All right, the appointed hour is 6.30. Haven't been reached. I call this meeting to order. My name is Steve Judge as chair of the Amherst Zoning Board of Appeals. I welcome everybody to this meeting of the Amherst Zoning Board of Appeals. Pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12th, 2020 order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, general law chapters 30A, section 18 and the governor's March 15th, 2020 order imposing strict limitations on the number of people that may gather in one place. This public hearing of the town of Amherst Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted via remote participation. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but the public can listen to the proceedings by clicking on a link in the town's webpage. In accordance with provisions of Massachusetts General Laws chapter 40A and article 10, special permit granting authority of the Amherst Zoning By-law. This public meeting has been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted and mailed to parties at interest. We'll begin with a roll call of the regular members of the ZBA who have been a panel for consideration of the items on tonight's agenda. I'm Steve Judge, I'm here. Mr. Langsdale. Here. Ms. O'Meara. Ms. Parks. Here. Mr. Maxfield. Here. And associate ZBA members, Ms. Waldman. Here. Mr. Barrick. Mr. Greeny. And Mr. Meadows. Also in attendance is Marine Pollock Planning Planner, Christine Brestrup, Planning Director, Nate Malloy, Senior Planner, Dave Vaskevich, Building Inspector, John Whitten of KP Law Firm, and Rob Morrow is also in attendance. And I see that Ms. O'Meara is here as well. The Zoning Board of Appeals is a quasi judicial body that operates under the authority of Chapter 48 of the General Laws of the Commonwealth for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, convenience, and general welfare of the inhabitants of the town of Amherst. All hearings and meetings are open to the public and are recorded by town staff. Each petition is heard by the board is distinct and evaluated on its own merits and the board is not ruled by precedent. The procedure is as follows. The petitioner presents the application to the board during the hearing, after which the board will ask questions for clarification or additional information. After the board has completed its questions, the board may seek the public input. The public speaks with the permission of the chair. If a member of the public wishes to speak, they should so indicate by using the raise hand function on their screen. The chair with the assistance of the staff will call upon people wishing to speak. When you are recognized, present your name and address to the board for the record. All questions and comments must be addressed to the board. I want to remind the applicant, my fellow board members and the public to seek recognition from the chair before speaking. The board will normally hold public hearings where information about the project and input from the public is gathered followed by public meetings. The public meeting portion is when the board deliberates and is generally not an opportunity for public comment. The following is the statutory timeline for ZBA action on comprehensive permits. Within 40 days from the closing of a public hearing, the ZBA must render a decision that is deny, approve or approve with conditions based on majority vote. Within 14 days of its decision, the ZBA must file a copy with the town clerk. And within 20 days from the date of the ZBA decision is filed with the town clerk, the public can appeal the ZBA's decision. I want to review the ways in which the public can be informed about and comment on this application in addition to these public hearings. Residents can sign up to be notified of any additional information recorded by the town concerning this application through the notify me feature on the town website. Copies of all submissions can be found on the town website. Go to the ZBA page, click on the link for 132 North Hampton Road.  Public comments can be submitted on the 132 North Hampton Road page or email to Marine Pollock Planner at P-O-L-L-O-C-K-M at hammersma.gov. Hammers media will not be broadcasting tonight's hearing. However, check their website for information on when it will be rebroadcast or you can view a recording of this meeting on the town's YouTube channel. Tonight's agenda is as follows. A public hearing to consider ZBA 202039 Valley Community Development Corporation, 132 North Hampton Road requests a comprehensive permit under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 40B to construct a new two-and-one-half story residential multifamily building containing 28 small studio apartments and related common areas on an approximate 0.88 acre property located at 132 North Hampton Road, map 14C parcel eight, general residence RG and educational ED zoning districts. This meeting is continued from October 15th, 2020. Tonight's order of business is as follows. First, we'll have public comment. Secondly, we'll review and possibly approve findings. Next, we'll review and possibly approve waiver requests, review and possibly approve conditions. Other items that ZBA chair deems appropriate and then final deliberations regarding the application. There will be a general public comment period on items not the subject for this hearing tonight. Since the October 15th public hearing, the board has received the following submissions. A draft decision document from staff, including proposed findings, proposed waivers and proposed conditions. A set of plans from the applicant titled revised permit plan set dated 1022, 2020. A parking management plan from the applicant. Comments from the applicant on the draft decision document. Additional comments received from October, public comments received from October 15th until October 29th, Francis Goy's floor comments were submitted via email dated October 15th, 2020. Annie Burton comments submitted via emails, October 21st. Anonymous comments submitted via the town website, October 21st. Anonymous photographs submitted via the town website, October 21st. Steve George comments submitted via the town website, October 23rd. And Barbara Wilbur comments submitted via memo dated October 28th. Let me just have one word about the order of tonight's business. We did not have time for public comment during our last public hearing. So that will be the first order of business tonight. After that, we were going to describe, discuss, and vote on proposed findings. At our September 15th meeting, every finding was read into the record. Changes from the findings reviewed by the board last week contained in the draft decision documents are primarily technical, grammatical, or were accepted by the board on the 15th. I will break up the findings by broad subject matter and we will discuss the vote on any amendments to the findings at that time. When we complete the review of the draft findings, we will consider a motion to approve the findings. We will follow the same procedure for consideration of waivers and then for conditions. Next, we will consider a motion to close the public hearing. If the board feels that they are ready to render a decision on the application tonight, the public hearing will be closed and we will open a public meeting. If we open the public meeting tonight, the board will consider and discuss a motion to approve the application for a comprehensive permit. Are there any questions regarding tonight's order of business? Okay, the first order of business is public comments on the comprehensive permit application. If you wish to speak, please use the raised hand function on your screen. The staff will unmute your microphone. Please give your name and address for the record. You will have about three minutes to make your statement. Remember to address your comments to the board. Maureen, do we have anybody who wants a comment? We have a KS. Hi, KS. Can you hear me? Yes. I'm a neighbor to the development. Please state your name and your address. Thank you. I would prefer not to give my name or address, but I'm a close neighbor to the development. I support this development to provide affordable housing and would like to thank the board for their careful review. I would like to ask the board to formally consider and vote on making this a smoke-free property. In doing so, I would like to ask them to consider the health impacts of smoking and the proximity of their planned smoking area to a smoke-free campus, an athletic facility and a frequently used public space. The board did note two meetings ago that they would consider and vote on the possibility of making this smoke-free, taking into account the public comments that they've heard and the many other successful smoke-free developments across town. I hope that they will follow through on that tonight. As a close neighbor, I personally feel that the health benefits of a smoke-free development are clear and hope that the board will vote in that direction. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Ms. Wilbur. Hi, thanks. I just wanted to make sure that everybody had a moment to read the memo that I submitted with regards to the trees that line our property on the west side. We want those trees down. I appreciate for some that riding up the hill, it looks nice. But as you can see from the pictures that I've included, the impact upon us as a butters. I just realized I didn't say my name and where I was from. You didn't catch me Maureen. Barbara Graven Wilbur, 126 North Hampton Road and immediate a butter to the property. The trees, the impact of the trees with the roots, I did learn something very interesting and the reason the roots are growing into our property versus the property at 132 is because of the richness of our soil and the fact that we don't have a driveway and hard pack that is preventing them from going towards the west, which I thought was pretty interesting. That will just continue and give us headaches. So again, please read the note, look at the pictures. And if anybody wants to come and walk the backyard and see the impact, I'm happy to entertain them. Thanks very much. And I appreciate all the work the ZBA is doing. And I hope those trees come down prior to the start of the construction because that makes the most sense. It doesn't make any sense to try and have to do it at a later date or to do it when it's going to be more expensive as well as incur more, the possibility of increased damage. Thank you very much. Thank you. Are there any other public comments? No. The next item on the agenda for tonight is consideration of draft findings. Maureen, we're going to put the draft decision document on the website, right? So we'll share that. Yes, me one second. Yep. I think it'll be easier for us to all work off that one document. Mr. Joe. Mr. McVeil. Yep. I feel a little strange about having the public comment right at the beginning. That's never happened before. So there may be people who want to comment who won't come into this until later. I just feel like we have to at some point go back to public comment just to see if there's anybody who is logged on. Well, we did announce it or put it in the agenda that way. And I know it's not the normal process. The reason we put it in the front is because I wanted to make sure that we had the public comment before we made our, did our made decisions or consideration of the findings, the conditions, and the application in general. So I wanted to make sure we had that rather than have it at the end. We could do it, we could do it later on. That, I guess if we want to. That was stated where? It's on my agenda. In the agenda that was set out, the first item is public comments. And I said at the meeting last week that we would do public comments first. I admit it's different than it's normally done, but if we have it at the end, then we've made our decisions. And the public comment comes after we've made our decisions. No, it comes before we make our decision. Well, the final decisions, but we're gonna vote on findings, we're gonna vote on waivers, and we're gonna vote on conditions. And then we're gonna vote on the app, the whole application, the comprehensive permit application in one big package at the end. Okay, it's up to you, but I object. Well, we'll see if there's, if there are other members of the public that do call in later and raise their hand, we can adjust it. But I suspect we won't see many. We'll keep an eye out for it because I don't wanna preclude anybody's ability to contribute to the consideration of this. All right. So, okay, so let me share it, sorry. So I'm going to, what you want, we'll start to review the draft finding. Just go up to the beginning here, top the page. Where we, at background, yep. So this was, again, this was