 Okay, Mr. Marshall, you're recording, you have a quorum Amherst media is with us here in the house, your attendees are coming on in. I am as we speak about to also make you the co-host. I think you're good to go. All right. Thank you, Pam. Welcome. Welcome to the Amherst planning board meeting of December 6, 2023. My name is Doug Marshall and as the chair of the Amherst planning board, I am calling this meeting to order at 637 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 two of the acts of 2023. This planning board meeting, including public hearings will be conducted via remote means using the zoom platform. The zoom meeting link is accessible 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 where the zoom link is listed 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. All members, I will do, I will make me take a roll call when I call your name, unmute yourself, answer affirmatively, and then return to mute. Bruce Colton. Here. Fred Hartwell. Here. Jesse Major. Janet McGowan. Here. Johanna Newman. Here. And I Doug Marshall am in fact present. 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. To the general public. The general public comment item in the agenda is reserved for public comment regarding items, not specifically 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 by the planning board chair. If you wish to make a meeting to make a comment by clicking the raise, if you wish to make a comment. Click 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. All done, 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 the 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 640. We will move to the first item on the agenda, which is the review, the review and approval of meeting minutes. We have two sets of minutes this evening. The first that we will consider are the April 27 minutes. Are there any comments from board members on those draft minutes. April or September. Did I say April. You did. I meant to say September. Thank you. Thank you, Pam. September 27 2023. Still no comments. Ah, Janet. I thought they were excellent and I moved to accept them. All right. Is anybody want to second Bruce your hand. I said second. Okay, thank you, Bruce. You just beat car into the punch. Since, are there any last last call for comments. Okay, not seeing any hands. We'll do a roll call. Starting with Bruce. Actually, I realized that I wasn't at that meeting. I feel like I was because those minutes were so excellent. So I think formally I should have stayed because I there's a full house here and I don't think my vote will be needed. If it is, I'll reconsider. Okay. Thank you, Bruce. Hi. Jesse. Hi. Janet. Hi. Johanna. Hi. Karen. Hi. And I'm an I as well. Let's six in favor one abstention. Moving on to the. November 1st minutes 2023. Anybody have any comments on those other than that they were excellent. All right, I noticed that the type on those was smaller. So they were, I think, probably one of the longest sets of minutes I've seen in a while. So Chris and Pam, thank you for your diligence. Bruce. Move to accept minutes as presented. All right, Jesse. All right. All right. All right. Last call for comments. All right, we'll go ahead with those starting reverse alphabetical Karen. Hi. And Johanna. Hi. Janet. Hi. Jesse. Hi. Brad. Hi. Bruce. Hi. I'm an I as well. That's unanimous seven in favor. Oh, that takes care of the minutes. All right. We will now have the public comment period. And I see 13 attendees in the attendees. Section of zoom. The zoom screen. At this time, I will read the names that I see on the screen. And then we will solicit anybody that wants to make a public comment. So while I'm reading the names, if anybody does want to make a comment, would you please use the zoom function to raise your hand. I see Bob parent. Ellen and Salon. Eugene go Frado. Farah, I mean. Jenny Hamilton. Jess shown door. Ken Kent. Farber. Mora keen. Nate Malloy. Rachel Loeffler. Sharon sherry. Tony show. And a, what I guess is an anonymous zoom user. And I suspect that many of these attendees are here for the library. Presentation. So. Great. Last call for public comment. Okay. So the time now is 645 Chris. Or Pam, did we in fact advertise the public hearing. For these library. Hearings at 645 or later. 635. For earlier. Okay, good. We've hit 635 then. Okay. All right. Okay. In accordance with the provisions of mass general law chapter 40 a, these public hearings have 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. These public hearings are continued from November 15th 2023. And are opened simultaneously. For the purpose of discussion. So we have SPR 2024 dash 02. Jones library, 643 Amity street. Request site plan review approval to remove and replace 1993 edition. With a new edition that meets current codes and improves accessibility and access under section 3.334 of the zoning bylaw. The second hearing is for. PM SPP 2024 dash 01. Same entity, same address. Request special permit to continue and enlarge structure with existing non conforming. Dimensional setbacks. In accordance with section 9.22 of the zoning bylaw. Also in the same BG district. On map 14 a and parcel 36. And finally. SPP 2024 dash 02. Jones library 24 are a 43 Amity street. Request special permit to extinguish the previous special permit. FY 90 dash 07 pertaining to the 1993 edition proposed to be removed. Also in the same BG district map 14 a and parcel 36. All of these are continued from November 15th. Any board disclosure since. The last since we originally opened these hearings. All right. In that case. We will welcome. Sharon Sherry and her design team. Welcome back. Hello, everybody. Thank you so much for having us. Can Pam, can I ask you to let in Ellen and Saloni? Yes, absolutely. And then I'm actually, I'm just going to turn it right over to Ellen. Once she joins us. She should be on her way. Yeah. Sorry about that, Sharon. No, totally fine. It's all good. Okay. Hi, Ellen. I thought that I would just. Turn it right over to you. Yes, that's fine. Yes. Thank you. Thanks everybody for letting us come back to see you tonight. I missed last time we were here, but I'm on my way. Yeah. And we have our fantastic landscape team from Berkshire design here. And we are going to address the questions that came up. We got from Christine and we're going to do those one at a time. And I'm going to let Tony kick it off. Tony, would you mind sharing your screen? Good to be with you all. And I'm going to share a screen and see if this comes up. Let me know if you see it. Yes, we do. It's perfect. Okay. Great. So we are going to, as Ellen said, directly address the questions that arose from the last finding board meeting. And we're going to just go through a slide and point by point. And Rachel and I will sort of share this part of the presentation. So I'm just going to go right at this. And let me shrink the screen size a little bit. Okay. So the first question. Related to lighting. And there were some questions revolving around historic light fixtures. And comments about them being shielded or dark sky compliant. And we're going to just go through a slide and point by point. And Rachel and I will sort of share this part of the presentation. Related to lighting. And also does it adhere to town standards? And as well as the planning board. Requirements and zoning by-laws. And so I think this also is going to get at. How we've addressed some of those questions as well as the issue revolving around the selection of the light fixtures as well. And the rational behind that. I know there's a lot of dense information on this slide, how does it work? Great, thanks, Tony. So we have a lot of goals and priorities when it comes to lighting on the project, and some of them are inherently in conflict with each other. So I'm going to outline those for you of how we came to the plan we have. One, it's a trick in site design, is removing vertical barriers between the front, the sidewalk, and the main entry, or in this case, both sides, the north entry and the south entry. So as much as we can, we want to avoid having pole-mounted lights really close to the building. Aesthetically, that kind of says, you're not welcome here. So the second goal is that we, it's really dark there now. It's really hard to see. We've heard comments from lots of different groups and boards that, especially the north side, is really dark and security and safety is an issue. So we're trying to increase illumination to safe levels, but not too bright. We also are trying very much to minimize glare and overall light pollution to the night sky using full-cut-off fixtures were possible. In the case of our other priority, that is a little challenging when we use the historic fixtures on the historic facade. And then we're using contemporary fixtures where it's appropriate to clarify that this is something new, like in the back, but also in the case of the bollards in the front, the historical bollards actually do not cast enough light to meet our illumination standards. So that's the case where we opted for a more contemporary fixture, but we're placing it, we're nestling it in the bushes so that the visual appearance of it is sort of buffered by the bushes, but we still get that good foot candle, that good lighting on the pathway so you can see. And then also another thing we're thinking about is, I know the library staff is really challenged with maintenance as much as we can trying to minimize maintenance. So anything that is vertical really close to a sidewalk, I think it's right up against the sidewalk that can be really hard with snow removal and mowing and things like that. So trying to pull fixtures out of those ways. So in terms of the zoning guidelines for the lighting, we are trying to not have any fixtures higher than they need to be. So you're using a 12-foot-high pull-mounted fixture in the parking lot. We're using a 10-foot-high pull-mounted fixture in the way back of the North Garden. And then everywhere else we're using building-mounted lighting or the ballards where we can't achieve lighting through those strategies. All the lights are downcast. That means that they're directing the light down except for a couple of the historical sconces that are on the front of the library. We feel that we're very lucky to actually have some of the original fixtures from the library, still at the library, and that we're able to find some fixtures that match for those areas. And then we're also really careful about choosing fixtures that touch the 1913 facade. We don't wanna introduce anything that's modern or contemporary on the facade, touching it, is that what, that's a really respected. So I think that's it for our lighting. Do you wanna talk more about the lighting, Tony? Yeah, I just reinforced what Rachel said. And just as a reminder, the fixtures in particular are on the building, are in this location. I don't know if you can see my mouth circling it, of the historic F1, F2, and generally all along here in threes and at fours. These are the ones that are really right engaging directly on the building. And to the upper right here in the image in this location, this is a minor of what we were proposing. The F1 actually is the historic fixture that exists as is the F4. So those will be retained, even though they do not, of course, currently comply with local lighting standards, but because they're historic in nature, we certainly believe they're appropriate and historic in some ways, grandfathered in. And then the rest of the fixtures that are also proximate to that, such as F2, F3, F5, these fixtures again, are simply trying to, like F2 and F4, excuse me, and F3 are trying to all play in the same language as these historic fixtures that are shown in F1, F4, F5. So I think that, again, we were trying to be in keeping with the spirit and character of those fixtures on the historic part, was looking to really use the design and image of those fixtures to really complement these historic fixtures. And then everything else as Rachel mentioned, with respect to the rest of the fixtures, such as the bothered lighting, which is located here. And as a reminder, these are the, some of the images that previously were shown, basically illustrates that most of them are very discreet. A lot of them, in fact, are really, almost, I wouldn't say hidden, but they're really embedded in the landscape. So it would be very understated, as also will be some of the underseat lighting at some of the areas on the bench. So those are just a reminder of where we are with respect to that. And then again, just a recall that Rachel mentioned about, some of the pole-mounted exterior lighting fixtures, some of which are existing in historic and others, which are going to be replaced. All right, questions about lighting from the board. All right, why don't you go on to the next question? Actually, Chris, I see your hand. I wanted to address the issue of the lights that don't comply with town standards. And if the board wishes, I know there were some reservations about those lights expressed last time. But if the board wishes, the building commissioner had the suggestion that you could approve those existing lights as well as the proposed lights. You don't really need to approve the existing lights, but the proposed lights that are similar to the existing ones could be approved as part of the special permit 9.22, which is allowing the expansion, enlargement, and renovation of the existing building and its non-conformities. The advertisements specifically related to setbacks, but you could incorporate lighting as well since these lights are attached to the building. So that might give you an avenue by which you could approve them if you choose to do so. Okay. Thank you, Chris. Tony, I maybe lost the track of your conversation there. The F1 and the F4 are existing, is that right? Yeah, so thanks, Dr. for the question. So the ones that are highlighted F1, F4, F5 in blue, these are existing fixtures. And the images that are related to that are shown in these small snapshots. Here's F1, F4, F5, so these exist. Oh, so the blue on the plan is what she's talking about. These are the existing fixtures, correct. And so that whole cluster of F2s that's on the front of the building, those are new fixtures attached to the building itself. Correct. In a location that previously did not have a light. Helen, do you want to speak to that? There's a light, but it was not in condition to be reused. Okay. And it wasn't historic as the ones that are highlighted in blue are historic. Right. And just from, you know, we work on a lot of existing buildings and we're thrilled to have these original lights that we can restore for the project. Right, but I'm talking about the F2 fixture, which is a new fixture, correct? Correct. Which one, let me just put this on a bigger screen. There's four F2 fixtures on the front of the building that are not blue. Those are new, new to the building. And there was not a previously a light fixture in that location. Correct. Okay. But we need, and as Rachel noted in the beginning, the front of this building is quite dark and we do need to illuminate it for safety in the walkways. Okay. And as I understand it, the reason that we didn't use some other fixture in the vicinity is that at least Rachel, Rachel had referenced something that pole mounted fixtures are perceived as an obstacle. Yes. Okay. Yeah, the F1 that's there now is not sufficient for that front plaza area. It's very much a, so we needed that F2 is on either side to bring it up to safe levels. All right, Janet, I see your hand. So I've been pondering these lights and I actually thought, so we don't need to approve the lights that are already on the building because they're there, right? And so from when I read the materials yesterday, you're looking for a waiver for the historic looking F2s and F3s because they're not downcast and they don't meet our code. And I was looking, I don't see any place in our bylaw that lets us waive the lighting requirements there. And so I'm not sure how we can give you a waiver that we're not allowed to give. And I mean, I think Chris is suggesting that we can go under section 9.22 saying there's a non-conformity somewhere else so we can do it more non-conformities in other places. I don't, I'm a little uncomfortable with that. I'd like to hear from the town attorney about whether we can do that. But I also totally appreciate the effort of picking lights that will look good on the Jones and kind of match what's there. And so I feel a little stuck in terms of this issue. And I wonder, if the town attorney thinks that 9.22 can be stretched to include this, I guess I can go along, but I feel uncomfortable in sort of an expansion, everywhere in the building on all different things, like because some part is non-conforming, we can look at all these other parts. But if there's someplace in the bylaw that gives us a right to waive the lighting requirement, I'm all for it. Okay, great. So if we voted on this this evening, you would be a no until you hear from the town attorney. It's kind of like, I don't know even how to vote because I don't see the authority we have to waive, so. Well, I mean, I guess the question is whether we'd be comfortable moving forward with approving them under 9.22 on the advice of the building inspector. And you would not be, I mean, that's pretty clear. Yeah, 9.22 is becoming sort of a highway for non-conformities. I don't quite, I'm very, I'm not, I'm comfortable using it if the town attorney says that's fine, but it seems like we're reaching to that a lot in ways that seems sort of novel and unusual to begin. I'm not comfortable. Okay, thank you. Bruce. When I expressed my disenchantment with the surface mounted fixtures last week, it was entirely in relation to their flanking entries and as people approach an entry, there's a glare potential. No, a potential. It's a fact, it's inevitable. But I see that the entries so marked are really the existing fixtures and these new ones are not really as far as I can tell related to entries. They will add a kind, I think they're intended to add a kind of sparkle around the facade. And so I feel a little differently than I did last week because of that. So I'm not averse to what is being proposed from the point of view that I expressed last week. So far as whether or not we're able to approve something that's not been forming in this way. I remember years ago when Bob Mitchell was in your position, Chris, he spent some time trying to keep us out of trouble by which he meant making decisions that would land us in court, defending somebody who took action against their disagreement, their strenuous disagreement, obviously, with it. And it seems to me, and this may be just my cowboy-cavalier approach to regulatory life, is that this is generally, I think, a positive thing. I can't see that anybody is going to come at us with a lawsuit to... And although now we are talking about it, so I suppose at least we can't claim that we just didn't see it, but I don't think that this rise, this seems to be such a minor point that I would certainly, if we feel we need to go by making some special accommodation for non-conformity, I would even be comfortable just kind of ignoring it. I don't know whether I should say that publicly, but that's the way I feel. Okay. Thank you, Bruce. Johanna? I mostly feel similar to Bruce, and yet I am curious whether, like, are there not fixtures that have a historical look and that would complement the existing fixtures that do meet the standards? Like, how much was that explored? Okay. Thanks, Johanna. Yeah, I guess maybe we should ask the applicant for that. I mean, I can imagine that maybe the upper half of some of these globes might be coated with a opaque white or something to keep the light from going up. So what kind of investigations were there for that? I can comment on that. So we did a lot of research. We have a lighting designer on this project and we reached out to them. In this style of this onion-style light, we could not find one, right? So we've done a lot of digging. There are lights that have a shield above it, but they're more contemporary and they're not the onion-shaped. And we've explored the option of, can we