Okay, Mr. Marshall, I have 702. We are recording. You are the co-host of this meeting. You have a quorum of the board. You look good to go to me. All right, thank you. Can I say something? I'm Jesse is trying to log in. He just sent an email. Yep. Did you see that, Pam? I'm promoting him now, Chris. Excellent. Okay. Thank you. And I'm going to stop and throw my phone in this room, in this another room. So, somehow I ended up as a, on the other side of here. Hi. Hi, Jesse. Now you're here. Welcome, Jesse. Now we will start. Welcome to the Amherst Planning Board meeting of April 10th, 2024. My name is Doug Marshall and as the chair of the Amherst Planning Board, I am calling this meeting to order at 7.04 PM. This meeting is being recorded and is available live stream via Amherst media. Minutes are being taken. Pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended by chapter two of the acts of 2023, this planning board meeting, including public hearings will be conducted via remote means using the Zoom platform. The Zoom meeting link is accessible on the meeting agenda posted on the town websites calendar listing for this meeting or go to the planning board web page and click on the most recent agenda where the Zoom link is listed at the top of the page. No in-person attendance of the public is permitted. However, every effort will be made to ensure the public can adequately access the meeting in real time via technological means. In the event we are unable to do so for reasons of economic hardship or despite best efforts, we will post an audio or video recording transcript or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the town's website. Board members, I will take a roll call. When I call your name on mute yourself answer affirmatively and return to mute. Bruce Colvin. I'm here. Fred Hartwell. I am here. Jesse Major. Present. I Doug Marshall I'm present. Janet McGowan. I am here. We believe that Johanna Newman will be absent this evening. She is not here. And car in winter. Here. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. If technical issues arise, we may need to pause to fix the problem and then continue the meeting. If the discussion needs to pause, it will be noted in the minutes. Please use the raise hand function to ask a question or make a comment. I will see your request and call on you to speak. After speaking, remember to remute yourself. To the general public. If you are not on tonight's agenda, please be aware the board will not respond to comments during general public comment period. Public comment may also be heard at other times during the meeting when deemed appropriate by the planning board chair. Please indicate you wish to make a comment by clicking the raise hand button when public comment is solicited. If you have joined the zoom meeting using a telephone, please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star nine on your phone. Please identify yourself by stating your full name and address and put yourself back into mute when finished speaking. Residents can express their views for up to three minutes or at the discretion of the planning board chair. If the speaker does not comply with these guidelines or exceeds their allotted time, their participation may be disconnected from the meeting. Okay, the time is 707. First item on our agenda for this evening is public comment. And so at this time I typically read the names of the people I can see on as as public participants. We have 11 names. Mary Roberts, Brad Hutchinson, Gabrielle Gould, Gale Flood, George Ryan, Jonathan Salvon, Kenneth Roberts, Rob, Roque Zong, Sharon Papinelli and Mary Brawl, and Tom Reedy. Okay, so members of the public are there any members who would like to make a comment during this public comment period at this time. Okay, I am not seeing any hands from the public. So I'm going to conclude that there is no desire for public comment this evening. And we will move on to the next item in our agenda. Let's see. All right, we'll go on time now is 708 and we'll go on to the joint public hearing site plan review and special permit. In accordance with the provisions of mass general law chapter 48, this joint public hearing has been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted and is being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity for interested citizens to be heard. This public hearing is continued from March 6 and March 20 of 2024. The joint plan review 2024-05 and special permit 2024-04 South Pleasant Street, LLC 45 and 55 South Pleasant Street. Actually, this is also continued from April 3. So, continued from the 6th of March, the 20th of March and the 3rd of April. The joint public hearing to request site plan review approval under section 3.325 of the zoning bylaw to redevelop a mixed use building including rehabilitating the existing mercantile building, also called the Hastings building, removing a rear L of that building and the adjacent Brown building and constructing a new five story residential building at the rear of the site. The project to contain 22 dwelling units in combination with ground floor retail and commercial space and a connecting structure containing a lobby and elevator and a stair and and to request a special permit in accordance with section 9.22 of the zoning bylaw to allow a reduction in non-conforming lot coverage from 100% to 97% and to relocate the non-conforming retaining wall and section 15.171 of the zoning bylaw to allow payment in lieu of affordable units. The property located at map 14A parcels 250 and 281 in the BGTC slash DR and MPD zoning districts. Board members are there any disclosures this evening. All right, I don't see anyone raising their hand and I see several heads shaking now. Welcome back Tom I'm glad you made it this evening. Do you want to say anything before we go directly into our findings and conditions discussion. Probably just thank you. Thanks for scheduling a special meeting for us to try to move this along so in wherever you want us. We've read the findings we've read the conditions. You know, frankly, we're happy to have an onsite manager. If you want to make that a condition just to kind of get ahead of that so we're here. I've got the plans if you've got questions, etc. We're happy to address them. Okay. All right, thanks Tom. Chris, is there anything you want to say as we get going. I have two additions to the conditions that I'd like to make. One is what it's not really an addition. It's Janet McGowan reached out to me with a rewording of one condition that she thought was kind of wordy and hard to understand and that was conditioned 50. So Janet and Rob Mora have reached an agreement on proposed language for that one. It doesn't change the meaning. It just changes the wording. And then the other one is that I'd like to add a condition about requiring an A and R plan be submitted prior to a permit being issued, a building permit being issued. So those are the things that, you know, I wanted to bring to your attention, but otherwise we can start reading the conditions if you are so disposed to do that. Well, I wanted to ask right before we do that, you included a draft development application report in the packet this time. I did and I went through it and revised it to show things that had been accomplished. So if you wanted to review that, you know, that would be appropriate also. All right. Well, I think it would probably be worthwhile for us just to skim through it and see if there's anything that you were flagging that we have not talked about. Would you like me to do that. You're going to get to read a lot later in the meeting. So I'm going to let I'm going to actually start that. Okay. All right, so. Can you bring that development application report up? Can you see it? Yes, we can. Okay, beautiful. All right, thank you. All right, so the first page is basically recapitulation of the request and some of the project data that we're pertaining to the project. I don't think there's any questions on that. Turning the page to continuation of data. May I say something about page 2? Yeah. On the top of the page under proposed existing. Dimensions. There was an error on my part. The north side of the building where it says proposed existing. It says zero feet on the north side existing. Well, that's true. It's going to be 10 feet. Or more proposed. So that was something that I missed when I went back and revised this. Okay. So the north side complies with zoning because it's going to be more than 10 feet. And then the other thing is that the applicant has submitted documentation that the building. Height is going to be no more than 55 feet. And we had said that it would be 54 feet six inches. So that is a change as well. So the 54 foot six should simply say. 54 feet 11 and three quarters or what should it say. The drawing that they submitted says 55 feet. And we only need a permit. Permission to exceed 55 feet. Is that correct? Yeah. All right. I guess. I'll leave it to Rob, whether he wants to go out there with a tape measure at some point. Bruce. I think this might be explained further down. So I'm just making sure we don't skip over it. But that sounds Chris as though that issue about the ground plan was resolved in conjunction with the data that you've just saw the information you've just given us. Is that correct? Because there was a standing requirement to define the ground plan. That is correct. There was a note. What I did was when I revised this document, I put the new material in bold italics. So if Pam scrolls down towards the bottom of the page. Everyone will see that there's a note that says the applicant has provided a drawing that shows the height of the building measured from the average finish grade on the street side of the structure. And I think they submitted that. I can't remember which date it was, but they have submitted that. Okay. All right. I think that's it for page two. We'll move on to page three. Recap of the site visit the waivers. Okay, issues. Issues to consider. Mechanical screening and detail has been provided. The labeling of the spaces has been taken care of and indicated on the plans. Moving to page four site improvements, the design of the entry. Certainly we've talked about that a fair amount and you did substantially revise it. And she's changed concrete pavers installed. And coordinated the bike rack details bench granite photos. Screening moving along to page five. Landscape plan new details. Yep. Okay, so not seeing anything outstanding on page five. Janet I see your hand. Sorry if it's been up for a minute. No, I just, I just jumped in. Thank you, Doug. I thought that the lighting, we talked about this a little bit before I thought the lighting was like some of the looms lumens were like the brightest side ever seen. And I understand there's an issue in terms of safety in that north side of the building and all the allies, but I wonder if it could just be brought down a little bit. So it's safe lighting, but it's not so bright that it might be keeping people awake or just be out of character. And, you know, the lighting at the South University drive building is surprisingly bright to me and I kind of have been noticing it. It's, you know, much more than enough that for safety and I just kept on looking at thinking, oh my God, this is really not what you want next to wetlands with animals and beasts.  So I wondered if if, you know, I'm not an expert on lumens, but those numbers and those numbers are really high. And so I wonder if you can just bring them down a little bit. I mean Bruce might have some ideas. I know he wants to walk back there, but I also just thought they were really bright. Alright, thanks Janet. Bruce, I see your hand and then we'll let Tom and Barry respond. Yes. Well, I agree to the extent that they are brighter than you might normally, but I seem to remember that those lumen levels around there were about 10 lumens in the vicinity of the lights and then they dropped down to much lower single digits along that. But it is a narrow pass alleyway. So certainly from a wetlands point of view, and I know Janet's not, I don't think she's concerned from in this particular location about animals and so forth. But it's a very, it's a narrow corridor. So I'm not concerned about the lighting levels. I think they're higher than you'd normally expect. I don't know whether I said that I appreciated that, but I do. So the only reason that I would seek to lower them is if I were the owner and I was concerned about light getting and disturbing my tenants. So unless Barry hasn't thought of that and he wants to reconsider, then I would say yes. Let's give him the opportunity of doing so and lowering them a little bit because they're certainly generous. But I've studied quite a lot of lighting and so forth, and it doesn't surprise me or doesn't distress me, I should say, from the point of view of the public, from the public point of view, I think it's more than quite acceptable. That's my view. Thanks, Bruce. Janet, before you go again, I just want to ask Tom, do you guys have any qualms about the lighting that levels that you're proposing or do you No qualms. I mean, so what we do is we go out to a lighting vendor and give them the scenario and say here's what we're, we need to illuminate for and so you know I can share very quickly. Well, Pam, you'll need to stop sharing. I stole it from her. Doug, I'm sorry. All right. If you look in this, if you look in this area where we're talking about now remember the property line is about right here. These are the lighting levels that you have at the property line and if you can see their point four point five one, etc. Yes, underneath the lights you're at you're at 11101111 and then it drops down precipitously as you move just 10 feet away and so not being lighting experts ourselves but being human beings we do rely on certain experts to identify what should go there and especially in this area, you want to make sure it's adequately illuminated and if it gets to a place where it's overly illuminated, and the tenants aren't able to sleep because of it, we're going to change because that's not a headache that you want to deal with and it's probably pretty easily