 So, welcome to the Wednesday, November 7th, the 2018 meeting of the Amherst Planning Board. So, I know that we have a lot of hearings tonight, so we'll get to that right at 7.05. So, which is in just two minutes. So, the short of business is approval of the minutes from the last meeting. Yes. So, let's see. Let's see. Yeah, two C's. Okay. Page. Page three. Page three. So, C-A-T-H-Y and S-C-H-O-V-N. Yep. Thank you. Anything else? Seeing none, all in favor, raise your hand. All opposed? So, Jack and Steve. Yeah. And who, who moved? And who seconded? Steve, I forgot his cell motion. You seconded. That's, that's a ticket. So, it is 7.05. So, I'm going to have a quick read. So, in accordance with, maybe we have any more. Or you can just say in accordance with Mass General Law Chapter 4. Yeah. In accordance with, you think I would know. In accordance with Mass General Law Chapter 40, Section 15C, Scenic Roads, we are heading out of the public hearing regarding a proposed Scenic Rule removal at 294 Levard Road. So, this meeting has been duly advertised in all the usual places. Correct. And normally what we do is we have the applicant, give the folks, talk about what's happening first, then we'll talk about the site visit, then we'll have kind of board discussions, then we'll open it to public hearing. So, we have the new owners. Mike and I. I'm Allison Saylor. And this is Mike Saylor. The new owners of 294 and 304 Levard Road. There are two cottages that are next to each other on separate lots. But they're co-joined by Sharon Orwell and other issues so that we kind of had to buy them both. And there's one driveway that was put in by the seller for 304. And we're requesting that we put in a driveway for 294 for that cottage. It's where the trailhead is. That's just, if you have a map in front of you. 294 has a trailhead. And then the proposal is to, there's a little gap between the sugar maples and we can squeeze in a nice little driveway that'll head towards the cottage. It'll look very much like the one that was done for 304. We are ready to hire the same person to put in the driveway. It's pretty simple. I don't know what was done with the other stones for 304's driveway. But I do know that I plan on being right there when they do the work and I will move the stones and just 3D effect to fill out the existing stone wall to be chunkier in the little square places. So it's not going to go anywhere. It'll just be distributed to the left and to the right of where it is. Nice. So there was a site visit to, where was the site visit? Known today. What's the name of it? So there was a site visit and I, who was there from the, raise your hand if you were. So Rob. And David. David and Mike. So would one of you want to get a report on the site visit? There's no written up word. No written up word? Well, sure, I'll discuss it. We saw where the wall, obviously is and the area that is proposed to be removed directly of the main road on the road between the two existing stands of trees on either side which will not be removed. There's a fairly steep drop off from the road level to the flat area where the college sits so there'll be a great issue there which is not within our jurisdiction I don't think but it's clear that a significant amount of stonework would be moved from the 15 foot cut which is proposed to either side of it. I'm not quite sure where the applicant is proposing to put the stones but I'm presumably on either side of where the cut would be and that would result in an interruption of a running stone wall which goes for hundreds of yards I don't have far exactly with several interruptions already in it. Anything else on the site visit? Any discussion on the planning board? Yeah, we'll talk about general discussion Okay, as I read the same road bylaw the purpose of the bylaw is to protect the character of historic local roads by preventing the removal of key features of stone walls and it seems to me that there is no in the bylaws I can find no way in which we can approve this because we are charged with protecting the character of local historic roads and the removal of this 15 feet of historic stone walls would clearly change the character of that road. Now the character of that road has been changed previously by the removal of other stone walls and a few other actions presumably of this body although I don't know for sure but it seems to me that we should not approve this because the only valuable purpose served is that of the individual property owners and it does not correspond with the way the law seems to be written. I'm sure you can go ahead and respond. I was under the understanding that every lot has the right to have a driveway in it and we don't have a driveway and the previous owners of the cottage would use a different way to get in and we are going to use it as just one person living there so we need a driveway there. I don't have a second one. Sorry. So this is a property we've been to a number of times so let's go with Christine. I just want to ask a question that I'm familiar with the stone wall across the street. There's a bunch of homes that were built about 15 years ago and I know the owners of those homes actually had the stone walls put in on the front of their property so within the last 15 years. Do we know the history of this previous because it was a bunch of property, whatever. Did he build this wall or is it an old wall? It's an old wall. Is it the one right here? Yeah, like was it the property because parts of it have a fence on it. We don't know. Just to me that is a different, you know, is it a 200 year old historic wall or is this a wall that was built 20 years ago or just, you know, was an aesthetic thing that now we're holding to, you know. We know it's been changed because the last time we did a site visit on one of these properties, whoever it was that works for the Kittridge family talked about how he threw stones on and he would actually add to the wall. Exactly. So we had the joke about, do you need to get a permit to add to it? I can't see that wall. So it's, you know, most walls like this change over time. In other words, walking the wall is all about putting stones back into the stone wall. I have a stone wall on a different property and I don't see evidence that this is a very old one. It's kind of angular and it doesn't have very much moss and things growing on it. So if somebody was to say, you know, do you know how old it is? I'd say no. Would I guess? I'd say quite new. No, not an ancient one. It looks like it's been built relatively recently, in my opinion. I would take the opposite opinion. It seems to me to be, I'm not being an expert on stone walls, but it appears to be so randomly arranged that it is clearly, to me, an example of a wall that was originally built firmly and has kind of eroded over time into the kind of soft profile as opposed to a hard edge profile with a stone wall of that sort, would have been if it had been built in the 19th century. But this is clearly a question that we can't decide without archeological evidence or something. I'm not... But that's kind of, say, the criterion is how old the wall is. It's really, it's a contribution and a scenic character. You had your hand up. Yeah. You're going to do the high record? No. No, maybe. I don't, I doubt it. So I sympathize with a lot leaving this stone wall out there. That makes sense to me. But I also agree that what is the point of having a scenic road five miles apart if we're not going to pay any attention to it? This is an opportunity. This, as Steve said, this is the third time that we've had to, on this short stretch of road, make a decision about changing the character of the road. And in each, the first two times, I think the board allowed the change to be made and I think it degraded the scenic quality of the road. And so it hasn't degraded now so much that it's lost and it doesn't matter if further change is made. I don't know. I just, I find the scenic roads extremely problematic and difficult. I think it's important but it doesn't really work. And I want to make one more comment about so this is separate from decision about changing the wall. The easement for the conservation trail, the trailhead, I notice when we passed the wall goes right up on the north side of that little parking area. The wall goes right up to that spot. On the other side, on the south side of