 Thanks for joining us everyone. This is the Wednesday, March 6th 2019 meeting of the Emirates Planning Board First item on our agenda is minutes and we do have the minutes of Wednesday December 12th in our packets today So if folks have had a chance to review those or when they've had a chance to review those I'll entertain a motion on those minutes. I move we approve the minutes Second that's moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion? All in favor? All opposed? All abstaining? So that passes 5-0-2 I believe those are the only minutes in our packet today Thank you. Pam is on the job that she's going to catch up on the minutes. Great. Thank you Next item on our agenda is public comment period Is there any public comment? This again would be the period to comment on any items which aren't otherwise going to be discussed later on the agenda I see no public comment Next item is a 7-10 public hearing for site plan review. It's not quite 7-10 yet So we'll work our way through a few more agenda items Item 4 planning and zoning zoning subcommittee reports. The zoning subcommittee has not met since the planning board last met Is there any public comment about planning and zoning and are there any other issues on planning and zoning? Seeing none move on to The next item is perhaps going to be a somewhat lengthy discussion So we're going to skip over item 5a first. Are there any old business items not reasonably anticipated? Are there any new business topics not reasonably anticipated? Not that I know of Okay Do we have any form a subdivision applications? Yes, we do and I'd be happy to explain it to you, please I'm going to pass around a locus map Showing where this property is located. It's located on Main Street. It's the two small square properties in front of the Hills house on Main Street and The emmerced media is proposing to build a new building there and they're going they're asking to combine The two parcels that are shown in this little map here. So while that's being passed around I will come by with the large plan which shows Exactly how these two parcels are going to be combined and you will note that The parcel extends out into the town sidewalk There was a an error that happened when improvements to Main Street were made and The improvements were actually made on private property. So there's going to be an arrangement to have an easement The town will take an easement from the property owner to accommodate that that error, but you'll see it as I come by Chris so if you all would authorize mr. Studsman to sign these plans That would be appreciated any comments questions on that a and r Okay, seems pretty straightforward to me. Thank you. Are there any upcoming ZBA applications? Think I've told you about the ZBA applications coming up, but I'll just go over them There is an application for Hickory Ridge, which is going before the zoning board of appeals to Install a solar array on that property. They've made some changes to the plan since you saw it there's only one entry drive now and I can't remember if they're oh, they're yeah, they're they're not able to use both bridges So they're just going to use one bridge the changes aren't really Very significant. Um, we also have Let's see mass alternative care is going to be coming in with the proposal to Establish a recreational marijuana and a medical marijuana facility at 80 no 55 University Drive I think you already know about that. That's the building that used to be the hangar and then Herbalogy group is also going to be coming forth and they have actually come forth with a proposal to establish recreational and Medical marijuana in the rafters building so that that has actually been submitted to the ZBA and will be on the There's also a proposal to Take the White House at the corner of North Pleasant Street where it meets Pine Street. It used to be the old Daisy's restaurant That White House has been operating as a mixed-use building for a few years And it used to be Kendrick property management. That was the commercial portion of that mixed-use building The applicant is asking to that the whole building become residential use which is Going to be a converted. They're calling it a converted dwelling. That's the section of the bylaw that it falls into and You think There's anything else. I can't think of anything else and in terms of the planning board We know that Amir McChie is coming forth with his site plan review application for his building on southeast Street Michael Chris is the date for the Hickory Ridge Appearance at the ZBA set I believe it is the 14th of March which should be next Thursday It was not listed in the in the advertisement that was published last week as one of the Items that was being considered. So that's why I ask all right. I will find out about that and I will email you Thank you. Was that all for upcoming ZBA applications? That's it for ZBA applications Thank you. And are there any upcoming SPP SPR sub applications? Not that I'm aware of other than mr. McChie and his proposal for southeast Street All right, thank you. So it's about time that we can start our next item. This is item 3 This is a site planner view I'm just gonna bring up the preamble here And in accordance with the provisions of section 5 and 11 of chapter 48 these public hearings have been duly advertised and noticed there have been has been posted and mailed to Butters they're being held for the purpose of providing an opportunity for intercitizens to be heard regarding the proposal And this is SPR 2019 dash 0 3 the Emily Dickinson Museum At 20 triangle Street and 280 Main Street requesting site plan review approval to convert a single family house to administrative offices for the Emily Dickinson Museum a Non-profit Museum and Educational Institution under sections 3.3 3 0.0 and 3.3 3 4 of the zoning bylaw Including site improvements to 20 triangle Street and 280 Main Street for access and parking. This is map 14 B parcels 20 and 27 welcome, please introduce yourself And so that has implications Do you have small copies of everything I'm presenting okay And if I could just ask you to pause for one moment. Are there any board member disclosures on this item? All right, please proceed Okay, so this is overall site plan. This is the Dickinson Museum. This is triangle Street This is triangle Street right here It's important to note the sidewalk on Triangle Street is on this side of the road and currently the two parcels are not connected in any way There's shrubbery that divides them The intent of the project is to relocate staff offices from the museum 220 Triangle Street, that's the primary purpose of the project the secondary purpose is to establish a seminar room So that they can have 30 people come in and take seminars that's what's making it a public building essentially and The cost of the project is over 30% of the assessed value So the architectural access board triggers full compliance, which would be an elevator all entrances accessible So the four variance requests that we made to the architectural access board is To not require vertical access in the building To require one of the two entrances to be accessible to the public to in the event The bidding costs come in greater than than the budget that one of two toilet rooms that are required by the plumbing code be Allowed to be located upstairs without an elevator and the last one is to allow The accessible public parking spaces to be located at the museum and access via this accessible walkway to 20 Triangle Street They may say no the limit on that is 200 feet and it's 270 feet On that route I met last week or the week before with the emmer's disability access committee And in the event that would be granted they would like to have two accessible spaces in that location Currently, there's one staff space and one van accessible space For the purposes of permitting I'd like to permit what we've shown is the van accessible space in this location one of the reasons that this is a Consideration is when seminars come they're going to check in at the museum Those folks are going to walk over to 20 Triangle Street, so we'd like everybody to come to the same location Additionally, this is a very tight driveway, and I prefer to be able to mark it staff only This is a Small gate, which is located in the way so that when it's not being opened We've got some granite ballers providing lighting and On the north side of the