 Okay, just we are live at this point, Mr. Marshall. Okay, I won't say anything. And recording Mr. Molloy. Okay. Good to go Pam. I'm just double checking that we okay I see one person in the panelists I see Chris Chamberlain has arrived. And that's what I see. So I do believe you are good to go. We are recording. You have a quorum 632. Go for it. All right. Welcome to the embers planning board meeting of December 7th, 2022. My name is Doug Marshall and as the chair of the embers planning board, I'm calling this meeting to order. This meeting is being recorded at 632 p.m. This meeting is being recorded and is available live stream via embers media. And it's are being taken. Pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and amended or extended by chapter 22 of the acts of 22. And extended again by the state legislature on July 16th, 2022. And it's being recorded live stream via embers media. And it's are being recorded live stream via embers media. And it's are being recorded live stream using the zoom platform. The zoom meeting link is available on the meeting agenda posted on the town websites calendar listing for this meeting. Or go to the planning board webpage and click on the most recent agenda. Which lists the zoom link at the top of the page. No in-person attendance of the public is permitted. However, every effort will be made to ensure the public can adequately access the meeting in real time. And we are unable to do that. For reasons of economic hardship, or despite best efforts, we will post an audio or video recording, transcript or other comprehensive record of proceedings. As soon as possible after the meeting on the town of Amherst website. Board members, I will take a roll call. When I call your name, unmute yourself, answer affirmatively and return to mute. Bruce Colvin. I'm here. Long. Present. We know Andrew McDougal is absent this evening. I dug Marshall and present. Janet McGowan is absent this evening. Also. Johanna Newman. Here. And Karen winter. Here. Thank you all. Board members, if technical issues arise, we may need to pause temporarily to fix the problem and then continue to hear it. If the discussion needs to pause, it will be noted in the minutes. Please use the raise hand function to ask a question or make a comment. I will see your request and call on you to speak. After speaking, remember to remute yourself. For the general public. The general public comment item is reserved for public comment regarding items not on tonight's agenda. Please be aware the board will not respond to comments during general public comment period. Public comment may also be heard at other times during the meeting when deemed appropriate. Please indicate you wish to make a comment at those times by clicking the raise hand button. When public comment is solicited. If you have joined the zoom meeting using a telephone, please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star nine on your phone. When called on, please identify yourself by stating your full name and address and put yourself back into mute when finished speaking. Residents can express their views for up to three minutes or at the discretion of the planning board chair. If a speaker does not comply with these guidelines or exceeds there a lot of time. Their participation may be disconnected from me. Okay. So the first item in our agenda for this evening. Is our minutes. And I believe we have. Is that right? We have two sets of minutes available for this evening. No, you only have one. Okay. So you should have no. Second. Yeah. Minutes of December or November 2nd are in the packet. Board members, any comments on the minutes. As drafted by Chris and Pam. Your honor. They're very detailed. 14 pages. It's a little longer than I would expect minutes to be, but it's fine. All right. Thank you. Thanks, your honor. Tom. You're muted, Tom. I would move to approve the meeting minutes. All right. Thank you, Tom. Does anybody want to second that? Your honor. I second the motion. All right. Thanks. You just beat Karen. Board members. Are there any other. Any comments on the minutes. One we have already heard. Not seeing any hands. Why don't we go through a vote. For the November 2nd minutes as drafted. With no changes. All right. Well, we'll start Bruce. I approve. All right. And Tom. And Johanna. And Karen. And I'm going to prove as well. All right. So that was. Efficient and swift. Right. We'll move on to the next item on the agenda, the public comment period. And at this time I see. Five attendees in the meeting. In the public. All right. Bruce Allen, Chris Chamberlain, Connor Burgess. Elizabeth, the Corsi and Rob Crowner. And I know several of those people are here. For. Items later on our agenda. All right. Do any members of the public want to make a comment. At this time on something that's not on our agenda. We'll. Move on from that item. The time now is 638. All right. So the third item on our agenda is a special permit public hearing. Chris, you have your hand up. I wanted to introduce this topic after you read the opening. I will make a few statements. Thank you. All right. Then I will continue. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. With Bruce Allen on 51 Spalding street. Request to reopen the public hearing for SPP 2023 dash 0, two to consider the proposal. And make the required findings under section 10. 3. 8 rather than 11.24 of the zoning bylaw. The original request was for a special permit to modify ZBA. FY 2020. 2007. Dash 0, 0, 0, 3, 0. And allow three rumors within an owner occupied dwelling unit. Construct five parking spaces previously approved. And construct two parking spaces within the front setback in the northwest corner of the parcel. And relocate an existing shade tree within the front setback under sections. 3.3, 2, 1, 0, 5.0, 1, 0, 0. And 7.0, 0, 0, 0 of the zoning bylaw. Map 14 be parcel 1, 1, 0. In the RG zoning district. All right. Do we have any board member disclosure? I do not see any hands. Chris, why don't you go ahead and do your introduction. On October 19th, the planning board closed its public hearing on this case. And approved the site plan and approved what was being proposed as far as the use of the building. And made a list of conditions. And then also made a list of conditions. And then also made a list of conditions. We were starting to write up the decision. But the next day we were alerted by one of the neighbors, a Mr. Corsi, that one of the trees that had been shown on the site plan to be preserved and had actually been referenced in a condition. Was taken down. And so that was a surprise. And we went to the building commissioner and asked, well, how can we remedy this? And he suggested reopening the public hearing. We also discovered that this is, we know it's a special permit application that had been put forward. And the findings that were made. Were under the site plan review section of the bylaw. And they should have been under the special permit section of the bylaw. So reopening the public hearing also gives us an opportunity to correct that situation and to make findings under the appropriate section of the bylaw, which is 10.38 for special permit. So that's what this is all about. And Mr. Corsi, we know it's a special permit application that had been put forward by the public hearing. So that's a special permit. So that's what this is all about. And Mr. Allen may wish to present his reasons for taking down the tree. He did send me an email after, after we received notification from Mr. Corsi, Mr. Allen sent an email describing why he had taken down the tree. And you may wish to hear from him about that. Mr. Allen, do you wish to say anything at this time? Findings and conditions to go through with you tonight. Should you choose to wrap up this public hearing and approve what's being proposed. Thank you. Thank you, Chris. Mr. Allen. Do you wish to say anything at this time? You are muted. I'd recommend you read the emails I sent it to Christine, but I don't know what it was. I don't know what it was. But I have a couple of weeks, a number of weeks before that hearing, I had the tree warden come over because I wanted him. He told me that the little tree we had in the front was not a public shade tree. And I wanted him to come over here now that we had the. Property stakes out for him to verify that it was not a public shade tree because we're going to move that. Now I didn't know what a public shade tree was. So I, we walked around the property and I asked him, you know, if it was a public shade tree, if it was a public shade tree, if it was a public shade tree, if it was by the driveway and he said, no, they're not because they're not on public property. And then we started talking about this Douglas for a tree. And I said, is it normal for this thing to have lost all of its needles? And he said, no, it's not. It's, it's in distress. But I can't tell you anything about it legally because I'm not allowed to provide comment on trees, so I wrote an email to Rebecca D'Corsi because the tree is half on her property, their property next door. And I said that we're going to get an arborist in here to look at it, but it more than likely will have to be cut down. And she said, yeah, I know it's in decline. And I asked if she would help pay to cut it down. And they said, no, but she said, we agreed it should, it probably should be cut down. And then the arborist came in and gave me a list of things that were wrong with it. Now, what happened was he, he gave us that information two days before the public hearing. I didn't really give it a whole lot of thought. And then when you voted on that public hearing night to upset, accept the site plan, I thought what you were doing was just approving the drive ways that we were putting in because you had asked us to come back with a landscaping plan. And I thought the tree was part of the landscaping plan, which we hadn't put together yet. So that was all fine and good. And then Thursday morning after the hearing, the, our arborist had called and said he was going to be working in the Amherst area on, on Thursday and whether or not he would like us to come on and cut the tree down. He had told us that the tree was in decline. He had told us also that it was safe to, for his people to climb it and cut it now, but he couldn't guarantee that after the winter, it would be safe to climb and we'd have to bring a crane in. I mean, it was a thousand dollars cut the tree down. It's not like something I wanted to do. However, now knowing that we had three arborists telling us we had a problem tree that was big enough to land on Spalding street and hit anything that was in its way. I felt we were had, we now had a liability on our hand, which we needed to deal with. So we went ahead and did it. I didn't know that that was any type of violation because I didn't know the tree was part of the driveway. I thought that was going to be part of the landscaping plan. So I guess in hindsight, I should have at least contacted Christine or someone and asked them if it was okay to cut it down. So that's, that's, that's my, that's my, that's my, that's my, that's my, that's my, that's my, that's my, that was okay to cut it down. So that's, that's my being bad. So I take full blame for that. Hopefully that explains the situation to you. We didn't want to take the tree down, but it's been getting worse every single year. And I would rather not have the tree there when we start doing this work. I was concerned about the liability. There was no guarantee. I think, I think in hindsight, the tree might have made it through the winter without falling down because we didn't find a whole lot of rot in it, but it was definitely in bad shape the bark was had bugs in it had needle cast disease mass disease a few other things so there are. I sent photographs of the tree to the board so you can take a look at all that if you'd like. And am I correct that that we have a new site plan submitted as part of our packet here that now identifies an existing tree stump, as opposed to an existing tree. Yes, I'll also note that that includes the proposed plantings that were requested to be submitted to the board as part of the conditions approval. So this is the landscape plan that we talked about before. Yes, exactly. So assuming this all goes ahead. This will conclude our business on this topic with your team. As far as I know that's everything we have to come back to you. All right. And Mr Allen you now understand that when we assuming we approve this special permit. You need to be in contact with the town about any changes to the site. So, you know, whether it's a liability or not. Yes, I'm aware of that. All right, so Chris, do we need to do new findings and conditions now that we're dealing with a different section of the zoning bylaw. Yes, I think you do and you should maybe also have Chris Chamberlain describe the new site plan to you with have which has the new plantings on it the new landscape plan I should say. And be able to approve that. That's one of the conditions of the that you made last time. Chris, do you want to go ahead and talk about that. I am happy to do that. It won't take terribly long. See if I will be able to share it looks like I will. So this is a plan that probably looks familiar to you from some weeks ago. We're reflecting the same driveway layout that we had before. We also had one of our landscape designers go out and just catalog the handful of plantings that already exist along the property line so that's entirely clear. And then there was being a crab apple and some cypress that are existing already sort of screening this portion of the driveway. And then the proposal is to really concentrate the proposed plantings in this area right here which is currently wide open, and where we have a couple of new parking spaces, proposed. And as you'll see this is the existing tree that remains in this location which is healthy. This point called out as existing stump which is literally true now. And was at the time that we went out to look at the plantings to make up the existing conditions plan. So there is a proposal for a mix of Arbor Vitey and boxwood, both evergreens, but with, you know, a little bit of different texture to provide a little bit of variation there, and both very low maintenance and hearty that can be hacked away at and still grow happily, to keep the screening intact for a long time. Five of those each for a total of 10 for, for a good fixed screening there toward the street edge of the site, but all of them located behind the closest tree to the street so there's no impacts to existing site lines or anything like that. Okay. Thank you very much. So board members have you got questions about the revised site plan or are there any other comments you want to make regarding us being back here at this at this hearing talking about this particular property. All right, so we'll go ahead in. I can't remember Chris is that you or was it Nate that had drafted the findings and conditions. You drafted the findings Nate drafted the conditions based on the last meeting. You may want to hear from the public before you do the findings and conditions just in case there would be anything that might change his public comment. There are any members of the public that would like to make comment at this time. I see Rob Crowners hand. Could we bring him over. Rob, if you give us your full name and your address. It's Rob crowner from 44 spaulding street. This is actually mungla Jagdish I also live at 44 spaulding street. I'm not your name