of specified plans to the planning board for a unit approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Okay. Number 14. The applicant shall satisfy payment of the wetland mitigation plan. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan showing quantities of specified plans to the planning board for a unit approval. To the issuance of a building permit. 15, the stormwater drainage system for 47 Mather drive. She'll tie into the existing drainage system in Mather drive. As shown on the utility plan prepared by SBE associates. dated May 3rd, 2022. Kyle, I see your hand. Could we put something in there, Nate? If. The town engineer. Chooses to change something. Or. Something that comes up to the approval of the town engineer. If he, if we opened it up and he wanted us to do something different than that, we'd want to do what Jason says. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. I mean, do we, is this. Is that done with your. Yeah, I guess I would probably, that's what I said. I think I might add review and approval. All right. Yeah, I mean, I don't know if Jason has looked at that. I mean, I know it was. Yeah. Yeah. I just, if we open it up and he wants us to change something, I wouldn't want to be. I want him to be able to tell us to do that. All right. I mean, you could. Put it a little differently that might be a little more accurately that would say something like. Or, or as directed by the town engineer. Right. All right. Number 16, a sign plan shall be submitted to the planning board for its review and approval prior to the installation of signs. You know, so that's not, you know, prior to the issues of a building permit, but prior to the signs themselves. So if that's. You know, if the board agrees with that. Yeah. One. Number 17, one hard copy and one digital copy of the final revised plans shall be submitted to the planning department. So product use residential. Condition 18, the total number of drawing units to be constructed at the project site shall be limited to a maximum of 68 units. Nine studios, two. One bedroom units, one, two bedroom unit, seven, three bedroom units. 49, four bedroom units, including one unit set aside for resident manager. Parenthetically, a one bedroom unit on the first floor. All right. Number 19, the building shall not exceed a maximum of five stories in a total of 56 feet, eight inches in height, measured from average finished grade on the street side of the building to the highest point of the flat roof, excluding any parapet or other rooftop equipment. As outlined in section 6.17 of the zoning bylaw. Number 20, that principle you shall remain a private apartment style dormitory and shall not be changed to any other residential use. Number 21, the property shall not be used for temporary short-term housing, short-term lodging, or advertised as such in print or electronically. And why does that need to be in italics? I don't think it does. I think it was just to call attention to it. Make sure we like the language. I'm going to see what Chris. I think Chris initially was concerned whether we thought that was appropriate or not. Yeah. Legacy. Right. So we've had conditions like that in the past. And why is that? Does this make sense? No less than 12 months. So. You know, we had originally this condition did say the property shall not be used for. Housing less than 12 months or something, not less than 12 months. And that was removed. The building commissioner thought that given this is really. An apartment style dormitory. You know, the leases don't necessarily have to be for 12 months, but it, it's not, but it's not, it can't be used for short-term lodging, right? So there's a distinction there between the leases and then what the uses could be. All right. Number 22 apartment shall meet all applicable AAB and ADA requirements. At the time of construction, including at least one accessible unit on the first floor. You could also remove that other comma before or after requirements. Yeah. Yeah. Number 23, the units at the project shall be registered and permitted in accordance with the Amherst residential rental property bylaw. So the units at the project shall be registered and permitted in accordance with the Amherst residential rental property. Laws or suspension of a rental permit shall constitute a violation of this condition. Okay. Marketing and lease agreement. And so, you know, I think Chris, we, she was just making this note here again. There was a condition that said residential leases shall be for minimum of 12 months. And that's something that building commissioner thought wasn't necessary. So if we think that's, if that's good, we could delete this, this bracket. I would agree with that. I remember, I remember asking about the 12 months criteria in the last go round and right thinking there might be situations where it needed to be different than that. Right. I mean, even if you just based the lease on the school year, you know, it's not short term, but it's not 12 months. So. So number, number 24, any substantial modifications to the lease agreement, which may impact tenant oversight as determined by the building commissioner, specifically excluding minor updates such as pricing date modifications, clerical errors or language updates required by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or other government entity shall acquire the applicant to return to the planning board at a public meeting. Building exterior insight improvements. Okay. Before you go on, I just want to let everybody know that Chris has arrived to the meeting. Oh, thank you. He's in the house. Welcome Chris. She's, she's in the house. All right. Hi, Chris. Good evening. Hi, Chris. All right. Number 25, the town engineer and building commissioner shall inspect the construction of the entry driveway and all onsite paid areas for conformance to town standards. So number 26, I don't know if this will happen before. You know, before say the final certificate of occupancy, but I think. This just will happen. As part of the permit review process. Number 26, all onsite utility shall be underground. 27, all exterior lighting shall be dark sky compliant. Exterior lighting shall be downcast shielded and shall not shine onto adjacent properties or streets. In addition to that, there shall be a number of exterior lighting fixtures to the planning board. For review and approval prior to installation. All right. I see Bruce's hand. Just confirming, I know that in the findings, we were referencing that. In relation to actually to this condition number 27. That they're that a lighting plan would be submitted and approved. So I'm wondering, I think we might have to, we probably should make the condition now that the, the lighting photometric plan shall be submitted. Cause I don't think we said, you want to just do that in 28 and just add that. Yes. If we haven't already, I don't think we've done it already. And I think now's the time. Yeah. I mean, the applicant shall submit a photometric plan and catalog cuts. Would we just have it be a second. Okay. All right. That's fine. So the applicant shall submit a photometric plan of the site lighting for review and approval by the planning board prior to installation of exterior lighting fixtures. So that's, that's taken from the findings. That language. Good. May I say one thing? This is something Nate told me earlier today. I think that the building commissioner would like to have the catalog cut submitted and the photometric plan approved prior to the building permit being issued. Is that what you told me, Nate? Right. So sometimes Rob likes to have that language in there. So then there's a. You know, there's a point in there. Project where it has to happen as opposed to. You know, at any point, right? So. It gives some impetus for the developer to, to get it ready before. The building permit. Kyle, any objection? No, I'm. Building permits. Fine. Okay. Yeah, I think that would be. A good milestone. Language like that then. Yeah. I just want to see how we had, had it worded again in the findings, but that, that looks. Right. The issuance of you say a building permit. Bruce, I assume your hand is a legacy hand. Okay. All right. Kyle, any objection? No, I'm building permits fine. Okay. Yeah, I think that would be. A good milestone. Yeah. Okay. All right. Go ahead, Nate. Great. Completion of work. Number 30, the applicant shall provide as built plans that show building location, grades, accessible ways, sidewalks and walkways, curbing, stormwater management, facilities, lighting and utilities to the building commissioner. Town engineer and. And to be placed with the site plan review files. And the planning offices prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. I think that's a good point. Sure. Right. Unless there's anything. You know, tailored exactly to this project. If it's pretty much boilerplate. I think we could skip that. It's, yeah, it's, it's pretty much the boilerplate that's there. You know, we just added the town engineers. Date of the letter and number 35 here. Okay. Otherwise the rest are ones that are typical. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know if we can. Work within the right of way. You know, we're saying, so we can, you know, We can go down here and we'll say that this isn't necessary. Okay. See amenities. I don't know if we typically read these as well. The entire product site and building shall be smoke-free or non-smoking to the extent allowed by law. There was a question about that. If you don't mind my. I mean, I think the commissioner had a question about vaping and whether. Kyle allows vaping on his property and whether that would be covered by this number 38. It's all smoke-free. It's obviously a difficult thing to manage, but the. Management is no smoking, no vaping. Thank you. I think what you've got is fine. It's fine. I think it's fine. It's fine. It's fine. I don't know if they're vaping smoking, but maybe they're trying to get a little more. You know, specific now, but. And it's all enforcement. Right. What you can enforce. Okay. Yeah. So the management plan on number 39 all move ins or move out. She'll occur during the hours of eight a.m. to seven p.m. And she'll be coordinated through the leasing office as to less than the impacts of multiple moving trucks, and she'll be able to do that. And she'll be able to do that. And she'll be able to do that. And she'll be able to do that. Within the project area shall be promptly removed. From the site as part of the clearing process to the extent possible. Number 41, all trash pickup deliveries, the operation of construction maintenance machinery. And landscaping equipment shall be conducted during the hours of eight a.m. to seven p.m. Exemption shall include emergency vehicle, snow removal, or other emergency situations as approved by the building commissioner. If the property or business operations are sold, the new owner shall meet with the planning board at a public meeting to review the management plan. To determine if it is still applicable and to decide whether or not to hold a public hearing to review and approve the new management plan. This is pretty similar to the previous, you know, a previous condition. It's slight, you know, this second statement is a little bit different. But is that fine, Doug, to keep that here as well? Yeah. All right. 43. The owner will provide onsite staffing at all times, 25 hours a day, seven days a week. Staffing will include an onsite resident manager living in a ground floor apartment. The owner will provide onsite staffing at all times, 25 hours a day, seven days a week. The owner will provide an onsite manager living in a ground floor apartment in front desk staff. Any change in onsite management shall require planning board approval at a public meeting. And so is Kyle, I just want to make sure that that's an accurate statement. We added a onsite manager apartment during the approval process here. To satisfy the. The onsite need. We added a onsite manager living in a ground floor apartment in front desk staff. We added a onsite manager living in a ground floor apartment in front desk staff. Because we didn't think we needed it with what we're seeing for staffing needs next door. The. We obviously have Amherst innovative living available 24 seven. I think that the way that's worded is a little strong. I think the owner will provide onsite staffing. We will have an onsite manager and we will have a front desk staff. And we will have a front desk board. So we'll have it. We'll have a front desk staff. That will be more seven days a week. So I wouldn't want to complete that. The onsite manager, obviously we'll live there. So you would want us to strike the. Perinthetical 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Yes. This was language that. That Janet had submitted. After the last meeting. Yeah. I do. Yeah. I mean, I do, if I'm reading this, And the resident manager would be staff 24 hours a day seven days a week. So the front desk is going to be staffed, you know, 24 hours a day is the way this reads to me. Yeah, and that's not, that's not the intent we have access 24 seven with our property management we have an onsite manager will live there. So I'd say this language is not as clear as what we're intending to provide. How would you propose to alter that. I would just the owner will provide an onsite resident resident manager living on the ground for will provide access to property management staff 24 hours a day seven days a week because anybody can call or email or text or you can touch with us online 24 hours seven and then if there's a lockout or somebody needs, you know, emergency, then that's part of our staffing plan and either the outside manager handles that or one of our maintenance staff will handle that. Okay, to proper the management. There you go. Yeah. Yeah, that's actually fine. Yeah, that's fine. Alright, and take out that parenthetical phrase. Well, maybe it's a little bit duplicative with at all times but it makes it pretty clear that it's. It's okay to have it. Thank you. Your hand is. I'm sorry. Are you, you good. Tom's hands back. Okay. Yeah, I know I still I still feel like it beats as though the manager living on the ground floor apartment and the front desk are still staff 24 seven or at all times it's reading like that to me and that was my concern before but I don't see that remedy because I don't. I've seen someone sitting at that desk 24 hours a day. So, I don't know if that needs to be a separate line or somehow. That would be a pretty great work study job, you know, just be that front desk staff. I think if you do take out the parenthetical then that does probably check all the boxes it does say they have access at all times to staff. And we do have on site manager and we do have front desk. I'm sorry with that Nate. To delete the parenthetical. Yeah. Yeah, I mean I. Yeah, I mean I understand what there's a saying that you know they'll, whether it's posted or in the lease agreement or somewhere that they're right Kyle that there's probably a number or numbers, or some way to access property management staff. So, Chris based on your back and forth with Janet. I think this is consistent with what she was hoping or is this a little bit less rigorous that, you know, did she really want somebody at the front desk 24 hours a day. I think she did yeah. All right, board members. Are you all okay with not requiring an actual person at the front desk 24 hours a day. Bruce. I'm okay. Kyle said based on experience next door, and it does seem to me to be a little bit leading the client by the nose so to speak in architectural terms to telling him how to do his job. I think, providing with everybody knows how to get in touch with somebody. I think that's enough they don't have to be sitting there doing nothing they can be, they can be more, they can be more profitably occupied it just seems more intelligent to do it the way it's now written. All right, thank you. And if anybody else has a objection. This is the time to raise your hand. All right Nate, are there any more of these sort of boilerplate version. So construction, you know, those are again those that's similar to the other section so we have, you know, a number of standard conditions. You know, meetings, construction logistics plan. I'm trying to think it doesn't look like there's been any, any edits. Not really. No changes so it looks like that's just all the standard. All right. All right, so we've been through that and made some edits. I hope you'll save those changes Nate. I have a few times just to make sure. Good. Don't want to go through them again. Let's see why don't we see are there are there any general comments or additional comments from the board on either the findings or conditions before we go to tee up our vote. Chris. I just wanted to make sure that you've been satisfied with the findings for the special permit that were you went through them last time and I'm not sure if you went through them this time because I wasn't here in the