building from the success of Part of space Coming around the building and into the building. This is the primary Access outside that porch is going to have to be rebuilt which I'll show you level For parking overall parking There Oh, there we go Parking required is six by square footage We are proposing that there are three total parking spaces including the accessible space If the access board granted the variance to utilize the parking at the museum We would reduce the width of this 16 feet of paving to maybe 10 or so And then again, this would be marked Staff only at our site visit today. There were some considerations, which I can show you as well in terms of additional options They're increasing the parking but essentially We're not able to reach the required six and stay within the lot coverage 40% is the maximum lot coverage I believe this is 34% which includes the pathways for reference on the interior of the building There's an existing staircase here that's being proposed to be removed. This is that south porch So you would come from the museum in this location. Here's your entrance one accessible toilet room a second toilet room in The event we need to reduce the cost of the project We leave that stair put the second toilet room upstairs where there's an existing bathroom now It includes accessible kitchenette. So this whole ground floor would be accessible and then the second floor is offices So not much scope On the exterior On the front of the building the only changes are two-fold Rebuilding the front steps so it has compliant handrails Providing a fire alarm beacon the building will be connected by fire alarm to Amherst College Dispatch Amherst College is the owner of the museum in this building. It's operated by the museum and the partnership on the backside We take a bay out to make those bathrooms on the north elevation there's no change except for a floodlight to light that accessible walkway, which it it's eliminated we would eliminate the lighting and There is one large tree that would be being proposed for removal Which is approximately here. It's a large oak. It's very close to the building drops lots of debris on the roof and we'll eventually compromise the foundation and Then there's some a tree here a spruce that's going to be trimmed if this walkway goes in So that's our proposal. I don't know if we want to talk about options on partnering discussion or We're gonna have a general discussion shortly the first item that we're gonna move into is a report on our site visit that happened today Some questions that came up there some of which I think you've already addressed but perhaps not all so we do have a written copy of the site report site visit Report in our packet and I'll just go through some of the questions again Some of these have been addressed these are questions raised by the board members who are present today And so one question is is the proposed stone dust pathway surface considered to be accessible Yes, if it's maintained and it will be maintained by the college great Thank you. The next question is about the length of the pathway, which I believe you explained is Too long by typical code standards, but you could be granted that length potentially correct. Thank you Questions should the driveway remain at about 10 feet wide to retain the existing stone wall along the east side of the house And as I'm going through these if the written version of the question is needs any clarification by the member that asked it Feel free to chime in was that last one relatively clear The question is clear the answer is not right So what we're originally proposing is there's a loose laid Goshen wall It's there and for considerations of plowing and not catching that wall with the plow We're proposing to remove it and regrade widen the existing Gravel drive from 10 feet to 14 feet and then have two parking spaces here We you know that though the primary consideration for Removing that wall is to widen a very narrow area and then the plowing consideration Two options that we prepared after the site visit today So one option, which is option a would be to leave the majority of that ocean wall where it is and Quite frankly if we're granted the variance not to provide the accessible space all of that wall around this corner could remain but we needed to remove some of it to make that additional bit and To rebuild a portion of wall here. There's a pretty substantial great difference Between the base of the foundation and here that would allow three parking spots here and a fourth here So you could pull back Maybe make it to two series turn to get out of there Another option is to leave the Goshen wall entirely as is and this is showing three nine by 20 spaces The parallel parking, which I think would be fine if it's staff only I'm not too excited about it if it's public coming there and Dawson around So, you know work work and these are both still working 34% on the lock coverage so They work great. All right, so we have a couple options. There's a lot of options. I don't want to be a plow driver fair enough All right, following up with subsequent questions Should the shrubs along triangle Street be trimmed and partially removed to improve sight distance for those entering and exiting the driveway Right here. I've hatched it blue. This is the existing shrubbery Yes, I should be cut back a little bit to improve visibility looking down triangle Street Which is a toboggan run in the winter anyway as you know Great, thanks for providing that option Should there be a third parking space? I'm not sure about this question. It appears. There's three parking spaces proposed in each version of the plans so Christine So the original plan has three and then these new ones have four okay because of the requirement is six Great. All right. Thank you and then Again, I'm not exactly clear who is posing this question if the architectural access board agrees There is no need for an accessible parking space on the north side of the house Would the planning board also agree and of course that's our job here today is to decide whether we're going to Grant the site plans as proposed. Was there any additional component to that question? Okay Okay. All right, so that sums up the issues questions that were raised at the site visit We also have a development application report that was prepared by staff There were a few issues that staff mentioned the board may wish to consider That the board may wish to include a condition that all new lighting be downcast That the board may wish to inquire about proposed methods of controlling siltation and runoff Relative to the request for a waiver from the erosion control plan that is one waiver Among five including that plan the sign plan Traffic impact statement construction and logistics plan and construction logistics plan and the pollution and hazardous materials plan The board may also wish to inquire about signs needed to identify the building and its address signs for the parking lot signs for deliveries, etc Board may wish to grant the waiver for the traffic impact statement because the number of vehicle trips Will be a small fraction of the overall vehicle trips that operate on adjacent streets And the board may wish to continue the public hearing until the local historic district commission has provided comments on this project Board may wish to grant the waiver for a construction logistics plan because of the limited amount of work and Finally related to the parking waiver, which was discussed already the board may wish to waive the requirement for six parking spaces and grant the approval for the plan as proposed So Next step here will be questions from the board. Are there any party? I just have a curiosity question. So for the museum, you don't need to provide Accessible like let's say if someone has a handicap and needs to access the offices that you don't have any obligation to There's gonna be two spaces there as well. Okay, so they could alternatively use them. Okay. Thanks, Maria And if I could add and one of the reasons that we're permitting that is They may in the future want To do that. So we want to you know, secure that possibility Anything could happen as you know, this might not be a question you can answer I don't know but the two options you gave would they also work for deliveries Right now, it's the same amount of paving, but I guess they'll be cars in different locations. I'm