one more time that mungla Jagdish m a n g a l a j a g a d e s h. So, I'm not understanding how we as neighbors can trust this process, given what has happened in the past, and what just happened right after the site plan review. I mean, right after the approval. It was clear that that tree was talked about at the hearing, and was decided that was going to remain. If the property owners had already been in touch with an arborist, and already had some plans for that tree. That could have been brought up by them at the hearing and was not. I'm sorry, I have a really hard time trusting that, given that that morning, they had already taken their cars out of the driveway in anticipation of that tree going down. I just have to say I would like to understand from the planning board, how we are supposed to have any trust that any of the things that you are putting as conditions are actually going to be followed through on, considering the years and years and years of getting approvals and having things not go through. I understand that you, when you made this approval, you said that they would could wait until August to have this done so now there's going to be many, many months between this approval, and when it's when work is even supposed to be started. And I don't know I mean I guess my question really is, you have already put a lot of time into this way more time than I feel, you know, you should be having to do. And I don't know what I'm really asking here because you're not in a position of being able to manage this particular property, but just for this and for the future. What do you do as a board, as a policy, when you see property owners continuously, not actually following what you stated in your plans. And so this is not just particularly for this property. But is there anything that you can do. And if in this case what you're going to do is just say, Oh, it was just an honest mistake. There's no consequences to it. We're just going to go ahead and you know go ahead from where we are. That's problematic to me. Thank you. All right, thank you very much. I do not see any other hands. Chris I think. I'm already forgetting the name Angela, maybe I'm already I'm, I wondered how you'd respond to that. That concern that it's hard for us to keep track of whether owners are following the conditions that we impose. The best thing to do is to notify the building commissioner if someone becomes aware that conditions aren't being followed. The planning board doesn't really have the time their volunteers and you know they have other jobs and other responsibilities so they don't really have the time to drive around town and make sure that all of the conditions that they've put on various properties have been followed but neighbors are able to contact the building commissioner and let him know when something hasn't been done properly. And I know that at times, that doesn't work, and I'm sorry for that. But that's really the best course of action and the building commissioner is very responsible and usually does get something done. If there's a, if there's a complaint. If the property changed his hands, is it likely that a new owner would look and become aware of the conditions and or and or a prospective owner would become aware of the conditions and see whether they were actually the facts on the ground before they purchased the property. So this decision will be filed at the registry of deeds. So a new owner should be aware if his attorney does a title search that there is a site plan review decision or excuse me a special permit decision on the property and should know about this and one of the conditions that we put in place last time or maybe we're putting it in place this time is to say that a new owner needs to come back to the planning board to meet with them and talk about what he's proposing to do with the property. And I don't have that piece of paper right in front of me at the moment, but maybe your native Pam can find that, but we do have a condition to that effect. Okay. All right, I see a couple of hands from board members, Johanna you were next. Thank you Doug. And thanks for the public comment. My thoughts were still percolating but I now have, I guess two questions so one is what if any consequences are there when an applicant doesn't follow the site plan so you know what are the tools and the tool box to hold people accountable to the conditions. And then my second thought is, it just seems to me like in this case the applicant didn't actually understand the process. And that you know a landscape plan is different from a site plan. And so I'm curious what educational resources or you know, like how I think there was sometimes we get professional applicants who do projects all the time and they just know the process inside sometimes we get lay people and so knowing a little bit more about how the process is laid out so that people are clear on the expectations would be helpful for me in speaking to the question of how can you trust the process. Well, Johanna, I'll elaborate or pile on on that question. You know this applicant already deviated from an earlier permit, you know the renovation to the house did not follow the plan that was approved. And so, you know, I'm not sure I'm ready to give them the benefit of the doubt that they just didn't understand it. Chris, why don't you go ahead and see what you how you want to respond to Johanna. Well I wanted to just say that the building commissioner does have the ability to issue enforcement orders. And eventually take applicants eventually fine applicants and if they don't pay the fine take them to court. So, we try not to do that we try to work with the applicant to get them to comply with the conditions but that is an ultimate response if applicants don't comply. In this case, it could also be a case of not renewing a rental registration or something to that effect. And the fact that the applicant didn't understand the process. I, I'm not sure that I agree with that or buy into that but that's, I can't read somebody else's mind so I'm sorry that the applicant says that they didn't understand the process. Maybe we need to do a better job of explaining it as staff people. All right, thanks Chris. Thanks Doug and thank you for your public comment and I tend to agree with Doug in this case that I have a really hard time giving them the benefit of the doubt, given the conditions in the past have been violated and, and I guess, aside from us being able to make judgment calls on character, which seems really problematic. Here's someone that's untrustworthy that's a characteristic that I think we can't make votes on. Is there a way for these things to be tallied and collect like is there a two strikes rule like is there a way in which we as the planning board can talk about a certain accruement of violations that then have an effect on future decisions so I think that's really like us to have a conversation about in the future for conditions like this where I feel like we're all in agreement, or many of us might be in agreement that this was not an accidental violation, but I'd like to find a way for those to be recorded, and then have some written consequence or effect on future, as you were saying Chris, whether it's a rental agreement or or some other thing in the future. So, so that we can at least monitor these things and make the proper decision in the future. You do realize we're at a decision point where I believe we could deny the special permit. I don't know if there's a consensus about that, but Nate I see your hand. Sure thanks the you know one of the conditions from before and it's still there is, you know that the owner would maintain a complaint log and then the responses to that and that's something that would be shared. It could be shared with the town, you know if there's future permitting and so, you know I think at this point, you know, if there's, you know, a problematic or, you know recurring violations then it could be something discussed but at this point, you know, if there's the complaints that have been previous about this property say parking and other things are being addressed by this permit and so its staff's opinion that you know with this revised site plan, whether or not, you know, independent of the tree cutting that getting parking on the property was addressing some of the problems that were, you know discussed in the neighborhood and so you know this would be, you know the solution and so moving forward it would be, you know there are continuous complaints about some of the things that are being addressed right now, right so if this were approved and then, you know the parking plan wasn't followed, or, you know certain things happen and that becomes, as Chris mentioned an enforcement possibility or response from the town but you know we see the, you know this going through this permitting is, you know the action that can remedy the previous complaints. I think that's, you know that's a good step. So, Nate or Chris, given that we've allowed the implementation of the plan to drag out to August. Would it make sense for us to put a to put our first agenda item on the first meeting in in August to have these folks check in with us and and and see that they have in fact complied with the site plan and. Is it is it is it allowed for us to reopen a hearing at that that that far into the future or you know that with that much time between now and then. I guess that was a question for you Chris. So once the public hearing is closed and a decision has been written and filed that the registry of deeds. There is not any longer an opportunity to open the public hearing. Okay, we would have to take some other course of action. Okay, thank you. Bruce I see your hand. Sorry, it took me a while to unmute. I think we should just ask Chris or Rob to do that. I think it's a good idea I think we should put these folks on notice that we're paying attention because clearly they need a little more supervision than anyone else that I've come across in the now eight years that I've served on the planning boards over the past 25. So they're a special case. I would simply say you as chair formally asked Chris and Rob to report to us on an on a meeting in August as to the whether this project has been wrapped up successfully and then we can just take a staff report at the end of the meeting. All right, thanks Chris or Bruce. Okay, I see. Let's see. Bruce I assume you're done with your hand, your hand I see your hand again I do see one public hand also. So if we, I'm just trying to figure out the path forward so if we approve this revised plan, they, whenever can, they can do the construction they move forward and Rob more is involved and make sure it gets met. If we reject it what happens. They have to come up with a whole new proposal and restart the process. Chris. If we reject it that's not a good, not a good motion to make because Rob put this path in place to correct the problems that had occurred previously. So if you reject this proposal. We're kind of back to the situation where they were non compliant with the 2007 special permit, and then you know Rob will have to somehow deal with that in another way that is probably not as not as collegial or friendly as this way. So by approving this special permit you give Rob the ability to enforce this special permit, along with the site plan along with the new parking, and it has a better chance of a good outcome than not not approving it. That's my opinion. Okay, thank you. You're all set. Okay. All right, I don't see any more hands among the board. Why don't we bring Elizabeth the coursey over and let her speak. Elizabeth give us your, I guess you've already given us your address and name. First of all, I would like to thank all the board members for going through this very long and tedious process. I would just like to say, although Bruce and Carol did speak to us about cutting down the tree that is slightly on our property. I was surprised at the last board meeting. They did not mention it when it was brought up. And this goes back to trust issues that I have. And I feel now my other neighbors also have with believing what they say they did ask us about the tree. I was very surprised when not only it was brought up, but the other the dogwood tree and relocating it for the street. For the parking on the other side, why they didn't bring it up then it would have been a very simple matter to do and I find it very hard. And I know I'm reiterating what Mongola said they moved their cars. They had a company there at 830 in the morning for that tree to come down. I have a very hard time to believe it just happened that morning. I don't know too many tree companies that would show up with five minutes notice or give 10 minutes or a half hour notice that they were coming, which it seems like Bruce is saying what happened. I, there is just such a huge trust issue. I have been fighting this fight and finally let Rebecca fight it for me for years with the town. I just asked you to think about. I'm sorry. The absolute lack of trust I have with these neighbors now, and how they will find anything you do, and to please put some type of enforcement in place so they can't keep on doing this. Again, I thank you all very much for your time and I'm sorry I got emotional. Thank you. Thank you, Elizabeth. I think the next hand I'm going to recognize is Amy Gates, also of the public spring Amy over and she can give us her name and her address. Hi Amy Gates I'm at 54 Spalding Street. I'm sorry if this was already covered but I just got home from work and my big issue at this point, I guess it again falls under the trust category is how are we going to make sure that whatever plan is approved is actually going to be followed through on and maintained, not just with the parking spaces and how they design it and all that but with with the residents that are inside. Alright, thanks Amy. I think I can say that we've been talking about how to make sure that happens and at the moment we're thinking we will bring this topic back to a future meeting. Probably mid summer and have a staff member report back on the progress toward compliance with the plan that was approved. All right, Mr Allen I see your hand you may want to respond to some of those comments. Yes, I want to respond. That tree was full of bugs. We didn't realize how bad it was until we got out there. Looking to do the planning for the the landscaping. We guard, you know, we will work with the town will work with Rob more will make sure that we comply with what you want. But that tree had to come down. And we did think it was part of the, what we were coming back for the landscaping. We thought it was necessary to take care of. But, all right, so anyway, you don't have to worry we will make sure, and, you know, we're very clear with what you're saying, we're very clear with the fact that you want to make sure we're in compliance, and we get it. Okay, and we realize that there's going to be a follow up. So you don't have to worry. There's going to be a follow up. And that's it. I mean, the tree it did have to come down though. And we did not know well in advance we are not arborist. We've got to see that had a lot of holes and it was full of these worms, and that tree wasn't going to last. And the point out is, we did this because we now had a financial liability with that tree. It might have made it through the winter, or it might have fallen on Amy Gates's house that's how bad it would have been it would have definitely crossed spaulding