Okay. Mr. Marshall, we are live. You have a quorum. We are recording this meeting. The attendees are coming in. We have an attendee here. I believe you're good to go. All right. Thank you, Pam. Welcome to the Amherst Planning Board meeting of November 16, 2022. My name is Doug Marshall and as the chair of the Amherst Planning Board, I am calling this meeting to order at 633 p.m. This meeting is being recorded and is available live stream via Amherst meeting minutes are being taken. Pursuit to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended by chapter 22 of the acts of 2022 and extended again by the state legislature on July 16, 2022. This planning board meeting, including public hearings will be conducted via remote means 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 web page 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 via technological means. In the event we are unable to do so for reasons of economic hardship or despite best efforts, we will post an audio or video recording, transcript or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the town of Amherst website. Board members, I will take a roll call. When I call your name, unmute yourself, answer affirmatively and return to mute. Bruce Coldham. Tom Long. President. Andrew McDougal. President. I, Doug Marshall, I'm president. Janet McGowan. Here. 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 the meeting. If the discussion needs to pause, it will be noted in the minutes. Please use the raise hand function to ask a question or make a comment. I will see your request and call on you to speak after speaking. Remember to remute yourself. To the 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 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 their allotted time, their participation may be disconnected from the meeting. All right, so the first item on our agenda for the evening. And we're starting this item at 637 PM is our review and approval of minutes. However, I don't believe we have any minutes available for review tonight. So, unless the staff wants to contradict me, I think we'll just go ahead and move on to the second item. Seeing some nodding heads. So the second item is the public comment period. So at this time members of the public. If you would like to make any comments on items that are not on tonight's agenda. This is the time to do that. Your, you will be invited to make comments on items that are on the agenda later in the meeting when we discuss that topic, each topic. At this time, I only see one participant as an a public attendee. That's Jonathan Gerr fine and I believe he's waiting for his topic to come up later in the meeting. I don't see that he wants to make any public comment at this time. So we'll move right along to item three the zoning bylaw public hearing. The time now is 638. And so the intro in accordance with the provisions of mass general law 40 a these public hearings have been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted and is being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity for interested citizens to be heard regarding and to be held for food and drink establishments article three use regulations article five accessory uses article 11 administration and enforcement and article 12 definitions to see if the town will vote to amend article three use regulations to delete existing use categories in section 3.352.0. Restaurant cafe lunch room cafeteria or similar place section 3.352.1 class to restaurant or bar and section 3.352.2 class three drive up restaurant and to add the following use categories. Section 3.352.0 restaurant cafe bar with food or other similar food slash beverage establishment where food is available at all times. Section 3.352.1 bar with no food served section 3.352.2 nightclub and section nightclub and section 3.352.3 any of the above food or drink establishments with occupant capacity and more than 250 occupants and to add standards and conditions for these uses. And to amend article five accessory uses sections 5.041 5.042 and 5.043 to allow seasonal outdoor dining as an accessory use to a principal use authorized by section 3.3. And to allow outdoor furnishings associated with such use to remain in place between November one and April one as long as the use is active and operational to remove the prohibition on outdoor heating and pooling devices. And to allow live or prerecorded entertainment as an accessory use to a principal use authorized by section 3.3 and to delete reference to drive in restaurants and to amend article 11 administration and enforcement to to rearrange the paragraphs describing when site plan review is not required. And to clarify the requirements and process for granting administrative approval and to amend article 12 definitions by clarifying section 12.05 bar and by deleting section 12.11 drive up restaurant and any associated renumbering that may be necessary. Hearing is continued from November 2 2022. All right, do we have any board member disclosure. I do not see any. This Chris do you intend to make the application or will this be Nate tonight. This will be Nate and I think we'll be accompanied by Rob more eventually. Okay. So take it away Nate. I just want to make sure Andrew just raised his hand. I don't know. Okay, Andrew. Oh, thanks. Thanks. Yes. I just want to make sure it says more than 250 occupants, but that number is changing right. Right. So the original. The original proposal. And so, right. Thanks. Yeah, hi everyone. Nate Malloy a planner with the town. I was going to share my screen. I think that might be the easiest way. Okay. Let me see if I can zoom in a little bit. The, what's shown in blue is what was changed for the November 2 meeting after, you know, some discussion with the planning board and CRC. And it's shown in green is what's been added since the last, you know, public hearing with the planning board and the, and the community resources committee.  You know, that's interior and exterior and that's, you know, whether they're seated or standing and so it doesn't include staff.  So really it's the patrons that would be the threshold now. And so that's something, you know, we're asking for, you know, we're proposing to ask for a layout plan with occupant capacity for indoor and outdoor dining.  Nate, that would be a, an additional posting beyond the assembly code occupancy. No, so we're proposing to, I guess I should have stricken more but it would have been just 200 patrons is the, you know, the capacity is no more than 200 patrons so it's not, you know, the occupants it's just the patrons. Well, I don't have any problem with the text here. I guess the question of posting just is a different question, you know, you're posting the legal ad you mean or. No, I mean every assembly space has to have a plaque on the wall that says so many people can occupy this room. Right. And are you saying there needs to be another plaque that says there's so many patrons. So that's part of the permit right so that's not part of the building or fire code so you know those signs you see are for fire and safety not necessarily for land use permitting. Right. You know and we're also proposing in the BN where you know a bar a nightclub or a larger establishment and you know at one point, usually we had said by special permit we're proposing to prohibit those and have them. We had all in the BN and only the proposed restaurant cafe or bar with food or similar establishment will be allowed through site plan review. And so there's some concern about having more impactful uses in the BN. In standards and conditions number five we added some language about specific management strategies for alcohol service such as hours of operation, or hours of service and patrons leaving the establishment. With the management plan all these categories we see here hours of operation trash refuse storage. You know these are fields within the management plan the applicant has to complete. And then they become standards and conditions so you know we can add more we do say any other requested information so what we're really doing is building a number of criteria, you know review criteria that an applicant has to complete that then become standards and conditions so if they say they want to operate until midnight that's that's it if they want to go beyond that that's a change. You know they have to provide their signs they're you know how they're going to provide for queuing, lighting delivery noise containment. So all those things we expect that will be completed and then they become standards and conditions so we're adding some language about alcohol service specifically. One of the other changes. Well in addition is a new, a new one number 11 that there should be no alcohol service after 1am. And so that's something that's been common practice by the ZBA and the Board of Licensing Commissioners so it's never been codified before codified before, or a, you know it's not a town policy. It's been common practice and so we're proposing that in the bylaw, and you know there wouldn't really be an exception to that. So there may be some existing establishments that have previous permits that allow a different end time for alcohol service, you know as we said an existing special permit doesn't just go away on a property it remains and so, you know, typically in the last, you know five years 10 years at 1am spend the ending time. And so you know we're just saying that that could be put in the bylaw. So typically, if a alcohol service ends at one, you know, the permit would allow up to an hour afterward to clean up and close close close establishment so that's not necessarily a closing time but it is end of service time. Nate I see Bruce's hand. Bruce, you have a question on this page. Thanks, Nate. I noticed the change for 200 patrons and that seemed to be, you know that that is heading in the direction that I was advocating last time of course, but I hadn't noticed the difference between occupancy and patrons before so I just because we were using Johnny's as a benchmark before do you happen to know how many patrons, which is to say patrons and not cooks and cleaning staff and all those other folks that you mentioned contribute to the occupancy. Do you know how many patrons Johnny's holds. I don't I think it's still be close to 170 and so, you know, typically. So they might have anywhere from five to say 15 staff on maybe, maybe more on a really busy night if there's a function but you know because they have a bar they can have people standing and so, you know it's a, it's a fluctuating number so, you know, right now they're whether the zoning bylaw and a permit said that they get up to 200 patrons their occupant capacity based on other codes may may not allow that right so. If their argument capacity is 175 that's total, and then their patrons is, you know, they may keep it at 150 just to be clear, you know, depending on how many staff they have. Okay, that's, that's, that's, that's good I just wanted to check my reference. I, I, I, I, I obviously support the, the diminishment of number. Janet. Um, I, you know, I appreciate the clarity with adding the different, like application requirements and standards and the clarity about, you know, saying no alcohol served after one o'clock. But the more I look at this section the more I just puzzled why it's in the youth chart. Because, you know, to me the youth chart is, you know, what's your activity. What zoning district is it in. What kind of permit do you need to get or are you allowed to do it. And so, you know, I wondered if this should be pulled out into regulations, like the planning board and the ZBA could adopt regulations that say, you know, when you're applying for a permit for a bar restaurant, or a nightclub.  So I just feel like this is just not in the right spot. And if it was a regulation of the planning board and the ZBA we could sort of change it without having, I think, without having going through town council. And so to me, like half of these things look like things that you want to see in the application and the management plan, and half of them are standards like, you know, use tableware that's reusable, you know, and things like that. I just think this is just makes the use table really complicated and really confusing. And so, if I was an applicant, I would, you know, go to my use table. All these conditions and management plan and application requirements are here but then also I have a zoning bylaw that I have to look at. And then I also have a building code and it just seems like, is there a way to simplify this process. And then the rules and the regs and, you know, what we're going to expect for conditions for applicants but not in this use chart. All right, thanks Janet, Nate do you have any thoughts about that. Yeah I mean so the use chart has always had a place where the categories are classifications are listed and then there's standards and conditions here in this space and so you know for marijuana establishments we have you know more pages of standards and conditions and so the benefit of having a zoning bylaw is the building commissioner as the zoning enforcement officer and you know other boards and committees regulatory boards and committees can apply them. If they're in planning board rules and regulations it may not be the case that the building commissioner could use these during administrative approval to have an applicant complete all these necessary steps. So the building commissioner Massachusetts is the zoning enforcement officer you know by by you know it's a statutory requirement so any building commissioner needs to enforce the zoning bylaw and so that's why they're here right they become, we find that they're up front here. I mean I don't find that it complicates the zoning bylaw anymore than a zoning bylaw is already complicated. And so to have these upfront is, you know we find it to be a benefit to applicants and architects that this is what they're required to do. So what will you know generate conditions and enforcement actions by, you know, regulatory boards in the building commissioner so I mean, sure. Some of the reasons why these are so much generic and not so prescriptive is that the change them would require changing the zoning bylaw. So you know in the management plan we say in any other requested information, it's not an exhaustive list. And really these are things that we're expecting an applicant to provide we're not saying exactly what their floor plan has to look like we're just saying that that have to provide a floor plan. Right, there's more information in the rules and regs in terms of if we want to say what exactly the scale needs to be or the size of the sheet, but we're saying they need to provide these things and so. So these are, you know, from staff's perspective, these are reasonable to have in the zoning bylaw, I mean we've already had this in the BN district down here which gets pretty detailed. So, the rest of these are, we find that they're, they're useful, especially because then it can be applied by the building commissioner. All right, thanks Nate, Andrew. Thanks Nate. My questions are pretty quick on five. I'm not sure what it would mean by patrons leaving the establishment just the way that's worded there. The strategy for patrons leaving the establishment. Yeah, I mean, so like a closing time if there's a you know if there's a number of people what is how they close down sometimes you might have you know staggered leaving times or you might actually have someone on the sidewalk a staff person on the sidewalk managing the crowd as they leave the establishment so you know we found that it's really you know how