just wondering if both are feasible It's extremely tight. I think if someone we're gonna make a delivery, they're gonna pull in here They're gonna stop they're gonna make the delivery work their way out. Okay. Okay Want to make sure both work. Yeah Christine Thank you for doing this option and the Do you have a preference to either Yes, the original proposal Because of the plowing issue As you know, it's loose late and plow gets that thing. It's just gonna rip it apart so and Amherst College is providing the maintenance and they have a lot of plowing to do I'm sorry. I missed what your option your preferred option was our original proposal with three spaces Christine So this is the reduction of the 14 feet to the 10 feet on the like keeping the 10 and instead of expanding to 14 as I So we've got very old, you know fairly overgrown bushes in the front. I'm not sure I could you expand a foot or two To the east Yeah, I mean we can We can trim that a bit to get a little more room Yeah, it's gonna look a little gnarly with those But Christine, did you mean that relative to one of the specific layouts or just regardless of which layout is chosen? I I have a preference for adding the extra space to get it closer to what the Reg say but I understand that you know 10 feet It's a standard driveway, but it makes it a little bit more narrow for the plows. It is maintained by Amherst College. So they're Professional snow plowers, but so I understand you don't want to catch the wall and damage it But maybe we could get you know a foot or two would make the big difference It would be 11 or 12 feet then and I just being out there today Mm-hmm. I don't want to hack those bushes to make them look unsightly, but Could you get an extra foot? Yeah, Jack? I know The use they do sort of have a shelf life And I don't I have an observative are they overgrown how many years do you anticipate them being there before they needed, you know Maybe be replanted or replaced They're large I don't know how much more time they would have before they have to be replaced But they're you know, they can easily take a little trimming They're probably feet feet tall nine feet tall right now Christine So it appeared to me today that they had been topped off to control their growth And they probably have been there a while and it's something to consider that they are gonna continue to grow So if you just have 10 feet or even if you expand to 14, right? That's the problem with these and as you cut them back there is an ugliness to them So there is a lifespan that you know, but Amherst College if they're the ones who are gonna do the landscaping They might have an estimate for that Michael This is a slightly different topic I'm concerned about the Purpose of and need for a gate There is no fencing between the two properties that's being proposed. Is there The basic reason for the gate would be you know, this is there There's they feel when you're in the space is two separate properties right now The grounds of the Dickinson are disconnected. And so we're gonna open up some of the corner Shrubbery and small trees there and the intent of the gate is when there's not a seminar being conducted and It's staff only the gate can be closed Just a signal, you know, don't don't go to the neighbor's house for all intents and purposes I think the intent is that it doesn't change the residential character of the building from either Triangle Street or from From the Dickinson grounds themselves But the way the public uses that the grounds to the east of the homestead is as essentially as a public park and barring Barriers of one sort or another heavy shrubbery or something like that It'll be very simple to walk from the Dickinson homestead property to the property under consideration now As we did today when we walk through the snow I If budget is an issue it strikes me that a Gate although I can't cost very much money relative to the whole project It seems Kind of silly Standing out there in the middle of nowhere with no fence on either end of it just a gate free standing It's very simple to go around by if anybody wants to go around it Perhaps it blocks the path, but it's as you suggest. It's a it's not a cement path. It's a stone dirt path. I I Seems peculiar to me. That's basically all I can say other comments questions from the board Chris I would be concerned about Decreasing this the width of the driveway to ten feet The zoning ball it does say that for an individual driveway Driveways shall not be less than 12 feet Ten feet is pretty narrow. It's the size of a standard, you know mall parking lot space parking space So, you know, there are going to be cars kind of trying to get in and out of here Not that two cars could pass in 12 feet, but it just gives people a little more wiggle room And ten feet does seem very narrow. It may work for a single-family home, but I think in this case It's some it's sort of taking a chance Christine I agree with you Chris So this is where the Client of the owner sort of passed away the difference. I think the wall is beautiful And would hate to see it go which was sort of proposed And Bushes are or treat, you know, I'll have a lifespan So there's sort of a trade-off that sort of has to be decided here Are you going to go into the wall or are you gonna rethink the old? Our provide your time locks Other comments questions from the board Are there comments and questions from the public? Okay, this would be the time for Any further comments from the applicant and then we'll move on to final questions and comments from the board So again in the development application report We have a number of suggestions from planning staff including granting the waivers As requested, I'm referring to the submission waivers. The parking waiver is a little bit more complex I would agree with including the condition regarding lighting being downcast any Comments on that Is anyone interested in continuing the public hearing until the local historic district commission has provided comments? That is planned to happen at their March 11th meeting. I the issue of Priority who speaks first is at risk here as an issue here. I Suspect that well, no, I shouldn't say that but it seems to me that the two bodies ought to be working in in Concert with one another does the historical commission have the Authority to Deny delay demand changes. I'm not quite sure what their Responsibilities and authorities are relative to this project and if if they're recommending Perhaps we should wait to lay recommend on the other hand if we're recommending to them, perhaps we should go ahead Chris, what is the proper order here? It's a little bit What should I say? There's a little tension there because both bodies have permitting Authorization, so you will be approving a site plan and they will be approving exterior changes and They have the authority to Deny the change unlike the design review board, which recommends things. They actually have denial ability, so You you could Say that you approve the site plan and then add a condition I did give you a list of possible conditions and one of the conditions is if the local Historic District Requires a substantial change from the plan that you're seeing tonight That the applicant would come back to you at a public meeting and then you would determine whether There's a need to reopen the public hearing or whether you could Accommodate whatever change it is at the public meeting That makes perfect sense to me and to Chris's point about the possible conditions that were proposed They included the one just discussed the one I proposed mentioned relative to the exterior lighting Also that the applicant shall submit a plan showing a bike rack location for the approval of the board at a public meeting That landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the landscape plan and once installed shall be continually maintained disturbed areas shall be loaned and seated unless otherwise specified and That the if the architectural access board determines that no accessory parking space accessible parking space is required at 20 triangle street The applicant shall return to the planning board for review and approval of the deletion of the accessible parking space So we have these five conditions that have been proposed by staff that could accompany any potential approval of the site plan Yes This is the first time I've mentioned the condition of a bike rack. Is