the parking lot, there's a wall that actually curves around or it defines the corner of the driveway. And so I would suggest possibly as a compromise that the part of the wall is removed, we moved over to define the north side of the parking area so that it goes more like its, it helps repurpose the wall in a proper way. Could I ask for some clarification on that? I think I may understand what you're saying but there's on the south most side and side most towards Ambrose Center, it starts, then there's a little bit of a wall then there's the trailhead and then are you saying put more stones between there and where this new one is which is like 10 feet or something? Is that what you're saying? When we passed by, it looked like the wall on the south side made like a right turn into that driveway, into that parking lot. It goes down a lot long. A little bit, yeah. But on your side of it or the north side of it, there isn't a perpendicular wall to the road, it's just parallel to the road. So I'm saying take the part from your driveway and make it perpendicular. When you say our side, are you saying next to the green fence because all that property is ours? Yeah, I'm sorry. Not next to the green fence, but towards the fence. There's a little bit of a section there that doesn't have other stuff. I just need to know if we're moving them where we're putting them so that we follow what you want. I will say that the trailhead is, again as someone mentioned over here, it's very sharp and deep, so there's a lot of grading issues. So unless you're telling me exactly where it goes, I don't know even if it's that feasible to just take some and put them somewhere because it goes like this through the poison ivy. And it's really just a question about your comment. Yeah, so we don't understand this. I could make a comment to the general question of what's the purpose of the seating road. It is preventing us from taking 300 feet of stone wall away. We own 150 feet on one lot, 150 feet on another lot. So we're asking to take 15 feet away, not 300. So the seating road does have a purpose. And you're supposed to do what you're trying to do, which is tell us what to do with the rocks when we move them, and I'm fine with that, because I want it to look pretty too. So we're talking about it's a scenic road, and it's a pretty stone wall. And we have also on scenic roads, we have trees. And we come and we very often have to cut limbs off trees and scenic byrace because of power wires. And so you're trimming the tree, but the tree is still there. And as you drive, you're like, oh, there's still a pretty tree there. So to me, I'm like, they're just cutting a driveway in a long run off road. The wall is still there. It's still pretty. So I guess what we're saying is like, how much does it depreciate the scenic mess that there's 15 feet of a break in a wall? I mean, stone walls, farmers have used them for hundreds of years and they put breaks in them all the time because they got to get the cattle in them or whatever they were using it for. So I think it's not that we're moving the whole scenic thing, we're just sort of trimming it. So that's sort of how it moves. So I think everyone's right. Because I think that, in other words, what's the point of heaviness if it's for not protecting it? But then you also bring up the point that it's that runs in conflict with basically AMR. In other words, the right to have Massachusetts, if you have the frontage and it's a public way, you have a right to make that available a lot. And you have a right to access to that a lot. So to me, it's the AMR law that runs in conflict with the scenic road law. So, I mean, I guess there ought to be something in the scenic road law that says you no longer have AMR. That's not your problem, but this is me just talking out loud that if it was a scenic road that we're trying to protect, then there ought to be some sort of an exception to the AMR to also protect it. But to me, the AMR approval not required is more, and I'm not talking about you guys, I'm just talking about it generally, is more of a threat to scenic roads than removal of 15 feet of stone wall. But I'm sorry, someone had their... Yeah, I kind of go back to what you mentioned earlier about the minimum about the whole, the law itself. But nonetheless, the law says what it says. And if we're charged with implementing the law, as we are by Massachusetts, by law, and by the AMR's by law, it's our responsibility to protect the scenic road. And I suggest that there is a driveway to these two properties. They are together, they are apparently bound together. If there's only one water supply for the two of them, they're not going to be separable as a result of what the homeowners were saying. So that there's no reason why that second cottage, for which this stone wall break is being proposed, can't be served by the existing driveway, which comes directly into the other house. I understand that there are two separate tenants and what there's one owner. And it exists and it's apparently usable at this point. And I don't think it's depriving the owner necessarily of the right of access to the other property. And trees are just... There are no trees on that. I talked to the tree warden and trees that are in his jurisdiction or their jurisdiction are on the other side of the wall. And that side of the wall is got some peonies and some other plantings, but no trees. And it turns out where we're projecting to have the cut through, there are no trees. The right and left of it, there's trees, but nothing to be removed. And I'd just like to respond a little bit to the common driveway thing. We are trying to make these be separate lots so that in the future they can be sold separately. We've already put... We have the... We have to put paint tax that was shared, that has been separated in the future. They're welcome to be moved if it needs to. We're going to do a new well. We are going to over time and separate them. This is part of the steps of separating them. My reading of the law is that once the road has been designated as scenic road, then any of these sorts of changes for these stone walls, before anything can be done, it has to get approved by the appropriate body. I'm not quite sure. I mean, the timing designated this road in 1974, lots of things have changed. We've described some of those changes. I think that today that the owners of the law are coming, requesting this, consistent with sort of the evolution and development of the town and various lots. It's not... I would be reluctant to hold the scenic law up as then things cannot change on this road ever. That this does not seem practical to me. And that this, if it undermines the scenicness of this road, that will be reflected in the owners' values, the owner of the property. So, you know, if it's regrettable, to some it would be regrettable to others. It wouldn't be, to my mind, the role of the board is they've come with reasonable petition, cognizant of the impact aesthetically. If we have conditions to stipulate, that would be fine. I'm not quite sure. I didn't see what Rob saw with the trailhead, but that barring, real sort of destruction of the value of the aesthetic, when I don't see that this proposal does, it should be approved. I would argue for approval. Yeah. I agree with attorney Levison. And I think the 15-foot section is dwarfed by the 300-foot section that would be preserved and remain untouched from a scenic standpoint. I think my eyes would focus on what's there, not what is missing. Did you have a hand up your... No, I just wanted to say that I would be in favor of... There isn't a 300-foot section that is being obtained. There are at least two breaks in the wall in that stretch already. This is just one more break in what is already a broken stretch of many hundreds of yards of formerly solid stone wall. So it's just one more break or maybe justice to the wrong word. It was one more break in that series of broken stone walls, stone wall. But we're not removing the rest of the stone walls. And with that logic, we could propose, I guess, that we could block up the trailhead so that we can get the one that we really want as the owners. That would be... Can you please talk to the chair? I'm sorry, say it again. I'm just saying that with that logic there now would be three breaks in our 300-foot stretch of road. We could block up