paint? You know, the glass? In that, we would void the warranty of the glass and the fixture. So we did a fair amount of digging around it and we're not successful in finding one of these types of lights that is shielded, unfortunately. Okay. At least for the F2 and F3 fixtures that are along the southern facade, you know, are they, I guess there's the F2s that are on the, that are closest to the walk that goes east and west. Are they providing illumination for the walkway? And then the F2s and F3s that are a little bit further back, yeah, such as those, Tony. Are they just providing sort of general illumination or are they also related to walkways? I guess there is a walkway there on the west side and the one on the east side is associated with that service entrance, is that right? Yeah. I can speak to that. The F2s on the front or flanking the F1 were essential to bring up the foot candles for safety. And the F2 to the west of that and the F3s where that's the children's courtyard area. So if there were events in one of these shoulder seasons where it gets dark, but maybe it's still warm enough to have an event outside, that's what the F2 and the F3 are for. And the F2 on the very west of the building is also helping with that emergency egress walk on the west side. Uh-huh. And could, I mean, I guess modern versus historic appearances aside, could that illumination be provided by the same kind of bollard you're using elsewhere? I think it would be a very different type of light. I think it'd be a very different type of light. You, by that you mean you would not use a bollard. You would do something else or just the quality of the light of using a bollard would be very different. I think the bollard would not be what you want in the courtyard area for safety. Okay. So you're, so we either accept this and figure out or take the risk that we're approving something we don't have the authority to approve or we ask you to find something else that's not, that is compliant. Bruce. Oh, sorry. Janet. So, you know, from what I've been reading in terms of the papers we got yesterday and I haven't had a chance to read the papers we got today except for a quick glance at lunch. I don't think we're gonna approve anything tonight. So I think it's, we definitely have time to ask the town attorney for a quick opinion on this. So I urge us to do that. In terms of like lighting on historic homes I live in kind of an old house and it's like over 200 years old and there's tons of fixtures that are historic and downcast. I have never looked for or seen a circular one but I also, so I think you could get some old fashioned looking lights that are, you know, rectangles and things like that. I have one myself that I bought just down the road in West Springfield and we, you know, we were looking to kind of do a simple light that fits the house or simple house but I also wonder if you can just have somebody fabricate a shield and just, you know, put a cover on the tops of those that you still get the round thing but it, you know, it's just you're doing the down lighting thing. I would, I don't want to be a niggling nitpicker but I do think that we should not act outside of our legal authority and if there's a question about it we have an attorney that we can ask. So I like the way the ones that you picked look, you know, I prefer them, I'd like to see that go but I just don't want to see it go us sitting here saying, hey, we don't really have the authority but it doesn't seem like a big deal. It doesn't strike me as good for us or anybody. All right, thank you, Janet. All right, so why don't we suspend that conversation for the moment and Tony, why don't you take us through any other comments you guys wanted to respond to this evening if there were any? Yeah. Tony? I think Rachel presented the rest of the issues that addressed the overall lighting aspects and are there any other comments about that? No, we're moving on, Tony. Okay. He said we're going to suspend that discussion. Okay, so the next part was a question about the design related to the element that is attaching to the historic portion of this element on the west elevation and some comments was related about the, some ways of design or quality of this feeling a little bit incongruous with the fabric and was the question whether a curve, basically it could be reintroduced back that emulates more the characteristic of it particularly as one looks at the right-hand side here. So we studied this further and to the left here this was the previous design that we presented the last time and then the subsequent revised design is showing this. So I'm going to point out a couple of things that have adjusted. First and foremost, you can see right away that the end of this particular element here is now reintroducing the curve back into the shape of the portion of this roof. I will also point out and you can see here in the plan view the doorway itself coming out of the children's library is recessed. So there actually is going to create a more pronounced sort of kind of overhang element here that is also in character with like here. So therefore we believe this is now attempting to redress the nature of the fact that the curve portion of the end element of the roof is reintroduced and brought back. And we're also further extending it more here so it doesn't simply look arbitrarily cut off here but really re-engages the entrance to the children's library. So that is the primary thing that we made adjustments in response to the planning board comments the last time. So that curve is replicated from the original. Exactly. It is replicating to original. Yep. As was requested. Right. All right. And would that surface be the same artificial slate or would it be transitioning to something that's able to handle the reduced slope better? I think there's a portion of that that's copper right now, Doug. But if it is copper, we'll go back with copper. And one of the things that we do have to go we'll use both slate and copper but this detail is tricky and we have to make sure it's watertight. So it's a combination of step flashing, slate and copper. Right. And you can see Dylan's point. That's why we have that gutter here so that we probably design detail this so that when elements of water and other things come down this roof it is coming to the point where it goes to the gutter that then drains off the building. So yeah, this is a detail that we are evolving on the assumption that if it's designed to prove tonight and we will proceed to advance it. Okay. Great. Just a side question. The window on the first floor that's to the left of that downspout looks like it's gotten larger. Have all the windows along that elevation and grown or anything? No. Maybe they did, yeah. No, I don't think they... Go ahead, Tony. I think what has happened in the earlier design iteration here we, when we began to, this is at a much earlier stage in the project and as we've been working through our construction documents from a technical standpoint we've had to resolve issues are robbing around floor levels and how far the windows off the floor and ceiling height adjustments. All these things as a result these are, this is even though the design looked very similar it's a much more advanced level of design detailing. So it has resulted, you are correct Doug in a proportional shift and one of the other things that's driving that too is that we were in some ways creating a better alignment on the windows across the entire facade. There was a disconnect between the scale of the windows on this element and what we propose on this. So once we begin to really refine in our current design we really begin to hone in on proportional issues and we do think that in some respect at least from a proportional standpoint it is a better proportion even when one views even though it's a different scale the proportion relationship of this to this is more in character of that kind of more vertical proportion versus what we had previous which looked very stubby and short. So that is you are correct Doug there is a slight change in the window height vis-a-vis this to this but you can also see there's a slight shift in this window too which is adjusting down a little bit. So all of these things have been essentially evolving as we continue to develop a design. Okay, great. And I appreciate seeing the snow guards. Yeah, yes. Okay, any other comments you're responding to with new material Tony or have we covered all of it? I believe we've covered the part related to this piece of it but. Yeah, architecture. Question about the great in the rain garden and if that would be safe for say skateboards and people with hills or ADA and those great openings are a quarter of an inch so they will be fine for all of those users. Okay, and do those little bridges with the gratings have some sort of edge rail that would keep a wheelchair from rolling off the edge? Yeah, we have a U-shaped channel along the edge that's two inches high meeting ADA requirements and it extends beyond the crossings for safety as someone will mistakenly go into the rain garden. Okay. Can you scroll Tony? Yeah. Thank you. Oh, sorry. This is going ahead. Sorry. Yeah, it's the third part. Sorry. Okay, so great. You wanna go on to the third one? Sounds like there was an opening to do that. Okay, this is redressing the third item regarding the parking requirements and then a question related to larger parking around the whole site. So I'm gonna have Rachel speak to this. Yeah, we submitted a parking management plan. I think it was in the day yesterday. Going into great more detail about how the library will address serving patrons and staff with alternative means of parking. Looking at the library website and social media and also the physical space. Those are three areas, three touch points to communicate and our strategy is to have this material including the municipal parking plan that shows all the lots and all the parallel spaces on display in the library also as a handout. The library website plans to update also with this information and then social media whenever there's an event or something happening that a link to this information will also be provided. In addition to the municipal parking and the management plan we submitted are all the bike paths, bike routes in town and the greater regional network of the bike path. And in addition, the multiple bus routes that link downtown and the library to all parts of town that are available too for bringing folks to the library. So the links to that information, the bus routes, the schedules, all that would be part of the communication package that the library plans to have on physical site and then on the website and on social media. Okay, so if I were to summarize sort of the gist of that plan is to make people aware of the options for parking in the vicinity of the library. Okay, one small, I guess question is the main street lot that you're showing in green at the, no, just to the left or to the right. Yes, that one. I know that's under construction at the moment it's getting smaller. So the size of that may need to be reduced on your graphic. Okay, Chris, I see your hand. Thank you. So this map here is a map that's produced by the town and this map is something that I sent to the applicants because it's the map that is the most instructive about where parking is in town. I believe that the town will be re-issuing a map that shows an updated version of this and now that the main street parking lot has gone away, we'll need to do that. But for now, this is the map that the town is showing on its website and sending to people and this is the town's map of where parking is available in the downtown. All right, thank you for clarifying that. I thought it was a library produced illustration. Janet? I thought this was an excellent information to present to people. I found it informative and I've been here for 20 years. You know, it's obvious that we're not gonna get 500 parking spaces on the library. I also thought maybe you could add on the parking materials that after five o'clock anyone can park in permit parking spaces because there's tons of spaces all around town that are available after five o'clock. And you know, a lot of people don't know that and I think that would just be another piece of information that you can be in permit parking after five because there's permit parking steps away from the entrance to the Jones. All right, great. And sounds like that comment actually ought to go to Chris and the town when you next update your map. All right, Tony, you wanna go on to the next item? And again, I'm gonna let Rachel speak to these slides. Yeah, so there's, as Tony was mentioning, we've been going through the process of refining drawings and one change to our logistics plan that we wanted to make everyone aware of is that we've removed the access that we previously showed on the north side of the property. So we're no longer allowing access to this CVS parking lot. That area will be closed with a solid construction fence and we'll have signage on the outside letting folks know that it is a construction area and the sidewalk is closed. But as you've seen before, we have extensive notes about where sidewalks are closed and where bike lanes are redirected. Okay. All right. So it might correct that all the construction access to the site will be from Amity Street. Correct. Okay. All right, what's next? I think that's it. Right, I think that's the last of it. The rest is just for reference if we needed it to talk about. Okay. Right. Yeah, that's it. Great. Okay, so Chris, you sent a bunch of findings, draft and conditions drafts. I kind of assumed it was your hope that we would go through those and maybe approve those this evening, including the waivers that were requested and anything else. So would you mind sharing your hopes for the evening? Do you want me to stop screen sharing, Doug? Yeah, I think you could, Tony, for the moment. Okay, no problem. Doug, could... Yes, Janet. Did I ask a question about during construction where machines are going to be stored or materials? Is that part of the logistics or is it? Sure, sure, if it's a, yeah, go ahead. That's my question. So may I answer that? Okay. I have had a long discussion with the building commissioner and also with Bob Parent, who is the capital projects coordinator. And many of those things won't be resolved until the general contractor is brought on board. But we have developed some conditions and you may not have seen them because you said you weren't able to read all the materials that I sent today, but we can go through them. So we've developed some conditions to help the town deal with those issues of where does staging happen? Where is material stored? Where do contractors park? Where does construction equipment sit when it's not being used, et cetera? And one thing I wanted to let you know is that the construction logistics plan that has been presented for now is the architects and the town's kind of best guess about how things are gonna work. But when the general contractor is brought on board, then that contractor will come up with his own construction logistics plan. And he will present that to a group of town staff, people, including the building commissioner and talk about it and work it out. And it will include the town engineer and the superintendent of public works. So many of the details and the final consideration of those things will be worked out, but I think we've developed conditions that say what we don't want. And we are hoping that the planning board will go through those conditions and see if you agree with what we've suggested could be conditions to deal with these issues. So on my five years in the board, I've never seen that. We've always known where people are gonna park. We know when all that kind of stuff, like when Mr. Oblasky had his project, we knew the construction was gonna be at, the machines were gonna be at VFW. When 11 East Pleasant, they had the proponents had an adjoining lot and there was a lot of discussion about how Prey Street would be used and things like that. And so I'm a little, so I'm a little, I'm concerned about that. And so I'm wondering, is there any chance that the town lot next to the CVS would be used for that? Because it seems like, all the construction equipment or the supplies would have to come in through Coles Lane and come out through North Prospect. And then you'd have to cross the CVS lot to get there. And if you don't have permission for that. So is that off the table? Cause I think that the VFW seems to make sense to me. You can just stash everybody there and they can move their machines up as they want. But if the town lot is that being used, I think there's a lot of logistical problems. And I'd want to know that now. And it doesn't seem like something that, it seems like it could be worked out now. If it can't be worked out, I think it's an issue that should come. You know, there were so many things in the draft permits about like, oh yeah, later we'll hear that and we'll decide that. I've just never seen us do that. It's usually we're getting opinions and ideas and we're looking at the whole project and making sure the whole thing is going to work. So is the town lot next to CVS just off the table? Cause I think that's like a whole can of worms that I think we need to talk through. Chris. For now it's off the table. Yeah, I mean, to some degree, I guess my reaction Janet is that the projects you cited were private developers, John Roblesky owned the lot next door, had control of it. Archipelago owned where the pub was, had control of that, had worked out easements. And this owner is a different kind of entity and doesn't own adjacent lots that it can promise. You know, I mean, I'm not going to put words in the applicant's mouth, but I suspect the CVS lot came off the table in terms of the illustration because they don't want to essentially promise contractors that that would be available. And that if a contractor wants to make a deal with the CVS lot owner, that can be part of their bid and that would enable them to maybe reduce their costs. So I'm completely speculating. I don't need anybody on the applicant's team to tell me what your actual motivation was, but that's my suspicion. And this is a different, I mean, it's very common to have preliminary construction logistics drawings in a bid set that layout, again, kind of what was described, the architects and maybe the owners, you know, speculation for how you might do it with what resources are available from those two entities to enable the, to help the contractor. And there aren't a lot of resources right here that the town can offer. So I think that's why it's shown, you know, pretty limited. Do you want me to respond or do you want to talk to- No, I mean, I guess if you, yeah, as long as we're talking about this, I mean- So I just, you know, I don't, so if the VFW lot is owned by the town that's available, to me it's like, there's a lot of moving parts to this project, like everyone, you know, sometimes it's Amherst College, sometimes it's, you know, different entities, but to me, there's like, things need to be tied down. And so if this is not tied down, I think it has to come back to the planning board to approve it, not just, I don't think we should let that go because that's kind of our job. It's like we collect opinions from the fire chief and all the different, you know, design review boards, disability access board, and then we're looking at the product project as a whole and making the conditions. And that's kind of what we, so I just thought this was- I don't know, I guess I would say that we, I mean, it's quite clear from that drawing what resources are available to the contractor. It actually wasn't super clear to me and that was what I was hoping you were gonna talk about because I, you know, I was like looking at my computer and I wasn't quite sure, like, so. Well, I think like it's the lot inside the construction fence and then it sounds like the town staff, I suppose, has have agreed to make a portion of the sidewalk and parking, parallel parking in front of the library available for access. You know, I mean, we don't usually have contractors come