all read by me and by Mr. Langsdale into the record last week, or two weeks ago. Just, I'm just going to review the most important parts, highlight it, and try to identify any significant changes from that which was approved two weeks ago. The most important part of this is that in accordance in statement of relevant material facts and finding, in accordance with provisions of 760 CMR 56XSEC, during the opening public hearing in this matter, the board informed the applicant that the town of Amherst is consistent with local needs. The applicant did not challenge that. And the applicant that empowers the board to deny the project or in the alternative to approve the project with conditions and no appeal from the board's decision by the applicant lies within the housing appeals committee. If conditioned, the proposed projects benefits outweighs negative effects and will be consistent with the town's master plan and housing plan goals. Notwithstanding the town status after careful consideration of the record before it, the board members acknowledge and familiar familiarity with the locusts and the surrounding neighborhoods and the benefits offered by the proposed project. The board has determined that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh any measurable impact and improve and approve the same provided the applicant or its successors or assigns complies with each of the conditions imposed herein. In reaching the conclusion to approve the proposed project with the conditions set forth below, the board makes the following findings of fact. The ZBA finds that there is a need for housing of this type. This proposal is in harmony with the goals of the master plan to increase density in an already developed area. There are several criteria for the needs for this housing are identified from the housing and needs assessment, the housing production plan and the comprehensive market study. Amherst vacancy rate is below 2%, approximately 4,000 or 56% of Amherst households are paying too much for their housing. The housing production plan determined there is an estimated deficit of 2,475 rental units for those earning below 50%. According to the Amherst housing authority over 13,158 applicants are on a waitlist for one bedroom units. According to the Amherst municipal affordable housing trust, the proposed project addresses the housing needs of the extremely low and moderate income housing. The management plan assures the tenants will have voluntary access to a variety of social and health services they may need or either onsite or through referrals. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development has found that 55% of the households, 4900 out of 8,900 in Amherst are low income with 26% of Amherst households extremely low income, 14% very low income, 15% low income. Due to the very low vacancy rate in single occupancy units in Amherst, particularly for lower rent units and the ongoing pressure on the local housing market by many students in the area seeking off-campus housing, the board concludes that there is a well-documented and continuing local and regional need for additional low and moderate income housing that exists in the town of Amherst. In addition, as conditioned below, the board makes the following additional findings a fact. The proposed project will protect in advance the health and safety of the residents of the proposed housing site by providing safe pedestrian access. Rental units will be accessible to the mobility impaired. The project does not create an undue burden on the public schools and there's adequate fire protection and other public safety measures. The proposed project will not threaten the natural environment. The applicant will provide energy efficiency and low carbon footprints. Development is located in a pedestrian friendly location. The design and construction of the stormwater sewer will comply with stormwater best management practices. The proposed project promotes acceptable site, building design in relation to the surrounding and municipal regional planning and are preserving open space uses. The project meets several objectives and strategies of the town's master plan, but preserving and expanding the number of affordable units, creating incentives to make it financially attractive for developers to build affordable housing, partner with the Amherst Housing Authority and local community development corporations, nonprofit agencies and other groups expanding affordable housing in Amherst, improving housing and services for people in the area who are homeless and increase the amount of housing available to people of very low income. Adjacent properties will be protected from the project specifically from the intrusion of various types of nuisances to screening, minimal traffic impact, the provision of a residential services coordinator and part-time on-site property management and a 24-7 emergency call number, stormwater runoff management on the site, exterior lighting will be designed and installed, darks downlit and dark sky compliant and trash and recycling will be stored within a screen dumpster area. Those are the findings. So I would think this would be the time for any discussion, any amendment to the findings. And then if we agree to vote on adoption of the findings, is there any discussion on the findings? Hi, Mr. Chair.  Oh, hi. Hey, how are you? I, for the part about making sure that the findings are that this isn't a nuisance to adjacent properties. I know we have the one public comment about potentially making this smoke-free. Do we as a board believe that if we were to make it smoke-free and that would then cause people to go out onto Route 9 and smoke on the sidewalk, would we say that would be consistent with not making this project a nuisance? Well, I think the discussion about smoke-free or not is probably more appropriate in the conditions section rather than in the findings. But I think the findings, either way, there was a findings that there are lots of measures being made to reduce the nuisance to neighbors and the immediate neighborhood. One of those is smoking, but it's also screening and that there are other kinds of things and not having obvious mechanical devices and not having blasting during Saturdays and giving notice and all the other kinds of things that are done in conditions. And so that one specifically, I would prefer to deal with during conditions and we will come to that later on. No, I agree, Mr. Chair, thank you. You bet. Any other questions about findings? These are important because this really is the foundation for our next two actions, which are dealing with waivers and dealing with conditions and then approval or disapproval of the project application. So unless there are any other questions or other discussions, I would move the draft findings contained in the draft decision document be adopted by the board. Do I have a second? Seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion? If there is no discussion, the question occurs on the motion to approve the draft findings. This is a roll call vote requiring a majority or three votes to prevail. I vote aye. Mr. Langsdale? Aye. Ms. Omira? Aye. Ms. Parks? Aye. Mr. Maxfield? Aye. The vote is five. Ayes, zero nays, and the motion is approved. The next item on the agenda is the consideration of waiver requests. And I think Maureen, probably the best thing to do there would be to bring up the waiver chart that we have. Give me one second. Sure. While you find it, I'll just remind board members and the public that we read through each of the waivers. There was some discussion about some of these waivers which those changes and modifications have been incorporated in this latest document that you were given by Maureen, but there are not very many changes from that which was read into the record fully last week or two weeks ago. There we go. All right. So I'm gonna quickly go through this and I don't think we need to break these up into sections because I think they're for the most part pretty non-controversial, but we will have time at the end of just describing these for discussion, amendment, and approval or disapproval. So the first one is educational uses. There's a minor mapping discrepancy. Secondly, a number of units in the building. We're waiving the limit to allow 28 units. A special permit is required in the R, we're waiving the requirement for a special permit because we're granting a comprehensive permit. 5.00, generate accessory units. Again, we're waiving the requirement for a special permit because we have a comprehensive permit. There's a requirement, a limitation on the maximum percentage of units of one type. We're gonna grant a waiver to this because the purpose of it, right, of this is to allow a building made up solely of efficiency units. 3.323 allows a apartment to be built in a specific location, heavily traveled street next to educational district in an area of a mix of single family, multifamily homes. We're waiving the requirement for design review requirements. We're allowing the quantities of cut and fill as shown on the plans to be done without a special permit because we're granting a comprehensive permit. Additional lot area. We're granting a waiver from the additional lot area per family because it would be not feasible if we did not waive that. Article six, table three, maximum lot coverage. We're waiving the waiver allowing a higher lot coverage for the proposed development. We're granting, we would grant waivers for the side yard from certain side yard requirements. The same thing, we're granting waivers from your rear yard requirements. We're also granting a waiver to up to eight feet for the fence, a waiver for the fence setback, a waiver for the number of parking spaces to allow 16 as opposed to two per unit. We're allowing up to 50, we're granting a waiver to allow 50% of proposed parking spaces to be compact spaces. We're granting a waiver to allow the parking area to be landscaped as shown in the plan, which includes pavers and other kinds of, as well as by two minutes covered parking areas. We're granting a waiver on driveway length with the approval of the fire department. We're granting a waiver for separately engineered plans for the driveway. We're granting two waivers for sign requirements for the temporary signs. We're granting a waiver to allow the permitting body can grant a waiver on the traffic impact report. We've deemed this the report that we've received sufficient. We're granting a waiver on a separate site plan review, article 13, granting a waiver on a demolition delay inconsistent with the historical commission's recommendation. We're granting a waiver on two waivers on inclusionary zoning. This is what requires low income, the provision of low income housing and this entire project is low income housing and complies with the one section of the inclusionary zoning requirement. We're also requiring, providing a waiver for landscape guidelines, including requiring a separate tree warden approval. He's looked at the property, doesn't have much to say about it. That's not a lot on town land. And also sewer and water connections are granting a waiver for separate departmental approval because it's part of the comprehensive permit again. And lastly, we're allowing waivers to requirements and local bylaws and regulations related to the dimensional and use requirements to the excess necessary to build the project as presented on plans and any subsequent final plans that may be subject to permitting authority approval. Are there any questions regarding the waivers? If there are no further questions regarding waivers and no further discussion. Mr. Judge, Mr. Chair, Ms. O'Mara has a comment. I didn't see, it's so hard with this smaller screen to pick up the raised hands. I'm sorry, Ms. O'Mara. No, I just raised it. So if we don't agree with some of the waivers, how do we propose that? You could propose to delete that waiver. It would be one way or propose to amend that waiver, either one, Ms. O'Mara. Which one are you concerned about? The eight foot fence. So that's the 6.24? Correct. All right. What question do you want to place before the board to amend that or to delete it? Well, I'm challenging the equitability or however I want to say it with the fence height to demolition of the trees. It seems like they're one in hand and I oppose and I object to the demolition of the trees. And I don't think the eight foot fence is an appropriate replacement. Okay. So we will have a chance to vote on the eight foot trees, but if we already grant a waiver for the fence, it wouldn't mean much. These are kind of inextricably linked together. I would suspect your argument, right? Correct. This seems a case that we should deal with that issue and see where the board is on allowing