remedy. And is it not true that this does not take into account light spilling from adjacent properties. Correct. This is only what is being proposed new so it doesn't take into account what's around it. Right. Okay, Janet. So I would defer to the wisdom of people more experienced with it but I did worry about the tenants and but I'm wondering also where the lights are located they below the windows because they're not going to be any tenants on the first floor right. Yeah, these are just wall packs. So they're all so won't be such an impact above. Okay, I'm downcast also right I mean it's putting the light where you want to put it instead of letting it bleed out everywhere. Okay, I'll defer to others but I just thought it would they looked really bright. Thank you. Okay. All right. So I think we're at the top of page six, we were talking about the lighting. Then the erosion control measures, the utilities, electric meters and and the limited work out in the sidewalk on South Pleasant Street drainage trench drain was added I think we all thought that was a good idea. And you've addressed where the drainage from the canopy is going. Moving on to parking. We talked a fair amount about those two parking spaces and the charging. See, moving on to page eight. And our plan so that that's the condition that that Chris wants to add that that be submitted special permit for inclusionary zoning. That should be one of the conditions. I think I suspect the board is on board with that. Based on last conversation. Nothing else I see on page nine. 40% more than 40% of the first floor will be non residential top of page 10. No more than 50% of the units of the same bedroom count. DRB review for the Amos college store that looks fine and that goes takes us to town page 11. Do you have the comments from the town engineer? So. Yes, Janet. So, I don't know if this, I may be lost in the, in this process here, but I thought that if we were going to reference the town engineers conditions. The letter we should, I think in the. I think we should attach it to the conditions. So, like, when we're saying. Applicant will follow all the, you know, issue the solutions by the town engineer. I thought we should say had that attached. So someone in 25 years from now or five months isn't running around looking for that. Just sort of a. So that's, you know, just to have some mercy on people in the future. Right. Chris, is that a problem? Is that. Not out of the ordinary. It's not normally done. And we do make a direct. You know, reference to it in condition 51. So it's, it's not normally done. All of these things get signed and then they get filed at the registry and you don't usually find. Letters from town engineers as part of the decisions in the registry. So they would look back into our files and we keep paper files and we keep electronic files. So I think that's the way we normally do it. Okay. All right. Fred, I see your hands. Yeah, the topic is, is covered. In those documents and when we. Get to the conditions. I have, I'm going to suggest. Some small wording changes that basically say that. The, the condition has been agreed to. And that. Then I think covers it without needing to file the actual letters and everything. Okay, Fred. We'll wait to hear from you when we get to that point in the conversation. All right, so why don't, unless anybody has any comments, why don't we go ahead and go to the. Findings first, I think. Findings. Yep. Okay. So we'll be doing the findings for the site plan review first. Yes. Do you want me to go ahead and read them? Sure. So the board found under section 11.24 of the zoning bylaw site plan review as follows 11.2 400. The project is in conformance with all appropriate provisions of the zoning by law and the goals of the master plan. The applicant has applied for a special permit under section 9.22 to allow a reduction in non conforming lot coverage. And has applied for a special permit under section 15.171 to allow payment in lieu of building affordable units on site. The applicant has also requested a waiver from the requirement for a traffic impact statement. So I'll just keep reading them and Doug can notice if anyone has a raised hand. 11.2 401 town amenities and abutting properties will be protected through minimizing detrimental or offensive actions. A mixed use building in the downtown area is not expected to create detrimental or offensive actions. The applicant has provided a management plan and a sample lease to describe how the property will be managed. Exterior lighting will be downcast and will not shine onto adjacent properties or streets. 11.2 402 abutting properties will be protected from detrimental site characteristics resulting from the proposed use, including but not limited to air and water pollution, flood, noise, odor, dust, vibration, lights or visually offensive structures or site features. The proposed use of mixed use building will not produce detrimental site characteristics. Exterior lighting will be downcast and will not shine onto adjacent properties or streets. Stormwater management is being handled with roof drainage being tied into existing drainage infrastructure. The town engineer recommends that the existing catch basins be replaced with a deep sump hooded catch basin to pick up surface site drainage. 11.2. This is a formatting suggestion that I have based on just listening to the reading and so forth. Of course, what we're having here is the first part of these statements that verbatim require from the bylaw right that say that this we should find as follows. And then the second part is what we actually find in relation to the specific project. And Chris, I'm wondering whether now and perhaps in future it would seem to me that having the material that's lifted from the bylaw in italics, followed by our findings in relation to the required finding be in normal text. And that would help us quickly distinguish between what we're actually finding and what we're required to find. Does that make, is there a reason why we wouldn't do that? It would seem to be a graphic formatting improvement for clarity. I think that would be fine. I would support that. Yeah. Fred, your hand is up. Yeah, this is be an example. And that that the last sentence where it says the town engineer recommends, I would add there, and the applicant has agreed.  Right. So that's my suggestion. Okay. So any objections to that? No, that makes sense. It's like a good idea. All right. So that was 11.2402. Should we move on? Yes. 11.2403 provision of adequate recreational facilities, open space and amenities will be provided because the project provides indoor amenity space on first floor on the first floor. Should be the word the in there. The first floor for tenants to gather for meetings and social events and an outdoor garden and plantings with seating. All right. 11.2410 unique or important natural historic or scenic features will be protected. The project will preserve and maintain the existing historic mercantile building, aka Hastings building. Fred. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I would like to add at the end of the Hastings building a comma. And the following phrase to be prominently identified accordingly. I think that's a key feature that the applicant has agreed to build into this. And I think we should recognize it. Okay. Let's see where are we? 11.2411. The project provides adequate methods of refuse disposal as described in the management plan. 11.2412. The project will be connected to town sewer and water. The town engineer has reviewed the proposed project and submitted a letter of comment dated March 15th, 2024. He has not raised concerns about the sewer and water connections other than to note that the existing connections should be located in the field and properly abandoned at the main. So this is another instance where we probably want to say that the applicant has agreed to. That condition. Or that request by the town engineer, Fred. Yeah, that one. Chris, could you explain the word abandoned there? I, I, I'm missing something. Yeah, an abandonment is is an action that someone takes when he caps off a pipe or utility. And it doesn't use it anymore. So that's all it means is just cap it off. Don't use it anymore. Presumably they would note where the location of that is. I think they would probably have the town engineer come out and note that or it would be noted in the, what do you call it, as built plans. But anyway, that's all it means is just to properly cap it off. So it's not used anymore. Okay. That's, I was not clear about that. I take it part of what is being substituted is the 2413, which is the stormwater drainage system and so forth, which. Yeah, okay. I don't want to take any more time. Okay. 11.2413 the proposed drainage system within an adjacent to the site will be adequate to handle the stormwater. The town engineer has reviewed the stormwater drainage system and has found that it will reduce stormwater runoff over the existing condition, due to the reduction in impervious surface on the site. The town engineer recommends that the existing catch basin be replaced with a deep sump catch basin. So would you like to have that same phrase here that the applicant has agreed? Yeah, yeah, yes. That's which the applicant has agreed to provide or something that that effect. Yep. Alrighty. 2414 provision. Pam, can you scroll back? Thanks. Provision of adequate landscaping has been addressed. The project includes new plantings on site in the plaza area on the south side of the existing Hastings building. 22415 the soil erosion control methods are considered adequate to control soil erosion, both during and after construction. The town engineer has reviewed the proposed project drawings and has not raised concerns about the erosion control methods that are proposed. And they did, you know, beef it up a bit after we made that comment in the development application report. So you want me to say they made improvements after comments were received? Have they incorporated the comments?  Yeah, I think that would be useful. And I guess I was going to comment on the first sentence, which is a passive voice. They're off saying, you know, the board considers the soil erosion control methods to be adequate. Okay. You know, we could say based on the, you know, review of the town engineer, even if we wanted. It's more like the negative in terms of the town engineer. I think he didn't comment on soil erosion control, which he would normally comment on if he thought there was a problem. So, okay. Okay, moving along to 24 16 11.2416 adjacent properties will be protected from the intrusion of air and water pollution, flood, noise, odor, dust and vibration through appropriate site and structure design, and the use of appropriate design materials for contain containment, ventilation, filtering, screen, soundproofing, sound dampening and other similar solutions. I did not elaborate on this one. Okay. 11.2417 adjacent properties will be protected by minimizing the intrusion of lighting through the use of cut off luminaries, light shields, screening or other similar solution. All of your lighting will be downcast and will not shine onto adjacent properties or streets. Yeah. Okay. Yep. 11.2418 is not applicable. The property is not located in a flood prone conservancy district. 11.2419 is not applicable. There are no wetlands on or within 100 feet of the property. 11.2420. The planning board did not choose to refer to the design principles and standards set forth in sections 3.3040 and 3.2041 of the zoning bylaw because the project is within the jurisdiction of the design review of the planning board and the DRB has reviewed the project and has issued comments and recommendations which have been provided to the planning board. The applicant has made changes to the proposal based on the recommendations of the DRB. And I wanted to comment here that I think the numbering of that first section, it should be section 3.2040. So as I recall, there were some comments from the DRB that were not incorporated. They did not incorporate all of, they did not, you know, accept all of them and we have not assisted on all of them. Has made some changes. Yes. I mean, that seems kind of waffling. Some of the recommendations based on some of the recommendations. Okay. That makes sense. 11.2421. The development is. Mr. Chairman. Yes, Fred. Sorry. I wonder if we wouldn't need to add a word there then. The applicant has made. Sufficient changes to the proposal. Okay. Okay. And we'll still say based on some of the recommendations. Well, I think so, but Bruce says it's end up to. I don't agree, Fred. I think they made changes based on some of the recommendations. I think it gets a little. The nicotine fussy or the borderline meaningless to say. Significantly sufficient changes based on some of the right. I think some covers it. It may change is based on some of the recommendations. Right. That's my view. Anyway, so I don't agree with Fred's suggestion. Okay. Fred. Well, it's not a big deal, but. Yeah, they, they agreed with some. But I didn't hear anyone on the planning board suggest that. We should insist that they. Do X, Y or Z that they elected not to do. And I was just trying to. Incorporate into our findings here that we. Yeah, we, we looked at the DRB report and we're satisfied with the way that they responded to it. I think that's. And just using the word some sounds like we, you know, it, to me, it implies. We disagree with what they did. And I don't think that's what we're doing here. Okay. I'll concede. So we'll keep. I was just ready to support you. That's fine. What's life is short. Let's go ahead. 