It's a little late, but, um, okay, well, Jack, yes, Amherst media is here. So, and you have all of your members, a couple aren't viewable, but they are all here. Okay. You are good to go. Very good. Welcome to the Amherst plane board meeting of July 28, 2021. My name is Jack jumps like an as a chair of the Amherst planning board. I'm calling this meeting to order at 632pm. This meeting is being recorded and it's available via Amherst media live stream minutes are being taken pursuit to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 this planning board meeting. Including public hearings will be conducted via remote means using the zoom platform members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so by following a link shown on the slide. This link is also available in the meeting agenda posted on the town's websites calendar listing for this meeting or go to the planning board webpage and click on the most recent agenda which lists the zoom link at the top of the page. No one in person attendance of the public will be permitted. However, every effort will be made to ensure the public can adequately access the meeting in real time via technological means and event we are unable to do so for reasons of economic hardship and despite best efforts, we will post on the town of Amherst website and audio or video recording transcript or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting.  Tom Long Andrew McDougal Present Doug Marshall Present Janet McGowan Here Johanna Newman Present and I'll be on video shortly. Great. And then myself as well. So Jack Jones. So board members of technical issues arise may need to pause temporarily to fix the problem and then continue the meeting. Discussion may be suspended while the issues are addressed and the minutes will note if this happens. Please use the raise hand function to ask a question or make a comment. I will see your raise hand and call you on call on you to speak after speaking remember to remute yourself. Opportunity for public comment will be provided during the general public comment period and is reserved for comments regarding items that are not on tonight's agenda. Public comment may also be heard at other appropriate times during the meeting. Please be where the board will not respond to comments during the general public comment period. Please indicate if you wish to make a comment during the public comment period by clicking the raise hand button. If you have joined the zoom meeting is using a telephone. Please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star nine on your telephone when called on. Please identify yourself by stating your full name and address. Put yourself back in a mute and finish speaking. Residents can express their views for up to three minutes and at the discretion of the plenty board chair. If a speaker does not comply with these guidelines or exceeds their lot of time their participation will be disconnected from the meeting. So As we begin our first item is minutes and we don't have any to review Today and we can open it up to Public comment. And I'm Just looking at that screen now. Yes. I want to tell you I had you. I had a problem with the timer today and I accidentally deleted it out of my computer and so we don't have the three minute timer. Oh, yeah, that was a nice addition. I know I'll get it back. I mean, I haven't got but I haven't made a good connection yet. Okay, I'll try to keep an eye on it. Yeah, I'm sorry. And so Are there any Anyone in the public that want to Utilize the public comment period. Alright, I see no hands so we can jump into the agenda and we are Going to bring up old business as a first item as a matter of convenience. And that would be SPR 2020 dash 05 462 main LLC John Roblesky 462 Main Street and a request approval of minimal but not substantial changes to the site plan under condition number eight of the decision for the site plan review SPR 2020 05 so I believe we would have a presentation by John is here and Royal is consultant is also here and I think they've both been moved into being panelists. Oh, Christine. Yeah, Christine is going to make the presentation. I see her hand raised. Okay, I didn't know that she was with them. So I'm moving I just moved her. Sorry. Sorry, Christine. Apologies. So hello, John. You And then Christine, we see you. Good evening. And you're unmuted. Great. Are you going to lead the presentation. Christine. I will share screen as needed. But I think John might have some things you'd like to start with. Okay. Hi, John. How are you. We hear you. Okay. So the project is taking a couple of turns. So right now, you know, our goal is to get a CEO because we have tenants moving in and about two weeks. So we're just trying to deal with the trash and recycling area and get that approved. Ideally, what we're asking for tonight that was presented is to instead of Read, you know, tearing down and rebuilding the back 14 by 14 foot area of the existing building And rebuild that as we had approval for on the original plans. One of two things mean right now we're asking for if we can maintain that area For the interim anyway until we get permission probably on August 18 from the board to completely remove the building as an alternate as an amendment to the site plan. And also to change the rear door there, which is currently about 32 inches wide. Put the three foot wide door in there. So trash cans that go in and out and bicycles and so forth and use that area back there. That's about the same size as the proposed rebuild. So we figure it's there. Eventually, we're going to have a temporary shed request there. The ideal situation is if the board would consider tonight to allow us to remove that 14 by 14 foot area and place to shed there now. Nothing's really going to change that would still give us space to remove the rest of the building. And it would end up in the same place in about a month from now anyway, but if the board's not, you know, it's going to considering that and what you had before you here is what we are presenting. So basically it's, you can see the approved addition on the back there, we were going to enlarge it a little bit to the east and move the door. Right now we're moving the door around to the north side where the existing door to get into that portion of the building is now. Another consideration this plan shows that we put a roof over there because we thought it'd be a little more the same as what was approved on the original plan. We look at it now the contractor says well why would you bother putting a roof over that small area. Just to cover a couple of bicycles or something in the interim and have that whole thing disappear in a month or six weeks or whatever. So I guess if we can put that door in and have that accessible. I mean a ramp going up to it and so forth to the finish floor is going to be about the same as what's on the grading plan that has been approved. So a couple of things if you would consider not putting a roof over that back area there because we have to build that actually an extended and put in some pose that would disappear potentially and you know five or six weeks. Or to allow us to completely remove that back 14 by 14 foot area and place the shed there before tenants move in the middle of August and have it there once we demo the rest of