beginning of the meeting. And also, I understand that you've gone through the findings and that you found that the ones that we changed since the last meeting were satisfactory. Is that correct. I think we've gone through the findings for the site plan review, I guess it was earlier in this meeting and we made a few edits here and there, but generally I think people are okay with those. Okay, we haven't yet done the special permit findings again. Oh, you haven't. All right. You don't, I don't, in my opinion, you don't need to do the special permit findings again because nothing has changed and you went through them before and you were satisfied with them. Can we make our motion though we'll need to include those. Yeah. All right. Board members I'm going to see. I'm not sure we have anybody in the public that would like to make any comments before we. Okay, Karen, I see your hand. And remember, we were going to ask Nate to draft something, sort of the reason why we are not requiring onsite parking just a short little something that we could review, or a statement that, you know, having reviewed the requirements or the baseline requirements and 7.000. We've, we've found that zero parking spaces are an acceptable number of spaces on the park on the property. That sounds great dog. There was some discussion about how, you know, what, what language would there be around the way the vote for the waivers, you know, for 7.000 and 7.9. We always have language as a finding but for that particular one maybe it is worth having that language. Well I think the thing that came up before you arrived Chris was if you look at 7.00 at two, two spaces per unit would result in some number of spaces. If you look at 7.9, the way it reads might result in an assumption of some other number of spaces. And, you know, if it's fine for us to waive that but it's some someplace it might be good for us to say, we find that zero spaces are acceptable, you know, for this property and this location. So we should make a finding similar to the way we make findings under 11.24. We should say the board made a finding under 7.000. Yeah, the fact that you just stated is that correct. I mean, I mean the way that bylaw reads, it's to space to person to per unit and unless we decide or find otherwise. So Bruce I see your hand. I was feeling a whole lot better I could probably do this out of my head, maybe but, but I think that this is probably the most contentious matter for what is a very good project. I think it's contentious because a lot of folks don't understand the rather peculiar history of this zone and this site. I think they don't understand that the buildings, lots were created to cold buildings and that the parking was to be contained on separate lots that have been created that in the, in over time these lots have been purchased and put to a more general use on behalf of the university whereas this zone specifically intended for housing of university related residences. There's been some dissociation there. We find that the way that the parking has been has evolved the parking the original intent is still achievable. I mean, this is not a very good way of doing it, but what I'm saying is I think it would be appropriate for us to create a short narrative that explains this because I think otherwise people are going to say there they go again they just, they just approve big projects with parking parking, you know, and, and I think we should, no matter what we think about what might have happened before. I mean, I don't know how many of us on this board were associated with previous waivers complete waivers of parking. But whatever it is this is a different situation, and I would think it was, I would really like us to distance ourselves from any previous tainting of these kind of decisions I mean I'm sorry I'm really having trouble here I'm about I don't think I'm going to be able to go much longer so I'm hoping we come to a vote soon. Yeah. But I think that it's important that we create a narrative and I would be happy to try and write it, but I can't do it now. And I don't know the absence of that is going to create our evening or not. You've dictated a pretty good outline. Well I didn't get to the conversation with the butters, and which I think is important to because the only possibility of predatory parking in the area, because there is no, no vulnerable about us within half a mile, except for for Olympia Oaks and we have on good authority that they have not experienced in the past any predatory parking and they don't fear. They have no fear that it will continue that our grounding of a waiver will result in such in the future. So all of that I think is, is important for us to say, so that we can, so that we can hold our heads up and say you know, you just got to read what we wrote, and, and find out why we decided the way we did, as I was saying, we know best. We can't be bothered saying it but we're, we're good, you've got to trust us on this. I think that is a mistake. I want us to say in a, in a, in a decent short narrative. Why we, why are we are granting this. We've been a lot of time talking about it. Kyle's answers our questions. I think, Andrew or Tom's observations and Kyle's that this is a self correcting process in some way, we could take some moment to explain that, or to dredge that out of the minutes and put it all together. This is, and this is not something I think we can do in a moment here. But what I've tried to do is describe what it looks like what it should look like what it should sound like. And I think we should be. We should put effort into this. Okay. Chris is, is this additional language something that the board could delegate to staff and, and maybe, you know, the chair and any other members that want to be involved to work out. So the way we vote tonight and then we can add that that narrative. I think that's one way to do it another way you can do it is to say that you, you know, approve the project with the findings and conditions. And that you will come back with that we will come back with specific wording at your next meeting which is January 4 for you to approve that particular language. Does that make sense? We had to have that language completed, you know, sort of now or. But not really, I think, you know, there are cases where boards approve something but then they come back and approve the language that they used to justify. Okay, as they approved afterwards at a public meeting so I think you could have a public meeting tacked on to your January 4 meeting wherein you wordsmith the language. But Bruce has given us an essential concept for what it is you're trying to say. Right. Okay. I see your hand. Thanks Doug, and Bruce, I'm not saying this to disagree with you, but I would like to say that. I think it sets a bad precedent that we have to write descriptions to validate every decision we make because people might frown upon it in the public view. And I think that going forward if we're going to have to write subjective statements about or, you know, why we believe this is right or wrong, I think it becomes problematic in the future because then we're under the gun to prove that we made the decision in this case by having language to say that. So I do think that in this case there is a backstory it's been documented it's in this meeting. It's in our meeting minutes. It is, we have a dozen reasons that we talked through and great depth today. And to me that is our documentation of the reason why we made that decision if someone wants to question that they can read the minutes. The minutes go over six months. And I think it behooves this on a matter that we know is the most critical. Lee. This is a good project. It would be, it would be sad if this project was tainted by something as simple or simple as as fundamental as us not pulling together those strands from six months of meetings and putting it into a paragraph or two that is unequivocal about why we do something. I don't think we're justifying anything. I think we're just taking steps to make it clear why we've done something when we know that a lot of people are going to be concerned about this. One way to deal with it would be to have a little more extensive recording in the minutes of the considerations that went into it, you know, for this meeting. I don't think any of us disagree with you, Bruce, that this is a good project in a good place that benefits from its proximity to the university and the bus lines and all the other things. And, you know, it's a pretty