an eight foot fence and have that discussion. So I would suggest the best way to deal with your, to pose your question to the board is to move to delete the waiver for 6.24. And then we can have a discussion about it and we can vote on that motion to delete that waiver. Does that make sense for you? It does. Okay. So then I would say that Ms. O'Mara moves to delete waiver for section 6.24. Does she have a second? Well, I'll give you a second in order so you can make your case, but I don't want that to be indicative of how I feel about the vote, Ms. O'Mara. So I want to give you a chance to make your case to the board on that article, which is really about the trees and the fence. I think we've gone over this several weeks already. I object to the trees coming down. I don't know why it's coming up now for the ZBA to decide on this. Why wasn't this done 20 years ago for the butters? I don't get why this project has to absorb the core, the cost of demolishing all those trees. Environmentally, I don't think it's a good idea. Aesthetically, I don't think it's a good idea. I don't, I know I don't have a lot of backing for this issue, but I will still maintain my point of view. Thank you. Is there any other discussion on the motion? Mr. Maxfield. I mean, I suppose I'll just make the case here in favor of removing the trees here. The butter wants them gone. The applicant is applying to have them gone. They want this eight foot fence put there in its place. Why is it coming to the ZBA? I don't have an answer to that question, but it is. And both parties here want them removed. So my point of view here is nobody but us seems to be the ones who would be objecting here. So I'm in favor of removing those trees as both parties want them gone. Mr. Merrill. Thank you. I just feel like we're being bullied right now by the butters. That's my point of view. This could have come up 20 years ago when they had those trees growing there. Why is it on the burden of the developer to get those trees down? I don't agree with that cost and I don't agree with the environmental impact. Any further comments? Ms. Parks. I will say that I also had a concern about the trees and for me personally, I would like to see the trees stay but I am also convinced that for the butters that this is important and for Valley CDC, they're willing to do that. And so because of those things, I think that I am okay with those trees being taken down and the eight foot fence but I am sorry to see those trees go. I have much the same concerns. I don't like to see the trees go either but I think that if they come down in the future, it's gonna be either be more expensive for Valley. I don't think we got a natural is to take a look at them and arborist to take a look at them over the last two weeks to tell us how healthy they are. But at some point, those trees come down. And in a $7 million project, I think the tree removal is a small part but it is some cost but it's a small cost. And I think if we have the abutter who's willing to accept the project with that as one of the conditions, I think it's a worthwhile offering to the town. Any other comments from board members? Ms. Baker. To Ms. O'Mara's point, I think the reason they didn't come down 20 years ago is it wasn't understood that they were on the property line. I think they were planted by the Kitties who were the previous owners of 132 North Hampton Road very near the property line and then they grew. And so when we had our survey done about a year and a half, two years ago, I think the abutters were taken aback, surprised that they had a share in these trees at all. I think they assumed they didn't have any control over them. And so I think it evolved that they grew on to actually the property line. And so it becomes, they become what's referred to as line trees, which do require approval of both parties for them to be taken down. Any other comments from members of the board? Mr. Langsdale. I just wanted to ask Ms. Baker, because I don't remember, the cost of bringing the trees down, is that to be shared between you and the abutters? No, that's not our intention. Our intention is that it would be part of the project cost along with the fencing and the screening plantings as part of an accommodation to someone who's gonna live next to a changed circumstance. Okay. All right, thank you. Yeah. All right. I think most members have expressed their opinion. Unless there's any further discussion, the vote occurs on the motion by Ms. Omira to delete 6.24, the waiver of 6.24. This is a roll call vote, requiring three votes to delete the requirement. I vote nay. Mr. Langsdale. Aye. Say it again, nay or aye? Aye. Aye. Aye. Why? Aye, okay. Mr. Chair. Yes. Sorry, it looks like Valley CDC, I don't know if it's Laura or someone else from Valley CDC, but someone just raised their hand. Well, we're in the middle of a vote. Yeah, sorry. We're gonna keep going, that's okay. So I vote nay. Mr. Langsdale votes nay. Ms. Omira. Aye. She votes aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. The vote is a one aye and four nays. The waiver request, the motion to delete the waiver request is not approved. Are there any other amendments or conditions, amendments or discussion about the waivers? Hearing none, the vote occurs on, I make a motion that we approve the waivers as in the draft decision document that we have before us. Do I have a second? Second. Is there any discussion on the motion to approve the waiver requests? If not, this is a roll call. The question occurs on the motion to approve the draft waiver requests. This is a roll call vote requiring a majority or three votes to prevail. I vote aye. Mr. Langsdale. Aye. Ms. Omira. Nay. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. The vote is four ayes and one nay. And the motion to approve the waiver request passes. The next item on the agenda is consideration of draft conditions. Now we've got a lot of, again, like the waiver requests and the findings, we, and with the really much appreciated help of the velvet tones of Mr. Langsdale and the pear shaped tones of Mr. Langsdale last meeting, we went through each of these. We read them each into the record. And so I'm not going to do that again. And what I propose to do is summarize them in groups. So the first group would be from item number one through item number 11, which are just general provisions. And then we can discuss, amend, and move on for each of the conditions. So the first 11 conditions. The total number of dwelling units is limited to 28. We've been through all that. This is the general restrictions on the number of units and who should be eligible from an income standpoint for each of the units. There's a regulatory agreement required that ensures the preservation of the above noted affordability requirements. The town is going to be made party to that regulatory agreement that answers some of the questions we had about what happens if there should be financial problems with the sponsor or the applicant. There are some conditions regarding communication, standard conditions regarding communications with the town when certain actions take place. There's a condition number five that deals with the certification and included in that condition is response to some of the questions raised by board members that the applicant agrees to is required to work with tenants whose income has increased. That's contained in, has increased. That's contained in condition number five. There are, there's protection for the town that allows us to continue to have the authority to enforce the provisions of the comprehensive permit. There's a 70% local preference for units in the initial lease up contained in condition nine. Condition 10 and 11 require development of a marketing plan and a final approval from the subsidizing agency and shall be given to the building commissioner for final approval. That's the first 11 conditions. Is there any discussion, questions or amendments to the first 11 conditions? I understand Ms. Baker, you have some questions about some of these conditions that have not been raised with the staff before or the conditions or questions that you raise but were not included in the draft document. Is that it? It is. So we had, we had submitted comments but just the sequencing was a little out of order. So I don't think these are major items but on item number nine, which is the business about the local preference, we had asked for a sentence to be added saying that the applicant shall only be responsible for implementing local preference to the extent it is approved by the subsidizing agency following requests made by the town. Basically we can't unilaterally implement it without approval of the subsidizing agency. And why is that, why is your language needed when in within number nine, it says the local preference shall comply with procedures approved by the subsidizing agency. I mean, it says there's, but you can't, if they don't approve it, if they don't allow it, then you can't do it. And we acknowledge that. To me, that says that we'll follow their protocols as we implement the local preference. But if they don't approve the local preference. Right, we can't follow their procedures. And then the local preference, you wouldn't be complying if you had a local preference. So you'd have to comply with local preference by not offering it. That's the, I mean, it's clear here to me, it's clear here to me that if, who is it, DHCD? Yes. If DHCD rejects the local preference that the town and you have applied for, that you're not going to be required to have a local preference. Okay. Okay, all right. Any other questions, comments or amendments to conditions one through 11? We'll move to B then. B would be through condition 21. Most of these are really procedural regarding town and water sewer hookups. Who is responsible for obtaining relevant approvals. The one that there's a comment on regards the fees. There was some concern that we're locking in fees that may reduce the flexibility of the town to increase fees or charge more in the end. I think staff has talked to, is it DPW about the likelihood of fee increases during the time of construction? And we found that it's unlikely or that there was no plans to increase fees. And so we're not locking ourselves out of potential fee increases. Is that right, Maureen? Correct. So I spoke to the DPW superintendent, Guilford Maureen last Friday about the language of condition 15 regarding the fees. And he stated that he is not anticipating increasing fees in the next two to five years. So he said he's comfortable with the condition as written. There's a requirement for CAD plans for easements, lines, and pins and utilities. Requirement that before building permit, the applicant will submit an operation maintenance plan for the stormwater management. All utilities shall be underground. Just one question about that. And that the project completed, shall be completed and dwelling units made available within 24 months. I know that's the time that we anticipated last week. And I wonder if the applicant is still comfortable with that 24 month timeframe. Is that too short or is that Ms. Baker? Sure. So we had actually proposed just a little more specific language. Construction shall be completed within actually 20 months from the issuance of the notice to proceed to the general contractor until the temporary certificate of occupancy is issued. Just because the construction period was didn't seem well-defined. Mr. Maureen or Mr. Westkevich, is that acceptable to you or is what's contained in this standard operating procedure and you'd rather have it remain as drafted? This is Rob Maureen. I don't have any concerns about the proposed language as long as the board's intent is to have a project come to its substantial completion once it started. And that language seems to do that if the board found that acceptable. So Ms. Baker, can you, do you have specific language that you want to offer to us tonight? I do. Okay. And how would it read? Construction shall be completed within 20 months from issuance of the notice to proceed to the general contractor until the temporary certificate of occupancy is issued. You have that Maureen? Correct. And Laura did provide her comments in an email that I actually did send over just two days ago. So anyways, I do have that language. Okay.  