this a requirement? It normally is a requirement and normally the planning board does strongly encourage people to include bike racks It may be that it only is required for parking lots over five spaces and I'll check that right now Is there a bike rack situated on the grounds of the larger? No, thank you Did staff mean this proposal to show a bike rack specifically on the parcel in question? It would occur to me that I would be open to sighting of a bike rack Does not now exist anywhere on the grounds an alternative location Chris so the actual requirement is that For all uses that applicants are required to provide a bike rack if you have ten or more parking spaces But generally speaking the board does encourage the installation of a bike rack even for less than ten parking spaces So having a bike rack at the Emily Dickinson Museum may be a good compromise in this case Not only a compromise it's I would I would think it would be Vastly preferable because the number of customers persons using the main entrance at the museum would always Vastly outnumber the number of people were using the quote seminar room In the in the new building so I think a bike rack we can eat a bike rack I think it should be on the grounds of the homestead. There's certainly more room for it there and it would be you would serve the the public as well as the occasional Student dosent that it works in the museum as well. So I agree in principle with the requirement for a bike rack. I Think that it would also be reasonable to have that be at some point later in the process I wouldn't want to unduly hold up the applicant in their work So if other members of the board are hoping to something along those lines We could have it either be required before a certificate of occupancy is Issued for the building or a date later than that prior to CO I See general nods of agreement. So structure that accordingly. Yes, I Think it would be appropriate for me to discuss that with the client to see if they want a Bike rack near the historic home We have plenty of time For the permitting process. I don't need to pull a building permit for five or six weeks So we have plenty of time there Additionally, I was reviewing the bylaw on the local historic district commission the word stone wall Does not appear in the bylaw or the rules or regulations? They don't have jurisdiction over planting. They don't have jurisdiction over sidewalks So I don't know if that will be part of the discussion to retain the wall or not when we meet with them But that would have an impact Are we going left or are we going right? Chris I believe I don't have the local historic district bylaw in front of me I believe that they can comment on Structures and I would consider a stone wall to be a structure So they don't have the ability to comment on plantings or driveways or walkways or things like that But I think if they're a vertical structure, I believe that they do have jurisdiction over that So anything on the building and anything that's a stone wall. That's my understanding Christine Chris, what about? Just back to the bike rack now. I'm thinking if you If it didn't fit on this property and instead they put it on the museum property Does the historic commission weigh in on types of bike racks or how large or Chris The local historic commission might want to see it if it's going to be visible from the street Other board member thoughts on the bike rack issue Jack I would just mention that the violate excuse me Valley bike share program that is in existence now is In further encouraging. I think us to provide or ask for the bike rack Christine So will the bike rack? Be also brought up at the historical commission meeting Only if mr. Hartman Is going to propose it if you require it then he would have to talk to them about it So if I could ask the applicant would you prefer it sounds like you'd like to speak to your client about their preference on the bike rack So we could draft a condition that Requires you to install bike rack. We could continue this Until a future hearing. Do you have a preference for how we proceed with that? I'd rather continue it I think that'd be better because if you make a condition I have to work it out of it and Given the historic district may have Purview over the the wall if they want to keep it then I'm going one way or another so Like I said, it's small project. It's complicated Michael I'm given the nature of the institution and the number of parking spaces. We're talking about and the Inappropriateness of a bike rack in an historic district the visual inappropriateness or perhaps Anachronistic Appearance. I'm wondering if we need to require a bike rack at all It seems to me that We're not bound to Require one and I for one Would prefer not to put that requirement on the on the museum property In any place if we has to be there, I think Works better at the homestead, but if it's if we don't have to do it I would prefer not to require a bike rack in this case I was actually thinking along the same lines and I wonder if we might just provide a condition that the applicant comes back To us to discuss the possibility for Placing a bike rack somewhere on the property which would allow the conversation to continue but not Unduly hold them up Does that sound reasonable? Christine, okay, and are there any preferences on the time frame for that? I Proposed prior to certificate of occupancy previously, so we'll go with that. Okay. Thanks Are there any comments or questions on the other conditions that staff have proposed? So at this time we could either go through all the site plan review criteria Or I would also entertain a motion to find that the proposal is in keeping with all of those criteria and to grant the Request for site plan review approval with conditions as discussed also to close the public hearing Yes D a disability access advisory committee It is and further to that if also all of the recommended so Will all of the recommendations of that I think the report also says that in addition to the two Spaces drop off Also be located over there That could be a 15 minute drop off, but it needs to be marked eight feet away from any building wall So it's a little problematic That recommendation my sense is if you have the two part of the space is here If that variance is granted then that should accommodate the Accessible need parking and then if it's just a delivery they're going to park in the middle and they're going to drive away So the drop off seems redundant to two van accessible parking spaces. I think we need to make a clarification So I don't think that they're meeting all of the request and that's why they're asking for the variance for the I just wanted to clarify Chris Excuse me. I can't quite hear you. Yeah, I'm I was just trying to clarify that they don't Make all the conditions so the variance is requested this one number four, so that's Why they're asking for a variance if they're not meeting that condition correct number four of the report for the site visit no of the The DAC No, I know The question was different the question was whether you're meeting all the conditions If the variance is granted, yes, we would meet all the recommendations so we don't know that yet We won't know that for a month. Yeah, so that's a provisional requirement If the access board says no, you need to provide it, we're gonna provide it Christine So how I read this is there's variances that you're asking for and then at the very bottom of the second page are the recommendations from the actual disability That's correct. So is that what you're asking at the bottom of the page? Were those three no recommendations? I was but but Ari Clarified that these are also provisional variance requests that will be Addressed by they haven't been granted yet. They're asking for that David did that address your question? Yes, great. All right Other comments questions again, we can proceed through the Criteria for site plan if members prefer or I'd entertain a motion to find that the proposal in keeping with those Criteria is there a preference? Jack just another question if the if the use are modified or removed. Does that require? any action by by the planning board or Tree warden at a later date or Chris I Think maybe you need to clarify which plan you're approving then if you're talking about removing use my understanding was that you were thinking Entertaining the idea of approving the plan