compelling situation, I guess. I would just be careful, a little more careful in these minutes to, to say all that. Doug, I think it would be a mistake to do as Tom is suggesting and essentially stand on our high horse. I don't think that's a good public relations I don't think it's fair and reasonable I don't think it's been good servants of the stewards of our responsibilities. I think we have to face up and do these things and if you haven't done them before I don't think that's a reason not to do them now. Well, I'm not objecting to participating in that. I guess I would say that I'm not sure any more people are going to read something registered with the registry of deeds as a decision, then they would read our minutes. All right, we have hands up from Karen and Nate, Karen, why don't you go. Yeah, I totally agree with Bruce I don't think that we need to worry about precedence I do think that this is the contentious part. And it's very simple as Chris outline to just add the wording to clarify this in this particular case. So I strongly feel that we should just add a few sentences doesn't have to be long, because of the history of this particular process, because of the surrounding neighborhood just very briefly, I think would be just an asset to the whole approval. All right. Thank you, Karen and Nate. Yeah thanks I was going to suggest that this language would just be incorporated into the decision that then is also reviewed and so you know the board could vote on the waiver. The conversations from the past, you know, five meetings would be summarized as part of the decision and not necessarily reviewed at the next meeting but it would be reviewed as part of, you know, reviewing the decision. All right. Chris. I agree with Nate. And so we will draft a finding under that section of the bylaw 7.000 that incorporates what you have discussed to this evening, justifying your vote, not to have parking on the site but the finding will be a few sentences long. Does that satisfy everybody. And that that's incorporated into the decision. I think that would be good Chris. Okay. So you we will get that in a future packet. Yep. And we can discuss it at meeting. Right. But we can go ahead with a vote tonight, as I understand it. Yes. So the vote tonight. Let's see. We will be voting on the site plan approval of the site plan as submitted. Approval of the two special permit. Dimensional modifications, one for the height. And the other for the lot coverage, I believe. I think it's building coverage. Building coverage. Okay. And then also, we will be voting to close the public hearing. That's correct. And that you will do that with all the conditions and findings that you have approved. Reviewed and edited. All right. So. Pam, having kind of narrated through that. I think that's good enough for you to write down a motion. If somebody wants to make such a motion. Tom can always count on you to make a motion. Thank you, Tom. I'll go ahead and second it just to. Move along. All right. Board members. An affirmative vote will be to approve. The site plan review, the special permit with the findings, the conditions and to close the public hearing. Chris. So do you want to take one vote for both? Because there are different. Find a different numbers of individuals who need to vote affirmatively for a site plan review versus a special permit. So I'm just putting that out there. It's fine to vote for both. If you feel comfortable doing that. Well, why don't we do them separately just to keep things clean? All right. So why don't we do the spec, the site plan review first? Okay. All right. So we'll. Tom, may we friendly amend your. Your motion to be for the, for the site plan review first. Yes. All right. And I will do likewise with the second. All right. So this positive, this, this will be a positive vote. Yes. If you're in favor of it and vote, no, if you're opposed. We'll do a roll call. Starting Bruce. Public hearing is the same time. Yeah. Yeah. All right, Bruce. Affirmative. All right. That's. And then Tom. Hi. All right. Johanna. Hi. And Karen. Hi. And I'm an I as well. All right. So that's for this. Special for the site plan review. And now for the. Special permit. I'll make a motion that we approve the special permit. Dimensional variances. And along with the findings and conditions for the special permit. Anybody want to second that. I saw Karen's hand. I second. All right. Thank you, Karen. And then we'll do, so we'll do another vote. And this includes closing the public hearing for the special permit. And we'll close the public hearing. Bruce. Yes. Tom. Right. Johanna. Hi. And Karen. Hi. I'm an I as well. Both votes five in favor and two absent. All right. So thank you all. Bruce, you've gotten us through our necessary business tonight. Time is eight 35. We're a little late for our eight o'clock break. So why don't we come back at eight 40. If I don't come back, is that going to cause any quorum or problems and so forth? Cause I think we have another topic on the agenda, but it's not a public hearing. Okay. So thank you for bearing with us tonight. Okay. I'll, I'm going to go. Thank you all. Thank you all. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Time now is eight 36. See you in five minutes. All right. I'm seeing people trickle back. Looks like we've got Tom and Johanna. Chris, are you in a dark hotel room? We can't hear you. Yes. I wanted to apologize. I just wanted to apologize. I came to Long Island to attend the funeral of my mother's favorite cousin. It was 89 and he passed away last Tuesday and they're having his funeral tomorrow and I just couldn't. Not go. I had to go. So I'm representing my family. And I'm wearing my mother's coat. Oh, sort of bringing her with me. That's nice. Thank you for being understanding. And I'm saying hello from the island of Maui in Hawaii. You don't go here. Okay. All right. So I don't know whether Nate's going to come back, but since we have you, Chris, we can move on. All right. So the time now is eight 43. And we will resume our meeting. The next item on our agenda. Item four a is old business. Regarding S site plan review 2020 dash zero three with Jonathan Gerfine. Riverside organics. At 555 Belcher town road. So. We've had this topic on our on an earlier, at least one earlier meeting. We're, we're looking, we're reviewing some changes to the site that was made by Mr. Gerfine. That are have brought the site to now be out of compliance with the. Site plan review was approved in 2020. So Pam, I see you've brought Jonathan over into. To be a panelist. Mr. Gerfine welcome. And I, I believe you're there. I cannot see your image. Your camera must not be on. But I can hear you. You can hear me. So I believe you were going to be. Making a couple of changes to some of the concrete blocks and send and giving us a picture or two of that. So welcome and tell us what you wanted to share with us tonight. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. The video is not working. I apologize. Um, did you folks receive the pictures with the reflectors affixed? Yep. I believe we did. I didn't get a chance to put the gate up yet. I figured I'd see what you folks had to say about. The reflectors. Pam, can you bring up a one or more of those photos? I'm trying. I was trying to talk, but I was muted. I can. Okay. Welcome back. Yeah, we're actually. Yeah, you did have them. I did. I just have to pull up my. I have them too. See, let me just try one more time. The window has to be open to share and then. Let me try that again. All right. So here we are. So here's one image, a detail. Of what they look like. Yep. And here is the other image showing on the two blocks, what it looks like. All right. So, uh, I guess board members, I think the immediate question for us is whether. Uh, the conditions that are out. Out on this property are de minimis. Um, or reopen or have a new public hearing about it. Uh, or whether. You know, whether we think it's significant enough that we do need to go through that. Um, You know, the changes that Mr. Gerfine made are. In my opinion, pretty modest. To the, the situation out there. Um, but the blocks remain. You know, outside at the street and inside. Uh, within the property. Any thoughts from anyone? All right. I'm seeing some quizzical looks, but no hands raised. All right, Tom. Sure. Do we have, um, An outline for items that we were expecting in this. I didn't see that in the packet was that. Because I was wondering if there were things that we were asking for specifically