street. Hopefully it wouldn't crush any cars or anybody walking down. We had a liability okay, we didn't know, I honestly didn't know I was supposed to tell the town that we had to cut down a dangerous tree I was under the impression that the town would want people to cut down trees. So, in hindsight, I guess I should have called pristine and asked her if this was okay. But you know I, I kind of panicked I hate to say this but you know I don't like liabilities like trees I've had too many trees fallen things in my life so, and people gotten hurt. It frightens me so anyways, that's it I've said my say yeah and the tree did look sickly but we didn't know how bad it was until we, you know, we were actually out there now for the, for the landscaping plan and trying to close it this stuff and trying to figure out what plantings would be appropriate and everything and that brought our attention directly on it. And I'm sorry about I don't feel like spending $1,000 just to for a site plan. Okay, I nobody who wants to spend $1,000 for something that's not necessary. That's all I'm trying to say. So, don't take it the wrong way I'm we're not trying to thwart the plan. We're trying to do what's best for us and our neighbors and our town. And keep everybody safe everybody safe. That's it. I mean so this has gotten completely blown out of proportion. All right, thank you for those comments. All right, board members, does anybody want to make, I guess we ought to go through the findings and conditions and Chris do you think this is the appropriate time to do that. Yes, do you want me to read them. Yeah, I guess you should. We received them in your email this afternoon but bring them up on the screen here, and we'll try the findings first. The findings as I said before relate to special permit for use so this is a little different from the kinds of special permits that the planning board normally sees normally you see special permit, special permits for dimensional requirements so Pam I think it's on the second third page. Yeah, there. Yeah, word found. Yes, the board found under section 10.38 zoning bylaw as follows. The proposal is suitably located in the neighborhood in which it is proposed and or the total town as deemed appropriate by the special permit granting authority. The proposal is compatible with existing uses and other uses permitted by right in the same district. There are two, there are other two family houses in the neighborhood, and there are multifamily dwellings at both ends of the street. So do you agree with that statement. I don't see any hands I think Chris, we ought to proceed. Unless I see hands objecting. Okay, that's fine with me. Why don't you know after each one why did she pause briefly just so I can take a look at the screen and then keep going. Okay. And by the way, if you want some help reading let us know at what point you're ready for someone else to take over. Finding a 10.382 the proposal would not constitute a nuisance due to air and water pollution flood noise odor dust vibration lights or visually offensive structures, or site features. As a two family house with rooms leased to borders the proposal is not expected to contribute to water pollution flood noise odor dust vibration lights or visually offensive structures or site features. 10.380 pause. Okay, I don't know hands. 10.383. The proposal would not be a substantial inconvenience or hazard to a butters vehicles or pedestrians. The proposal will contain contain all proposed or required parking spaces on site with the type of entrance and exit. There is no movement from the driveway and two parking spaces along the frontage that is similar to that of other driveways along the street. 10.310.384 adequate and appropriate facilities would be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use 10.385. The proposal reasonably protects the adjoining premises against detrimental or offensive uses on the site, including air and water pollution flood noise odor dust vibration lights or visually offensive structures or site features. There will be plantings along the southern border of the property to shield adjacent properties to the south from headlights and the view of cars, exterior lighting on the on the building will be fixed with shields and downcast to keep light from shining onto adjacent properties. Hey Pam, do you think you could blow this up a little bit. Maybe make. That's too big. That's a little far there. That's perfect. 10.386 the proposal ensures that it is in conformance with the parking and sign regulations, article seven and eight respectively of the zoning bylaw. Six parking spaces will be provided to for the main dwelling unit, one for the accessory dwelling unit, and one for each of the rooms to be led to borders in accordance with section 7.000 of the zoning bylaw. All right, Chris I see Bruce's hand. There's a typo in there shouldn't be five parking spaces will be provided. Hold on. Sorry, I was getting confused I was thinking that you were talking about six where there were five and another two but you are eight you are telling them differently I apologize. Okay. 10.387 the proposal provides convenient and safe vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and in relation to adjacent streets, property or improvements. A traffic impact report will not be required entrance and exit to the to and from the parking spaces is similar to that from other properties along the street, and is typical of single and two family homes in Amherst. 10.388 the proposal ensures adequate space for the off street loading and unloading of vehicles goods, products, materials and equipment incidental to the normal operation of the establishment or use provision of loading and unloading of vehicles would be typical of that of other single and two family houses in the neighborhood. 10.389. The proposal provides adequate methods of disposal and or storage for sewage refuse recyclables and other waste resulting from the uses permitted or permissible on the site and methods of drainage and surface water town engineer has reviewed the proposal and has not expressed any concern about these issues management plan discusses appropriate disposal of refuse and recyclables. The conservation Commission has reviewed the proposed storm water drainage from the property and has not expressed concern about the site plan. 10.390 is not applicable. The property is not located in the flood prone conservancy zoning district. 10.391 is not applicable. There are no unique or important natural historic or scenic features on the site, and the conservation Commission has reviewed the proposal for any possible impacts on the wetlands at the rear of the property, and has found the proposal to be satisfactory. The proposal provides adequate landscaping, including the screening of adjacent residential uses, provision of street trees, landscape violence in the parking lot and a landscape buffer along the street frontage. The proposal includes new plantings along the southern property line and includes moving a tree in the front yard that will help to screen the two parking spaces along the frontage. 10.393, the proposal provides protection of adjacent properties by minimizing the intrusion of lighting. The exterior lights will be shielded and or downcast. 10.394, the proposal avoids to the extent feasible impact on steep slopes, flood plains, scenic views, grade changes and wetlands. 10.395, the proposal does not create disharmony with respect to the terrain and to the use, scale and architecture of existing buildings in the vicinity, which have functional or visual relationship there too. There are no changes proposed to the building and only minor changes proposed to the site. The property is in the RG zoning district and is not located within the boundaries of a National Registered District. That's in response to the suggestion that this be taken to the design review board or that the design review standards and conditions be used in evaluating this. So we're saying it's not really required because of the district that it's in. 10.396, the proposal provides screening for storage areas, loading docks, dumpsters, rooftop equipment, utility buildings and similar features. Storage areas are located at the rear of the building and are thus screened by the building. 10.397, the proposal provides adequate recreational facilities, open space and amenities for the proposed use. There's a large open yard at the rear of the building which can be used for recreation. There is also a deck on the back of the building. 10.398, the proposal is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning bylaw and the goals of the master plan. Okay. So we can go on to the conditions if you're ready for that. Yeah, how's your voice. I think it'll hold out. All right. For a while anyway. All right. So I think there was a blank page in there. I'm sorry about that. So these conditions were conditions that you saw. On October 19th and then Nate made changes to them based on your discussion on October 19th, but it's worth reviewing them anyway. So number one is the property shall contain no more than two existing units and provide rooms for up to three rumors. Number two, the property shall provide a template lease for the second dwelling unit and for each room and unit to the building commissioner. Is that, is that on an annual basis or once? I think once. Because you had a discussion about that previously and we talked about the fact that the building commissioner doesn't really want to receive four leases every year for this property. So that's a lot of other things that are going on. So once is enough. And that's prior to issuing some permit or at the conclusion of, you know, before a certificate of occupancy or when, when does that happen. Why don't we say prior to the construction of the driveway. Okay. That'd be okay. Sure. I better make a note of that. And that's number two. I'm seeing Bruce's hand. Go ahead, Mr. Allen. Yes, we gave those to Rob more about six months ago. He has those template leases. The leases. It's all there. He's got it. He's had about six months. We've done that. Confirm that I will confirm that. Great. Okay. Number three bedroom six as shown on the plans dated June 28th, 2022, prepared by Fitch architecture and community design and reviewed by the planning board on September 7th and October 19th. She will be maintained as an accessory rooming unit under section 5.0100 of the zoning bylaw, and she'll not contain a separate cooking facility that establishes a full content kitchen as defined by applicable state law. Bedroom six is on the ground floor adjacent to the efficiency unit that has its own entry exit egress, excuse me. Number four, the property shall register with the residential rental program and shall be subject to periodic inspection as required by the zoning and by the code enforcement officer. Number five, all exterior lighting shall be downcast and shielded. Number six, applicants shall submit a final landscape plan, including plantings along the southern property line for review and approval by the planning board. Well, he's just done that. So we could really strike. We could go back to the previous text, which said planting shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved plan. Okay. Alrighty. Okay. The parking management plan shall be provided to each rumor and tenant. Number eight, parking spaces shall be assigned to specific rumors and tenants. Number nine, there shall be a total maximum of six cars allowed for all occupants. Number 10, the occupants of the efficiency unit shall be permitted to have the maximum of one car. This restriction shall be a condition of the lease. Number 11, all parking shall occur on improved asphalt surfaces only. Number 12, parking for occupants tenants shall occur off street and defined spaces only and is prohibited along the apron of the driveway. Number 13. Yep. I'm sorry, I'm sort of mulling over number 10. Well, don't we really mean the occupants of the efficiency unit shall be permitted to park only one car on the property. Park only one car on the property. Yes. I mean, they can have more cars. They can have more cars. They just can't park them here. So. Yeah. Thank you. Tom. I'm not as facile as Nate in making real time changes to these things. So I'm writing it all down. We also want to make sure that that if there is an additional car that is not being parked on the street, but I noticed that we, we mentioned that earlier, didn't we? That all cars need to be parked in the parking lot, right? Yeah. I think that's number 12, isn't it? Number 13. I'm looking for occupants tenants shall occur off street and define spaces only and is prohibited along the apron of the driveway. I suppose if they had a party, they could park in the street while they had the party, but then they would have to go home. The people came to the party. Number 13 snow removal shall be done to ensure snow storage does not encroach the 25 foot wetland buffer areas. There's more of an issue when the parking extended further into the backyard, but it's still good to have that condition there. Number 14 and as built drawing certified by a registered lands surveyor shall be provided to the building commissioner upon installation of the parking areas and plantings to demonstrate compliance with the approved plans. Number 15 any alterations to the approved site plans or building plans shall be submitted to the building commissioner who will determine if the changes are substantial enough to require submission to the planning board for review and approval. Number 16. The approved management plans parking plan and complaint response plan shall remain in effect at all times. And this is the one that Nate was talking about before the owner shall maintain a log of complaints filed with the owner manager or town of Amherst and document actions taken by the owner in response to the complaint. This information shall be made available to the code enforcement officer upon request. Number 18, the special this special permit shall be filed with the registry of deeds prior to any work proceeding. So that's how a new property owner knows that there's a special permit on this property. Number 19, all work associated with the approved plans and conditions of this permit shall be completed by August 30 of 2023, unless extended by the building commissioner for good cause. Number 24 that you wanted Nate or me to report to you sometime in the summer. Do you want to make that time after August 30, say the first meeting in September that you would receive this report. Yeah, I think that seems, you know, like a reasonable sequence. Okay. I think you noted that. I mean, it could be just as short as, you know, the owners have complied with all the conditions of the permit. Yeah, right. I just want to get the date right for giving until August 30 to do the work. It makes sense to report after that. Okay, number 20 upon change of ownership the new owner shall appear at a public meeting of the planning board to review an updated management plan, parking plans and complaint response plan. Number 21, a certified arborist shall monitor construction for the safety protection and health of existing trees. Okay. All right. Thank you for reading all those Chris, and I noticed on the document in between the findings and conditions we had the one waiver draft to 7.90. The blank page. There it is at the bottom. So. And so, let's see. Bruce I see your hand. Doug, it's simply to move acceptance or approval, whichever is the appropriate word of the, of the revised or the substitute conditions of waiver findings, revised conditions and landscape plan. In respect of the application. 