many excuse me how many people are in the establishment and then do they just usher them out in two minutes and 100 people have to leave or you know do they have staggered times and slowly let people out single file with you know a staff person there or with you know other things to direct traffic to a certain way. Okay, this was in response to some concerns I think in CRC from you know that that at closing time the neighborhood the neighbors might be disturbed. Right, and so, you know what's happened. We've asked that they you know put more plantings in or actually have a fence up just so that during you know when they, when patients leave at night, you know they can't go a certain way or it helps to mitigate some noise. And so, you know we're not proposing specific, you know strategies there, you know means and methods we're saying you have you have to tell us applicant what what you're going to do to do that. In a sense, I think it just reads a little weird. Yeah, so I don't know, maybe a way to tweak that and then also I'm just wondering whether when you know we're using strategies but are we really talking tactics, like we want to have more concrete how we're going to do this stuff, not just what if that right, what are the tactics management plans. I mean it's already a management plan. Yeah, well I guess when you talk about specific management strategies for alcohol and strategies to screen filter is it more we want to have explicit tactics like that's what we're looking for. It's a question. Yeah, I mean I think, I think by having this in there we, we, you know, get the same type of response whether we call it strategies or tactics or. Something else I, you know, this be these become fields in an application and the management plan application that need to be completed. Nice. Hey Nate, one thing I've been sort of wondering about was it seems like when you talk about the different categories of restaurant, or particularly the bars bars with food or bars with no food. When we get to that kind of conversation you say well it's not really about whether they give out peanuts. It's about whether the kitchen is operating or whether they have a kitchen. And that kind of makes me wonder whether it ought to just be bar with operating kitchen or bar without operating kitchen. Is that really what you mean. So, you know, what we have a definition for what a bar is in the bylaw so it's a place where you know the alcohol consumption and service is the primary function and food maybe incidental so you can have a you know there can be many restaurants that have a bar, but their primary purpose say during most of their operating hours is food service right they have, they have people seated and they have the kitchen operating. And they could at some point, transition to a bar with no food served right so it's not. So they could be a bar they could be a restaurant. And so it's not that the kitchen is or isn't operating it's really what becomes their primary function and right so I think if we had the categories you had I think almost every establishment might have to get two permits to operate because they'd either be one or the other. And we're saying in the in the proposed first category of restaurant cafe or bar with food that you could be both. If at some point you want to be a bar with no food you then go to the second category which requires a special permit. So, okay, all right. So, basically, I think that you could, you know just to make it easier I think for everybody to have an application for a bar restaurant nightclub restaurant that lists all the requirements, like we need a floor plan. So I think it'd be easier if you had a specific application for this kind of thing and so the applicants like oh I have to fill out all these things, you know we have a very general application. I do think it'd be better if we had inside the bylaw, the standards and requirements, so I just, I think it'd be easier, but pushing that aside, I have one very quick comment is, can a bar with food just have like sandwiches and kind of cold food. Is that that be a bar with food. It depends so is it, you know are they is a pre packaged or how is it prepared so you know it gets down to that kind of sometimes that level of detail in terms of food preparation so if a bar has pre packaged food, that's just considered a bar with no food. Okay, so I so it could be like cold food but it has to be chopped up. So the other the other issue that really just gets, I think is super important and I don't want to go through all my my entire memo is that I think that you know is last call. So I think a bar that serves food and a restaurant that serves alcohol. If they're staying open to like one or two in the morning. They're mostly probably serving just alcohol right and so last call is very impactful on neighborhoods and so I am struggling why that somebody who wants to serve after 1130 alcohol doesn't have to get a special permit.  And so I really do think that we need to continue special permit for last call for extending the hours to last call, we need greater protections with the special permit there's a lot it's a little in the beginning gives you more, excuse me, um, you know ways to say no or requirements, but also it has notice, a public hearing, notice to a butters a chance for people to come in and talk to the ZBA and talk about their concerns and so I think I think that we're losing that by allowing people to extend their hours past 1130 people drinking and then leaving and I think that that that behavior of people leaving bars, or bar restaurants or restaurants that have alcohol is going to be particularly impactful in our many village centers that aren't used to this kind of activity. All right, thanks Janet. All right. Yeah, well just quickly, I think that a bar with no food is a special permit so if there's a restaurant that at some point ceases its operation of food service. It becomes a bar with no food served and that needs a special permit. And so that would require a public hearing. Additionally, any establishment that is serving alcohol has to go through the Board of Licensing Commissioners. And if they want to extend their hours to serve alcohol later that's a required is a required public hearing with notice to a butters just like a site plan review or special permit. And so anytime there's a change to the alcohol service, the Amherst Board of License Commissioners will hold a public hearing with notice in the paper and a butters, and they can place conditions on an establishment in terms of related to alcohol service. Also the fire chief and please have to approve and sign off on an application for changes to alcohol service so, you know, when staff met with some you know if Janet Keller and Pam Rooney today and they had some similar concerns but what we explained is that 1130 is really an arbitrary number and it's not as impactful as the operation and management of an establishment. With the standards and conditions we're proposing one through 11. It gets at how we can manage people leaving or how things are noises are mitigated it's not necessarily the hour of 1130 it's really, you know, it could be 10 o'clock and it could be poorly managed it's really, how do we have conditions and safeguards. That can be applied with, you know, to an establishment so it's really not the hours of operation. Also quickly and administrative approval has taken you know 20 years of permit conditions and generated, you know this list right here so during the use of article 14 almost 20 restaurants have been permitted through article 14. And there's been some public hearings. There's been no complaints.  And in the last so many years, you know Rob more I said that not one resident has come to a public hearing, when a restaurant goes from a class one to a class two to extend alcohol hours to 1am. No one ever comes, even though the butters have been noticed. And so with administrative approval, you know Janet saying is right that if the restaurant is already established and there's no changes. It may be able to extend alcohol service or certain parts of the business with administrative approval. However, administrative approval still requires all these conditions to be met. And it's more flexible than a special permit because the building commissioner can open up their, their administrative approval and possibly revoke it if the conditions aren't being followed. Once a special permit is issued and conditions are are laid out in the special permit is finalized and say they're operating according to the special permit but there's still a lot of complaints. It's almost impossible to go back and tell the owner they have to do something differently if they're meeting the conditions in the special permit. So, you know, administrative approval with the building commissioner, having a written decision that's at their will is actually more flexible and provides more opportunity for follow up than a special permit. You know, a special permit only has a 20 day appeal period. So, you know, once a special permit or a site plan review is granted with conditions if, if we don't have the right condition in terms of how to manage patrons leaving the establishment it's hard to change that unless it's, you know, there's something that they're doing different in terms of their permit. So, you know, we actually think that administrative approval has worked really well in the last two years. And it hasn't, you know, there hasn't been any issues. Thanks. I have a quick question. So, Nate, I'm not that familiar with the board of licensing because I think it was different under the olden days. So, if I was going to open a bar restaurant, and I was coming in. I was like one in the morning or two. That would be site plan review but with that still always that you know I'm a new place I want to stay up and late. I'm on site plan review would I still have to go in front of the board of licensing for that. Yes, any, any time so, and they have to go through the board of health, typically to if they're a restaurant or serving food so you know any new construction or new, you know, so if there's a new expansion or new construction, it will always trigger a hearing. You know, I was as we mentioned there's administrative approval if there aren't many changes to the exterior, right in the section 11. But even if there's administrative approval they still have to go through a public hearing with the Board of License Commissioners. So, I don't see any more board hands at this point. Public attendees are. Do you, does anyone in the public want to make any comments at this time. I see four attendees. Do you see Pam Rooney's hand, if we can bring her over and please give us your name and your address. Hi, Pam Rooney cottage street. I have a related question it is not germane to specifically the changes that are being made, and that is in in the article five. The proposed changes actually allow us to handle pop up events. I see, you know, we, we talk about accessory uses of outdoor dining and our music, but is, is this going to help in the arena of pop up events. Yeah, so it depends. You know if there's a one time event that's considered a temporary event, typically, and that doesn't address that, you know an accessory use would be something that may happen periodically or with some frequency, whether that's, you know, a number of events in a short time frame or, you know, once a month but continuously for every month and so that becomes an accessory use so the changes were proposing an article five they don't address temporary uses. I will say that currently staff has a technical assistance grant with the Pioneer Value Planning Commission, and we've been investigating, you know, other bylaws and coming up with a draft bylaw for temporary uses. It's not ready yet but probably in the next few months it'll be ready to be reviewed and so yeah right now the bylaw doesn't have a mechanism for temporary events and so when that moves forward we may change accessory as well because you know some people may assume accessory means temporary but we're going to have them be two different things just to allow for different permitting. Alright, thanks Nate. So I guess at this point seems like we've gone through everyone's comments and Nate are you looking for a recommendation from the board to these changes. Right and so you know town council has referred this and it's you know the the CRC has kept their hearing open their meeting tomorrow night and so at this point it would be you know a recommendation on those changes so you know we have the revised use table and then we have the changes to article 5, 11 and 12. And so it would be a recommendation on those yes. Okay so would anybody like to make that motion. I see Bruce's hand first. Yes, that's what my intent was. I was going to try and frame the motion but if I can say so moved and perhaps understands what that is or she does so so moved. And I should say, I really appreciate the effort that the staff particularly you need to put into this and I, I've just watched you also on the CRC meeting and I thought that was that was very helpful to my understanding. In addition to what we had last time so I really applaud the diligence that you've applied to this exercise. Okay, thank you Bruce.  Are we going to, I think we should go article by article not like the whole kahuna. Do you think we can do it this as a single motion or do we need to go through them individually. I mean it could be either one I guess it depends on how board members feel if they want to, you know, have specific comments to some of the articles or if it could be addressed as one, one vote. Bruce do I understand your motion was for all the changes for all of the bylaws in one vote. Yes, I think we can do it in one I think we've reviewed it fairly thoroughly and I'm comfortable with that I understand everything that I need to understand from agency and I'm happy to do it in one hit. But we'll see whether that works. Okay, thank you, Tom. Okay, board members. We've got a motion on the floor. We've had some fair amount of discussion do we want to have any more discussion before we go through a roll call though. I do not see any hands. So, Chris and and Pam are you clear that this is a a motion to amend article three article five. Article three article five article 11 and article 12 as proposed as proposed. All right, Janet. So I just need help so I'm fine with article 11 I'm fine with article 12. I'm kind of rolling along with the youth table I'm not fine with article five and so how do I vote. Well, you can oppose. Do you have questions for Nate about article five. What is it you don't understand. It's not that I just don't support the, you know, I have the changes in article five I'm fine with the other half I'm not and so I don't want to vote against article 12 and 11 and three, when do you know what I mean, and so it just puts me in an awkward spot.  