back and talk about how they're actually feeding the lot or, you know, managing construction. No, I'm not, are they gonna store machines in those areas, like overnight? That's what I- Well, I mean, different contractors may have different approaches. Okay, so that's enough. Okay, but I'm just saying, if it's gonna be machines all over the place on North Pleasant and North, so. Well, if, you know, let's say hypothetically, you know, one contractor might say, oh, I've got a lot three miles south and South Amherst, I can put all my stuff, I'll stage it there and I'll bring it up as I need it. And another one might go to half a dozen housing, house is just down Amity Street and say, hey, I wanna park in your driveway and that's how I'll feed the lot. You know, we don't know how people are gonna do it and it'll have different cost implications for all of them, for each of them in terms of how their bid comes in. Okay, Bruce, you wanna put in your two cents or you wanna change the subject? No, first of all, we should see what that fraction of the draft conditions looks like because Bruce has already said that they've addressed this. It's just that it's not definitive and I don't share John's concern at all. In fact, I would be concerned if we tried to do differently. You know, it's a bit like, I don't know, a Broadway production or some kind of production. You can have the playwright in place and you can have the producer there but if you don't have the director, you don't know what the placement looks like and we don't have the director, that's the constructor. Trying to do this kind of thing without the constructor is lunacy because you don't have the third leg of the stool. The stool's not gonna stand up. You have to wait for the constructor, it's common sense and I kind of imagine that we wouldn't ordinarily do that and if we did, we ought to be home to order. No, this is the way to do it and we should look at the conditions that Chris and Rob and others have put and just make sure that they at least say what's not allowed or protecting the interests of the town and then let the ingenuity of the contract to drive this bus because these people are construction professionals for a reason, they're very smart, very clever and very imaginative and we can't begin to imagine what this metaphorical play might look like until they get on board. I have no concern at all about this. All right, thank you, Bruce. Other comments at this point or should we let, maybe Chris, do you wanna start with the findings or do you wanna start with the conditions? I think we usually start with the conditions but it doesn't really matter to me. I don't remember, actually I don't remember whether we start with conditions or findings. I would be happy starting with conditions I guess because that seems to be the topic of conversation and then we can go to the findings after that. Okay. So let me just, well, I won't even say that. No, okay, so let's read through the conditions and we can edit them as they come along and we do have Bob Parent in the audience as an attendee so he may have some ideas or answers if people have questions. So I'll start reading and we'll see how long my voice holds out and then maybe one of the other members of this group could pick up with reading if I start to fail or cough because I do seem to be getting a cough. All right, yeah, we'll be happy to do that. Okay, so the first conditions are the general ones. The project shall be built substantially in accordance with plans submitted to the planning board and approved on whatever the date is that you approve them. The project shall be managed substantially in accordance with the management plan submitted to the planning board and approved on the approval date. Substantial, does Bruce have a question about these or does his hand just- Well, I think Bruce has- Just a small point, it's not small to an architect but it might be to others but plans is, I would say documents is the moral and some of the same words. Okay, that's a good idea. Yep, you can get my paper copy of this one, documents. Thank you. Substantial, this is number three. 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 for its review and approval prior to the work taking place. The purpose of this submittal shall be for the planning board to approve the change and or to determine whether the changes are de minimis or significant enough to require modification of the special permit or site plan review approval. That's kind of a standard one. These first three are pretty standard as is the fourth one. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the landscape plan prior to the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy and once installed shall be continually maintained as needed. All disturbed areas shall be loamed and seated unless otherwise specified. You have a question? I mean, is that last sentence really necessary? It seems like the site plans pretty much show everything that's happening everywhere on the site. Is this just sort of if you forgot something you need to put grass on it? Sort of boilerplate, yeah. All right, go ahead. Number five, this site plan review 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 the two year time period. Okay. Yeah, number six, all work associated with the project shall be completed within 30 months from the date of issuance of the building permit. If more time is needed, the applicant shall come before the planning board at a public meeting for review and approval of a construction and completion schedule for an extension of time. Number seven, the principal use shall remain a not-for-profit library. Okay, that's the end of the general ones. Now we're going into the building exterior and site improvements. Number eight, prior to the issuance of the building permit, the site plan drawings including all utility work and work within the town right of way shall be reviewed and approved by the town engineer. This came about because we have not received comments from the town engineer and that is for a couple of reasons. One is that he received the drawings that were submitted the drawings and documents that were submitted in September and he was about to review them and then we became aware that there are changes that are kind of happening as we speak. So the building commissioner and I put our heads together and we decided that there could be a condition in this permit that would allow the town engineer to make his review before the building permit is issued knowing that the town engineer has been part of meetings all along as this project has developed. So he's aware of all of the issues, all the drainage issues, all the sewer, water, site work issues and we didn't feel that it was reasonable to have him review and comment on the set of plans that was submitted in September knowing that there were changes. Now the changes are not related to the surface of the site, the changes are related to underground utilities and Rachel gave me some ideas of what those were about and mostly it's things having to do with sizes of pipes and the size of the stormwater detention area in the rear of the building, things like that that the town engineer needs to look at carefully but they're not things that the planning board normally has a lot to say about, it's all underground. So we felt comfortable with putting this condition in here and I hope that you do too and I encourage you to consider it. So Chris, I guess it occurs to me that one sentence before what you've drafted might be useful, something to the effect that the surface features of the site shall be constructed in accordance with the plans submitted to the planning board, which limits the change. So that addition would limit the site and the town engineer to approving adjustments to things that are below ground. Is that reasonable or I can imagine a catch basin might move which is something that's visible on the surface but if everything else is below underground then you're right, we usually don't worry too much about it as long as the town engineer is okay. I do see your hand Janet. Can I answer that? I think that condition three kind of takes care of that. It says substantial changes to the project and or substantial changes to any approved site plans or the exterior of the building shall be submitted to the planning board. So if there were changes to the surface that came about as a result of the town engineer's review they would automatically come back to you for you to decide are these de minimis changes or are these things that need to come back for an amended site plan review? Okay, current or rather Janet? So I've actually never seen a permit like this which leaves things open for the town engineer. And so when I read this, I just kept on thinking well, we haven't heard from the fire chief we haven't heard from the town engineer, he isn't reviewed. I had questions. Yeah, I wasn't even clear what the disability access people were asking for. And I just, is there a time crunch on this because it seems to me that, I mean, I just never seen us not hear from the town engineer and all the people listed here before and can that get done in the next two weeks so we could have a chance to see what changes have been made to make sure the project meets state requirements that the town engineer is okay that the driveway is fine. That I mean, this is like a whole list of like this person will tell us and you'll listen to them and we are giving a permit saying, listen to them. I just, I just, I haven't ever seen this in five years. And I just don't understand why don't we just wait here for these, hear from these town officials from these boards and then just, there's plenty to talk about without trying to draft something that is like, okay, if something changes we get to see if it's substantial. And I just said, I don't understand this at all. I just think we should keep talking about the project, add conditions, wait to hear from our town staff and then take a vote. Okay. Chris, do you have any thoughts about that? Yeah, there have been cases in the past and I can think of at least two where the planning board or the zoning board of appeals approved a set of plans and then they went back later for review and approval by the town engineer specifically with regard to drainage but also with regard to other things. So Kendrick Place up in North Amherst which is at the tip of Triangle Street and East Pleasant Street was one of those cases where the town engineer reviewed the stormwater management proposal after the planning board made its approval. The other one was Aspen Heights. Aspen Heights is down in the valley. It's a kind of a strange name for something down in the valley. But anyway, it's the development at 408 Northampton Road which is just on the border of Hadley. And that's another one where the zoning board of appeals approved the project but there were still reviews that needed to be done by the town engineer. And that went, the project went well during construction and there weren't any issues. So we feel that it's a reasonable thing to do and this was a suggestion of the building commissioner. So I'm just hoping that you go along with it. If you're not comfortable with it, we'll go back and have the town engineer review the plans that are being developed now. But it really, I understand from the library and from the architects that they're very eager to get this approved so that they can apply for their building permit. And so we're trying to help them along and make that happen. And we think that these conditions are reasonable. They have been reviewed by the town engineer and I mean by the building commissioner, they've also been reviewed by Bob Parent who is working for the town on all the capital projects. So he sits in on all the meetings with the team and I think it's a reasonable approach. There is no rush. It's just, there's no reason to rush other than they wanna get a building permit quickly but they still have to go out to bid. So I just wonder if we can wait a few weeks and have all our ducks in order and things like that. I feel much more comfortable with that. I also think there's issues with the strong house and it's a really tight site. So maybe moving an underground thing is gonna change or affect something else. And I just, anyway, so I've said enough. Okay, thanks Janet. I guess at this point, given Janet's concerns, are there other board members who feel the same way? And if not, then I would conclude that the majority of the board would like to continue going through these conditions and then the findings. I don't see any other hands. So Chris, why don't you continue if you're able with the draft conditions? Okay, I think we were on condition nine. The final stormwater management system design and stormwater drainage report shall be submitted to the town engineer for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit and shall include pre-construction and post-construction stormwater runoff and stormwater volume calculations based upon soil testing results prepared and stamped by a licensed professional engineer. Number 10, the review of the final stormwater management system and required materials shall confirm that there shall be no increase in rate of stormwater flow caused by the project post-construction when compared to pre-construction conditions and that the stormwater management system is designed to conformance with the DEP stormwater management standards and technical specifications. Both conditions nine and 10 were taken from the Aspen Heights zoning board of appeals decision. Number 11, prior to the issuance of the building permit, the site plan drawings shall be reviewed and approved by the fire chief or his designated representative. Again, Chris Baskham, who is the captain in the fire department who's in charge of safety and fire protection, fire safety has been sitting in on a lot of these meetings with the team, the design team and has been following this project. He has not submitted comments to the planning board but he has been, he is very aware of the design and what's been going on with it. Number 12, the town engineer and building commissioner shall inspect the construction of the entry driveway and all onsite paved areas for conformance to town standards. Number 13, all onsite utilities shall be underground. Number 14, unless otherwise approved with the exception of traditional wall mounted fixtures that were chosen to match or be compatible with existing fixtures, all exterior lighting shall be dark sky compliant and shall be downcast, shielded and shall not shine onto adjacent properties or streets. Is there more to be said about that one? Why don't we, I mean. You wanna flag it and come back to it later? Yeah, well, I mean, I guess we did put this aside and Janet, I know you've had some concerns. You wanna say something else? So I think you're supposed to turn the lights off after business hours. And so I know there's some safety issues in the back of a lot and things like that. So that's one of the requirements of the bylaw. So yeah. Chris, do we have the sort of usual language later in this about when the lights are on or off? I thought we did, but we may not. So I can include that if we didn't. So that's a good comment, Janet. Sharon? Yeah, thank you. I would just like to comment, obviously we'll have the lights on and off whenever you all need them to be, but there are people who sleep on our property and it's a very active public building in the center of a very active downtown and for safety purposes. I don't think you don't want complete darkness in between on the western side of the library building. The strong house has a porch that people sleep on just like the library has a porch on the western side. So we have these porches that people sleep on overnight and having the lights there are very important. So it doesn't need to be lit up like Bradley International, but I don't think you want a dark library during off hours. That was my only comment. Thank you. All right. So Sharon, would it be reasonable for us to ask that? I mean, it may depend on how the lights are managed, switched in terms of how many circuits and that kind of thing, but assuming you have control over sort of individual lights around the property, can we ask that essentially the lighting management be designed to maintain security while minimizing the presence of unnecessary lighting when the library is closed? Something, I realize that's awfully squishy. But I think there's a fair amount of ambient light from the street lights. The CVS lot has lights that are overhead on all night. So if we can strike a balance, that may be helpful. Yeah, I really appreciate the squish. I'd love the opportunity to be able to work with the butters. For example, the Drake is gonna be a very active place nights. And so I think that side of the library building is gonna have life. But again, in between us and the Strong House, I would love to work something out that would work for them as well. So thank you for that. Okay. So Chris, I don't know how that conversation translates into a condition, but I know you're good at drafting conditions. I'll have to think about that. All right. Okay. I think we're up to number 15. I mean, Chris, actually, one other thought is just, do we ever have lighting management plans? I have not seen one, but maybe we could ask. I just wondered whether that, some, maybe it could just be as simple as a condition here, but if it needs to be more complicated or explained in some greater detail, we could invent a document like that that talks about the security needs on the west side and the egress needs on the east side and the, I don't know. We could ask the architect, landscape architect, excuse me, if that's something that they could provide and we could put that in as a condition that they provide a lighting management plan that comes back to you for review and approval at a later date. I don't know. I'm not sure how much we want to see it later. Yeah. Go ahead, Rachel. I think it's common to have controls that things are dimmed at a certain times, some lights are, some lights are not. So they can be individually wired. I'd like to add too that the CVS lot to Amity Street passageway along the east, the north and the east of the building is used, almost like a pedestrian street. So that is also another area that may be beneficial to have lighting even after library hours because that is more of a public way. Janet? So it seems to me that when you have events at night, there's certain lights, you want all your lights on or if you have events in the back, you want all your lights on and then what you turn off are the ones you don't need for the event and you just had the ones for security. And so that doesn't seem like that'd be so hard to work out. And with the Emily Dickinson house, I think they were doing some kind of architectural lighting but they were gonna turn it off at 11, mostly, and then they could do lighting for their events but also there was a concern about like animals and the changes and things like that. So I think you could probably figure out pretty easily what lights you need for walkways and bolliards or to illuminate your outdoor spaces for events and then what those could go off and then the ones you need for safety or illuminating because I do think it's a very market area and people do cut through it but I don't think you need all your back lights on and stuff like that. So I think that you could probably figure out a plan pretty quickly. All right, so Chris, why don't you see if you can draft some sort of condition that just says we wanna have the lighting have reasonable control of the different zones around the building and that the illumination after business hours should meet the needs for security through the site but not as not excessive or less than is probably needed during business hours. I think I've got that. Are we ready to move on? Yeah, I think we were up to numbers 15. 