11.2421. The development is reasonably consistent with respect to setbacks. Placement of parking landscaping and entrances and exits with surrounding buildings and development. There's really nothing to say there. Do you use that word reasonably very often? Like, is that, I mean, that to me is kind of a squishy word. I might say adequately or is that in the bylaw? Some of these things are taken right. Oh yeah. Okay. Fred, what have you got on your mind? Oh. I forgot to lower my. Okay. Yes. Reasonably is one of the words in the bylaw. All right. Well, then. And let's leave it. That's fine. When we get around to revising the bylaw, maybe I'll make the same comment. Some of these are very redundant. So we probably do want to revise them. Okay. 11.2422. Building sites shall avoid to the extent feasible impact on steep slopes, flood plains, scenic views, grade changes and wetlands. There are no steep slopes or flood plains on the site. There are no severe grade changes proposed. There are no wetlands on or near the property. There are no scenic views within the property other than the existing Hastings building, Mercantile building, which will be preserved. And the last thing is the scenic view of the historic town common will be maintained. Well, can't argue with any of that. Okay. 11.2423 is not applicable. There's only one building proposed for the site. 11.2424. Screening has been provided as appropriate. Trash will be stored inside the building. An outdoor HVAC system will have appropriate screening on the north side of the building. The electrical transformer on the south side of the building will be screened with landscaping. And roof mounted mechanical equipment will also be screened. The electrical transformer on the south side of the building will be screened with landscaping. The roof mounted mechanical equipment will also be screened. 11.2430. The site has been designed to provide for the convenience and safety of the vehicular and pedestrian movement both within the site and in relation to adjoining ways and properties. The driveway will provide access for two parking spaces. Pedestrians will be able to access the site via two steps from the sidewalk and via an ADA ramp along the south side of the building. 11.2431. The location and number of curb cuts will be such as to minimize turning movements and hazardous exits and entrances. There will be only one curb cut giving access to the building and parking area. Brian. Yeah, I had a question about this one. Am I wrong? Is that reference pointing to the curb cut that already exists? Yeah. Because I'm wondering if we should add after curb cut which already exists just to make clear that no, we're not asking them to go find another curb cut. There will be only one curb cut which already exists. Yeah. Oh, one existing curb cut. That's fine. I'm good with that either way. Well, okay, so the one existing curb cut shall remain. Yeah, which will remain. How's that? There'll be only one curb cut which will remain. Or which already exists. Maybe I'll go back to what I first suggested. I don't know. But existing in parentheses. Well, Chris, why don't you just note the conversation and see what you think will end up being the most reasonable. Okay. 11.2432 the location and design of parking spaces, bicycle racks, drive aisles, loading areas and sidewalks will be provided in a safe and convenient manner. There will be only one parking area with two spaces, one ADA accessible and the other to be used as a drop off space. Bicycle racks will be provided outside on the south side of the building and inside on the ground floor of the addition. Sidewalks are located so as not to conflict with the parking area and the drive aisle. I guess my only comment is the little bit where you say there will be two spaces, one ADA and the other used as drop off seems like a duplication of what you had before. On the. You know, two. Two conditions earlier. So it might, it might be, you might be able to edit that out, but it's not wrong. Yeah, these things are all quite repetitive. Yeah, okay. 11.2433 is not applicable. Provision for access to adjoining properties will be maintained. There is access to adjoining properties on the west side of this property that goes around the Brody building, which is to the south. 11.2434 is not applicable. There's no new driveway proposed for this project. 11.2435. There is a joint access driveways between adjoining properties shall be encouraged. That's in the bylaw. And then the response is there is a joint access driveway with the buildings to the, with the building to the south, the Brody block, which will be maintained. I'll use Bruce's idea of putting the first part of this in italics. Okay. 11.2436 the requirement for submittal of a traffic impact statement is requested to be waived. There's a negligible amount of traffic expected to enter the site. I think I would take out requested to be, I would just say. The requirement is waived. Yeah, that's exactly what I was going to suggest. Is what is to be waived is. To be waived. Yep. And then the last one is 11.2437. Not applicable. There's no traffic impact report will be required. Okay. So those are the findings for the site planning view. And now we can read the findings for the special permit. There were two special, two parts to the special permit. So the first part has to do with the. Change to a nonconforming. Lot coverage. 11.2437. Section 9.22 of the zoning bylaw states the following. The special permit granting authority authorized to act under the provisions of section 3.3 of this bylaw may. Under a special permit allow a nonconforming use of the building structure or land. To be changed to a specific use, not substantially different in character. Or in its effect on the neighborhood or on property in the vicinity. Or a special permit. A nonconforming use of a building structure or land to be extended. Or a nonconforming building to be structurally altered. Enlarged or reconstructed provided that the authority finds that such alteration enlargement or reconstruction shall not be substantially more detrimental. To the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming use or nonconforming building. So the findings for this reduction in lot coverage, the board finds under section 9.22 of the zoning bylaw. That the reduction in nonconforming lot coverage for the property at 54 and 55 South Pleasant Street. Is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming condition. A reduction in lot coverage from 100% to 97% will reduce the amount of stormwater runoff from the property because a portion of the property will now be landscaping instead of impervious surfaces. This change would be beneficial rather than detrimental to the neighborhood. This change will be beneficial. Will be. Okay. So that otherwise okay. Beautiful. Okay. The next one. This is the special permit finding and you may. You don't have some discussion about this one. So section 15.171 of the zoning bylaw states the following. Payment of fees in lieu of affordable units may be allowed payable prior to the granting of a certificate of occupancy for any dwelling units associated with the development to the town of Amherst municipal affordable housing trust. The fee in lieu value for each affordable unit not provided shall be four times the current median family income for Amherst as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development HUD or a successor agency. So the findings would be the board finds under section 15.171 as follows one 22 new dwelling units are proposed of 45 and 55 South Pleasant Street to article 15 of the zoning bylaw requires that three affordable units be provided as part of this project. Three. The applicant has applied for a special permit to allow payment of fees in lieu in place of providing three affordable units on site.  Yeah, just just one quick clarification. It probably bears putting in here there's 22 new dwelling units, but a net increase of 21 dwelling units. Because there's one existing. There's one existing and they're adding 21 new. So just because I know that the bylaw differentiates between the two. Yeah. Thank you. So we've read three. And now number four, the Amherst municipal housing trust heard a presentation from the applicant and from staff of the planning department with regard to this request 14th 2024. Five after discussion, the trust members voted seven to zero to recommend to the planning board to accept the payment of fees in lieu with the proviso that the amount stated in the bylaw of four times the current median family income for Amherst as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or successor agency is too low for the value of the project given its location and size of units and should be determined by the planning board. Further, the trust recommended that the payment to the trust be unencumbered by the planning board with any requirements or conditions related to expenditures. Number six, the median family income for Amherst is $93,700. And therefore a payment for one unit would be $374,800 or three times 93,700. And a payment for three units would be $1,124,000 which is what the applicant has proposed to pay as a fee in lieu. The planning department seven, the planning department staff recommends a payment of a fee in lieu in the amount of $1.8 million for three units given the fact that a dwelling unit in Amherst now costs approximately $600,000 to build. Number eight, Pam, can you scroll up a bit? Yes. Sorry. Thanks. Therefore, the planning board finds that four times the median family income for Amherst, $374,800 no longer represents the construction cost for a unit. The planning board finds that $600,000 now represents the construction cost for a unit and therefore that a payment of $1.8 million or three times 600,000 for three units will satisfy the intent and purpose of Article 15 of the Zoning By-law. All right. So before we get to the numbers there, I just wanted to ask these projects take a couple of years. So is it appropriate that we're using or what years average medium income or whatever is used? Is it the AMI at the time of the permit that we're granting now or is it the AMI in a year when the project gets a building permit or how does that work, Chris? Well, we have to use the current AMI, or it's not really the AMI, it's something different. AMI is the average median income, but this is the median income. So that is the number that is current for, I think it's 2024. We use the current number. I think we have to use the current number because we can't predict what a future number would be. All right. All right. So, Janet, I see your hand and then I'll go to Tom about how you feel about the number. Well, this might be altered by what Tom says, but I think we should add a sentence that says at the end that says the applicant has agreed to pay this sum of, you know, 1.8 million dollars. Okay. But that depends on what Tom and Barry are about to say. Yeah. Okay. So Tom, I assume this number has been discussed with you before. Yeah. I mean, we've seen the conditions and the finding, obviously. So we knew this number was out there. I mean, frankly, it's a little high. You know, we've read the bylaw, we see what it says there. I think we'll say if it's the only way we're going to get this special permit approved, then we're going to accept it. But, you know, it does seem a little bit high. Okay. Okay. So I'm going to go back to the numbers. So how do you feel about this? I guess one thing that occurs to me is the higher we make the development costs, the higher the rent is going to probably be. So in essence, we're bumping up the rents in this complex a little bit. I'll speak at once, Bruce. In the spirit of, I probably should say something. Since no one else is. I confess I didn't see this coming. Maybe I should have read this. I thought I had read this, but I guess I hadn't. Could my, I guess my reason for raising my hand is if the bylaw, help me out. If the bylaw says that this is the basis on which it shall be done. Where in the bylaw does it say that we can as a board abrogate the guidance and just decide our number based on whatever the hell we like. Chris. The alternative is that you can deny the, the special permit and, and ask the applicant to build the three units in the building. But I think the question is where do we. Do we in fact have the authority to set the number at whatever it, whatever we want. That's my question. And that it could be that the other way of the question is, is that is the other question is. Are we horse training here? You might want to bring Nate Malloy in because he has been discussing this with the housing trust and others and he's more. What should I say, conversant on the topic of these numbers. I'd like to know that we're not horse trading or if we are, everybody's agreed that it's a horse that should be traded. Yeah, I am. I'm not seeing Nate is Nate at the meeting. He is. He's a panelist, I believe. Oh, there he is. Okay. Yeah. Where is he? Yeah. He said he's in the attendees. I thought I just tried to bring him over. There he is. I had certainly seen that the housing trust had recommended a higher amount, but. I hadn't seen, I hadn't seen, I don't remember seeing the number. Before getting this packet. Doesn't look. Oh, there it is. I don't know. Hi, I'm Nate. For those who don't know me. Yeah, the building commissioner, I spoken about this. So, you know, he thinks that we could go higher as part of the findings for the special permit, right? That's so the bylaw can be seen as a minimum. And the special permit findings could be that a payment more than what the bylaw states is, is justifiable. And so, you know, what we've discussed and what's in the findings is that. So, you know, you know, and, you know, essentially we'd have to periodically update them, which we haven't done to keep up with inflation, and it's almost impossible then to say. Annually update the bylaw. So when was first introduced as that formula. You know, we thought, okay, maybe that's roughly the cost of constructing a new unit. And the idea is that it's actually meant to discourage. It's not meant to be used, right? It actually is meant to be. Somewhat, you know, a high price to pay because you're foregoing providing units. What is the cost of building those? And today's market, you know, we think 600,000 is justified, especially in downtown for this location, for new construction, for all those amenities, you know, it could be different if it were in on Bay Road, right? But for downtown properties, there's a premium for construction. So the building commissioner is confident that, you know, through the special permit findings, this, you know, a higher amount than the bylaw is allowed. You know, the housing trust didn't want to get into the details, but they did ask this, right? And they're not worried about having the unit costs increased because the cost of construction is what it is. So all those units are going to get built. It's really what is then the, you know, where the housing trust asks is like, what is the formula developer uses by which they wouldn't make a payment. So what's like the, you know, the net value, you know, current value to future value, right? And if, and my back and acting calculations after that, everything's already built, given the market rate rents for those size units, you know, in 10 to 12 years, the developer is made whole at 1.1 million. Yet you'd have affordable units and perpetuity. And so really what is kind of like that, that difference in value. So it might seem like a high price tag now, but what the developer has then is market rate units for in perpetuity rather than affordable units and perpetuity. And so the housing trust, you know, cuz it's very, it's very low in the government. So I think. Some of these questions and they didn't really, they couldn't really get to a number, but they did recommend a higher amount and they thought that the conversation was. Could be had here because you're in this case, a permac graining authority that would have the ability to do that. And so. That's where staff had that recommendation. Okay. Looks like we got some, oh, just about everybody has their I'll see if you want to add in at the end here, Janet. So the way I read the bylaw is that we can require four times the amount of the median family income of the developer if they want to choose this route. And then if the developer wants to pay us more, we can eagerly accept that. I don't think we can require 600,000 per unit based on this language, but if he's willing to pay more, I'm sure we'll gladly accept it. All right, Jesse. And then I'm not sure about the horse trading common.  