 Welcome. Welcome. Welcome to the Amherst Planning Board meeting for Wednesday, December 4, 2019, 7 p.m. Town Room Town Hall. It is 7.05. And we'll start. The first item is minutes. Chris, I believe we don't have any minutes. We don't have any minutes tonight. We apologize. We had four meetings in October, so we're catching up. Yeah, don't apologize. We're not, like, really emotional yet. It's all good. Number two, public comment period. I don't think we have any of that. There's no one here. Number three, public hearing, site plan reviews and special permits. 7.05. It is 7.05 SPR 2020-04 Enterprise Rent-A-Car. 213 College Street. Request site plan review approval to install a carport structure 14 feet by 20 feet at the rear of the building map. 14B Parcel 243 Calm Zoning District. So I believe you gentlemen are here for that. If you want to come forward, settle yourselves in. Make sure that the green lights are on your mic. You have to push the button if they're not on. And then please introduce yourselves. Kevin Cole says Enterprise Rent-A-Car. What address do you have? No, your organization that you're representing, that's fine. R.J. Gillesnick Enterprise Rent-A-Car. Okay, great. Welcome. And did we get, we have those names, I assume. Great. So, I will, are there any board disclosures? And I'm actually going to back up. I read the SPR. But this is in accordance with the provisions of MGL Chapter 40A. This public hearing has been duly advertised. And notice thereof has been posted and this hearing is being held for the purpose of providing an opportunity for interested citizens to be heard. So are there any board disclosures? No, none. So we're going to have the applicant's presentation, which I see you brought. Poster, do you need to put anything on the screen? Are you okay? I'm okay. Great. And we did get stuff in our packet on this. So if you're referring to a document, we probably have it. Yeah, I think what I'm showing on this board is pretty much what you have in the package anyway. I just felt like I should bring something. Thanks. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Could I have someone volunteer to give the site visit? Yes. I'm happy to do that. Thank you, Michael. I visited the site this morning at 9 o'clock and observed the area behind the building, which is outlined in green on our maps. Notice the noticing that it was a paved area and free of any encumbrances at this point, with the exception of a light that is on the back wall there, which will be apparently not in the way of the structure as it's designed to be put up. There appears to be plenty of room for the structure, and it cannot be seen from any point on College Street, so it will be completely oblivious to those in town who are passing by. The only thing we couldn't determine was exactly how much area there was on the parking lot because there was a fair amount of snow piled up on the parking lot this afternoon this morning, but I'm looking at the map and it appears to be satisfactory. So we saw no real problems with the proposal at the onsite visit. Thank you. Who else attended the site visit? Ann Maria. That's it. Do you have anything to add, Maria? Chris, I have a question for you first. So what is it about this that we should be concerned about or be analyzing? Well, it's a change in the site, and the Building Commissioner thought it was more than a de minimis change in the site. It is a structure that's being put up. It's not just an air conditioner or a vent pipe or something like that. So he really wanted it to go to the planning board for approval rather than taking it upon himself to approve it administratively and to have the public be able to come if they saw fit, but apparently they don't see fit. Because it basically kind of looks like a giant awning. Is it a temporary structure? Or like will it be ever taken down or does it just you put it up and you'll just leave it up? So you use it until it because I'm sure it a price of $1,500 it's only going to last like so many years. And then you'd probably want to put another one up. I just want to make sure like they wouldn't have to go through this again, would they? I think if they put the same thing up and it's, you know, pretty similar that the Building Commissioner wouldn't have them come back to you. So that, yeah. Really? I might do this as an addition on my house. That's like bang for your buck. Well, and that's great, but it's also good to know that if you did have it like, I don't know, snow fell on it or dented or whatever you could replace. Yeah, good. Does any the board have anyone else have questions? Okay, David. It's not taller than the building. And what's behind what's behind the college? The property owner behind you. I don't think so. I think it's a house. Yeah. There's no, there's no, it's, it's just. There's no residents. There's nothing. It's going to look at there and be. They've got a shame. Thank you. It says peak height, eight feet, nine inches. So it's very tall. Janet. Thank you. I had two questions. One was about how it's anchored into the ground. I'm thinking maybe there's like a heavy windstorm. They might get lifted. And the other question is how much clearance is there between when people are driving behind the building between them and the park cars? Like how wide is that lane? So between the canopy where you can drive in the park cars. And then how, how do you anchor? Is it just, that's just ground, right? So I don't know the fourth point. If we need to make that or not, we'll look at that. The other three points to be anchored into the building. So the chances of it moving. Any other questions? Any comments from the public on this? So I don't think there's a whole lot more. It's an SPR. So how do we handle this? So you could make a motion to close the public hearing to approve the application. And to find that it meets the relevant criteria of section 11.24 of the zoning bylaw. 11.24. Did anybody get that? Anyone? I so move. Second. Is there any other discussion, questions, issues? I see none. So I think we're ready. Chris, anything else? Do you want to place any conditions on it? I'm not suggesting that you need to. But if you wanted to, this would be the time. Well, I would just say that the car washing operations don't take place there. I'm just looking at the pavement. It doesn't look to be paved entirely through that area or not. Because this looks paved and this looks paved and that does not. Oh, so it is paved now? Good point. Okay. But still, there shouldn't be car washing there without, you know, control the runoff. Okay. With that, all in favor? I see unanimous. Thank you so much for coming. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. I'm going to pass 715, 718, will say. And we're going to continue the hearing for Riverside Organics, SPR 2020, 03, Jonathan Grafine. Grafine. Riverside Organics, 555 Belchtown Road. Request site plan review approval to construct and operate a marijuana product manufacturer and micro business under section 3.3, 6, 3.5 of the zoning by law map 18D parcel 2 PRP zoning district. This public hearing is being continued from November 6, 2019 and November 20, 2019. So welcome back. We got everything. Hello, good evening. We got everything from your flash drive in our packet. Yes. So if you have anything new you want to update us on, I see that we have some plans or guidelines that a little packet of a bunch of plans, like a diversity plan, standard operating procedures. Right. There are many, actually, I had produced those just knowing the general. Then the CCC doesn't allow, a license doesn't allow you to proceed forward until you finish certain previous levels of the application. So actually since I gave that to you, I've produced more of those. I don't think you're going to be interested in them. Just operating procedures of all the various, you know, down to every detail of the operation with the CCC is concerned with. And I think they really just want to make sure that the operators are aware of these things are necessary. With that being said, if you'd like them by all means, I'll give them to you or have them email to you. Since last meeting, there were a few issues that I had to take care of. One was speaking with the fire, or having, I had spoken with the people at the fire, Mike Roy and Jeff, his supervisor. I believe they were supposed to write a letter, which I requested him do to Ms. Breastrop, which I'm assuming are not as confirmation. There's an issue of the stormwater runoff calculation. My civil engineering engineer is being very strange about giving me that calculation. I don't know why. I went and spoke to the town engineer. He said that it doesn't really matter. I know the property. It's all downhill into a wetland, but give it to me anyhow because I have it for all the other properties in town. So with that being said, I still have to find someone to do me those calculations. I was told the civil engineer, what is your experience? You're a civil engineer. What is your experience? Is calculations for stormwater runoff done by a civil engineer? Or a hydrology person. Right. Because I asked my guy and he says, well, we normally don't do that and everyone else is telling me. So I'm like pulling teeth. He may not, but he should know someone who does. Right. That's what I figured. It seems like it would be a very simple standard. So that's just one thing which I could take care of. So where is the status of that? I'm sorry. Christine, did you want to? Yeah. So I think you received a letter from Ward Smith, which was related to the Conservation Commission review. This might have been in your previous packet. And Ward Smith was the wetlands expert who looked at the wetlands on the property and produced the wetlands report for the concom. And he stated that there wasn't any new impervious area on the site. And so he felt that the runoff pre and post development would be the same. The building is being placed on an area that's already paved. So he didn't envision that there would be any issues with runoff. And I think verbally I heard the same thing from the town engineer. We don't have anything in writing, but he told me that he didn't envision there would be any problems. And he said, excuse me, he said also it would be positive that I'm using the 2100 gallon rain recovery. So he said that's even better. And he said, so the whole issue is the impact of storm water on the sewer systems of the town. So he said there won't be any, basically, because it's all going into the wetlands anyhow. Or you is by me. Jack? Yeah. So there would actually be a net decrease in the runoff based on the design, just from a general sense. So minor. Minor. Yeah. I would say the same. I would agree the same thing. I think it would be the size of the property and the whole aggregate area. I think it would be minimal impact of water. So Chris, do we get something from the town engineer saying it's okay? And also, is there anything on the septic? I don't know if they're tied into the town. Yeah. So I believe Mr. Griffin was going to have a title five study done on the septic system. I don't think he's had that done yet. And tying into the sanitary system that's there is challenging because of two things. One is the closest tie-in would be on the abutters property and the abutter has stated that he doesn't support this development. So that's one thing. And then the other possible tie-in is up on Belcher Town Road, which is a far distance away and it's uphill. So the best bet is to have the title five study done and be able to use that septic system. But we don't have that information yet. So you could ask Mr. Griffin what his plans are for getting that study done. Did you have a title five when you bought it, Don? No. Actually, when I, well, you know, there are four certain years there was no history in the town and no codes. I bought the property for cash so there was no title five done. All right. Now when I bought it, the itinerary stated city sewer because whomever changed back whenever who knows what happened said it was city sewer. I bought it in thinking sewer and the town told me the health department jumped on me there like, listen, you got all your runoff has to go to the city sewer. It can't go to your septic if you have one. Well, no, excuse me. We found out I wasn't hooked up to the city sewer. And then we went through this whole research of it's not realistic to hook up. Then I found out I have a septic. Then they said you have to hook up to a tight tank. Now get down to the, down without clearing it up. I have to put a tight tank for the greenhouse and I have to get a title five from my existing septic which is in good order. I just have to get it examined and read whatever. You think it's in good shape? Well, I examined it with one of the professionals from town, Mike Stowe's, and he, it was all clear and clean and fine. He's not licensed for that. He was just potentially going to be doing work for me. I have to go through it with Mr. Smith, all the proper procedures. So in permitting and the whole procedure over the next eight months to a year, whatever it's going to be, that will all be taken care of in due time. Jack. I don't recall the tight tank is for just runoff within the greenhouse. Yes, sir. The DEP was requiring that any water or any condensation or anything from a greenhouse needs to go into either a tight tank and pumped out or into the city. Wait, was it in the city sewer? I think the city sewer was okay. Yeah. You cannot have it go into a septic, but you can have it go into the city sewer because it's not realistic. It was too far. There were problems. Even if Mr. Hall had given me permission, there were too many. The city couldn't even get into the manholes because they were so old and stuck. And