15, all air conditioning units, communication devices and all other outside mechanical equipment shall be placed on the roof of the building and not on exterior walls or within windows. Any equipment whether located on the ground or on the roof shall be screened from view and noise muffled with fencing plantings or other suitable materials following the approved plans dated whenever the date is of the approved plans and prepared by Fine Gold Alexander and the Berkshire Design Group. Is there equipment that's gonna be on the ground? I mean, the second sentence suggests there might be stuff on the ground and the first sentence says everything has to be on the roof, so I don't know. There'll be nothing on the ground. I think Christine's just covering all the bases just in case. Okay, Bruce? Once again, approved plans. I'm just wondering whether a design documentation phrase like that might be more all-encompassing. Yeah. And it should really say the date of approval rather than the date of the plans. Right. Okay. Yes, plans approved rather than approved plans. I mean, wouldn't it be the documents themselves with the dates are on it? I mean, there's, there could be several different plans and if you say the plans that we approve but there's not a date on it, I think it'd be confusing to people later on or even at the moment. I think we'll have a pretty good sense of which plans are approved though if you approve plans tonight. Well, I guess we have the packet which has the documents and the date of those documents can be found in the packet. Did Bruce have a comment about that? Bruce? No, other than to say that I really support Janet. I think it's nice to know the specific set by date. Okay. Do you'd rather have the date of the plans rather than the date of approval? I would expect so, yes. Okay. I mean, Chris, you probably could put both dates in if you wanted. Great, all righty. That would be, cover all the bases. Number 16, all utility work and work within the public right of way shall be conducted following the regulations and permits of the town of Amherst. Number 17, all work within the town right of way shall be reviewed and approved by town council prior to the issuance of a permit. I don't know why it says that, of a permit and the start of work says permit building. It should say building permit. Is there, I'm sorry, Bruce, I'm sorry. Yes, Janet. Is there a, am I reading a different document? Is this, I have one that's dated 12, 5, 23. This is a document that was sent out this afternoon. It's 12, 6, 23, and it contains edits from inspection services from Rob Mora and Bob Farrant. Oh, okay. That's why I'm confused, okay. All right, thanks, Janet. Fred, Fred, you are muted. Yes, I am. I'm sorry, the, I'm 17. I was wondering what a permit building was. No. Those words are inverted. Yes, that's right, building permit. Sorry. And Janet, is that a legacy hand? Okay, thank you. And Chris, is it not true that we all, that town council always needs to approve work within the town right of way? They do need to approve work within the town right of way, but it's really the surface work that we're concerned about, the sidewalk work, the parking spaces, et cetera. We wanna make sure that the contractor knows that that work has to be approved by town council before it's done. And that's sometimes hard for contractors to know that. They think that once they get their building permit, they can do everything that's on the plans. So this is a document, when we have our pre-construction meeting with the contractor, we go over all of these conditions, specifically the conditions that relate to when things have to happen, especially if they have to happen before a building permit is issued or before work begins. So that would be, even though it's true that the town council has to approve all of that work, it's necessary to point it out to the contractor. Okay. All right, moving along. Number 18, prior to any work on fire department property, the fire chief shall review and approve the timing and scheduling of work that is to occur on the fire department central fire station property to reduce any disruption to the operations of the fire department. What work is anticipated? There's utility work that's anticipated between the two buildings. Rachel is more familiar with exactly what it is, but it's, in my understanding, there's a sewer line that goes through there. I believe there's a water line and there may also be a drain line. Yes, that's correct, Chris. All right. Looks like Janet has a question or a comment. Yes, Janet. That was also my question. I hadn't heard about that. So that at some point you'll be needing to do work on their property. Is that what you're saying? For sure. Yeah, so early in the process, we actually scoped both the drainage and the sewer lines and they connect the library today to North Pleasant Street's municipal systems. So today, sewer league gives the library, it goes through the fire department alley out to North Pleasant Street. The same for the drainage for the library, it goes through the fire department alley. Our team did actual video scoping of the lines and they are really deficient. The sewer line is a clay tile line that's kind of falling apart and the drain line was broken and really not meeting current standards. So as part of this project, we are replacing those lines with the proper size and the proper material that we need to work in the fire department alley. And we're talking with the fire department about what their needs are related to that and those requirements are on our demo plans. Also, the contractor has to notify fire department in days and prior and they have to get the fire department approval prior to work in that area. So do you feel you can do that without disrupting the fire department or any damage to the old building? Yes, we've talked through. There's a plan show at Jersey barrier placed right on the edge of the concrete pad that's in front of the police department. There would be a temporary parking for the staff for the fire department would have to be managed. And speaking with Bob Parrot earlier, he thought that it actually could be phased into two different phases. So the one phase would be the utility work and another phase would be doing the service work. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay, I think we're on 19 now. Prior to the issuance of the building permit the applicant shall have in place an agreement with the historical society for use of the society's property for temporary construction access to the library's property. If the historical society's property is to be so used. Okay, hold on a second. Bruce, you had your hand up. Was that concerning the fire department? No, I have a question relating to a possible condition but I think it might be more appropriate in the management plan section. So that's why I pulled my hand down. We'll see. Okay, thank you. Janet, your hand is back up. So this was when I read the original permit that we're going to extinguish or something later. There was a lot of conversation about the strong house. There were a lot of conditions protecting the strong house. There was a requirement that there be an easement that there be, there was an easement between the strong house and the Jones. And there was a lot of concern about the building itself. And so at the last meeting I had said have you been talking to the strong house? And so since then I've learned that the conversations have been pretty recent. And so I wonder if you can tell us more about your conversations or where that's heading with the strong house. And also do you think you have to be on their land because the good part is this new addition actually moves away from the strong house but it seems like can you do the construction without going on their property or endangering their building? What those issues I'd like to hear more on. All right, Rachel would that be you? I can try to answer that Ellen feel free to weigh in also. Yeah, we are one of the nice parts about FAA's design is that they were actually pulling the mass of the building away from the property lines. We're actually improving a preexisting condition. One of the challenges of that though is that the historical society properties high and the ground floor or garden level entry for the library on the North side is low. So we're trying to make sure that we have enough space in front of that lower entry to divert stormwater that there was snow and whatnot making sure that water has a way out from that lower level. And then also having space for people to gather right against that near that front entry. So by putting a retaining wall we're actually creating a new program area just on the North side of the library. That wall varies in height on that side. It's shortest it's two feet tall when it gets closer to the building it's more like four to six feet tall. And that's necessary to meet the existing grades at the property line. And that wall it means that the structural support to the wall doesn't fall over into the library property because it has a foot that sticks back into the ground below the surface of the grade that anchors the wall and keeps it from falling over. So the construction of it requires that the footing for the wall extend into the historical society property. The surface of the wall, it's really in and everything is entirely on the library's property with the footing about an additional four feet down below Frost extends into the library into the historical society's property. If we didn't do that, then we'd have a situation where it'd be extremely tight, maybe not even meeting code for passing between the building and that wall. Okay, so it sounds like you have had some conversations with the historical society and does it sound like you are likely to obtain an acceptable agreement between the two entities, Sharon? Yeah, yeah, yeah. So the strong house, they've been a great neighbor. We've been at this project for a really long time and Gigi Barnhill, the president of their board has been to all of these meetings. We recently got a letter and I think it's been forwarded to you. Is that correct? Have y'all, no. Doug, have you not seen the letter from the strong house? I don't remember seeing it, but things have been a bit of a blur in the last couple of weeks for me. Totally understand. So we'll make sure you get the letter. So yes, so the strong house trustees and the library trustees are in the beginning stages of working out the easement language and negotiating all of the requirements. And so it makes sense here that within your requirements, what you all are saying to us is there needs to be signed approval between both boards. We need to see the easement language in place before we're gonna sign off on anything. So that makes complete sense. Okay, all right. Chris, you wanna move on to 21? Hey, prior to the installation of exterior signs, the applicant shall submit a sign plan, including details to the planning board at a public meeting for review and approval. Now the applicant had asked for a waiver from the sign plan and had said they would come back later with a site plan review application for signs. So that's one way to handle it. But the other way to handle it is to say, prior to them installing any exterior signs that they need to come back to the planning board to have those sign system reviewed. That's more typical. Number 21 is more typical of the way the planning board has handled this in the past, but whatever everybody's comfortable with, I'm okay with. Okay, I'm fine with the way you've drafted it. Sharon, any objection? Yeah, no, not at all. Okay, all right. For 22, the applicant shall provide the planning board at a public meeting, specifications, including material and color for any amenities such as bike racks, site furniture and benches for review and approval prior to installation. They don't have that figured out yet. Sharon, no objection to coming back about that? Yeah, no problem. Okay. Chris, I'm gonna just mention the time now is 12 after eight. And we usually take a break around this time. So I'm thinking if we go through the next two for the work within the right-of-way, and then we take a five-minute break. Okay, that sounds good. Okay, work within the right-of-way. 23, repairs and improvements to the right-of-way caused by disturbance during construction shall be completed by the applicant, including all costs, permits and approvals prior to the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy for the new building. Number 24, all crosswalks, sidewalks, on-street parking spaces, pavement and amenities, and the bus stop within the town right-of-way that are disturbed as part of this project shall be reconstructed to match existing unless changes are reviewed and approved by town council. We put that last phrase in in case the town council decides they don't want a bus stop there or whatever. Whatever it is they want to change. If they want to change something, then we wanted to have that flexibility to have the applicant go to town council and get that approval. Is the work at the fire department considered right-of-way? It is not, right? No, this is on the Amity Street that we're talking about here. Yeah, okay. Okay. All right, so unless anybody objects while I finish the sentence, why don't we take a five-minute break? The time I see now is 8.15. If everybody can mute yourself, turn off your camera, come back at 8.20 and turn on your camera to let us know you're back. Thank you. All right, I can say that my computer is saying that it's now 8.20. So if you're lurking behind your blank screen and can hear me, I guess it's time to come on back. Chris, I see you're back. I wanted to ask you a question and at what point do you want to go through the development application report? You are muted. I took a quick look through the development application report this afternoon and wanted to see if there were any conditions that needed to be included here that were based on the development application report. I didn't see any, but maybe others did. Maybe people want to take a look at that. Yeah, well, I mean, you had a number of things where you were saying issues the board may want to consider. Well, one of them was parking and one of them was lighting. Yeah, well, I mean, looking at the length of your conditions document here, we're on page two of five and the findings don't look a whole lot shorter. If we're gonna go through the development application report two, I don't see how we're gonna do that this evening. Okay, I guess I wasn't planning to go through the development application report unless someone had a concern about it. Okay. I assume that you will read it the first time you came out. You know, it's quite common for us to go through it and discuss each of the topics you've raised. Well, I'd be happy to do that if you all think that would be useful. Yeah. All right, well, why don't we continue? I guess Fred isn't back yet and let's see if there's anybody else. It looks like everybody else is back. There's Fred. All right. So why don't you continue with the conditions? Okay, and I think Bruce had something he wanted to add to this section. To the management plan. So I'm sure he'll raise his hand at the appropriate moment. Okay. So management plan, significant, oh, 25. Significant accumulation of snow plowed within the project area shall be promptly removed from the site as part of the clearing process to the extent possible. 26, all trash pickup deliveries, the operation of construction maintenance machinery and landscaping equipment shall be conducted during the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Exceptions shall include emergency vehicles, snow removal or other emergency situations as approved by the building commissioner. So this is in the general course of operation. It's not related to construction. Okay. Okay. 27, the project shall comply with and be managed in accordance with all terms of the management plan. Any alterations to this plan shall be approved by the planning board at a public meeting. 28, no work, including demolition on the property shall take place prior to all approvals and permit being issued. Permits should be. Stage three. Number 29, the exterior of the property. Excuse me, Pam, could you scroll up? I am. I'm sorry, I was writing. Thank you. You're welcome. 29, the exterior of the property with particular attention to the front walks, front lawn and front planting areas shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner free from debris and trash. Number 30, movable site furnishings shall be removed from outdoor spaces and stored during the winter months from November 1st to April 1st. And this relates to, I think there are gonna be some movable chairs that are in the children's patio area and also in a lawn area to the South, let's see, Southeast. And there may be also some movable chairs at the North end of the building. So we want those to be stored during the winter. And has that, I guess I could ask Sharon, that's fine. You've got a place to store these things. So this is, once the building is done and open? Yeah. Okay, if that's normal, I mean, right now we keep our, like we have a couple of picnic tables and benches and things, you want us to put those away? If they're permanently adhered to the site, I would say no. None of them are permanently adhered. And so, no, I mean, if that's what, if this is normal, totally. We'll work with DPW, I don't have any place to put all the stuff. The whole point of it is to be there for people to sit on. And, you know, if you, because we're in a great location, people want to sit in downtown Amherst, whether it's raining or snowing or, I mean, judgment-free zone, but whatever. So this is offered for the planning board's consideration. The planning board used to have this condition applied to any kind of outdoor dining, but since we had COVID and people have been dining outdoors, even in cold weather, the planning board has been less vigilant about that or less anxious to have this be a condition. So it's really up to the planning board as to whether they think this is a good condition or not. But, you know, sometimes during the time of November to April, things do get to look pretty shabby and you might want to have a condition such as this. And maybe it's December 1st to March 1st or something like that. So it's open for planning board to decide if they want to do it. All right, board members, any thoughts about this? I guess I'll offer that. I think we could probably delete this. And, you know, I would be more worried if I were the library about chairs wandering off or something than just having some snow on a picnic table or something. Is anybody object to that, to removing this? Let's see, I see three hands. Okay, Janet looks like you got there first. I actually have something, a question about number 26. So I could just wait until you figure this one out. Okay, all right, Bruce. I broadly agree with you. I think that often, you know, some of these conditions are put in to make sure that it's possible to do it if there's an objection or something arises. And so it's not uncommon in my experience of these things to have conditions in these that aren't enforced because no one has been Jones enough to make sure that they wanted it. It's good to have it there in the event that somebody might. But in this case, Doug, I agree with you. I can't see why, I can't see the benefit. I can't see why it would ever be driven. So I would support the elimination of this number 30. But that's not why I put my hand up. I had, like Janet, another item that I wanted to add. Then let me call on Jesse and see if he wants to talk about number 30 before we go back. I was just gonna agree with you, Dr. I think it should be removed, the library can decide. All right, so let's agree that we can remove number 30, Chris. And now we'll go back and talk about the earlier ones. I guess that Janet and then Bruce wanna talk about. So just on number 26, if Pam could scroll back a little bit, I didn't understand the whole idea that the exemptions language, it said, exemptions shall include emergency vehicle, snow removal or other emergency situations. And then it says, as approved by the building commissioner. And it seems to me that if you had a huge snow or an emergency or some other emergency situation, the last thing you wanna do is like call Rob Mora at like 11 o'clock at night. So I didn't understand why he had to approve of