the building. So that's pretty much it in a nutshell other than some more items regarding some landscaping changes and stuff. And originally we are hoping to save there is three Hanoke Cypress plants to the right or the driveway when you drove into the parking area before we did anything. We tried to dig those out and transplant them and the landscapers said you know what just the root structure just isn't there, and they're not going to survive so he actually took them to his house and once survived. So that's a change as far as what's in the front of the transformer. Other than that if we can just put some Arbor buddy there that we can keep trim to a height, not high enough to screen the transformer and then put in the inquiry bushes as is on the landscaping plan that's been approved to screen the front three parking spaces there. That's pretty much as far as landscaping. Other than the narrow area that's between the sidewalk and the building itself so in the north section of the parking area right in front of the building on the west side. My wife is concerned about putting someone those bushes in there that would end up going too big. So she's talked with the landscaper, if we can get permission just to substitute something of similar size that's not going to grow as big that will stay more compact. There's windows right there for some of the dwelling units. And it's only a matter of about three and a half to four feet planting area between the sidewalk and the building. The vehicle vehicle charging ports initially they were shown on a plan to be in front of the transformer and end up in a kind of a cramped area there and ever source suggested putting on the other side of the parking lot just directly across from there. So that's where they ended up. The original plans I don't think we showed the solar panels on the west side of the building so there's going to be 95 solar panels, the majority of which will be on the East roof line, but we do want some facing on a west. So we'll take advantage of that on late days on. So you will see some solar panels and I think it's, you know, good good for everybody to see that also so to be about, I think, 28 or 30 panels facing west. So, John, I see that Chris has her hand up and then I feel like we need some plans to point out some of these changes that you're referring to just so we can get a better perspective. Christian, do you have that. I do have it up. I am sharing my sorry Chris Brester. I'm sorry, Chris Brester has her hand up so and then and then you guys. I wanted to give the big picture here. John is asking for approval for a very small things right now tonight. Essentially he's asking for approval to not build the new shed on the back of the house, and instead use the old shed to store trash and bicycles and I believe, and he was suggesting that he would put a roof over the area where the bicycles would be and that he was going to put in a new door. So that's really all he's asking for tonight. Meanwhile, he has run into trouble with the house and he's been before the Historical Commission and they've given him permission to take down the house, but he needs to go through a site plan review application process to take down the house and then he has some other changes that he wants to make like moving the electrical charging stations and changes in planting and other things. So right now tonight, all he's asking for is what's in this image here he wants to do the image on the right where it says proposed addition. There's a plan for that and there's an image of it, instead of the approved addition. And this is because in the long run, which is probably going to be sometime in the next few months he wants to take down the house, and put in a storage shed for bicycles and this would be a temporary storage shed, because he's just purchased the property next door at 446 Main Street. So he wants to figure out, you know, a connection to the property next door and what he should do with the property next door and he has some long term plans that need to be laid but he, he wants to make the property livable and, you know, nice and neat for the tenants of the new building. But he has run into trouble with this existing house and he's got to take it down. But as I said that's an application that has just been submitted, and it's going to be advertised next week. It's going to be public hearing for it on the 18th of August. But tonight you're just being asked to approve this change in the back shed from a new shed to alterations on the old shed which include adding the covering and changing the door. Mr. Robles, he has said tonight that he would prefer not to add the covering so it sounds like he's just wanting to put in a new door and leave everything as it is. That's my understanding of the situation. So, so it's pretty simple for tonight, but it's going to get more complicated next on the 18th. Okay. So, John, you mentioned tearing down that portion of the building but is that even in the cards? Well, it's possible, you know, construction wise it's, it was attached to the mainframe in the building years ago and it's not on a foundation. So the foundation of the rest of the building is entirely separate. And if you remember there is no foundation under this back section and just on bricks and stones. So it's easy enough to disconnect that, you know, just cut it off from the existing building, basically the three walls and the main wall that attaches to the house would still be there. They're just saving time and redoing things type thing. That's the only reason I ask. Yeah. Can you speak to that Chris? Yeah. So what Mr. Roblesky wants to do is take down the shed and put in, take down the back area and put in a shed. But you haven't seen pictures of the shed yet. It is coming on August 18. And I think you should really wait until August 18 when you've got the whole proposal before you for that. Okay, we have four other. That's fine. We fit this in, you know, thinking that it would take 15 or 20 minutes. If we get too complicated about it, it's going to be. Yeah. Yes. So John, we have a, we do have a full night. So maybe if we can just focus on exactly what you need to do at a minimum. Yeah, that's fine. I understand. Yeah. Okay. And then we have a few more items. Adding the shed roof. Maybe, maybe not. And putting in the new door in this existing shed. And then just using it. The plan for that is shown in the lower right hand corner of the drawing that Christine Royal is showing. Yeah. So let me just walk through this very quickly. This is the existing condition now. So we're going to go ahead and move on to the next item that we're talking about. And although there's a trailer in this photo, you can see here is the door. And we'd really like to keep the door as we're showing in this new proposed addition in the same location. So we're proposing minimal to no change to this back addition, aside from the fact that the door needs to be wider for accessibility. So we're going to make sure that the room is changed so that this can be approved and move forward. And as John noted, you know, everything will get a little more complicated at the next meeting. But it's really keeping the existing building as is widening the door and improving access to the back. John did mention, and it's true that this roof shed. Six weeks is not obviously not existing. And if we don't need it to really comply with the de minimis change we'd like to not add it as just as just added costs that will be removed in six weeks or so time after our next meeting. Thank you.  