But they are it is an interrelated package though I mean I would hate for us to vote approve the changes to three of them and not for Doug if I may. Yes, Bruce. Whenever I've been chair or both things like this I've always appreciated the unanimous vote when I can get it. It seems to me that if I were to amend the motion to exclude for the moment article five but everything else, we might get a unanimous vote and then we can have a second motion to approve article five, which I think. I guess at the moment I guess I need to talk to ask me, you know, is there is does it work if we break it apart and have separate votes. Well, I guess the question would be it would, I guess the question would be as part of the discussion with emotion, you know what are the changes or the questions related to article five. Why don't we just go through that, Janet what is it what are the objections you have. So I still don't understand why in article five, we're adding every possible use in the use chart to seasonal outdoor dining and pre recorded entertainment and so I just I don't see. I think the, you know, it makes sense that those things should be always related to food. And I think if you want to be able to do temporary uses for outdoor dining or pop up or trucks or, you know, a music festival. I feel like we need to get we need to give the building commissioner the authority to do that. And I don't think I'm sorry, but it seems like it's not that you don't understand it's that you're not comfortable with this potentially happening for any of any use. Yeah, it's just this huge expansion that I just don't know. I just don't understand what circumstances it would come up that we'd have outdoor dining with a gas station or like why. What are some examples where this has come to the building commissioner the planning department where somebody wants to do music with shoes shopping. Okay, let's see. I mean I think I know we talked about this in the last meeting Nate is there anything new you want to say. No, I think that right so what we're proposing here is there originally there's you know these three or more than three a list of number of things it's more like you know a dozen where outdoor dining could be an accessory use I think in the bylaw we say that accessory has to be, you know related to the principal use, you know, and this is only section 5.04 that's visible here, and it has to be common you know within the region in Hampshire County. So, you know, our thought is that we can't you know there could be some business opportunities or things that we're not thinking of right now and so why limit them because someone you know someone couldn't come in and just say oh yeah, when my business is closed I'm going to do outdoor dining. Really the business has to be open and the outdoor dining has to be accessory to the bit the use that you know the principal business use retail use and so can't be that they think that you know like XANA couldn't say oh yeah in my parking lot after hours and I'm going to start doing outdoor dining. That's actually a second principal use and now I'd have to go through permitting it wouldn't be considered accessory. And so, you know without trying to be exhaustive and in terms of a list like we have now. We're just saying any principal use. You know I know, you know it may seem strange but you know that also means they have to have a kitchen and have a Board of Health permit and review so it's not taken lightly it's not as if an establishment will just all of a sudden try to have outdoor dining and you know buy food, you know buy sandwiches at stop and shop and then sell them over their counter right it's going to take, you know, licensing and permitting to the Board of Health and other boards and committees in town to make this happen so we don't, you know we don't think that there's going to be some kind of you know necessarily unintended consequences still going to be reviewed thoroughly so it still requires a special permit or a site plan review according to how the principal uses is permitted so if it's a special permit use the accessory whether it's outdoor dining or music has to be a special permit hearing to allow that accessory used to happen. So, you know, it may seem strange like oh yeah why are we saying to any principal use but you know it could be that, you know, a gas station could serve food right you know now gas stations have Starbucks in them or you know come on farms as an example now where there's a gas station and a store and so we're not, you know, we may not know how a retail store could combine, you know outdoor dining. Okay, thank you Nate. Tom. Yeah, I just wanted to clarify this is your recommendation to the CRC right this is not necessarily an approval by us. No, this is a recommendation to town council. Yeah, okay.  Right but we're not we're in this group we're not approving we're recommending just clarifying the language. Right. Okay. We're a recommendation. Janet, your hand is up again. So, Nate, I guess what I think you're saying is the excess, it has to mean accessory, a traditional accessory use to a principal use. And in. And so that limits how expansive this is what I think if you just wanted to limit it to food and drink establishments you can get rid of all that list if it's traditional to have outdoor dining seasonal outdoor dining with food and drink establishments. Why don't we just say that. Because I kind of think you can't argue that oh this is, you know, outdoor dining is an accessory use to the principal use of food and drink establishment. So don't worry it's not going to expand, and then argue oh it's fine if it expands somewhere for some reason. And so I feel like there's just not a lot of vetting about what that could mean and implications. So, that's, right. Well, it does sound like you are more concerned about it than staff as it being a problem. Chris. I think that we discussed this internally and we also wanted to allow for uses like bakeries and delis and places like that, which are really retail stores to be able to have outdoor dining if what they're selling could be eaten outdoors, you know, at a table. And so, you know, we didn't want to limit it from that point of view and just have it be available to food and drink establishments. Because I think it's, you know, it's clear that we can imagine other places that have kitchens that could do outdoor dining that wouldn't necessarily be restaurants. All right, thank you. Okay. We have four hands. We have a motion on the floor. All right, are we get ready to go through a roll call vote. Yes, Bruce. Do we have a second. Yes, we do Tom long. Okay, thank you. Yes. And then it's all all these owning amendments. This is a vote on the entire package. So if you object to any part of it, you can vote against it. Okay, so we'll go through roll call vote. Starting with Bruce. This yes vote is is to recommend town council this package of changes to the bylaw, all related to food and drink establishments as well as the other articles three article five article 11 and article 12. I guess. All right. Tom. Andrew. Hi. Janet. Hi. Hi. And do we have Karen Karen is at her reading. So Karen is absent. And I'm an eye as well. The motion carries five in favor. One abstention and one absence. Janet. So I know you're probably tired of hearing on this, but on this, on this matter. I would like. You know, I feel it an awkward stance because I actually am fine with several of these articles, but I would like that when we do the planning board report. That the pros and cons and the issues that I've raised or others have raised be incorporated into that. So, so hopefully that will come out. Like faster and not the last minute, but I have written quite a bit on this so you could just cut and paste. But I do think it'd be good to get kind of what are possible negative consequences or different paths or problems that people see. So thank you. All right. And Chris is it right that, that that report is usually. Probably composed in parallel or bars from the minutes. Yeah. I see her now. That's right. It is true that it. So I think if we may want to look at the minutes next meeting and see how you've recorded it. And if some of Janet's concerns have been mentioned. All right. Thank you all. So the time now is 722 and we can go on. To our next item on the agenda. Item four, which is a public hearing for a site plan review. Let's see. All right. So this public hearing is held in accordance with the provisions of mass general law chapter 40 a actually I'll just say, did I say it was 722. Yes. Okay. 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 regard SPR 2023-01 and SPP 2023-01 Archipelago investments LLC 47 Olympia Drive. Hearing is being continued from August 3rd, September 7th, September 21st, October 19th and November 2nd. To joint public hearing to request site plan review approval under section 3.326 of the zoning bylaw to construct a private apartment style dormitory with 68 dwelling units and associated interior and exterior spaces and associated site improvements, including waiver of onsite parking requirements and a special permit to modify maximum building coverage and height requirements under section six, table three footnote a of the zoning bylaw map 8D parcel 18 in the RF zoning district. All right, are there any board member disclosures. All right, I don't see any. Next, do you want to be started as the applicant tonight. I just wanted to mention. I had sent an email to Doug earlier today. Based on a conversation I had with Kyle and also based on some information I got from them. I'm Erin Jacques, the wetlands administrator and. So this project for 47 Olympia place is still being heard by the conservation commission and the conservation commission has a few items that they need to have resolved before they can close their public hearing and issue their order of conditions. And the next time that the conservation commission will be hearing this case is December 14. So, I'm going to recommend that the planning board here from Kyle Wilson, he's the proposal, the proposal, the proponent, should say, and that you have a discussion. And then if you feel comfortable with this, go through the findings and conditions that we've sent you and, you know, kind of get as far as you can with this. And then continue your public hearing to your meeting on December 21, which is after the conservation commission will have presumably closed its public hearing and made its decision. And that's, that's our recommendation. Thank you. All right. Welcome Kyle Wilson. Good evening. Welcome back, I guess I'd say. Thank you. So, would you like to make any sort of presentation this evening. I just like to follow up with what Chris said, and we are before the conservation commission. All the substantial issues have been addressed relative to stormwater and infiltration and under retainage and so on. The two remaining items are a wetlands mitigation fee or a buffer in our case buffer mitigation fee. It's one it's a new item in the bylaw that came in in June that we're looking to resolve and also something that we could discuss today but the they're looking for something that states that we have the the right to tie into the existing storm sewer that exists on site. So other than that, all the items have been addressed with concom and we'll be back before them as Chris said on the 14th. What we wanted to relative to the planning board there were the bicycle storage was an item that we've worked on. We're looking at covering the bicycle storage on the north that would not impact our conservation commission or our infiltration or stormwater or coverage or anything of that sort. It's more of a design detail that we're working with with the architects. It would also impact our exterior lighting plan for a photometric plan. So I think what we'd be submitting to you following this meeting and advance of the 21st would be some details on that fencing and covered bike storage that would include a updated photometric plan. Would that also affect your lot coverage like additional coverage. No, that's that's as as it has been submitted and as has been presented and accepted by the conservation commission none of that changes it's just in that concrete pad. We would look to cover the bike storage. Okay. All right. Chris. That's an interesting question and I think we could take advantage of. So Rob more is still here. Yeah, I see his, his square. Yes. I think we might want to clarify that with Rob more that the coverage of bike storage would not be considered building coverage. And perhaps Rob could be asked to answer that question. Rob. Yeah, that's correct. It would not be considered building coverage because it's open. The side walls are open so just the covering itself would add to a lot coverage not building coverage. Thank you. Right because we do have a special permit being requested for building. Thank you. Yeah, and we're, I guess we're right at 45.35%. We're a little bit over. Yeah. Okay. Chris you're okay your hand is down now. All right. So Kyle there really isn't anything you want to update us on and there's no materials you want to show us nothing in addition to what we've already presented but I could share, you know, re re show anything that I wanted to see. Okay, so you have it available. If we want to look at it. Okay, board members. I guess now is the time to continue our conversation about this project. Are there any topics that people want to talk about. Bruce finding my unmute button. Yes, I wanted to go over my concerns about the parking. Kyle I, I asked you some questions about this last time. And as I recall essentially you were saying that you wanted to trust in the UMass parking system to solve the parking problem. And I'm going to turn my light on because I've got some notes that I want to read or make sure I cover properly and think like I sent this email to you so you at least know what I'm thinking here is me a moment. So, basically, I, I'm not sure that I'm ready to trust that the mass parking will satisfy the problem because there's no guarantee that you say that the deed entitlements will be ratified. I believe just again in the last day or two had another email from the university which is confirming that they're again for a year or two years in a row have been oversubscribed to the total number of parking lots. Is that not correct that I don't believe so. Chris, did I misunderstand the email. The recent email from Nancy. That they were oversubscribed. So there was a late breaking bit of news, which is a second email from Nancy before and the first email was one that was issued in August in response to a question I had asked. I reported on past years of parking lots being full. And then I asked her again, because I wanted I wanted to know has anything changed and she responded today saying this year there are available permits for a lot 13. I can't say that those will be surplus every year, but they are surplus this year. Any UMass student can apply for a parking permit, etc. So you can read the email here. So this is the latest information from Nancy the phone. I also sent you a plan that Kyle had submitted previously and you had received previously showing where a lot 13 is. So the lots up in this neck of the woods are lot 13 and lot 24, 24 is kind of smaller and it's closer to the building that's being proposed lot 13 is more distant from the building but it's very much larger. So I don't know if we want to show that plan, if Pam has access to that. I think it's up there. I see it. I cannot see a plan I see Nancy's email. It was a separate document. I guess I can also comment anecdotally. What I've heard at the university is that there's not a problem with parking this year and that it was during the pandemic when people weren't sure how long they'd be allowed to be on campus that there was a greater number of cars. Chris, your hand is still up. Did you want to say anything else? No, no, this is just a plan that I wanted to let you see where part where a lot 13 is. Okay, great. All right. Now, yes, we can. Okay. Yes, there are there are two lot 13s and there are two lot 24s I and they're not connected so I was being perpetually confused about that but but nonetheless. Okay, so that the email is an update on the email that I was working off which was a day ago which wasn't so optimistic. So, so maybe we can trust this, but I'm not sure that email makes me feel a little