who knows what? There was too many issues. Basically, I'm going to be putting a 1,500 gallon tank for the greenhouse right under. Remember the issue you thought there was a picture there? You thought it was in the way? That's actually underground, that tight tank. What you thought was in the way of the passage? That's the tight tank, which you could see right there. That's square box where the cursor is. That's the tight tank, which is underground, which was your concern was in the way. So yes, that's 15-inch grand. That's all going to be runoff right from the greenhouse right into there. The toilets and a hand washing sink, because all I have is two toilets through existing a male female bathroom in the house. And a not installed yet is, you know, in permitting it'll be a hand washing sink. That'll go into the septic, which is underground in the back of the house back here. So I was wondering, so the tight tank, is it going to be monitored in terms of water level? Well, there's an alarm on it. There's an alarm on it? Or monthly inspection? Well, there's an alarm on it, and it tells you like before it gets filled. Either you, a lot of people in the industry are actually recleaning the water with reverse osmosis, which I think is a good idea. I mean, obviously, I'm going to be cleaning the town's water, and when I spoke to the people on the DPW, and I spoke to them about even just charging it back into the sewer system, they said, yes, it's not a problem, because the amounts, and I'm doing this cleaning town water, so what am I really going to be cleaning out of there? Not a lot. But with that being said, it all goes into the tight tank. Any condensation or water from dehumidifiers or anything of such goes into the tight tank. And then I can either have it pumped out by a company every whenever, and monthly, bi-monthly. It's probably going to be every few months, because I don't believe that I'm going to be producing more than five gallons a day, and at a 1500-gallon tank, that's already three months. So that should suffice. And there's an alarm on it. It tells you there's an alarm which, you know, lets you know before it overflows or whatever the kid has said. Chris, just a question. I hope his Title V all works out easy, but tying in a, I assume that medical building has town sewerage and it runs down Hall Place and ties into a line there. He couldn't tap in at that fork? So Hall Drive is a private road, and I believe it's owned by Mr. Gordon Hall. So Mr. Griffin has the, you know, ability to pass and repass over the road, but there's nothing that says he has the ability to tie into that sewer line. So I haven't seen anything. I have not seen an issue. I have not seen anything that says he can tie into that sewer line, nor do I think he would want to, because it's uphill, and he'd have to have a pump to pump it up. So his first, you know, choice would be to have the septic system. So you could, if you chose to approve him, his site plan application, you could make a condition that he had the Title V study done, you know, have a septic system that is operational and meets state and local requirements, and that has to be done before the certificate of occupancy or something like that. So that would be a way of handling this. You do have to, one of the findings that you're supposed to make during the review of 11.24 is that it's got adequate sewage disposal. So, you know, I've been kind of dogging this question for a while with the health department and with Mr. Griffin and trying to get some answers for the last time I talked to the health department, they said they thought if he had the Title V and whatever improvements needed to be made before the certificate of occupancy, that would probably be reasonable. But he's not going to get a certificate of occupancy unless he has that. And it sounds so difficult for a tie-in that even if the Title V showed problems, then you, the choice would be to upgrade that system or repair it or put new parts in. Right. I mean, at one point the town said to me, you must hook up to the sewer. We're not asking, you must. So I was looking at a $30,000 extra in fees, which I had to swallow. And then I brought in Mike Stowe's to check it out. And the town told Mike and Mike looked himself and was in contact with him. They said, forget it. We can't even get in there. Even if Mr. Hall gives a permission anyhow, forget it. It's not even realistic. So then we had to go back to just make sure your septic is good and do a tight tank. Now, in relation to the septic, if you think about who and what's being used there, remember, I examined it myself. It looks very clean and good in working order. Obviously has to be checked by a professional. With that being said, remember, this is a two or three-man operation. This is not a huge amount of people there. It's two bathrooms. There's no showers. There's no kitchen. It's really an old reality. It's going to be extremely minimal in all respects. No, thank you. So hopefully, when do you expect to have this title five done? Obviously, I'm not even doing it now. Obviously, it's winter now. It's not real to do now. But I was waiting for all these things to go through all the procedure with the city. I'm in contact with Mr. Smith for a few months now about the whole issue. He knows that he gave me an order to perform right away. He knows that I had to wait because of permitting, et cetera. So he knows that I'm waiting to go through the permitting application with the town. Once I get the blessing from you people, then I will go back and do all the property, property step by step by step. The greenhouse won't be done until the spring or even the foundation. So for now, I'm just going to be doing the electrical and security in the house, the insulation, the drywall, and then along with that at the same time, the toilet and the bathroom and whatever we can and as soon as possible. So your condition makes a lot of sense. I would want to review that condition with the town, with the building commissioner. And that would be among many conditions that you might want to place on this, on this project. I did give you a list of conditions that you can review later on. And again, I have not reviewed this list of conditions with the building commissioner. So I would suggest that we review them here. And then you tell me if you want to add or delete anything. And then I will review them with the building commissioner and then come back to you at the next meeting with them with a complete list. In addition to that, you're going to have to make findings. And they're findings related to the marijuana use, but there are also findings related to section 11.24. And I have not had a chance to draft those findings yet. So that would be another thing that I could bring back to you on December 18. The findings. And that, the one about the Title V, that hasn't been drafted. So you'll add that one in there. Okay. I'm just going to make a note. Does anyone else have any other questions? At this point? No. It is, yep. Do you want to just flip through the development application report, which we put on your desk just to make sure that there aren't any other issues that you want Mr. Chow would like to respond to before he comes back to you in the next time. I noticed on number three, the sign plan. It says the applicant is not proposing any signage to this time, but I think at the last meeting, there's going to be a kind of what the next line says issues to consider the warning signage. I think he is going to do some of that. Yeah. Ms. Chow had brought that up that we had said that I was going to put whatever cameras and no trespassing, et cetera, et cetera, the type of signs. Add that to the list of conditions. Yeah, move it into that, yeah. Any other areas people see? Oh, go ahead, Janet. So I was interested in the memo from Michael Roy about the carbon dioxide canisters and having carbon dioxide monitors in the facility in the growing part. And so is that going to be part of your plan? Or we could put that in the order of conditions too. Yeah, we have, there are systems in there and gauges which are monitoring everything. I'm going to have extra, like the system itself tells you what I'm going to have around just to make the backup basically to gauge, no pun intended, to gauge against each other, you know, the temperatures, humidity, temperature, all the CO2, et cetera. I actually wanted to have an oxygen mask in there in the greenhouse which I mentioned to the fire department and they told me that you have to have a prescription for that. I just thought an oxygen mask in case anyone, you know, from the CO2 or whatever. So I gave up that idea. Yeah, I'm going to use CO2 but lower levels than most other people do. I've already done tests and it's not necessary to overdo it with CO2. But yes, there will be gauges and monitoring of CO2 and anyone going in there will be made aware of that if they feel lightheaded, et cetera, whatever the case may be to leave and just so they're aware of the situation or the environment that is. So, Janet, what would you want for a condition? So I was just, maybe I'm misreading the memo but I thought there would be like an alarm if the CO2 levels dropped to a certain level, kind of the way there's a carbon monoxide. You mean when it went above a certain level? Yeah, I mean above, sorry. Yeah, no, I could probably look into something like that. You know, I don't think, honestly, I don't think it's really an issue. Could be, I mean the plants around the plant give off oxygen. So, and there's a vent system in there. There's an in and out take. So there's going to be change of air. And like I said, I'm not going to be overdoing it with the CO2. But I'll look into something along those lines. I'm assuming there probably is, there has to be some simple mechanism with CO2. There has to be. I actually think it's, if you read the memo on number three on this fire protection transmittal, it's actually, it says, so O2 sensors may be required. So it's not about the monitoring of the carbon dioxide. It's about monitoring. Ozone? What is that? Oxygen. The oxygen level, the fear is that too much carbon dioxide will replace the oxygen. So if you're looking into it, or what here, other best practices from your industry, maybe they slap it. Yeah. Well, one or the other, I guess it does the same thing, right? Right. So you want to know if the oxygen level is too low or the CO2 level is too high? I don't think they're worried about this too much carbon dioxide. It's worried that there's not enough oxygen. Gotcha, gotcha, gotcha. So how did you want to include a condition regarding that? And how could that be related? Well, and it, so she'll put the condition in, but it would be best if you look at your industry and what they're using. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Maybe it's just a simple one. I've been doing this for 30 years, you know, and I've been in sealed environments for ever. You haven't been worried about your oxygen? No, I have actually. No, no, no, no, no, no, that's not true. That's not true. I've been worried about the CO2 levels because I'm aware of, with the heat and those lights, and if you're, sometimes you're in there for hours at a time. And I, you know, you feel a little weird sometimes. So I've always very aware of that. And I was always aware to go outside and get fresh air or make sure there's, if I'm working there to have a change up of fresh air while I'm in there. You were re-oxygenating. So that would be good. Oh, absolutely. Yeah, like, so see what is the standard practice and then we can retweak that condition if we need on the next time. Right, well, I know, look, I know. So then we know what we're asking you to install. Right, I know there's going to be, this is going to be like open to conditions, this whole project, which I'm not, I have no problem with. I just figured that everything will pan out in permitting, you know, et cetera. And with Ms. Brushstrup, you know, close eye over the project. Sounds good. Yes, Chris. Perhaps Mr. Gryffind could ask Mike Roy what he would recommend if he has some sort of generic description of this monitor that we could talk about in our condition. He does. Mr. Roy says maybe required, so he may not know the actual specifics, but I think it would be worth following up with Mr. Roy and asking him. And then maybe look into the cannabis. Right, well, maybe I'll just throw one in there for good measure. I mean, my plan was, I didn't even think of a measure. I think there are CO2 monitors, which tell you levels on the thing, but I don't know if there's an alarm. However, with that being said, what I'll do is, whether required or not, I will, I'm positive there's some $50 or $100, even $150 sensor for O2 with an alarm has got to be in today's day and age. So I'll buy one of those, regardless. I'll put one in. Get a canary. See if it died. Great. Well, the other thing I was going to say, yeah, no, I mean, with my concern with the oxygen tank, you know, obviously, yes, I'll just get one and put it in there. Great. So that will get to the conditions and then you'll have a little more info on the next meeting when we finalize. Yes. This is an organic farm. And so you're not planning on using insecticides, pesticides. You're not doing chemicals to process your product. You're not allowed to in this day. I've never had, since I'm 16 years old or even younger, growing cannabis. I've never used that stuff. We hear nothing. That was in another country. But no, I don't use pesticides. I started making a pesticide, actually an organic one. I was thinking about, you know, you know, pre-veying, made out of garlic and hot peppers and boiling water. But no, I don't because, you know, if I'm going to be smoking it, I don't want