I just wanna ask, I know you're concerned about time but you're really skipping through this. I have no idea which one of these you were just talking about in terms of that language. I'm going back and forth with these pages and I can't find it. So... I should have told you it's number 21. Okay. That we were just talking about where we last week talked about a timeframe in which to complete this. And we... I'm just asking, I'm asking because anyone from the public may not have this or may not have read this. So as you tend to skip through these things, if you could just let us know where you are as you're skipping through. So we have to make what's being talked about. I can give you some, I'll give you numbers of conditions, that'd be helpful. Yeah, thank you. So for number 21, I move that we accept the, that we amend number 21 as per the language offered by Marine has from the applicant. Do I have a second? Second. Is there any discussion about that amendment? Ms. Parks. Can I just hear it one more time? Yes, thank you. I'll say it. Construction completion, so sorry, construction shall be completed within 24, sorry, construction shall be completed within 20 months from issuance of the notice to proceed to the general contractor until the temporary certificate of occupancy is issued. Would it be help, Marine? Can you type that up on that page in blue or something? If you bear with me for one second, I am just going to open Laura's, Laura's document of suggested comments. So bear with me for one moment. It's condition, hold on a second. Mr. Judge. Yes, Mr. Langsville. I think even if she opens that and we look at what Ms. Baker said, we then need to know exactly how this is going to read before we can say yes or no to it. Yeah, I think we see it will know where it can go in the condition. So I'm just going to highlight. So, so Laura, can you repeat it? Yeah, construction shall be completed within 20 months from issuance of the notice to proceed to the general contractor until the temporary certificate of occupancy is issued. So the general contractor gets a notice that he may proceed.  Is that correct? Yeah. So just sometimes there's a gap between when the building permit issues and when we actually start construction could be depending on a legal matter, a closing time of year. So the real clock starts ticking in terms of physical construction when we issue a notice to proceed. And the temporary certificate of occupancy means people can move in. So the building is not ready that people are allowed to move into it. And notice to, there's no construction activity that tell me if I'm wrong. This is a question, should be said as a question. Is there any ability for any construction activity to take place prior to a notice to proceed the general contractor? Not contractually between the owner and the contractor. They can only start after we give them a notice to proceed. Okay. Is that, Mr. Langsdale? Does that include the removal of the trees? It includes any work on the site. Okay. So you've got 20 months to do the work. Okay. Let's go back. Does that also include the demolition of the house that's there? Yeah. Okay. Well, this says construction shall be completed. Should there be anything about the demolition of the house and the trees? I don't think you need the demolition because it can't do the construction without the demolition. So it's almost, you can't have construction without the demolishment. The trees you could do without, I guess. But you can't do anything, as this is understood, you can't do anything that's on the plan. You can't touch anything until you get a notice to proceed. Let me just ask Mr. Mora if that's correct. Is there some de minimis work that can be done or is there like nothing can happen until you get an issuance of the notice to proceed? Well, I mean, that's really, you know, a contract question between the owner and the contractor and what their scope of services includes. Generally, that's the case. So a general contractor that has the full scope of work from demolition to site work, tree removal through construction to certificate of occupancy wouldn't be doing anything until they have the notice to proceed. So if we want to lock this down, we could say something to the effect that construction, neither construction nor landscape preparation shall take, how do you do that, add that into that language? Mr. Josh. I suspect that Ms. Hardy has got a suggestion for me.  So it would be construction parenthesis, open parenthesis, including any site work, close parenthesis, close parenthesis. And I think that that would take care of Mr. Langsteel's concern. Okay. Ms. Parks. Just because I don't understand. So where does the notice to proceed come from? Who issues that? So this is, to me, this is such, this is a very minor issue. I'm happy to go back to the town's original language. We didn't know how much time you were gonna fill in where those X's were. So we made our own suggestion. If you wanna leave it the way that you had it and have the 24 months, I think it's probably final also. Okay, but who issues the notice to proceed? That comes from you to the general contractor, correct? Yes, correct. Okay. I guess the reason I was bringing it up is because in 21, it says within 24 months from the date that this decision becomes final. And I guess I feel like that's coming from us. Whereas the issuance of notice to proceed, could that happen a year from now? In other words, 24 months from the decision to me is set in time. Whereas this one, it's what's missing for me is in relation to the decision. Do you know what I mean? Yeah. And what I think they're saying is that the relevant limitation on the relevant time when they can work is not dependent on when the decision is made, but it has to start at some later point when the weather is right or other factors could impinge upon that. And they wanna have 20 months in which to do site working construction from some date. And I guess the only thing we could do is say that some kind of overarching 24, 26 months, everything from the date of approval or some other trigger to try to keep them in.  Is I think your concern is that you wanna have it for a period of time and not go on forever, right, Ms. Parks? That's my, the only concern is that when I'm reading the new language, it's feeling like there's more time can pass, so yeah. But I also think they're driven by economics to try to get it done as quickly as possible too. So that's the market forces that I think would drive that. Okay. All right, let's one last comment on this and then we should move on. Ms. Baker. Ms. Parks was talking about two different things. So there's a period of time between the issuance of the zoning permit and when construction can start. And typically that's a three-year window. And then there's a different, this is specifying how long are we making noise and doing construction on the site. And I'm totally happy to yield back to the way that it was before the 24 months is sufficient. Again, we were asked how much time we thought we needed. And so we provided this, but 24 months from building permit to completion, substantial completion is also fine language, but it doesn't mean we're gonna start building within 20 or 24 months. That's an entirely different question. Okay, so the applicant is happy with condition 21 as stated in the draft condition. If less members of the board want to deal with that question and want to amend that, I'm willing to withdraw my amendment, my motion to amend number 21. I don't think, I think that protects us. I think what's there protects the town now. Town officials are happy with it. They drafted this. What? Not what? I'm sorry. This is something really different than it used to say. So number 21 says the project approved here and shall be completed in all dwelling units made available for occupancy within 24 months from the date this decision becomes final. That would never happen. So typically zone, I've seen zoning decisions that have a three year window where you have to begin construction within three years. And then the previous draft of this talked about how long of a construction period we would have. And somewhere along the way, it's changed into something that's quite different. Okay. So we have before us the question of the language proposed by the amendment that I have on the table, which is the language that you saw written, put on the conditions by Maureen, the language, oops, it's gone. Can you see my screen now? Yep. Can see your screen, but I see... So this was... A different plan. So Maureen, yeah, this is a different condition and different numbered. So this was how this condition that we're talking about, about construction was written as of Friday. I believe attorney Witten revised this condition as you saw momentarily. So this is what the board had. This was what the board was contemplating at the last meeting. And then at that time, we put in XX as we were kind of just wondering what will, how many months would make sense. So would the board be agreeable to the condition as written here?  And that would have to be, it sounds like 36 months. Is that right? No. I mean, we typically have a zoning permit usually lasts for two or three years. You have two or three years to start the work. Felicity, can you weigh in on this? Yeah, yes, that's fair. Just a second, Ms. Hardy. Mr. Mora or Mr. Waskevich, you have to deal with this all the time. Dave, can you tell us what you're, what's your preferences for doing this? Can you hear me? Mr. Waskevich. Yeah, now we can. Yeah, so oftentimes there's a starting point. It could be tied to the building permit issuance, for instance, I think you need some starting point because just 24 months from what? You need somewhere to start. There's gonna be a time period, at least for construction, once you go through this special permit and it'll be a time period that it could be appealed and then it becomes law and then it gets filed with the registry. So then the contractor will come in and he'll file this building permit. We'll need some time to review it unless we can get some preview of it. But you know, we have 30 days to do that. So I think it makes sense to start from the time that the building permit is issued. He'll have, or they will have 24 months until the completion from that timeframe. But the other thing that's also been mentioned is oftentimes in the past, boards have wanted a project to start, say, within 24 months or be substantially complete. So there's many different ways to look at this. So that is also something to consider. I would like to point out that, as you can see this condition, which reads completion of construction shall be completed within so many months from the issuance of the building permit. That is typically how the board has been writing conditions for other projects opposed to the other draft. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Whitton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good evening members of the board. So the comprehensive permit under the relevant regulations is good for three years, but that doesn't speak to the construction period. So paragraph 23 is, as Maureen said, a very traditional and typical paragraph. If the applicant believes that 24 months is not sufficient, then certainly the board could extend that, consider an extension right now and make it 36 months or whatever the board feels comfortable. But the reason to put the closure of the construction period is to force the applicant to expedite construction. So that is the basic rationale for why the board would not want an open-ended construction period. And obviously the applicant doesn't want that either, but you may be dealing with another applicant. You just never know. So putting a timeframe on when construction shall be completed is a good practice. The applicant can always come in and ask for a subsequent extension if the market demands it or for any legitimate reason. So I would urge the board to keep paragraph 23 in, choose the period that is acceptable to the board. Ms. Hardy, response? Mr. Judge, we don't have a problem whatsoever with a construction period that's tied to the issuance of the building permit. The problem is, and so the language in section 23 as shown on the screen by Maureen now, we can put in 20 months or 24 months from the issuance of the building permit, that's fine. I think the point that Ms. Baker was making was that there is a period of time between the issuance of the decision and the time when we will be prepared to start the project because there is a fairly lengthy period that will follow the issuance of the decision while we complete the financing process. So this whole process is going to take a while. We don't have a problem with a construction period as long as it's tied to the issuance of the building permit because we won't be in a position to apply for the building permit until we get the financing that we need in order to construct it. Okay, so you do have, you need X amount of months from the issuance of the building permit. Let's lock down one thing first and then we can move to if we need to do anything else. How many months is realistic for construction within the issuance of the building