bit more comfortable. Kyle I have two things to ask of you. The first is, I mean we've got your previous project right next door which I guess is an exactly similar project adjacent to exact same locations and so forth and we've got a number of years of data, let's say five. I would feel comfortable if I knew what the parking demands of tenants in. Is it Olympia Oaks. Olympia Oaks is the sort of affordable housing. Okay, so it's 57. Yeah, okay. So I would feel more comfortable if I, if I could see the parking demands of residents over the past five years for this building because it's so similar I mean why wouldn't I not want to see that if I was being asked to trust that the system which if not maxed out is close to it and I don't know that we should be confident that we can for the life of this building expect that the parking. That the leaving this to the discretion to the essentially where, where we got to trust that the residents of this building will prevail in a competition for parking permits. And that doesn't feel to me to be a very responsible position for us to okay. I would be more comfortable if I could see that the adjacent project has been that has worked for five years. I also wanted to ask this question now to because in the event that getting data for 57 is either too difficult or it doesn't pan out or what have you. Is there not a way in which you could come to some arrangement with the university where you would offer to expand some of the parking I don't know how fully developed that stuff is it seems to be roughly paved or hardly even paved and maybe it made bigger and more spaces could be created if it will laid out better. And if not, certainly the this this parking that's provided could be better provided by paving and doing some other upgrades lining and so forth. Okay, and whether a reasonable accommodation with the university where you would commit to do some portion of parking enhancement over their area in exchange for them honoring the deed entitlements. Would you be, would you be prepared to take that up with the university. Mr Wilson, any response. We have last we met we discussed. We've tried to get a sense of the folks that have parking permits that live at 57 Olympia and have discussed that that's somewhat difficult because when if someone purchases a parking permit from UMass they are not required to use their 57 Olympia address it can be a home address. So that information has a lot of noise to it. We're seeking a parking waiver. We're seeking that waiver because we think that this site is best utilized for housing and for optimizing the housing and the value of the housing and the, the taxable value of the housing on this one acre site. The site next door was approved as as the model for this very unique location in Amherst that we're looking to further develop. I think that the, you know, we've discussed with with UMass improving the spaces across from Mather Drive for the drop off and for visitors and for connecting to utilities. Conversations beyond that are relative to the folks that have those deeded rights that that that exists for our two parcels and the other 10 parcels that are owned through the Commonwealth through various ways. So, I think that what we're seeking is is to continue what is obviously working next door. And, and that's why we're seeking the parking parking waiver. All right. Thank you, Kyle. Tom. Could I follow up? Kyle, you said that we should continue what's obviously working next door. And when I asked you for evidence that it's obviously working, you say you can't produce it because the reason given. I mean, it just doesn't seem responsible for us to grant this parking waiver without at least some effort to secure the deeded entitlements to parking that come with the site. I mean, surely you can understand that. I don't think there's any disagreement as to whether or not we have deeded rights to, you know, the parcels that we have identified for parking and recreation. I think the question is to whether or not those parking spaces are sufficient for this housing to be built. I think that if the housing next door had created a conflict relative to parking, we all would have heard about it. We all would have discussed it at length. It has not created a parking problem. It's doing quite well. It's paying a great deal of taxes. It's providing a lot of, you know, very important housing. It is on a bus loop that's named after Olympia Drive that the majority of the residents use for their transportation. So I think it is clear that there is not a parking problem. I think that we're looking to, as I said, build another project that looks to be as successful as a project to the north. All right, thank you, Kyle. Tom, you're next. Thanks, Doug. And thanks, Kyle. I mean, I have two comments. One is from, I think, the perspective of a student and looking for housing. And if I have a car, and I can't park it, or I'm having trouble getting a parking permit, I'm probably not going to rent that apartment. And I think the reality of the user situation is wherever I'm going, if I can't put my car there, I'm not going to go there. Or if I have a lot that's across campus and I have to park there, that's what you get. There are people who work at UMass, who have to park in a lot a mile from their office, because that's the only lot that's available to them. And then they park there and they walk through there. That's what happens on the university. And I think that's something we want to accept that people are going to either have a car or not have a car or make decisions about where they want to live. There are buses and there's bikes and there are ways to get to the places they want to be through the systems that exist. And second is that we've been asking or hearing from people for weeks and weeks and months, like can we not put dorms downtown. Here we have an opportunity to not put dorms downtown and we're complaining about whether or not people can park there. Like these are not downtown dorms. These are the place where we want students to live in a vicinity of the campus where they can walk or take a very convenient bus named after the loop itself. Why are we actually trying to put roadblocks to something that I think is actually fruitful for all of the considerations that we've been talking about for so long. I just, I don't see it and I don't see a reason to try to put any roadblocks up for something that is going to be beneficial for UMass beneficial for downtown and beneficial for the students that make the right choice to live in a place that either has the parking you need or don't. You can find parking if they want it if they have a car otherwise they're going to move somewhere else not their choice so I just feel like this is, this is a wonderful place to put housing, and we should try to limit the roadblocks that might get in the way of actually making this a reality. Thank you Tom. I guess I'll just interject I've, you've basically said the comments that I thought I might say. And also are the only thing I would add is we are there's already 13,000 students who move into a dorm without knowing whether they're they will get a parking permit. Because they're all you know they're all just going to be going to be going down to parking and applying for a permit. So this just adds 400 or whatever 300 students to that cool that UMass has to either satisfy or not. And some of the you know if they ever run out, some of the students are likely to be students that live here and many of the students who don't get a parking permit are likely to live in UMass dorms because the UMass treats all the students who apply the same. So, you know I applaud. I think this is a perfect place to be building another, essentially the dorm, it's already zoned for dorms. And I agree with Tom. All right, Janet. So, I come at this from a different perspective and one of the things is I think we all want this project to go. Right. Nice building. Nice amenities. Taxes for the town. You know, places for students to live with a very small vacancy rate on people have that many options to pick and choose but obviously whoever can afford this, you know, they have a place to live so I think we're all trying to make it go. But I see my job and our job is enforcing the bylaw and the bylaw has parking requirements. And it's not really up to me to decide, you know, I don't know, I never understand this board like, you know, in one place we're requiring four spaces because there's four undergraduate students we have three borders we want three spots for them. Here we have a building full of students and we're like, they can find something. I just feel like it's, we're not freestyling here we have a bylaw to implement. And it requires either to parking spaces per unit, or if we're considered a dorm one per bed. So that's, that's what we're enforcing but so I really do want this project to go. I just personally didn't logically do not understand somebody who says I have deeded rights to parking at these lots all around here. Please give me a waiver. And so I just understand why the developer or whoever owns it the only person who has literally the legal authority to assert this right as the person who owns the lot. And so I'm interested in your discussions with UMass when you say I have deeded rights to parking in these lots. Can I have 100 spaces or 50 spaces or I want these spaces.  I mean, have you had those discussions and UMass says no you don't have the right I mean if you have a right to parking. Oh, it seems like a no brainer just let's say it you know we decided as a board we look at our bylaw we decide how many spaces are needed. You have deeded rights, you provide them to the tenants. So have you I mean I'm sorry to get a little historical here but just like have you talked to UMass and said do you recognize my rights to this parking. We need X amount of spaces.  You know you could be a benefit both ways. I mean, have you talked to UMass and have they said no. We have talked to UMass, they recognize our deeded rights per the deed for parking and recreation. We have not discussed with them a exact number of parking spaces that we would need for these buildings that would usurp any other folks who are looking to purchase permits for a lot 13 or 24. But we have empty spots so can you have those discussions saying here's what we think we need. You know, let's cap it at this, because that would be really helpful. We have, we have our consideration of this has thought that it would come, it would very much complicate john king's efforts to effectively manage those lots. He can with all the, the parking that they're trying to manage all over campus. And that would be a complication that wouldn't really benefit anyone involved. Okay, so it sounds like he could have come to come to UMass with that demand, I suppose. I think I think as I've discussed on previous meetings, we've chosen to take a path that is currently working. This is a gray area that is not black and white. We don't look to impose our rights as two of the 12 as owners of two of the 12 parcels upon the other 10 parcels, which obviously have not been developed in our future opportunity. We look to continue to work in a collaborative fashion with UMass they're getting the permit fees they're managing the parking, it seems to be working well next door we'd like to continue that I think the imposition of a number of parking spaces that would be best guests especially before us right now for the future of this building. As I said, seems to significantly complicate a process that seems to be working just fine. All right, thanks Kyle. Johanna. Thanks. I'm thinking about this in the context of the town's climate and clean energy goals, and not own and thinking about it in that context drives me to agree with a lot of the things that Tom proposed. We know that we need to reduce emissions, having highly efficient buildings that produce energy on site and that are all electric or step in the right direction in terms of the type of housing we need to build. This also has quite a bit of density of housing, which is consistent with our climate and clean energy goals. The site will have sheltered bike parking is on a bus loop and, you know, for ambitious students they can even walk to campus from the site because it's just not that far. I think this is the perfect site where we would not require parking minimums. And when I look at the climate and clean energy leadership cities all across America, some of them are doing away with parking minimums because they recognize that we need to move away from making car ownership a default. And yes, they're going to be electric vehicles but like, in addition to transitioning to electric vehicles we also need to create spaces for people to live where they drive less and can live more. And to me this is a perfect opportunity to walk the walk on those principles in our town. All right, thank you your honor. Bruce. Well, I'm, I'm moved by what Tom said about if the printer can't get a permit that may decide to decide to live elsewhere. So that's, that's a compelling argument. I'm respectful of Kyle's statements for that relating to his confidence. Having discussed with the UMass parking director and trying not to make his life too complicated unnecessarily and that the, and what you said Kyle about 57 working in a more global sense without having to produce data to demonstrate it piece by piece. So, and I'm interested in your answer to Janet's question about the deed and rights and to the extent that you've pursued them. So I'm thinking that my situation I might be more comfortable than if if I were to say yes, I agree with Tom I agree with and support Kyle. Kyle's optimism cars experience some combination of the two. But I guess the deeded rights are not going to go away. So if there was a problem in the future. I'm wondering whether we could frame a condition that would be acceptable to all that would say that if there is a problem. In other words, we can constantly kick the can down the road. Perhaps knowing that if there was a problem, the condition that said that the, the, the, the, the owner would seek to exercise those deeded rights to gain preference for the some of those available spots I I'm not able to draft that condition in my head but I am able to imagine the presence of a condition in our, in our list of conditions that would speak to an action that would be pursued in the future if a problem arise without having granted the parking waiver. I guess I could ask that as a question of Chris issue that yes, Christine this is, or does anyone imagine that such a condition could be reasonably constructed. And I guess I should ask how well, well he might not be the owner. It could be a long way into the future, but I would feel comfortable if we if the record showed without having to do a search and having having the institutional memory be so alive and well that it could do it without being triggered by a condition that the condition would trigger the knowledge that there is a deeded right that has at the time of application for good reason, not being pursued, but in the event of a problem related to students and so a residence and parking that that the applicant be encouraged to pursue those deeded entitlements. Bruce, I guess I'm curious how anyone other than the owner of the building would know if there was a problem. Well, and it seems like the owner of the building if they perceived it was a problem might go back to you mass and say, you know, this has been working and, but it doesn't seem to be working as well or at all lately. And I think it's time for us to sort of rethink how we're jointly exercising our rights to park on those parcels and I can see all that happening without any condition needed from us. Okay, yes, yes, I can see that too. That's that's a good point. Because I was going to say, well in ordinary situation the parking, the problem might be arised by it about as complaining that people are parking on their lawn, for example, but I agree with Tom that this is not a place where these kind of problems are going to manifest. So, okay, that was helpful. Thank you all. Great. Well, we'll continue the conversation. Janet. I'm actually interested in Bruce's idea. So, so I think, basically, the way to set that up is to have whoever owns this building inform the tenants that they, you know, have X amount of spots per per apartment or whatever unit or bed or whatever we decide is what's needed or and then the way they secure that is to apply to UMass. And if the people can't get parking through UMass, they contact the building owner and let them kind of negotiate with John King and to say well you have empty spots we have a right to deed parking this person didn't get it, you know arrange it so I think the only person that can enforce these deeded rights are the owners of the building. And, you know, I think they have to get more, you know, we can refer to that as a parking management plan. And the parking management plan is, you know, if, if, if everybody at, you know, 4070 at Olympia Place gets a space next year we're all happy in three years that may not happen UMass is growing in five years that may not happen. UMass might be growing, you know, but maybe people are going to a car free existence or very wealthy people at this don't want to drive to Whole Foods or to Vermont or to visit their relatives, all those things that we do with our cars. Maybe people are using fewer few cars there's no evidence of that, but I just think we have to protect the interests of the tenants. You know, they need parking if they need parking they should get it, you know, we need to enforce the bylaw. And I think we could write a condition that basically puts the burden on the owner of the building to basically say everybody has a right to parking or X amount of spaces. And if you have any problem with UMass come to us and we'll work it out for you. All right, thank you Janet.  