to smoke pesticides. No, pesticides are illegal in Massachusetts and I'm assuming the rest of the country in this industry. But yes, no, absolutely no, I'm using earth, some organic fertilizer from the same company and some worm castings and some other organic stuff. Everything, olma, rye, et cetera, et cetera. I'm not using anything. That's how I've always done it. It's not to do with legalities or requirements by the state. This is how, this is my, what they call, kashrut or kosher, you know, like my level of sanitary. So that's where I've always grown. So, you know, I mean, I would do anything about this. Yes, go ahead, David. Just so I can give a sense, one of the next steps that Mr. Farmer needs and I believe we're going to review the order of conditions, the draft order of conditions. Right now we're going through the development application. Right. I thought we had pretty much had. I had one more. On the fence, Chris, this is 13 issues to consider the board may wish to permit the fence to be higher than four feet. I thought it was already going to be like six feet. As far as I know, we discussed six feet. That's what I was planning. He wants it to be six feet all around. Part of it is within the front setback, I believe. Right. So you need to allow him to do that. Yes. It's a modification of section six. I think it's section six point two nine that allows you to make that modification. But it makes sense in this case for security purposes. So that goes on in a condition. You're right. So on 15, the generator, I remember us talking a lot about this. But I don't know if you would actually purchase it at that point. I think it looks like that information should be included. It's already sitting out there. Well, even better. So if the specs for that could be they were emailed, they were submitted. Oh, so Chris, do we must have that information on the generator? The propane tank also? I did not buy one yet. Okay. I was waiting until I get to that point of size. And I think we want to know the size. Right. It's probably going to be 200 or 300 gallons. I'm assuming. Say that again. Two or 300 gallons is I think that's a standard size. So Chris, it sounds like he's sent you the information on the generator. He's not ready to buy his propane tank, but he thinks it's two to 300 gallons. How specific does he have to get? Or do we set a limit on size? Like what are you looking for there? I think you want to know how big it is. And you want to know how big the generator is. I think the information that Mr. Gerfine gave me did not specify how big the generator was. It showed it on a plan. How big or how much it generates for? How big. How big it is. You want to know physically how big it is. Don't you? I maybe don't want to. He already had a pad poured when we were at the site. So it must be smaller than the pad. Just to clarify, the size is four feet by eight feet. I believe it's about 40 inches tall, maybe. All the spec sheets were given to the town of size dimensions, weights, electrical, water, juice, et cetera, that stuff. It is a eight horsepower propane or natural gas engine made by Generac. It is a 120 208 three phase, 48,000 watt, 167 amp unit. It's exactly what I need. I checked it with, I spoke with Tina. I forget her last name. I went over various what's needed, et cetera. It's carb compliant from Massachusetts. California and Mass have what's called carb compliant with catalytic converters. That's carb compliant. I spoke with my civil engineer and various other people consulted for months on end. It's the right unit for what I need. Does that unit recommend a certain size propane tank? No. I think it's whatever you can afford or have or put in. I'm just going to go by whatever the town code is. I'm assuming I'm going to need between a two and 300 size tank. A two and 300 size tank in a huge massive storm with an outage will give me between three and five days, which gives me enough time to reload. I don't want to go too big. It's dangerous. I don't want to go too small. It's not efficient. So this sounds a little bit like a code thing. So I just wanted to know roughly how big it was going to be. He says it's going to be two to 300 gallons. And the information that we did receive on the generator was not specific as to its size. I do have all of that information, but there wasn't any indication as to how big it was. But now we know that it's four feet by eight feet and it's 40 inches tall. So that's good information. And we'll put that into our decision. Thanks. Is anyone see any other issues here that need to be defined? I know we covered this before on 17. And then we're here next about the doors. Which doors will be operational? Which are the main, which is the main door and how will people get into the existing building into the greenhouse and which doors are for emergency only? So if you want that clarified, Chris, I do believe we know the main door is the one that's down on the driveway. Right. And then, and people will exit and enter primarily through there. Right. And then you go through, you go into the building and then through a throughway to enter the greenhouse. And then was it finally determined that you will put an emergency door in the greenhouse? Yes. And then I do believe there's two other doors in the main building, one in the back, one on the front. Those I brought the fire department in, they spoke to me about clarifying with Dave W about what is needed if a push bar or what type of locking mechanism and how many people. So when it comes time, like I said before, that will get hashed out and permitting. I'm totally aware of that. There are certain things I just can't give you a definitive answer until I get to that point and bring the inspector in there and say, what do you want here? And Dave, because the fire was there, they referred me to Dave. So I'm not going to bother Dave until I get to that point. Okay. Because he'll, you know. Is that enough information for you, Chris? So what do you still need? Well, do you want to put in a condition that the doors shall be determined by the building commissioner and there may need to be some exit pads there. We don't know that. So you don't want to have him having to come back to you to put in an exit pad. I think that would be great. Okay. And just note that there is an emergency door in the greenhouse. Yeah. Every single door in the building has, you know, the exit signs and all the necessary, you know, backup spotlight, battery, back all of the, et cetera, et cetera. The exit doors in it. Because that shows the building commissioner. You thought about this. You talked about it. It's something that you don't care to look at again. Right. And he knows. Yeah. Just 20 on the compost because that has shifted around and Comcom sent us stuff just to reconfirm you're down to one compost pile. Yeah. It's going to be minimal because I'm going to be reusing my soil and so excess waste and runoff, et cetera, shouldn't be an issue. Okay. And Maria, you have one. My question is we just want to make sure it's one pile. And it looks like it's downhill from Hall Drive. So people going to like, No, it's, no, it's, no, just a, not to interrupt, but no, it's, it's flat ground. I mean, but like people driving on Hall Drive or uphill of it, they won't be looking down on them. They can't see that. No, there's a whole massive amount of trees there. No, there's, there's, no, sometimes, you know, looking at a map is like, you know, looking at a house when you're going to buy it online and it totally looks like, not even like what you see online. But no, that, that's, that's not anywhere near anything that anyone could see at any, even remotely. What did ComCom end up, ComCom end up deciding on the, like, cause I see, is it still where it is? I can just see it on the drawing there on the edge. Were they okay with it being against the fence? Yes, they were. The ComCom was said to push it as far in that direction as possible. So he has done that in accordance with the ComCom requirements. Oh, did you mean the Compa? I'm sorry. Excuse me. Did you mean the Compa file? Yes. Yeah. Oh, okay. Yeah. And he's removed the other one in accordance with the ComCom requirement. They wanted it out of the 100 foot barrier and they didn't want it. They didn't want one here. They wanted it out of the 100 foot barrier. And they're good with that location. Okay. Great. Any other questions that people see that we can go through the draft conditions? I won't read to everyone because we'll do that when we need to. So one, two. Just to let you know, these were taken from two sources. One was the, it was material that was written up for the zoning board of appeals that has reviewed many marijuana establishments, but they haven't reviewed a marijuana cultivation establishment. So this is sort of a new thing, but I tried to pull whatever conditions appeared to be relevant from those CBA special permits. So that's why, that's where these came from. So three, this would still stay the same. It says the SPR approval will lapse upon change of ownership. So that was with retail. It's the same with this is, I don't know what to call this, a farm. I don't know. So I think this ties into the license from the state, because if Mr. Grifine, you know, sells the business, then the new guy is going to have to come in and get a new license from the state. So I believe that he would want to, or you would want it to come back and get a new approval from you, but you can decide that you don't need that. And this could be something that you don't care about. So it's really up to you. And he thought that's like a legal kind of thing. I don't know. We haven't run it because it's a, right, it's a business, but not like a retail store. I mean, to me, it's, if they're changing something on the business, what if they kept it exactly the same and it was just a change of ownership and he was properly licensed. So you could say that a new owner would have to come and meet with you and present himself and talk to you about any changes in the operation of the, of the property, present a new management plan, for instance. Excuse me. I think that I remember reading that there are stipulations in the community host agreement about that, that might override everything else. They might want to look through that. Unfortunately, I do not have it with me. I don't believe I have it. So Chris, can you make a note? Could you have whatever is the resident expert check on that so that we know what we are capable of? Great. Number four, approval shall expire within two years of filing with the town clerk unless substantial construction has begun. Okay. All right. So changes to the operation. Yeah. Go ahead. I'm going to review this because this was going to be, have to be represented to us. This was the usual condition for just drug, or do you, or should we be going through this? Because I do have a couple of language changes, but I think it would be, if we're not, if we don't need to do that and be more efficient to do that off-law and to. Maybe a language change. You can just submit them straight to Chris. I'm just trying to run through them quick to make sure if there's anything else that we can tell the applicant that he has to go get or do, or if Chris needs to get or do anything so that when we come back in two weeks. I would prefer to hear language changes now if they're not extensive, but I think it would be helpful. Number four, I would propose that language be added. If this approval expires, there will be no presumption of renewal. I think that if that, and I think just my sense of prior. Sorry, I keep on forgetting to do this. My sense of prior applications is that if nothing's been done for two years, there, I don't think that there should, the context in the town's development may be different two years down the road. If nothing has been, no work has been done, then it shouldn't be presumed that just because the approval was granted two years prior, it will be automatically granted. That should be clear. That's my rationale. Thank you. So just raise your hand if you see something. I'm looking at five and it's operation and management plan. I don't see anything that exactly says operation and management plan. We have a bunch of different plans here, which I believe you said a lot of them are what's required to you to operate under, with marijuana, like these different plant, like we have a, I know you don't see what we do. We have like this little stapled packet with the diversity plan, the standard operating procedure, cultivation management plan, the pest management mold and contamination control. Perhaps number five, what'll list all those by name, rather than any change to operation and management plans? Any change to one, two, three, four, five? Yeah. Or Chris, this handout we have, maybe that needs a title that's just called the whole operation and management plan. I think Mr. Griffin also submitted the standard form for a management plan, although I'm not seeing it right now. Maybe Ms. Field Sadler could find it for me. That would touch on, you know, snow plowing, landscaping and all of those things. Right. Those are the normal things. So that was submitted? I think that's, that has been submitted, but Ms. Field Sadler is checking that right now. Have we seen it? I don't think it was anything extensive. It was just on the simple, maybe a line or two on the form. Right. It's just the first packet. We look at, you know, is there a landscaping plan, you know, standard stuff that every building goes through? Snow plowing. Yes, Janet? I'm just wondering how detailed we have to have a management plan. Like, do we really care how the buds are cared for and whether their people are wearing, you know, shoes that, do you know what I mean? Like that just