You know, I mean, I don't have any basis for this and but the bylaw seems pretty clear. But like, what are we trading a horse for? Do you know what I mean? I didn't understand. Well, we're trading for the loss of affordable units and perpetuity on this property. So you're sort of saying, well, we don't have to grant this, but if you really want it, maybe you'll pay more. Yeah. Okay, I understand that but I just don't think we can require it. Yeah. If I may, since I introduced the horse trading thing, let me explain what I meant by it. And that is, as Tom said, they want this permit. And if we think that we can push them higher in return for granting it, that's horse trading in my book. And if, you know, they don't, if we think they won't take us to Landcourt or wherever one goes these days with a disputed thing, which of course wouldn't be a good idea for anybody because it costs money and so forth. And I remember when Bob Mitchell was direct, the last time I was on the planning board 25 years ago, Bob was very diligent in trying to make sure he didn't make decisions that got us into court. It's not clear that this will be one of them, but this is the kind of behavior that risks that kind of thing. So I'm mindful of that. And I don't think that we should arbitrarily engage in what I just characterize as horse trading because we're brinksmanshiping the applicants as to whether they will do something that we want them to do, which is perhaps outside the bylaw, as we've noted, or maybe it's a, maybe it's a good solid argument why the bylaw should be changed as Nate was putting down, but that's just an argument that says the bylaw at the moment as it's written is, it needs refining. It's more of an argument for that than it is that the applicant should be shaken down on this particular item. Nonetheless, I agree with what you say, and it does seem that the applicant is getting a very generous deal given the fact that we haven't been diligent with our bylaw. So if the applicant is willing to do some, go somewhere along the way beyond the bylaw, then I, as Janet said, I'd be willing to accept that, but I'm, this is a, I feel a bit blindsided here. That's all. I guess I've gone out of turn now because I can't. Yeah, Bruce, you're gonna have to go to the end of the line. I will. Can I just, can I just respond? Kathy, you're gonna need to be patient here. So we don't have to grant a special permit. It's a May, it's an ask. So the board doesn't have to agree to this. They can just require the three affordable units. I don't think we can ask for more than what's written in the bylaw, and then we can eagerly accept more. So those are my three statements. Okay. Jesse. Thanks. I was thinking someone thought so what Nate was just talking about. And if we can't require more, maybe it's moved. But as I was thinking about it, the goal is to help get those units somewhere else. And if the payment is nowhere close to that as a possibility, not sure that makes sense to me. I was gonna ask about that number 600,000 and where that actually came from. Cause I need an expert to tell me, yes, that's the right amount. But again, if we can't require that and we're going back to what is in the bylaw, that to me seems like pretty low and not realistic that the town could replace three unit, three affordable units with that kind of money. That's sort of where I'm sitting. All right, Fred. I'd like to ask Tom or Barry what are you expecting the, I guess the, let's go through the four bedroom unit. What would you be planning on renting that for? Or maybe the most, the bedroom style in the unit that has the highest census. And now I go back, way back into the 1970s when I met with Scott Harvey in this Amherst Savings Bank. And he gave me some very interesting ideas about this. He said, one easy way to evaluate something like this is a hundred times the monthly rent. So I'm curious what the rent would be and what a hundred times that would be. Tom, do you wanna? Yeah, I'll answer, but I'll have Fred do the math. That's not my strong suit. What I'll say first is at the original by-law amount, it would take 22 years to recover that money. The name might have mentioned a different number, but based on the difference between what you will get for affordable and what you would get at market rate, it would take 22 years to make up that difference of that one will round up to 1.2, right? So that's the number that you're looking at at that 1.2. Obviously you go up to 1.5, it's a different number, you go up to 1.8, it's an even different number. I think you know, market rents, Fred, for a one bedroom you're probably at 22.50, two bedroom maybe 3,000 and three bedroom 4,100. We don't see a lot of four bedroom affordables, it's usually one, twos or threes, and that's what just based on market experience for what we deal with, that's what we see. And so then, so you know, the one bedroom affordable rent is like $1,255, two bedroom is $1,565 and a three bedroom is $1,940. So we take those, we say what's the delta between the two and how long is it gonna make to, you know, you take the 1.2 divided by this, how many years is it gonna take? And so that's where we get to the 22. There's some math involved to get to that point. Okay. I guess I'm inclined not to horse trade on this. I think, you know, we have a published by-law and that sort of is the instruction to developers on what the options are in terms of putting together a project in terms of their budget. I guess that's one comment. And a second comment was how I had the feeling that the housing trust was highly enthusiastic about getting a payment like this rather than the three units. And so I felt like by accepting this, accepting the amount specified in the by-law, we were in fact making kind of both parties happy. So I'm not inclined to try to ring more out of the applicant on this project. And if we need to change our by-law, let's change our by-law. I think the other number that's in my head, I think was it last week when we had wayfinders, I forget how many projects, how many number of units there were, but it was a total $42 million total project cost. And I did some math and I think it came out to like $550,000 a unit or something like that. The other, or another thought, I mean, the way our by-law reads is by-unit, whereas we have ones, twos, threes and four bedroom units and there's a huge disparity across those so that getting for the amount in the by-law, maybe you can get three one bedroom units but you can't get three four bedroom units. And I don't know what that real number or what the real reality is, but maybe we need to have the by-law read by bedroom or something instead. All right, so I guess we're gonna need to probably take a vote on this. So I'm not seeing any hands at the moment. So I think I'm inclined to try to make a motion and maybe Nate's gonna say something that'll change my motion. Go ahead. Sure, I was gonna say that the trust was thought that this was a project to help capitalize them and get a payment in lieu with a recommendation that'd be more than the minimum stated in the by-law. So some of the trust members, they coalesced around the payment, but there was some discussion about what does it take to actually create a unit? And so the concern being that to get three units downtown for the amount of money we're getting may not be possible if it was to get new construction. And so at the trust meeting, it was like, oh, buy a property and convert some units to affordable units downtown. It's like, I'm not sure 1.124 million is gonna be able to do that. And so to get affordable units in this location is tricky and so in the recommendation, they voted unanimously for a payment with a recommendation that also be a higher amount. And so like I said, the building commissioner is comfortable that the by-law through the special permit findings allows a higher amount. I understand that there is some uncomfortability there, but in the building commissioner is comfortable that through a special permit finding, that can be allowed. All right, thanks, Nate. Janet? So knowing what we know or think we know, do board members feel like they would rather just see the three units downtown because we know they're gonna be very valuable, expensive to build and useful in the future? Or are we happy, we can only, I think we can only require what the thing is, but we can also ask, the applicant is willing to pay more, we can cheerfully take that. It's kind of, I'm kind of kind of going back and forth myself, but I just wonder what other people are thinking about whether, say no to the special permit, just see three affordable units downtown, which I think would be a mix of bedroom counts from when I remember something in the head about that. So I wonder what people are thinking. All right, well, the emotion I'm hoping to make would help us determine what people think. Maybe by the, before I get there, I'll have heard from everybody, Fred. Oh, there we go. I think it's a little bit intellectually dishonest to take a look at what it costs, you know, downtown to replace these units at $600,000 a unit, when the actual location of affordable units that would be actually provided would not be in the center of downtown. I don't think that's where that market would tend to be. It would be somewhere else where the development costs would be somewhat less. And I'm inclined to say that, you know, I've got a real problem going beyond the bylaw here. I agree with you, Doug, on this. We should probably look at how we make that calculation in the bylaw, but I think, you know, we have a zoning bylaw and I think if you, you know, if you read it, you should conclude that that is what you're obliged to provide. All right, thank you for that, Fred, Jesse. Thanks, I'll just, if I missed it, are there are there are minutes from the Howling Trust conversation somewhere because I missed that whole conversation. And I guess the real question is, what did they think about the number in the bylaw? Nate, you said most of the conversation was about it. It sounds like they thought it was well. Nate, is that? Yeah, there's a memo, and there was a memo from staff to them and then a memo from the trust to the planning board, it was in an earlier packet of the planning board. But yeah, no, they kind of had the same conversation about whether they could require more than the bylaw, you know, what is the right amount? But like I said, they agreed, you know, unanimously that they would accept a payment. And so, you know, under their considerations, you know, most of the funding for the trust is through CPA or if it's from other sources that may have, you know, requirements in terms of income limits, whereas this money could be more flexible and offer opportunities for different types of units. And you know, to speak to Fred's point, actually downtown is like a great place for affordable units. And so, you know, it's walkable, it's near employment, it's near transportation. And so the idea actually at the trust meeting was, you know, could we get more units downtown, even affordable, you know, home ownership units, whether it be townhouse or condo style. So, you know, the goal would be to try to have affordable units throughout town, not just, you know, say where it's cheaper in the hinterlands or different village centers. And so they actually liked the idea of having units downtown. But I think the, yeah, I mean, so the trust really coalesced around the payment pretty quickly. It was then kind of this discussion we're having now about, you know, what's the right amount, you know, right? Is it by, you know, as Doug mentioned, what is the payment calculation accurate in terms of unit location, unit size? But they kind of, you know, put that toward the planning board, you know, they didn't really have any answer for that. But they've seen, they've said a couple of times the trust thought this amount was too low. They did, in the recommendation, that's what they had said, yes. Thanks. All right. A motion, Doug. All right, so let's see. All right, I guess I'll start with a motion for the, what's the amount that's in the bylaw. And we'll see if that passes or not. And if that, well, maybe, I mean, might be better to start with the higher number and see if people prefer