permit, Ms. Baker? I think 24 months is fine. All right, put 24 months up there if you would. Okay, then do we need, I don't know if we need to say anything about the time between decision that we make and when the building permit is issued because that is going to be controlled by the applicant. You're going to work, and then you will apply for the building permit. So I'm assuming that you will try to work as fast as possible to get that building permit done so you can get on with it, right? And so your financing doesn't lapse and everything else. You don't want to lose your subsidies. Is there any reason that you would, do you need to have that time between the permit and between our decision and the issuance of the building permit restricted or narrowed or limited? You'd need nothing. Is there any reason the public would need to have that time restricted or narrowed? I can't think of any reason except we want to make sure that you do it. Mr. Langsdale, I see that you had a, you didn't have your hand raised. Yeah, two things. One, 23 as it reads now, Maureen, I think you can just cut the completion of at the beginning. It's redundant. Completion of construction shall be completed. Let's just construction shall be completed. But the other thing I think that is important is that if it takes them two or three years because of finalizing financing before they get the building permit, I think it's important that this, the idea of that nothing can be done on the property until the issuing of the building permit so that there's not like if they were to do some work and then it would all fall through, then the property has been damaged. It seems to me that that should be part of the equation before the issuance of the building permit because if it takes two or three years for this to get the building permit, we don't want anything to happen to the property before then. Reading through, see if that it's addressed in any other condition or in normal operation of the town. Can anything be done on the property before the issuance of the building permit? Mr. Westgevitz is raising his hand. Yeah, Mr. Westgevitz, I can't see your hand there very well, David, if you could put it in the middle of the screen. There you go, then I can see you. Yeah, Attorney Whitten had touched on, there's a three-year window and I don't know if that's something that should have a condition that you have to act or that's just because of law, they need to act within three years. Yeah, that's a regulatory requirement. So the board could put that in as a condition but it doesn't have to. And generally speaking, once an applicant receives financing, we have never seen a lapse of a permit. So no, I'm comfortable not including that unless the board wanted to choose a shorter timeframe, which it could because the board is consistent with local needs, but again, my sense for this project is it wouldn't be appropriate. So I guess the one question I did have though, Mr. Westgevitz, can they go in and cut down trees without a building permit? That's really what this comes to, or can they rip up the lawn and have all the, and have stormwater and other kind of drainage issues created in the time before the building permit is issued? Anything to add? Mr. Chairman, the answer is no, the answer is no the way the draft decision is written. So there are a lot of conditions precedent to site clearing built into the decision. So David, I didn't, I'm sorry to interrupt you. I didn't mean to talk over you, but so that is up to the board. The board can tighten those if they choose, but the way it's drafted now, no, they couldn't, if the board were to vote tonight, for example, the applicant could not go in and clear cut the site subject until they met the conditions that are subject to this comprehensive permit. Okay, all right, so what I would like to do then is we've seen, unless there's other discussion regarding this amendment, I would like to amend my amendment by saying, to amend in on the draft decision is number 21, we're looking at number 23 here, amend number 21 on the draft decision as we see 23 on the white page before us to the conditions. So if that makes sense of that condition, we'll then number 21, we'll then read, completion of construction shall be completed. We'll take out completion of construction shall be completed within 24 months from the issuance of a building permit. Did you want to include this verbiage here, including site work or no? I don't think we need that. We can't do anything on that area. So the motion is to amend number 21 to read, delete completion of construction shall be completed within 24 months from the issuance of the building permit. Do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion? I have a question. Ms. Parks, yep. So what happens if construction doesn't happen within three years? You lose the comprehensive permit. Okay, so could they ask for an extension if... Oh, yes. Yeah, they can come back. And we've had in the past, we've had special permits, I don't know about comprehensive permits, but we've had in the past people who had trouble with financing or something to come in and ask for an additional time. So that's been done before, but it doesn't happen very often. All right, one last comment. Yes, Mr. Langsdale.  On the screen, it's condition 23. How did we get up to two more? What's been added that makes this condition 23? This is what Maureen explained. This is what you see, the red that you received in the mail and the one that we had, or you received on your property. And the one that we had on the screen is the draft decision document. Which we often have... You have the draft decision. It should be the last like stapled information in your packet that was given to you. So if you go to condition one of this draft decision, Attorney Whitten added this first condition. The project shall be constructed in strict conformance with the project plans. Yeah, that's fair. And that wasn't in the other copy that was added. The one I've got is the one that's all in red. And it has the number one project shall be constructed in strict compliance. And still, when we get to where we are now, it's number 21, not 23. So there are two more that have been added somewhere. I don't know where they've been added. That's what I'm asking. Yes, we're not, we are operating off the red. So what you're asking is what's changed between what was the white document? No, no, I'm asking, okay, let me do this again. I've got the red document, you see? Yeah, we all do. And it says, number one, the project shall be constructed in strict conformance, right? Which means when we get to where we're talking about now, we're at, on this, the red document, it says, 21. On screen, it says 23. I'm asking what two conditions were added to make this 23 instead of 21, which is what it is on this. The one on screen is, I guess we need to know what document is on the screen, Maureen.  So, can I make that? But that's what this is. This is the draft decision, correct? The red, the red. And there is, if you look at your header, what does it say Keith? Does it say draft comprehensive permit? Yes. Then there you go. And there I go, what? What does that mean? That is the permit. That is the draft decision.  Can somebody else explain this to me? I don't know what's going on here. Can I make a suggestion? Please, Ms. Parks. Okay, Maureen, can you copy 23 off of this page, move this page away, go back to the red one and add this, and update 21 to have this language that you just put here? Because this is an older document, the one that you have now, right? And we'd spend- So what is in front of you that is the, that was provided by attorney Witten that is dated revised date October 25th, 2020 is the most up-to-date document that the board should be looking at and that I'm sharing on the screen. That's not what's on the screen. Yeah, but what's on the screen is the draft document dated the 23rd. And I'm just suggesting- Oh, maybe I'm not sure. Maybe I am showing, maybe this is a Zoom issue. Is this what you see? Yeah, this is what we're working on. Yes, so, because I was just switching around, apologies. I think because we were discussing the completion of construction condition, I was opening documents in Zoom. And so it was a Zoom issue. So the last, we're on the same page in a lot of ways. So what you see again is the comprehensive permit draft decision revision date October 25th. And this is the most up-to-date document that we should be referring to. And so apologies if the incorrect screen sharing was indicating a different page for viewing purposes. So what you see before you is a condition 21. I put a suggested strike through for the language that is shown here. And I have edited it to provide suggested language that says construction shall be completed within 24 months from the issuance of the building permit. Thank you. Ms. Harding. I was just going to point out that this section, there's a couple of sort of strange numbering things. And I don't know if that addresses Mr. Langsdale's issue, but I noticed that in section B, I think between 12 and 13, yes, there's a number five. Did you see that? Oh, you're right. Okay. So it is possible that the numbering scheme became a little messed up with between the drafts. So that's one point. And then the second point, and Mr. Whitten can probably address this, but I believe that he might have added a reference to the actual final plans in this section. Again, I didn't compare this version to the prior version, but as we were discussing it, I seem to have recognized something like that. So those may be some of the ways that the numbering system got a little strange. Okay. So we're at 21, what's before the board right now is an amendment to conditions, the condition 21 from the October 25th version. You see it on the board, you see it on the screen before you with the following language, construction shall be completed within 24 months. Is there a second for this amendment to that condition? Second. All right. Any further discussion? Just on that condition and that amendment. If not, the vote occurs on the amendment. It's a roll call vote. I vote aye. Mr. Langsdale. Aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Ms. O'Meara. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. The motion carries. It is amended. Is there any other discussion or amendments to section B which is utility management conditions? If not, we'll proceed to the next section. It begins with section C and we'll go from condition 22 to condition 33. Condition 22 is all laws and regulations in the town of Amherst supply. Condition 23 deals with lighting fixtures shall be dark sky compliant. That is also referenced in, we'll get to this later to another condition which I think we'll want to merge the two conditions. The condition 24 is project plan. This provides the building commissioner, 24 provides the building commissioner. The ability to determine if changes from the approved plan is something other than minimal and does not meet either the conditions of A, B, C, A, B or C which are minor modifications to the plan. And if they are not minimal, if you determine that they're not minimal, they come back to the ZBA. That's condition 24. And you see the other areas, specific authorizations for minor changes, two feet some walkways, site perimeters, it's substantial interior exterior changes and it's substantial interior exchange changes requiring to achieve energy efficiency. Condition 25, you've got to comply with unmarked human burials. Condition 26, prior to the authorization of this, any activity authorized by the decision, you've got the applicant has to provide the commissioner with a name and address and telephone number of the manager. Number 27, again provides requirements for providing information to the building commissioner before any building permit. So these in many ways is the self-enforcing, but we're putting them here in the condition. The condition number 28, the condition logistics plan shall be subject to the following conditions. These are some time restrictions on construction activity. I'm assuming that we'll discuss that further. That includes as it currently reads, restrictions from seven to exterior construction can only happen between seven a.m. and six p.m. Mondays or Saturday. No idling, no noise, you have to have noise attenuation for motors and pneumatic equipment. And you've got to inform the building commissioner if it's going to be blasting. Number 29, imposes construction activity, it requires a meeting with the building commissioner. 30, requires the engineer of record to visit the construction site as necessary. 