But now we just focused on the shed. So if you're done with your presentation, I can solicit funding board comments. Yep. Thank you. Okay, all right. So Doug and then Andrew. I wondered whether we can approve this for a particular short duration on the condition that the applicant return within a reasonable period of time with the rest of the picture.  That that would simplify things in my mind. Chris can tell us that. Yeah, Chris. So this kind of thing doesn't usually allow conditioning because it's not a real application. And Mr Roblesky has submitted his application to do this more complicated version. He did the fee and the application form and all the drawings that go along with it. So I think he's really serious about pursuing this. So, I think it's probably not necessary to try to condition this, especially because you can't really condition this type of thing. And, oh, by the way, Rob more is here in the wings, if things get really complicated. You know, Andrew and then Janet. I'm ready to make a motion but if Janet's got some questions I'd let her ask her questions first. I mean, you can make a motion and then we can have discussion afterward it doesn't bear enough. So I'll make a motion that we approve this with without the shed extension that that is being proposed for the roof okay. Yep. I'll go back to that. Second. Okay, Doug. Okay, so now we have additional discussion. We have Janet. I thought I understood what was going on until you said there's going to be more drawings later on the 18 so on the 18th there's going to be a, and we're going to look at the proposal to demolish the building and build a new one. So what drawings could there be like I don't really understand where we are like in the process in terms of applications and things then. Chris Brescher Pazzer hand up. So, Mr Rob Lesky has this new building and he needs to get tenants into it in the middle of August, August 15 I think. So he's taking a very stop gap short. Tonight and hoping to get approval from you to do minimum changes to that back area. And then he has filed a new application to change to amend the previous site plan review application decision. And he's going to take down he hopes to be able to take down the existing house. And he's going to add a very small shed it's only I think 12 by 16 it's like the kind of shed that you see, you know, in gardening stores and it's not going to have a foundation to be a temporary measure. And he will come back sometime in the future future with a more detailed plan and that future future probably won't happen for six months or six to nine months or maybe even a year. But tonight he's just asking to make those small changes to that shed that already exists on the 18th. He's going to come with a full application to take down the house. He's going to add up a new small shed and do those other things that he talked about change location of the EV charging stations, make the changes to the planting. A small one small parking space that would accommodate an Uber or a lift. He's calling it shared parking. And there may be some other small things but anyway that's coming to you as a full blown site plan review application on the 18th. But tonight he's just asking for that small change to the back so that he can leave the house in place because he doesn't have approval from you to take down the house yet. And we know that that's going to be a complicated conversation and people are going to want to weigh in on it as well. So we think that that's best handled at a public hearing that's devoted to that particular topic and tonight we're just asking for the one small change. So, Chris, we're just to ignore what was in our packet with regard to the demo and the house information would seem very informative by the way, with this with the structural engineer, but we'll just ignore that. It gives you context for doing this small stopgap measure. Okay, he has this other larger hurdle to overcome which is to get permission from you all to take down the house he doesn't have that permission yet. So I thought I would send that information along so you could have that as a background. Okay, posing to do that tonight he's just proposing to change the door on the shed. Any other further discussion amongst the board. I see none. Let's open it up to the to the public any public comment on this. I don't see any okay. So we can do roll call. And Maria approved. And Andrew. Hi, Doug. Hi, Tom. Yeah. Hi, Johanna. Hi, and I will be an eye as well. So it's seven zero. So thanks john. Thank you, Christine. All right, so with that we can get back into our public hearing. And so, yeah, we have We have what I'm doing some clicking over here. We have to bring people in right, Kyle, and right, right. So I'm just making sure. Well you're doing that I'll just go through all these things so we're going to open up the hearing again for So it's a combination of cycling review and special permits but SPP 2021 dash zero three archipelago investments and all of these will be archipelago investments LLC. So this first one is 1111 1113 East Pleasant Street for non conforming building to be structurally altered enlarged or reconstructed and a section 9.22 of the zoning bylaw for mixed use building proposed under section 3.325 the zoning bylaw. The, the next one is SPR 2021 zero seven and SPP 2021 dash zero two, and this is the hearing to request a site plan review. This is a continuation approved for construction of a mixed use building containing dwelling units in combination with ground floor retail commercial including approximately 1300 square feet of retail space. I'm not sure that's right but Jack may I interrupt just to come. Yes, yeah. So archipelago came in earlier this year and applied for a building that conform to the what you're describing right now. Yes, not withdrawn that application yet. We're not asked to withdraw it tonight but we don't know that. So we're leaving it on the agenda because the public hearing for that hasn't been closed, and the planning board hasn't made any decisions about that. But that was for the building that was 55 units and 1300 square feet of retail and it also. Okay, the initial proposal. Okay, it's, yeah, I can be confusing. That has 1300 square feet of retail space lobby leasing fitness trash area mechanical space elevator parking and 55 apartments under section 3.325 the zoning bylaw, and to request a special permit to modify dimensional requirements for height site and reset back and up a table three section six of the zoning bylaw. So, and then the next one is SPR 2021 dash zero nine. And again this is continuation. Again, we met May 5 June 2 and June 30 on this. So this is a request a site plan review approval under section 5.0 of the zoning bylaw for an accessory and incidentally used to permitted principal use on an adjacent lot for construction staging and management of the 11 East Pleasant Street project post construction site will be stabilized with asphalt service and fence and the last one is SPR 2021 dash 12. At 11 and 13 East Pleasant Street public hearing for the this