Yeah, I just wanted to point out that there is a possible condition in the draft conditions to deal with this and it was a condition that we put on the 57 Olympia Place. And so this condition says it's number four in a list of draft conditions, parking for tenants at 47 Olympia Drive shall be provided as set forth in the management plan for 47 Olympia Drive. If the availability of parking for tenants changes from what is set forth in the management plan, the owner shall submit a new parking proposal to the planning board for its review and approval. So something like that could be imposed in this case. The management plan that has been submitted, I presume, simply says that the tenants are not guaranteed parking through the owner, they are expected to apply and take their chances with UMass is that right. That's correct. So that's how it's been working. Andrew. Thanks Doug and thanks Kyle. Yeah, I feel like this. So I hadn't really processed that the condition just mentioned Chris, but I found myself originally green with what Bruce was saying and then as I thought about Doug your comments and more. I feel like this, this might be sort of self corrective to a certain extent in that, you know, if people are not comfortable in finding parking spaces as Tom alluded to they, they won't go there. Right. Like, Kyle will know there's a problem when he can't lease out his building, or when people are coming to him and asking to break their lease. He'll know and it's in his interests as a business owner to, to rectify that situation so it does feel like it could be self corrective. Janet, I really I thought your comment about us not freestyle is great. And I'm trying to be, I'm trying to respect that I think that as I consider the facts presented as I consider things relative to the, you know, our stance on trying to improve the overall environmental conditions in the town. I'm quite comfortable with this. I think that again, if there's an issue. Kyle will be the first one to know and he is the one who is most, he will be the party that is kind of most interested in rectifying this for the long term success of his business. Thanks. Thanks, Andrew. Next, Janet, do you have anything new to say. Um, could we pull up the section 7.9 of our bylaw that talks about waivers and if we're going to talk about waving it. Let's just make sure we're applying the right standards. Well, I don't know that Pam has that. To show on the screen. I can certainly turn to it as view is that section along section or should I read it. Just, I wouldn't read it. I would, I'd pull it up or we should look at it before our next meeting because then we're going to wave it. We need to wave it using the criteria. I really, I understand and appreciate the environmental thing, but I just think that we need to apply or bylaw to the situation.  And we're not going to be able to do that. But I think that's something that will help. But we're, you know, we're requiring a part where you require parking so inconsistently on this board. I can't figure out what our standard is less than one at one place one per. What less than one per unit at, you know, at Michi, one per bed up on College Avenue, one per bed at the boarding house. I don't know what we did. So I just, you know, I think, I don't know, I support Bruce's condition, putting the burden on parking on that if we're going to wave it, we have to wave it under a legal standard that we are as a board upholding that's we're enforcing the bylaw. So let's look at it and we don't have to look at it now, but let's make sure the conditions and that they talk about a management plan they talk about PQ's. If we were applying our new requirements we might require shadow parking. No, I just, let's just let us just enforce our bylaw. Okay. I guess we can come back to whether we want to go through that bylaw this evening. Bruce. I think I would like to just clarify one other thing related to the draft conditions just raised condition number four, but draft condition number five is actually I think more if we were to if we were to approve it. It's 5b says information regarding parking including a statement in the lease that students have responsibility for obtaining parking for their own vehicles and a rider in the lease regarding parking, which shall make, which shall contain the vehicle vehicle registration inform and information regarding the vehicles owners permit to park a vehicle. I, I guess, I guess that's consistent with what we've been coming towards which is really I'm kind of down to where Andrew was saying this is a self correcting problem, because I, I've been persuaded I think, although I spent a long time, imagine, not being able to imagine how I could be persuaded. But I think Andrew and the rest of you finally got to me. I just want to make sure that if we are going to have other conditions that have leases and so forth that that that's consistent with essentially a parking waiver. I guess we should also, we, I guess where this is a parking waiver of, of all the parking cost cost waivers can be waving half or third or 10% or whatever. So, this is a complete waiver we're talking about, I guess, because the total parking is intended therefore to be provided by the surrounding your mass and the obligation of the students to get permits, but the leases talking seems to I guess it's just asking that permits were recorded. What I want to clarify is whether the intent of that condition Chris was to obligate tenants to get parking permits, if they have cars. Is that the intent of that 5b. I think that's the intent. This was a condition that was imposed on 57 Olympia Drive. And I'm not sure what the outcome was because I don't remember having seen a lease and I don't remember having seen information about vehicles so this is a condition that probably needs to be talked about with the building commissioner to determine whether it really is, whether it really makes sense. So I wonder whether whether tile can tell us how that condition has been implemented in your leases. Do you have a writer to the lease that has the automobile information or just the least just say, you know, you have to go get a permit from you mass and you don't provide parking. That's a good question I don't know I don't we don't have the information on the people that have any parking permits through the university. So all that parking has gone through you mass parking. Okay. All right. So Chris, assuming we are continuing this hearing. I guess I see Rob Morris still on the on the call. Are you saying we needed to check with Rob about, excuse me about the check with Rob the wording of this because I don't think I've had a conversation with him about it. Rob, do you have a copy of the draft conditions. Yes, I'm looking at it now I guess you know that that condition the way it's worded reads to me that, you know, the tile may be collecting the vehicle information from the from the tenant but not necessarily whether or not they have obtained a permit. I'm not sure if that does what the board wanted in in the 57 application but it doesn't it doesn't seem to get to the point about whether the tenant actually has obtained a parking permit. It probably needs to be reworded or I think if I were reading writing it I would just delete everything starting with and a writer, because that that information doesn't seem to be collected or really relevant to Kyle. And we bring that condition up so that everybody can see it. It's impossible it's in the draft possible conditions. No, Chris. Doug, I have, I can read out what's in the lease and the management plan. If people want that information because it kind of there's a circle being kind of drawn. Well, I was hoping Pam could bring up the relevant. I'm trying. I'm trying to figure out how to get to my hold on. I'm trying to get to the packet. We were looking for the draft conditions. Yeah, which I could get to earlier when I was practicing. There's your, I guess that's what is that Facebook or something. No, that's teams. Facebook. I'm trying to get to the packet quick. I don't know why I'm struggling. Perfect. Thank you. Yeah, here are the draft conditions that we're looking at, you know, four and five. And, you know, I will say that we have the, it has been a condition before that, you know, and it says in the, in the parking section of the zoning bylaw that lease restrictions on parking can be part of the parking management system. So, you know, if this condition reads that it's really, you know, that police will contain language that it's, you know, it's on the tenant to find permit parking. Through the university, then that, you know, that could be some of the reasons why the planning board would grant a waiver, right? So if that's where we're going, right, is trying to craft this to read that way. Yeah, I just wonder, I think in the on the second line of five B. I would, I would just end the sentence at vehicles and delete all this. Yeah. But met that may just meet me. I see three hands actually Nate, one of them is yours, maybe that you're all set. Yeah, I'm all set. Okay, Tom long. I'm going to decline right now because I had a comment about something way earlier so I'll come back to that. Andrew. Thanks again. So quick question is what is the plan for handicapped residents. Kyle. Yeah, there was a exhibit that was submitted last meeting that shows additional spaces being added to the existing handicapped spaces on the north side of Mather Drive so just across from the entry to the building we would add additional. Parking handicapped spaces and short term drop off spaces. And that that's in that that the exhibit the lock 13 and lot 24. That's in the, or in the lot 24. 1027 spaces that we that we made it's a, an exhibit from SBE parking and Mather's Drive adjustment exhibit. Okay. And how does that I guess how does that relate to your, your deeded rights here in agreement with UMass that that's just that sort of. We're doing that that's that's one of the parcels that is included in the deeded rights for parking or recreation so you mass was receptive to us, improving that. Okay, improving and capturing spaces to meet that need. Just kind of the existing spaces have been maintained closer to what used to be UMass admissions and then they kind of fall off in this corner so improving that and making making those handicapped spaces that connect across the street. Okay. And how many spaces in total, do you know, our fans. Well, we're, we're not changing the number of spaces there, there are in this in the lot just north of that that were approximately 30 spaces that were painted Kyle mega that had been used as Kyle mega informally for years. And we've removed those and those will all go into either 13 or 24, whatever you mess. So appropriate. Thank you, Nathan. Yeah, so very sorry I was just going to I just, I said, yeah, here's where the, you know, here's where the proposed parking would be including, you know, that Kyle was just mentioning to space is that just two spaces. I can't tell. Yeah, it looks like to. And then there's an existing to on the left side of that same run. On the other end of all of those spaces are either handicapped or visitor short term. All of them on that run fixing. But for dedicated handicapped. There's just for dedicated handicapped. Correct. All right, I guess how'd you feel about that relative to the number of new residents that's that I don't want to vary or go from what I mentioned before but you know this is something that it's. Something that I just would love to have a little bit more clarity on is is, you know, you master was in was was comfortable with this agreement is for doesn't certainly seems like a pretty small number. Kyle, would it, based on the way you're the tenor of your conversations with you mass if if you discovered you had five handicap people in your building and you needed a couple more signed as handicapped. Do you think that would be a difficult thing to work out with you mass. No, should be just asked for more now then. I think it's balancing the handicapped spaces and and the 15 minute or the, you know, the quick drop off spaces. And we could absolutely discuss that balance. Okay, I mean, I think that'd be great. There are a lot of a lot of folks here. So, thanks. All right. I was wondering if, if we could also have a requirement of adding some EV charging stations, but I also just that for consideration, Nate, I'm confused so I just want to, you know, in my lawyerly way applying law to facts. Are we waiving the pop the, are you suggesting we should wave under the waiver section, or are we applying the alternative ratio, ensuring that adequate parking for the proposed use will be provided by that 7.0 so I don't think we can do both we had to do one of the other So do you have a suggestion on which part of the bylaw we should apply to the situation, because it lists a bunch of factors we should look at or could look at. Maybe we should defer this for later but I don't think we can, we may not have to waive the parking we might go under 7.000 or we can if we go under the parking waiver then we need to follow those. I mean do you have a suggestion for that. Well, I mean I think some of the intent of that of the revisions to the parking section is that you know two parking spaces may not be appropriate or relevant right and so then it's the applicants. It's on the applicant to provide what is the appropriate number in the board can ask for information and so if you know my the way that this product is being permitted is it's for matriculated students and so if, if there are as a lease can you know condition that the tenant is responsible for finding parking through their institution of higher education, then that could satisfy the parking requirement because you know it's they they're going to go through the university or through Amherst college or whatever institution they're enrolled in to find parking and so you know if we if the board needs more information in terms of how many would that be or how many parking spaces can accommodate. What we've heard is that UMass has enough spaces to accommodate the parking demand that's being you know asked so you know I don't you know it's really I guess a matter of how comfortable is the board with the you know that in the bylaw so it's also bedroom count you know traffic impact parking utilization you know peak demand proximity downtown proximity to public transit availability of alternative modes of transportation tenant lease restrictions restrictions shared or lease parking. So those are you know just a list of some criteria and there could be more so you know if we if the board thinks there needs to be more information. Then there could be I mean I think some of us with the traffic impact I mean you know we've heard some planning boards or the staff has heard from some members saying they're worried about traffic spill over and so you know one question would be is a tenant who lives here really going to park. You know two miles away on Lincoln Ave. every day. But live up on Olympia Drive you know is there really going to be an impact to downtown resident residential neighborhoods because of this development and not you know my thought is it. I'm not sure someone would park that far away. Given where their residents is also you know that's something I think the board should discuss is there is there. Concern about some traffic with this you know or parking with this offsite parking. We're a parking study with use within 800 feet. I mean section doesn't eat the whole section.  