as it was proposed as mr. Hartman has proposed it and not Going with one of the options so if you didn't go with the options then Only some use might need to be removed in order to provide site distance So I guess that might be part of your motion if you're going to go along with mr. Hartman's plan Then part of the motion might be to remove those use at the end to provide greater site distance Does that clarify yes, and so that the comment you made brings up the two points of which of the three options we've presented Are we approving I had suggested approving the original plan as proposed and the second question being do we want to Request the removal of the use as shown in one of the plans Christine So I brought up the line of sight at the driveway point And I I was really only interested in the small arbor vide that's the little round one to be removed and Because I did know it could be aesthetically not pleasing to hack into the hemlocks So to clarify you were the one that recommended that some of the had to be removed But you only meant that one planting which was just indicated on the plan My desire was that the arbor vide be removed and that area be Landscaped appropriately so that there wasn't new growth put there Four foot area. Yeah, right there. Yeah. Yeah, all right, and then the question of preference amongst the three proposals, so I had suggested that we approve the plan as originally proposed Comments questions on that Christine Only curious on what the rest of the board thinks, you know, they're required to have six parking spots And they're trying to reduce it to three, but they've given us options with four water peoples and Part of that was also with whether or not keeping the wall. I Think that the parking needs of the site are well served as shown in the original proposal Especially considering that it's part of a broader site which has additional parking capacity Currently staff there's currently there's one staff parking space at the museum and one inaccessible parking space at the museum So the staff parking space would be relocated to 20 triangle all of the staff either parks on Main Street or on Webster or at the alumni lot at Amherst College Christine do you know a reminder that what they're Trying to achieve here is to have seminars what they said up to 30 people Which is that's a fairly significant size crowd if they all came in their own cars And there is some public street parking, but that's why I was like maybe they should try to maximize their parking Michael I was wondering if you know how many staff members are work would be working in this new building and Are they are they full-time staff or part-time staff? Do you know it's a combination of full and part-time and In the spaces itself There is one office reception area on the first floor and Then five offices on the second floor So seven staff members Jack. Where is the alumni parking lot you mentioned? It is off of Spring Street behind the Lord Jeff You can go diagonally through Webster to get to Main Street. I Park on Spring Street to get to Hastings Christine So if there were seven people working there and they have a seminar with 30 guests, that's 37 people You know there is some street parking, but that's gonna put quite a load on it So I was just thinking you know any space that you can properly design in there would be worth it So Christine, did you have a preference amongst the three? Potential parking layouts that we have here for ease of the drivers I like option a I think that would be the easiest to maneuver in and out again my only you know and Again, it comes back to the wall or the use I think 10 is a little tight 12 would be better but again that has to be talked with the client and Why don't we why don't we defer to another meeting? We'll meet with the historic district and see if we can modify the wall take the wall out what the what the opinion is Because this I mean this is this is modifying It's not just taking it away it's taking it out Regrating and rebuilding it. It's double the work From just taking it away You're gonna have to take the wall out and then rebuild it in a new location The wall today Christine Correct, so the top part is already is going regardless Maybe your original yeah in the original proposal all of the wall would be going with a while This is cut with the option which you're hoping that you will not be required to have a Handicap spot at the site and if I or isn't that when you would reduce the top in the original proposal all of the wall is being removed and Then that would allow us to widen the drive there Adjust the grades here adjust the grades here to get the parking to work in this particular scheme This portion of the wall which is being relocated just a couple of feet as It's shown here. This is just a couple of feet and then this would have to be rebuilt for grade I brought this As I had a sense this would come up Red line is the edge of the existing wall In your original option yeah, can we pass that around thank you so much Christine so You know my interest really is not so much about the wall. I think the wall is very nice I guess my two issues right now is I would like to see parking maximized and yet in a way that is efficient for plowing and For the usability of the spaces How it's done whether the wall of you that's not my that's for others to figure out what they want So you're not suggesting that the applicant run with a particular one of the three options We see in front of us for their purposes of their next hearing with the local historic district My my personal opinion would be option a as I said before Because it provides four spots the there's also four with B But I think usability wise a is a smarter option either way We're still dealing with the the 10-foot driveway The original option, you know, it has three spots. So I'm either way the wall gets Affected, you know, so the details I'm trying not to get in the weeds. I would just like to see four rather than three spots I mean Whatever that matters. I would be in favor of the original because I really think that the gaining of the one spot is Not as significant Christine so it wasn't just that the two spot the way they have it originally done It's it's tight to maneuver to get in and out of those spots because it is a smaller space. It's only I think 17 feet Yeah, it's 16 So it looks like we're heading towards continuing the public hearing But I'd like to give the applicant as clear a sense as possible of what we would look for in a layout Jack you have a comment. I was just wondering what's the grade change between the street and the drive The grade right here is 299. That's 300 301 And it's 300 it's relatively flat through here This is 299 here and then 300 goes like that It's it's pretty level So it sounds like so far Christine supports option a far he supports the original proposal as I do other Thoughts from any members Jack? Yeah, I I like keeping the wall And and and they use I don't really I just looked at them on the Google Street view and they're just there. They're nothing of Any consequence so if the drive was to widen I think I would go toward the street if you Took the the plantings out in front of the house entirely How how what would that gain you in terms of driveway width? the wall I believe is 12 feet from the property line 12 or 13 feet from the property line the existing wall so Not much can Can a driveway be built right on the property line or does it have to be set back? Chris a driveway can be built right on the property line. I would have to think that if the museum management doesn't Object the removal of those trees would be a Good idea And actually Show the house off better as part of the overall historic package Then it then it now shows it's it's I've walked by there lots of times It's a much more interesting house if you could see it without the trees in front of it And I think that would be an advantage to the overall property combination of the three houses now Sure, I'll be happy to discuss it with them Jack yeah, that's what I was That's where I'm at too but Have you had this conversation with the stat with the with the director? Yeah, the intent was to leave Leave the vegetation that's there It does screen The cars that are going to be there. It also gives it a sense of privacy that it's not necessarily a public building unless you're accessing it from the public entrance So Christine Just