continuation from June 30 only the public hearing for a site plan review application construction of a mixed use billing containing dwelling units in combination with ground floor retail commercial, including 2200 square feet of retail space lobby leasing fitness trash area mechanical space elevator and 90 apartments including 11 affordable units under section 3.325 of the zoning bylaw. So that's all that kind of bundled together. So we can ask the project proponents to have their presentation and we have Kyle, Dave looks like Mark Barbrowski I do and Kyle. Hello Dave. Okay, so Kyle just I'll just hand it over to you. Thank you. I appreciate it. We since we last saw you we have met on site and we before the DRB. I believe you have in the packet, everything we've shown the DRB. I think we wanted to keep our presentation pretty short tonight and and basically do what we can to respond to questions. I believe that Chris and Pam have all everything we've submitted you want me to. What's the best way for me to do this should I share a screen or what what I have available is what was in the packet. I'll share the screen and I'll show you what we've submitted and I'll go through that. And that's the best way to get you guys out here. I'm coming. All right guys. No problem. Can you see my screen. Yes. So, I'll start with the architectural trying not to rename it. This is in your packet. So this is updated and presented to the designer view board. The intent of this was to show the improvements to the streetscape and the town right away. So you'll see that on the site plan here. The three trees up front, the crosswalk, the benches, the ballers, the bike loops, the tree grates and the tree guards. You will see the ground for plan, which shows the entirety of the ground for which has not changed since we last submitted. The upper four plans remain as they are. The rendered elevations that show the street facing facade has remained the same. The north side has remained. The east side facing west cemetery and the south side facing one is pleasant have remained. And we've updated the rendering. So this rendering shows the proposed improvements in the town right of way from the property line to the curb. The curb lines remain the same to accommodate for the bus on the north end to accommodate for the new crosswalk that would be present street there. There are three trees that are planted in there. As per conversations with Alan snow those are trees. Species of his choosing that we would install there's pavers that come across the street across from the site across the sidewalk to the right of way. The bench that Pacifica bench that we installed at when he's pleasant is proposed here and the tree grates, the tree guards and the granite ballards. So those are from the town standards that are used elsewhere in town. Additional rendering show some of that in context show the tree in front. These are very similar. And we did show and discuss the, you know, the corrugated metal roof screen, you know, for that materiality for the roof screen above. The landscape provides landscape also shows those streetscape improvements. So this one plan remains similar to what we've previously shown all planted pulled back from the cemetery with the trees running across and then the streetscape improvements are zero, which is again showing those same improvements noting that all calling out the granite ballard calling out the pavers, the bench, the bike loops, the tree great, we're proposing round rather than square to accommodate the geometries, and the tree guards, also the, the bike loops. We have shown three. We also have the photometric plan that is, you know, basically showing the photo met, you know, our lighting has been proposed has been centered around egress and getting in on the site. Everything's downcast everything is shielded. We have projects north of this and south of this. And the lighting approach is very is effectively identical. We have three renderings. The first is from the north of the bike share. So that is from coming south on Pleasant Street you see spoke in the foreground. There's a bank in the foreground and one he's pleasant to the south and the bike share and the street scape improvements and the new sidewalk on Kendrick Park, the street lights. And you can see the ground floor, you can see the gash, as we've called it here on the north side. And you can see it relative to one East Pleasant. You can also look at another rendering here, which is the dentist parking lot as I've called it so I stepped back we looked at some potential renderings further East as you're coming from the high school heading towards the roundabout. And obviously there's a bunch of trees along there to prevent streetscape view from working out well but stepping back here we were able to show the a bit of the facade here that that stretch that runs out to Pleasant Street and then there's there's two trees that are existing here. Three trees that are going to remain here on the north of 11 East Pleasant property. And there's actually two trees that are going to remain here we wanted to kind of stem that a little bit so you could see the the edge of that facade and I'll show you those two trees and subsequent rendering which is here from West Cemetery which was requested and we just submitted today. So the two trees that we just had a site visit yesterday morning at 9am. At that site visit we walked around to the cemetery side we looked at the two trees that are on the town side those on the town side of the fence which will remain. These two trees and another to the north are north of the property they'll remain. And these are our proposed plantings in between the building and the property line. And I think that that is it civil. I don't think I think is repeating everything that we've discussed previously so I think with that we would we would open it up to questions. Okay. What you do you want to do the right away a little bit. Yeah, we end up. Yeah, I'll go through that a little bit more I think that that's, I will try to stop flipping this so much but so the right of way improvements are listed here. Again the, the, the location of the curb doesn't change, culminates the bus we obviously close off the existing curb cut that serves the parking lot that we're redeveloping. But the genus pavers that we're using on the, the private property would come over the walkway that six feet, the paved concrete sidewalk per town standards at six feet. There'd be pavers on the street side of that. There's two Pacifica benches shown there's three tree grates and trees and tree guards, and then there is a bike loop here, a bike loop here, and a bike loop here. There's also a ballard shown facing the street. All of these, as we've said in previous meetings. We realize need to go through multiple layers of approval. We are willing to pay for these improvements. We wanted to show what we thought was the best solution to those improvements. And we understand that, you know, subsequent boards may have to tweak things change things or, or push but we wanted to show you what we are proposing that's shown here in the rendering gives a little more dimension to it. So again, you can see the curb line remains in the same location we close off the curb cut to the parking that's here that becomes a