the trailhead as one option. That's a silly option. I'm not really suggesting it. It's just being facetious here. But with that logic you could come up to some pretty silly recommendations. What I thought the scenic road thing was to put the good conditions on that makes it look good and not make it ugly. I'd be happy to have conditions of where to put the stones. It's very reasonable. That would be on my profession. But it's also true that if you have a driveway there now giving access to both properties you could have an easement. So an easement is a perfectly legitimate way of having two separate properties. Am I doing an adrenaline limit? That's another way to do it. Potentially. In other words, that's very common that you have to cross another property to get to your property as long as there's an easement. I wouldn't be able to do that. I want to make sure that we all understand that the purpose of the scenic road bylaw is not to make the road scenic but to preserve its scenic qualities as they currently exist. Interesting. What's the history on the trailhead? Is that... Do you think that's a town access there? A town probably gained an easement over there. There is no easement for the town yet. It never completed. So it's effectively at our discretion whether it continues or not. So you own the section that is now used as a parking lot? Yes. And the trail? There's nothing on the deed. Great. So after any recommendation or condition from this group, what is the plan to place one of the stones? I was going to just put them in different places on the existing wall to thicken it up and straighten it out because it's a bit squishy and I can certainly concentrate on the trailhead side if somebody puts that in as a condition. I'd be happy to do that. It'll probably be me doing it. The stones seem to be mostly people-sized but if necessary some big equipment could move underneath a big one. I'll get it rolled into some strategically nice place. I'm a master gardener so I actually love stone walls and we'll make it look gorgeous. Is it fair to say there are portions of the wall that could benefit from reinforcement? Oh yes. It's a bit tumbled down in places. This would be good for the rest of the wall. Christine, did you have a question? Only that I noticed on the application it says about 15 feet and then when I looked at the map it said 14 feet and then I was thinking about I know the building commissioner has some set because we were fighting and we had our driveway and I couldn't remember what the map was because there was an axle that they allowed me to put in for your driveway. I know the standard width for an individual driveway is 12 feet and then when you get down towards the actual intersection of the road I think you can have 24 feet 24 foot wide opening when you're at the road. The driveway itself would be 12 feet. Just one. So then on the other part it says 14 feet. I measured the one that was already done and got approved by the plan board so I said 14 and somebody changed it to 15 I didn't do but 14 to 15 it'll be like the other one that's already cut through and it does need a flare I don't know what the technical term is because otherwise you whack into it. How do we move forward? We'll move to approve the request for the condition of the stone degree purpose to repair the existing sections of the wall on your property. Second? All right. Discussion? It didn't repair me not be the right word because where I leave the owner is planning to put the stones and not be carrying the shore is a place where the wall is in exactly the same condition as the wall is where it's going to be removed. So it would be to augment or something like that but it's not going to repair it because it's the way it is. My suggestion is based on the owner's statement that there are portions of the wall that would benefit from infill I could further clarify or repair it means to infill those portions of the wall which would benefit aesthetically from infill from the stones to be removed. Of course it's a matter of opinion because I would dispute that the character of the wall is the way it is and it should be made on this. I don't mind augmenting. I'm still working. I'm very I'm not I don't think that's quite that's not my issue I think the condition as I am sure this is going to be approved but the condition is a little unclear without that change but that's what I'm thinking. Okay, any more discussion? Your sister does not repeat the condition that the sound to be removed will be reused to augment other portions of the existing stone wall on the property. How would I do this? Restore. Restore. Restore. Restore. I'm happy. Restore and augment. I don't understand what augmenting a wall would really mean. It's building up higher. Basically or wider. I think that which is what I think I think the goal is to use the stone in the wall to make the stone wall relatively more wall-like. Which of wider stone would be a better for that augment, but anyhow. So do you need some old substance? I think you had to have been there. I've been there twice today. I wasn't able to make the trip today. Do you mind if I restore? I'd like to restore. Restore. Restore. Restore and replace. Repeal and replace. Okay. Oh, right. All in favor raise your hand. All opposed. In absentia? One. Okay. Thank you. Is there any paperwork for anything? It needs to be given to contractors. I think this is a privilege to own a stone wall. I can say what you want. Okay. We'll get it done quickly. Thank you. So I think we're going to move on to a poor old business because I think you're here for that. Restore 434 North Pleasant Street Terry Gates discussion about conditions. So this is SPR 2017 00 013 and 402 02 So, take it away. There's two things going on here. One is... Oh, I thought... I'm Terry Gates. I wear two hats. I'm a member of the church and I'm a member of Craig Stollers board. And what the concern is here is a shielding of some form from the part of us that the university has at the back of the trailer area which we do have two trailers in there which are used to bring food and the bubbles that we turn in for the food. For the shelter and for the food pantry that the church runs. And I agree that there's a snowbox in there that I use to cover the church lot. And there are a couple of storage units that the church uses the shelter itself when the original permit was two years ago to change the trailer from feeding people to use to play in the office and resource center. So there are two things here. The church property and the trailer which the permit was given on to Craig Stollers to change it to an office and resource center. I have met because the church used to expand and it's very crowded and I met a number of times with John Kennedy the Vice Chancellor and he has not ever mentioned to me anyway the condition that exists there. Although I think it's more a church property problem than probably Craig Stollers problem. Craig Stollers does own the trailer and this afternoon after you left I did meet with the Executive Director of Craig Stollers Shelter and with some of the people that run that shelter underneath the Executive Director and they were very strongly against the fence because they felt people could hide in there and they can't see them. Police do not that we have a lot of problems but the police do come in every night and they circle the area of both the university police and the church sets on Amherst's predictions of the Amherst police do come in they know all the shelter people and there's a presence there. The concern of the people that are operating the shelter is this creates a hiding place for many of the or could concern hiding place for the people and I think when we had the site visit it started out with maybe a tree I forget your name but one tree I have no problem I like the tree idea but it kind of breaks things up but I think more like six trees ought to be planted there and I think then that gives a vision for the police to see through and for us to see through because the shelter resource is open at times at its start so that's I guess that's position nobody had a problem today with the shelter inside with the office that they're using that you granted before and one of them is the problem here is screening and we would be willing from the church anyway my church hat now is to put some trees in there and keep