for this meeting. No, I think, I think from the, in the last meeting. Um, you know, we were considering different things that we might insist that he do. And, um, and, and, and, and, and Mr. Gerfine basically said, Hey, I've got something in mind. I would like to do. Yeah. Let me just go do that. And then we can talk about whether that is, is adequate. So the photos are showing what he's done and we can. Like it or not. And if I recall correctly, the, the biggest issue was safety. In terms of people driving into the country blocks. Well, we were all had some concern about that. Yeah. I mean, I think. If I may. Yes. So, uh, I had considered painting, uh, either the blocks, the face, uh, all white, um, I considered painting them red and white stripes, you know, to add more of a visual, um, you know, for safety. Uh, look, it's a town really wants me to remove them. I'll remove them. I have no problem with that. You know, they're really there just to really deter people from driving in there. Um, like I said, uh, I don't think people drive in there. I don't regular basis and they eat food and they, they just, it's. Oh, I just don't, I would never do that, but people are constantly eating in there and throwing food. And once in a while, someone will drive in there. Or that way, you know, or they'll, they'll start to an OVO, they'll realize it's the wrong way to go. Um, I'm easy. Look, if the town wants me to remove them, I will. Uh, like I said, when I checked with Chris originally in the town, the, the, you know, the, the works, you know, the town, uh, you know, the city, you know, people that run the town. Um, they said I could do what I want, but obviously I'm not going to fight the town. I'm not going to be arrogant about it. You know, I'll do it over the town once. Obviously I want it to be safe. Obviously the first and foremost of everything priority is safe. Um, so maybe if you folks feel that it's, you know, appropriate, I could paint the front of the blocks, um, white or red and white, you know, you know, was, you know, striped, you know, thick stripes to help for reflection. Um, and that's it. Uh, it's really to deter people from coming in there being that it's a cannabis facility, um, being that it's a dead end to nowhere, being that they parked there and throw garbage. Um, obviously. So, um, now the other issue is the blocks in the interior. Um, those are not interfering with anyone or anything. They're not visible from the road, even on the way up to Valley, unless you really drive into the driveway and really look at them. Like I said, they're not, they're not pretty. I do not like them. Trust me. I do not like them. The reason I invested in them and I came to the conclusion that they would be an asset was to first and foremost, protect the facility from being run into by accident by a car. Let's say someone comes in and there's rain or snow or whatever. And they go too fast into the greenhouse. I have a huge problem. As well as let's say some reckless individual wants to say, Hey, you know what? And we see this all the time on the internet. I'm going to drive my car through the wall and then bust a whole run in and steal whatever I can and drive away. If those Jersey barriers are there, that prevents them from doing that. Chris, I, I kind of remember there being an issue with access to a tank in garbage, a tank inside that area. And maybe Rob Mora had some concerns or Jason skills. Do you remember that? You're muted. I'm sorry. I personally was about to get to that. Okay. I'll wait for Chris to reply. I was just going to say that I think the way the drawing is drawn isn't accurate in terms of where these things are. So the fear that they, that the blocks will block either the trash or the tight tank is not really. Realized because the items are in a different location. I think that's what I wanted to say. Okay. So it's, so the concerns that were brought up by looking at the drawing are not actually. Still relevant because the drawing was inaccurate. All right. So, so you haven't really, so no one has any particular concerns with the, with the operation of the facility. On the basis of the block locations. On the ground. I think that's correct. Yeah. All right. Thanks. Two thoughts. I went back and looked at the map from our previous hearing of this and seems like everything. Past the crosswalk is private property. So one thought is, I mean, I like the idea of distinguishing these blocks as more like, I like the red and white stripe idea, but then I also wonder whether a private property sign wouldn't be appropriate. To help deter people from parking there and kind of thinking, oh, this is just an extension of the road. And then my second question is how do you, or have you, or do you plan to handle snow plowing. With these blocks in place. Mr. Gerfine. Oh, I don't think snow plowing is going to be in there. I mean, the one is in the street there. Those are about 20 feet apart. They're not good. Those are not in a place where they're going to hinder any traffic. I placed them very wide apart. And I placed them to the side. You know, I didn't want to make it too tight. There's many reasons for that. Obviously. It's much safer. Let's say someone does veer in there. There's a very, there's not a very likely chance of going to hit those blocks because they're so wide apart. And most of the road is actually clear. If you look at it. So that was one reason, you know, they're kind of casually placed there on the sides. They're not right in, you know, they're not tight also for fire truck allowance, fire truck allowances 10 foot or nine foot six. Those are about 20 feet apart. So, you know, what was the other issue that was put up? Just to go over, just to make sure the town is aware that the blocks are not on top of the tank. First of all, the tank could take the weight of the blocks on it because it's an industrial tank. It needed to be made to certain specifications because it's industrial, et cetera, with the flange. Those blocks are not on the tank. So the town is aware of those blocks and they actually, like I said last time, they actually liked the fact that those blocks are there because they feel that the Jersey barriers are protecting the tank for being driven. Okay. You know, the, the, the tank for the runoff water from the green house. There's no issue of it's not pinning the garbage or anything that just, I just wanted to clarify that. Was there another issue that I, I'm sorry. Yeah. I brought up that I missed. I think you've addressed. Okay. Yes. I'm still a little bit confused about the snow plowing. So you're saying. Oh, right. I'm sorry. Right. Okay. No, I don't, I don't think it should be an issue. I mean, I have a tractor, a small tractor with a snowplow. I have a small little hand unit as well. That I could easily get around those blocks. Yeah. Oh, you're saying to clear it out to make sure they're visible. Is that what you're saying? Oh, yeah, got you. Okay. Yeah. Um, I, I, yeah, no, I will make sure that those are cleared out. So the red and white is showing if there's snow, et cetera. I hear what you're saying. Yes. Yes. It's a very good point. Yes. Yes. I didn't understand what you meant at first with the clearing and all that. I was like, why does it matter? Now I understand. I don't understand. Yes. Absolutely. I'm not sure I can say what that is. Yeah. I don't understand if there's snow in the middle of the night or the stakes that you see that are four feet high with the reflectors. Those are a backup in case. Let's say it's the middle of the night. This is, I'm not there to plow it and there's a snow drift. You know, obviously those, that's, that's why those tall reflectors are there to be. But yes, no, I point taken. Yes. That was a very good point. All right. So board members. And should we. Consider this a de minimis and. Let it go. I'm seeing one head shape. Yes. Tom. The alternative is to make, create a public hearing. Yeah. Hold. Hold a public hearing and probably require a revised site plan to be submitted and approved. Well, just so if I may, I mean, not to split hairs, but just so the town is aware before they even bother with a hearing. Mr. Hall might have an objection to this. Well, he may or may not. I don't know. But just so we're clear. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Once anyone goes in Hall Drive, that's private property. And this is something that I clarified with Chris. That's why the town works department said to me verbatim based on verbatim exactly. But in a sense. It's private property. You can do what you want. Hall Drive is a private street. That. And so that whole property, everything. It's not a public domain at all. Is there public access? Yes. It is not by any means public. From once you leave root nine or belt to town road. Once you turn on to Hall Drive, that, that all it's a private road that owns owned by a Gordon Hall. Okay. And then I'm just letting you know, I mean, you know, just in the issue of public hearing, I mean, I don't know legalities and I'm not trying to argue with the town. I'm just letting you know. I'm just letting you know. I'm just letting you know. I'm just letting you know. I'm just letting you know. I should be aware ahead of time. That everything in there is private property. I don't know that it constitute or even. The issue of a public hearing to be, you know, legitimate in that sense. All right. Thank you. Let's hear what Chris has to say. So Janet McGowan brought this to our attention. And I think her main concern was safety. So if we solve the safety issue, I think she would be. Satisfied. Okay. So the building inspectors have another issue, which is that the site is now different from the way it was. Approved by the planning board. And the planning board did know that Mr. Gervine had the intention of putting blocks in the driveway because he said that at the meeting. He didn't show it on the plan, but he said it at the meeting. But the blocks inside of the fence. Weren't approved by the planning board. And they didn't show it at the meeting. So. So the building inspectors are saying, well, they weren't on the plan. They weren't approved. So you have an opportunity to say it's okay. It's whatever that, you know, the blocks inside and the blocks outside. You consider them to minimise. Or the alternative is to make Mr. Gervine remove the blocks, particularly the ones inside the fence. The blocks outside the fence were discussed in the, in the public meeting last time, public hearing last time. So you could insist that he removed the ones inside the fence. Or you could just say it's de minimis and you approve it. Well, isn't there a third option, which is that we say that we want him to submit a, an accurate site plan that we can approve. Tom. That was going to be my question, whether or not it'll be valuable for the town to have an accurate site plan based on the conditions that exist at the moment. And whether that's something we should approve or not. Chris. I think that's going to be a challenge to get an accurate site plan because you would have to ask Mr. Gervine to hire the person that he hired initially. To put his site plan together and to add those blocks to the plan, but you could, you could do that. And I'm, maybe Mr. Gervine would accommodate you. Mr. Gervine, would you be open to having your surveyor. Add these blocks to your site plan and. It's easier to remove them. Are you kidding me? Have you had any idea what it's been to deal with with contractors, engineers and surveyors after COVID? I'd rather jump off the George Washington bridge. Are you kidding me? I'd rather remove the blocks. Are you joking? You have no idea. I don't know whether you can. Are you kidding? Dealing with these people. I wouldn't even think of calling any of these people again. I'm not kidding. I'm not kidding. Thank you. The effort and the money and time to deal with these people. So you'd rather remove the blocks. Are you kidding me? I'm not kidding. I'm not kidding. I'm not kidding. So just so we're clear. What I was going to suggest is if, if anyone from the council want to go down there at any time, they're more than welcome. To look around and examine it rather than just say, remove them. They're not appropriate. The fence is not locked right now. For various reasons for contractors coming and going. The building is locked. It's locked. It's locked. Everyone from the town is more than welcome to go in there. And look around. And they could see that there's about six feet between the blocks. So there's more than ample space to people to walk around. To grass to get mowed. For fire. We're not worried about. So what, what, what is the town's concern? The town's concern is we have it. We have it. We have it. We have it. We have it. You either need to make your property conform to your drawing that was approved. Right. Or you need to get a new drawing that reflects what is now there. So what if I just take an original drawing and have whomever. You know, I mean, if I have someone. You know, an architect or someone licensed. You know, I'm not going to use the same people that I used in the past. It was just a nightmare. Okay. I could use coon riddle who I still use and have used in the past. Well, that might, might be satisfactory. Let's talk about that. Nate, what do you, what would you like to say? Well, I guess my thought would be if the. Maybe the plenty more refers to determine if it's de minimis and that way, you know, there doesn't really need to be a new site plan submitted. Right. I mean, Chris, I mean, we could have the just annotated drawing. I mean, we could have a new site plan would be a product of a new hearing. But if the board determines that it's de minimis, then do we really need to have a scaled, a new scale drawing of the site? Well, yeah, I guess I was going off of Chris's. Suggestion that folks in the building department were unhappy to have an inaccurate drawing. I think that they just noted when they were there for an inspection that. The site wasn't the same as the plans they're looking at. So it could be that the planning board determines these changes are de minimis. And it doesn't need a new site plan. And I think that would satisfy the inspectors. Okay. I think so too. Yeah. All right. So on that basis. Tom. I believe that these are de minimis, but I would like to see them better markets. And I think the red and white stripes would be valuable addition. Yeah, that's always going to do absolutely. Okay. Karen. Karen, you are muted. Sorry. I agree. I think they're de minimis. I think I remember, I recall that they were put there for safety so that somebody doesn't run into the building. But I. I do think that it would be. You know, even. I just a sign that says this is a private property. Please do not enter is preferable to a concrete block with a little stick and a reflector on it. It's less confusing and aesthetically it's better. So I really urge. You to think about, you know, Somehow changing that or marking it. In some way. That's my opinion. Thank you. All right. So we have two members who are in favor of considering it de minimis. Minimis. Hannah, what about you? I am inclined to go that way too. All right. Chris, do we need to have a formal vote on this? I think that would be good. Yep. All right. Let's see. Karen was interested in a sign that said private property and Tom was interested in red and white stripes on the blocks. Do we want to have a motion about de minimis and then some. With or without some of these other. Requests, I guess. Tom. I just want to comment that I think you also mentioned. That at some place, a private property sign, whether it's there or for. Two votes for private property. I'm on board. I would move to say that this is de minimis. With the addition of a private property sign, I'm not sure if it's a private property. I'm not sure if it's a private property sign, either at the edge of his property or at the location of those particular concrete blocks. Currently, there's actually one on the gate itself. There's a private property with surveillance, et cetera, et cetera on the gate, you know, the slide gate. But I'll, by all means, I'll put a. I can fix them to the. The walls or the walls that are high up, you know, that have the reflectors I can post. Yeah. It sounds like we'd like to see the private property sign closer to the streets so that it. That's right. Right. That's right. On those exterior two blocks. Yeah. Good. Sounds like we're on the same page. Tom. So you made a motion. Anybody want to second that. Hanna. And I second with an amendment that the blocks also get painted with the red and white stripes. Sure. Tom you accept the friendly amendment. Yes, we would vote one that we consider it diminubus to that. We would like a dish and additional, at least one additional private property sign closer to the street. We would like to see that the side of the blocks facing the street be painted with red and white or some sort of high visibility, maybe even reflective paint. So that it's clear