something that seemed kind of, does that make sense? It might be picky. I hate to put the screen on that minute. Crisis. I don't think it needs to be there. Okay. I'm not sure who put that in. Do you wanna just take out the, as approved by the building commissioner? Yes. Just say exemptions are other, other emergency situations. Mm-hmm, yep. Okay, thanks Janet. Ruth. Yeah, I agree with that deletion as well. But I wonder whether we might consider the need to add a condition in, I guess it would be in the management plan. I remember during the discussion of the infiltration chamber on the North side that I think the Berkshire design, I think it might have been Greg Huston said that, it was the expectation of the design team that this infiltration chamber would be flushed annually. And I, first of all, do I correctly recall that? And secondly, would it, I'm not sure whether I'm asking Chris. I guess I'd ask Chris on the board whether we think that that would rise to the level of being appropriately cited as a condition, the annual flushing or whatever the word is of the infiltration chamber. I think there's only one of them. So I guess it would be the North side. Yep. Rachel, I see your hand. Do you have a comment on that? Yes, thank you. I'd like to add, so the stormwater management report which is reviewed by the town engineer has an operations and maintenance manual that will be provided to the library for maintaining any, I think the specifics of that should be tied to that operation and maintenance manual rather than pulling out a piece of it that may or may not apply if the system changes just so that we're not, we're keeping everything together with that operation and maintenance plan. Okay. So Rachel or Sherry, maybe, I guess I'm not sure, but it sounds like maybe if we wanted to put a condition in, we would just say that the stormwater system shall be maintained in consistent with the approved stormwater maintenance manual. I see your thumbs up. So that would be okay from your perspective as a condition. Sharon? Yeah, I just wanted to say again, this is both my pay grade, I guess if this is normal, fine, but I'm thinking about all the different systems and all the different maintenance stuff, equipment that we're gonna have going on. At what point is it normal for you to have a condition? Yes, you're gonna maintain this properly and this properly. It seems like it's in our best interest to maintain it properly, but if this is something that much more special than fabulous, does my question make sense? Absolutely. Bruce, do you have a thought about that since you brought this topic up? Only that what Sharon's pointing out is the obligations of a building owner and so the answer is yes, I think. I mean, the fact that this building has got a public rather interesting and complex public profile is why we get into doing this kind of thing, but I think it's appropriate and yes, it is in the interest of the owner to maintain their building, but it's also in the interest of the town to make sure that the owners understand that and held to account on that. So you would go ahead and add the condition. I think the condition has expanded and made far more intelligent by Rachel is the way to go. We include in this management plan a subordinate management plan for a specific component or a specific subsystem of the building. Yes, I think we should do that. Okay, all right. Janet? I might agree with Bruce. I think it'd be, and I was, especially since the fire station is down to the library. So it's really in the town's interest that that get cleaned out. And I think it's actually something that people don't do a lot. So, but I would in the language that Bruce has proposed amended by Rachel, I would say as approved by the town engineer because we don't know what that manual is or if he's gonna approve that. So we're fluid state here. Okay, Chris, I see your hand and I see you taking notes feverishly as we talk about this. I just wanted to read back the condition. And I think it was Doug who came up with a kind of general condition. Stormwater system shall be maintained consistent with the stormwater operations and maintenance manual or plan as approved by the town engineer. Is that what you wanted to say? Yeah, I think that captures it. I'm seeing Rachel nod her head gently. I'm not seeing Sharon object vociferously. No, no, not at all. That's great. No problem. Okay, all right. Well, I think, particularly as Janet mentioned, it goes through the fire department. We don't wanna have a backup and a lot of runoff going wherever it would go. So, why don't we add that, Chris? Okay. All right, so we can go back. So we're moving on to construction. Pam, why don't you scroll back down and we'll go on to the next. These are conditions related to construction and normally you skip over these because there aren't any potential issues. But I think in this case, it's important because it's a site right in the middle of town and there isn't a lot of room on the site and the building commissioner and Bob Parent and I have thought a lot about these issues. And so it's worth going through it. All right, so you wanna go through each one or do you just wanna highlight some, especially critical ones? I could just summarize some of them. So we always have a pre-construction meeting with town staff and the contractor. That's condition number 31 prior to the issuance of the building permit. So I don't think there's any question about that. We always require a fire management plan, fire construction management plan because there are fires that occur during construction and it's hard to know how to handle them sometimes. The construction logistics plan, which we've talked about has all of these different things in it. A through J, I don't think we need to talk about those in particular, but starting with condition number 34, I think we should talk about this in detail. So condition number 34 starts with the construction logistics plan shall be subject to the following conditions. A, construction activity shall occur only between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday. B, there shall be no parking or idling of construction trucks or equipment in any public right of way. So that goes to, Jen, it's concerned about concrete trucks and other things blocking the roadway. Does that include the section of sidewalk that was shown blocked off on the logistics plan we saw? No, that wouldn't include that because that's being used specifically for this project. And so it was no longer considered part of the public way. So which maybe we should say, except for the part that is blocked off for during construction. And I'll have to think of a better way of saying that. Except for the part that is included in the construction logistics plan. Or approved by town council. Is that okay? No. I think so. C, any blasting or hammering of rock or material shall be noticed to the town officials and a butters 24 hours in advance and completed between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. I don't know whether they'll find any rock here, but that's something that we always put in. D, during construction, this is one that we really need to pay attention to. During construction, the construction period, the following requirements shall apply. One, material and equipment storage and staging shall be limited to the following locations. The project site, the VFW site at 457 Main Street. Two, parking for contractors, personal vehicles shall be restricted to the project site. The town owned VFW property at 457 Main Street and the town owned parking lot on North Prospect Street, which is also known as the North Pleasant Street lot. And the town owned Pre Street parking lot. Contractors may also purchase employee parking stickers, allowing them to park passenger vehicles in marked locations along public ways within the downtown area. Contractors shall not park personal vehicles in metered on-street parking spaces or in the town owned Amity Street lot. I guess my question about these first two is, it sounds like you're precluding the contractor from finding other private accommodations. Don't you really mean that the library and the town will only make those resources available as listed? Yes, that's what we mean. So in other words, the contractor could find a private property owner. Sure, I mean, let's say he wanted to rent the CVS lot and paid CVS enough to shut that lot for the during issue of construction. Why not? Yeah, okay. So I will add that clarification. Okay. Number three, once if... Janet? So, I was, I'm looking at the old, excuse me. I'm looking at the yesterday's proposed permit and basically the old language suggested it wasn't, it's in italics, says once a general contractor has been hired and prior to the issuance of a building permit, the general contractor shall submit to the planning board for approval of plan showing where material and equipment will be stored in stage and where construction vehicles will be parked and a plan for parking of contractor personal vehicles on the plan she'll be reviewed and approved by the planning board at a public meeting. That paragraph takes care of my concerns and sort of what I suggested earlier. And if somebody can find someplace near downtown that is big enough for all these vehicles and all their equipment and their materials, more power to them, that's what they can come and talk to us about. We don't have to worry about the VFW site. My guess is that these two sites are probably it. Yeah. So that's the next condition on Chris's draft here. Oh, okay. So... Thank you for reading that. I'm sorry. I'm still jumping back because I still haven't read this one and I was looking at this one. So... Yeah, so Pam scroll down a little bit so we can see item three there. Yeah. So that text exists and it sounds like you're in favor of it. It's a little bit different. Do you want me to read what is actually in this one? Sure. Once a general contractor has been hired and prior to the issuance of any building permit, the general contractor shall submit to the building commissioner for approval, a plan showing where material and equipment will be stored and staged and where construction vehicles will be parked and shall present a plan for parking of contractors personal vehicles. All right. Janet, does that seem okay? Got your hand? I think we should keep it for ourselves because of our collective wisdom and the fact that we understand, like my complete respect for Rob Mora, but one of the good things about the planning board is other than our ability to pick knits and it's like everybody has a different experience. So people who live downtown will understand, oh, that doesn't work because X, Y and Z or somebody who's an architect will be like, well, that's gonna be a problem. And so I think we should just stick with the language saying come back to the planning board just to make sure your plan makes sense. And what makes sense to Rob Mora might not make sense to seven people who are ordinary citizens with different professional degrees. And that's the good stuff that we bring is that we get to look at something and Bruce is like, that's a weird curve on the roof. It just doesn't match. And so those little tweaks, but I think this is actually pretty significant. I think we should stick with just having them come back to us. And that is the last thing we will say about construction plans. Board members, how do you feel about this? Are you okay with the building commissioner or do you prefer that the planning board review this construction logistics plan? Don't all raise your hands at once. Karen? Karen. I can lead to go to Rob Mora. And if something is kind of, I don't know how much plan, it's just more efficient to go to Rob Mora. I'm not sure that this is, and he would make a pretty good decision, I would think. So you'd support leaving it with the commissioner? Yeah, I think I would. Okay, Bruce? I think I support Karen. I understand Janet's concerns and in theory, the board might be, there might be some instances where we might see things better or differently, but broadly speaking, I think the building commissioner is probably going to be a satisfactory route. And it's certainly a whole lot more expeditious. So I don't think there's enough to be gained by bringing it back to us. So I would support keeping it the way it is. Okay, Jesse? Bruce said better than I would, so I concur with his statements. All right. What did he say? I didn't catch that. Jesse, I agreed with Bruce. Concurse with Bruce, okay. Yes. All right. I assume, Karen, you're done with your raised hand. Oh, sorry. All right. All right. Let's see. I haven't seen anything from Johanna. And I will say, I guess I think I'm fine with staying with the building commissioner. You know, I just, I don't look at that many construction logistics plans to feel like I'm necessarily very good at that. Johanna? I concur with the majority. Okay. All right. Well, so Chris, why don't we leave the approval of the logistics plan with the building commissioner? Yes. Just let me say one thing in support of that idea that the building commissioner has easy access to the department of public works can consult with the town engineer and the superintendent of public works about things that are going to be suggested. So, and that would be challenging for the planning board to do. Okay. Johanna? Are we keeping or adjusting the language before that in? I don't know what the numbering is. It was number two. Yeah. Are we altering that or keeping that? What was the idea? I think Chris had agreed with my suggestion to make it clear that we're not limiting the contractor to those spots. We're just saying that's what the public entity or the owner is going to make available. In the public realm. That's what's available in the public realm. Yeah. Okay. And then just a quick question. So if the contractors, the workers are using a public lot, they'll be given like a special thing so they can be there all day. They're not like putting dimes in, are they? What we're saying is they can park in certain public lots, but not others. There's a lot on Pre Street where they can park and there's a lot behind CVS, which is the town owned lot. Sometimes it's called the North Pleasant Street lot and they could park there and they could feed the meter or whatever they need to do. They can also come into town hall and purchase an employee sticker so they can park in those permit parking spaces that you see marked with a blue sign. I have one myself. Okay. We don't want them to park in on street metered spaces because those are spaces that everybody, the public uses. And we also don't want them to park in the Amity Street lot because people go to the cinema and they want to go downtown and we don't have the lot in front of the town hall anymore. So we want to leave those spaces open for members of the public. Okay. Got it. All right. All right, number... We're up to 35, I believe. 35, 35 is just boilerplate, that they have to provide the building commissioner with information about the project manager. 36 is different times when they can't work and I think I should read through this. There should be no exterior construction activity, including fueling of vehicles, deliveries or idling of vehicles or equipment on the project site before 7 a.m. or after 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday. There should be no construction on the project site on the following legal holidays, New Year's Day, Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas. And the applicant agrees that the hours of operation shall be enforceable by the Amherst Police Department and or inspection services. And this is one that we added. There should be no work during graduation for the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, May 17th and May 18th, 2024. Because... Do we not expect that construction could go into 2025? Well, we could, yes. I suggest you add those dates as well. I mean, if I added up the timeline that we had in the earlier document about how long it could be before they apply for the building permit and then how long the construction can take, it sounded like it was close to four years. Right? I mean, 18 months to get a building permit and two years to build the thing, that's three and a half years. So anyway. Okay, so I do see a couple of hands, Johanna. I'm curious about the rationale for the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and whether it also extends to Amherst College. Amherst College has its graduation on a weekend. So the people who suggested this condition didn't think that was necessary for Amherst College. Also, the crowds are smaller for Amherst College. Okay, now Fred. Yeah, on 36, I'm curious why the Traffic Enforcement Division is excluded from the list of enforcement. Chris, are they separate from the Police Department? I don't think so. I think that's, they're members of the Police Department. The major people are separate, but the Traffic Enforcement people are part of the Police Department. Okay, well, if that's the case, I didn't think so, but if that's the case, then it doesn't matter. So did you say, Chris, that the meter folks were separate? I think the meter folks work for Town Hall. And when they beat, so they would not be able to enforce any of this. I don't believe so, no. Okay. Yeah, well, that's what I thought. And why wouldn't they? The meter people only enforce infractions of meters. So if we have contractors parking at meters, which you don't want, can't they get a ticket from enforcement? They could, but that doesn't have anything to do with condition number 36. Okay. So maybe Fred is going back to number 34, where we talk about where contractors can park. And I think that the meter people could enforce that. Okay. Where contractors can park. I see what you're saying. Oh. Okay. Okay. All right, Jesse. Yeah. Oh, sorry. Question about number 36. I'm assuming the intention here is about noise for surrounding people moving. And if so, I mean, I understand the delineation of exterior versus interior. Certainly interior things mean noisy too. I don't want to try and put more limits on this. I'm just curious about that really was the intention. That is the intention. Yep. And so that's why you have the exterior construction activity. The exterior construction is seven to seven Monday through Saturday, but there's no construction on those dates that are listed. And why? It's standard. I don't know why. Chris, would you like or Jesse, would you like to allow construction? Yeah. Yeah, I don't, I don't, it's not a real rationale. I don't think we should try and slow down anything. Yeah. So we could strike that sentence, Chris. Strike number 36. No, just the sentence that says there shall be no construction on the project site on the following legal holidays. Okay. Fred, you are muted. Okay. Thank you. All right, Chris, I think we're caught up. We can get to sub 37 or 38 now. 38. The project site shall be fenced during construction. And then the building commissioner asks if the planning board cared if there's screening applied to the fence, which sometimes includes graphics, letters and messaging from the, usually from the contractor, you know, there's sometimes big banners that the contractor puts up and it shows, it might show an image of the library as it will be built, but it might show some sort of advertising from the contractor. So does the planning board care about that? Okay. Janet. It sounds sort of unpleasant to me, but I also, I especially think that the fencing, gazing the strong house should have just be a fence and no big signs. Okay. All right. Jesse. I guess, yeah, if we can choose, I would choose not to have big signs, but I'll give all the people. Sharon. Yeah, just one thing. And I don't have the language in front of me, but the, I think as part of the MBLC grant, there has to be a sign saying this project is, thanks to all of our elected officials in the state of Massachusetts, something like that, you know, through a grant through the MBLC. So there needs to be some kind of sign there, but that's different from advertising for the GC. Okay. Karen. Yeah, I think there can be a very sort of discreet a sign which just gives, which is informative, but certainly not a big sort of thing that looks like advertisement. Maybe it could be approved by us. They could come with what? Well, yeah, I guess, you know, it sounds like there's probably is some signage required by the state agency that's helping fund the project. So we could make an exception for that. And then we could, in fact, you know, isn't this site, Chris, within the purview of the design review board? Yes, it is, but I don't believe that construction signs are reviewed by the design review board. Oh, really? It's their temporary signs. I know there's always a big sign that says who the contractor is, who paid for the project, you know, who the funding sources are, all the different subcontractors and everything. So that's usually there. But I think what we're talking about here is those signs that are made part of the screen or mesh and we've seen them on archipelago projects where they have, you know, a big picture of what the building's gonna look like in the future and might even say renting in 2023 or whatever it says. But you could say, you know, that you don't want large advertising signs on the screens. Right. Does that make sense? Yep. I'm thinking we should probably just say that. You know, Hannah? It's interesting. My thinking is it's temporary and I don't feel a strong need to place additional limitations on this. All right. Bruce, I think your hand was up. The moment has passed. Yes, I'm with you, Hannah. You are, okay. So you would favor no restrictions on the construction fence? I think so, yes. I think I'm there. I don't think that's, I don't think, I can't foresee a problem. Okay. I'm not, I don't feel strongly about that. Would anybody strongly object if we did not limit graphics on the construction fence? Sounds like Janet. Could we just say... Whoops, you just muted yourself, Janet. Could we just say no signs on the strong house, like the west side? Cause I think that we just tacky, you know, to have that in this, you know, 18, 1700 building. I don't think I'll... All right. Anybody object to prohibiting on the west, the west construction fence, abiding the strong house? I don't see any hands. Chris, can we... Yes. Can you draft that? We can do that, yes. Number 39, appropriate measures shall take place to control dust, dirt, debris, and construction materials on site. Water for dust control shall be trucked in from offsite, unless otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. Number 40, all catch basins shall be protected from soil and debris contamination during construction and shall be cleaned at the end of construction. 