crosswalk, three trees on the benches and the ballards. Thank you. Um, would you mind going over the DRB findings? Sure. One second on my file. So, I guess to summarize, I think the DRB was had unanimously unanimously voted to approve the project. There was a lengthy debate, there was a lot of public comment. I think there were large collection of very positive comments, especially feedback about the improvements to the streetscape to see in this rendering here, which came up many times. But the, the motion that was approved was basically to allow the project to go forward with a set of what we call recommendations or suggestions and basically the, the key elements that we that were up for discussion, the top of the list really focused on the rear setback from there are many people on the board or a few people on the board, which is not that many people a few people on the board that were really concerned about the rear setback so that would be the east facade, am I correct? Again, from a visual perspective from the cemetery, people really wanted to see that setback increased to the full 20 if possible, but again approved as is again just expressing their concerns about that rear facade. And we do understand that there will be a discussion about which side will have the trees who will plant the trees and exactly what that tree configuration will be at a later date. So Kyle might be able to verify that after the fact. And I think from there there were some comments about, as you can see in the packet. Some comments came up, making sure that those are clean. There's lots of windows here so there will be a figure in the foreground of the building from a design perspective, making sure that those are rigid and not curtains. So, some form of shades were preferred. We're concerned about the rendering showing the trees in front, as Kyle mentioned, those will be managed or decided upon with consultation from the tree warden, but we felt like trees with more of a canopy here would be better than the ones that are shown in this particular rendering. So, and we'll let them make that decision. I think there's a little bit of concern about maintenance so making sure that things like the boulder in the courtyard and the material, the wood material stays maintained for appearances and we know that Kyle has experienced with this from other projects. But that was a concern that would would degrade over time and I think even Doug raised that some time ago, and we address that there. And then I think that the, you know, the last issue that keeps coming up is is really trying to think about that, that North facade that people did feel like it is beautiful yet an expansive surface that they would like to see broken up in some other way, whether materially or spatially it's possible but again these are suggestions would you hope that Kyle would take those into consideration. And the last thing was a photometric plan which we just never saw and we saw that in this review but but that's the overarching issues that we were debating but it was there was quite a bit of feedback from the public. So much of what we'll probably hear again tonight. So, both some in favor but mostly, you know with similar concerns so Okay, before we open it up to the board Chris do you want to speak to any of this new information. The photographic. I say that right. Again, the light levels they look good but and then any other comments you have based on the new information that that we just, you know gotten on last couple of days. I would say that the design of the right of way is, you know, flexible, although I think what is being shown here is, you know, represents the different components that the applicant is agreeable to providing. So those components could be moved around based on meetings with the town council or whoever else has to approve this, including the planning board planning board can make on it. And I don't know if it's been brought to the DPW yet, I think it probably hasn't. So one thing that the staff thought was that by providing this improved right of way here that it tended to create a larger area in the front of the building. You know that it added to the triangular space that's immediately in front of the building and made that a more usable space. Let's see what else in terms of the photometric plan I took a quick look at it. What they're doing is lighting the walkways that lead alongside their building. There's not a lot of light underneath that overhanging area as far as I can tell but the the walkways are what they're focusing on lighting so that they get their people back from the street escape back to the entry way into the building and there's an entry on the north side and the south side. I don't think I have any other comments right now certainly I'll have comments get into the conditions and findings if you get that far. Yes. Yeah, I just wanted to check in with you. So, planning board members looking for hands okay so we have Janet and then Doug, Janet. I just wanted to supplement Tom's comments that one of the recommendations was to consider for the design review board was to consider expanding the size of the proposed onsite outdoor Plaza in front of the building facing East Pleasant Street and so I know. So, that's clear. And then some, some of the members were commenting that the small side Plaza, which has the granite boulder, or just a boulder was too small and so there was some talk. Someone, some members mentioned combining that space or just making it bigger for everyone to share. I hope I'm not talking at a turn but I did see that recommendation number seven. Okay, the granite boulder item. Can we get a graphic on that. Okay. Thank you. Janet anything else. I have other things but I just wanted to add that while we were talking. All right, Doug please. Okay yeah I had several questions.  I wondered whether you, Jack or Chris could help us structure this conversation. You know we have, it looks like we have two special permits and two site plan reviews to work our way through here. And I'm wondering whether we could sort of deal with the issues in the first site plan review, and then deal with the issues in the second site plan review. Well for whichever of these submittals archipelago wants us to consider first, since we have two different buildings that have been submitted. I would be more comfortable if we just sort of structured it in a way that that I was clear about exactly what we were talking about while we did it. So that's my first request. So we're going to end up, let's see. So you have two site plan reviews and two special permits to deal with. There's also the sort of this digital site plan review application. This may be an appropriate time to ask the applicant what his thoughts are about that application and whether he might choose to withdraw it or what his intention is with regard to that. My impression is that the applicant is not focused on that application at this time and that he's putting his energy into what you're seeing on your screen here. So my advice would be not to spend a lot of time on that previous site plan review application particularly since it doesn't meet the inclusionary zoning requirements. And I would say I would agree that with that with Chris. The intent is to proceed with this the site plan review that we