that they are there. Does that sound correct, Johanna and Tom, I'm seeing thumbs up from both of you. So we have a second and we have our week. Yeah, we have a motion and a second. We will vote on that. All right. Bruce is now absent. So Tom. All right. All right. And Johanna. Hi, Karen. And I'm an eye as well. Thank you. So that's four in favor. Three absences. And so Mr. Gerfine, thank you for your time this evening. Thank you. And we, we would, we would very much like for you to, to add the private property sign. Out closer to the street. And to paint the front of your blocks. I will. I will, I will do that. Hopefully over the weekend, I'll be able to get to it. Well, make me make sure you do it when it's warm enough that your paint will properly adhere to the block. So if it doesn't happen until warmer weather, I think we will probably be okay with that. Right. No, I think they'll be warm enough weather during the midday to, you know, use. An exterior paint that should hold on to that. Yeah. Okay, thank you. Good evening. Good evening. Okay. So the time is nine 10. And the next item, let's see, do we have any additional old business, not anticipated 48 hours in advance? No. All right. Topic number five. New business. Any, any new topics, not it? Anticipated. No. I see there's a second new business, which is the East Amherst Village center. Planning and zoning. Chris, what did you want to say about that? A few people who were on the site visit at 20 belcher town road. Began talking about the need to plan and look at the zoning for the whole East Amherst village center. And this is a topic that has come up before. In fact, Janet brought it up a few times. She lives near there. I think it is a good idea to look at the East Amherst village center and a proposal was made internally recently to perhaps. Ask for some money for an out year, not for FY 24, but probably for FY 25 to, to look, you know, maybe get some money to help us to look at the whole East Amherst village center, which depending on your point of view could go all the way from where the Amherst media used to be in the, in the old electrical building all the way up to maple and maple farms. So it's a big area. But I think there is a need to look at that. Short of doing a whole public process on East Amherst village center, I think there may be some smaller. Resonings that might come before you, but I'm not actually ready to talk about those yet. Okay. This is a topic for the future and several people had mentioned it at the site visit. So I thought it might be a good idea if we kind of. Kept it on our agenda and talked about it frequently. All right. So this is kind of a placeholder item. You want to just leave on the agenda for us to check in with you about it every two weeks. I think that's right. Yeah. For now. Okay. Yeah, this is a jump in Doug. I mean the housing production plan, which is now almost 10 years old. They looked at East Amherst and you know, they said that, you know, some of those buildings along route nine could be redeveloped, but the zoning wouldn't allow it. And so, you know, even then there was some consideration, whether or not the commercial zoning was appropriate or it couldn't be changed. And so, you know, it could go even, you know, as far north as like the JCA, right? So, you know, up on main street. So. Yeah, I think it's something that the planning department had considered looking at that. And so, you know, there's been some redevelopment there, so there's interest in that area. We have the way finders project on the East street school site in Belcher town road. And so there is, you know, there is some activity happening there. There's the Fort River school. So it could be a relevant time to, to look at that, that area. Okay. Well, I would be in favor of that. All right. Moving on the time is nine 14. Item six on our agenda form a and our subdivision. Applications. Do we have any coming up? There is a PAM wants to bring it up and show it to us. I can explain it. All right. I think there's a member in the audiences here as well. Is this. Tim A. Yeah. So this is the South middle street. Subdivision south middle street was a cluster subdivision. It's on the opposite side of Bay road from. The old fashioned middle street. It's a new subdivision road, but it's a private subdivision road. It's not ever going to become public. It's got. It has design issues that do not allow it to become public, but in any event. The developer to Fino associates. It's a private subdivision road, but it currently owns this area shown in yellow. And it is the open space for the cluster subdivision. And to Fino wants to carve out. A triangular section. And it shows up on this plan here. Out of the open space and sell it to the adjacent property of lot six. The, the open space is not going to be that large. So we'll go ahead and do some. I think we can get some. Some approval. Because it is changing the subdivision. But then we went and looked at the requirements for cluster subdivision. And we realized that there's a lot more open space here than is actually needed. The way you figured out, figure out what the size of the open space for a cluster subdivision is, is that you. lot area for I think it's 50% of the lots, and you take the number by which those lots are reduced. And you add that those those numbers together and you come up with the minimum size for the open space, and this cluster has over 500,000 square feet of open space and it's only required to have something like 232,000 so Mara and I talked about this and decided that rather than having them go through the whole, you know, amendment of a subdivision that really wasn't necessary. But since this was a cluster, a cluster subdivision is required to have site plan approval site plan approval for cluster. So this did go through that process so and bringing this back to you as a, you know, full blown site plan review application. Rob came up with the idea of approving this since it's such a minor thing and it's not really having much of an impact on the open space. He could approve this by administrative approval, which you've become familiar with recently as a result of the food and drink zoning zoning amendment. So that's what we have determined is that we've asked the developer to request administrative approval and he's done that and he's currently working with Jen Mullins in our office to get that administrative approval, which covers the site plan and the cluster aspect of this. We don't think this really needs to go through subdivision control process. So we're asking you to approve this as an ANR or authorize the chair to sign this as an ANR. Does that make sense. Well, I guess everything you said was comprehensible. I don't understand how. When did we give our, you know, is it clear that Rob really has the administrative authority to do this approval. And, you know, we had a lot of conversation about administrative approval when we got into the food and drink and it didn't sound like something we did very often. Or, you know, so I'm just surprised that that that is the case. I do not have my zoning bylaw with me, but if Nate has his he might be able to read. I think it's 11.214 or something like that. I have it. I was getting there as well. 11.2124. Is it 212? 