31, no exterior construction activity, including fueling the vehicles on project site before seven or after six, Monday through Saturday. There should be no construction on the project on certain days, the holidays, Thanksgiving, Christmas, et cetera. And the applicant agrees to the hours of operation shall be enforceable by the Amherst police. The project's got to be fenced. That's 32, 33 is all item effort should be made to minimize noise on Sundays, on Saturdays, excuse me. And we'll stop there and discuss, I think there's a couple of issues within that group of conditions. So discussion regarding conditions 22 through 33. There's no discussion, moving on to the next set of conditions. These also involve, generally involve the construction site improvements. We'll go from condition 34 to condition 46. 34 requires measures to reduce dust, noise, debris and construction materials on the site or to contain them. Number 35 deals with the same thing, washing tires, protecting trees, bringing every disturbed area back up to finished grade, stabilize banks, reduce erosion. 36, every night they've got to make sure that erosion protection measures are in place. 37, stormwater disposal should be protected and prevent soil compaction by heavy equipment. 38 deals with drainage structures being protected from soil and debris flow into them during construction. 39 limits, stumps and other constructions, debris from being deposited on the site. This is number 40 also deals with exterior lighting as does 23. And I think, well, it's not a problem to have two of them. You know, there may be a way to combine 40 with 23 and just reduce the number of conditions, but I don't want to get into a numbering thing. So I'm not going to suggest that right now. 41, the project shows survived snow storage as shown on project plans. 42, provided the amenities as shown on project plans, which are included the raised gardens, patios, outdoor tables, chairs, smoking area, equipped with a bench and smoking urn, covered bike storage and lawn areas. Number 43, town engineer shall inspect. Number 44, own property. Any town owned property that may be impacted by this should be a surety bond to cover that potential damage. Number 45, within 60 days following the construction, the applicant has to show an as-built plan. Again, pretty standard stuff. We got to show the plan as was actually built with specifics on the size of the detail. And 46 says that the final certificate of occupancy shall not be issued for any building or dwelling unit until top coat of paving, landscaping is done and as-built plans have been submitted. So is there any discussions, questions or amendments to conditions 34 through 46? And I don't want to rush people, but if there are none, we'll give it a minute. Mr. Langsdale. I think we need to talk again about the smoking area. We've had several comments from the public wanting, first of all, to be a smoke-free area. And then there's one specific one regarding the proposed site. And with, I think the addition of the photographs, especially the one of the, when the football game is on, those kinds of weekends, where there are tents right up against the fence, which puts the smoking area five feet from five to maybe eight feet from those tents. That's the reason I proposed the area on the northeast corner so that the smoking area would be at least 15 to 20 feet back from the road over a hundred feet from the next door of Butter and not anywhere near the proposed building. And it can be completely screened. It doesn't have to be a pergola or it can be a bench and surrounded by trees and stuff. I just, I still think that if it is to be not a smoke-free area, that the positioning of the smoking area now is better for those who are in the building, but not better for the Amherst College activities with it so close to the property line in that fence. I would, this is something I would, this is one of the reasons why I've talked about the public comments. This is something I would like to hear from the public about if there's anyone who wants to talk about it. Because I think this is a, I like Joan with the trees. The location of the smoking area, for me, is not good. But we did have a couple of public comments regarding, specifically regarding the smoking area. And we did have a public comment tonight from one person on the public comment period. And we've had a couple of comments regarding that from the public. So Mr. Langsdell, I think what you need to do is to, if that, if you desire to move that, then you would have to have a condition that said that the smoking pavilion shall be located in, then we will refer back to the earlier plan. We had a name for that plan. We'd have to include that in the amendment, which we could do to instruct the staff to include that. But that earlier, meaning two weeks ago, or I guess two meetings ago, we identified an alternate place, I think it was alternate A for the smoking pavilion. So you probably need an amendment to the conditions to do that. You'd want to add a new condition saying that the smoking pavilion shall be in position X. Is that correct? Yes. And so that would be the place that we was plotted on an earlier draft. On the last draft, showing alternate spaces for the smoking area. And I think, I don't have that. And so I can't give you the letter that it was, but it was. But I think somebody does have it. Okay. Ms. Baker. G. All right. So G we can find. So I will stipulate that we can find that space and we can find that specific reference to the sheet and space G. So you're, you have an amendment that would add a requirement that the smoking area be located in space G as defined on a later to be named page and plan. Correct? Yes. However, first I would like to go back even before that, because there was a point in time where the applicants said that they were willing to make it a smoke free area completely. So which one do you want to deal with first? The smoke free. Okay. So then you have an, do you have a motion regarding that? I make a motion that the entire site of the project be a smoke free. Is there a second? Hearing no second. There's no motion before the board. All right. Then I make a motion that the site for the smoking area be changed from its present location to that of location G on the last revised plans that we saw regarding the smoking areas. Is there a second for Mr. Langsdale's motion? The motion will fail without a second, will fail to be before the body without a second. The motion fails to be presented to the body for lack of a second. Are there other proposed amendments or changes to conditions 34 through 46? Ms. Pollock. Did you want to clean up 33 versus 40 or combine them? 23 and 40. Yeah, 23. I want to make sure that that's, I was going to ask Mr. Langsdale as well, if he has a somebody who's definitely interested in that, if he has a position on that, but I think we should combine the two. So just make one. Do you want to read aloud? So all out read aloud, all exterior lighting, including pole lights, attached building lighting and pedestrian lighting shall be dark sky compliant and shall be downcast shielded and shall not sign directly onto adjacent properties or streets. All exterior lighting shall be in accordance with the photometric lighting plan, including included with the project plans. And 23 adds lighting fixture shall be selected according to dark sky compliance recommendation of the board's rules and regulations. So I would propose that we add 23 to the end of, what is it? 40 and just clean it up and have all the lighting in one place. I'm going to make a note to delete this because I think this, if I delete anything, it messes up the numbers. Yeah, just make a note that we can do that. Delete, delete, let me just do that. The board has to vote on it before we do that, yeah. Maybe delete. So I move we add 23 to the back of 40. Is there a second? Second. Is there any discussion? Mr. Westkevitz. I think it's number 39 if you want to go back to the number, Maureen. So as shown, it's a condition 40. Shown in the red. I'm looking at green. Is everyone, is everyone seeing what I'm seeing? Yep. All right, any other discussion? No further discussion. The vote occurs on the motion. The vote will be a roll call vote. I vote aye. Mr. Langsdale. Aye. Ms. O'Meara. Ms. Park. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Motion carries five to nothing. Are there any other questions, discussions or amendments to consider to conditions 34 through 46? Ms. Baker, do you have a question? I have a proposed amendment on number 42 for the board to consider where it says raised gardens. If we could say garden areas. The presumption that we would invest in raised gardens is based on having tenants who want to garden and we don't know yet, if we will. And so our plan is showing spaces where people could garden, but we're not going to put in a lot of raised beds if we don't have tenants who are interested in gardening. I can't imagine that that's going to be controversial. I move we add the word areas. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? We have to have a roll call vote on this. If there's no further discussion, I vote aye. Mr. Langsdale. Aye. Ms. O'Meara. Aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Thank you. Motion carries five to nothing. We've moved through 34 to 46, going once, going twice, going three times. We'll move on to the next set of conditions. Landscaping, 47 deals with, it requires it be done in accordance with the plan. 48, maintaining landscaping as the plan and requires replacement. 49 requires the extent practicable use natural herbicides and non-toxic chemicals. Number 50, all matures trees found within the shut site, except for trees designated in the landscaping. Planned noted for removal shall remain and be maintained as to provide a visual screening from adjacent properties. Any existing mature tree to remain on the locus that dies following the issuance of this decision will be replaced as follows. And then requires that a tree reuse place of a similar height and it's a two is deciduous or replaced with a similar species. So are there any amendments, is there any discussion or are there any amendments to condition 47 through 50 dealing with landscaping? We'll move on to E, consider items 50, one through 55. Requires 16 parking places with two of those parking places designed as a designated as accessible. And it shall be accessible as to the ADA and the Architectural Access Board. 52 requires eight compact, 53 requires delivery, shall not be off-site.  You can't block traffic on the street. 55 exterior outlet of the bike facility and 54 exterior outlet of the bike charging station and no idling of any vehicles. Is there any discussion on 51 through 55? First, let me get the board before we go to the applicant Miss Hardy. Thank you. I do have one suggestion that we add the words and the parking management plan as submitted to the end of 51. So it would read, the project shall include as provided in the project plans and the management plan and the parking management plan as submitted. Because as we got the parking management plan from the applicant, it contains more details than the original management plan. Do I have a second for that? Second. Is there any discussion? Is this something that you want to talk about Miss Hardy? The subject matter, no, okay. No, I have something else. Okay. If there's no further discussion, we'll have a vote on that amendment. It's a roll call vote. I vote aye. Mr. Langsdale. Aye. Miss O'Meara. Aye. Miss Park. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Motion carries five to nothing. Miss Hardy, you had. Mr. Judge, I noticed a missing word in item 54. I think you want to say the applicant shall provide at least one exterior electrical outlet within the bike shed. I think that the word shed has been inadvertently left out. And I think that is a technical and conforming change that does not need a roll call vote. Thank you for that. No problem. Maureen, you can make that change, you're authorized to make that change. Any other questions regarding 51 through 55? All right, we move to section F management. We'll deal with conditions 56 through 68. The first one deals with requiring that they live up to the management plan. The second identifies the areas that the management plan deals with, which includes management, operations, maintenance, marketing, trash recycling, odor mitigation, litter control, off street parking, sight lighting, signage, landscape, snow removal, stormwater management, preventative maintenance, capital need security, off street loading and noise mitigation, complaint response procedure, and overall sustainability and healthy operation of the project. 58 says that the applicant shall be responsible for the aspects of the operation. The town accepts no responsibility for provision of any of those so-mentioned services. 