them trimmed to a second position all of this would be points in there already so that would be the position I guess that would present to you for thought so at the site visit there were three members of the board who were there putting up a stocking fence and I took the liberty of just sketching where that would go and getting a picture of a stocking fence so I think you might want to just look at it so you understand the whole conversation but they don't I just made one copy when I gave it to you and so I'm just going to pass it away so you can just pass it around there would be four members who were on the site talked about and then you would get better understanding so site visit report? Yes please we originally talked about this year two ago because there was a lot of stock in the store behind the trail most of that has been cleaned up it's much more tidy than it was before but it still doesn't look like the back of the back storage area of something so it did seem like it was something that could screen it a little bit present a nicer front to the university and I I prefer bushes or small trees to offense I did this afternoon I think that would be better and I don't think these six trees I think one or two bushes would do the trick but whatever you come up with so for me the issue is when you stand in the UMass parking lot which is three yards away from the trailer at least my eye was drawn to the at least 10-yellow buckets of road here whatever they were at the snow plow if there were a bush there or a tree there I think your eye would be stopped by that necessarily to the other stuff and so that's I just want something to draw my eye rather than having the so hot that's all anyone? I was at the site visit the only comment I'll have is that behind the trailer it looks like a shop yard it looks like any kind of DPW thing going on there's a couple of trailers there's a golf cart there's always equipment and there's sheds and it's not attractive looking it looks like they're doing work and it's good work that they're doing but I don't I think when they are exposed I think if they have a fence then they could just get on with their good work and they wouldn't have to worry about the mess they're making or if another golf cart showed up or whatever and they could just keep it tidy in regards to safety we're not talking about our full enclosure we're not talking about an L that runs part of the property line not the whole property line and I will ask if there is lighting on the back of the trailer and if there is lighting is it motion sensor because that's what I would suggest if you were worried about having people congregating or hanging out there can you run for the sponsor? there are two two lights on the back the down lights the lighting work originally they don't flood the whole area they sit down like they're not motion they're on all the time from my position the once the fence is up I think the executive director and the people that they're actually in the shelter working with the homeless people is that once they enter that area it's blocked off they have to come back out of that area again and that's what they're concerned about we had that problem between Gordon Hall the building was built on the south side of the church and the problem was they would travel up through there and they were leaving things in bushes if we weren't paying attention they'd be sleeping in the corner it's very hard to see so we've changed that and put a fence up there but that's a different kind of fence it mainly keeps them from traveling through this fence would also keep them from traveling through and that's one of the concerns that the staff had now we could do we could take all the veils you saw set in there or remove all of those the two trailers operate to bring cans and bottles from the from the landfill which a town has been letting this do for a number of years now and that money goes into food the other trailer that's there goes to the food bank and it setups the list of the food bank rather than handling one box of the time for half a ton of food it just sets it in the trailer and those are the two things that are there the golf cart is operated to clean the for a bid to keep the town set in a town cleaned about six years that's been used so that's parked there close to the trailers and the batteries are charged there each night but the pails we could get rid of the snow plow I'll find another place to put it somewhere I guess I could take it to my house put it in my garage and and then plant the trees I think the trees is the better as far as the staff is concerned the ones responsible for we run a behavior based shelter we don't run a shelter that people can our shelter can make it come in drunker on drugs they have to behave themselves we do have there's only one other shelter in western masses and I have to go before the state every three years to override the permanent issue because the church is not fully sprinkled only the places that the people sleep and are using so Rob has to turn my application down when we apply for the shelter and then that goes down to Boston and I don't want to have a big desk stick to the so for me the issue is most of the pales I don't have a problem at all seeing the trailers and the bit even so far it's not damaging problems it has cones around it kind of trashy so if the pales were gone and the snow piles were moved next to a building or something instead of having cones around it like in the middle of the yard that would solve the problem for me we're going to have no trouble moving the pales at the cause yeah instead of a fence and bushes yeah I'm just going to suggest a compromise just some evergreen bushes that are spinning but people can't hide like in pots or in the ground I guess so specific it would be in the ground as far as I'm concerned if it's in pots you get to water them and take care of them I worry about trees you just see through trunks anyway so it's like my concern would be that once something goes in the ground and grows then it becomes permanent so this has always been seen as a temporary and I was just reading through the conditions where you the church is still working on yeah we get to add on we get to add something on and the question is why and the trailer then in anything that we've drawn up has included a private place for the shelter within the church building so the trailer would be gone and all the stuff you're concerned about would disappear hopefully with three years or so so I'd be okay with like a rubite I just want to know where the map went the crystal you know I just would want to identify what section I think it needs to be a little rounder and just the other thing to consider this is important yeah just where the you know, where we would want to put the bushes and just one thing to remember like is what's been said is this whole lot and what's going on is sort of in flux and there are plans five years from now it still could be like this or it could be something different and I think we have to remember that the a butter right now is a parking lot so that's a low level of like caring in a way but in a few short years there could be a P3 development of various natures and suddenly they would care so my thinking is this is made temporary but is this one shot of like making this area look really tidy so that there isn't a problem down the road are you on the side of the fence of bushes or on that you know I don't want to put them to undue expense you know why I thought a wooden stockade would work is because maybe they could get a good price or donation I know they work with some developers it might be a lot of them you know it's like 30 bucks for a neighbor who could probably dig the holes and put the fence in so that would save them money and then I do understand the safety part but I think and I don't know if this would have to be part of it I know we're into the downcast lighting that's very important but in something where you do make a fence you might want a spotlight that is motion you know sounds like it lights up in that area but the other thing that would be there is you have two years ago you had a look seeing two years and it might be that this comes back to the board again in a three year period in which it would come up to the site visit again that wouldn't be opposed to that it's hard to put it, you can't