51 spawning. Right. Yes, is that adequate motion. I think you need to approve everything that was requested so if we could go back to the agenda and read through what the agenda says the first item on the agenda. I mean, read that. Like we, I guess I should also preface that with every move to close the public hearing. Okay. So the agenda reads request to reopen the public hearing to consider the proposal and make the required findings under section 10.38. Rather than 11.24 of the zoning bylaw to review the proposal in light of changes to the site plan that have occurred since the hearing was closed. So the request was for a special permit to modify ZBA up by 2007 dash 0030 allow three rumors within an occupied and owner occupied dwelling unit construct five parking spaces previously approved and construct two parking spaces within the front setback. I know we've changed those numbers. We've located an existing shade tree within the front setback under sections 3.32105.0107.000 the zoning bylaw. So I just wanted to capture that last thing that starts with the original request so if you would just include that in your motion because that covers everything. And do you agree that we are no longer constructing five parking spaces previously approved? That's correct. It's for parking spaces of the previously approved spaces and two more within the front setback. Right. All right, so if I were to, let's say paraphrase and maybe clarify Bruce's motion. I think we would be moving to close the public hearing, accepting, approving the findings and conditions as drafted and edited during our discussion tonight. So modifying ZBA FY 2007 30 and allowing three rumors within an owner occupied dwelling, constructing four parking spaces previously approved and two within the front setback, approving relocating an existing shade tree within the front setback under the sections listed. And I see Nate's hand so I'm sure there's something wrong with that. No, I was just going to add that originally there was also a waiver for a 7.9 waiver to waive section 7.0002 of the bylaw to allow up to three designated parking spaces within the front setback so that should be included. Yes. Okay. Yeah, I wondered about that. Well, if that's what we might term a friendly amendment that's fine. Sure. Let's call it friendly. All right, so we have a motion on the floor from Bruce that's been friendly amended. Tom I see your hand you hear for a second. Second. All right, thank you. All right, any other board members, any comments. Any final comments from the public. I know this has been an arduous process for you guys and we all hope this works out well from this point on. I see a hand from Rebecca Cornell wonder if she could be brought over. I can hear me. Yes, we can please give us your address Rebecca. Hi, my name is Rebecca Cornell. I'm here for 60 spotting straight my own Elizabeth DeCorsi. I just want you to really consider if this meets the purpose and intent of the zoning bylaw and this neighborhood. I ask you not to approve all of the parking. I think, you know, long term this is really going to turn into a tenement house. And then the other thing that I'm really concerned about is the enforcement. It took 15 years to get this far, because I couldn't get the town on it to act on this. So what happens if our neighbor starts renting out all the bedrooms in our house, and we complain about the parking and nothing happens, we're in the same boat. And I don't think this is the only circumstance around town that has this problem so I asked you to consider that. And I do have one question. Over the last week, there's no more tenants parking on the street. And I'm curious of that something that's been something that the code enforcement team has enforced or if that's just temporary and there will be additional the tenants parking on the street again over the winter which presents a conflict with my aunt parking at the end of her handicap ramp and using it. Thank you for your time. All right, thank you, Rebecca. Chris, are you aware of any enforcement at this property in the last week or so. I'm not. Our Nate. No, okay. Mr Allen, do you have any awareness of any tenants parking on the street. No, currently we only have currently we all we have a few tenants that don't have cars. And a lot of times we don't have tenants with cars. So anyway, the point is that no, the answer is no, we've had no problems. Yeah. All right, well, you just received a complaint. So maybe it's time to start your lock. All right. Well, we, I don't understand. No, I'll complain about what we have four. We're going to complain about parking on the street. No, no one's parking on the street from our house. Okay. Only the other renters on the street are parking on house from the other rentals across the street. All right. Yeah, that's what's been parking other renters are parking on the street. Not from our house. Okay, definitely not from our house. All right. Chris. The comment was that the person was asking why aren't there people parking on the street. What's happened. Is there an enforcement? She's, she wasn't really complaining. She was more noticing that there wasn't parking on the street. Okay. Thank you. Sorry for being confused. All right. I see Amy Gates. When we bring her over. Yes, hi, I just, there's been so, this has been so long, as you said, and so much back and forth. I just want total clarification there. They're allowed to have three rumors. One person in the, the accessory unit and then themselves. Is that correct? And if so, that adds up to six spaces. So I understand that. I'm just wondering about. Yeah, it's just, it's just the enforcement of it. And how, how, how is this being categorized a single family with an accessory unit? This is a two family unit, I believe. And the total amount of people that are allowed to be. One unit is an efficiency unit that can have, I believe, two people with one car. And the other unit. As the occupants and three boards. Did that answer your question, Amy? Yes, thank you. It did. And I guess my last question is. I'm deeply concerned about the amount of parking spaces because it's, it's not in keeping with any other house on the street, except at the very entrance where it's all student housing. It's coming into like what Rebecca said that, you know, once they leave, it'll turn, or they stop staying there. It'll become this big tenant renters situation with a big parking lot. And so I'd like to know if is, is there a situation where it's going to be deemed for owner occupied even after they leave. Chris, I believe the owner occupancy is a condition of the permit, right? The property is a condition of them being able to have rumors and borders. You did not put that as one of your conditions, but you could if you would like to do that. I thought we talked about that back in October. This is a huge deal for us on this street, but that this be owner occupied, otherwise this is going to turn into, you know, just a party house eventually I mean, you know, just a bunch of students and no, no supervision. I think owner occupied is essential here. Can we have conversation with Rob about that? We did and Rob said that because the rumors and borders cannot be there, unless the house is owner occupied. We didn't need to say it. We didn't need to say it, but you can say it if you want to. So it's a requirement, rumors and borders are an accessory used to an owner occupied unit. So, you know, it's a requirement in the bylaw in section five. So it's, you know, otherwise they couldn't apply for rumors and borders. So, say the property changes hands and the next owner, instead of having two owners and three borders wants to put five. Well, I guess they could only put four unrelated people into the building. I know from personal experience that we often get more than four unrelated people in a rental unit. So maybe there's five, but they can only have four cars. Or maybe they that group could have five. So, you know, maybe we should, we should include the owner occupancy as a condition. And Nate, do you agree that could happen? Well, the, you know, the condition is that they can only have up to three rumors. And so, if they were to try to have more rumors or lodgers that would require another permit. And so they couldn't do that. So, you know, regardless of how many owners live on the property, they have the other unit, the efficiency which could have one or two occupants and then only three rumors or borders and so they can't change and one of the units has to be has to be on our occupied. So I don't. So you don't think it's necessary. Not, not really any new owner has to come back to kind of check in anyway right. I mean we had a condition there that any new owner has to come back and submit new plans, new management plan and there were a couple other plans in there. And if they change of ownership, the new owner shall appear at a public meeting to review it, you know, and they have to complete a new management plan, a parking plan and complaint response plan. So that would be, you know, this would be filed at the registry and then this is, you know, becomes part of the property record. Okay. I think we are where we are. I see that Rebecca Cornell has her hand up. I think that's a new hand. Thank you. I guess what I'm following back on my earlier question I guess what I'm asking the planning board to consider is that there's no on street parking for tenants. We write that into the permit so we have no conflict with the ramp. What I was trying to say earlier is this is the first week in 15 years there have been no tenants parked on the street and it's nice. It's nice to be able to use your ramp without a problem and when there's snow, it's more of a problem. So, and as you know, it's hard to communicate with our neighbors about effectively their, their responsibilities as landlords so if you could just get the parking off the street I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Alright, thanks Rebecca. Pam I'm wondering if you could bring back up the conditions and we just look at the parking conditions one more time. Chris I know I had you, I had asked for an edit of. I think it was. Yes we're in edit of number 10. Yeah. The occupancy of the efficiency unit shall be permitted to park only one car on the property. Right. But we do say all parking shall occur on improved asphalt surfaces. And all parking for occupants and tenants shall occur off street and defined spaces only. And it's prohibited along the apron. So, seems like we've, we've pretty well called for all the parking to have happened off the street. Karen. So, is that a possibility when you have a handicap ramp to ask that that particular area on the streets is a no parking thing that you can alleviate this sort of problem which I see it's, it's a great problem you need to have that free. And it just seems to me that would make it really simple because that is that, you know, people have guests and they sometimes park on the street it's very hard to monitor that people that live in this house can have two or three people arrive and go one time and there's three people on the street sometimes, but that particular parking area seems to be sacrosanct and there's must be some way. And if neighbors are friendly and help each other. It seems like this is a condition that could be easily rectified. Alright, thanks Karen. Chris, does the town have a process for designation designating a portion of a street for handicapped pick up and drop off. Yes, but usually it's a more formal place downtown it's not usually an outlying street like this so I think it would have to be done through the Department of Public Works. And you'd have to get permission from the town council to, or at least from the town manager to block off a certain part of the road to say that it couldn't be used for a normal parking. Right, so that's that's so that is a separate process that probably wouldn't involve us. Mr Allen I see your hand and I then see Amy gates this hand again. So I would like to comment on this handicap ramp at 60 Spalding Street. It is across the street from our house. We have never had ourselves or our tenants or guests park on that side of the street. There has never been any hindrance for Elizabeth the Corsi to access her handicap ramp. This has been false and misleading statements ever since the beginning of these complaints have started. In fact, our two parking spaces that we're going to have in the front will preclude people from parking over there. So I'm saying is, we have never been guilty of parking on that side of the street known at this household has ever parked over there. And we have never impacted the handicap ramp over there which is very rarely used by the way. All right, so thank you. But I, I hope we don't get into he said she said with this and because we know there's been a disagreement of opinion about that. Mrs. Miss Gates, when we bring you in. Pam you can stop the screen share. Thank you. Miss Gates. Yeah, sorry. I'm sorry to circle back to this, but I either I'm obtuse or I didn't really quite understand the answer to my question. My most important question is, are you telling us that it's implied or understood this property will permanently be required to be owner occupied no matter who is residing there. Yes. Okay, great. Thank you. I'll come back to the board and somebody changes the findings and conditions and we have another hearing. Chris. I wanted to say that if someone occupied this house with a family and didn't have three rumors or borders, then I'm not sure this needs to be owner occupied doesn't need to be a two family house in an RG district. Yeah, Amy, I don't know if I responded or Chris said, she asked this question previously today and it was responded so to maintain the, what's permitted now to family with borders or rumors it has to be owner occupied but if in the future they don't want to have rumors or borders, then you know it doesn't necessarily need to be owner occupied so it's only if they want to continue having the same use that it has now. And so, you know we can't say that you know the house sells that has to be owner occupied. You know if they're not going to have rumors or borders, then it doesn't need to be so you know to maintain what what's being permitted it does. But it depends on really what the future uses. So neat. The larger unit with the five bedrooms. Could that be a rental unit. It could typically we don't, you know, as you know prescribe one unit or the other being owner occupied. So we could have a rental unit with nominally for unrelated adults and an efficiency unit with another two people and no owners on the property and owner. Okay, but in I think you'd need another special permit for non owner occupied to family in the RG zoning district. Okay. So this current special permit wouldn't cover that situation. Okay. All right, good so we think we've got this nailed down. All right, anything further comments from the board I don't see any hands from the public. All right. Hey, Christy you have enough to write up the motion. Yes, I do. Thank you. Yep. All right, so let's make the a yes to this motion is approving the long list of things that have been before us. A no vote is rejecting those proposals. We'll go through the board and with the roll call. Yes. Tom long. Yes. Johanna. Yes. Karen. Yes. And I'm a yes. So that's five in favor. Two members absent. All right. Mr Allen. Thank you. Mr Chamberlain. Thank you. Thank you. The time is now 754 and I believe we're finished with this third item on our agenda. This hearing is closed. And we usually take a break around eight o'clock. So this seems like an opportune time to take a break. I am showing the time at 754. Why don't we come up? Come on back at eight o'clock. Thank you. Thanks. That was ridiculous. Karen, you are not, you were not muted. Yep, you should go on mute. She is now. All right. I'm seeing the time is eight o'clock. If you're lurking behind the blank screen and you can let us know your back. That would be helpful. I think the three people who are out in attendee land could be brought in for the next. If Pam would do that. Thank you. Chris, I'm seeing all the board members back. Actually Bruce is not back. So hold on. I'm back. You are. Yeah. So, so do you think we need to wait for Nate or should we go? Should I go ahead and read the introduction and. Get started. Chris. Just go ahead and read the introduction and Nate may or may not join us. Because having a family. Celebration tonight. Right. Right. Okay. All right. So. All right. So welcome back everyone. The time I now have is eight oh two. And we will move on to item four in our agenda for this evening. This is a site plan review public hearing. In accordance with the provisions of mass general law 40 a. This joint public hearing has been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted. And is being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity for interested citizens to be heard regarding. Site plan review 2023 dash zero two. With by service net pink. At 12 and 22 Belcher town road. The public hearing to request site plan approval to renovate the existing building. And provide 12 efficiency apartment units for transitional housing. With office space for associated staff. Site improvements include resurfacing and striping of existing parking. 