that. Okay, so a motion that we approve the payment in lieu of providing the units for actually, I'm gonna reverse. I'm gonna go back to the bylaw amount. I think that's the lower, let's see, where's the amount? So 1.124,000, okay. All right, so I move that the board approve a payment in lieu of providing three affordable units on the site and accept an amount as specified in the bylaw of $1.124 million as the payment in lieu and of motion. Bruce. I would offer a friendly amendment, which would simply be an additional sentence, which says, however, in lieu, in light of the fact, let's say, that the value calculation formula as presented in the bylaw would appear to be a low ball number. We encourage the developer, the applicant, to consider increasing that payment at their discretion to a number that more accurately reflects the cost of creating three units of affordable housing in or around the downtown. And my question then, that's it. And now the question is, do you accept that friendly amendment or would you prefer to handle it differently? Yeah, I guess I will accept it. I guess it does, okay, so say we passed that. Then the number that the applicant is obliged to pay is set by the minimum amount and we will probably never know whether the payment that's received is higher. That's possibly true. So that seems kind of inconclusive and indefinite to me in a way that I'm not really excited about. Well, the definite way is the first paragraph of your motion. I'm opening the door. I am having the planning board on record as recognizing that our bylaw is not accurately reflective and that we are inviting the applicant per emphasis. This is not in there because we know the reputation of this applicant and a bunch of other things. I mean, there's many applicants that one wouldn't waste one's time having this kind of a motion, but this is not such an applicant. And we express our frustration with the fact that the bylaw doesn't accurately reflect but I think we recognize that the bylaw is what it says and that's what the applicant would go on and I think it's as Fred said and you said yourself that I think we ought to be constrained by the bylaw but we ought to also be on record as inviting the applicants to see as we do that our bylaw is perhaps a little woefully inadequate here and invite them to come to a small party. Okay. Thank you, Bruce. All right, so I will accept that friendly amendment. Janet. I'm kind of, I'm just a little confused, but I'm not even sure what the friendly amendment was at this point, but so I feel sort of stuck because it's like $1.24 million, which seems very large to me is really not enough to build three affordable units according to what we're hearing from our staff. And so then I think, well, let's just build three affordable units and we have them. And I also, but I also had a talk with the housing trust chair and the housing trust was super excited because they could use this money in a lot of different ways and sometimes they just pay an extra $25,000 in a deal so a homeowner can make their down payment and things like that. So they thought it would lead to more units. And so, and then we also have the generous applicant who has already agreed to make, pay more if, and so I wonder if we could do a motion to say the planning board agrees to let the applicant to make a payment in lieu of taxes and we agree to accept $1.6 or $1.5 million. And we don't have to say we're requiring it but we're accepting it. So I wonder if we can just sort of, do you know what I mean? Like we're granting the special permit and then we're cheerfully accepting more money knowing that the market has really radically changed since this bylaw came through. On the other hand, I'm not in favor of saying we require, you know, 600,000 a year. I don't see that we have the basis for that. So, but I don't, you know, I know you get, I don't know if it's horse trading but you already have made this offer and we could accept it but I don't really wanna be in a weird way of imposing it.  But if that makes any sense. So, I mean, I don't, you know. We at this point do have a motion on the floor. What is the motion? Let it be clear that in accepting that friendly amendment, I second the motion. Okay, so what's the motion then? Cause I thought we could just. Well, the motion was that we grant the permit, require a payment in lieu of the amount that's in the bylaw, the 1.124 million. And then Bruce's amendment was something to the effect that in light of the board's recognition that construction costs are such that the actual cost of creating affordable units in downtown would exceed the amount that's required by the bylaw. We, with the word encourage, Bruce, the applicant to consider a larger. Encourage, invite by the one. Invite, okay. So that's what stands at the moment. Again, if you don't like that, we can, and you prefer we just require the units in the affordable units in this project vote against the motions. All right, so I don't see any hands. Why don't we just go through and have a roll call on that? So if you vote, yes, you're voting in favor of the payment and at least getting the minimum amount and having invited the applicant to make a larger donation. So Bruce. Aye. All right, Fred. Aye. Jesse. Aye. Janet. Aye. Karen, are you there? I'm here and I can't start my video for some reason. Well, that's okay. You've been able to listen, I hope. I have. When I try to start it, it says the host won't allow it. I've been trying to start the video and it always says you can't do it because the host won't allow it. Sorry, Karen. There you go. I asked you to start your video. So there you go. So assuming, what's that? What I? I, okay. Thank you. And I'm an I as well. So that's six in favor. No negatives and no abstentions. Not sure why my camera is going fuzzy at the moment. There we go. So does anybody wanna, you know, have a superseding motion that we require a greater amount? I mean, it sounds like Nate thinks that the building commissioner would allow us to do that or, you know, interprets the statute that way. I think I was uncomfortable with taking that position and, you know, it sounded like at least one or more of you also agreed with that. So if not, why don't we can go ahead and move on. I think that was it for the findings. And so Chris, that would alter the. Finding? The finding at least number eight there and number seven. That's right. Do you want to talk about the wording of that now? Well, I guess I guess we ought to. I mean, it's only eight thirty. So number six would stay the way it is. Yes, could say, you know, number seven, the planning department staff recommends a higher number. But then is that germane? Do does that need to be recorded at the registry for post. I mean, I think you could go straight to the board. Agreed to require a payment of at least one point one to four million by the applicant to the affordable housing trust in lieu of providing three affordable units. And then you could make a final finding that the board invited the applicant to consider making a larger payment to the trust in recognition of the fact that construction costs are such that the payment required by the by-law is probably not sufficient to construct three affordable dwelling units. In the downtown area that seem coherent enough for the recording. Yeah. Yeah. And we have this recording of you so we can go back and listen to that. All right. Yeah, that's good. And I guess I'll maybe close by asking Tom. I assume that's an acceptable condition for this project. Why? Yes. So, Mr. Marshall, you have now agreed to the findings having to do with the payment in lieu. Well, you need to agree to the findings having to do with the change in the non-conforming. What is it? A lot coverage. Right. And then you also need to approve the other findings for the site plan review. Right. And I assume you'd like to do that as separate votes. One for the site plan review and one for the other special permit. I think so, yeah. All right, Bruce, which one are you going to make a motion for? Bruce, you are the. We'll start with the site plan review. Yeah. Move to that. We adopt the findings, blah, blah, blah, as reviewed. OK, OK, I'll second that. Is the blah, blah, blah referring to nine point two, two or 15 points? One, seven, one, like with permit, are we talking about? We're talking about this is about the site plan review findings. Oh, OK. It's the findings under section 11.24. OK, thank you. OK. All right, any other comments from the board? We'll go through and just vote again. Bruce. Aye. Fred. Aye. Jesse. Aye. Janet. Aye. Karen. Aye. I'm an aye as well. Six in favor. No objections. No abstentions. All right. And then we've got the third motion. Maybe I'll just make I'll make a motion that the board accept or adopt the findings as drafted for the permit for the reduction in non-conforming lot coverage under section nine point two, two. Jesse. I'll second that. OK. Fred. Mr. Chairman, the reduction in lot coverage, the last sentence. Did we change wood to will? Yes, we did. OK, thank you. Yes, no problem. So so my my motion should be that we adopted as drafted and edited in the meeting, which I trust Jesse will find an acceptable change for his second. All right, we'll run through the roll call again. I don't see any further hands for comments. Bruce. Aye. Fred. Aye. Jesse. Aye. Janet. Aye. Karen. Aye. I'm an aye as well. Once again, six in favor. No objections. No abstentions. OK, so that's findings. Chris, how's your voice holding up? You ready to go through the conditions or do you want somebody else to read? No, I can start the conditions and we'll see how I hold up. I just had two clock drops, so I might do quite well. Oh, Chris, I'm happy to take over whenever you'd like. Oh, good. OK. So the conditions and we're recognizing that we are going to change one condition and add another condition, but this is the way they go. General, the project shall be built substantially in accordance with the plan submitted to the planning board and approved on tonight's date. The project to the project shall be managed substantially in accordance with the management plan submitted to the planning board and approved on tonight's date, which is April. 10. Number three, substantial changes to the project and or substantial changes to any approved site plans or to the exterior of the building shall be submitted to the planning board for its review and approval prior to the work taking place. The purpose of the submittal shall be for the planning board to approve the change and or to determine whether the changes are de minimis or significant enough to require modification of the special permit or site plan review, site plan review approval. So we should strike the word special permit from that sentence because we're talking about site plan review here, I think. Is that right? Yes. These conditions relate to the site plan review. That's right. Number four, landscaping shall be installed in in accordance with the landscape plan and once installed shall be continually maintained as needed. All disturbed areas shall be loomed and seeded unless otherwise specified. Number five, the site plan review approval shall expire within two years of the date that it is filed with the town clerk, unless it has been both recorded at the registry of deeds and substantial construction or use has commenced within the two year time period. Fred, Fred, you're muted. I'm just wondering and Janet, please chime in here. Where in this laundry list should we put in the thing that you wanted to add about the onsite management? Well, I Fred, I was going to suggest that we go through all of this and then we talk about Janet's proposal. OK. And. And where it should go. Janet, I thought we should talk about it when we're talking about the management plan, which is like it's at number 27 or so. So that's OK. All right. All right. Chris, you can go ahead. I just make a note that she was sorry. I just dropped my water bottle, but it was closed. The tough was on it. So that's good. All right. Now we finished. No, we didn't finish number six yet. All work. Did we? Yes. No, we didn't. All associated with the project shall be completed within 24 months of the date of issuance of the building permit. If more time is needed, the applicant shall come before the planning board at a public meeting for a review and approval of a construction and completion schedule for an extension of time. Can you scroll down? Thank you. And these conditions are related to building exterior and site improvements. Number seven, the town engineer and building commissioner shall inspect the construction of the entry driveway and all onsite paved areas for conformance to town standards. Number eight, all onsite utility utilities connections shall be underground. Number nine, all exterior lighting shall be dark sky compliant and shall be downcast, shielded and shall not shine onto adjacent properties or streets. Number 10, except for what is shown on the approved plans, any air conditioning units, communication devices and other outside mechanical equipment, whether located on the ground or on the roof, shall be screened from view and noise muffled with fencing, plantings or other suitable materials. Oh, I forgot number 11. So these are going to have to be renumbered. Renumber. I'll make a note to myself to do that. Let's just call them by the numbers that are written down here, though, for now. Number 12, prior to the installation of exterior signs, the applicant shall submit a signed plan, including details to the planning board at a public meeting for review and approval. Thirteen, the applicant shall provide to the planning board at a public meeting specifications, including material and color for any amenities, such as bike racks, site furniture and benches for review and approval prior to installation. I think we got some of that material. Yeah, so maybe we could strike that. That condition. What do you think, Bruce? I thought that this was in because what often happens, you know, we in the in the in the industry, we have submittals and you have something that's specified, but then you find out for various reasons that what specified is either not available is or is not appropriate or something better. And so I thought this was a thing that allowed for the applicant to submit once they've had a contractor and the submittal process has been gone on the way. Is that not what we normally do? Or do we imagine that because they could come in now and then they could perhaps have to come in again, that's all. Right. Tom, is there any objection to coming back and giving us this material? I think only if it changes, I think to your point. And when I look at the development application report and what we've submitted, you've got it. Yeah, yeah. Obviously, we love seeing you. So we'll come back as many times as you want. But I mean, the other the other thing to do would be to just ask you just to send the material to us and that you didn't have to come. Sure, we can do that. It says shall provide to the planning board. Well, we could take out at a public meeting, right? Yes. That the part that's requiring them to show up? You but you want to review it at a public meeting shall provide to the planning board for review at a public meeting. Sure. Janice. What if we just say changes to the bike rack or the benches or something? Because we broke. I don't think we had any objection to any of that. So I don't want to have, you know, I don't want to look at it any more than they want to submit it. If it's the same. Well, that makes sense. Yeah, Fred. Yeah, I was going to suggest something at the end of the sentence. Perhaps that differ from the development application report. Or that differ from the material submitted. Right. Yeah. For this site plan review. In this case, I think we've probably got it. So and that would identify how we have it. Right. So changes to these things that differ from the plans that you are approving tonight, right? Well, so on that subject, the previous condition for the sign plan, you know, I don't know, Tom, how fully baked where it was the rent where it was the plan to have those two big fifty fives.  