really put a condition on this kind of thing that you're doing now because there's no document that's going to come out of it in a meeting and maybe an email or a letter so you can't put a condition on something like this only on a decision I see how did you do it this time it was not a decision yeah, yeah how do we move forward pails pilling cones other lady nothing I'd be willing to say fence or a line that has been drawn either fence or other lady I don't want to muddy anything but as I understand it and this isn't that the condition that was put on the previous site plan decision was that a landscape plan would be submitted and one hasn't been and that's what we're talking about here it seems to me being a layman layperson and so I think for the purpose of you know instead of spinning wheels I would think that we would be better informed if an actual landscape plan was submitted to us by the date by before March so we could see what proposed types of whatever screening is and so that it's just clear good surgery so moved so that's my motion any discussion on the motion all in favor raise your hand thank you okay you want to take this or if there are any season sales now that are going on that you'll more take advantage of then the next one but it would be by a holiday tree and then could be yeah cause the voice guys are involved so I'm going to move us back let's just finish up section 4 are there any topics now reasonably anticipated for old business I'm going to take us back to item 2 planning and zoning so we are we are proceeding with our plan some planning issues we're going to go into the council we're making progress our latest thinking is that our executive summary so to speak will be a focus on the downtown issues performance code parking both sorts of things things that have come up in the council campaign often and so we're aware that people are thinking about them and that the council is likely to want to start talking about them sooner than later so that's our thought is that we will have something along those lines as sort of an executive summary but we were also informed tonight that the committee that is working on aligning the old charter with the new charter or time bylaws various charter models and so on aligning those with the charter that committee has come up with a list of specific items to be changed in the zoning bylaw and I'm probably not going to say this correctly but basically the question is whether there needs to be a public hearing by the planning board ASAP or if the directive has to come from the council which I didn't see it to the planning board to hold a public hearing so we are we are tentatively thinking about having a public hearing at the end of the month if the planning board can be achieved in the month of November so that we can present some amendments that have had a public hearing to the council conveniently and I haven't seen the list but I know that there are such fun things as the size of the planning board which is specified as 9 and there's also the requirement for a site plan review approval which is 6 which is also specified so I'm sure these are all out on it I don't run that specifically and there are references to a site plan review but there's something weird that said that 2 thirds of the planning board are no more than less than 5 Is that what Chris clarified this afternoon? That is in the rules and rules and rules but I did get in touch with Joe Bard today and he's confirmed that for a special permit a group of 7 planning board members would need to have 5 members vote in the affirmative for a special plan Right and there was something that was more specific on the rules and rules and rules rules and rules will have to change when the planning board shrinks and this new way of governing comes into effect So what are we doing on the end? So the planning board on its own when that's not a we have to hold a public hearing so we, if we're going to need to have a number we should have a few chairs to put in the legs which I'm not going to perv you in this group because we're only going to have 5 of us I think that would be a task which is a challenge to do that by the end of November but you could do it by say the first week in December if you wanted to do it by December 5th you could hold a tour but you because we're going to have a really weird period where we're a 7th person board this came up with a forum issue also remember when we were supposed to get whatever okay so let's I'm sorry to take a second so I'm sorry from your end of this I think there were 2 action items for the planning board that came out of the zoning subcommittee that first is to determine if the board is able to meet in the case that Town Council recommends we do so and hold public hearing about this item we're all going to describe it so that's a winster so this isn't my last plain word meaning that after winstay after Thanksgiving yeah I came to Charlie here it was a possibility and I'm available but who's not available in the 28th so you're being a 7th person then the other item could probably speak to you more one of the specific items that has been I don't know if I'm lying we're just too confusing one of the specific items that has been identified is a change to section 8.4.2 which is about planning temporary signs and the action item that the committee has identified is the committee updated the reference to the signing of the issue of the new bylaws the committee also replaced the select board to regulate signs and send 6 inches or more of the public hearing with the town manager the committee also made the support of the committee with the Board of Licensed Commissioners and Town Council I think personally there were arguments against it that replacing an appointed authority or a likened authority a select board authority to regulate signs and send 6 inches or more with an appointed authority the town manager seems like this much substance but more substance I would prefer to recommend that it would be replaced with a council authority because it's also a lot the argument against it is that it either tastes the executive authority a select board acts as an executive when they make that authority when they make that decision and the town manager would also be acting so here's the point you just sit right on the head that the select board was both executive and because it was legislated because it was part of town meeting and it was what it is so the select board was elected by the town but they served both as executive and then as a legislative so they intended this as a legislative or executive to me it sounds executive but is that our problem or is that so Mike I would just or post it on an agenda I would not want to represent it as these are just just changing these are more existential I would want to call out that this is making a change that changes the authority one kind of it should be clear to the public I totally agree with that whereas most of these other ones are not the way that and just wondering if we should put that to the new town council okay I guess I would further clarify Rob requested of Jeff Kravitz that the community make that change and Jeff wanted to hear the opinion of the full plan board on this particular issue to me it sounds executive but so in the current world the select board is in charge of the right of way in the new world the town council will be in charge of the right of way so in that sense to have it be the town council is in charge of determining where their sign can hang over into the right of way by six inches and then if the town council determines that it's clearing up their schedule and they don't want to deal with this anymore the town manager I agree with that philosophy so things that are ambiguous I would think would go to the town council for these schools so they could choose to delegate to Florida I don't know I'm speaking about bank payweas for sure but most of the others really had to deal with something like that so the first one is the committee will replace TAMI's with the town council yeah those are arguments TAMI was unabashedly always legislated there's another one that they have on the list that also is not just clarifying it's to change section 7.106 entry to the exit driveway is to conform with the state fire code that is something that we have in other cases had to change the bylaw to conform