seems like a level of detail that we're never going to get involved with. The security plan, the landscape management, like, I think we should maybe stick to our knitting more and then, you know. The in-house stuff is in our jurisdiction, but this is what I have for operating plans and what we still need, which Chris is digging for, is where he addressed the snow plowing, landscaping, all the things that are in our jurisdiction, which then I'm just saying, maybe all of that should just be lumped together with a title of, this is the operation management plan, so we have like one document that we're like. Yeah, and I think the security plan is of just note. Was there a security plan? A standard operating procedure, product, sale transactions, security procedure to admit persons to an inter-facility. So that's like the second to last page, or the third to last page in the packet. So that's... I don't know if I, excuse me, I don't know if I had made a snow removal and landscaping sheet. I just, I didn't know I needed, I needed to... He did. Is that in his application? Yes, and you received it in your first packet, which would have been for November 6th. That's sort of one term. Okay, so if that can be found, and rolled it with this other one, so it's all just in one big thing, great. Yes, and we get more than we even hoped for, but at least then we have the stuff that we need. Hours of operation, is that on that form also? I assume that was something that you... We had discussed that last time I was here, and like some of you probably know, it's starting a new business. You're there 18 hours a day and you're at home for six. So I don't plan on doing that, but you know, obviously in the beginning I'll probably be there long hours and as time goes, you know, things are automated, I could be there last, but you know, you're kind of married to a business, so you know, to say that I'll be there from nine to five is unrealistic. If there's no retail operation going on here, do we need hours of operation? Presumably you'll be having someone come and pick up the product and take it somewhere else, or maybe you're just going to do that yourself. Yeah, no, we're going to be using professional couriers, but that'll all be during midday, noon, high noon during the middle of obviously not at night. There won't be, like you said, no traffic out of there, two employees aside from myself at most. So we're looking for hours for pickup, like that kind of thing? Yeah, hours of pickup and delivery hours between 11 and 2. On number six is 8 p.m. Yeah, not even that late. Yes, Chris. So our bylaw, and I'm not seeing it right now, but restricts the hours of operation for any marijuana establishment. You can't go later than 8 o'clock at night and you can't start earlier than 8 o'clock in the morning, but that's really for anything where somebody's coming in and out. If somebody's there and just staying there and working with the plants, I think that's fine. So this condition says, you could say hours of operation shall generally be blobby blob, but in no event shall the facility be open to the public nor shall any sale or distribution of marijuana occur upon the premises or via delivery from the premises between the hours of 8 p.m. at night and 8 a.m. in the morning. So do you want to establish general hours of operation or do you want to just forget about that and just go away? I think we should start right after the butt in no event. So I think one of the issues in terms of time of day was lighting. And so I think the lighting at night was going to go off at a certain time and then the greenhouse light on the top was going to be covered at a certain time. So I think that might show up in the conditions and maybe just to, you know, you said that there are lights out on the greenhouse and there's like a automatic cover that comes over. There's a light deprivation system? Yeah. There will not be any light coming out of the greenhouse at night. But, you know, night starts at like 4.30. So is there, you know, do you want to say after 8 or 7? There's a photo cell and it does it according to the time of year because, you know, obviously the days are changed. So depending on the time of year, the shading will close at a certain time before dark or right, you know, when it's... I can read your line from the management plan form. It says exterior lights via the auto photo sensor will come on at dusk and go off at 11 p.m. Well, that was my original before I was... We discussed it here. And I think that what we had discussed was... Dusk. Having the lights come on at dusk and then when I leave, I turn them off and I think there's something like 9 o'clock or I forget exactly something like that. You don't want them on after a certain hour. I would stick with the 11 then even if you think you're leaving at 9. Right. Because then you're more covered and half more of a cushion. And then the other lights on the outside of the house go on and on. Those are motion detectors. The only one which I really need is there are two street lights. One's in the back of the greenhouse. It's really just there for security if I go around there at night or to inspect something. That could be off. It does not need to come on at dusk. There's no need to. It's a waste of electricity and light pollution. The one in the back upper part of the house probably... Well, maybe for the ambient light and the property to see. But I think maybe just at night only need the one near the front gate to see and the parking lot and the general... The other ones might not even need to come on. It would stay on. No, they would be off unless I needed them. Do you know how to write this up, Chris? So we're talking about two different kinds of lights. One is motion sensor and those are going to come on. Right. And the other is lights that are going to come on at a certain time. They're coming on at dusk. He said until he leaves he was thinking 9. In his original application it says 11. You can say they can't be on after 11. Okay. And then he can turn them off whenever he wants to before 11. Is that reasonable? Yes, that'll work. I'll just, you know, we don't have to worry about shutting the other ones off if I don't need them or just shut them off. Yes. Sorry. I don't see any other conditions. It's in that management plan, I believe. About I think that I don't see in the order of conditions a point about lighting from the greenhouse shall not be visible after dark or after dusk, right? It's because the greenhouse will be lit presumably for a good period of time, 18 hours a day. A lot of those 18 hours are going to be dark. So we don't want that the greenhouse to be, you know, a lighting impediment. Actually, excuse me, the greenhouse will be lit 12 hours a day by artificial lighting. It's going to be used for flowering when you grow, it's 18, when it's flowering it's 12. My point is just, I think Chris, are you getting it? He has what he's talked about before, the greenhouse is outfitted with a light pollution shade system to eliminate light pollution to the surrounding area. Exactly, does that need to be incorporated into the order of conditions? So we could say the lighting from the greenhouse shall not be visible between dusk and dawn, because he has a mechanism there that will close the shade at dusk and open it at dawn, right? Is that okay? And that's all right. I have no intention on building the area with light. I mean, I know that's a big no-no and it's not allowed by the CCC. The CCC will be on my case, they'll be checking that and no, I have no intention on having anyone or Ms. Winkler calling and saying I see light from your greenhouse or no, I have no there should not be any issue with the light deprivation system. So where were we on this? Number seven was possibly the next one that you would consider and I wasn't sure that you wanted to have anything to do with interior building improvements. That's something that the zoning board of appeals deals with but I think you could leave that out if it's okay with you. It's okay with me, it looks okay. Number eight, all exterior site and architectural improvements including but not limited to the parking lots, striping, curbing, sidewalks, yikes, lighting, security cameras fencing when landscaping shall be constructed and maintained substantially in accordance with the approved site plans and associated details. Number nine, I don't think I'm sure ten. Okay, so landscape plan did Mr. Gurfein said he wasn't going to put in any landscaping and the only landscaping he was going to have was lawn but you hadn't said whether you wanted that to be true and whether you were going to give him a waiver from submitting the landscape plan so if you decided not to waive the landscape plan you would want to have the plantings done in accordance with the plan and then maintained and replaced. So this number ten is based on whether you want to give him the waiver from the landscape plan requirement or not. There is no planting so, right? No. Anyone have an issue with waiving the landscape plan? I wouldn't care if it wasn't a lawn, it was just you know, plants growing. He's not adding. No, there's only grass on my property. Anything that you saw of any in the back that feel that's not mine there are trees in the front, but those don't even need pruning. You would cut your lawn but other than that? No, that's what it is. I've had it for a year. There's nothing to do but thank God there's nothing to do but cutting lawn. We good with that? Okay. We seated. Good. Excellent. License. I'm down to 15. Chris, please state I have something that you need. I do. Good. Number 14. I would add some language to the effect that the applicant shall notify the, I don't know who the planning department, Chris, of any, and I'm not quite sure what, of any administrative action taken by the CCC for this business or the applicant? I just want that that just that the applicant has an obligation to inform us if there's anything that goes on that we might not otherwise be aware of. Thank you, David. I'm down around 20 facilities. Okay, there's 21 is the ventilation and Janet, like you brought up earlier it says no pesticides insecticides chemicals and B is no odor marijuana or its processing can be detected by a person with an unimpaired or normal otherwise normal smell at the exterior of the facility or at any adjoining use or property. So do we have this on number 22 it says including a minimum of two operators or managers of the facilities identified as the designated contact persons. I know we have this on number 22. Mr. Grafine but is there a second person or do we like I don't know is that like a required thing or is that the retail stores? I think that's really you know if you can't get in touch with Mr. Grafine who do you call if something happens so maybe you want Mr. Grafine to designate some other individual who could be contacted or not. That's I think what we'll need to know. Well the fire department will have access to the keys and all that. It's just whether or not it's required so she'll check if it's not required. Well I mean in the future when I hire someone I could obviously. Number 24 file an annual report with the planning board. Yeah that's part of the host agreement. Do we really get involved with that? Is it required under the section of the zoning bylaw? Um Well it's already in the host agreement. Is that part of it? Yeah. Do we get any annual reports from anybody else? Oh wow okay that's new. Yeah Maria is that any difference between number 16 and number 24? 16. Oh excellent one's italics. No one site plan review one's annual reports. So is there anything that we're forgetting to instruct this applicant to or Chris Bestrup to go look into? So we'll get something from the town engineer. We'll try to get something from them. And yeah. Three and 26 say the same thing. That's hardly differently I think but it's about transferring of the special permit. Okay well thank you everyone's patience with this part because I think it will put us in better shape for the next meeting. Are there any other questions? I see nothing. So at this point we would continue this hearing until the 18th is that we're going to do and hopefully we'll have all our P's and Q's everything lined up. Okay. May I just say something? Yeah. I appreciate Mr. Gerfine's cooperation. I think this has been a lengthy process for him and he hasn't gone through this kind of process before and he's cooperating really well and producing all the documents that we need. It's just taking a little bit longer than we expected. Yeah thank you for your patience. It's new for us too. You're kind of like our guinea pig here with us. Yeah my patients are gone a long time ago. Trust me. Sounds like you need to find something way to relax a little bit. So I think next time what the planning board is going to do, just to explain this to Mr. Gerfine, they're just going to finalize the conditions and then they have to make findings based on the zoning bylaw and we should have drafts of those available to the planning board before the meeting and we'll send them to you and I think that we'll probably wrap it up. What time are we going to put it? What do we have already on the 18th? We have David Zomek coming with Mandy Johanicki to talk about the master plan. And then Amherst Hills. Amherst Hills. Do we set a time for them? Do we remember? I don't remember. I think we did. But I think we might put this first. That's what I'm hoping if we could put this first, either a 705 or a 703. We're going to have to go through conditions and that may take some time. Maybe we should put it off until January. Is it up until the January meeting? A problem for anybody? Put this off? Do you? I'm getting a little bit sick and tired of this. I'm sorry. Easy David. Sorry. I've been doing this way. I think we can fit it in on the 18th and we're not even sure Amherst Hills will come back because we haven't had a status on where that is right now. We're sort of in a limbo with them and with the town and finding out now there's a foot and a half of snow out there so I don't know if they're putting storm drains in. So we'll, can we say 705 or 704? 