have before you and the previously submitted we've held to be withdrawn subsequent to that. Okay. Okay, great. Then. So for this particular design. I guess I'm wondering, the more I look at this and the more I think about it. I'm, I'm, I'm wondering a little bit more about whether I actually would, whether it would be smart on our part to ask for some sort of setback on the west end on the street frontage and you know, I'm less concerned about whether the people in the cemetery are seeing the building 10 feet closer. And I guess I'm just, I'm just thinking we might particularly if that retail space could potentially ever be a restaurant or something that you know how everybody spilled out onto the sidewalk during the pandemic. You know, so, so anyway, I'm wondering whether we might, it might be smart for us to set, maybe a setback of say 10 feet from the property line as the setback for the entire building. And then I'm also interested to know from the applicant. The overall width of the building is on its narrow dimension and what the impact would be of requiring the north side to meet the bylaw of 10 feet setback rather than the five feet that's been proposed. I'm interested in a in responses from my committee members or my board colleagues to the to the question about whether a setback on the street side would be supported. And I'm interested in hearing from Kyle on the north side impacts. Thank you. Hi, Kyle. Do you have any. Yeah, I would, I'd say relative to the, the side yard setback. We need to be clear that the bylaw states that no set side yard setback is required. If required, it's 10 feet. Right. So the reason for that is so you have access we have an easement to the north of this property. The building is 60 feet wide, and that allows you to have a double loaded corridor and efficiently provide the housing units that we desperately need relative to reducing. So reducing the square footage of the building in that dimension. Obviously we don't think is called for with an easement to the north of the building. I think reducing the square footage over all five floors of the building relative to the street. The number of units reduces number of affordable units. And again our bylaw allows for and calls for zero outlines on the street, which is the historic norm of every building facing the town common. Thank you Kyle, Maria. Thanks for the presentation and to sort of answered Doug's question about the west setback. I actually think you know we've come across this before where we need to really consider the location of the street curb and not necessarily property line because the sidewalk sort of wiggles and as it goes from parcel to parcel and I think with this right away there's actually quite a bit of pedestrian public space now and I'm, I'm pretty comfortable with that I that that's what the last meeting I was hoping to see was was presented tonight. It's literally just, you know how much of the right away can you give back to both the people using the building and the people walking past and this provides plenty of breathing rooms we look at the SVP site plan. So it varies from 20 feet to almost 40 as we go wider so I'm comfortable with the west where it is. As far as the north. We just don't know what's going to happen on that adjacent parcel and it really seems like this could set a precedent to lead to more, you know, density downtown so I'm not too concerned with the five because I feel, you know, the next project or whatever whoever it comes by, we'll take that to account and you know we'll either put their building or you know place accordingly as far as access and light and making it look appropriate for the creating this continuity that I think this project does actually lead to a complete project to itself. As far as just a touch on you didn't really ask about this though but just a touch on the cemetery so I agree I don't think that you know what's what's there now it's really an eyesore and so I think this is a great improvement to the east side of the parcel and I agree I'm not too concerned about getting further away from that fence, I think the loss of housing units would be more of a detriment to this project then that sort of space that would be created that's not really usable and is not really as much of the sort of, you know, downtown defining kind of edge that we're trying to make really great on the west. And just my only questions. Yeah the lighting looks fine. I appreciate the line plan that was sort of a missing piece from last time. And I guess this right away thing. I don't, I made me it's a question of course do we need to comment on it tonight, or can we just assume will be brought back and new more detailed plan. I'm not clear on the process for that piece but I really do appreciate having this sort of conceptual design for and I'm all for I think that's great it really adds so much to the project. So, that's it for now. Maria I have a question for you. What are your thoughts on the North facade and with the DRB thoughts on breaking it up. Again, it's a similar thing with you know we don't know what's going to happen on the adjacent parcel so it's, you know whether it creates a sort of urban space there or if it butts up against it we just, it's hard to guess that but for now, looking at it from a distance. It feels like it's broken up enough and has enough angles that they've done a nice job of breaking up that long facade on it. It's a tough conundrum for a lot of architects to break up, you know, we saw that at university drive with the long facade with the North and South facades and you really have to be creative to do that and I think they've done a nice job with the fenestration as far as breaking up and I think the DRB suggestion of the control to the line coming down will really help as well because it'll have this more sort of way of breaking up the facade you know instead of just curtains going you know whichever way they want. This will really help that facade look really tidy and very sort of. Yeah, a little more neat so I'd never I mean elevations again I think I mentioned are very abstract, you never see it on the flat like that and it makes it look really long when in fact that West facade is angling away from you know it's kind of an abstraction so it actually won't look that long the way that North elevations portrayed so I think the 3D perspective show it really well and yeah I don't have an issue with that north side. Okay. Thank you so we have Janet and then oh Chris I'm sorry but you front and then we have Janet and Andrew. I was just going to answer Maria's question about what the plain words role is with the right of way. So the planning board doesn't necessarily have a formal role with the design of the right of way because it's on the town property but the planning board could have a condition that asks to see the design of this right of way area as it evolves and then have have an opportunity to comment on it. So we could can condition it that way, if you would like. So Chris just thinking off the cuff here would be really nice. If they could kind of combine this right away work with the, you know bumping out the one he's pleasant pinch point there a little bit. Just put that in the hopper, but maybe it could be one one project. So, not that I'm volunteering to pay for that