59 says a part-time manager will be on site during normal business hours, not all business, normal business hours, but during business hours and the typical hours shall be posted in the lobby. That there'll be a 24 hour, seven day a week emergency answering service available for tenants and complaints by the public is set forth in the management plan. 60 deals with the residential services counselor, a coordinator position. We reduce that at, pursuant to the discussion at the last meeting from 32 to 27.5, an average of 27.5 to 30 hours a week. And if those responsibilities of the RSC would be are laid out in the supportive services plan. 61 provides for backup for the resident services counselor. 62 is, residential space in the building is used for the interest of the, and benefits of the residents of the project. 63 says you got to require, got to comply with the residential rental property by-law. 64 deals with cameras, 65 refuse recyclable being set aside. 66 deals requires tenants to appear to off street loading and unloading criteria. 67 requires residential leases be a minimum of 12 months and that the lease should be submitted to the board for review and conformance with the requirements of the comprehensive permit. 68 parking for onsite residents and residential visitors shall be managed through a part permitting slash sticker program as described in the parking management plan. Questions, concerns or amendments to conditions 56 through 68. We'll now deal with conditions 69 through 84. First 69 deals with signs, the fire department in charge of the apical seat address and identification units and the construction identification sign shall be as installed as shown on the project plans which we received from the applicant this week. 71 says we got to meet all building code requirements. 72 says we got to meet all with the all accessibility codes. 73 says visitors shall be, that each unit shall be visitable. That means, you know, able for people with mobility impairments to visit the units. 74 allows the, requires the state building plumbing code to be used. 75, the interior of the building shall be smoke-free. There's a designated smoking area and open air pavilion. 76, mechanical equipment would be screened. 77 is enforcement of the parking management plan. 878 is building service by fully operational elevators. 879 is dwelling units are confined spaces at sprinklers. Windows have to be opened and 80, 81 is demolition of existing structures and shown in the demolition project plan. 82, the applicant shall work with the fire department to get a Knox box. Inspection services shall have responsibility for assigning address and units, numbers. And 84 is the applicant shall present the details for all proposed fuel storage to the fire department and obtain the fire department's approval. Any question, comments or amendments to condition 69 to 84. Okay, I had none. Looks like we don't have any from anybody else. We'll deal with conditions 85 through 89. 85 is the comprehension permit shall not be transferred without the approval from the board. And any proposal to transfer or assign shall be deemed a substantial change and that means it's got to come back to us. 86 deals with providing supportive services for at least the initial stabilization period. 87 deals with the tenant selection process shall be presented to the board for the board's approval. 88 says any slope has to be finished grade in excess of the natural angle, but no slope can be in excess of the natural angle of repose when finished. And 89 is all filled areas that were not built upon within one year upon completion of the operation shall be covered by four inches of loam and brought up to finish grade mulched and seated in a satisfactory manner. Are there any questions, comments or amendments to 85 through 89? First, I wanna get anybody from the board, Ms. Hardy, before we go to the applicant. I have one comment when we get on number 86. I think it's great that the applicant shall coordinate services for the initial stabilization period, but in the supportive services plan, I think you talked about having services available after that if tenants, especially tenants in the homeless preference units requested or needed them and that you'd be available that the residents, one of the job of the residents services counselor person would be to help provide that. And so what I wanted to do to my suggestion is that we add the words at the end of that first sentence and at the end of the initial stabilization period shall offer supportive services, shall offer continued supportive services from service providers. So what I'm trying to get at is that it doesn't end at 12 months to the extent that there are people in the homeless preference units that could benefit from additional services and they asked you for them. It would be good if you would, at the end of the initial stabilization period, let them know that those services are available and then it's up to them to whether or not they can, whether or not they want to avail themselves of those units or those services. Would you repeat that quote? I'm going to try it again. So after the word occupancy, before the sentence, before the period add, and at the end of the initial stabilization period shall offer continued support from service providers. So it requires the applicant to coordinate support in the first six to 12 months and in the same way offer that to people at the end of the initial stabilization period. Comment from Ms. Baker and then Ms. Harding. I think we're on the same page, just a semantic thing. So the resident service coordinator coordinate services, they don't do direct clinical services. So that we would, after the stabilization period, we shall continue to offer coordination of social services. Right. It says that I'm just adding an additional period to the end, that at the end of the initial stabilization period shall offer or continue to offer support from service providers. Coordination of support from service providers. Yeah. Offer coordination of support. Shall offer coordination of support. Okay. That's awesome. Thank you. All right. Instead of continue. I was going to make the same point that Ms. Baker just made, but I also wanted to bring to the board's attention an issue with item 85 when you're ready to talk about that. So, sorry, just if I'm hearing you correctly. So at the end of that sentence, it would say, and at the end of the initial stabilization period, the applicant shall provide, shall provide continued coordinated support services. Continued, sorry. No, you can take out, continue. Okay, continue. You can take out, continue. Shall offer coordinated support from service providers. Okay, I got it. Yep, thank you. Yep. Okay. So I move that we amend condition 86 as just described. If we need to see that on, if people need to see that on paper, we can probably draft it up. Do I have a second? Second. Any further, any discussion on the motion to amend condition 86? If not, the vote occurs on the motion. It's a roll call vote. I vote aye. Mr. Langsdale. Aye. Ms. O'Meara. Aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Motion is unanimous, five to nothing. It's unanimous and the motion carries. Ms.  Yes, Mr. Judge, thank you. So on item 85 that prohibits Valley or applicant from transferring or assigning the comprehensive permit, it is almost certain that as part of the financing, Valley CDC is going to be forming a single purpose entity to own the project. That entity will, among other things, receive the low income housing tax credits, which is sort of the key piece of the financing for this project. So I would like to ask that the board consider some language. And I think I had offered some in a prior draft, which I'm not sure if it got to Maureen or not. So my apologies if it did, but I think we ought to add a exception to this non-assignment clause that contemplates that we are going to be assigning the comp permit to the entity that is going to be formed to actually own the project and receive the financing. I'm just reading that. I'm going over the existing condition right now. Mr. Chairman? Yes, Mr. Whitten. If this is helpful, that's a perfectly acceptable suggestion. And so what the board might consider is with the sole exception being, the sole exception of permitting the transfer of this comprehensive permit to a single purpose entity, then continue this comprehensive permit shall not be transferred or assigned. So if the board is comfortable with that, which is that that is certainly acceptable, you could carve out that singular exception. All right, Maureen, do you have that? I think so. Okay. So can you read it back to us? I think we just, I think John is suggesting we just add words at the beginning of the sentence. Is that correct? That's correct, Mr. Chairman. Yes. And actually, Attorney Whitten, could you? Sure, absolutely. Of course Maureen. With the sole exception of the transfer of this comprehensive permit to a single purpose entity established by Valley CDC, this comprehensive permit, and then continue from there, Maureen. Sure. Okay. All right, thank you. Now move, we amend condition 85 as described by John, by Mr. Whitten and as written by Ms. Pollock to add words at the beginning of 85. Is there a second? Good. Discussion, anybody have any questions about what's being proposed? It's suitable to the applicant? Works for you. Yes, that works fine. Mr. Josh, thanks very much. Good. Any further discussion? If not, vote occurs on the motion to amend condition 85. I vote aye. Mr. Langsdale. Aye. Ms. O'Meara. Aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Motion carries five to nothing. So amended. Any other amendments, discussions about conditions 85 through 89? So we've reached the end of the conditions that are set before us. If there are other conditions that members of the board wish to propose at this time, this is the time to do that. You don't have to, I mean, you don't have to have it relate to the last miscellaneous provisions or other provisions and other conditions, but this is the time to add any additional conditions or to amend any of the conditions that we've dealt with. Catch all provision opportunity for everybody. The motion before the next order of business is to approve the conditions as amended tonight's meeting. So I move that we approve the conditions as amended by tonight's board meeting. Do I have a second? Second. Now it's discussion on the conditions and the motion to approve those conditions. Mr. Chairman, might I just add, and I apologize if I'm interrupting anyone's question. If as part of the board's motion, if the board would grant permission to staff and that would include me to make any Scrivner's errors or other insignificant unsubstantial changes between when the board votes and when the board executes the decision. I think that would be very helpful. That's a good catch, John. So I would amend my motion to authorize staff to make technical and conforming changes and correct any Scrivner's errors between now and when the decision is filed. Mr. Chair, procedurally we need to second that amendment and then vote on the... Yep, I thought I had a second, but I probably could have been in any of the other votes, but I need a second, I guess. Mr. Maxfield, do I have one? Seconded. All right, good. I've had a lot of seconds tonight. I forgot whether I have one for this or not. All right, discussion on it. All right, if there's no further discussion, the motion occurs, the vote occurs on the motion to approve the conditions with authorization for staff to make technical and conforming and Scrivner's changes to the conditions between now and the filing of the document. Roll call vote is required. I vote aye. Mr. Langsdale. Aye. Ms. O'Meara. Aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. All right, motion is unanimous. The conditions are approved. So I would like to get the consensus of the board. Do we feel we're ready to make a decision on the final decision on the application tonight? I don't think there's been significant enough, I don't think there's been significant enough changes to the document that we need to have the document amended, sent back to us and have an open and continue the meeting till and have another vote on this. I think we've gone through the changes, the amendments. I think we've from most cases identified the exact language we want to use and we've authorized the staff to fix any technical and conforming mistakes that were made. So I'm ready to proceed, but I want to make sure that the rest of the board is comfortable before we do that. And if somebody isn't, this is a good point to raise the question. So then what the next motion will be to close the public hearing on ZBA 2020 and move to then, yes, Maureen. Ms. Brestrup is raising her hand. Oh, Ms. Brestrup, I didn't see, yes. I just wondered if you had any intention of allowing any further public comment because that had been brought up by Mr. Langsdale earlier in the meeting. Oh, we do have one, we've been observing here. We do have one request for public hearing. This is the last opportunity for it. So it's a good catch. Ms. Pam? Brestrup, I forgot it. Ms. Pam? Hello, I'm quite confused about the matter of the staffing. I thought that through all the public hearings that we had, that it was agreed upon that between 27 and 35 hours, and I think it's down to 27 now, of a coordinator or a person on site was gonna be there. But it sounds tonight is if that's only for the initial six to 12 months. And I think the statement unless people ask for it is very weak. People who need help often don't ask for it, but they need help.  