with the state law and we had to hold a public hearing for that issue and to tell me we called it technical fixes or housekeeping whatever I think that should also be called out of something that is changing language it's not making a change oh it's not making a change maybe we just brought to their attention oh right that should be a change but they're not suggesting that part of the motion do you want to take a vote on whether that the language of 8.42 in regard to the wording of the signs should be changed in this recommendation to some wait the motion second discussion what are we looking at the basic copy so I can't find the copy it's kind of lost here lost for weeks too so this has to do with the zoning bylaw that as we move to a new form of government these are the parts of this committee what are we changing 8.42 which gives authority to now to the select board to approve signs that overhang the 6 inches into the public later ways so really the two choices are delegate that authority to the executive branch which is the town manager or delegated to the town council which is the legislative branch because it's not clear in this case who has it now but the select board is this weird hybrid thing both the executive it has both the executive authority and it has the legislative authority by being part of the town council so the town council no the town council is not the executive but it's strictly the legislative branch and so the question is whether this whether 8.42 should be revised to be the oversight for the sign extending into the public right of way should be under the town council yeah or the town manager and it makes sense to me just that the town council decided because in the town council can then also has authority to change that I think we should do this but that was emotional so I thought I need to catch up to Steve you know so I agree all in favor raise your hand alright unfortunately that wasn't the way to change it see how it and the determination about the meeting is if you need to hold a public meeting November 8, 28, you're all available except for Miss Grinnell are we also meeting the 21st thank you oh good yes we are we should be we should be out by 10 again I apologize because I think I was lost the purpose of the proposed November 28 meeting is to approve conforming language to amend the zoning bylaw it's to hold that open in case town council says we need to hold the public hearing in order to in order to approve in order to approve zoning bylaw revisions got it so there's one other little glitch which is that when town meeting approved all those the new definitions in the under the marijuana uses bylaw we failed to say at the bottom and renumber all the subsequent definitions so technically speaking we have to come back to the planning board to hold a public hearing to renumber all of those subsequent definitions and then we go to the town clerk and say the town planning board held a public hearing and they agreed and so this goes through so we may try to roll that into this meeting on November 28 if we can figure out how to do it so we don't have the authority to change the zoning bylaw so we're going to hold this public hearing and we'll make a recommendation to the new town council which convenes five days later and then they can do with it what they want what didn't town meeting have something about non substantive changes they did would allow this to be done without a meeting now we still need a public hearing and a planning board instead of going to town meeting to change all the we go to the planning board to hold a public hearing they actually agree that and then the town clerk can do all this the non substantive changes but not these changes that are proposed it's supposed to be done by town council town town and so CIL okay okay so we're going to meet on November 28 but first we need to get an opinion yes we're getting an opinion tomorrow okay so we and this will be the only thing on the agenda yes no as far as I know okay public comment so thank you for keeping moving them all forward new business topics that reasonably anticipated a ANR an ANR so this is a piece of property at the corner of Redwood Drive and East Pleasant Street and Wetterlite has it to Paris now is that your mistake it is Jennifer Pauly Paulylerla owns this property and someone is proposing to purchase it and what the purchaser would like to do is to divide the property in two and there is enough lot area and vintage to do this and then divide the property in two and fill the house on the lot that's being created yeah sounds like a good idea see that's on the north side east east side east side of these Pleasant Street and the south side of Grandwood Drive south side of Grandwood Drive south side of Grandwood Drive east side of Grandwood Drive right on the corner yeah it's sort of double sided they have like a farm stand here like a set back like a little farm stand but I thought I knew I guess I don't know that corner as well as I would believe do you authorize Mr. Stryger to sign this and verse this plan thumbs up can I just say it a little I understand it posing something in the way of architecture moving okay upcoming ZDA upcoming ZDA one that I know about is we got to tell you about this new tour the Chuchis building is being transformed into another brick oven piece a restaurant called Quartet so that's coming to play with ZDA sometime soon looks like they're ready to open they have a lightsaber they jump the gun yeah did they go to GRD for all the Chuchis they jumped the gun on that too they're very eager they're gun jumpers this year in an hour they had the colors before they came to GRD that's your preview right our publics the same colors as they already had as they already had up what are you going to do they're from New Jersey yeah they're from New Jersey I'm from New Jersey thank you I mentioned two guys in the parking lot a couple months upcoming SPP SPR SUV 256 North Pleasant Street is coming back the office building when he's pleasant so they're just renewing their permits that they have and one of the excuse building on Southeast Street East Pleasant Street no the one down by yes that's coming too it's gone through the conservation commission it's a Amir McChese building right across from Cumberland Farms on Southeast Street right next to the flood savings bank so he's proposing a three-story I think McChese building there he's got 68 apartments and some retail space on the ground floor whatever between nothing just checking planning board committee and liaison committees PDPC yes community preservation act so we need to actually talk about this but how do we talk about this you need to nominate someone who's going to still be around after because we don't know who those are so I had a conversation with the town manager today and the way I think it's going to work and we seem to agree is that all the people who are moving forward past 2018 will still be on the board unless the town council chooses to replace them but probably not so they'll move forward there are four members of the planning board whose terms expired in June with some extensions to the end of December and so I would say you shouldn't probably choose from among the four whose terms will end at the end of December because I don't know what's going to happen with them but you should choose from the other five way left and I think Harry was the liaison to CPAC so she said she's not able to serve in that role anymore so so one solution would be to forget her request in other words so she could serve until she no you know what I'm sorry sorry it's very demanding it is very demanding but it has periods where I've been meeting every week or every two weeks and it's very long and I really can't take another you should have been here in the outside I don't remember exactly but there are two twice a year they have like a series of proposals that come in so you have to read all the proposals sit through the presentations and questions and then eventually have meetings they're actually a lot of fun I really enjoy doing it it's a great committee to be on but it's really time consuming and then when I said forget your request what I meant is to because if there's no work right now there is I was going to say that I could settle this until I'm just going to say about the busy times of the year it's my understanding