704, two weeks from now. Thank you for your patience. Let's finalize everything. Check all the boxes and I know that's important to you to start off on everything perfect. Thank you. Do you want to make a motion? To continue the hearing. Move to continue the public hearing until 704 on December 18th. Great. Second. All in favor and it's unanimous. Thank you. We will see you then. So we will move on to the third public hearing 720. This public hearing is a continued hearing for Bank of America. This public hearing is continued from July 24th 2019 September 18th 2019 November 6th 2019 November 20th 2019 SPR 2019-8 of Adams and Ruckston for Bank of America 360 College Street request site plan review approval to install new light posts and fixtures to provide better illumination, safety and security for the Bank of America ATM Calm Zoning District to approve the application without prejudice and close the public hearing. I see Michael saying. I have a motion but it is not that motion exactly. May I continue and see if we have a second? Can Chris make a statement? No. I have a motion but it is not that motion exactly. May I continue and see if we have a second? Can Chris make a statement first? I just wanted to fill in a little information. What the applicant has asked for is to withdraw the application on the two light poles but to be allowed to install the lights that are proposed for the building. There are 16 replacement lights. There are already fixtures for 16 lights underneath the eaves that are proposed to be attached to the building. They can go ahead with that installation without the planning board review. They can do that under an administrative approval by the building commissioner. I just wanted to put that out there that what they are requesting is withdrawal from the light poles but they are going to proceed with the lights on the building and they can do that and they will remove the concrete structures. I would still like to. Definitely. She had mentioned that earlier today and then didn't say it. With the tag on. Yes, Michael. This is fairly complicated so I will pass it out. I moved close to public hearing and further moved that one, the planning board deny back of America's request to withdraw SPR 2019-08 without prejudice. Their request without prejudice. Two, the planning board deny site plan approval for SPR 2019-08 on the grounds enumerated in 112501 of the zoning bylaw. That A, insufficient information was submitted with the application in order for the board to adequately review and B, the site plan does not meet the requirements of section 11.2 specifically 11.210 which states in all instances where site plan review is required, no work shall commence to alter a site until site plan review has been granted by the planning board. Close quote. That the bank of America shall be required subject to the provision of section 11.4 enforcement to remove the two light pole bases which were constructed on the subject property without authorization prior to the commencement of site plan review. And if there's a second I'd like to speak to that a little bit. Would you like to speak on it? Yes, thank you. The planning board rules and regulations in section 11.4 says that a plan may be withdrawn without prejudice prior to the publication of the notice of the public hearing. A date which must in this case have been sometime in July. Requests to withdraw after publication date of the notice may be granted only by the permission of a majority of the board. Now clearly that window has been closed so this requires our permission to withdraw without prejudice. And I submit that we should not allow withdrawal without prejudice for several reasons. First of all, way too much staff time has been spent on this ill-conceived and very poorly presented plan to say nothing of the time this board has spent discussing it. And in regard to the 2A in sufficient information, at least twice after receiving detailed requests from this board the applicant has failed to return with satisfactory answers or revisions and has simply not appeared on many occasions. I see no reason why more time should be allowed and therefore I think the plan should not be given withdrawal without prejudice. Finally, the fact that the site plan review the site plan does not meet the requirements of section 11.2 is simply evidence of the applicant's unwillingness or inability to act in conformance with the zoning bylaw and the same applies to the requirement that we should require them to remove the concrete posts, bases that had been installed prior to the submission of the site plan much less the approval of the site plan. So Chris, if we were to vote on this motion and it passes what does that change or like do they we don't return the fees or just what are the consequences? We wouldn't return the fees. There's no need to do that. I'm just wondering what it does to the other lights that they want to put on the building. So without prejudice just means that if they come back with something similar that they won't be denied. If you deny an application outright they can't come back for two years. So I guess you'll have to think about whether you think it will be beneficial to the town or the facilities on this property to have improved lighting that would be mounted on the building because if you deny the whole thing then they I think they wouldn't be able to do anything but I'm not actually absolutely sure about that. So I'd have to ask the I'd have to ask the building commissioner. If you're suggesting that their current hope is to simply change out the fixtures that exist already underneath the overhang. Is that what they want to do as you understand it? They want to do that and they also want to add four lights which are shown on the plan that you received and the lights are also on the building and you did receive a plan of this in your packet, didn't you? No, we did not so I'm sorry. So you're saying that they could put these lights on without a permit or talking to Rob Moore, the building commissioner? I don't know what your denial would do to their ability to go to Rob Moore and get an administrative approval. It might nullify that. So they still need to get approval by the building commissioner for their new plan? If they are allowed to withdraw without prejudice then they would go to the building commissioner and ask his permission for administrative approval to install the lights on the building and then they would come back and take out those bases and have no more to do with putting in pole lights so that's what they would like to do at this point. But if you deny the application which includes the lights on the building I am concerned that it would deny their ability to put the lights on the building and prevent the building commissioner from administratively allowing them to do that. I'm not sure about that. I'm not a lawyer. But he's not here right now. So I can't ask until Tuesday. But anyway, that would be my concern if you deny the application that they may not be able to install these lights on the building. So we will pass around this plan. I'll go get it on my desk. Yes, this is it. I'm going to circle the four things that I circle. Does the plan say how to do those four lights are going to be? It tells what the catalogue. I think they're like wall packs. They're not on a pole. They're just right on the building. We may have an image of what those are like in our folder here. I'm going to look through it. Are the wall packs going underneath the overhang? Are the wall packs going underneath the overhang or affixed to the face of the overhang? Yeah. But they won't illuminate the parking spaces unless they're aimed straight out of the wall packs. I'm going to pass down images of these and Ms. Chow may be more familiar with this type of light. One is called SH and the other one is SK. And they both appear to be kind of wall packs. The wall packs have been pointing out. These are going to be flushed out of the overhang and have been pointed out to the street to get everything lighted. Yeah, that's why, so if I draw this line this is all They'll shine. There is some overhang. It's low. It's all way under one. I wouldn't say that. The line for one is like they did hit it pretty close. It's right there on the sidewalk. They're all under It's all under one. So this is like nine. Like this is six. This is nine. This is eight. This is four. This is two. This is one point four. This is nine. So that's why I drew the line at like one. That's like the candle candle candle candle candle candle candle lumens. You can't remember what the word is right now. But you want it like under one. You want it over one to light things. When it comes off the property. So I drew a line basically where one is. We talked about this at the field. How high they are and how focused they are straight down. These can't be that high. They're going to be 12 feet off the ground. They can't be. But this is showing you where the light bleeds out. So what I'm showing you is according to the computer model this is where the light bleeds out. This one, this is all the little ones underneath. So they did the same thing. These look even brighter than maybe this is compliance plans. So that's what they want. And this is what they got. So this is what they want compliance wise. And this is what their computer model says that they'll get from putting these on. And it's at 1.1 candelum or whatever at this point. And it goes under, it's really low. It's like bleeding out then. So according to this plan I didn't do this in the beginning of the get go. It's still not really very helpful for me because I understand what you're saying about that. The light fades when it gets to this point. But the glare in your face doesn't fade. Because they're aimed they're aimed down. Do you have a picture of them Chris? If they're aimed down they're not going to carry that far unless they're really bright. This part would be mounted against the building and this thing would stick out and the light would come out of the bottom of this and shine. It's like a mini cobra is what's happened. So this is like what attaches on the pole. So Chris, I'm going to have you go back. I'm going to ask you about again to remind everyone why this even came about. This is probably what they should have done in the beginning but they just came and put these in and that triggered so we had to get involved with it. Okay. We're looking at the we hadn't in our packets received the actual photovoltaic kind of modeling with what they're planning which again I don't have what is it 12 underlights I forget the exact number. 16 underlights and four wallpacks. And four wallpacks that actually don't look like a traditional wall pack they look like a mini cobra that will attach onto the building and shine down with of course some spray and that's what they modeled. So Chris if you could refresh so you know looking at this it meets their numbers on the map on the bottom is their ATM compliance numbers that they're trying to hit and then it looks like the modeling was done on the map above it and there doesn't appear to be much light bleed on off their property so can you refresh in my memory why this came about this way and why it even went to us and why didn't this just happen the first time around? So unfortunately when Bank of America and their contractor came to town hall to get permits for these lights they were granted an electrical permit that's all they applied for they didn't know that they had to have a site plan review approval for the pole lights so they came they got their electrical permit they started putting in the pole lights put those enormous bases in and then they were stopped by the building commissioner and he said no you can't do anymore you haven't received permission to do this so then they came and presented the site plan review application which included the two pole lights and all of these other lights which we just talked about the wall packs or cobra lights if you want to call them and the under under the Eve lights so they presented that to you you didn't like the pole lights you talked to them about relocating them for whatever reason they weren't able to do that didn't want to do it so then they came up with the idea of just not doing anything but then within the last 24 hours someone has come back to us and said no we really want to do the lights that are on the building but we'll forget about the pole lights so that's the state where we're in right now and they've asked to be able to withdraw without prejudice their site plan review application and then they can proceed to ask the building commissioner for administrative approval of the lights on the building the current status can I ask one question? so back to when they pulled an electrical permit don't you have to submit a plan of what you're gonna do and weren't these light poles on it and did that just get missed? it got missed yes I don't know what state that was in whether it went to one of the inspectors and the inspectors said fine, I don't understand that whole stage of things or phase of things as a murky problem to me but now we're faced with this problem and what do we do about it? am I correct in what you just said that the suggestions for the lights that we're talking about now came in just yesterday because we you had sent us notice that they were asking to be withdrawn