I don't I don't have the right answer but you know if we haven't been as far as I understand the town hasn't heard complaints about Olympia place and so I'm not sure. You know we could you know we could investigate further but we haven't you know we haven't heard anything that there is a parking problem with that development. So, you know, it looks to me, you know, based on the way 7.000 reads or 7000 zero, you know that bulleted list, we have a number of conditions in that list that are applicable to this property. So, you know, I think it would be pretty straightforward to say we would be that the the adequate number of off street parking spaces is zero. Because of, you know, it this this property, and this project have the characteristics that are in that list. There's no proximity to public transit tenant lease restrictions relative to parking shared or lease parking elsewhere. So, you know, Janet I don't think we need to go to the waiver section we could do it right here. All right, are there any other other comments. Karen, it sounds like you are back. You're muted. So just for reference the time is 820 and I think Karen winter just returned to the meeting. Welcome back Karen. Thank you. All right, so board members we've gone through a lot of comment here this evening. And I think we are going to need to decide whether we're comfortable enough with this project to spend the time to go through the draft findings and conditions that that Chris has prepared. So I wondered if we could get a kind of a straw poll as to whether people are comfortable enough to go through that or not. Janet I see your hand. I have a quick question. Is there a lighting plan. I have like so many pieces of paper I don't like, is there a lighting plan. I don't remember. We have not submitted the photometric plan beyond the ballards and the lighting that shown on the landscape plan and all the ballards and lighting our dark sky compliant. Correct. Okay. All right, so I'd like to just get a straw poll here. So I'd like to go around the board and just ask are you comfortable moving on. Are you comfortable moving on to the findings and conditions. So let's, I'll just start with you Bruce. Yes, I'm comfortable doing that. All right, Tom. Yeah, I'm fine. We're still waiting on information correct from the wetlands or. Yeah, we haven't, we haven't got the final decisions and conditions from the Conservation Commission. Okay. We'll be approving tonight, but we won't. We don't intend to approve. We'll be continuing to December. Is it the 21 21 21 21. Yeah. Great. That's fine. Okay. I agree. Let's move forward. Thank you. Okay. Andrew. Great. Let's go. Okay. Janet. It's fine. Okay. Yohana onwards. All right. And Karen. I, I also approve and I've been here for a while. Sorry. Okay. Great. Yeah. In case you missed it, what we're, we're, we're going to go ahead and go through the findings and conditions. We've had a long conversation about parking. And whether we need to impose conditions that are. Sort of protective of the tenants. So far, we haven't really got a consensus about that. Chris. I just wanted to note that. Karen will be able to watch the video of this. Proceeding. And it would be necessary for her to do that in order for her to vote on December 21st. Okay. Okay. So. And where you need an email or a letter from her saying she has. Watched the proceedings and therefore she understands she is eligible to vote. Yes, I will need that. You'll need documentation. Yep. Okay. Okay. So, uh, actually the time now is eight 23. And we usually take a break around eight. And then we can come back and go through findings and conditions. And the rest of our agenda. So, uh, please come back at eight 28. And, uh, in the meantime. Mute yourself and turn off your video. Thank you. Karen, I'd like you to know that you are not muted. Oh, sorry. All right. The time is eight 29. And if you are hiding behind your. Video that's off. Please turn it back on. I hope you'll be ready to bring up the draft findings and conditions. Again. Chris, I see your hand. Are you going to want to say something at the beginning when we've got everybody back? Yeah, I just wondered if we wanted to start off with the findings. And what I would suggest is that, um, you know, we'll make edits to these findings tonight and then I can bring them back on the 21st of December for, um, a final vote. Okay. So we, we probably won't have the final findings tonight, but you'll have the conversation about them. Right. Um, Doug, I'm here, but I'm off camera. Okay. Thank you, Janet. So we've got everybody from the board back. Uh, Kyle, are you around? You are. Okay. And I can dimly see Karen. Uh, so I know. She's there. All right. That's fine. Hello. Um, All right. So Pam. Yes. You could bring up the findings. I'm not sure I can. It's Mr. Molloy. Oh, okay. I practiced it. I just sent him a text saying I'm failing at the sharing. Um, Nate, are you ready? Pam, we can see your screen. Yeah. Can't see the right screen. Um, This way. Document center. Yeah, there they are. Great. Can you see it? Yay. Now, if you can, you can enlarge it a little bit, zoom in a couple of times. There we go. Good. Good. Good. All right. So Chris. Um, I know we often read these aloud. So these are the findings having to do with the special permit. Um, And the special permit is for, um, maximum height. And, um, building coverage. So, um, I will start to read these. Uh, there was a request for a special permit to modify dimensional requirements for maximum building coverage and height requirements under article six. Table three footnote a of the zoning bylaw. And here are the draft findings. The board found under the draft findings. The board found under article six table three footnote a as follows. Height. That the new building is proposed to be 56 feet. Eight inches in height. That article six table three dimensional regulations limits the height of buildings in the fraternity residence. RF district to 55 feet. Number three, that footnote a authorizes the special permit granting authority to grant a special permit to modify the height requirement. If it applies the criteria established in section 10.395. Of the zoning bylaw. And considers the proposed modified dimensional requirement in the context of the patterns of the same dimensions established by existing buildings and landscape features. In the surrounding neighborhood with, which have a functional or visual relationship to the proposed building. Number four, that the nearby building at 57 Olympia drive is 67 feet in height in excess of the height limitations. That the nearby building at 57 Olympia drive received a special permit in 2013, which was special permit number 2014 dash two to modify the height limitation and that decision for 57 Olympia drive referred to tall buildings on the UMass campus in support of their requested height modification. Number six, that in accordance with section 10.395 of the zoning bylaw, the proposed height of 56 feet, eight inches does not create disharmony with respect to the terrain and to the use scale and architecture of existing buildings in the vicinity, which have a functional or visual relationship there too. Can you scroll up? Does anyone object to any of those findings? The ones that we just read. I do not see any hands. Okay, then I will proceed. Building coverage. Number one, that the new building is proposed to cover 45.35% of the property. Number two, that article six table three, dimensional regulations, limits the maximum building coverage in the fraternity residents RF district to 45%. Number three, that footnote a authorizes the special permit granting authority to grant a special permit to modify the building coverage requirement. If it applies the criteria established in section 10.395 of the zoning bylaw and considers the proposed modified dimensional requirement in the context of the patterns of the same dimensions established by existing buildings and landscape features in the surrounding neighborhood, which have a functional or visual relationship to the proposed building, that the nearby building at 57 Olympia Drive has a building coverage of 45%. That in accordance with section 10.395 of the zoning bylaw, the proposed building coverage of 45.35% 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. All right. So those are the findings for the special permit. Anybody have any comments or objections on those? Okay. Okay. I don't see any objections. Why don't we go to the findings for the site plan review? Well, no, what have I done? I'm sure you can do it, Pam. I don't know. It's so nerve wracking. We're going in here. All right, draft possible findings. There it is. Yeah, you did it. Okay. Okay. This is a long one. And these are, you want some help? Why don't we see if I can, how long I can last and then someone can step in and help me if I'm faltering. Okay. So the board found under section 11.24 of the zoning bylaw site plan review as follows. 11.2 400. The project is in conformance with all appropriate provisions of the zoning bylaw with the exception of the provisions requiring waiver of onsite parking requirements and the special permit for modification of building coverage and height. The special permit has been applied for concurrently with the site plan review. A sign plan will be required as a condition of the site plan review. And the applicant has provided a plan to show the location of handicapped parking in front of the building along Mather Drive. I think we should also make a note that the applicant has requested a waiver of onsite parking. I don't think that's explicit in this. Finding the way I wrote it. Okay. The second one. 11.2 401. Town amenities and abutting properties will be protected because detrimental or offensive actions are not planned for this site. The site appears to minimize the possibility of a detrimental or offensive actions. 11.2 402. Abutting properties will be protected from detrimental side characteristics resulting from the proposed use. Lighting will be downcast and will not shine on to adjacent properties. 11.2 403. Adequate recreational facilities, open space and amenities will be provided because the properties will be protected from detrimental side characteristics. Abutting properties will be provided because the property is close to UMass. Tenants will be able to use UMass recreational facilities since most tenants will be associated with the university. The property is located near a town owned property with access to a trail that connects through Olympia oaks to town to a town owned trail system providing additional recreational opportunities. And the building proposed for the site is large and it is a courtyard proposed near the entry which is available for use by the tenants. Are you noting that anybody has come? Chris, Janet just raised her hand. So I don't think the bylaw lets you count sort of fields in the UMass fields, but I know that the building itself has a lot of workout space and group space, and there's a courtyard and then there would be some local trails. So I don't think we have to count the UMass stuff in. I don't think that's what the bylaw is requiring. It's like the applicant has to provide the recreation, not UMass. So you would remove the first part of that paragraph. Yeah. Okay. Because tenants will be able to use UMass facilities. We'll strike that and we'll strike that. Because the property is close to UMass. Yeah, there's plenty of good stuff in the building. And we'll list the recreational space in the building. And keep the courtyard reference. Keep the courtyard reference. And the connection. Can we. Janet, any objection to mentioning the town owned land adjacent and the trail system. We'll do it through the yard. That sounds fine. So. Okay. 11.2410 is not applicable because there are no unique or important natural historic or scenic features on the site. 11.2411. Proposed methods of refuse disposal are described in the management plan. They are considered to be adequate. They are not required to be used in the water supply system. And they are not required inside the building in a refrigerated storage area. 11.2412. The ability of the proposed sewage disposal and water supply systems to serve the proposed use is considered to be adequate. The property is connected to the town sewer and water systems. And the town engineer has reviewed the project and has not expressed concern. The property is actually connected to the town. We'll be connected to the town sewer and water systems through. The connection that is on in matter drive. So maybe we should note that and matter drive is owned by UMass. 