41, no stump, stimulation material, or construction debris shall be buried or disposed of on the project site. 42, prior to enduring construction, physical barriers shall be installed to provide tree protection along the limit of clearing line and around trees to remain. Errosion controls and tree protection measures shall be continuously maintained throughout the course of construction. Number 43, tires shall be washed before vehicles exit the site and anti-tracking pads shall be installed at construction site exits. Okay. Johanna. Is there, and maybe we'll get to it, but is there anything in here about dust management? Should that come to be a problem? That's in number 39. Appropriate measures shall take place to control dust, dirt, debris, and construction. Thank you, sorry, I missed it. Okay. Number 44. Anything in the next section? But does someone want to say something? Well, Chris, I was just wondering, is there anything in the next section that you think we need to read? Not particularly. Number 47 allows the building commissioner to impose surety requirements to make sure that the project gets built. It doesn't end halfway through. It's probably not relevant in this case because the library will do the right thing, but that is a typical condition that we put in. I don't think there's anything else except for the very bottom number 47, the temporary access area of the Strong House Museum grounds shall be restored to its pre-construction condition within 30 days of the project completion. Okay. Did the numbering go backwards to get to that? Going backwards, yes, that should be 50. Yeah, that's what I thought. Okay. Yep. I know, I did this so many times. Janet. I had a question about the surety about, because we had a project that sort of just set unfinished for a really long time and on Spring Street. And then of course, it's done, we're almost done. And I kind of, it got me thinking about what would have happened if the owner of that building or the developers went bankrupt and the building just set unbuilt and that occasionally happens in different places. And so do we ever require a surety that the construction will be complete? Because on the Solar Bylaw Working Group, we're requiring a surety that, you're gonna build your solar field and not just leave a bunch of sticks, like a bunch of posts out in the middle of a field or a forest. So we ever require people to say, put up a bond, a performance bond saying, you're gonna do the work and if you don't, we can collect on the bond and completed ourselves. And then, so that was one. I thought that's what this just said. This only covers the landscaping. Oh, is that right? The site, landscaping and site work because that's the work that is sometimes left undone. We have not had the experience of a building being left undone and the bond would have to be enormous to cover the cost of our taking over and finishing a building. Okay, Sharon, do you have a thought about that? Yeah, so Bob Parent is telling me the project contractor will have to be required to have a performance bond to ensure completion. Okay. All right, great. All right, Chris, are we through these conditions? Yes. Great. And I guess at this point I'll ask, is there anything that people saw in the development application report that they would like to talk about? And I'm just gonna scan it myself for the moment. Everything I've seen so far looks like it was covered in these conditions. Yeah, I think we've actually dealt with most of this. I do see one thing here, Chris, about the traffic impact report and pedestrians crossing in front of the construction site. Has that been a topic of conversation with you guys and the design team for that logistics report? It's been a topic on other projects such as 11 and 13 East Pleasant Street. I think it's probably not really an issue on this project. So... So all pedestrians will be told to cross the street so that they don't walk on the north side of Amity Street in front of the... This is during construction you're talking about? Yes. All right, can you read that section to me? I don't have it, Rachel. Rachel, did you say yes? I just like to iterate that the logistics plan goes into great detail about the signage. We are putting signage in at the corner of North Prospect Street and even at the corner of North Pleasant Street, letting people know before they get to the closed sidewalk that it's closing, it's time to cross. That is mapped out in detail in the logistics plan. Okay, so the plan is that no pedestrians are crossing in front of the construction site. Or going past the construction site. I think that the item in the development application report actually referred to the ultimate situation where pedestrians were crossing the driveway. And so it wasn't really referring to the time during construction. Rachel is referring to the time during construction. So I don't really feel like, you know, having seven cars occasionally come in and out of that driveway is really gonna cause a problem and have to be studied by. That hasn't been a site of a great number of pedestrian accidents, I mean, so far. In the past, no. Okay, all right, Janet, I see your hand. In the waiver section, this is a small thing. There was a waiver of the vegetative buffer. So when you have, you're abutting the RN in the BG, you need to have a vegetative buffer between you and the adjoining property. And I just assumed, but I didn't want to assume that the strong house doesn't want to see vegetation along the building. Is that a correct assumption? Along the west side of the building? I haven't been in touch with the strong house about that. But in my opinion, it's nice to have that landscape open rather than cut up. It's nice to see the continuum between the strong house and the library, the way it's always been, rather than having shrubs or something there. Yeah, it's also nice for security, particularly if people are sleeping on the porches. That's true. Fred. Yeah, I had a question about the area to the, let's see, it would be to the east of the Jones. Right now, that's the only HP parking that's anywhere near people going to the Drake. And so that is a matter of concern. I can tell you for my wife, who definitely needs that space. Is this during, after hours, is this site going to be completely closed? I'm getting the impression the answer is yes. Sharon. Yeah, no, no, just like now, right now we have two handicapped spots. Anybody is welcome to use them at any time, whether the library is open or not. And doesn't that apply to basically all the parking? All seven spaces are likely to be available to anybody after hours? Yeah, we won't put a gate up there or anything like that. Yeah. Okay, thank you. There wouldn't be any enforcement or ticketing or towing of anybody parked in that space, right? No, correct, yeah. So because the property is owned by the trustees, it's not ticketed by the town's parking management folks. Okay, and you won't be hiring Pat's tow to monitor it and take my car away? No, only if you hit another car that's parked there, then something could happen. I was just concerned about a construction fence that might close that access. Oh, during construction, there will be a fence there that will close that access, yes. So that's my concern that we're gonna go through maybe an extended period of time with a well. Yeah, with the loss of a couple of strategically placed accessible spaces. Chris, would the town be willing to make a couple of the parallel parking spaces kind of adjacent on Amity Street handicapped during the construction? The town shies away from making parallel parking spaces handicapped accessible because it requires that you have a lowered curb to the sidewalk and it requires a lot of signage. It's very challenging. There is handicapped parking across the street in the Amity Street lot, and that lot will remain open during construction. So perhaps people who need that type of parking could use those spaces. That raises a question and it gives me an idea and that is that at least during construction, the town might make a couple additional spaces available as HP designated and then you wouldn't have to do any construction if you just identified the spaces that were close to the ones that are there now. In the Amity Street lot? Yes. I'll make that suggestion to the superintendent if that public works. Thank you. Great. Janet. I wonder if we can go to the page 13 of the development application report because there's a bunch of questions that were posed and it seems like they'd be good questions about that area that we're talking about. That would have been in the November 15th packet, I think Pam, if you're looking for that. Oh, and I guess it's in this packet, isn't it? Yeah. I mean, I guess I can read the... It's just about pedestrian bike movement around that area and how people cross the street. Yeah, so issues to consider. Any work within the town right of way will need to be approved by town council. We've talked about that. The board may wish to inquire about pedestrian access on the north side of Amity Street during the construction period. I guess we just talked about that. Pedestrian, will pedestrians be required to cross Amity Street to use the sidewalk on the south side? I think the answer is yes. Where will the temporary bus stop be relocated? I don't know that that's come up. Will it be relocated? Rachel, has that come up? Yeah, we've talked with PVTA. Bob Parrott has been helping with that conversation and PVTA is current thinking as they may actually temporary decommission the bus stop in front of the library because there are so many close by on Amity Street. But they would continue to talk with the town about that. All right, so it may just go away. And then will there be a temporary rerouting of the bike lane or will cyclists need to cross Amity Street and walk their bikes on the sidewalk on the south side of the street? Well, I can tell you as a bicyclist, I'm just going to ride in the travel lane if I need to. What's the actual answer to that question? Our logistics plans call out for sharing, sharing bikes may share full lane rather than having another bike lane shimming in there. So we have that signage starting at the corner of North Pleasant Street all the way through with that. Okay. Janet? I have two questions. Will there be any special painting on the road to show like share the road, there's like in Brookline they have that when it's the roadway is now used for bikes and there's some kind of weird diamond and stuff. And then also I think I might have missed this and maybe has been said, is there going to be a temporary crosswalk like painted out so people know like, oh, we have to cross over from North Prospect to Amity and cars will know that. We have signage at every corner. I can show you the. Will there be like paint on the road so cars, you know, notoriously not, there's a lot of signs downtown. Well, I mean. Is there going to be like a temporary. Forgive me if I'm wrong, Rachel, but it sounded like at North Pleasant Street, you're going to tell pedestrians cross here at the existing crosswalk to the south side of Amity Street. And then at the same, at the other end over at North Prospect Street, you're going to tell pedestrians to cross at the existing crosswalk. Oh, there is a crosswalk. So we won't need, so we don't need additional crosswalks. Okay. Because we're using existing ones. I guess that does beg for me the question about the existing crosswalk right opposite the library with the raised platform. Is anything going to happen to that? Will the signage go away? We're temporarily closing that crosswalk. We have signage that it's closed. All right. And is there a sign in the middle of that street? I think there is in the middle of Amity Street. I kind of remember trying to miss it as I missed the pedestrians too. It's one of those, it's not permanent sign. They take it out during the winter, some cows can go through. So somebody will, public works will just remove it for a couple of years. Fred. Yeah, if that happens, and if I get the additional HP spots in that lot, people are going to need to be able to cross. And the, I think the DPW should be contacted about at least painting a crosswalk, even if it's not raised. And I'm not sure where to place it, but... I mean, wouldn't they cross either at North Prospect Street or at North, or I guess that's just Pleasant Street at the existing crosswalk, particularly, you know, you'd cross at Pleasant Street where you, if you were headed to the Drake. Yeah. Well, yeah, that's, I guess maybe that's the only option. Yeah. Okay. All right, I thought I saw maybe another hand, but I don't remember who's it was. So, okay. All right, so we've been through these conditions. We've kind of talked a little bit about the development application report and people have raised the topics that they wanted to discuss. The time is 9.18 and do people wanna sort of power through the findings this evening and try to vote on this? I'm seeing at least two hands, two heads shaking, yes, and one thumb to go with it. Bruce, your hand. I much know that it's a load and we have house guests. I would think that while our minds on this and while we got people assembled, we should proceed. Okay, so that's three, Janet. I'd like to wait to the next meeting. I think we're gonna take a long time on this and then I'd like to see the draft conditions as conditions and hopefully hear from town attorney, but... Okay. All right, well, at some point, I think we're gonna need to take a straw poll on that and it sounds like at the moment, there's at least three members in favor of proceeding this evening. Bruce, is your hands back up? Yes, it's just a concern that if we stop and then we take two weeks and we start again that it'll take us twice as long. We'll have the gotten stuff. It'll be very inefficient, very frustrating, much in all as it's troublesome to imagine that there's gonna be a late night, I think we should. And I don't think we need to worry about other reports from other folks. I think we've handled that. I think we just stick our nose to the grindstone and do the work. Yep. All right. Well, I guess unless other members who have not spoken wanna weigh in and change the course of the evening, why don't we go ahead and talk about the findings, Chris? Pam, if you could bring those up. I'm seeing four, three and a half pages of findings. How's your voice holding up, Chris? I think I'm doing all right. Okay. Well, I'll let you continue unless you wanna turn it over to somebody else. Okay. So the first set of findings is about the site plan review and section 11.24 is the section that we look at. So it starts off the board found under section 11.24 of the zoning bylaw site plan review as follows. 11.2400, the project is in conformance with all appropriate provisions of the zoning bylaw and the goals of the master plan. The applicant has applied for a special permit to continue and enlarge the structure with existing non-conforming dimensional setbacks in accordance with section 9.22 of the zoning bylaw. The applicant has also applied for waivers of setback requirements for accessory structures. And I think there were a couple of other things that Janet mentioned something, waiver. The vegetative barrier at the abutting zone RM. And there was another waiver having to do with lighting in the parking lot, I think. Was there? Well, it had, the only one I can remember at the moment had to do with the lighting that did not conform with dark sky. Maybe that's it. The applicant, yeah, waivers. The applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement of on-site parking and I submitted a parking management plan to support that request. 11.2401, town amenities and abutting properties will be protected through minimizing detrimental or offensive actions. As a not-for-profit library, the proposed use is unlikely to create detrimental or offensive actions. Exterior lighting will with the exception of historical figures fixtures be downcast and will not shine onto adjacent properties or streets. 11.2402. I see a couple of hands and I may have an edit of my own. So Chris, or rather a friend. Yeah, on the historical fixtures. I think that's not exactly what you wanna say. I would think of something like of historical and comparable fixtures because they are putting some very modern brand new ones that look historic but in fact aren't along with the ones that are actual historical. Right. I guess the other word that comes to my mind is something of a historic character or appearance. Janet, while Chris is writing that down, what would you wanna say? I would say that, you know, after hours, exterior lighting will be turned off with the exception of lighting necessary for safety. That sounds more like a condition than a finding. Oh, well, I think that's what we think. I like the wording. We sort of stumbled around the wording earlier. Yeah. I can add that to a condition. Yeah, I think that was good. I liked that. Hours exterior lighting will be turned off. After hours with the exception of lighting required for safety, for public safety or something. Yeah. I can't write fast enough. That's what we have the recording for, Chris. It's time of night. Yeah, I'm sure Pam is busy writing too. All right, so Pam, why don't you scroll down a little bit? We're on 11.2402 now. Yeah. Yeah. The budding properties will not be, budding properties will be protected from detrimental site characteristics resulting from the proposed use, including but not limited to air and water pollution, flood, noise, odor, dust, vibration, dust, comma, vibration, lights, or visually offensive structures or site features. The proposed use and not for profit library will not produce detrimental site characteristics. Exterior lighting will, with the exception of, and then historical will also include those other words that we talked about earlier. Yeah. Be downcast and will not shine onto adjacent properties or streets. 