earlier a week ago or so so they have always included the lights under the eaves and the lights on the fascia in their plan and they have also included the pole lights so what came in yesterday or the day before was like last week they said they wanted to withdraw the whole application and then within the last 24 hours they said oh we really don't want to withdraw the whole application we just want to not put the pole lights in and see if we can put the lights on the building that are mounted on the building what do we have to do to get that approved and so I looked in the zoning bylaw and found the section about administrative approval and I asked the building commissioner those lights that are mounted on the building could be administratively approved and he said yes so that's how it came about but those lights on the building have always been part of this proposal along with the pole lights but the request to put those lights in but not put the pole lights in that just came to you yesterday correct I think it was yesterday thank you field Sadler may have a specific time when it came in maybe it was Monday maybe it wasn't yesterday but it came in within the last 48 hours so Chris may I just I don't understand when the if the building commissioner authorized if the building commissioner considers this does the building commissioner this request for the wall packs to be mounted would the questions about dark sky compliance and light pollution those factor into the building commissioner's decision making those would be factored in particularly if you asked him in fact he asked me yesterday if the planning board had any specific concerns about what's being proposed and then he would incorporate those concerns into his approval so I'm going to try to follow up to the substance of Michael's motion and the proposal for the as I understand it now that Bank of America is making for lighting changes to the site well I'm sympathetic to the proposed motion I would hesitate to I would be concerned in supporting it I think it's unduly punitive yes there have been frustrations and however there withdraw for me the public safety of those ugly prematurely installed bases will be removed so I would endorse the I would support number three in this proposed motion but the other two points about then withdrawing their they've going through doing the work that they've done and then withdrawing the application that's wasted effort on their part and if they're able to satisfy their needs with increased lighting although I am concerned about lighting pollution and dark cycle bias then and it doesn't need to be considered by this body then that's seen that seems fine to me again my the main concern and the peak that I felt about they're installing those pedestals those bases prior to understanding what they needed to do that's been met by their removing those pedestals and restoring kind of the current state of the park that parking lot that's again I'm sympathetic to to the motion I just don't I think it's I think I would not want to provoke a backlash from the proponents because they're now can't move ahead with what doesn't what seems to me to be moderate improvements Jack I just was wondering about the normal process there in terms of granting electrical permit where they understood they were good to go was their fault you know the town's part in terms of a perhaps casual conversation where they got that green light I mean I that's where I'm kind of concerned about again punitive sort of motions against Bank of America Chris as I said I don't fully understand exactly what the transaction was but I'd say that the fault was on the town's part for granting the electrical permit without thinking about whether the light poles needed to go through site plan review and it could have been a mistake that was done by one of the administrative people at the front desk it could have been a mistake that was made by one of the inspectors I really don't know because I wasn't part of that discussion but it was not in my view was not Bank of America's fault because they did come to town hall they did ask what they needed to do to put this lighting scheme in and they were told they needed an electrical permit and so they took the electrical permit and they went and started the work and that's when we noticed oh it's that needs site plan review could I have that photovoltaic map back again and I just so I guess either way whatever we decide right now this is leaving our world and our jurisdiction and it's going to the building commissioner but I think he would listen to us on any suggestions we had looking at it looking at the old plans from months ago it does look like they're doing the same proposal that they had made then with the 16 lights and the four on the outside of the building which is weird because I don't even know why they needed those poles then when they seem to have proper light coverage and it meets their ATM compliance right now but what I still do have a little concern about is I don't know when it's opening or what's happening but there is this some kind of Asian food restaurant that seems to be opening on the left end and I understand that the owner of this building seems to be completely like out of the picture on this and we're trying to solve a little bit more of the bank of America's problem and more of the building's problem but I would love to see a fifth light placed on the west side the west southwest corner that would put a little bit of light on that dark area and of course they would do it so that they don't so there's not bleed onto the other property and my other suggestion is that same light on that they have proposed on the south east side of the building there's two of them right next to each other I would prefer seeing one of them slid back a little north which would give a little bit more light coverage on that other dark back corner where we know that being dark back there there's too much privacy back there does anyone have any feelings about that maybe sending a motion also or I don't know a memo or whatever we do to the building commissioner for him to consider does anyone else feel that maybe a couple more lights would be good seems reasonable I mean it would be in the building commissioners you know decision but to me it just if they're putting four we're asking to slide one a little bit and add a fifth Janet so this seems to be a solution from the beginning in search of a problem and it seems like we've taken a huge amount of our time on this very chaotic slip shot time waster and so I'm very sympathetic to your motion and part of me just wants to see this never see this again if he just replaced the lights underneath it seems like that would be adequate if they added some other ones that seems fine I kind of just I'm not sure that's like a vote in one direction or the other but I'd be just happy never to see this presented this situation which I've never really understood what they're trying to solve because it seems everything's been fine just to see it go away and maybe a message sent to Bank of America there's a lot of time spent on this by you by us it seemed very chaotic I'm new to the board but this seemed really poorly handled I agree with that I what makes me uncomfortable with the motion is how much of this was the town hall you know error like whatever triggered the beginning of this to spin it into our court yes David I'm sorry I think it's the incumbent on the applicant to sort of be prepared but that's not the reason why I would hesitate again I think that requiring that the applicant remove the hazardous light bases light poles light pole bases I'm concerned about increasing the illumination in an area that seems already well illuminated but that's kind of that now that's in the building commissioner I don't think that I think our message is loud and clear in the process that we weren't happy with them and that they're getting that and that we don't to do more is to again do more and that doesn't seem to be necessary if they are able to accomplish their goals without with just the building commissioners approval I think that the building commissioner should be aware that there are some concerns about illumination whether it's too much or too little we have not really decided but and I would leave it at that and it's done so we have two a motion and a second and we're in discussion do we want to vote on this motion or do we want to make a new motion I don't know my Robert's rules at all part of it is does Michael Michael would you be open to a friendly revision to your or maybe it's not friendly because I would I would I would propose removing points number one and two and retaining number three would be my proposed revision to your motion are you open to that that would not be a friendly amendment so I would not be open so you need five members to vote affirmatively for the motion I believe is that right the motion to deny I believe I don't know five I believe the bylaw says the majority simple majority it's not the bylaw it's the planning board rules and rags and I don't have them in front of me but I just quoted that one section but I do remember that that was if a majority need for to vote affirmatively for the motion we need four affirmatives a simple majority so we can we can vote on the motion as it is or we can make a modification to it or we could come up with a whole new motion we can play it out on any of those however you want well it's thought up to me it's up to you you're the chair I have made the motion I do not I cannot anticipate any amendments to the motion that I would accept as friendly I work that's for some time on that motion and it's possible that there might be an amendment that I could accept but I doubt it in light of that it's up to you to decide what to do next so excuse me I'm not seeing in the rules and regulations where it says that only a majority is needed for a denial I have it there's some paragraph that it's an old one it's an old one but it was just slightly this is not for this is for withdrawing this is a motion to withdraw it's not about approving it it's in the planning board rules and regulations it's not in zoning bylaw we're looking here so I'm looking for voting hearing decisions and oh is that voting no no it's about withdrawing I don't see anything in here that says something different from what we are used to with site plan review which is that you need five to pass a motion with regard to site plan review it says right here request to withdraw after publication date of the notice may be granted only by permission of a majority of the board and that's page 15 should we vote on Michael's motion and if that fails we'll have another one we can do it that way alright so we had a first and a second in discussion so with the motion present current motion that we have before us which I've lost all in favor against abstain okay so I think it was 150 yes Michael David I'd like to propose I'm still like I lost my motion I'm like I've lost my mind I've seriously lost it I would propose a second motion great propose a second motion that we allow the request to withdraw without prejudice that we condition that that's conditioned on the number three that it's required to remove the two light pole bases that the condition of the parking lot is restored and that I would add I don't know whether we add this to the motion or whether we add this as a recommendation to the building commissioner to review with all due diligence and skepticism about the implications of the proposed lighting and to make those conform with dark sky compliance and safety requirements as building commissioner sees fit that too that too do I hear a second on that motion second is there a discussion on this motion I'm just not clear what this without prejudice means I'm sorry but I don't they made a mistake they want to remove it and they should get rid of the light pole bases all that makes sense to me but what does without prejudice mean again please so you can request to withdraw or you can request to withdraw without prejudice and without prejudice means that you can come back in the future with a similar proposal and what happened during this public hearing does not bear on that new application we usually recommend that people withdraw without prejudice or request that withdrawal but you can just approve a withdrawal if that suits you more it's probably not going to make any difference in the long run but it's just it sort of gives the applicant a little more flexibility if they withdraw without prejudice and you approve it that way this is a question I had when I was thinking about this memo and I don't know the answer to it but I'm sure you do if an applicant withdraws without prejudice and that withdrawal is granted by the board can they come back with a similar plan with no additional fees do they have to pay fees all over again start all over again with a new SPR they would have to pay the fees all over again then what's the effect of the without prejudice if they withdraw or deny then I believe they can't come back for two years if they withdraw with not having no prejudice if they withdraw with prejudice they can't come back for two years and if they get denied they can't come back for two years but the difference between withdrawing with prejudice and withdrawing there's no difference functionally then I think there is a difference in the sense that if you do not include without prejudice then they would not be able to come back for two years with a similar plan would be in effect a denial for two years in effect it's a denial for two years denial is a denial for two years but I think what I'm concerned about is that I think you don't want to deny the ability to put in those lights underneath the