Are there other signs that may show up that you would need to come back for? I don't think so. I think they're pretty well baked. I mean, one thing that whether it's dealt with with the building commissioner or you is we were going to change it from Hastings to, you know, Fred had mentioned Hastings building. And I think that makes a ton of sense, you know, whether the board wants to see it or not. I don't know that that's a substantial change. But as far as I'm looking through the site plan set now as I'm talking and. You know, I don't know that we called out the materials of the sign. I'm going to look to see that right now. Yeah, we do. Brusting the steel sign and we've got the I should have known better. Sorry, Jonathan, I know you're here. We've got it. It's all called out. So yeah, I don't think besides that Hastings turning into Hastings building, I don't think we need to make any other changes. So we could eliminate that. Well, either eliminated or or likewise, say, if there are any changes to the sign, the signs on the project that they would come back and talk about the changes. That's good by us. Thank you. OK, yep. All righty. Number what I have is number 14, which is really something else. But anyway, outdoor bicycle storage shall be incorporated into the site improvements that the applicant proposes on site. I think they've already done that so we could eliminate this condition. And then the next one indoor bicycle storage shall be located inside the building in the room labeled by bike storage as shown in the submitted plan of the first four. You want to keep that in there? It seems a little bit sort of superfluous. I think it's borrowed from another project. So I think it's like it's like saying, you know, people will sleep in the rooms, labels, bedrooms in the swings. And that's it. And there's no suspicion that they won't provide bicycle storage because it's on the plan. OK. So the next one is building interior and use. The building shall meet all local required energy efficiency codes and the regulations of the stretch energy code. In addition, low flow plumbing fixtures shall be installed throughout the project. Number 17, the total number of dwelling units to be constructed at the project shall be limited to a maximum of 22 units. I don't know if you want to change that to say one existing and 21 new. Maybe we want to say that instead of total. Well, I mean, this is getting at the breakdown of unit types. And so I don't think the existing unit really matters for that. OK, to leave that in. Leave, I think I would leave it. OK. I will say calling out that the fixtures have to be low flow. Isn't that just part of the plumbing code now? So like if the if the project complies with the building or the plumbing code, that's what that will happen. So we could eliminate that sentence. I think you could. OK. Yeah, I agree. And if you don't, you could put the rate of flow because nobody. OK. Number what is on this sheet as 18, the building shall not exceed a maximum of five stories and a total of 55 feet measured from average finished grade on the street side of the building to the highest point of the flat roof, excluding any parapet or other rooftop equipment as outlined in section 6.17 of the zoning bylaw. Number nineteen, the principal use shall remain mixed use building and include a combination of apartments and a non-residential use occupying at least 30 percent of the first floor. Number 20, apartments and public and all public spaces shall meet all applicable Massachusetts Architectural Access Board. M.A.A.B. requirements. Twenty one, the units at the project shall be registered and permitted in accordance with the Amherst Residential Rental Property Bylaw. Loss or suspension of a suspension of a rental permit shall constitute a violation of this condition. Now we're going into commercial retail and non-residential tenant spaces. Number twenty two, any use authorized in the commercial retail non-residential tenant space at this project site shall be uses allowed by right or permitted by site plan that should say site plan review or by special permit in the general business BG zoning district. OK, marketing and lease agreement number twenty three, any substantial modifications to the lease agreement which may impact tenant oversight as determined by the building commissioner specifically excluding minor updates such as pricing, date modifications, clerical errors or language updates required by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or other government entity shall require the applicant to return to the planning board at a public meeting. Work within the right of way, twenty four, repairs and improvements to the right of way caused by disturbance during construction shall be completed by the applicant, including all costs, permits and approvals prior to the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy for the new building. Twenty five, all crosswalks, sidewalks, on-street parking spaces, pavement and amenities within the town right of way that are disturbed as part of this project shall be reconstructed to match existing unless changes are reviewed and approved by town by the town council. Twenty six, all utility work and work within the public right of way shall be conducted following the regulations and permits of the town of Amherst. OK, this is that sort of duplicate number twenty four. It sort of does, doesn't it? Don't mean to think about how to how to either combine them or eliminate. Yeah, I mean, six, um, Doug. Yes, Janet, I think sometimes the building commissioner once, like really obvious things said in the permit. Um, well, I think that my fault to the category saying, yes, you have to follow the permit conditions or you know, that I guess. Yeah, why don't you just talk with Rob about that? And just it looks to me like it's basically duplication, but if he has some reason to keep it, I guess you can keep it. OK, now we're going into management plan. Do you want to talk about Janet's proposal for sure? Why don't we go ahead and do that manager? I'm going to. So. Janet. Chris forwarded an email from you that I think I also got with. Provisions for. On site residential manager, if the tenants are eighty five percent or more students. So why don't we talk about that one first? How do you have that that you could bring up? So should I just go, Doug? So why don't you if you want to say something? Yeah, the bylaw does only bylaw does not allow dorms anywhere in Amherst, except for the RF, the I don't know, resident, I don't know what it stands. It's a fraternity district, which is by Olympia place. And so. We just it's just not allowed. And you can you could see it in the youth table. The demand. And so I've been sort of thinking about like a lot of the buildings that have been built downtown seem to be skewing very heavily towards students. And when we have explicit sort of student things, there's usually 24 in the Olympia place. Is it Olympia place? I forgot the name of the new building we just permitted. We required on sites provision 24 seven in both of those buildings. And then also in in Aspen Heights, which is a is a totally student, a student thing on Route 9, except for, I think, the people who are in the low income units, the affordable units also has 24 seven supervision. And we had talked earlier about the need for someone to be there because of the safety of the students. And so part of me sort of thinking about like what happens when all the so many of the buildings downtown are turning in just to be student housing, you know, which of course can shift. And so I was thinking like, let's make sure those people are safe. Let's do some onsite management, especially at night when people are most unsafe or making poor decisions or just keeping tabs on people. I also begin to wonder, you know, if you have a building that you gave for a permit for another use, but everybody knows it's going to use for students. Are we actually kind of creating de facto private dorms or social dorms downtown? And so I think this entire issue, I think we need to talk about as a problem is sort of like, are we allowing businesses? Are we allowing buildings that we know all know are going to be student housing in a place? We're not allowing it. So it's just I want to push that aside because we are here. We are today. I'm actually really happy to hear that Barry Roberts is happy to provide supervision 24 seven.  I know. Thanks, Janet. Bruce. Doug, I really don't want to talk about this anymore. We spent a lot of time last time talking about it. So I think we've heard the arguments. Yep. And I appreciate the genesis drafted the condition. And I'd simply like to look at that and under under under from what Thomas reported, the applicants were willingness to do this. I would say we should happily insert it. And so I'm I'm really quite prepared just to look at the text here and make sure it's clear and and and propose that it be inserted. I would like to look at the rest of the management section. Yeah, we're going to continue. We're going to continue with the rest of the. Yeah. OK, I mean, before we do that, or as we do this, because I don't know what's what I do, but I don't I think we should know how this fits into the rest of the management section. OK, so you'd like to go through the rest of the section before we conclude the conversation about this? I think so, because then we know what's there. We I mean, we we are refreshed with what's there. And then we can confidently add this in at the right place. OK, Tom. Thanks. And just as we're talking about this specific language, I think what we're saying is and like we said last time, forget about any tipping point. Let's just provide on-site management, right? I think that takes care of, well, what's the reporting requirements? What if it's 85 percent? What if it drops down? What's the frequency? Are we checking every six months? Is it every? I mean, you just as an applicant, you start to say, are there any missteps that we could take to put this permit in jeopardy versus we'll have an on-site manager? Is that an on-site manager who lives there? Or is it a person who works there and is just there? How does how does that work? Yeah, I mean, I would think and Barry, feel free to chime in. Typically, you have somebody who lives there double as an on-site manager, right? So they're like that first. And he does this at 70 University Drive, you drive south 180 Fearing Street, where you've got somebody who is that first line should something happen. And then if it's a lockout, if there's an issue, police, fire, health, safety, et cetera, then they give him a call and then he's able to then step in and do whatever is he has to do, the broken pipe, et cetera. So I don't know that it's I would assume it's somebody on-site that lives there. So how do we word this condition? Um, you could just I mean, you could just take away the the introductory clause and just say the owner shall have an on-site resident manager or 247 supervision. Yeah, I agree. OK, but I think we I mean, I guess I'm going to go on record that I don't support this and I may be the only one. It sounds like I'm swimming against the tide here. The applicant's fine with it, but I I I don't make any. I don't think we can really assume that this is going to be entirely students. I think it's going to be a mix. Maybe the smaller units are market rate or or non-students and maybe some of those four bedrooms that where the bedrooms are all the same size. Sure, those those are probably going to be student units. But I don't like doing this as a precedent because I I I want to leave the flexibility for the market to figure out who lives where. And so I may be the only one and. But I have now said my piece, Nate. Sure, I was going to say that the, you know, I spoke with the building commissioner and something like this is problematic. Kind of the point Tom had brought up, you know, how often who defines students as a graduate students? Is it what percent? And so, you know, if the if you want to non-state manager, just make that the condition was, you know, what what staff had said, right? Or not. OK, you know, the difference being that the ones that are permitted in the fraternity residence district is a specific use allowed in the bylaw for matriculated students. And the idea is that it's marketed only to students of UMass, Hampshire or Amherst, right? This is just a market rate development that may have some students and may have majority students. But the idea that there's some threshold after what you have to report it or who reports it when frequency, all that is just, you know, it's to me, that becomes one of those unenforceable conditions. And I think, as Tom mentioned, it becomes problematic probably for both the applicant and the town in the future. So if we want an onsite manager, the recommendation from the building commissioner and we were talking was like, just make that the condition that there be a resident manager. And that's what, you know, there is a there's a rental registration bylaw to that will overlap with this that has certain provisions as well.  