but. All right, thank you so Janet and then Andrew. So I would like to support what Doug has been saying and one of the things I was hoping to see and I, you know we could see is a picture of somebody standing at the make it the thing, the northwest corner if you're walking in for coming up the street, kind of at the corner what is what do they say, you know looking straight ahead looking at the building, you know, different perspectives on that because I think that what a lot of people have commented on architects and lay people is that sense of, you know, a really looming building right up on the street and I do appreciate the adding of the public way. I think it gets it, it really does make it feel more open, but I just don't think it's, it's going to be enough to prevent anyone standing there coming up feeling like this building really is pushing onto the street. And I think that you know I'd be, I think that side plaza doesn't seem to me like a workable space and if there was more space out front. The building was set back by 10 feet it could be more communal space there could be room for tables there could be room for you know seating that faces each other. You know, and I would actually recommend instead of just the trees which, of course I love trees is to add some, some planting some flowers. I think it's really about like the hanging block, and how inviting that is with kind of a mix of flowers and shrubs and trees. And you see people gathering there all the time and I think that would be a huge add to this area of town that really lacks any kind of public communal space, and maybe shrinking the plaza, and you know the side plaza and bringing it out front. I do think that this the setback, the 10 foot setback which is a requirement but does have a on it. And on the north side should be 10 feet I think on when he's pleasant when you look where the Bollyards are. That is a really narrow place for pedestrians to be walking along and I think about carrying bags or pushing a stroller or two people trying to pass each other through the directions and it's really I think about snow and you know an umbrella people just, it just seems way too narrow for people. And so, I think on the west side, if there was a 10 foot setback there'll be space for people to pass each other safely and in not in a kind of like we're getting by each other like rodents, and also this space for trees and, you know what one of the requirements is that when you have a residential building, joining commercial space that has vegetation and that's really missing here. And then 11 he's pleasant seems to be providing that vegetative buffer for one he's pleasant. And what he's pleasant also has a vegetative buffer on the other side and so it sort of softens, I think it will soften the facade. And I completely agree. I don't want to run on this huge run on paragraph but I do think the West perspective is just it to me it's just huge I mean I think it just feels like a big blocking mass, I have like an ocean liner feeling and I don't. I think there's been some attempt to tweak it but I think for us lay people just looks like a big box and you know, could you change the color of the first two floors to be the darker brick. You know, the design review board, some people suggested a step back for the first the front facade and the rear facade is there some way to make it look less like one big box. And so, so I would, I would support what Doug is saying, as to the front setback and the side setback. Thank you, Jenna. Andrew. Thanks, Jack. Thanks for the presentation Kyle. Okay, let's get a couple sort of thoughts here. So one I'm just, I wasn't at the last meeting so just, I appreciate sort of you responding to some of our earlier comments about the affordable housing and the added retail space so so thanks for doing that. I think the building is beautiful. I think that you know it's, it's, I like going after Doug and Janet because they often give me some additional thoughts. I think the west, the right way like I don't have any concerns that I think actually the glass will help make it feel much more open and airy than one is pleasant which to me is really like the large brick up on the sidewalk that you have to like avoid I think this actually might be might be kind of inviting I know we've said in the past like that we shouldn't consider Kendrick Park across the street really in the same conversation as this but I imagine that will be a lot of people who when they look at that green space. It's like literally across the crosswalk that that's being added there so I think that you could see some spill over there I suspect you'll see a fair amount given the number of housing units that are here. I thought the view sort of from the north. We had another rendering that kind of was from the west it actually seeing those renders actually made me feel more comfortable about this that it, like it literally closes a loop of money's pleasant, right. But it didn't, it didn't have the overbearing appearance which I was kind of worried about and I think like you would, you would often think that that's going to happen when you're putting a five story building here. I was, I was good with that. I think, you know Janet Ivan process and done your comments around the north, getting some vegetation there and having a vegetative buffer. I think that they're, I think that the building facade is is is is, you know, sort of pleasant and dynamic that it maybe could account for the fact that there isn't our trees planted in there but it would be really nice if we could get sort of even some something green there maybe some IV or something to that effect just to get get the vegetation without maybe requiring eating without putting a larger burden on setback because I understand you're you're you're juggling a pretty big math equation here to make all of the units fit to accommodate the affordable to accommodate the retail and fit it within the footprint. I was curious, I think there's some emails that went on this so apologize if I missed it but on the eastern building facade where their plans to put a mural or commission some artwork similar to what what's it when he's pleasant. Kyle. I don't think so. No, there's no plan for. Okay. Okay, I mean, I, I, the great significantly higher. Okay, I did not join the site plan yesterday so apologize for that I did go by today and I haven't been in the cemetery very much at all I thought that the mural was really nice but yeah it. It looks like a dumpster fire back there so I agree I think right now that Maria said it well in terms of anything's really an improvement I think it will will make it look much better there and just, yeah so the folks who reside in the cemetery will have a pleasant pleasant view. Overall, yeah I would say one, one question and a half I know that. Like, I know that we're in the municipal parking district but I was just curious like, where do you think I know you don't need to accommodate this but I'm curious where do you think people will park. And add on to that will just be. And we may get to this later and apologize if I'm getting out of turn is is the staging area and the pub building is is do you have a future plan in mind for those spaces as well and is that something that could potentially in the future become become parking for