11.2403, provision of adequate recreational facilities, open space and amenities will be provided because there will be outdoor sitting and studying areas located near or next to the building, including a children's patio located next to the children's section of the library. There will also be a garden area on the north side of the building with accessible walking paths, as well as stepping stones throughout the garden. 11.2401, unique or important natural historic or scenic features will be protected. The project will preserve and maintain the 1928 portion of the library, as well as take measures to protect the historical society's strong house and property during construction. Several existing trees will be retained and protected during construction. 11.2211, the project provides adequate methods of refuse disposal as described in the management plan. 11.2212, the project will be connected to town sewer and water. The town engineer has been meeting with the design team on an ongoing basis as the project has been developed, a condition of the site plan review approval will require that the project be reviewed by the town engineer prior to the issuance of the building permit and that the project comply with his requirements. 11.2213, the proposed drainage system within an adjacent to the site will be adequate to handle the stormwater. The town engineer has been meeting with the design team on an ongoing basis as the project has been developed. A condition of the site plan review approval will require that the project be reviewed by the town engineer prior to the issuance of the building permit and that the project comply with his requirements. 11.2214, provision of adequate landscaping has been addressed. The project includes new plantings on the site as well as preserving and maintaining several existing trees both on the library site and on the adjacent strong house, Amherst historical society property. Small trees within the town right of way will be removed and replanted at the conclusion of construction. 11.2215, the soil erosion control methods are considered adequate to control soil erosion both during and after construction. The town engineer has been meeting with the design team on an ongoing basis as the project has been developed. A condition of the site plan review approval will require that the project be reviewed by the town engineer prior to the issuance of the building permit and that the project comply with his requirements. Can I just ask a question about the last sentence on 24, 14? Are there actually small trees going into the town right of way? I kind of remembered small trees that were farther back from the street. There are small trees in that little tree lawn between the sidewalk and the curb and the DPW is going to be removing them and they will be replanted when construction is complete. They were newly planted by the town. Okay. Those little trees. Okay, fine. Yep. Great. Back to 24, 16. 24, 16 adjacent properties will be protected by minimizing the intrusion of various nuisances. Oh, I see. Well, that's... So I really just rewrote that to include all of the things that were listed in the zoning bylaw. So it's really the one right below that we should be looking at. Adjacent properties will be protected from the intrusion of air and water pollution, flood noise, odor dust and vibration through appropriate site and structured design and the use of appropriate design and materials for containment, ventilation, filtering screens, soundproofing, sound dampening and other similar solutions. I don't know if there's more that we want to say about that. That covers a lot of it. Pam, I'm going to want you to scroll that up. Janet, I see your hand. So we want to delete that first one, right? Delete the first one, yes. Yes. It's redundant. Pam, are you going to scroll? Which way? So that 24, 17 goes to the top of the screen. Okay, there you go. That's good. Great. Adjacent properties will be protected by minimizing the intrusion of lighting, including parking lot and building exterior lighting through the use of cutoff luminaires, light shields, lowered height of light poles, screening or similar solutions. Except for architectural and interior lit signs, all exterior lighting shall be downcast and shall be directed or shielded to eliminate light trespass onto any street or that should be or lighting property or. Do you have somewhere in this, with the exception of light from historical fixtures or fixtures of historic character? Yes, it's down below. Okay, good. I can start at this sentence that starts with all. All site lighting, including architectural sign and parking lot lighting shall be kept extinguished outside of those business hours established under an approved site management plan, except for lighting determined to be necessary for site security and the safety of employees and visitors. The exterior lighting for this project meets these requirements except for the historical, and I will substitute the language that you've suggested lighting that is mounted on the building near entries and exits, which consists of globe lights as shown on slide 53 of the PowerPoint presentation given to the planning board on November 15th, 2023. And then in the notes below, there's one possibility of waving those requirements for the globe lights that are near the parking lot, but I don't think that's as meaningful as waving or modifying them under 9.22. So I would go with note number two. There are existing historical globe lights on the building. If the board wishes to allow new lights to be installed that match the existing globe lights, the board could approve the new globe lights under special permit SPP 2024-01 under section 9.22 of the zoning bylaw and consider them part of the alteration, enlargement or reconstruction of the existing non-conforming building. The building commissioner is able to support this approach. In fact, he actually suggested it. Okay, Janet? So I'm not gonna say my previous points, but I wanna ask the architects, could these globe lights be considered architectural? I remember when we talked about this a few years ago, architectural lighting was like, lighting that was like shining onto a building, but I wonder if the definition is broader to just include lovely architectural lights that light the building. Tony. Tony had to go pick his wife up from the airport. Let's just assume it. Okay. All right. I'm googling it right now, so. I mean, I guess my sense from the board is that we're inclined with Janet with you as the exception to accept the pathway, I guess, that Rob Moore has proposed. Yeah, I mean, I feel like if it's architectural lighting, it gets a pass and that might be, I mean, I hate to wave something that we're not supposed to wave. And I, you know, 9.22, I just, it's just sort of become this, you know, I just think there's a lot of legal problems with that and it's just getting wider and wider. So I'm happy to say it's architectural lighting because it makes the building beautiful. It's up lighting, it gives, whatever, so. Anyway, and just skip it all. All right, well, thanks for that legal parsing of the wording. I'm trying to, I'm doing my job here. Okay, all right. I'm trying to do it. Yeah, so Chris, I think we're gonna go with note two. The two, okay. And, you know, I actually think your last sentence, the, it sounds like the building commissioner endorses this approach. Building commissioner recommended this approach. Okay, so let's use recommended. Yeah. Recommended. Is able to support seems a little bit, little bit wishy-washy. Okay, 11.2418. It's not applicable because the property is not located in a flood prone conservancy district. All right, Pam, we need to scroll up again. 11.2419 is also not applicable because there are no wetlands on or within 100 feet of the property. All right. 11.2420. The planning board did not choose to refer to the design principles and standards set forth in those sections of the zoning bylaw because the project is within the jurisdiction of the design review board. And the DRB has reviewed the project and has issued comments and recommendations which have been provided to the planning board. And the applicant has made changes to the proposal based on the recommendations of the DRB. 11.2421. The development is reasonably consistent with respect to setbacks, placement of parking, landscaping and entrances and exits with surrounding buildings and development. The applicant has applied for a special permit to continue and enlarge the structure with existing non-conforming dimensional setbacks in accordance with section 9.22 of the zoning bylaw. The applicant has also applied for waivers and I'll list the waivers. I only listed the setback requirements for accessory structures and has applied for a waiver from the requirement for on-street parking. So you're gonna elaborate that? The vegetative buffer. Yes, I was gonna list the vegetative buffer. Is that it? I have traffic impact, sign plan, waiver of setback requirements for accessory structure, waiver of sections for lighting, 7.105 for lighting of parking areas, waiver of section 11.2414 regarding the vegetative buffer, waiver of section 11.2417 of the zoning bylaw, the exterior lighting. Those are all in the development application report, right? Yeah, that's what it's from page three or the old page, the current one. Development application report, yeah, okay. 11.2422, building sites shall avoid to the extent feasible impact on steep slopes, flood plains, scenic views, grade changes in wetlands. There are no steep slopes or flood plains on the site. There are no severe grade changes proposed other than at the proposed retaining wall. There are no wetlands on or near the property. There are no scenic views within the property. The applicant has been consulting with the Amherst Historical Society to ensure that the project does not have a lasting negative impact on the strong house or on the surrounding property. 11.2423, Fred has his hand up. Oh, thank you. Yeah, 11.2422, building sites shall avoid that's a command and these are findings. I think maybe you wanna take the word shall out. That's actually quoted from the zoning bylaw. It's part of the, what, criteria? Kevin, aren't these findings? So you would say this building site avoids. Yes, something like that. All right, yeah. Thank you, Fred. The building avoids, yeah. Okay. What I usually do is quote from the criteria in the zoning bylaw and then say how it's done, but I understand what you're saying. So that makes more sense in this case. 11., is that okay now? Can I add something? You're saying there is a severe grade change with the retaining wall. And I think you should say the project shall ensure that the retaining wall, you know, whatever, you know, like, I mean, you know, say that there is a retaining wall that will hold the dirt back. Matt, it'd be a little more explicit on that maybe. Okay. Well, again, you don't wanna put a command in here. It will rather than shall, right? Yeah. Yeah, perfect. Yeah. Okay. 11.2423 is not applicable because there's only one building on the site. 11.2424, screening has been provided as appropriate. The trash area will be screened by a seven foot six inch tall fence and the mechanical equipment will be located on the roof and will be screened. 11.2430, the site has been designed to provide for the convenience and safety of the vehicular and pedestrian movement, both within the site and in relation to adjoining ways and properties. The driveway will provide access for seven vehicles with parking adjacent to the building. Pedestrians will not need to cross the parking area to access the building. Only pedestrians who are coming from the parking lot, only maintenance vehicles and trash removal vehicles will be allowed beyond the parking area. Pedestrian movement to the front door will be accommodated by a new and improved accessible walkway at the appropriate grade. 11.2431, the location and number of curb cuts will be such as to minimize turning movements and hazardous exits and entrances. There will only be one curb cut giving access to the parking area. 11.2432, the location and design of parking spaces bicycle racks, drive aisles, loading areas and sidewalks will be provided in a safe and convenient manner. There will only be seven on-site parking spaces. Bicycle racks will be provided near the parking area. Sidewalks are located so as not to conflict with the parking area and the drive aisle. 11.2433 is non-applicable, except for the construction period provision for access to adjoining properties is not an issue. The applicant has consulted with the Amherst Historical Society to arrange for access during construction. And do you wanna mention they've consulted with the property owner to the east regarding egress from the Drake? Yes. I don't think they've actually agreed to access, have they? Since we haven't read the letter and no one's ever said, yeah, they've agreed to allow access. The strong have. This doesn't say they agreed to it just says they've consulted with. Has, oh, consulted to arrange. Oh, it's sort of implied that they had agreed. I didn't agree. It doesn't actually say they've agreed. So they've been, and with the property owner to the east to allow pedestrian, to allow continued pedestrian access to the rear door. It's egress from the rear door. Egress from the rear door. Again, during construction. 11.2434, it's not applicable because there's no new driveway proposed for this project. 11.32435 is not applicable. Joint access driveways between adjoining properties are not an issue. The adjacent properties have existing means of access from other locations. 11.2436, the requirement for submittal of a traffic impact statement is requested to be waived. There is a negligible amount of traffic expected to enter the site. 11.2437 is not applicable. No traffic import. No traffic impact report will be required. Okay, so that concludes the findings for the site plan review. Yep. Okay. So now we have the special permit. Now we have the special permit for the 9.22, which is related to non-conformities. So this is a quote from what the zoning bylaw says. Section 9.22 of the zoning bylaw states, the special permit granting authority authorized to act under the provisions of section 3.3 of this bylaw may under a special permit allow a non-conforming use of a building structure or land to be changed to a specified use, not a substantially different in character or in its effect on the neighborhood or on property in the vicinity. Set authority may also authorize under a special permit a non-conforming use of the building structure or land to be extended or a non-conforming building to be structurally altered, enlarged or reconstructed, provided that the authority finds that such alteration, enlargement or reconstruction shall not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming use or non-conforming building. So the finding is that the board finds under section 9.22 of the zoning bylaw that the alteration, enlargement and reconstruction of the Jones Library a non-conforming building as decide and rear setback will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming building because the proposed setbacks are greater than the existing setbacks. The rear setback is required to be 20 feet minimum under section 6.141 of the zoning bylaw where property in the BG zoning district abuts an adjoining residence district. The existing setback is 1.24 feet at the northwest corner. The proposed setback is 10 feet which is an improvement over the existing setback. The side setback is required to be 20 feet minimum under section 6.132 of the zoning bylaw where property in the BG zoning district abuts an adjoining residence district. The existing setback is 1.24 feet at the northwest corner and the proposed setback is 5.5 feet which is an improvement over the existing setback. All right, and is it really just a accident of the universe that both of those numbers are the same? That's the information that I've received from the applicant. Rachel nods her head, yes. I checked it twice. I was like, how can that be possible? Okay, thank you. 1.24, not even 1.25. All right. And then if you choose to accept this one, findings for the new historical globe lights at entryways, the board finds under section 9.22 of the zoning bylaw that the addition of new historically similar or whatever globe lights mounted on the building that are not shielded or dark sky compliant or not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming historical globe lights because they are located at doorway entrances and are not immediately adjacent to neighboring properties or streets. Is that okay? Well, I would probably stop the sentence after lights and forget everything after because some of those lights are not at doorways and some of them are immediately adjacent to neighboring properties. And the special permit findings for the special permit to extinguish the special permit ZBA 90-7 does not need any findings. I checked with Rob Mora about that and he said, no findings are required to extinguish that special permit. Okay. But there are conditions that I suggested and those conditions are included in a an email that I sent out. I'm sorry that I bombarded you with so many things this afternoon, but I don't know if Pam has access to that email. I'm gonna try and pull it up. I mean, I have it too. It's 447 PM. Yeah, I have it, yeah. Okay, there you go. You know, Chris, I actually think it wouldn't be a bad idea to follow up with the town attorney about the avenues we have to waive the lighting requirements. You know, I think in the end, even if we steam ahead with what we're doing tonight, I think Janet's point is reasonable and I think it would be helpful to know that there is an avenue in our bylaw. Okay. Just as a, you know, when you're talking to him about something else. Janet. So 9.22 allows you to take a non-conforming building and alter it, enlarge it, or reconstruct it as long as it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing building. It has nothing to do with lights on the building. It's talking about, you know, it's talking about their alteration, enlargement, or reconstruction. So that's what the Jones is doing. It's, you know, taking the, you know, the addition down and adding a new addition. They're both non-conforming. That's what 9.22 is about, to add lighting features. It's just, to me, it's just like the door keeps on opening and I just, I don't get it. I just can't support it. And then I, you know, I keep on, and then it seems like even if you had a non-conforming use and it's, you know, five stories instead of one story in a previous building, that was fine too. Like everything's fine. But at least in the previous building, it was a building and it was the reconstruction expansion or not. Here we're just talking about a bunch of lights. And so now we're saying, okay, we can waive any requirement that is a shell because it's 9.22 and I just don't get it. So, you know, I'd like to vote for this and say yes. Yeah. Chris? Well, I think that the light, the building already has these lights that are very similar to what are being proposed. And so what you're doing is you're adding to the number of lights, but the lights are similar to the non-conforming lights that already exist there. So I think it's well within the confines of section 9.22 to approve this. Okay. All right, so you have some... So these are conditions that you might consider for the extinguishment of the special permit. I spoke with Rob this afternoon in the building commissioner about this. So you might consider these conditions. This special permit, SP 2024-2 to extinguish ZBA 90-7 becomes effective upon the applicant exercising the site plan review and special permit that replace it, allowing the new building to be built. If the applicant does not build the new building