It works. OK. Do you want to vote on this? Yeah, I do. I do. I do think we should vote maybe only because I don't support it. It sounds like everybody else does. Bruce. I would suggest the amendment as suggested, removing that first clause and stop. The owner shall have an onsite manager or 24 seven supervision in order to ensure the safety, health and of tenants. So I delete students of tenants. And then I think I don't think there's a reason to have the final sentence either. So I think it can be just the basically the owner shall have all the way down to the word tenants minus the word student. That would that would be what I would suggest that we vote on. And delete the last sentence. Yeah. Janet. It'd be great to I would like to hone it down to what we can. Most of us or all of us can agree on. So I agree. I support that change. OK, Fred. Yeah, I I'm I'm also supporting that that change. OK. All right. So we've heard from everybody except Karen. And what the change you support the change to. So is there any point in going through a motion here? It sounds like we've got five in favor and one opposed. So in that case, we'll add the. Janet, I see your hand. Is it our legacy? OK. All right. So I guess we will add this condition. But let's kind of hold on that while we continue through the rest of the management consulting or the management plan section of the conditions, and then we need to remember to come back and at least see the last two changes that Janet was requesting. All right. So Chris, can you continue with number 27? Number 27, significant accumulation of snow plowed within the project area shall be promptly removed from the site as part of the clearing process. Twenty eight drainage structures shall be kept clear of snow accumulation to allow proper stormwater drainage. Twenty nine all trash pickup deliveries, the operation of construction slash maintenance machinery and landscaping equipment shall be conducted during the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Exemptions shall include emergency vehicles, snow removal or other emergency situations as approved by the building commissioner. Pam, can you scroll up? Yeah. Number 30, the project shall comply with and be managed in accordance with all terms of the management plan. Any alterations to this plan shall be approved by the planning board at a public meeting. Bruce, this is just in case Chris doesn't notice, but number 32 is the same as number 30. Okay. Yes, 32 is the same as 30. Yep. Number 33, you skipped number 31. OK. All move ins or move outs shall occur during the hours of 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. and shall be coordinated so as to lessen the impacts of multiple moving trucks blocking the street, the driveway, parking spaces or the fire line. Number 33. Doug? Janet. I have a thing which is there a difference between the driveway and the easement? Like is the easement bigger than the driveway? Because I wondered about that. I mean, is the driveway the easement or is something is there because there's a lot of what do you want to insert the word easement in here or something? Yeah, because I wasn't sure if the driveway was the easement or if the easement was bigger. I just don't remember. I think they're essentially the same thing. I think there's an 11 foot wide easement. Maybe Tom knows exactly. He said they were the same. OK, forget it. OK. And Chris, I think the word lessen could really be minimized. Minimize. OK. All right. So, Fred. Yeah, I'm just wondering whether the beginning hour should also be 7 a.m. We're moving and move out. Yeah. That's fine with me. I won't be awakened when I try and sleep late. You're going to wake up earlier. OK. Those are the hours that people are allowed to make noise downtown. So I guess that's OK for construction and things like that. All right. Are we ready to move on to 33? Yes. OK, 33 upon a change of ownership or if the property is no longer managed by South Pleasant Street, LLC, the new owner and or manager shall submit a new management plan to the planning board at a public meeting for its review and approval. The purpose of the meeting shall be for the board to determine whether conditions of the permit are being complied with and whether any modification to the site plan review approval or management plan is required. All right. Construction. We are all the boilerplate things if you want to just skip through. Can we skip those and maybe go back to Janet's email and just look at the last two that she was. Janet's email has to do with another with completion of work. Yeah, that was actually the second. My second one about the timeframe was actually covered already. I didn't read it. So number two, forget, because that's already I think what we have is we already have a timeline for starting work. I thought there was a timeline to finish it on number six. I didn't read that. So number six in the beginning is saying you have to be done within 24 months or come talk to us. And I think I was I didn't I miss so that's fine. So we can skip that. Chris, do you have the edit that Rob more came up with? Yes, Pam has a good language to show it to you. But we haven't gotten to number 50 yet. So do we want to say why don't we why don't we look at number 50 if that needs to be discussed? So we're not we're going to skip all of the ones that have to do with. Construction instruction, right? Because they're the boilerplate things that we say all the time. Yes. And then 50 is a part of completion of work. Can you scroll up a little farther? You want to look at 50 exactly? OK, OK, here it is. The way it was drafted. And then the building commissioner came up with wording based on sort of a back and forth he had had with Janet. Um, that's shorter than this and probably clearer. OK. And so I sent it to Pam in an email. Yeah, I just had that up. Hold on. Sorry that you all are confused in me. All right, here we go. Hey, the building commissioner may impose surety requirements to guarantee completion of any required work, including for landscaping, paving or any other unfinished item before issuing a temporary occupancy permit. The surety shall be provided by the owner and the value shall cover the costs required to complete the all work. The applicant will provide the building commissioner with an estimate of costs to complete the work, including the costs to the town to do the work. Project management fees, prevailing wage and competitive bidding requirements and the impact of inflation. So is that fine? It's fine with me, Tom. Yeah, just a question. And I know it says the building commissioner may impose and he determined what those requirements are. So by way of example, Barry provides all this information, needs the TCO but it's Barry, it's a limited amount of work. We don't have to go through the whole thing where Rob's hands are tied to say it must be in this amount, right? So I'm just looking for does Rob have discretion within the imposition of that surety requirement to modify that amount based upon his reasonable judgment? I think so. I think that's what he usually does. OK, as long as that's and we've got this recording, so that's fine by me. Bruce. I just want to understand this. The applicant shall provide the building commissioner. So the applicant is doing this, providing the building commissioner with a cost to complete the work, including costs to the town to do the work. And this is where we get into prevailing wage and so forth. So it sounds like this number is going to be much larger than the applicant would need to complete the work. I just want to be I just want to be clear that that's intended. I think it is. But the amount of work that the town would have to do, presumably, is not very great if it's in the town right of way. Maybe this includes more than just the town right of way. Oh, OK. Yeah, I mean, this looks to me like a completion. I thought this doesn't matter where it is. I thought when I saw this, I thought, oh, this is like what happened with Spring Street, where the temporary permit was wanted. But in order to get it, there was a fairly large amount of money that was required to complete the work. And that was some surety payment was calculated in relate to that. But there was a there was a it was all of almost all of the landscaping around the building was involved, sorry, call. And if it's done at prevailing wage, then it's going to be even more. So I just want to be sure that we're, you know, the this is what we're talking about. I think I mean, it also is not stated that the building commissioner has to set the value of the surety to whatever the applicant says the number should be. I mean, the applicant is going to provide them with an estimate, but the building commissioner could reject that and say, no, I think it's going to be higher. Yes, it says that the the value shall cover the costs required to complete. Well, in in whose opinion, I mean, is this better than what we already have as our boilerplate? OK, so, Bruce, are you done? I've got Janet and Nate. Yes, yes, I'm done. Before we go back to the original language and look at that, Janet. So I think this is what the boilerplate is saying, kind of broken out into more clear sentences. OK, I remember this issue coming up when we were in the Amherst Hills like completion of work for the roads and the estimates that came back were much higher than the actual cost because of the prevailing wage and competitive and also they were like using bids that were really based on I don't know if it was statewide, but at that time it was much cheaper to do road work here.  But I think this sentence is just saying what is the boilerplate? But I just found it really hard to follow. OK, Nate. Yeah, thanks, Doug. Now, I was going to say that this summarizes what is there and that the idea is that the applicant does the work, right, and shows what the cost is to the town, should the town have to complete it because the contractor doesn't. And so that's why we factor in prevailing wage and everything else. And yeah, maybe there's a 40 percent cost increase, right? We say prevailing wage is probably a 20 or 25 percent increase. And then if you had the other fees and so the idea would be right if they don't finish the landscaping, we have to hire someone. What does that cost us to do? And so I think this makes sense. And so really what we're trying to do is give a basis for the surety amount. So the applicant is it's their due diligence to come up with and say, OK, here's what it is. And then the building commissioner uses that as a guide, agreed. They don't have to pinpoint it on that. But at least we have, you know, you know, there's some some reason for it as opposed to just something that the building commissioner comes up with or has to research on their own. It's we're asking the applicant to do that for us as the basis for surety. Well, but when we had the issue with the roadway, the subdivision that was not being completed, the town engineer was either came up with the estimate or was pretty involved in determining that number. And it seems to me if you've got a contractor or an owner who's not performing, how are you going to get him to do an estimate? I mean, he's already not performing. The I think the subdivision road, it was a little different in terms of timing. For this one, what would happen here is there's no TCO and no permits would be issued, right? So we would have the ability during construction to, you know, even put an enforcement order to stop construction on this. And so the this really is a kind of a last resort. If something is happening, you know, it's not something that we would seek out to do. And if need be, the applicant doesn't provide it, then the building commissioner could determine their own value, right? But really the the reason why this is in here is it's in the applicant's best interest to do that, to provide that estimate for the building commissioner. All right. All right, Bruce. I think I understand this to be that what the owner is getting out of this, what the applicant's getting out of this is the temporary occupancy permit. So so now I think I understand if you don't if you don't want to get the temporary occupancy, if you want to just wait out and do the work and then get the regular, then no problem, do it. But I think I now understand that the for the benefit of being grounded to temporary occupancy permit, the applicant is expected to do the following. And now that makes sense. OK. All right. Do do any board members object to using this language and replacing the other language for item number 50? Raise your hand if you object. All right. So I will take that as consensus, Chris, that we will adopt this language. OK. And this does come right after a statement. Any temporary certificates of occupancy shall be approved by the building commissioner, so it's related to that. Yep. OK. All right. All right. So we kind of skipped the boilerplate. Now I guess we're down to the affordable units. Yes. And I think the first set of conditions related to affordable units would not apply because we are not talking about the payment. We're not talking about units on site. Right. So we would skip to what is in the draft as number 55. Yeah. OK. If the planning board approves the project and grants the special permit to allow payment in lieu of providing affordable units on site in accordance with Section 15 171 of the Zoning By-law, the following conditions shall apply. A, at least 12 percent of the new units or three units will be required as part of this project shall be provided for via a payment in lieu of providing on site units. The payment in lieu shall be and we're going to say the by-law shall be at least the amount that's indicated in the by-law. So what we want to say or do we want to say the specific number? One point one, two, four, zero, zero. Well, yeah, yeah, shall be at least one point one, two, four million. Yeah, OK, which is three times something smaller. And then see the payment shall be made to the town of Amherst, payable to the Amherst Municipal Affordable Housing Trust prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy. So we might want to use the similar language in the motion for the findings where we say, you know, the applicant is invited to to pay more in in number B here. So you want to you want to add that language? Well, it's not really, I mean, it's not really a condition. But that's what I was thinking, Doug. It's not a condition. Yeah, maybe I put up my hand because I you said the payment shall be at least. And that was kind of gratuitous enough for that. And I thought that was important, but I just wanted to make sure that the two words at least are in court are included in this. Then it's a condition that makes sense. All right, Tom. Sure. I'm going to go to 55 A, at least 12 percent of the net increase. So same comment that I had last time just because of the way that the inclusionary donning works net increase. You could say that increase in unit count. 