11.2413. The ability of the proposed drainage system within an adjacent to the site. To handle any increased runoff resulting from the development is considered to be adequate. And the property is connected to the town sewer and water systems. The property is connected to the town sewer and water systems. The project and has not expressed concerns with the proposed system. The project has also been reviewed by the wetlands administrator and conservation commission. So they're in the process of being reviewed by the conservation commission. So that statement will only be. Completed. After we hear from the conservation commission. Anybody have a problem with that. I don't see any hands. I can get a mention on that. A not a nonhand problem. I just a question is. Where it says has been reviewed by the wetlands administrator in conservation commission. Shouldn't there be some favorable. Finding is associated with that. I mean, just say and, and who found favor with the project or something like that. Or review. Positively or exactly. yeah okay 11.2414 provision of adequate landscaping will be satisfactory because a landscape plan has been submitted the landscape plan has been prepared in accordance with the Amherst landscaping guidelines and you all have received a copy of that of the plan um 11.2415 the erosion control plan has been submitted it has been reviewed by the town engineer and the conservation commission in this case I did make a statement and has been found to be satisfactory but that has not yet come to pass right the engineer finds it satisfactory but we need to make sure that the concomp finds it satisfactory and so far we haven't heard anything negative about their erosion control plan from the conservation commission. Chris hold on a second Bruce has got his hand up again just in relation to the landscape plan I believe the development report noted that the landscape plan whereas and I've seen it we've all seen it it's cut very detailed and so forth but the the column that gives the numbers of the specific plants has not been completed they're all just zeros or dashes and the development plan notes that the quantities of the various plants should be uh well I actually I guess this is correct isn't it because the we're finding that it's been prepared in accordance but well is accordance uh does does that require the uh the statement the neurotic statement of the numbers of the various uh pieces or are we going to uh are we are not are we not do we not need that uh uh piece of information. So you're saying that the drawings really aren't final because they haven't included that you know the quantities of species? I I I guess it's a question first of all does that indicate that they're not yet final and B as is my uh information up to date or if I just not seen the most recent version of the landscape plan. Okay Chris you have your hand? Yes um the landscape plan is the most recent one that you have um and it does not include the quantities so we can ask um that uh Kyle provide that information before the next meeting. Kyle do you see that being a problem? I don't I think the quantities are just represented graphically rather than numerically in the chart um we could we could look to do that. Okay great Bruce you're all set. All right then I'll drop your hand. Okay I will not drop my hand too. All right um okay 11.2416 adjacent properties will be protected from the intrusion of various nuisances including pollution light and noise. 11 point any problem with that? Well I guess Chris what do you really mean by that and and you know how how are you how are you I mean do do we need to have that statement because it seems pretty ambiguous how it's protected. What does the original state I'm going to 1416. Okay here's the original protection of adjacent properties by minimizing the intrusion of air and water pollution flood noise odor dust and vibration through appropriate site and structured design and the use of appropriate design and materials for containment ventilation filtering screening soundproofing sound dampening and other similar solutions. I could um I think we need yeah we need to list some of those nuisances you know or or or the intrusion of all those things is minimized. So would you like me to be more detailed about how the intrusion of these things is minimized? I think we do need to just because it's kind of ambiguous. Okay so I'll do that for next one. 11.2417 protection of adjacent properties by minimizing the intrusion of lighting has been discussed. We haven't really discussed that because we haven't seen a lighting plan yet. Kyle are we likely to have a lighting plan? Yes and the ballards uh I don't have a photometric plan that I've shown the the lighting and the ballards are shown in the landscape plan and the civil and architectural but we will be forwarding a photometric plan. Okay so we'll wait until we see the photometric plan to finish this finding. Is that correct? But we do know that exterior lighting will be required to be downcast and dark sky compliant um and the applicant I mean Kyle will you be including the catalog cuts in in that package? Yes. So Chris you can you go back to the has submitted. Has submitted okay as of the time when you will yeah as of how we expect it to be next meeting yeah all right and on the 21st. Okay 11.2418 is not applicable because the property is not located in a flood zone in a flood zone conservancy district. 11.2419 wetlands will be protected by building in accordance with the provisions of the wetlands protection act chapter 131 section 40 and the Amherst wetlands bylaw. The project has been reviewed by the conservation commission and I'm hoping that next time we meet I can say that the conservation commission has issued an order of conditions or has closed its public hearing or something to that effect. Okay 11.2420 is not applicable and that is having to do with things that are in certain districts that are not RF so if you're in the BL, BBC, BN, COM, OP, LI or PRP district these things apply but we're not in any of those districts so we're not applicable. Chris Bruce has his hand up. Yeah I can't see it seems like it needs to be scrolled. Okay 11.2420 is not applicable. 11.2421 the development is reasonably consistent with respect to setbacks landscaping entrances and exits with surrounding buildings and development. There will be no on-site parking. Tenants who own cars may purchase parking permits from UMass and use the adjacent UMass parking lots although there is no on-site parking there will be a significant number of bike racks on the site located along the northern property line. Two handicapped parking spaces will be provided in the parking lot along Mather Drive with a crosswalk leading to the new building entry court. Is there anything else we want to say about that? Andrew has his hand up. Yeah I was just wondering I know I'd ask Kyle if we might be able to up the number of handicapped spots I think he said he could look into that so just be where we land in later December. Bruce I was going to ask a question but it was a small one related to bike. I don't think the development brought notes that there's no bike storage interior bike storage. I mean I know that Kyle's mentioned that people routinely take their bicycles particularly the ones they can carry upstairs and so forth but I'm wondering I was going to ask Kyle whether any thought had been given to carving out some space for I don't know a small number of electric bicycles which I don't think would be people would trust the outdoor spaces for them and they would need to be able to be plugged in somewhere and I'm wondering whether the as time goes by this kind of requirement might grow and whether we wouldn't ask whether you wouldn't Kyle give some thought to whether that likely evolution of need would be catered for or could be catered for in some way within the building and if that were the case then that would also be a finding. Kyle any thoughts about interior storage? Yeah I think the interior storage is in the unit I think that that's what we found folks who are looking to bring their bike in we've got other interior storage bike storage at other buildings not highly used so I think we've tried to strike a balance between exterior and covering it and interior in the unit. I was thinking of the heavier electric bikes Kyle which may become a feature of the future but I guess they when that arises you could decide to deal with it I can see a number of ways so I'll just take that as a not yet answer. All right thanks Bruce Chris you may. 11.2422 the building site avoids to the extent feasible impact on steep slopes flood plains scenic views grade changes and wetlands. 11.2423 not applicable there will be only one building on the site. 11.2424 screening has been proposed for the mechanical systems on the roof they will be located on the roof and surrounded by a parapet wall trash will be stored in the building so there will be no dumpster on site. 11.2430 the site has been designed to provide for the convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement both within the site and in relation to adjoining ways and properties there will be pedestrian access at three points into the building from the courtyard area. Do you really need to say anything about vehicular because there's really no vehicular movement on the site. 11.2431 the location and number of curb cuts is designed to minimize turning movements and hazardous exits and entrances. There will be only one curb cut for the service area at the side of the building and there's an existing curb cut in the vicinity of this location. There will also be provision in the parking area along Mather Drive for two handicap parking spaces and a crosswalk to the new building. 11.2432 the location and design of parking spaces, bicycle racks and drive aisles will be provided in a safe manner so that really I should take parking spaces out of there. Well parking spaces are provided along Mather Drive so there are handicap parking spaces along Mather Drive and they're not on the site but they are adjacent so can I leave the parking spaces in there? Yeah I guess I wonder whether we need drive aisles. Is that a term that you use in a parking lot? Yes. There is a drive aisle on the Mather Drive. So anyway the location and design of parking spaces, bicycle racks and drive aisles will be provided in a safe manner. Bike racks will be provided on the north side of the building along the northern property line. A waiver has been requested from on-site parking requirements. Number 10.2433 is 11.2433. 11.2433 is provision for access to adjoining properties so that's not applicable. 11.2434 where possible driveways located in the commercial and industrial and business districts should be located opposite each other that's not applicable. 11.2435 joint access driveways between adjoining properties and that's not applicable. And then 11.2436 a traffic impact and access study provided prepared by Venice Hangen was submitted with the site plan review application for the previous project at 57 Olympia Drive. A new traffic impact and access study has been submitted now. I wrote this back in I don't know a month ago. Has been submitted for the new building to be known as 47 Mather Drive in the future. The new proposed project is not expected to result in notable impacts to area traffic operations. And 11.2437 a traffic impact report has been submitted has been submitted by the applicant it it yeah so we don't need that second part that it's expected to be submitted. Okay so that's that's it for the bindings for the site plan review. All right I don't see any hands and I'll make those changes that we talked about and now do we want to go to talk about conditions? Sure. It's only it's only nine o'clock we can keep going. Ordinarily we still have one more person to talk to Mr. Gerfine so yeah can't forget about him. Yeah. So the conditions are related to the site plan review. I haven't drafted any conditions related to the special permit for the dimensional requirements and I don't think those are needed but can let me know if you think they are needed. So the waivers that have been requested are the waiver for a sign plan, a traffic impact report and on-site parking. So we no longer need the waiver for the traffic impact report because one has been submitted. So I'll start reading the conditions and see where we go. Condition number one in the general category the development must shall be built substantially in accordance with plans submitted to the planning board and approved on hopefully it'll be December 21st and we'll fill that in. Number two the development shall be managed substantially in accordance with the management plan submitted to the planning board and approved on ex-date. Number three occupancy of dwelling units at 47 Olympia Drive shall be limited to matriculated students enrolled at the University of Massachusetts Amherst Amherst College or Hampshire College and their family members and the resident manager and his or her family members to the extent allowed by law. Number four and maybe this is a question for Kyle. If I were if I were a student at Greenfield Community College would I be able to be in your project? It's a good question I mean we've currently got this provision at 57. Obviously the majority of folks are from you know well I just I guess I wondered whether it should just say matriculated at an institution of higher education or something like that and just because that's what the zoning limits the two yeah and not name the institutions. We will take care of that. Number four parking for tenants at 47 Olympia Drive shall be provided a set forth in the management plan for 47 Olympia Drive. If the availability of parking for tenants changes from what is set forth in the management plan the owner shall submit a new parking proposal to the planning board for its review and approval. What do you think about that one? Is that okay? Yeah. And number five a lease shall be submitted to the planning board for review and approval. I think we did get the lease already. The lease shall include the following a limitation on who may occupy the dwelling units at 47 Olympia Drive as described in condition three above. B information regarding parking including a statement in the lease that students have responsibility for obtaining parking permits for their own vehicles and we've decided to eliminate everything after that in B which I have crossed out on my copy here. I think that's correct. Nate's raised his hand. Oh yeah sorry just going back to number three the bylaw and the use chart does say you know a fraternity or sorority building or social dormitory or similar similar use related to Amherst College, Hampshire College or the University of Massachusetts. Oh okay. So I mean it doesn't it says related to I don't I don't know if we can. Okay so those can stay then. Yeah. I guess if it's that specific. It is yeah. Okay thanks, Nate. Yeah. Number six upon change of ownership or if the property is no longer managed by Archipelago Archipelago and investments LLC or its affiliate Amherst Innovative Living LLC. The new owner and or manager shall submit a new management plan to the planning board at a public meeting for its review and approval. The purpose of the meeting shall be for the board to determine whether conditions of the permit are being complied with and whether any modification to the site plan review approval or management plan is required. Okay. Number seven substantial changes to the project and or substantial changes to any approved site plans or to the exterior of the building shall be submitted to the planning board for its review and approval prior to the work taking place. The purpose of the submittal shall be for the planning board to approve the change and or to determine whether the changes are de minimis or significant enough to require modification of the special permit or site plan approval. Number eight landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the landscape plan prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy and once installed shall be continually maintained as needed. All disturbed areas shall be loamed and seated unless otherwise specified. Number nine the building shall meet all required energy efficiency codes and regulations of the stretch energy code. In addition low-flow plumbing fixtures shall be installed throughout the project. Bruce has his hand up. Just gives me the opportunity to ask another small question that I had related to the development report which I think says that the hot water is by gas and it goes on to talk about gas connections and so forth. But Chris I think maybe that is an anachronistic comment or entirely is there indeed gas energy providing the water heating. The intent is that it a all-electric hot water the same system that we're using at 11 EP downtown we are going to need some fossil fuel for the generator but the hope is that that's the only fossil fuel that we use. So that would be what would drive a propane tank and which we may get to at some point. Just for the generator. Yeah okay thank you. All right Chris. I think we were up to number 10. And this this site plan review approval shall expire within two years of the date that it is filed with the town clerk unless it has been both recorded at the registry of deeds and substantial construction or use has commenced within the two-year time period. Number 11 construction shall be completed within and I wrote 30 months here. I think that was what we said for 11 East Pleasant Street and I don't know that's something that you could discuss with the applicant. Anyway 30 months from the date of issuance of the building permit if more time is needed the applicant shall come to the planning board at a public meeting for review and approval of an extension of time. So is 30 months. 