But I don't think that's how it's going to be. So I was pretty, I saw that you were trying to pin the language down a little bit, but it just, that could be interpreted as a way to just walk out and just say, okay, we've done it, we've adjusted, it's over, and now we don't have to have this person here anymore. And then the thing that the community fought very hard for that condition. And it seems as if now it's just gonna be a will of the wisp. So I'm not happy about that. I had no problems with anything else that you were discussing tonight. It was all practical and things that you've talked about and things you had to do and had to deal with. But this is the topic that people stopped me in the street and talk about and email me about. So I'm kind of concerned about it. Ms. Pam, if I might respond, I think there's a couple of things. Number one, they will be required to have an RSC on staff on campus between 20, for an average of between 27 and 30 hours a week. That will continue for the length of the program. So that will be there. They also, if a client comes and comes in, there's the initial stabilization period for a person that they offer them services during that initial stabilization period. The amendment we had tonight said, they also have to continue to offer that at the end of the initial stabilization period and make those services available to that client for the rest of their tendency. They can coordinate those services. They won't provide the services themselves, but the service providers that they contract with or who are following that client from the, when they were assigned or when they became a tenant will continue to provide services. If the client chooses to have those services during the entire tendency, if they choose. I think that's right. Is it not Ms. Baker or did I miss them? Because I agree with Ms. Pam's concern. I think it's that who wants services to people who want services as long as the building is there. I think the issue is people are hearing the discussion but they may not see everything that's written down. So I'm gonna read the relevant section to address Ms. Pam's question. So it says, this is a condition that was just voted on. The resident services coordinator position shall be employed pursuant to a written contract for an average of 27 and a half to 30 hours per week. In no week shall there be less than 25 hours of employment for the resident services coordinator. The responsibilities of the resident services coordinator shall be as described in the approved supportive services plan. The responsibilities, duties and hours of the resident services coordinator shall not be substantially changed without approval of the board. In the next sections as the applicant shall provide for qualified backup coverage in the case of absence of the resident services coordinator. So I think because we had reviewed this at the prior meeting, it wasn't something we went over line by line tonight. But I think that's the key condition that relates to the concern that Ms. Pam was raising. Can I follow up briefly? Yes, Ms. Pam. Okay, I teach at Holyoke Community College and I'm teaching remotely. And I noticed there's a great difference. I, my students are coming to my classes even eight o'clock and all that is going well. They're doing their work. But when I was on campus and in an office during certain periods of the week, people dropped by, people came in. And in the course of conversation, I would discover they would share problems that they were having. But now that they have to email me or speak up at the end of the Zoom meeting to say, can I speak to you privately or whatever, they're not doing that. So I just think there's a great value in having somebody onsite just so that people walk by, that the clients walk by and they say, oh, I'll just ask this first ask her about that for the informal kind of interchange. But if it's when it's requesting service, we all know that we don't like to ask for help. And if we have to make a big to do about it, we don't do it. So I just hope that there'll be the onsite service coordinator will be preserved perhaps with changes, but still continue onsite hours even if nobody has formally requested that. Yes, they will. If I may, Ms. Pam, yes they will. They're gonna, they have 30 hours, average of 30 hours a week, they'll be performing services performing their functions. And we laid out those responsibilities for the coordinator are pretty well laid out and pretty detailed. And I think in viewing them and getting information from other sources regarding what is typical in supportive housing settings, we have a very, very robust offering of services and personnel dedicated to providing that onto 10 and maybe more clients, but at least to 10 clients. So the services are pretty extremely robust as far as these kinds of units are concerned. And they will be provided there onsite, coordinated there onsite, excuse me. And to add, if the applicant in the future wishes to reduce the amount of hours or the roles of responsibilities, that would be a modification of the comprehensive permit, which would require the ZBA review and approval. Sounds good. Yep. So the board felt really strongly about that as well, just like it sounds like you do as well. The board felt very strongly about that. Thank you. Are there other public comments? If there are no public comments, no further comments from members of the board. I move that the vote occurs on the motion, which is to close the public hearing on ZBA 2020, the Valley Community Development Corporation located at 132 Northampton Road. I think I had a second. Did I not, Dylan? If not, I'm giving you a second now. I think I already did, but if I got one now, all right, is there any discussion on the motion to close the public hearing? If not, the vote occurs on the motion to close. I just would say one thing. By closing this public hearing, we start the clock, which is from this, we have 14 days from closing this hearing. Is that right? We're at 40 days. The clock starts. Mr. Chairman, it's 40 days from the close of the hearing and then 14 days to record your decision once you vote. Got it. So we have, this causes us to, and you're able to meet that. Are you not, Maureen, if you're not, let us know. Yeah, I am. Well, Attorney Whitten, are we? Yes, we are. All right. Perfect. So we're starting the clock and by doing this. All right, the vote is a roll call vote. I vote aye. Mr. Langsdale. Aye. Ms. O'Meara. Aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. The vote is five ayes and zero nays. The motion has approved the public hearing on the comprehensive permit is now closed. We now move to the public meeting consideration of the comprehensive permit. As you know, the public meeting is when the board deliberates and is generally not a time for public comment or comment from the applicant. So I would put the motion before the board. I move that the Amherst Zoning Board of Appeals approves a comprehensive permit ZBA 2020 Valley Community Development Corporation located at 132 Northampton Road as described in the decision document as amended, approved by the board earlier this evening at its public hearing. Materials referenced in that approved decision document the revised permit plan set dated 10, 22, 2020 and the parking management plan. Do I have a second? Second. Ms. Parks, seconds the motion. Is there any discussion on the motion to approve the comprehensive permit? Okay. If there is no further discussion, the roll call occurs on the vote. I vote aye. Mr. Langsdale. Aye. Ms. O'Meara. Aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. The vote is five ayes and zero nays. The motion is approved. Comprehensive permit is approved. And before we move on to the last part of the meeting which is a public comment portion of the meeting that we have, I just want to compliment Valley CDC for their work in putting together this application. It responds to an urgent need in our town for affordable housing that really has to be met. And this is a good project to do that. The town will be well served by the success of this project and we appreciate it. I also want to thank the community for their involvement. Many people were engaged in this project long before we were engaged with the ZVA, the town council working with you bringing the valid CDC into town. That's public, that's staff, that's everybody. And they really deserve a lot of credit. And I want the public to know that the comments that they provided us really did inform our decision and it made it a better decision. So we appreciate that. Next I want to compliment our outside council, John Whitten. Thank you very much for the work you've done and for the work the law firm done at the law firm, KP law firm. And lastly, I want to compliment the town staff.  She's been consumed by that even more than we have.  But I don't think we could have done it without all your work Maureen and without all the work of the town staff. So thank you very much. Applause to you guys. Great job. Thank you all. And lastly, thanks to the other members of the board. Each and every one of you contributed. Each and every one of you did a lot to help this get done on time. And I think we all made it a better application. So thank you to Keith, to Joan, to Tammy, to Dylan and to Sharon who was always standing ready if we needed her at every one of these meetings even though we didn't hear from her. So all of you thank you, thank you very much. You did a great job. I appreciate it. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much to the board members and staff. Mr.  Yeah, I do. I just have to say I echo all of your thank yous but I have to say a big thank you to you, Mr. Chair. You took on the role of chair with a pretty green new board with a lot of experience here and then jumping right into a comprehensive permit. I can't say it's necessarily an envial position but you did really a great job at leading the team here. So I thank you for that very much. So it's very kind. I couldn't have done it without you guys. You made it easy. Thank you all. Thank you, Steve. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations to all of you. Thank you. Last order of business is public comments on any matter that's not before the board tonight. Is there any more into it? Do we have anybody who, yes, it looks like we have somebody with their hand up, Ms. Greenbaum. I just want to say, and this is related to tonight, I think you should go crack a few bottles of champagne. It's been a long haul for me, I think. Here, here.  Something good. You know, this is, if I may respond to that, Ms. Greenbaum, if it wasn't for the BAM pandemic, I think I'd be buying everybody a favorite drink at a local watering hole and we would celebrate. But I guess we'll have to wait till we can all meet the bar. You can celebrate six feet apart. We could. All right, well, thank you all. Congratulations, you all did a great job. I appreciate all your help. Thanks again. We look forward to this wonderful project and we look forward to the helping in the other town. Thank you. Good night, everybody. We have to move to adjourn. Okay. One thing, unfortunately, the show goes on, the ZBA continues. So the next meeting is November 12th and so I'll be sending out an email for non-40B projects and applicants. And is that at 6.30? It is at 6.30. Okay, 6.30 on November 12th is the next meeting. Okay. Mr. Maxwell, did you have your hands raised? Yeah, I was going to now make the motion to adjourn. All right. Is there a second? Ms. Parks, is there any discussion on the motion to adjourn? Actually, you can't discuss the motion to adjourn. That's the whole point of it. But the vote occurs on the motion to adjourn. It's a roll call vote. I vote aye. Mr. Langsdale. Aye. Ms. O'Marra. Aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxwell. Aye. Motion carries five to nothing. It's unanimous. Motion is adjourned. All right. Good night, folks.