eaves and on the fascia that's my understanding even though you do want to deny the light poles and so if you allow them to withdraw without prejudice the result of that is going to be they'll be able to get approval for the lights on the building the light poles won't be allowed they'll have to take out the light pole bases David would you accept the friendly amendment to your motion that the light poles must be removed within 30 days how about removed and restored even better weather permitting I mean there's got to be that kind of I think yeah why don't you say by June 1st or May 1st or you know some date because this weather is not going to allow them to come out there this weather is not allowing the snowplow to work I drove by there this morning and that whole half of the parking lot was unplowed yeah that's the owner yeah because we want them to cut they could cut in the winter but I like the restore I would like them to at least you know coal patch or fix the pavement that is tough to do before maybe you can in April so you would split that into two parts remove the concrete structures within 30 days and then repair the pavement by June 1st good that's more of a pain for them so so if the sorry the proposed amendment is now something like this right there withdraw the application without prejudice point one point two removal of light pole bases done in a timely fashion not to exceed 30 days for the removal if possible and June 1 for the restoration of the parking May 1st for the restoration prior to prior to any permission to and then point 3 point 3 is building commissioner please be careful whatever I is that fair is that fair do we have a second I'm not sure what the third is is it really be be careful no no it's a building commissioner please take under advisement concerns raised about suitability of the lighting and dark sky compliance which we can follow up with separate memo now okay if that's if we get okay okay so maybe that's not a part of the motion maybe that's yeah we can drop that and then we can give him our two cents so is there a second to that okay any more discussion on that Chris do you have that I do have it sort of scribbled here okay great all right so all in favor I see unanimous so if we could just send a little memo to the building commissioner I would just love to suggest and please give me feedback if you don't agree I would just like to have a fifth light added the one to the far east moved further north with no light yeah this way so this gets lit up here and then this gets lit up a little and they'll run it so that and he'll check that that this so there's no light lead oh yeah you have thank you for coming hope you feel better this could we send and was there anything else we want to tell besides and of course dark sky you know our usual which it seems like the same light fixtures from the very beginning that they're proposing and they were fine but of course lumens let's let's go for the under at least under 4500 yeah I can't remember but I just want to make sure that the building commissioner is under let's go under 4000 yeah that would actually match better across the street those streetlights in the Florence savings bank they're very yellow so I know they're under four okay alright alright so Maria zoning subcommittee report okay so we talked about mixed use buildings and joined us and expertise and so we combine that with two other sort of research projects we had ongoing I'm sorry no two other articles we had ongoing the supplemental dwelling apartment increase and the planning board voting requirements so those three pieces will try to hone down and present to the planning board for review and one day when we better understand the process with the CRC and zoning subcommittee and planning board we might push those forward as a first sort of stab at how this whole new process might work I think that's all we discussed that's all right there's no public comment anyone else have anything to add okay nope other nope item 5 old business topics not reasonably anticipated in 48 hours prior to the meeting Chris item 6 new business item a master plan update memorandum to community resource committee CRC from Mandy Joe Hanna key regarding recommendation on process for updating and adopting the master plan per chapter section 9.8 it says a brief discussion and preparation for upcoming meeting so yeah so at 8.30 this morning I was here and went to a CRC meeting and was talk it was asked to go about parking which I'll save you from that but since they had me there they CRC wanted to ask me about the upcoming meeting coming here on the 18th and a couple of weeks the way it was sort of sitting right now Mandy Joe Hanna key chair of the CRC was expecting to come and talk with us but she gave us the option of having a joint meeting for part of maybe the second half of our meeting that would be at least four members of the CRC would come and talk it also got expanded a little bit it's mostly this meeting on the 18th is about how to proceed with the master plan update and and sort of um initiating out expectations and and then from there working on a scope of work that would meet those expectations of both the CRC the town council and for us because the master plan is ours but they also would like to start looking into sort of defining the same thing but for the bylaw changes which is a little bit more loosey-goosey on how that's how comprehensive that is going to be but our hope is that Miss Bester and Mr. Moro will be coming forward with at least some basic of their own expectations lists of what they see or would both desire to have updated the master plan and it was also suggested to create a list of documents one way that we can sort of figure out the scope of updating or revising the master plan is what has the town taken on and accepted uh as initiatives, goals and plans since the master plan was finalized uh I think we have Mandy Joe Henneke's somewhere in here the memo that she sent out if you look at the last paragraph on the first page it's sort of um she's very general there which is fine because she's just trying to get the ball rolling but you can see where it says plans, goals so it would be things like the transportation plan was passed in 2015 okay well what did that add in we have like a complete streets policy what does that add in um and of course like the town council just a few weeks ago took on a big green sustainability initiative with some goals so having a list of actual documents to sort of refer to what has to be updated and changed and I think Chris you're going to be working on that so yeah there are any comments from the board do you want just Miss Henneke do you want a few CRC people is there anything that you can see um that would be helpful for us that's either provided by um Chris Bestrup or her department or Rob Moro or anybody else in town yes Michael I think maybe a meeting with a whole CRC would be premature um I don't think we have a clear enough sense as to what uh they want us to do uh and having re-read the master plan twice in the last two weeks uh I have a lot of questions about that um so I um I think we just better start with Miss Henneke sounds good Maria um that's impressive Michael I was going to ask like uh like for example yeah we all should read the master plan are there other documents we should read um like I guess I don't have that memo but I should read that um are there other it's somewhere um are there other sort of key reports or studies or any other items there are a lot of them um I can name some of them now of course there's the transportation plan there's the open space and recreation plan there's the housing market study there's the housing production plan there's the complete streets policy there's what else is there there's the the energy what did you just say it was the green I don't know what they green initiative that was just passed by the um town council um so that's why I today suggested maybe a whole list because I think that's going to be referred to a lot what has happened and been passed since the last um and then we'll move on to another list of you know going through what has actually been accomplished um but a part of this is I want to feel out CRC for what is what are their expectations and I've heard from them that you know town council the desires they want to pass and accept the master plan but some are most are uncomfortable that it's a little old it's not horribly out of date but it's not current especially with our green and transportation issues so um I just want to hear what they're expecting from us and I think a lot of this is going to be driven by you Chris because it's your staff who's going to do the bulk of the work I think it would be helpful maybe at the next meeting for this part if Mr. Moro could come since he's the other player yeah especially where they seem to want to talk a little bit about the bylaw and just start that introduction yeah I think this is about the master plan and I would really propose I would urge us to limit the discussion to the master plan and not get it muddied with the zoning bylaw expectations first things first and so I would also support I agree with Michael's suggestion that that uh it's premature to have the whole CRC or a lot of them here because I and I would urge that we maintain that this is a planning board meeting not a joint meeting but they're here and that they're here to inform us and to receive our questions so that we can get greater clarity because you know if CRC is really just it becomes another way for them to express what the town council is expressing that seems to me inefficient then why doesn't the town council or and so and so rather than spending a lot of time reading lots of plans where those plans are going to get distilled into this is what's done since the last plan this is what's resulted let's get those distillations let's get those summaries I'm not going to go through the transportation plan I'm just not I'm curious about the complete streets policy I will it's much shorter and the document that I would urge us is Chris's PowerPoint presentation summarizing the master plan because if we're talking about necessary and obvious is a way to short cut some of this in order to present some finishable product in a reasonable time frame then we're working from summaries we're not working from the original documents and so Chris I just wanted to note that I think that the CRC is not expecting to tell the planning board what to do with the master plan the CRC is going to act as a kind of intermediary between the planning board and the town council they're going to try very hard to keep informed about what the planning board is doing with the master plan and they will share what they learn with the town council so when the town council eventually has to adopt the master plan it will feel like it's been brought along with the process because obviously the planning board and the town council they have very busy schedules they can't meet jointly with each other but the CRC is a way of providing information to town council without you having to meet directly with them so I think they're not going to tell you what to do they're wanting to be a kind of a bridge between the planning board and town council is that a good explanation Miss Gray-Mullen I definitely think it is I think it's they want to know about process because they know they're going to be part of the process and it's not just you know there's the review process they want to have updates I don't know when we all got but if you read her memo it's clear what she's trying to sort of firm up with us they want a process that's already been like written out how this is going to go and of course you know there's always plan B a little but this is the intention of how we generate we update them we generate more working with the planning department and then it will come to a point where it we vote on it and then it goes to them and then they're going to like I don't you have to read I mean they could vote on or not so and then just not telling us how to do it but general expectations is what I'm saying like what generally because I don't even think the town council was that detail they haven't read it twice I doubt very few of them Michael but you know that they want it to be more about green and sustainability and just updated some so they feel better about okaying it just David back to your point I agree with you right now I would only really want to be biting off the master plan I feel a little awkward Janet has left but she actually came to the CRC meeting and at the end when she had a time to speak as like the public or planning board member she actually came up and said that she wanted to hear from them on the bylaw review and what they were thinking and who was driving it so yeah so it was you know I said it because that's what Janet had asked of them and they said oh okay we can talk about that too truthfully I don't know if Chris and Rob are ready to really start brainstorming on the bylaw review because I think right now we are just trying to figure out the master plan process so maybe I think Janet will be fine if we put it off for another meeting or two and I hear you that we'll just have just the chair come because it's mostly about process and it would be great if everybody could really give her memo of a read and a think about process so that we can give her feedback or adjustments that we feel we need and you too Chris I hope you if this makes sense to you because you've been through this in a different process it was town meeting and everything but I have been asked to come up with a list of things that I would like to see changed or updated or added to the master plan if you all Michael particularly if