again, that's a temporary fix these use are not going to last forever So this purpose will probably last longer than that. So it will have to be thought of And then just looking at the scale roughly It seems at the pinch point the tightest the wall to the street appears to be about 14 feet and widens from there Existing wall from the existing plan Up near the driveway point if you measure from the wall To the property line that would be the smallest point and it looks about 14 So looking at plan L 101 Yeah Once again, it all comes down to the wall Christine so It actually is like that say 13 14, but you're actually in the driveway then so it becomes obsolete Because you have the room there So as you move into the use it's 14 15 Mm-hmm, and I'm being highly technical using my eraser to use Is that a half size It should it should say do not scale somewhere on these notes But again, I'm more let's see what the historic district wants to have it see what how we proceed with the wall and then I think ultimately what I need from you is The the count the parking and then I can come back with a proposal our members in a place to make a recommendation on The parking count Christine has suggested that it be maximized Maximizing the parking round from three the exist the proposed three to four is is a good idea in theory, but as probably not as important given the fact that There's so many other considerations to Work through here. I think I would like to have C4 spaces there But if it doesn't fit in with the overall architectural Scheme Then I'm not really concerned about it since four is nowhere near the total maximum that we would really need there anyway I think the difference between one and between three and four is relatively insignificant although I would tend to go toward four if There's seems to be if there's no good reason to stay at three And I sort of sense there's a good reason to stay at three, but I'm not convinced one way or the other firmly so Having I would also be satisfied with three parking spaces on the site Especially if the issues we've discussed can be addressed including the feasibility of plowing the surface and improving the visibility When entering or exiting the driveway Jack I agree. I think there's adequate parking Law namers college property nearby as well, which is important Christine so I think it it's up to the historical committee to talk about the wall Which is part of why this came up out So, you know if it stays three if we can just widen it's really tight there I think they're not really very usable spaces especially we were out there today and looking at how it gets plowed and all that yeah Okay, is that some clear enough guidance for your your next step I heard three great very good All right, any other questions comments from the board applicants Just Christine so if they say you have to keep the wall then That's the point then rethink the parking again and just to clarify I think Chris spoke about this aspect of the process already the Local Historic District Commission is not advisory to the planning board They need to issue their own certificate of appropriateness for the project So they have their own discretion. It's not that they're advising us per se, but these are parallel processes So what we've discussed is continuing the public hearing and the next planning board meeting would be March 20th Chris, how is that meeting looking as far as fullness of the agenda? I don't yes We do have emmerced media that night emmerced media is going to be kind of a Challenge I think so it'll probably take a while And I don't think you have other things on for that night All right, and would that date work for the applicant great that being the case of entertain a motion to continue the public hearing to March 20th sorry So I'm making a motion to Shall we close the public? We're continuing it to continue To review the SPR 2019-03 to the next Great second moved and seconded any further discussion all in favor That's unanimous. Thank you so much. We'll see you next time All right moving on with our agenda the next item is 5a old business planning board rules and regulations Review and update to bring into compliance with home emmerced home rule charter and other issues This was a conversation. We started a previous planning board meeting and staff has since done some research Which is included in our packet Chris would you mind just giving us a brief summary of that? so Site plan review was first instituted in emmerced in the 1980s and at that time There was a Desire to make it as close as possible to the special permit process so that the boat for the site plan review was set at two-thirds of the planning board two-thirds of the planning board at that time was Six six out of nine Then later on in the 1990s There was a court case in I Forget what town it was Stockbridge Sturbridge Sturbridge Osburg versus Sturbridge. I believe was the case and that case Stated that You did not need to have a two-thirds vote for site plan review That a majority would be sufficient and it appears that emmerced took that to heart and But only partially took it to heart because they changed the rules to say that For site plan review a two-thirds vote was required, but no less than five So they backed off from the six out of nine to say five out of nine would be required to pass site plan review and that was in 1998 and We have remained at that That boat count ever since So now you're being asked to determine what should the vote be for a Planning board of seven people and From the research that we've done it turns out that most cities and towns who have site plan review require a majority Vote for for site plan review. It's considered to be a by right type of approval in other words the use is by right and the planning board has the Ability to tell the applicant how to do the use how many parking spaces how much Landscaping or kind of lighting etc. But you can't say no to the use So that's considered to be kind of a step down from the more rigorous Special permit application and review process. So that's why Because it's a it's a by right use. That's why These cities and towns are choosing to go with the majority and I believe that that's backed up by the osberg case So I hope you've had a chance to read the memo that we wrote to you about the history And I also spoke with mr. Tucker who was the planning director previous to me and he agreed with that assessment and that history So Now I put it into your hands to decide which way to go All right. Well, first I want to thank staff for doing that analysis and digging back to 19 late 80s to to find out the origins of this current Bylaw and I support the analysis and the recommendation that Chris just laid out. I do have one question which is whether the Language in question the place it finds in the zoning by-law if a similar change was Recommended or made by the by-law review committee I see in the recommendations here that we would need to have our recommendations adopted by Town council as an amendment to the zoning by-law. So I take that to mean that no change was has yet been made Chris No change has yet been recommended by the by-law review committee. They didn't make Substantive changes to the by-law or make recommendations about substance substantive changes They just recommended changes to bring the by-law into conformance with the charter and then they left the rest of it to planning board so You might consider whatever you decide about this particular issue that It's probably going to be this change in your rules and regulations would be on a parallel track with Change in the zoning by-law because you can't have one say one thing and the others say another thing so this Preparation this discussion that you're having now is kind of a precursor to Holding a public hearing probably a few months from now When town council is ready to consider changes to the zoning by-law that would be my assessment on this So that being the case Would it not make sense to remove reference to voting requirements in the planning board rules and regulations? That may be a reasonable Thing to do. I'm not familiar with rules and regulations that don't have voting requirements in them Well, that's not true. I don't think the zoning board Rules and regs have voting requirements, but I can check on that And I guess if I could clarify we need not remove the section entirely But rather just say that the