39 spaces including two handicapped accessible spaces. As well as demolition of one building entrance. And installation of new pedestrian access walkways. And new doors and windows in the building. Located on map 15 C in parcel two dash 19. In the commercial zoning district. All right. So do we have any board member disclosure. For this topic. I am not seeing any. Chris, do you have anything you want to say as an introduction to what the applicant go right ahead? The only thing I'd like to say as an introduction is that this is one of those. Projects that is exempt from. Some of the zoning regulations under section three of chapter 40. In other words, it's a nonprofit. Use that. Is considered to. Be, you know, allowed by the state. We can. Allow it with certain requirements such as, you know, limitations on size. And height bulk landscaping, that type of thing, but there, there's a limited number of things that you can do to. To limit to restrict this project. So. I think you've heard about that previously. Would this be the, the chapter that's. I think it's. Well, you know, as the Dover amendment. That's correct. Yes. Exactly. Yeah. So Tom random might be the person to make the introduction. I think he's their attorney. Okay. Good evening. Good evening. Thank you. And actually a Ryan Nelson, our engineer is going to make the presentation for us. And I will defer to him at this point through. And I'll leave it to Ryan. Sure. Thanks Tom. Hello everyone for the record. Ryan Nelson from our Lavec associates. And is it an option tonight to be able to share my screen with the site plan. Should be available to you. Yes. All I'm seeing is an option to raise my hand. So at the bottom of the screen, you don't have a. A button that says share screen. Okay. Promoted to panelists. Here we go. Thank you. Great. Everyone see that. Yes, we can. Okay. So here in the lower right. Is our overall site plan. I'll just zoom in on that. Give a brief overview here. So this is. Unit one or building one. Of a property that has a master deed with. Different allocations that's broken into three, three areas. So in terms of this project, we're dealing with what's called unit one. I believe this was a vacant restaurant was the former use. I believe there was an aerobics and fitness studio. Okay. They'll probably very recently, right? Yeah, you guys would know best in town. Probably correct. So as stated. They would like to retrofit or renovate this building. To provide for transitional housing. Be 12 dwelling units with some office space in the center. So right now there's an entry porch way here. There's a parking lot. Okay. To the south. And then there's also additional parking located here. We're here. And that's on the left. There's a parking lot located to the south. And then there's also additional parking located here. We're here. And that's all part of the unit one. Common area for parking. So that's all designated for this. Building here. There is a stream located. Towards the eastern property boundary. A lot of this work is within the buffer zone to that stream. We have submitted with conservation commission and notice of intent. We've already had one meeting with them. We've made quite a few revisions. So that's pending review. I believe the next meeting is next week. As part of this project, this existing paved parking lot area is to be milled and repaved. It's approximately 16,571 square feet. There's two existing handicapped parking spaces will be retaining those. And also providing two more located here. We're a total of four handicapped parking spaces. Currently, there's no handicap accessibility. To this building. So as part of this project. We're going to be providing. A ramp. Accessible ramp. From this feathered curb cut from these handicapped parking spaces. We'll come up this ramp to the porch. And then it would also be able to access some of these units here on the left. Should the need arise. Additionally, the building currently has an entrance. Entrance here. And then an entrance here. This entrance farther to the east will be demoed. No longer needed. And instead. There would be individual access stores. Constructed for each of these dwelling units. So you have a total of seven on this right wing of the main entrance. So to access those. They'd be reconstructing the existing sidewalk here. I bring that up to code and then providing an individual walkway and staircase set. To each dwelling unit there. As part of this project, we've defined. The. Parking striping. More clearly currently. There's. Old degraded striping in a lot of the area isn't defined. So under this proposal, there would be. 39 formal parking spaces. Based on the use of the site. We've calculated that 28 parking spaces would be required. And right now 42 exists. So. Right now there's an existing 42 parking spaces. Under proposed conditions, there'd be 39. And that's a result of us formalizing the spaces to be. The proper size and also providing for snow storage locations and better turning radiuses as some of the corners. We had submitted some preliminary architectural elevations. For the, the building. Where the entrances would be. And then. There was also some comments we received from the town. About the site plan. That was generated. I tried responding to some of those, the best we could. With information we have at the time. Obviously there's. Other questions that we'll try and provide the information in the near future. But happy to answer any questions. The board might have. Okay. Thank you, Ryan. So was there a site plan. Our site visit that we would have a report from any members who are present. Well, yes, we did have a site visit and. Andrew was there, but he's not here tonight. But Karen and, and. And Tom and I were there. So either one of the three of us, I think, but Chris took notes and she. Distributed them. So. Assuming that folks have read those notes. I think. That would be the bulk of the site report. But the reason I put my hand up was. I think we were. Unanimous in our. Including Andrew in our. In our feeling that. That the applicant. May not be at the time we thought may not need all these parking area parking spaces. And we were thinking that it would be less expensive if. The repaving didn't include the whole of the site. If that was necessary. If that was not necessary. And so I have some questions when the time comes related to that, but the, the, the, the dominant. Mood or take away from those of us. I think that visited was. Do we need so much paving and, and, and should we. And can we encourage the applicant to. Perhaps save money and improve the quality of the landscape by. By digging up and, and seating some of these current parking areas. All right. Thanks, Bruce. Tom, I see your hands and. Did you want to comment on your site visit or. Yeah, just a couple of quick things I think. And like, I think Bruce said a lot of it was in. Yeah, I think that was a good question. I think that was a good question. I think that was a good question. I think we presented the notes and then also. Bruce, in regards to your question about the, actually a lot of questions we had about green space versus parking. There was a response from RLA. I think it was section eight. I think that was a lot of time. And this is my understanding of the current and future value of the properties. So just me and consider as we get into those conversations and I wanna take a look at that. A couple of things that really stood out to us. I think on the site visit was the stream, the proximity to this. The stream dangerous aspects of the stream itself. I think we wanted to hear a little bit more about the renovation to that, which might not have been present in some of the detailed notes. The second thing was about trash, and how one would access trash or shield trash. Would you realize that the north side of this is actually the back of this building, but it's seen as the front to all of the buttering parts of this property or the apartments will see that as the front so trash would need to be shielded. How is it accessed and is there an easement to get access to things like that. So those are some of the questions that came up in regard to how both sides of this building would be treated things like trash and paving grass areas and so on. But I think we have a lot of those answers in our notes. So thank you for those. But if anyone else has any comments on the site visit. Happy to pass it to them. Okay. Thanks Tom. Mr Nelson or anybody else from the applicant did you have any comments on the stream or the trash or the, or the, is there anything you want to say about the parking in this meeting. Yes, I can speak to those items. We'll first start with the parking. You certainly understand the desire to have more green space. However, coming from the applicant's viewpoint, the parking is existing and if you know they just have to patch it or maybe just mill the top. That would be a better option than taking it all out having to truck it somewhere and then lonely and seating but more importantly, while all these parking spaces may not be used. So the use of this building a lot of the residents may not have a vehicle. So there will be buses or vans that would be providing transportation for them. So we think this extra space would be helpful for those vehicles to turn around in the parking lot. Additionally, as Tom had mentioned, you know, it, I guess we would be hesitant to give up spaces that we already have with the idea of being that, you know, in the future of service network decide to sell the building or something that us having reduced the number of parking spaces would limit any future use of the site for businesses or whatever and that would, you know, in turn, reduce the value of the property. It would just seem to be backwards if, you know, in the future, this, the site is deficient in parking and then a parking addition needs to be constructed, just tentatively thinking down the road. We had a stream, we had a site visit with a conservation commission a few weeks ago, and we revised this plan with some very detailed requests that they had. There is a stormwater easement that traverses the property. It's this dashed line right here. So it's about 20 feet wide I believe. So in between these two lines as a stormwater easement. There is quite a few large culverts that go through here, and they convey city drainage or ground drainage through the property and discharge at this concrete head wall right here. There are several large trees, they're growing right on top of that head wall, and their roots pose a significant hazard. They haven't done so already at degrading the structural stability that head wall. As far as this project, those trees around the head wall will be cut flush to grade, keeping the roots intact or not pulling the stumps and fear that that would dismantle or hurt the head wall any more than any damage that may already occurred. There's also some erosive and degrading slopes adjacent to that head wall. Those will be loomed and seeded, and then erosion control blanketing installed along with shrub plantings as mitigation for those trees that are being cut. There's also a drain outlet from the building sump pump that discharges, I believe just uphill of this wing wall. And as part of this project, we're going to be rerouting that with an armored stone riprap flared end. And that would be discharging downstream of the head wall so there'd be no risk of undermining that head wall in the future. There is a fence that runs along the back of that parking lot that's proposed to be removed and then we'd be installing a smaller chain link fence around the head wall to cover for safety. And then I believe the third item you guys had just mentioned was the dumpster location. So originally we weren't showing a dumpster location but obviously under this revised plan will need to add a location within enclosure likely a stockade fencing. And we'll site that in an area that is conducive to trash trucks being able to maneuver and easily get to that. If I, if I may I don't see a hand raise on my screen so at some point I'd like to address that dumpster. Well, if Ryan is finished you can certainly go ahead Tom. Sure. The, it's not shown on the site plan but at the rear of the north side of the building. There already is a dumpster and dumpster enclosure, and the master deed provides that the owners of this particular building have access to that dumpster through the parking lot that is again to the north of this building, and it's written right in the master deed it's already enclosed. If you had a aerial view, you would be able to see that I don't know if you have that available, Brian but you can actually see that on the property aerial view. And then the resonance would be would have access to that dumpster and it would, from my understanding and if Connor can comment on this but my understanding that access would be through the office area. So, right where that your arrow is. That's the location of the dumpster. All right, and I think that was Mr longs question with regard to trash on the property as to how it would be dealt with. All right, I see Tom's got his hand up so Tom, Tom Miranda, you're finished with that with that. I'll call on Tom. Thanks, thank you Tom for clarifying I think the confusion that we were having was also, you know, obviously we need some kind of easement so that's reading through your deed that's fine. The architectural drawings show no openings on the north side of the building at all so whether that's egress for our second means of egress for office spaces, or whether that is access