he's read it twice maybe he has a list of things that he is eager to see changed or updated and I would appreciate receiving that because you know I am not I'm only one person I can't have universal wisdom about what should or shouldn't be changed in the master plan so if you all have thoughts about that please send them to me. Please I would like to know what other people are thinking too because it's about now you know getting a set scope and not making it wider than it has to be but yet to make it a better document for what did you say Chris it would probably be another six or seven years before a full loan process would happen again we'd probably want to have a new master plan in place by 2030 I would think this one was approved in 2010 so about every 20 years a new one is done and so this is a good time to update ours but we won't start on the new plan until you know for another five years at least so if it was a 2020 plan does that mean you start like two years earlier because I remember it took a long time a couple of years earlier and the information that I've read about other cities and towns that have done this it's usually a two-year process okay thank you any other questions about the meeting for CRC yes I have one question I don't know what the process would be after we presumably we create and sign off on a new master plan does that then go to the CRC and they vote on it and pass it on to the planning board or do they simply pass it on to the planning board without taking a vote it's unclear and it actually I wasn't going to get into this but it became a little blurry there's problem I mean the charter was written and the charter's not perfect and they were talking amongst themselves about how the way that the charter was written it's actually unclear who will you could actually Janet brought this up at the zoning subcommittee because she was there when they were talking about it but you could actually have two different like master plans technically approved by the town council and by the planning board which of course should never happen because we want agreement so yeah we need to state law the planning board prepares the master plan and the planning board we've always said adopts I think the language has been changed to approves and then it goes to the town council to adopt I think Ms. Hennicke was just nervous we want this to have agreement and universal buy-in so she was just it had come up I think they want to make sure that's why she's really trying to create this funnel process that it's very clear that it goes to us we approve our document and then like you can I'm reading where it says the CRC what she has here work, request that once the council it's just the council but the CRC would sort of vetted out a little bit before sending it up to the town council yeah go ahead I think the CRC is going to approve anything no I think they're going to absorb all the information and then they're going to make a recommendation to the town council about whether to approve it or not there's a line here that says the planning board they want the planning board to regularly inform and again I brought up today well that needs to be better defined on a timeline regularly inform the CRC of its work so I think their thinking they want to be bringing updates to the town council on where it's at and different changes yes David in response to that I would propose that they can attend the relevant meetings for instance the memo I think is really I mean it is at high level it's abstract and we can be informed better about what's being imagined my expectation is going to remain blurry and so we'll get a sense of the contours of the blur come December 18th and that's one reason why I hope that if there are citizen petitions or business before the board that comes first and we handle that before we hear the blur from the CRC so CR I just read I want to make sure I had it straight how she how they are proposing it right now and it says so we're working on it they were asking for us to give or for CRC to come for updates on where the work is at and then when we say it's done and we vote on it and approve it it goes actually to the town manager who then submits it to the town council for adoption and then the council receives the updated approved master plan from the planning board through the town manager and then the council should hold a public meeting prior to referring the updated master plan back to the CRC and after the public hearing with the CRC and they reviewed the master plan they have to determine whether to recommend adoption by the council within 45 days and then upon recommendation of the CRC the council then shall vote to adopt the master plan so we don't have you know I mean we can talk now but think about this this is Ms. Hanicky is coming this is what they've come up with and I'm curious about when the trumpeting fan fairs are done is that going to be having after the town manager but before the town council approves and then after the town council approves but before the public hearing I just want to know when the momentous pomp and circumstances occur where I know I'm being flipped because this seems to me to be close to absurd I think our trumpet is when we vote on it and approve it we can blow our trumpet because as Chris pointed out according to state statute it is then the new master plan it's then we step into charter land and they're trying to figure out with their new charter how what was written in the charter gets done after that so in some ways I mean the slippery slope to me is we do a master plan and that's why she has like the update CRC and they're trying to tell town council we are like okay we're done we've had our public meetings we've gotten all this input and you know the staff works and we have this new document we approve it then if it goes to CRC now it has this whole process where people are going to start questioning again and saying oh well I wanted this why did this get changed and my fear is it's just going to remember the refer back at town council as you said David I'm worried about us blowing our trumpet saying yay it's done we did a great job we feel good about this and then it's coming back to us with questions concerns additions how do we prevent that wouldn't there be like a draft that would be floated out there to serve the purpose of getting feedback there would be to the public do we hold CRC or the town council to that too you're right I would rather have their input on the draft before we actually finalize it and then send it up to the town council to then refer it back to CRC for them to like grind through it it would be too sensible I can't remember the name of the exact committee but the planning board itself didn't write the master plan it was written by another committee and then approved by the planning board are we thinking about using that structure I think initially it was written by a combination of a consultant and the comprehensive planning committee among the members was Rob Crowner the committee at least is listed in the current document is very large it was very large 25 to 30 people in it and then the master plan subcommittee of the planning board took that document and refined it and edited it and spent I don't know nine months or so editing it and finally came up with the final plan that was presented to the planning board in February of 2010 and that was voted on but it's true that the planning board did do the final edit with subcommittee and I think citizens were here through the whole thing making comments it was a pretty inclusive process one thing I'm interested in is is there any glaring problem that people see with the master plan I think in general people think the master plan is okay but they disagree with details and I would like to have that if I'm wrong about that I'd like to have somebody tell me that back to that list of documents goals that has policies that have happened since even if the correction is just referring to those other documents would be helpful like you don't have to take the transportation plan is small compared to the master plan it's fairly large and long and detailed it would take a really long time just to take I'm thinking of that one document since I'm familiar with it and update all of the master plan with the concepts in that instead to me it would be good enough just to at least get it in there as an update referring to it maybe numerous times where it's appropriate in the document I was just reading the end of this memo this is actually a memo that they're proposing this process and they're asking for our recommendations so I'm wondering I drew a diagram to try to understand the loops that are happening and I wonder if there's a diagonal instead of so what happens is it goes PB to TM tell manager down to town yeah it's like a football play and but I guess some of it yeah like we were saying it's part of the charters we have to follow some of these steps but I think yeah one of the biggest steps missing is the PB to TM that probably needs a lot more in there and have some overlap with the CRC so that like you said Jack we're not just sending one version and then saying goodbye to it we're sort of like you know if iterative so I guess so again this part here is a little so Dave Zomek has seen this draft and requests was forwarded to Chris Brestrup to forward to us so do they want input on the process before we give input about the master plan is that what the point of this memo is it's more about the process right it is more about the process general expectations of what they're hoping to receive from us in a master plan so we should organize that before the 18th and that's what they want to hear from us she's coming for that so number three the second line when it says planning board regularly inform the CRC she wrote this but now listening to all this discussion I think that needs to be more rigorous and more detailed how are we gonna start prepping CRC or town council with what we're doing because I think if we leave them too far out of the process that circular thing you got at the bottom I don't want to see it keep circling because then we can't blow our trumpets I was thinking like done happy done but yes I just say something I think that the 18th is an introduction by them to you and by you to them and it's just the beginning so I don't think we're expected to have anything definitively written or presented or anything like that it's just the beginning of a discussion because they've been talking Mr. Gray Mullen has been talking to Ms. Hanneke and Ms. Griezmer but they wanted to get the full board involved and so it's an introduction to the process I think it's about setting up next steps for everyone and because there is a little bit of they want to get it rolling soon after the new year but yes Jack. To facilitate our review I do encourage you Chris to set up something on a Google Drive share of those key documents that Maria was discussing and it just so we know what's out there and what you would like us to consider Is it enough to send an email with links? Yep, that would be great. Would you include your summary presentation your PowerPoint please? That's a good one. Okay so give it some thought give it some read maybe Michael will read it for a third time and we'll start with the 18th. I'm going to set a time with them a little bit later remind me what we had on the 18th now maybe maybe we could say to Mandy Joe because I don't know some of them might come anyways that is an informal thing but I'll say around 8 o'clock okay C under new businesses timing of receipt of permit application materials I'm going to table this till another time because I know this was Janet was really the one who wanted to speak on this and she's not here C topics not anticipated Chris to be okay great C Item 7 form A A&R subdivision applications Yay number 8 upcoming ZBA applications Mary okay 9 upcoming SPP SPR SUB applications I do know of one new thing which is that Mr. Robleski who came to you on 362 Main Street has had some thoughts about changing his project and wants to come and show those changes to you he's going to apply for a site plan review application to make some changes so that will be coming up probably in January Thank you Item 10 planning board committee and liaison reports PVPC So the next meeting is I don't have an agenda but it's December 12 at the same time the state of the town announcement but that's fine but I do have a feeling that I'm going to be asked or the commission is going to be asked to vote on this 40R smart growth zoning district proposal and basically it's that the smart growth zoning district are starting home zoning district ordinances or bylaws would be adopted by a simple majority of all members of the town council or the city council as opposed to the super majority so that's kind of the game plan and again I'm there speaking on behalf of the town and I really do I vote what my conscience is or you know yes Jack did reach out to me about this and I passed his question on to the town manager as to whether the town council had any advice and I have not heard back so if they don't the 12th I haven't seen the agenda but it was it was presented and it was discontinued so I'm leaning toward voting to you know simple majority for this because the housing is such an urgent situation for the state Maria I think isn't that in the bill 3507 is what yeah an act to promote housing choices thank you community preservation committee Michael we've had no meeting since the last meeting David agricultural commission Michael nothing to report there and zoning subcommittee we already did report of chair I have nothing report of staff I don't have anything so then a German emotion please and thank you Amherst media