214 is administrative approval for minor alterations to building exterior or site. Okay. Yep, the building commissioner may authorize work to proceed with outside plan review for minor alterations provided the following criteria are satisfied. The proposed alteration shall not violate any provision of this bylaw. The proposed alteration does not result in an expansion of the building footprint, other than those required by the building code related to means of egress or accessibility. The proposed alteration does not change the height or roof lines of any building. The proposal does not result in any substantial change in lot coverage which I. That one might be an issue. The applicant demonstrates that the proposal does not increase the volume or rate of stormwater runoff. And measures are taken to to avoid any excessive noise odor dust vibration flood light pollution or visual impact, resulting from the proposed alteration. So it would change the lot coverage of lot six right. It would make it less. Less up to be against the bylaw in other words it would expand a lot so you would have more area. Right. And so, in fact, lot six could build more than it currently can build. I suppose that's true but the lot itself is really big it's 1.274 acres so you'd have to have a pretty big house to be confronting whatever the lot coverage requirement is. And you could probably figure that out one of you by looking at table three. What is the lot coverage allowed in. Maybe the RLD zoning district. Something tells me it's 15%, but I'm not sure about that. It is 15% and building coverage is 10. So, so what other, so what might be the motivation for this transaction. I think the person who owns lot six just wants a bigger lot, probably to, you know, just not have anybody. Well, not have somebody else be in control of that parcel there. It is typical, or common I shouldn't say typical it is common to change lot lines in a subdivision after the road is built. So that often happens via a and R. And in this case we looked at this and we said, Oh, who owns the, the open space right now and at first we thought it was the homeowners association because that's what our GIS was showing. And then we went through a sort of a study and figured out and had an agreement with the assessor that it's not the homeowners association it's actually South Middle Street Inc. which is controlled by Tafino associates. Tafino is really another landowner in this subdivision, and by creating this lot parcel a out of the open space they're really not deviating from any regulation. So, as I explained, there's already more than enough open space by a factor of, you know, a few hundred thousand square feet. So, taking some of it and adding it to lot six didn't seem to be, you know, deviating from any zoning requirements or anything. So just quickly, Doug, it looks like the, if you look at topography, there's a, if by doing this you have an easier access this way to the site to come off, you know, something like this maybe as opposed to coming off this frontage now so looking at the topography on the GIS, this area would make it easier to get into the site to develop it. Is lot six already developed or not. No. So it's a vacant lot. Okay, car and I see your hand. Yeah, so I'm, I'm also questioning the motivation does this make it possible for tofino then to have one large lot with a lot of frontage and then come back to us for subdividing this and, and just increasing the number of houses there. That's my question. No, this would just make it one lot so if they're, if, if. And so this, you know, they wouldn't have, they wouldn't have the law doesn't become big enough for them put another roadway into it. So, thanks. All right. So the question is, do you authorize the chair of the planning board to sign this or to endorse this plan as not requiring subdivision control. They're not changing anything about the road. Right. Anybody. I guess object to that. I'm seeing looks like Tom and Karen are fine with that. They do not object. And you hon is shaking her head likewise so sounds like we have consensus. Chris, I guess I'll need to make a time to come and sign the a and R. Are you around next next week. I am. I think it's possible than usual. Okay, good. We'll make an appointment for next week. And, and would you remind me to do that when I get back to. I think early in the week is probably better than later in the week. Okay, that's fine. All right. So that concludes item five. Okay. So we have six in our agenda. Time is 925. Upcoming ZBA applications. Anything to report. I don't have anything new to report tonight. Okay. Upcoming SPP SPR SUB applications. I think new as far as I'm aware. Okay. Okay. So we're going to move on to the next item. Okay. The next item is has had to leave. And I haven't heard anything from Jack. So we'll skip the PVPC. Andrew is gone. So we'll skip the CP. The CPAC committee. Tom, anything on DRB. Yeah, a couple of interesting. We had several approvals for signage downtown. New restaurant on boltwood. We had a lot of work done. We had a lot of work done done. Pleasant street. But one of the interesting things that came up was that the. North Amherst fire station. Wanted to repaint or refinish. A couple of the surfaces there and make them red instead of. The white or cream color they were. And while aesthetically, it made a lot of sense. And so we had a lot of work done. And so we had a lot of work done. And so we had a lot of work done. And so we had a lot of work done. And so we might have some kind of historical relevance, given its brutalist kind of thematic style. And that I was encouraging them to make sure that the historic commission took a look at it before we approved it. So we approved it pending the approval of the historic district. Historic commission. Okay. We had. All right. I know that. There's a group at UMass that's been. Pushing, trying to advocate for appreciation for all the brutalist buildings on our campus. Yeah. Chris. So that's a good thing for Nate and me to know, because Nate is taking over. For Marine Pollock. No, he's taking over for. Ben. You heard. Yeah. The commission. Thanks Chris. Yeah, the commission took it up. Actually they met last week. It was on short notice. We were more than let me know. That afternoon that that took place. So the commission. Did have some questions about the material and color. And Jeremiah from the facilities department with the town is going to come to their January 11th meeting. To discuss it a little bit more. So. You know, the commission, right? Agreed that. That the building had, you know, some relationship to the UMass campus and, you know, whether or not. You know, the color or things could be changed. And so. Yeah, I think that is an ongoing conversation. Okay. All right. Janet's absent. So we'll skip the solar bylaw working group. Unless Chris, you have anything you can report. I don't. Not at this time. I didn't go to the last meeting. Okay. And that leaves CRC Chris, anything you want to. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. The CRC is still working on. The rental registration. Bylaw. And they hope to have something soon in the new year to present to. The town council and the rest of the town. So they're working hard on that. And if they, once they do that, it'll get referred to us to hold a public hearing. I don't think so because it's not a zoning. Bylaw. I don't think so. I don't think so. All right. All right. Quick update that, you know, the council voted the food and drink establishment amendment. So the zoning amendment for 3.352. Was approved and that'll become effective in a few weeks. So. Were there changes made at the council level? No, the CRC. After the planning board, you know, we. We took one condition about the BN zoning district out of the use chart and put those in article five. You know, so we said, like, there couldn't be outdoor dining in the BN district. And we have that in. Article five accessory uses so that they're, they're there as opposed to the use chart. And there's, you know, one clarifying language that. The applicant have, or the establishment of current certifications, you know, the word current was inserted. So nothing major, just. Just a little bit working there. Just to minimize. Yeah. All right. I have nothing to report. For the report of the chair. Other than thank you for. Being on the board and supporting the board for this calendar year. And have a good break and we'll see you in 2023. Chris. Thank you. You guys have a great holiday. Yeah, we got it. Chris, did you have one of report anything? I wanted to report. Maybe Nate did this already that the flood maps were approved. Okay. In years they were, they're finally approved. And we're going to be informing the state and FEMA about that. And they will become effective on February 9th. And we're there. I'm, I am particularly very excited about that. Maybe Nate's excited too. But the other thing I wanted to say, and I don't know if we've talked about this before, but we are currently down to staff members. We lost Ben in November. I think it was. And then yesterday was Maureen Pollock's last day with us. So we're really. We missed them. They were great staff people. And Pam and Nate and I are. Marching along as the planning department right now. And hoping to hire. Two new people. So have you got an ad? If you posted an ad, are there positions available? There are positions available. So please tell all your friends and relatives. All right. And thank you to Pam and Nate for sticking with me. Pam and Nate and Chris. All right. The time is 932. Unless anybody objects, I think we're adjourned and I'll see you next year. Thank you very much. New year. Holidays. Holidays. Bye-bye. Good night. Good night, Pam. Good night.