voting requirements will be a stated in the zoning by-law if we need to retain a reference because otherwise We have this these double processes going on so all right other comments questions. I think Michael had something to say on this Yeah, I also want to echo your Thanks to the staff. I think this is was a an exceptionally useful package that you put together for us outlining a wide variety of opinions and attitudes about the issue I wanted to point out that Sorry that That osberg v. Sturbridge is a little less Proscriptive than I think you're suggesting on the the let's see it's the fourth fifth page Pages aren't numbered so try to tell on the fifth page of the head of the second paragraph Begins without deciding whether a municipality without statutory authority may impose the vote requirements It's it's it simply suggests to me that the court case did not choose to decide that issue of whether there could whether Could there could be a three or two-thirds vote or a majority vote it left that it left that? Open simply saying that the town did not establish otherwise Implying I believe that it could establish otherwise if it chose to do so and then on the next page It goes on in the absence of contrary statutory provision Which suggests to me that contrary statutory provision could exist Rather than simply saying it has to be just this way It seems to suggest that the municipality in question could decide which way it wanted to be Whether it would be a majority vote or a two-thirds vote So I think the the the stand the legal standing of the question is a little bit Mercier than that I'm looking for another citation here Given that Opening I should say not loophole, but opening It seems to me that we would be within our rights to Request or ask the town council to legislate a Two-thirds vote as a requirement for slight at site plan review But I think the real issue is how does two-thirds get interpreted when we don't have a full-body Voting which is sometimes the case I would imagine that Did a little bit of temporary math here that Two-thirds of seven votes is four point six six six votes or five So that if we have a two-thirds vote Five would be required For with a two-thirds vote and only four would be the majority if we have six people voting. It's four both ways two-thirds and Majority would be both before if we have only pop five people five people voting then in both ways It's three. So the only real issue is when we have a full board voting Do we have a five votes to carry or four votes to carry? I? Suspect with the kinds of Issues that we're dealing with I Would I would suggest that a seven a Two-thirds vote or five people Would be an appropriate Number And I think we're within our rights in terms of the way I read the the court decision that you sent to us To request that or to suggest that or to put that in as our as our preference I don't know whether it is our preference But I think we would we could do that if we wanted to do to do that and I would like to do that so I'm not sure how we get at this in terms of of motions. I guess we need to go through the Suggested rules and regulations that we have on our desk tonight and when we get to that issue address it but I think That's that's the way I see the issue Jack I Thought the way Mike explained it was good because he might as well just spell out, you know like he did if there are seven Present versus six versus five just I mean who wants to do the math? Mike already did it Maria I Think the the planning staff was saying that that then makes site player review equivalent to Special permit and that's not what they would prefer because the special permit is a more difficult Level of approval and site player review is not so it's not really fair to give that five seven vote to both types of approval processes So I have to agree with sort of what the staff and mr. Tucker were saying that five out of seven It's not a reasonable voting requirement for a bite right use Christine So Chris could you explain a little bit the trend so actually I'll back up So I did a lot of research on this also and so if you read the actual case You're right. It's sort of vague, but if you have to look at the history of what happened so most of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts wrote their zoning in the 80s and it was the two-thirds or the Supermajority and then it When this court case happened in 97 if you look historically Many towns in the Commonwealth re-evaluated and changed to the simple majority and Then and sometimes haven't addressed come back to it at all But there's also and this is what I thought Chris could maybe explain there's been a house a bill in the house That's been trying to get through the last couple years on redoing zoning And they're still hoping it will go through one of these years and it keeps getting debated but that one is to make an SPR a simple majority But it's actually so much that Governor Baker is pushing for a special permit to be a simple majority And I'm reading an article here Last year him talking about it and it says that only ten states in the country require super majorities for zoning changes and His feeling is it's hurting the economic development and it's not it puts on due pressure and restrictions on on Development so if Chris could just explain, you know, I forget what it's H. Do you remember? Yeah, Chris. I'm afraid I haven't read the latest zoning reform act They come out every year and they're all very similar with slight tweaks I think the effort is to Make regulations with regard or make decisions with regard to housing much Simpler and not require two-thirds vote for housing and also not require two-thirds vote for zoning for zoning amendments But I'm not sure about more detailed Briding than that I could look into it Michael well, I Don't want to monopolize this but with all due respect to governor Baker and to mr. Tucker I said I Think people who acquire property In a part of town which is owned in a certain way Expect that zoning to continue for the life of their ownership of the property and I Think if a simple majority can change the zoning or can Seriously affect the way in which a Property is is used in in special permit terms or looks In SPR in site plan review terms I think We're selling we're selling out the public. I think we need to be more rigorous in terms of Following the zoning regulations that that as as they exist rather than less rigorous and it seems to me that a two-thirds vote in for SPR Moves in that direction and Regardless of what other towns do and I understand that other towns have gone to a majority vote in this in this area I Still don't think we should do it. I think we should stay with or should Establish a two-thirds majority a super majority if you want to call it that For these kinds of issues Just want to respond to one thing you mentioned Michael there Which is you suggested that this would allow zoning to be changed under the requirements we're discussing and it's my understanding That's not the case that changes the zoning are now outside the purview of the planning board We make recommendations the town council Adopts them so zoning could not be changed based on the requirements. We're discussing here And I think that as was mentioned before the fact that these Decisions are made about properties and projects which the use is not in question that the use is going to be allowed regardless We're just looking at parameters of the site means that indeed It is a lower threshold as it has been and should remain and to go to the five out of seven requirement That equates to 71% of the board which I think is a higher percentage requirement that has ever been in place So by not addressing this change that has happened to our charter by not enacting the language that staff has Proposed we're making a higher threshold and I'd appreciate the point that you would prefer a higher threshold But I don't think that the point of the charter was to make things more difficult for site plan review Applicants so I'm in support of the the language that staff has proposed. I think it's the right direction to go Jack well said Greg Thank you I didn't hear what you said Jack. I said well said And just to note also that we're not at a place where we can act on any of these because we need to hold a public hearing to make Any changes so what we're trying to do is determine what language would be proposed prior