to the dumpster area is not presented in the architectural drawings so that was again just are they walking all the way around how are they getting to that so I think some clarification in the drawings would help help us better understand. We understand. So we'll reach out to our to Mr and I hard and the architect with regard to providing that information and they will have it available. I understand very soon for us, along with any other potential clarifications you would need on the site plan. Thank you. Alright, Bruce. I guess we can keep this up. My question is a quickie about the fence. Brian, you mentioned on the drawing show a four foot high chain link fence maybe we should go to the site plan that you had earlier. That will make it easier. Yes, well actually the lower one will be clearer. Could you scroll down. You've got to the note there proposed four foot chain link fence to be installed along the top of the culvert head wall, and it looks as though it ends at the top of the culvert head wall. But the, the, but the, the defense on the other side. I guess we were concerned as to whether the, whether the fence was going to continue and do more than just protect from the culvert head wall because it's still pretty steep as you move along. And, and this property line the diagonal property line which is, I guess, there's a gate there that is applied with gate you say it's going to be removed, but the, it's, it's the site the current site plan doesn't give any clue to the fact that the property line actually is this diagonal line here. It looks as though it just morphs off into the landscape. So my question I guess is how are you terminating at this property line here is there any fence here because it looks as though there's actually a driveway that continues through the parking lot and down along the river to the, I guess, let's say to the right hand side. Is that, is there anybody has use. Is there any use that you need to service to the driveway that runs. Basically east here or would you intend to put some fencing or something that defines your property line here and perhaps safeguards from folks wandering down here and into the stream area. So, go ahead Mr Nelson. Yep. So that existing fence and gate is located right here right off the edge of the parking that connects to the building. Yeah, that that's going to be removed. Yep. So any impediment to that bar away we'll call it will be removed I am not sure what the original purpose of that was or what that goes to service. I don't believe service net will require it is off property. One speculation could be maybe was really related to access for stormwater easement to get to that covert head wall I'm not sure. But there would be no proposed fencing along that property line. The chain link fence for the head wall would end right where those wing walls of the cover head wall stop. Okay. Bruce are you thinking that it would be beneficial to continue the fence along the some portion of the slope to keep. And I think Tom had a similar. I think I'll let Tom, because Tom and Andrew spent more time looking at that. I, I was part of their initial conversation and, and then I went off looking at street lamps and other things but it didn't seem as though that was a kind of a pretty narrowly open space and that looked like it. It looked like it wanted more protection. And I suppose that the forfeit chain link fence around the top of the head wall is certainly a good start. And the question is, do we have an interest in extending it further. I guess we recognize that we don't want to impose on you costs on this applicant, but my colleagues think about whether, whether we would have an interest in extending that fence, whether we think we should have an interest in extending that fence or not. Tom, where are you on that stuff. You know, it's kind of a steep drop. I mean, I think from the top of that concrete wall to the water and you can probably clarify. It's got to be five, seven feet, eight feet, maybe down to the water, or it felt like that. It felt really high. And I don't think that the short slopes on the side of those walls are really going to do enough to protect. I like to see those fences, you know, relatively inexpensive I would hope extending a little bit further along the edge of the water I don't want to limit access to the water so I think it's great to be able to walk down to it or walk your dog around it. I'm not bothered by that but it's a really steep drop off right around the edge so I would I would recommend exploring it in a site visit for safety reasons and that's just for the conservation commission reasons and maybe propose lengthening that on the south side maybe to the property line and on the north side. Maybe another four to six feet to capture some of the really steep areas but this is just a thought and a potential recommendation. All right. So, Mr Nelson you've you've heard a couple of members interested in looking at that is that something you could keep in mind as you prepare for our next meeting. Yes, yep, I'll talk with the applicant and figure out what what their needs are and how we can come to a solution on that. All right. So, I know that you are not through the Conservation Commission process yet so I expect that we're going to be continuing this hearing. In terms of the applicant, you received a number of questions from us and you've given us some responses. You've heard a few more comments this evening. Do you feel like you've gotten what you might have hoped for or expected out of this conversation tonight. Yes, but partially I guess my question would be to the board are there any other concerns that we can address so that we're fully prepared for the next planning board meeting are there any. I mentioned that the green space issue with parking, but I didn't get to feel a good consensus as to what the opinion was on that. All right. Well, that we've got some hands up for maybe not in maybe in response to that maybe not. Chris I'm going to call on you first just to give you your input. Well, I think that the board should look at the architectural drawings because that's part of what you'll be reviewing a few questions about those drawings it will be important to ask those now. And the other thing is we have not yet received a set of architectural drawings that's been stamped and signed by an architect so that's one of the things that the board normally expects to see so you know it's up to you if you're going to require that it is part of the requirements of your rules and regulations so you would need to waive that requirement if you decided that wasn't necessary but it's something that hasn't been provided yet. So, you may want to know about what the siding is here and what they're proposing for the roof, and you may want to see samples or catalog cuts of that and maybe of the doors and windows as well. So there are issues related to the building I just wanted to bring that up. All right. So I'm going to call on Bruce and then Tom and then we'll move on to the architectural drawings Bruce. Yes, now it's just gone. I was just looking at the I took a bunch of photographs and this has to do with the site and the suggestion made earlier that as though this project would need the 28 parking I assumed that what Ryan was reporting was that was what the bylaw requirement might have generated but we are not uncommonly consent to parking waivers and so forth to reduce parking requirements. And I guess one of the things that we were observed when we were there was that it seemed as though this pavement was in such bad repair that it might take more than just a repaving it might really need to be dug up and regraded. And if that were the case. And if then if it ever turned out that reducing the amount of paving was cost effective to this project I think I would encourage the applicant to imagine that the board would be receptive to substituting some of that paving for for grassland. It seems that there's a lot of people who are living here there's this precious little open space that you could sit on a note that you could put a picnic table out on that you could screen in some way to create a sunny outdoor space the units themselves are very tight and only have one window in them at one end so the residents might appreciate being able to get outside on on some days and over time perhaps. I'm sorry folks, everything's gone wrong here. I would, I would encourage that the, the idea of substituting existing parking for grass grassy open space be looked at optimistically and with the with an idea that I think the overall site would be the appearance of the site would be greatly improved by having a little bit more grass and a little bit less paving. Even understanding all that what Ryan said about the, the, the need for larger vehicles to be able to come and turn and so forth. I, I, I recognize all of that, but still hope that there might be an opportunity to cut back on the amount of paving that we have here. Thank you. Thank you, Bruce. Tom, you're next. Sure, just a couple of quick things one in terms of what Ryan was asking for. One of the things that came up was this really gnarly guardrail. And I don't know if you, you can actually see it from the aerial photo and it looks even really gnarly from the aerial photo. But you know what's going to happen with that is going to be removed to some other kind of fencing going to be put in or what's going to, or will you be able to drive through. I mean, he's look at that thing. It's not, it's probably supposed to be straight lines. But it's been hit way too many times by too many people. So yeah, I mean that should be replaced or repaired or some other version of a boundary should be put in there if we're going to have one. So I'd like to sort of see a spec on that. Tom, to interrupt. If, if the applicant were willing to reduce the number of parking spaces, you know, we could have a couple of curves and some grassy area, maybe even some plantings between those two parking areas and not need the guardrail. Yeah, no, absolutely. And, and, you know, that's only three or four spots. So. So yes, I think in relationship to what Bruce was saying, should we find cheaper solutions that encourage grass or greenery of any sort. I support that. So Brian in your explorations. Let's see if we can figure out from a cost and results perspective the other thing I think Ryan that we was in the request and I just wanted to reiterate. This is the management plan that talks about the hours of operation of the office, what kinds of functions we might expect in those offices. People have talked about 24 hour occupancy of those office spaces and similar types of buildings elsewhere. And just, I think having a sense of who's going to be there and when should, you know, and just understanding how the property will be will operate over a 24 hour period would be really helpful. Because I know the question is going to come up. So I want you to be prepared to have some answers in your discussions with the client. Thank you. Right. Yeah, you asked about consensus I was also in the site visit and I completely agree with Tom and Bruce. If costs prevent you from looking at that. I do understand that you have budget concerns but it just cries out for less asphalt and for people that live there transitional or just for the town. I think it would be so much more attractive. Some of that asphalt were somehow gotten rid of as far as being something that you're going to sell in the future. I think, you know, you can only enhance it by making that area more attractive. It just seems like you're in the middle of a abandoned airport with all this asphalt around and I agree. Please try to have people look at it and see if there's some way that wouldn't be too costly that you could make it more attractive and have less of this unnecessary unsightly asphalt. Thank you. I don't see any more hands. I had one question. What's the, what's the mechanical system proposed for these units and are there any exterior, you know, condensing units or heat pumps or, you know, other mechanical equipment that we're likely to see on the site. I'll answer Doug's question first. So currently, well, let me back up in the comment report, it had mentioned utilities and HVAC systems on the roof. Those aren't present. Those are just vents. Everything is internal for the proposed use for these individual dwelling units, they'd have many split heat pumps. So they're a dual heat or air conditioning unit for each room. So there'd be no real changes to the HVAC system. There'd be no new roof mounted utilities. Well, the, the mini splits typically have an exterior unit. Where would that be located for each unit. I'd have to talk with the architect about that and other at least be like a condenser event. So I'll have to review that and what type of vent or shield or facade would hide those. Okay. And then to answer the other members, they had some feedback. Thank you for that. I believe the guardrail that we're talking about, I think was that demarcate that the parking allocation under the master deed this area of parking was specified for unit one. And I guess, we'll certainly talk with service net and see what areas we can compromise with and perhaps do what you had mentioned, providing a green space in between. That would also, you know, reduce the pavement area and perhaps not sacrifice prime parking real estate for for the building. If I may. Turn to Miranda. Yes. One of the concerns that I have and I don't know the answer to it, but we'll find out is, as you understand this is each of these three units in this condominium project project has dedicated open space to their particular unit. And the question, going along with what Ryan just said is the location of the guardrail and the cooperation of the owner of unit three with regard to removing it. We'll have to. We're going to have to speak with that individual I don't think we would have the prerogative of just going out there and removing or replacing that guardrail without some cooperation or approval from that other unit owner. Okay. All right, why don't we. Oh, Bruce. Yes. I guess maybe I'm confused here because the drawing that we're looking at has got a horizontal pink line that goes right through that parking area on the west side that ends that is enclosed by this collapsing and twisted guardrail. But whereas the site plan that we looked at earlier shows the site plan includes that area beyond and above the pink line up to the guardrail. But Tom Miranda, are you telling us that the head of that Western parking lot is not part of your property or. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to convey that the pink line I believe is probably from the assessor's map. The site plan accurately shows the dedicated common area for unit one that is hopefully owned by service now. But that borders upon unit three, which is to the north. And so there is a, the location of that guardrail, the purpose of that guardrail, when it was installed. I believe we need to communicate with unit three's owner and find out what their position will be on us removing that guardrail. I can further add to that. As Tom said, the assessor shows these lines and they roughly demarcate the unit split lines on the master deed. However, this is all technically one property there aren't separate parcels. Yeah, so it might be useful for you to come back with a larger site plan when you return that that does delineate more of the context for the project and the parking. Bruce, have we satisfied your question of the moment. You have. All right, thank you, Chris you're next. You're muted Chris, I'm sorry. Sorry, sorry. One question that we had is what comprises the property here. And we have old in our plans and different things in our office that show a lot of these property lines. Well, that you really needed to show the whole property. And in fact, we did not include 10 belcher town road in our legal ad. So I think we may need to actually go back and re advertise this with 10 belcher town road put in because now you're saying that that parking that is to the, I guess it's sort of the southwest of the building that we're talking about is part of the parking for this project. And you're also saying that the dumpster and enclosed area on the back is part of this project. And we see that the protrusion towards the west, where the office space is going to be is part of this project, and all of those things are on 10 belcher town road. So, I think what we need to see is a whole plan showing the whole property. And then, you know, if you wanted to demarcate it as to which it belongs to units one, two and three that's fine. But we really need to understand the whole property. And then we also need to understand the issue of lot coverage and building coverage. And I think Ryan made a comment in one of his emails to me recently that that was covered in the master deed. And we really need to understand lot coverage and building coverage because if you're changing it and if you're making it more lot coverage and it's already non conforming, then we may need to invoke some other type of permit. So, it's, it's better to give us more information, things will go faster if we have more information, rather than having to keep asking these questions. Thank you. So, the lot coverage was one reason I was asking about the mini splits. You know, we had that project down in South Amherst where the mini split pads were part of the lot coverage to make sure we were, you know, within the limits and so I do. I guess I would sort of add to your comment that this feels like a very minimal application. The drawings are really sort of dense and kind of hard to penetrate. You know, we don't have any demolition drawings there was a statement that there's really no changes to the exterior of the building but, but you know you have mentioned in your site plan that you've removed one of the entrances. That entrance, the East entrance has a architectural canopy over it so you really are altering building. Yeah, I would encourage you to come back with a more robust set of drawings. And so why don't we, why don't we continue and go through the architectural drawings and and talk and see what you've got for that. I have a question. I'm going to go to Miranda this directed to Chris's comments, the, the assessors lines do not accurately reflect what is on the survey recorded survey for the, for the property it's recorded a same book 184 page 224, which clearly show that area. Where the guardrail is to be the boundary boundary of the exclusive use for units one and unit three and also include the dumpster. And yes, you don't have that. Before you, that's Brian just brought that up. But so, Chris you indicated that this was part of 10 belcher town road but if this is all part of unit one that we're purchasing. I don't understand why 10 belcher town road would be included as a requirement under the notice. Hey, look, may I speak. Looks like unit three is called 10 belcher town road, and the lines that were on the plan that we looked at previously showed that some of the work is being done in that area, namely that parking area that's to the southwest of the building of unit one. Whatever is going on in the dumpster area. Those are occurring on the property that is associated with 10 belcher town road. So, when we asked for in a butter's list, we didn't ask for in a butter's list for 10 belcher town road. And these things show up as different map and parcel numbers on the assessors maps, and we need to notify a butter's within 300 feet of all the properties that are being affected. So I feel like we're going to have to go back and re publish the legal ad and re notify the butters, because we didn't have a full picture of all of the properties that were being impacted So you're saying you're saying that. Well, you know these properties are, you know, they're, they're even though they're shown differently on the assessors maps. They're shown all together on this map, but that's not how our notifications are done they're done based on the assessors maps so. The 10 belcher town road is being impacted by this because of part of that unit one parking lot is shown on the north side of that purple line so. Some of the problem that from a town perspective the the addresses correspond to the assessors plots. But it sounds like the applicant is saying the addresses are, you know, correspond to the three units, and the three unit delineations are not the same as the assessors. I mean, I'd like to see a map that has both both boundaries on it. So that we can really understand it, you know, maybe there's no work being done at the at the at the dumpster, but it looks like it's part of a different address. And this map is something that we haven't seen. Nobody has submitted this map that is being shown now. So we would be, we would request that you submit this map to us as part of the submittal for the project. If I may, Mr Marshall. Yes, I don't have a hand to raise that's why I'm on my screen the I understand what everyone is saying, and the survey that is shown on the screen was approved by the planning board, and it does delineate unit one, including the dedicated area exclusive to unit one with the dumpster and the entire parking area within the guardrail. And I believe that the notice requirement is for from the property owner, what the property owner owns and the parcel they're working, they're working on as opposed to a neighbor's property that is not part of unit one so what I'm trying to do is to avoid having to do a re notice and extend this out in an extended period of time, primarily because we have an anxious seller that really wants us to get through this and get this project approved as quickly as we are able and be able to close for them because they've given us multiple extensions. I understand that's not really your your real concern, but that's a that's a real concern for service now. So we, you should have this plan within your file for this property we will get you another copy of this plan, a full size copy and we'll also elaborate on the site plan to to make this more explicit but if we can for purposes of this of this hearing except my representation where the boundary is, and if it proves not to be, and that's the case when I say where the boundary is where the legal boundary is, as opposed to the assessors map which does not accurately reflect the legal boundary of this particular unit. All right, Chris I see your hand. What I'm saying is that we, I believe, noticed our public hearing based on what the assessor showed as the parcel which is a kind of triangular shaped parcel. We didn't include the area that is shown within this property line so we didn't include the entire property and all of the butters within 300 feet of the property and in order for us to hold a legal public hearing. We're according to our town regulations are required to notify all of the butters within 300 feet of the property so I believe now we are looking at the property. I would have to go back to the assessor and say, how did you calculate where the 300 feet where where the 300 foot property owners are a butters are, did you calculate it based on the little triangle. In the unit one, or did you calculate it based on this entire parcel that we're looking at right now, it could be that she did the ladder, and then we would be okay but if she did the former I think we need to re notice this public hearing. I understand what you're saying now. And I will, I will have to go back and look I know that and some in the back of my mind someplace it says that it's the determination of the assessors as to who the butters are that need to be notified. And that is what is acceptable for purposes of 40, chapter 40 a, even though the property may be larger, or even smaller than what the assessors map shows but I understand what you're saying Chris. And maybe it's something you and I can talk about after this hearing and, and it may be moved if, if we did notify everyone within 300 feet, even considering that extended area. Okay. All right. Maybe we should move on to the architecturals. All right. Does anybody from the applicant team want to describe this or should we. Questions. This is Ryan. So this top view would be looking at the southern side of the building from the parking area. This is the existing entrance way. It's going to be reconfigured what is not shown are the ramps in the handicap walkway. And then the existing entrance to the east that would be removed somewhere in this region. And then these are the proposed new entry ways 1212 units and then one office door here in the center. Will there be a survey as part of the the final application. I guess I'm curious about how many steps there are up to the doorways. You know, whether they'll be handrails on those landings or not. Yes, so on our, our site plan. Let me find it here. Where am I. So on our site plan, we are showing railings along those elevation changes of the ramp. And railings on the stair access points here and located here. And then these units, all on this east wing would have stairs are not accessible. And there'd be railings on those stairs. Yes, there should be. I may not have them called out, but that was the intent. Yes. And will we at some point get any glimpse of what kind of material they are. I believe, let me see here. I mean, is there likely to be an architect involved who can assure us they comply with the mess. Access board for railings and that kind of thing. Yep, on sheet three we provided details of the cuts for the access way in the ramps, as well as a spec for a typical railing and how it would go along the stairs. Okay, Bruce, I see your hand. Yes, I raised my hand in relation to those elevations and plans of the building so if we can go back to that. And what it simply is, do I understand that what you've shown us here, at least as far as the elevations are concerned, our elevations as the existing condition. And so what we need is, along with this, we need another set of elevations that show and note the proposed scope of work. These drawings are proposed. This is the proposed orientation of the building. So we know what you're doing. We can't rely on you saying well in here they're going to change this and over here we're going to change that which is what you said a moment ago that these are not drawings that show what's intended. These exactly show what is proposed and on our site plan we call out specifically the areas that are going to be demoed where the access points will be. We need to show that on the elevations, because we look at those elevations I've got no idea whether they're new or what's new and what's existing we need to be able to tell, without having to go back to the site plan to tell us what's proposed to be new and changed. You really need to put that on the elevations. I mean I'm speaking as an architect I've seen 50 years doing this and that is not a set of drawings that shows me what is proposed to be done so far as modifications to an existing building are concerned. I think we need to agree that. Okay, we can certainly add that yes. Chris, you had a hand up. Just minor, I want to make sure that they show the railings on the stairs that are going up to all of the individual doors. When you approve this plan, you're approving the whole thing so you want all of the details all of the correct information to be on the plan. I think we need to be on the site plan and I think that what Bruce was talking about here is, you want to have clear indication that you're putting new windows in, you know, what's the spec on the windows. Putting new siding in. What kind of siding is it wooden siding is it hardy plank is it vinyl siding. There aren't any notes on this plan showing what's being proposed so it's not a lot of work it's just like, you know, labeling it's not that big a deal. Thank you. Thanks, Chris. Tom. Yeah, I know I just a quick note about the front elevation as well. You know there's stairs noted the left three units when those are like they're going to be their ramp is going to be in the way of those right so we wouldn't have that so again, things is being accurate with the conditions and the plan that you're proposing so yeah I mean, you know, forms of egress with something I've brought up before. This is the plan that we were looking at on site and there's no apertures or no way for anybody to get from inside these office spaces out to the dumpster. So if the dumpster is being used from by internal use where the tenants are going through there to bring out their trash we need to know how they're getting out there and are their stairs is it handicap accessible so you know and I want to I think what I want to be most clear about is that I truly support this and I want to streamline this process is a wonderful project and I think it's the right thing for this place. I think we just need to see the things that you're proposing in order to approve them. So let's just try to get as much information in here as possible so we can move this through as quickly as possible, because again, strongly support what we're trying to accomplish and what service that was trying to do here so you know as much information and accurate and we can get would be fantastic. Thanks Tom. All right, Ryan why don't we want you scroll down and we can take a look at the top had a couple of comments on the plan. Does anybody else have a comment on the plan or should we move on to the next page. I do not see any hands. All right, why don't we go to the next page. So these are blow ups. This is the. This would be the central entrance right here. Here's the porch. And then the accessible ramp. These would be the three units off to the left at the end of the building, then the next sheet. So these are those three units to the left this is just a further blow up of that I think. This is the two central units are yes the two central office with the adjacent accessible unit. What's the for the office entrance you come in. Is that the laundry room with the washing machines to the right as you so you walk through the laundry room to get into the office. Yes. So Tom, we can finally see you. Yes, I figured it out. So, so that is correct because they're washing machines and I assume maybe a couple of washers and then a couple of dryers. I don't know how many Connor are you there. I'm here Tom. Okay. Can you tell us what's in there in that office area. So the the intent was like you can see in the drawing to have both wash washing machine dryers available for the residents and really do this to space constraints. It was deemed to put those at that location. Okay. So I see three enclosed offices. And the stairs that are within the office suite those go downstairs to the basement that is unoccupied is that right. And so that's purely for service and maintenance. That is correct. Yes. Okay. And then a conference room. So is, do you know, is this a 24 hour office or is it a business hours office. I can't speak to that. This is Connor from service net. It is not going to be 24 hour