project and does not exercise those two permits, then the special permit ZBA 97 does not become extinguished but remains in place because it will continue to govern the existing building. So in other words, if you don't take the existing building down and replace it with something else, then you need ZBA 90-7 to allow the existing building to remain. If you extinguish it, then it makes the existing building non-compliant. So these are conditions that we're offering for your consideration. Okay. All right, so are we through everything at this point? Yes. All right. So if I were to start to cobble together a motion, it would be something like we moved that the findings, well, let's see, so we've got three permits. We're gonna move that the site plan review be approved with the findings and conditions drafted by Chris, that the special permit 0.01 under 9.22 be approved and no conditions or findings are required and that site plan, special permit number two for extinguishment of the special permit 90-7 shall be subject to the following, to the two conditions described in this meeting this evening. And there are findings related to this special permit on 9.22, right? Okay. But no findings related to the special permit on 90-7. So, okay, so nine note. So we have findings, but no conditions for 2024-01 and we have no findings, but we do have conditions for 2024-02. Yes, that's right. And we have both findings and conditions for the site plan review. That's correct. Of whatever number it is, I don't remember. And then you need to say the waivers, it includes the waiver. Yeah, so, you don't have to list the waivers, you can just say that they were the ones that were requested. Okay, and we don't need to reference which section of the bylaw each waiver goes with you don't always do that. It looks like Janet has a different opinion. So, yeah, Janet, yeah, what's your comment, Janet? My comment is, I hope we just do this one by one, not as a bulky motion, because I don't think I'll intellectually be able to understand what I'm voting on or whatever. If we... Oh, okay. Yeah, I think it's like too much to pack in. But... That's what we normally do, we do it one by one. Yeah. All right, so we'll have four motions, one for waivers, one for site plan review, one for special permit one, and one for special permit two, is that right? I think all the waivers relate to the site plan review. So you can include the waivers with the site plan review. All right. We only have three motions. We have to close the public hearing. And close the public hearing for each one. Bruce, thank you. I always forget that at least. All right. All right, so motion one, move that the site plan review 2024-02 with its findings and conditions as discussed and edited this evening, be approved. With the waivers. With the waivers. As requested. And close the public hearing. Close the public hearing. For the site plan review. Yep. Okay. Bruce, you got to your hand. Do you want to make a motion? No, move. All right. Karin, you've got second dibs here. Second. And that leaves Johanna to put her hand down. Okay. Any, any comment on this? I think I ought to give the stalwart members of the public who have been sitting through this, a chance to make a comment before we close the hearing. So I see eight members of the public who've hung in there. Anybody want to say anything? Okay. The person identified as Zoom user has their hand up. Pam, if you could bring her or him in and please give us your full name and your street address if it's in Amherst. Yeah, I'm sorry. I don't know why it's saying Zoom. It's Jennifer Talb at 259 Lincoln. And I didn't know if this is the appropriate time. It's just a small request, but I was a little concerned for the residents on North Prospect Street and the part of Amnesty that's close to the library that you waived that they'll still be able to have construction during holidays like New Year's Memorial Day, Labor Day. And I know it's probably unlikely that a contractor would have his workers working then, but I'm concerned that maybe for the residents that live particularly along North Prospect that might be an inconvenience for them. So I don't know if it's something you can think about or take into consideration or you'd have to change it now before you vote. If back. All right. All right, so thank you, Jennifer. I guess I will say that I think the way we left it that the detrimental effects of exterior construction, we're gonna need to be governed and limited to specific hours and days of the week. But we got rid of the holidays so that interior construction could continue if that was deemed necessary by the contractor. And whether the interior construction on a holiday would be detrimental to the neighbors, I guess it was my kind of understanding that it probably wouldn't be. I guess, Chris, would we maybe consider limiting exterior construction on holidays? And should we go back and think about that? I think that would be a good idea. This is sort of a standard condition that you have for all big projects. So I think it would be better to leave it in and say no exterior construction on the project site in these holidays. What it previously said was just no construction. So if we added the word exterior, maybe that would protect the butters. Bruce? I just want to say that I would accept that as a friendly amendment. Okay, thank you, Bruce. And Karen was our second. You could you accept that as a friendly amendment? I second it. I second it. Okay, all right. I'm sorry, are we voting to close the hearing or what are we voting on? Well, we have a motion on the table to accept, approve the site plan review with the findings and the conditions and the waivers and to close the hearing. That motion is on the floor. And having just heard this public comment, I think we've now amended the motion to add the word exterior and restore the sentence about having no construction on holidays. And so that's where we're at. Okay, I can see you mouthing. Thank you. Okay, all right. So thank you, Jennifer. I think that was a good addition. I don't see any other hands from the public at this point. So I guess we will go ahead and do any other members of the board want to say anything else before we vote on the motion. Okay, so we'll go through the motion with a roll call. I think, I hope everybody's clear this is about the site plan review. So, Bruce? Aye. All right. Fred? Aye. Jesse? Aye. Janet? Abstain. All right, Johanna? Aye. Karen? Aye. And I'm an aye as well. All right, that's six in favor, one abstention. I guess we can move on to the next motion, which I believe is special permit 24-01. Let's see, was this the one with the, this is the one with findings and no conditions. Is that right? That's correct. So, we would move that the, that special permit be approved with the findings and that the special, that the public hearing be closed. So I have a question about this one. Yeah. Are we including the lighting in this as was suggested in losing track of all my tapers here? Yeah. And I don't see it, I don't see it on the screen anymore. So I'm having trouble conceptualizing it. There is a finding related to section 9.22, which talked about findings for the new historical globlights at the entryways. It's with the other findings, I think, let's see. Oh, okay. So these are conditions. Go back to the findings and go all the way down to the bottom. Yeah, there it is. Okay. So we had a draft finding related to the new historical globlights. The board founds it. Yeah. And this, so this was the, I think Bruce was the one that said, well, you know, we might just ignore the whole thing and not highlight it with a part of it, with a finding. But, you know, I think, I think obviously we've talked a lot about this. This seems to be the avenue that we've adopted. We've mentioned that the building official recommended this approach. So I would include the findings. Bruce? Yes, I was going to move an acceptance or approval of the application for SP24, 2024-1, which is, I guess, the one above here. That's the number with the findings as presented by the planning director and amended during the review of the board. And... Close the hearing. There be no conditions and to close the hearing. Okay. Johanna, you got the... Yeah, I was going to second the motion. Okay, thank you. So at this point, I guess I will also ask the public any comments from the public for this topic. I'm not seeing any. Okay. All right. Any more comments from the board before we run through the roll call? All right. So going from bottom to top, Karen? Aye. Johanna? Aye. Janet? Abstain. Okay. Jessie? Aye. Fred? Aye. Bruce? Aye. And I'm an aye as well. All right. So that was special permit one. And so special permit two. That's to do with the extinguishing of the zoning board of appeals, special permit 90-7. Right. So we would have a motion to approve the special permit with no findings with the conditions that are contingent that have been drafted. Yeah, it's the other document, Pam. And close the hearing. That seems relatively simple after all of this this evening. Bruce? I guess so moved. All right. Thank you. I'll go ahead and second the motion. Will roll call this, Bruce? Are you gonna ask for any public? Oh yeah, I might as well ask again for a public hearing. Any public comment on extinguishing the previous special permit? Okay. Thank you. I don't see any hands from the public. All right. We'll go through the roll call. Bruce? Aye. Fred? Aye. Jesse? Aye. Janet? Was that an aye? Yeah. Thank you. Johanna? Aye. Karen? Aye. I'm an aye as well. Seven votes in favor. All right. Sharon and your team, thank you very much. I know it's been a long evening but I think I wish you well. Can I just say so, on behalf of everybody working on this project, Rachel, thank you for being here. Jess, thank you for being here and for all of your work but to the entire planning board and Chris to you and your entire staff. Wow. Thank you. This is an important project and it's so complicated and there's so many moving parts and you all, everyone on this Zoom screen including all of the attendees, y'all are putting in, have put in a lot of work and I know there's more work to go and I just, I want you to know we don't take you for granted. We really appreciate the work and all the questions that you've asked and all the comments that you've made and it's because of those that the project has gotten better and better and so I just thank you all. Okay, thank you very much. Okay, the time is 10.09 and we can move on to item, well, the next item on the agenda is the University Drive Potential Housing Overlay Zone. I'm gonna suggest that we table this topic given the hour. My recollection is we put it on in case we might have time to discuss it and I at least am feeling like we don't have time to discuss it this evening. So unless there's any objections, we can move on beyond that topic. All right, not seeing any hands. The next item is old business, not reasonably anticipated, 48 hours in advance. Chris, Pam, do we have anything? I have no old business, Pam. No. Anything? Likewise for new business. No new business. All right, how about Form A and our subdivision applications? None? No. Okay, ZBA application. Yes, we have one. I'm gonna share my screen because, so this just came to my attention. It's actually gonna go to the ZBA, December 14th. So this is a property known as 23 to 25 North Pleasant Street. You might be familiar with, it was formerly the monkey bar or the lit and most recently hazels. There is a proposal to create a new establishment. So it would be a restaurant and a nightclub. It's not a change in use. They're hoping to have two outdoor patios for dining. There would be a total capacity of 300 occupants. I did have a brief conversation with the building commissioner and, he reiterated that this is not any sort of change in use. It is a restaurant and club now. There's always potential to have something arise. He told me that when it was the monkey bar, they learned that there can be a problem with the queuing. In the back, once they put in those new apartments, I forget the name of them that are in the back there by the Boltwood garage parking area. So they just changed the queuing and instead of queuing happening out back, it happens out front. So there's that project. And like I said, it's gonna come before ZBA on December 14th. Okay. And that's all I got. All right. Do any board members particularly want to have this come to us at a future meeting? Doug, there won't be time with them. I mean, before it goes to ZBA. Well, we're not meeting until, again, until after that. Yeah. Yeah. So it sounds like nevermind. I personally, I don't think we need to see it anyway. No, neither do I. It's not really any change. It's a continuation that needs a permit. So I think for those two, for those two reasons, why don't we just take a pass? Thanks for letting us know, Pam. You're welcome. Next item, time is 1013. Upcoming SPP, special permit and subdivision applications. Fred, I see your hand. Yeah. What about the Leverett Road? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. That is major. Yep. And I saw that in the, in the Gazette too. My guess is it's not anywhere near coming to ZBA. Or, you know, any other town permit yet, but Chris, what would be your perspective on that? Well, we're just starting to learn about that. And we're gathering information. It's a big project. It's on the border of Leverett. It's proposed to be a big project on the border of Leverett and Amherst. But I think, I think that the. Proponents need to do a lot more work to, you know, decide if this is the right place. For this project. And as I said, we're just learning about it. So as, you know, as we get more information, we'll share it with you, but right now we really don't have a lot to share. I think that the Leverett Planning Board will be hearing a presentation about this. From the proponent on December 13th. So there will probably be a lot more information. About it at that time. But that's really all I have to offer right now. Yeah. That will be a walkthrough. If any of you are interested. All right. So that's our, that's our chance to go and see the Kittredge estate. Actually, if I could interject that. The pay for indicated that that walkthrough is true. So that's our, that's our chance to go and see the Kittredge estate. Actually, if I could interject that, I think the, the pay for indicated that that walkthrough is being postponed. Okay. Well, maybe there was too much interest. Janet. I don't understand that. I mean, I understand they wanted to connect to the sewer system and water of Amherst, but there is, is. Does the project take place? Will it take place? Possibly on Amherst land. Does anybody know the answer to that? I guess my Chris, Chris, it sounds like you may. Yeah, from what I've seen the, there's probably 20% of the project that could occur on Amherst land. But the Amherst land isn't zoned for it. So. You know, I think that the, as I said, the proponents have a long way to go to make this. Even a real proposal. Right. Okay. Great. Moving along planning board committee and liaison. Bruce PVP. You didn't hear about upcoming site plan review. There are two of them. You skipped over that. Okay. Yeah. So we have Hickory Ridge trails. Universally accessible trails coming up on the 20th of December. And then towards the end of January, you're also going to be holding a public hearing on the new elementary school, which is very exciting. So we just got that application in the door the other day, and we're going to be looking at that, but it's currently scheduled for January 17th. So that's it. Since you're going to be closer to that than I am, I think they'll have to. Okay. Good. I've heard some muttering, you know, that. It's going to be a traffic challenge to have. Have it go on in that location. So. Good. All right. All right. So, so again, I guess I can go on to the board and committee reports. Bruce, anything you want to say about PVP. There's some upcoming meeting, but it hasn't happened in the past two weeks. Okay. All right. CPAC. I can say that we have had presentations from all. 13 or 14. Applicants and we have our public hearing. To hear from the public about the applications. Tomorrow night. If you are interested, feel free to join. And then we begin our deliberations in terms of. How much to award to, to whichever applicants. Janet. Is there a place to seal the applications online or a summary? Hopefully a summary. Or is there. I would think so. I have not looked for what's posted online. There is a CPAC section of the town website. I think, I think I have seen previous years stuff on the town website. So there should be stuff up there. Holly Drake is our. Staff support. So I think that's a good idea. So if you don't see something, you could contact her and ask for the packets. Karen. Design review board. Nothing new to report. Okay. Chris CRC. The town council. Referred the solar bylaw. To the CRC for further development. The solar by the working group has completed its work. They completed it on November 9th and they have a draft of the solar bylaw. It's not in its final form. It has all the substantive parts to it that the solar by the working group wanted to include, but it needs to be refined. And then it also needs to be reviewed by various staff members of the town, including the building commissioner and the fire captain. It also needs to be reviewed by KP law. So when it gets to the community resources committee, they're going to be the body that carries it forward. And I'm hoping that I will be working with them. And anybody who cares about that. Bylaw should, you know, keep track of what the CRC is doing. So I think it's, it's very exciting, but it's going to take a while. Okay. And I guess kind of on a related note. What, if anything has happened with the. Proposed solar project that we saw. A couple of months ago. On, was it, is it shoot, spurry road or whatever road. Kind of that way. So that went to the zoning board of appeals twice, at least once in August and once in October. They're. Unfortunately, they're. Delineation of their wetlands expired in August. So I think it's going to take a while, but I think it's going to take a while. Delineation of their wetlands expired in August. So they had to go back and. Have the delineation approved again by the concom. And right now they're working on getting. A third party reviewer to review the delineation. So that the conservation commission can approve that delineation. And then once that happens, depending on whether. The. Proposal is within. Concom jurisdiction or not. It will either go to the concom for a notice of intent or it won't. The next time the zoning board of appeals sees it will be sometime in. January right now it's scheduled for January 11th, but I think that is going to be changed because I think that. A couple of members of the zoning board of appeals aren't available that night. So it's kind of in. I would say I won't exactly say limbo, but it's kind of in a holding pattern right now until. We figure out what the wetland delineation is, but meanwhile the zoning board of appeals is moving ahead to. To get a third party reviewers to review some of the things that they need to decide upon. So we've put out RFQs where we're working on putting out an RFQs. For certain topics and. So that's, that's what I can report. Okay. All right. All right. I guess that's all the committee and liaison reports. I do not have a report from the chair other than. Thanks for sticking it around this evening for a long meeting. Chris, any report from staff. I don't have a report either, but thanks to Pam for. Holding us all together and I kept shooting emails at her all day long with various documents and she kept up with it. And I really appreciate that. And I also appreciate all the planning board members work on this. Library project. It's been a challenge, but. Looks like we got through it. So thank you. Okay. Without you, our fearless leader. Right. Yes. Thank you, Chris. You're welcome. All right. The time is 1023. Thank you all. We'll see you on the 20th. Right. That's correct. Yeah. 20th. Okay. All righty. Good night. Good night. Thank you. Good night.