12 percent of the net increase in count. OK. Thanks. OK. So we're good with number 55, I think so. And then what about amenities? The entire project site and buildings shall be smoke free, non-smoking to the extent allowed by law. OK. And then I have another condition that I'd like to add, and this is taken from a previous. It was actually taken from the project down on Southeast Street. An A&R, parentheses approval not required, close parentheses plan, shall be submitted to the planning board for endorsement, showing the two parcels 45 and 55 South Pleasant Street, combined into one parcel. The A&R plan shall be recorded at the registry of deeds prior to the issuance of a building permit. OK. All right. And you'll figure out which section that belongs in. Yeah. It's probably not under amenities. No. OK. So those conditions, that's the result. But that's the result of reading the conditions. Do you want to vote on these conditions? Yes. Bruce? That's what I put my hand up for. All right. Move that we approve conditions as reviewed and amended. One. Well, I can't even do the numbers because they'll change. I think that's enough. Move that we approve the conditions as reviewed and amended. All right. During the meeting. Karen. Second. Thank you, Karen. Any conversation, any comments from the board? All right. We'll go through another another vote. Bruce. I'm an eye. Fred. I'm an eye. Jesse. I. Janet. I. Karen. I. I'm an eye as well. That's six in favor. No, no opposition. Janet. Um, I think we need to close the hearing. Is that is that our next step? Yes, indeed. OK. Just I was worried we might forget. Well, that that could easily happen. All right. It could be a motion as well. Oh, Janet, are you making a motion to close the hearing? I am making a motion to close all three hearings or the joint hearing. OK. Why don't you take those one at a time? The site plan review by itself and take the special permit by itself. That would make me feel good. OK, I just lost my the numbers. I am making a motion to close the site plan review hearing. All right. I'll go ahead and second that. Anybody know, do you want to combine that with approving the site plan review and with conditions and findings as discussed? I thought we did that, but we approve. We approve the findings already. But usually you make a motion to approve the site plan review application with the conditions and findings as discussed and then close the public hearing. OK, I so move. OK, and I'll second that, too, Chris. So, Janet moved and Doug seconded. OK, right. All right, Bruce. Hi, Fred. Hi, Jesse. Hi, Janet. Hi, Karen. Hi, I'm an eye as well. Same six in favor. All right. And so I will make a motion to adopt the findings and conditions for the. Special permits. I think you already did that. What you need to do is I'm sorry to close the hearing for the special permit. You need to make a motion to approve the special permit, the two part special permit with the findings. And we didn't have any conditions. With the findings as discussed and then to close the public hearing. That's what I would suggest. All right, so moved. I will second. All right, Janet. Although, Jesse, you raised your hand. Did you really want to second that? All right. All right, Fred, you can start. Hi. All right, Jesse. Hi. Janet. Hi, Karen. Hi. And Bruce. Hi. And I'm an eye as well. All right. Thank you, Tom. Thank you very much. Thank you. Did we do everything we're supposed to do? Good luck with your project. Thank you very much. All right. All right. So we've been at this for almost two and a half hours. And does anybody want to take a break? Or should we try and do it? Just head through the last the last item and go home. I would prefer that. Yes. OK, so fine. I just thought I thought I'd ask. And I'm glad we didn't try and do two and a half hours on top of nine o'clock last week, or we would have been midnight. Right. So I am chastened by my suggestion that we try to do. OK, so. Time is nine twenty six. And we will move on to the next item on our agenda, which was old business. Actually, before I do that, Jesse, you have your hand up. Yeah, just quickly, I agree with Janet. I would love that conversation to come back at some point on agenda just about this condition we added and how we're going to handle that in the future regarding the onsite supervision. Yes, correct. OK. Pam, I'm not sure why you are. Show on the screen because I was about to put up the memo to the town manager, but then Jesse said something that I needed to write down so I stopped midstream. OK, so sorry. So time is nine twenty seven and we'll go on to old business and the first item under old business, which we did add this afternoon, is review of Chris's draft of the letter to the town manager regarding the comments we made on the wayfinders project. And that that letter is really just to express our general support for the project and to record some of the concerns that were noted in the in the conversation last week. So did did everybody have a chance to at least skim through it this afternoon and before the meeting? Jesse. Yep, I just want to say I thought I captured all the central parts of our conversation. OK, Bruce. I did look through. I have a couple of comments. Would you like them now or I think we might as well? Yeah. OK, I'll skip to. And I'm assuming we're not going to read through this. I hadn't intended, but the. To be. I thought that to a captured the the spirit of our comments quite nicely to to be, though, I would want to be sure that we did say that we think that it more in the style of New England architecture, perhaps a van like design. I certainly will I don't agree with that. And I don't know that I heard it said. But if it was said and we agree that it should be communicated, then that's fine. But I didn't hear it said and I don't agree that it could be communicated. All right. Well, Bruce, I think it was said. I don't think I mean, I personally don't agree with it either. But I think this letter was just trying to record some of the comments made without really distinguishing between whether they had wide support or not. OK, I just wanted to be sure if you have strong objections, we could ask that it be removed. I don't think that. Well, to me, the barn like design is kind of. Misleading because the way the applicant described that building, they thought they were doing that. That's part of the reason why I would take off the last part. I would, too, because it's basically encouraging them to do what they've done. Then we have pains to try and make them not do that. Right. But just say design of the new building doesn't relate to nearby buildings. Is that sufficient? I mean, to me, it's sufficient for me. Yes. I don't know that it need to, but it doesn't. Yeah, we did say that. And then further down, as far as height is concerned, it says considering adding a story to the new addition to gain units. I think it might be appropriate to add, though, we, the board of knowledge that the impact of additional units on parking was unexplored. So this was for the unit on Southeast? That's correct. Yes. Not the one we're looking at here. We're talking about the Belcher Town Road site. Yes, I'm actually looking at on another screen. I'm looking at my and it's my the East Street School site. That's where you're talking about the high. Yes, yes, where it says additional units. So that's number four. And then wait a minute. Number four, I consider adding a story to the new building, acknowledging that to where it says to gain additional units, I think we should say, because you said it, Chris, the board that the the board did not consider the the the the the the how that did not consider how to handle the parking the possible additional parking requirements associated with additional units. I mean, we just didn't talk about it. Bruce, we could just say consider adding a story and the impacts of what those additional units would be. Yes, OK, that's considered to consider all of that. Yeah, consider adding a story. I suppose you're right. In fact, when you consider adding a story, you consider not just the architectural implications, but the other. OK, I'm good. I can I can ignore what I said on that. And my final comment is that I think it would be appropriate somewhere to commend that. I put the board commends the aspiration of the project to achieve a passive house level of energy conserving performance. Oh, yeah. I think we should say that because it could be under general. Yes, both both buildings, I think. Yes, it was.  I mean, if they achieve it, it'll be borderline spectacular. OK, the the the board commends the aspiration of the project to achieve passive house certification. Yes, yes. OK, yes. And that would be the general general, which is where well, isn't that at the beginning, the beginning? Yeah. Yeah. But before you go to the specific site. Yes. Oh, I see. You don't you don't really have a general section. But you could just you could just add that sentence to the first paragraph passive house or or make it its own second paragraph. Yeah. OK. And passive house P passive and H for house should be capitalized and I guess we don't have to spell it the German way. Yeah, I think we I've seen it both ways. Yeah, we can keep it good, simple. All right. Anything else, Bruce? No, that's it for me. Thank you. OK, Janet. I also support removing the barn, the barn things. I think that was really that, you know, it's a really big building. And, you know, the colonial village apartments look like chicklets next to it when you look at the overhead. And I do think we should stick with the New England architecture style, because I think the most successful buildings I've seen that are low in compousing are ones that really fit in. And people, you know, I don't think we're going to get some outstanding modernistic building out of this.   So that's it. So consider. Well, I mean, I think Janet, I mean, I think. Well, I mean, it sounded like from the conversation Bruce and I had that we didn't feel it really had to be New England architecture. So I'm not sure we all agree on that. Yeah, yeah, I just think I think it's the most successful, low in compousing projects around are the ones that really they look classical and they kind of fit into the neighborhood. I would love some innovative design. I think we're just not going to ever get it, you know, from at that. So anyway, it's nothing to no bridge to die on. All right. My cat is now eating my packet. I think we have. Well, you won't need it again, hopefully. All right, anybody anybody have anything else? OK. Fred. Just. On the. Under parking on the street. The response from the town, the town of studying, providing formalized parallel parking. I would add there that part of that should be an extension of the permit parking system. So those spaces are limited to that and will be usable by the people in the building. Well, is that is that true in terms of. Chris, your understanding of what the town is looking at. Well, they're considering some kind of formalized parking. And so they don't want people just parking there and then taking the bus to UMass. So I think it could be the kind of parking system that we use uptown, which is resident parking or employee parking. So that would that could be a suggestion. Yeah. All right. Yeah, that's that's the permit parking system. OK, during my first service on the planning board, I represented the planning board on the parking commission. I was actually responsible for the creation of the permit parking system, so something I know about. All right. Well, maybe we should call it the Hartnett system. Or Hartwell. All right. So, Chris, you you got that. Otherwise, this is good. I think so. I don't see any other hands. OK. Great. Thank you. All right. Let's see. Chris, any other items not available? Forty eight hours in advance. No, no, sir. All right. Time is nine thirty seven, unless other members have anything they want to say before we adjourn, I think we can adjourn. And we just say that we are going to cancel the. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Seventeenth meeting. All right. So any objections from members to canceling the next meeting next week? Not seeing any objections. OK. So our next meeting will then be May 1st. Is that right? First, May 1st. Yes, sir. OK. Thank you all. All right, members. Thanks for sticking this out. Good night. Thank you. We'll see you in May. Bye. Bye. Good night. All right. Good night, Fred. Good night, Pam. Bye so much for.