December through February, March roughly but sometimes you start meeting like sometimes you have to prepare so there was a time where we actually worked on the draft of the proposal very intensely for like a few months on a row so it depends right now the proposal like the draft is done but usually there's a time for questions and answers and then you actually assess the proposal so for every like for the twice a year event there are like different blocks of time and I don't mean to so I'm going to go off the plane so we'll be down to 8th December whatever it is December 3rd so and we're going on to three other planning board members whose term expires then Mr. Jim Sick, Mr. Crowner and Mr. Yagi so one of them will need to not be on the planning board anymore after December 3rd but the other two can apply the other two can apply to stay or can stay through December and then the practice has been that people stay on the board until they're replaced so I think we can count on being good through December things may need to be clarified after that the two people that have expressed an interest from one was Rob and the other one was who was the other one I just had a question on why they need more details so you had not specifically put your because I hate to load the five that we know are staying up with more things if they have an expressed an interest so I did find out they will meet whenever is appropriate given the number of people who are there in their schedules so they're going to have to come together and work it out is that usually a day thing as an example up until the last round it was extremely inclusive and the last round it was so I had to work around everybody's schedule but usually the practice in the previous years is that they check with everyone and make sure that everyone can do it and then they convene like it's usually at night it's around six or seven also occasionally at five I wouldn't take that on I think if no one else feels they have the time for it I think I am Christiana so you would need to someone would need to nominate Mr. Burt let's see it together Burt do you want to take that on too? well I know Rob volunteered first but you're one of the ones in um in the what in the Bob Armour so do so are we waiting to find out like since Rob expressed interest can we just table it what is the other dilemma is that the select board can't make appointments they don't have the authority to make appointments so what we decide doesn't really matter because well then town council could make an appointment on the first of December and this group is starting to meet now aren't they? so which is what yeah but none of these are public meetings so our rep could still go but but it seems like if we need a planning word liaison and if there's a name that comes forward to recommend to the town council for an easy disposition of that of that action that would be that would seem to be to be efficient so you know it sounds like Rob and Michael so what are we I heard and should the plane board be lucky enough to have Bob as a continuing member maybe this could come up to you guys again and yeah with certain attention to persons agreement sure so that's an nomination for Mr. Burt Wessel is there even numbers a second oh well because so that's almost by affirmation so it doesn't matter why don't we just draw by affirmation by unanimous affirmation very good objection is that even a thing by consensus I can say that yeah by consensus by unanimous consent you will soon have the power to make up for it because how are we that's how it works right I'm not entirely sure objection you're on I'm not entirely sure if the appointment is made by the time council or the time manager because the time manager does make a lot of he has to get right you may have to get a approval but this is of the most urgent so I'll send that to him right away Agriculture Commission report yeah we've approved a bunch of signs in the last two weeks and sent one back for redesign so they're actually do design in terms of protecting the design integrity excellent yeah unanimous simple reporting hello affordable housing trust trust hall of forum unfortunately at the end of October we'll be meeting again tomorrow most of the work has been focused on design proposals from East Street School property so the forum was revisiting kind of a design discussion that we had with Cune Riddle where they presented some options and so if we meet tomorrow we'll be looking further at those options making recommendations on design criteria for our and I saw your you were there I definitely wanted to I'm not sure I've ever been there your photos so the poster around me had them along wasn't it? they must have been posting old photos interesting and was Bruce Gerson there? however they posted the old photos interesting somebody posted it attended, it was actually a candidate attended the affordable housing trust I want to hit your picture I think it was the transportation forum Bruce was there, I was there okay so they posted it out to the wrong label how funny was that that one? okay Greg was there any kind of consensus that came out of that? well nothing I'm aware of, I think that some of the larger questions that remain are whether to keep the existing streets school building and at the meeting that I did attend which was just the trust and maybe 20 members of the public for seeing the forum there was more of a leaning towards keeping the school keeping the school actually would be more cost effective, in my sense is that generally referencing a building like that especially that building has a lot of hazardous materials in it would be more expensive but the cost estimates from Q and R were actually lower to keep the building and then at the forum I'm told that there was maybe a leaning towards not keeping the building because of concerns about it not being energy efficient it's an old brick building so the conversation could be continued okay it sounds like a fascinating project and I'm really sorry that I didn't go to the zoning subcommittee we've had that report UTAC so one of the questions in the Springfield Republican to candidates was about the P3 project and UTAC's involvement so I don't think any of us answered that one correctly so have you been involved at all in the P3 discussion? No, zero UTAC has a housing in that sense I think in A yeah we're one of them at so what is the P3 project so this is in the Gazette so it's proposed 1,000 bed housing on the site right next to what we were just talking about and it would have some retail it would have a parking garage sort of built into a kind of combination of three major uses so this is actually presented to the campus planning committee, the UMass campus planning committee last week and actually it would be worthwhile to ask them to come give our presentation here because it's really obviously the intro to my university Are those thousand beds intended for students? Yeah, it would be only for students but it wouldn't be creating a thousand new beds it would be only creating blank 100, like 800 because what it will do is it will use it as a swing space so they can take students out of other dorms and renovate them Downtown parking working room They met today and this town has awarded a consultant the parking work so we'll catch you and we'll be hearing about that There was something that came over in the wires this afternoon from you know what? I did I'm sorry, I didn't mean to get a chance to look at it because I we've got the was that from you guys? No, it was from students that was a recommendation to the planning board but mostly to the zoning subcommittee that while they were working on their work plan and prioritization of that they consider parking to a high degree and we specify that for them to improve the municipal parking district developer requirements and any other zoning that impacts parking Yeah, so I always wonder going on the radical is the right tool by law or a different tool that should be just because Yeah, a question on that came up this morning Christine about the timeframe for that consultant and I had to recall that the consultant was going to be working pretty much on this issue about projecting implications of current development trends on parking so should we expect to see something related to the request from board members? I don't think so well, so the