30 months is fine. Kyle is indicating that's fine. Okay okay I crossed up the next things because they've been submitted. Number 14 a sign plan shall be submitted to the planning board for its review and approval prior to the installation of signs. Now the applicant has asked for a waiver of the sign plan but usually we put something in about signs in the conditions so I think he doesn't actually need a sign plan waiver at this time. Has everyone agreed with that? They agreed that we should have him come back. Have him come back and he doesn't need a waiver of the sign plan. Yes he'll come back. Anybody object please raise your hand. Okay. No not seeing any objection. Okay number 15 detailed plans of paved areas and detailed information about site improvements including information related to the handicap to handicapped accessibility such as surface treatments, greetings, spot elevations, railings etc. shall be submitted to the planning board for review and approval. I this was written for another project that had fewer details about paved areas but I think so I think maybe we'll come back to this one on the 21st and we should look at the plans to see if they're detailed enough for your approval. Okay and and I would just quickly I would hope that they are so that we could get rid of this condition so that it's not difficult to interpret down the road. So we'll look at that. Okay number 16 one hard copy and one digital copy of the final revised plans shall be submitted to the planning department. Number 17 this has to do with other use of residential use. The total number of dwelling units to be constructed at the project shall be limited to a maximum of 68 units, nine studios, two one-bedroom units, one two-bedroom unit, seven three-bedroom units and 49 four-bedroom units. There shall be one unit set aside for a resident manager so this is a question that I have for Kyle. In the 68 units does that include the unit for the resident manager? Yes we took one of the 68 offline and made it a resident manager unit. Okay all right number 18 the building shall not exceed a maximum of five stories and a total of 56 feet eight inches. Chris I can't quite do the math quickly enough but for number 17 those those count of units doesn't add up to 60. Well it should add up to 68 but which which type of unit did you take offline Kyle for the resident manager? Let me see I think it's one bed on the first floor. I could just make a note that all right there will be one unit set aside for a resident manager one bedroom on the first floor how's that? Okay number 18 the building shall not oh I started that yeah the building shall not exceed a maximum of five stories and a total of 56 feet eight inches and the word feet can come out of there measured from average finished grade on the street side of the building to the highest point of the flat roof excluding any parapet or other rooftop equipment as outlined in section 6.17 of the zoning bylaw. Number nine question. Bruce has his hand up Chris. I did the math and it adds up and I thought well that's final but then I thought the additional blue piece there that says there shall be one unit set aside and Kyle says well that's included in the 68 so if you do the math but you add another one because you read the blue pieces there then it would add up to 69 so I should I would say it should say including one unit that is set aside for a resident manager something like that so you know that the one of the 68 is yes make it make it clear so the people leading this in the future don't wonder whether it's a bad math or whatever okay thank you sounds good. Number 19 the principal use shall remain a private apartment style dormitory and shall not be changed to any other residential use. I think this was put in there because the original planning board that reviewed 57 Olympia Drive was concerned that it could possibly become just a regular apartment building and and that wouldn't be allowed in the RF zoning district. Number 20 the property shall not be used for temporary no less than 12 month short-term housing short-term lodging or advertised as such in print and that that's a question for Kyle is there any reason to think that this might be rented in a different way and is this a question that's fine that's that's fine okay um number 21 apartments shall meet all applicable A, A, B and A, D, A requirements with 5% of the total units being fully accessible and all units visitable including at least one accessible unit on the first floor is that okay I would say I think that's that's fine at at some point the A, B and the A, D, A requirements may shift so some of those on paper those may no longer be applicable if those ever go up so do you want to say all currently applicable uh you could just shorten it to say apartment shall meet all applicable A, A, B and A, D, A requirements per the building code at the time of construction not a big concern but just in other words take the 5% out yeah if that changes and becomes more or less down the field down the road just so in other words it would read applic apartments shall meet all applicable A, A, B and A, D, A requirements at the time of construction okay and then scratch the rest of it well do we want one accessible unit on the first floor I assume that's not a requirement of the A, A, B or A, D, A no that would be a requirement of yours and there was a board that part that maybe a number 57 there was interest in having that you made that a requirement of um 11 east pleasant street so do you want that to be a requirement here or not Kyle is that a hardship uh I have no problem doing that that's fine so we'll leave that in Bruce you have your hand up uh yes I did with an elevator I don't see why it would be important to why we should care basically why do we care well I think during 11 east pleasant there was some concern that uh some handicapped folks would just soon not have to deal with an elevator all the time so we wanted to have some options for them on a first floor unit okay so I guess we'll leave it Chris okay number 22 the units at the project shall be registered and permitted in accordance with the Amherst residential rental property bylaw loss or suspension of a suspension of a rental permit shall constitute a violation of this condition and then marketing and lease requirements number 23 residential leases shall be a minimum duration of 12 months is that something that we want to keep in and is that does that fit in with Kyle's plan Kyle you say you're good with that but I know uh in the recent history when UMass changed its academic calendar uh the local landlords had to adjust the end date of some of their leases so you might end up with an 11 month lease to get back in sync with UMass uh do you want to have that flexibility uh I appreciate that we ended up with some 13 month leases to accommodate a later move out date I I don't know if we need to get into that okay all right just wanted to bring it up number 24 any substantial modifications of the lease agreement which may impact tenant oversight as determined by the building commissioner specifically excluding minor updates such as pricing date modifications clerical errors or language updates required by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or other government entities shall require the applicant to return to the planning board at a public meeting okay building exterior and site improvements 25 the applicant shall submit a plan showing bicycle parking and storage to the planning board for review and approval well he's already done that so I think we can take that out that looks like the next one could come out too the town engineer and building commissioner shall inspect the construction of the entry driveway so that just means that oh there's no entry driveway yeah right yeah okay and there's no on-site say paid areas or yeah I guess there is well sidewalks but sidewalks yeah I don't think the town engineer needs to inspect the sidewalks all number 27 which is going to change the number of these are going to change but um all on-site utilities shall be underground Bruce um I'm just thinking I can't remember the site plan but I'm I'm thinking there should be some driveways related to access to dumpsters and so forth wouldn't there be I I'm sorry I can't remember the plan in my head well enough there is a service driveway on the south side of the building that's what I thought do you want to leave um what is shown as 26 in here well I think I think that it makes sense if because it's a driveway it's a short one but uh okay okay number 28 all exterior lighting shall be dark sky compliant exterior lighting shall be downcast shielded and shall not shine onto adjacent properties or streets all right and then completion of work I think these are boilerplate things having to do with construction and in the past we haven't um yeah we have to read all of those right so hopefully we can skip those for tonight um you could you could review amenities and management plan you want to scroll down yeah ham yes Janet I see your hand so um I think I might I'm really speaking at a turn here but I thought that um we should have a requirement of um onsite management or staff 24 seven um so um and I think and that is being satisfied by having a living manager plus the reception and that would that's been a requirement of the other buildings and so I thought that um the management plan didn't the management plan the old management plan doesn't reflect that and then just the language is really unclear so I thought we should just say there has to be someone from staff onsite all the time you know it could be you know obviously it could be the receptionist it could be the um the you know the living manager it could be anybody but just to make sure that somebody's there 24 seven any directions to that Kyle you could add that 40 I'm sorry 41 there as part of that all right perfect and I think the management plan might need some revision because I just found it kind of murky so Kyle do you think you can review that uh I I guess I'd ask the question what was murky uh on the plan right Janet you know maybe I should just send this to you later because um or send it to Chris it was just like I think it would meant to say that without just simply saying it and so I could maybe I'll just do a quick look at it right now and I can email that to Chris or something later okay sounds good um anyway we were going to review the amenities section and the management plan section number 37 the entire project and building shall be smoke-free non-smoking to the extent allowed by law um and then the management plan 38 all move-ins or move-outs shall occur during the hours of 8 a.m to 7 p.m and shall be coordinated through the leasing office as to lessen the impacts of multiple moving trucks blocking parking or the fire line 39 snow plowed within the project shall be promptly removed from the site as part of the clearing process to the extent possible number 40 all trash pickup deliveries and operation of construction maintenance machinery and landscaping equipment shall be conducted during the hours of 8 a.m to 7 p.m exemptions shall include emergency vehicles snow removal or other emergency situations as approved by the building commissioner number 41 the project shall comply with and be managed in in accordance with all the terms of the management plan any alterations to this plan shall be approved by the planning board at a public meeting if the property or business operations are sold the new owner shall meet with the planning board at a public meeting to review the management plan and to determine if it is still applicable and to decide whether or not to hold a public hearing to review and approve the new management plan and then we'll make reference to the onsite management 24 7 and then the last 142 a demolition permit shall be issued prior prior to any demolition on the property taken place we have two hands chris bruce um i i i appreciate the call suggesting we put the onsite resident manager into 41 but i think if it's in the management plan it's it's it's redundant in here and and clearly the management plan is intended that we don't have to put all the details of it into this we simply refer to the management plan so i would suggest that the resident manager requirement be handled as gen is proposing that any clarity or the specific in the management plan and we we leave it at that all right ander thanks dug um i would just want to on item 37 um i just don't know what is sort of the the latest relative to vaping and this is sort of calling out non-smoking but should there be is there any interest in this like is should this should there be some reference to vaping in here as well i i can't tell you that i have any knowledge about where that stands kyle dropped with i guess is this something would this be something that the you know that the landlord would typically um impose or this is something the town i mean i know we've got it down here for the conditions but is this do we request this of it is this common item in here and uh yeah i see kyle has left the meeting i mean we'll we'll come back at this next month anyway but i'd be curious to know i mean 21 it's it's you know they're they're i don't know whether that's just for a healthy environment whether this the majority is supposed to be under 21 um kind of the nature of that that being in here but um chris do you think you could ask kyle about his policy with respect to vaping and we could at least have that answer for the next meeting yes and is um andrew considering including vaping in this sentence i it sounds hot i mean i i honestly i don't i don't know at this point i mean i would certainly i would love to see it out right um just dealing with kids at the the middle school and high school that are are facing uh this and it's it's not i mean it's if the the idea of not allowing smoking is to prevent obnoxious fumes well you know vaping will shed obnoxious vapors well so it's it can be just as offensive i don't know if the health you know i i don't know enough about the health side of it but okay all right so we'll look into that uh janet i i found um the um 517 management plan doesn't have um explicitly say it's on site management and so i i can rewrite that a little bit um do you want to do you want to hear it now or i thought that the new management plan said specifically tha