office. This is an outreach program. The outreach counselors typically work between hours of, let's say, eight and six. The only necessity to have somebody there after those hours would be if there was an emergency. Okay. All right. So we're going to move on to the next slot next next page. And then this is the eastern part of the complex with all the non accessible. Actually, it looks like there's an accessible unit at the left hand end of this plan. And then the rest of them are not accessible. Yeah, it shows an accessible walk. So we're going to be along the parking area, but obviously there's stairs up to each of these units that's not shown. So we'll have to update that on this plan also. Okay. Based on, I mean, you're doing a lot of work inside this building. I mean, all of the, all of the interior demising and other walls would be removed. This is really an intensive renovation of the existing structure. Will you be replacing or bringing the insulation of the exterior walls up to code. I'd have to defer to architect on that after. I'm not sure what the current state of the inside of the building is. Okay. All right, are there. I guess that's the last page of the architectural. And I, I know I had a question earlier about the mechanicals. I hope we can get a more complete picture of this building. When you return so that we can see understand what you're doing and approve it and let you move on. Bruce. So looking at this, I can see that it's really not possible to exercise to to create an interior access to the dumpster area. I guess you could go at your front door and then through the office and into the dumpster and maybe that's what Tom meant when he said accessing the dumpster area. So it. So if not that dumpster area in the back, then as Ryan said earlier, maybe you'll have to do something out front but however you solve it, it would be good for us to see either in the drawings here or in the site plan where the waste management is taking place. So full note I did see Tom, not as head when you described Bruce, going through the office to get to the dumpster in the rear, but obviously the plans don't really show that avenue yet. Okay. Let's see, are there any public comments I see no attendees in the public so won't have any public comments on this. I see any more hands from board members. Members of the applicant team. Do you have any questions about what you've heard from us this evening. Any further questions so that we can clarify before you come back with answers to our questions and responses to some of the comments we've made. I don't have any questions but the only question I have is when will we be continued into what day. Okay. Chris, do you want to. I think you had given me a date earlier in January. You are muted. January 18. There's one date on January 4, and then there's the 18th if we have to re advertise it though. I don't know if January 4 will work with days today. Today's the seventh. So, going back from the fourth. Yeah, if we, if we wanted to hold it on January 4, we do have time to re advertise it. And do we have much on the agenda for the fourth yet. No. And there's no. I'm sorry, Tom. Yeah. There's no other hearings this month. Well, we have a meeting in two weeks. But I think we've got several things on the agenda for that already. And we wouldn't have time to advertise. Right. That I understand. Yeah. Chris is that agenda looking pretty tight for the 21st. The 21st has archipelago on it. And I don't know what else Pam would know. Do you know Pam? Archipelago and Jonathan Gerfine. Oh yeah. Yeah. So if this didn't need to be re advertised, it could come back on the 21st. If they could do that, do all this work in two weeks. It seems like there's a quite a lot to bring these drawings up to stuff. And we would need to receive it by. We like to receive things by the Friday before, well, by the Thursday before the meeting. So that would mean. We'd need to receive it by next Friday. I don't see that. That's reasonable. So the January 4th seems. The best compromise. It's sooner than the 18th. It's in time. If we need to. Re advertise it and it gives the applicant time to bring all this information together and give it to us by. We would need to have it by the. 29th of December in order to get it into a packet on the 30th of December. So I'm going to make. I got two, two comments. One is. I think Chris, you mentioned it's, it is typical for us to see something. About the exterior materials that are proposed for the project. And often we do see. At least an approximation of the colors that are proposed. So we hope you can come back with some of that. And maybe Chris, maybe following this meeting, I'm going to make a comment. I'm going to make a comment. I'm going to make a comment. I'm going to make a comment group to a previous presentation that we've had. That they maybe they could use as sort of a template for how. The kinds of things we usually see. And then I guess the other. Comment I was going to make was. You know, maybe we should just go ahead and, and make them have a motion to continue to January 4th. And they're, they're not ready at that point. We can open and then continue the hearing again. Mr. Miranda, I see your hand. Thank you. The. My understanding is the only change with regard to materials is it will be windows and doors. Is that correct? Connor. Tom, that is correct. So when you're asking for materials, siding color, et cetera, we don't anticipate any changes. So you want to see. The windows, the doors that we're going to put in, is that what we're talking about? Well, I mean, the new door, I mean, I think the exterior of the existing building is white. You know, are the new doors going to be white or are they going to be red? You're removing the East entry and there's a canopy over that entrance. Are you just going to patch in where you're the new roof. The roofing where you've removed that canopy. So that there's a patched new asphalt roof. In the midst of the whatever age, the rest of the roof is, or will you be re roofing the whole building? You know, I think, you know, the handrails, you know, are they stainless steel? Are they glass? Are they painted wood? Or are they, you know, the, the, the new walkways, the accessible sidewalks? Are they asphalt or are they concrete? Maybe that's already in the site plan. Okay. Thank you. But you know, I mean, it's like, give us a sense of what you're, how it's going to be at the end, I guess. Okay. All right. That was my question. Thank you. Okay, great. So I see Bruce, I see your hand, and I'm going to call on Chris because she put her hand up. I think it would be good idea to have a catalog cut of the windows. And a catalog cut of the doors. So you can see what is being proposed. And I think the board isn't going to get. Too picky about color, but what the thing actually looks like, I think you really want to know. And any fencing that they're going to put in, you want to know what that looks like. So it's really more materials. And, you know, maybe you're going to care about colors too, but that's probably lower on your list of priorities than the actual look of the materials themselves. At the moment, the exterior elevations that we have are pretty small. And not annotated at all. You know, we typically would see maybe a little more detail on a section of the elevation. And, you know, indicating what's new and what's existing. You know, it seems like with all those new doors and windows that you're putting in, you may end up thinking you should resize, you know, replace the siding. But maybe, maybe not. Bruce, I see your hand. Go ahead. Doug. I deferred to anyone else because I was simply going to say so moved to that motion. Instructed. Okay. Which was basically moved to continue to the date, specific to the date noted. January 4th, about 635. I think we said. Tom, is that. When you're a motion. Second. All right. So board members, we have a motion seconded on the floor. Are there any more comments from the other board members? Guys have been pretty quiet. The three of us have talked more than anyone. I have one quick comment. Sure, Tom. I think, and you know, we're not really looking for like really concrete demo plans, but the existing elevation. The roof. Over the entry has an arched or swooping. Roof. And your proposal has a flat or flat seam across the top of the roof. And I think. That's going to require some kind of material change and construction change. So I think seeing some. Existing elevations might be helpful. I don't know. I don't know what's being changed. Agreed. And I think Bruce said something similar earlier too. So we're, I think. The three of us are on at least the same wavelength. Okay. No, not seeing any more hands. Why don't we go ahead with the vote to continue to January 4th. 630. So Bruce. 635. 635. Yes. Still. Thank you, Bruce. Tom. Hi. Yohana. Hi. Hi. And I'm an eye as well. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you everyone. Okay. You too. All right. Time is 918. And moving on to the next items on the agenda. We're on to old business. Topics not reasonably anticipated. No business. Anything. No business that I can think of. Any new business not reasonably anticipated. Well, I wanted to tell everybody who hasn't heard that we are losing another planner. Our lovely dear. Maureen Pollock is moving on to become the planning director up in Montague. And so we're really going to miss her. And so that's not such good news. It's good news for her, but it's not good for us. I thought you might want to know. Thanks, Chris. Tom, I see your hand. Thank you. In regard to new business, one of the things that came up in our discussion of the site. Visit. This week, a few days ago. Was the nature and expanse of the. Village. What was the actual term, Chris, the. Village. Yeah. And expanding that zone further down route nine or best belcher town road to include some of the new developments that are there. As well as a property that can potentially become. Places for food growth and or co-ops and or. Rests. Shops that would allow for fresh food to be accessed by all of the residents in that area within walking distance. So there was a request that I was told we would have to bring to the board and new business. So you ask. The planning department to explore. What the implications are would be to expand the village district. Further down route nine to the south. And where would, what, what impact it would have on neighboring zones. And what impact it might have on that particular zone itself. This is, this is farther southeast on route nine. Correct. Not, not, not down east, southeast street. No, no, down route nine further down towards, because there's further development of residences down there. And more density being brought to that area. We're also talking about the potential for that to become a very large food desert. With lots of access to convenience stores, but not very healthy food. So. Yeah. Expanding that zone would allow for more property opportunities for access to that kind of. And this would be the, the village center. Village center district. Yeah. The zoning zoning district. Okay. So I don't know if we need to vote on that, Chris, or if we just need to bring it to your attention. And. Yeah. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to put my hand up. Yes, we will put that on a future agenda. It's a good, good idea to start and. We'll talk about it among ourselves internally. So thank you. All right, Bruce, your hands up. Thank you so much. And further to what Tom was saying, it was Tom, because I don't think you mentioned this, but it was initiated by a concern that these folks who are moving into this project. But it was also contributed to by their realization that the. Colonial village is apparently going to expand and considerably so, so that the. The amount of residential and folks who are meeting. Approximate shopping and so forth in this area is about to grow considerably. And so what Tom suggested. Is seemingly. Some, some potential critical concern to folks in the area we thought. Okay. Chris. Well, nevermind. I'll make, I'll send you an email afterwards. Okay. Do we have any more new business for the moment? All right. Form a and our subdivision. No, not tonight. ZBA applications. Not to report tonight. Nope. Okay. SPP SPR should be. Not to report tonight. All right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. The time is nine 24. Bruce. Anything on PVPC? Are you, are you yet a member? No, I think Paul Backelman doesn't like me. I see that. Last week, I think, no, it was the week before because it was before I got sick. I reminded Dave Zomek of this and Dave wrote it on his long list about what Paul Backelman was talking to Paul Backelman about. So I'm hoping that he will talk to him and I've sent Paul Backelman at least three emails. It may be worth it if either Doug or. Bruce himself prompted Paul. Well, I could send Paul an email. That would be helpful. Yep. Okay. Because Bruce was nominated to this on September 7th. Okay. Well, let's see. Anything else, Bruce, I assume from you for PVPC. No, I mean, hand from Jack or something. That's correct. We've all been forwarded the material that Jack sent. So in some respects we're being kept in a prize, but. But I'm not formally there yet. Okay. All right. And Andrew was absent to talk about CPAC. Okay. Okay. Tom, anything on DRB? Nothing near me. We have a meeting on Monday. Okay. Janet's absence. So we won't hear about the solar solar group. Chris, do you know anything about the solar bylaw working group? And I, I go to all of their meetings and they had a very good presentation by Jonathan. Murray of KP law. And he gave a pretty good, what can and can't be reasonable things to include in a solar zoning bylaw. So he gave a pretty good rendition about that. And he had also given a presentation to the zoning board of appeals a couple of weeks before, which I think Doug actually attended. And that was very helpful. So we're amassing as much information as we can about solar and what is reasonable or not reasonable to include in a bylaw. Okay. And then Chris, anything on CRC? Yes, let's see the CRC. They've been working on the rental registration. They have another meeting coming up. I think this week, I think it's on Thursday. I'm not mistaken, which is tomorrow, actually. And they, you, I've already reported to you that they have a lot of food and drink establishments and that flood zone. Flood zone zoning bylaws. So I think I've reported that to you already. All right. We're in CRC. Okay. Thanks. I don't have anything reported chair. Anything from you, Chris report of staff. Yes, I should report to you that the town council was intending to take up both food and drink establishments. And the flood mapping zoning's amendments. This past Monday, but they had so many other things on their agenda that they took those two things and they put them on a new meeting, which they didn't even have on their schedule. And that will be this coming Monday, the 12th, and they will take up those items then and that would be for their first reading. And then they'll have their second reading on the 19th. So that's that. Okay. All right. Does anyone have anything else? I don't, we still have no public attendees. So I don't need to ask for a last chance for public comment. Okay. Time is 928 and I think we are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you. Thanks for. Turning us. All right. Good night, everybody. Good night, Pam. Good night, Mr. Marsha. Let's see you soon. Yep. Thank you.