consultant thing is still sort of in process we had hoped originally that they would be able to be hired and come on board by the end of September if not the end of October obviously if not the end of November and part of the problem is they need to redo additional parking counts like they did in 2016 we need to have more done and catching the proper window of that is pretty complicated actually because you want the students here like we're about to do Saturday free parking right so obviously you wouldn't do counts then so that might push some of it to late January or February which pushes everything off longer so if you guys are working on this now we want you to be just considering that and I would expect then the consultant comes on it's about six months before the work you may not actually get anything formally from them until this time late summer and all like I said this isn't being worked right now so if you guys are thinking about it just start tagging those things that impact that I think we were especially stressing the municipal parking district overlay and when there's development what kind of whether it be fees and loo or required parking spaces Steve you mentioned a minute ago what do you mean so everyone focuses on the municipal parking district which I think is one of the most progressive I don't remember where I was today that somebody was talking about this somebody was talking about this in our design building but in a way it's one of the most progressive parts of the zoning bylaw that we've done so it's been around in part since my understanding since the sixties when we were very car cheap oil all along anyway Amherst at that time had the foresight to have this municipal parking district which enabled the entire intent of that is to enable downtown to develop as a downtown that was not basically a slave to the car so there wasn't that there hasn't been that much development since it was put in place we know that it's been expanded and we know that there was a lot of concern about the impact of that now that several new buildings built downtown so I guess my personal concern is that trying to pull back on that what I find to be a very progressive part of our zoning bylaw in reaction to a perception of parking would be for me a step in the wrong direction however I think that a lot of the other things that you described I guess those could be part of the zoning bylaw like fees and lower whatever they're necessarily happy to be or a contribution towards helping garage whatever those could be zoning bylaw but they don't necessarily happy to be I don't know my concern is that we go back to so somebody in our faculty who lives in Hadley was talking about the big problems with the Hadley library slash senior center where it may be because they can't figure out how to address the parking issue which anyone that's ever been to Hadley is sort of a head slapping it's like isn't it all that they have sorry so it's a quandary but I'm not sure that the zoning bylaw is the tool where this could sell and I think I picked up on what you were saying because it seems to me that there is such a clear zoning bylaw about parking and municipal parking at the moment so whatever needs to be done needs to be done in the context of what's there now yeah but let's take the affordable housing as an example so the affordable housing has been addressed through a number of different tools the tax incentive being one that wasn't in the zoning bylaw exclusionary zoning being one that was and zoning bylaw etc so I see that and I'm speaking way out of school here but I think that either the real or perceived parking issue is there's a number of different tools of which the zoning may be one but everyone likes to a lot of people like to focus on the municipal parking district as just make developers park on their just make the owners of the property provide parking is a very sort of anti-downtown anti it's not a realistic solution for these very small parcels in downtown that don't have frankly they don't have room even though they have surface parking now but if you imagine a downtown where it's higher than that parking doesn't work because I just had an interesting experience going to Florence I went to their their forum on downtown Florence this was last week and they really have sort of the opposite problem that we have they have buildings up here and there but separated by seas of parking so they actually have a load of parking and probably too much parking for the uses that are there so they often have these big empty parking lots and they're trying to figure out what should they do should they start doing infill in the places where they have parking and not have so many have not have the requirement for so many parking spaces for whatever they're back on on there so they were trying to wrestle with that issue and that was interesting because you know it's so different from you and we're at a period of some major shift I don't know I don't think anyone knows what it will be like just the number of ubers that you see now on the streets so I called there's a new phenomenon of the cars stopped in the middle of the road I don't know if you can see but you see the cars stop in the middle of the road and nine times out of ten they're going to have a little u on it because they're lost or they're waiting for somebody so you so that's the phenomenon of Uber but what that means is that there are not those cars parked in a parking lot their cars are you know sort of in motion put to work which is kind of a great thing right? As long as they're not just circling the block waiting for their ride Yeah Uber, yeah so we have we have a faculty member that doesn't have a car and she relies completely on PVTA and Uber to get around Curbside management is something that the dental parking worker because it ties in with the commercial parking we have we have 15 minute parking and some of these all be combined and if you need areas for cars to pull over but then I think there's parking spots and there's a balance but just on the zoning I just want to say it's a bigger picture I'm not saying whether it be public or private or combo if there's parking garages or parking built into buildings we still have issues in the BL I believe for a built and that was always hanging out there so when I was I didn't spell that out but that's something that we're also like if you're rethinking going back to that I'd consider parking in it Does that help extend? Sure Big discussion I was curious to what your specific point was to not be a zoning issue That was it there was other tools that I might use I just reported the chair so I was going to say this is my last meeting and how great it's been working with all of you guys but it's still asking a member 28 but anyway if this is our last meeting it's been a complete honor to be part of this board for almost 10 years so I'm going to start crying so I think I'll leave it actually there was one more thing which is I had said that we could discuss the planning board dinner after the election thinking that I would have plenty of time I don't have to invite all the time but I'm still up for it if there's a time that works and we're approaching Thanksgiving so one option would be yeah should we yeah we can do it later in the year and invite you yeah let's do that we can also get together that doesn't mean like a house and a potluck like when Jonathan Tucker went out of the department people got together at Pisco 63 so maybe there's some that's just a great idea that's a great idea I'd love to do that I'm going to have a new kitchen as of sometime next spring but yeah so if you guys have a dinner please invite me well I have to let me say one more thing that because I did run for town council all of the discussions that I was part of had to do with planning things and sort of explaining what this body and the bodies before it had done you know you guys are great it's just been a real pleasure to work on all kinds of you know it's been a great experience I'm really glad that you'll be able to represent the planning board well on the town council and explain things to them because I think a lot of them don't really understand a lot of what we do because you know there are two other former planning board members we're in the pool Erin, Aiden, and Paul Berdowski I'm the last one standing so go planning board