to holding that public hearing David Yeah, I agree with Greg and Maria and that It's the distinction between site plan and a special permit That distinction should be reflected. I think in the voting requirements as well And that the site plan review does have a lower. It's a by-right as opposed to a discretionary Authority For the that that lower voting requirement is makes that Distinction consistent So I think we have some differences of opinion on what should happen with the language proposed by staff But I'm not sure that we have a difference of opinion that we should act on it So I would propose that we hold in the near future perhaps at our next meeting a public hearing to further discuss and possibly vote on whether or not to adopt the changes that staff has proposed I don't think we need a formal emotion to decide to place this on our agenda for future meeting Chris I'm a little nervous about putting the cart before the horse in the sense that if you change your rules and regs and the zoning by-law Isn't changing then You may be in a bit of a quandary. I know you had suggested taking that language out entirely There wasn't really a discussion on that by the board. So I'm not sure what direction Everyone wants to go in regard to that if you did take the language out entirely I think you might be able to amend your rules and regs without waiting for the zoning by-law But anyway, that's something for your consideration Yeah so I'd amend my suggestion that we hold a public hearing to incorporate language into the planning board rules and regulations to Say that the voting requirements are as stated in the zoning by-law and then separate from that Chris Is it now our process and this would be our first? Zoning proposal to the town council. Is it our process that we would need to hold a public hearing to discuss any recommendation? That we might make Chris, I'm not exactly sure how town council will be handling zoning Regulations and whether they will want Regulations to come or amendments to come from the planning board or whether they will want to Propose regulations themselves. They are setting up a Community resource committee as part of the town council. So it's unclear exactly how Proposals will get to town council, but I I suppose the planning board could You know strongly recommend that some change be made and then town council would take it up And then what they would do is pass it down to the planning board to hold a public hearing. It's I'm gonna actually sure what the formal procedure is gonna be so If I understand correctly to this point the only zoning changes have been those proposed by the by-law review committee Is that committee still active? Chris there is a committee called the by-law review committee I think it has slightly different membership than had previously, but it is still active I asked the question because the changes is owning which were recommended and adopted Recommended by that committee adopted by town council were because That committee found that these changes were needed to keep our zoning by-law in compliance with The charter and its purposes. Yes, Chris So the town council has not yet taken up those recommended changes that the by-law review committee recommended even though you voted to Recommend them on December 12th The town council hasn't yet taken those up So I would suggest we revisit our recommendation on that to potentially include This needed change to keep the by-law in keeping with the charter What process Chris would you see for that? It's a little bit Muddying the waters I think because the by-law review committee has come up with this entire document of Proposals which they say is non-substantive and This proposal that you're well you're proposing to take something out of the by-law But I'd have to think about that a little bit and probably get some advice about Okay, so I do think it's reasonable to move towards resolution on this that we hold the public hearing To discuss the change to planning board ruled in regulations, which would be to remove essentially the duplicate reference To voting requirements and just simply say in that section that they shall be as stated in the zoning by-law Does that sound reasonable to everyone? All right, and I think we could do that at our next meeting March 20th make that You can't hold a public hearing on March 20th because there's not enough time to advertise it But you could hold a public hearing on April 3rd if you'd like to do that Would you like me to schedule a public hearing? Is that agenda heavy so far? I'm your mick cheese proposal for a mixed use building is on that agenda, but I think that's the only item So do you want to hold a public hearing on that night? any Jack I will be here Looks like there's a consensus to do this in the third Wednesday of April you had to propose the third I Had proposed April 3rd, which is the first Planning board meeting in April. So the next one would be 17 after that, which would be the 17th 17th That's this location we we have one not present for 17th and two not present for the 3rd So you could do it in the middle in the beginning of May April 17th. Okay everyone So April 17th. Thank you. I ask All the other changes that were proposed in the bylaw were acceptable to you With the exception of this new thing that is being added That were recommended by the bylaw review committee. No, I mean Let me go back a minute. I thought we were talking about these changes to the rules and regulations Is that what you're talking about? Yes, these changes were recommended by staff planning department staff, right? Yes, we had previously discussed those being acceptable. I think the one we discussed in-depth tonight was the one That there was further conversation on our others In agreement that we should be proceeding with the other changes recommended by staff. Okay. All right. Yes, good I understand what you're saying. Okay Okay, anything else on the topic of the planning board rules and regulations We've already gone over most of these items with the exception of planning board committee on liaison reports PVPC No report Christine I do have one. I went to the last meeting and Chris forwarded an email to you all about the survey the transportation survey There was a link on that. I think the email went out on February 25th I think we're back to look at it and something about how they're starting their transportation plan and there was a Great thing they've launched called Pioneer Valley data.org and I totally recommend everyone just go and visit that because it's a real Great data source and they've done a great job Great. Thanks CPAC Yes, I have been nominated and sworn in and We've had our first meeting was primarily organizational the next four meetings and the next on the next four Thursdays are to Hear all of the applicants. There are some 20 requests for the the funds and We will be deciding them Probably the first meeting in April So your nomination you've been appointed formally great so we can update our packets excellent Is the same true of ag commission and party? I Haven't been notified that I've been approved yet, but there haven't been any meetings also so Chris, I think there was a real push to Prove or to appoint people to CPAC because they have to act in a certain limited amount of time So other appointments may tend to lag a little bit All right, designer view board. No report there For the housing trust has not met since we last met starting subcommittee same situation U-TAC, I suppose we have a report of sorts Which is that my understanding is that we are formally going to be dissolving U-TAC and there will be or if there already was Christine do you actually there's a meeting of U-TAC on March 25th at 2 p.m. I believe in this room and it's to Think about the role or how it should evolve I didn't see that in the email dissolve, but Yeah, well my sense was that it seems like a closing to collect feedback from how things went So it's possible that the group would continue but in a different form Because again my subcommittee had not met in probably 18 months And the downtown parking working group Just the consultant continues to do their work They did do some stakeholder meetings and they're planning to have public forums In the next in about a month or two Great. Thanks Report of the chair. I have no report reporter staff No report. All right, then we'll be adjourned. Thanks so much everyone