these residents. I, I, I pose that question as well. Okay, yeah, apologies if I have ever. Yeah. Yeah, so Kyle why don't you repeat your answer on that. Sure. So, the intent is not to have parking on the spot where the pub is a private parking lot is is not allowed in the bylaw, as I understand it as it would be there. Not our intent. I think that the people that live in this building will have, you know, options for parking or not having a car. And when you are attempting to do so much in such, you know, less than one half of 1% of the total landmass of the town of Amherst. In terms of all of the, you know, future housing pressure getting pushed there because of our bylaw that we have a whole bunch of things coming together. And parking is the thing that is in is secondary to housing. I think our housing crisis is such that we really need the units. I think that you're seeing that play out around the country in areas where there's a high barrier to entry and there hasn't been enough sufficient housing to meet demand. That those conversations are being had. Obviously there's the downtown parking permit, which we've all discussed many times and the relatively very low cost of that. And then there's, I imagine there's other options for folks who are here in terms of having a car not having a car using rideshare and so on. So relative to the north setback, I just want to restate that the bylaw allows for zero, zero foot, no setback, side yards in the entire BG. And the intent of that is to replicate what is around the town common, where there are buildings cheek to jowl next to each other 0000. It reflects a desire for density. It reflects the understanding of what a downtown BG district is which is dense and and pedestrian.  Yeah, unless you're bringing it into the front of the building. So in this case, we have an easement to the north. There's a 17 foot wide easement that serves the bank next door that is another property owner. And that is immediately north of this building so yes we have a five foot setback, but that five foot setback to the north that is a 17 foot easement, which remains open for access and and egress. Thank you, Tom, please. And then Janet. I just had a quick comment that kind of piggybacked on a lot of people's comments and a little bit of the DRB. I'm hearing Janet and Doug, in reference to some sort of front setback so here on the east side, the DRB had also talked about how do we get a little more space on that front public area, I think I heard Janet mentioned that. I guess what I would say is I don't want to set a precedent for needing a setback there because I'm actually not afraid of the building being flush at the upper level and maintaining an upper level streetscape. I do think in this case it would be nice to imagine what five to 10 feet on that lower level would look like I know would be sacrificing space somewhere, whether that's storage bike storage in the back somewhere or whether that's, you know, support space for the retail I don't know, but to give us an extra five or 10 feet on that front space at the ground floor. I would like to see that and again I don't, I don't think that we need that I don't think I would support a building setback there but I would support if the group if we decided to try to get more space on that ground floor. So Tom, I'm just one I'm not, I'm not. I'm not clear on what what you said there so we're setting back the retail facade, setting in pushing the retail facade inward to get more plaza space out front. Okay, not not the upper floors. No. Okay, I'm you're talking about pushing this line back here. Yeah, yeah. Which again I know we lose retail and I know there's a lot of comments about retail. But I think there's also a lot of public comment about that that that the feeling of being squeezed out into the road and I think that I can also imagine how people would use that space out front and mimicking your park benches across the way on in you know underneath that or hang could also draw people to the retail it's not really going to block a door here or there so anyway just just a thought about expanding that slightly and trying to figure out how you remedy that situation I would I would like to see that and wonder if other people support that. Interesting. Thank you Tom. Janet and then Maria. I'm a little confused. Like when I read the dimensional table three. It says basic minimum minimum basic minimum side and rear yard 10 feet in the BG. And then there's a footnote a which says that the board may reduce it under you know sort of hazy conditions and so to me it seems like the side setbacks should be 10 feet and that's a good good reasons for that and so also jumping a little bit into the special permit and away from the SPR. We do have the plenty where does have the. We can add a condition increasing setbacks, you know front side or whatever we can require greater than the minimum so I just wanted to point those two things out. In terms of pushing. So I actually think the building is too much too close to the front street but as to Tom's point about you know pushing back the retail I don't think that we need to lose retail. I think that is done because there's a lot of space in them, you know kind of the lobby space and kind of it looks, you know, to me that looks like that would be prime for more retail and I was going to later and I want to go through so many issues I think that we do need at least 40% of business space I don't know if it has to be retail it could be different kinds of offices. You know we don't want to lose that we're really really losing you know three or four businesses on this site and we're losing the pub on the site next door we've lost 12 with 15. We need to keep space for businesses and so, but I do think I do you know think that 10 foot setback in the front would be helpful. I'm sort of intrigued by Tom's idea of just moving the retail space back but I wouldn't want to lose that in fact I'd like to increase that. Maria please. I've been looking at my screen I haven't been following along a mouse but I'm a little confused about everyone's comments about the street side. I'm going to look at the FBE drawing and look at the scale of 20 feet and then look at the plan. It looks like there's 24 25 feet at the north end and then like I said earlier nearly 40 feet at the south end if you go from the corner of the building towards the street so I'm not sure where these pitch points are that people are talking about there. There are road ballers in the north and so there's that one sidewalk that goes to that door that goes into I think it was a lobby I'm on a different plan I'm on the FBE plan. So I guess with 20 feet I feel pretty comfortable that's not a pinch point unless I'm missing something because you can walk on the concrete sidewalk and you can walk on the right of way. What is that point to number three but I think what it is is those large granite per paper pieces so I'm, I'm, I guess I want clarity from the board like what do you mean by pinch point, because it's literally 20 feet north and then 40 some at the south. Maria I'm not sure that anyone mentioned a pinch point that I mentioned that for one he's pleasant but that that was not for this proposal, but not for 11. No, I don't think anyone saying that's a point here. I don't think so. Okay. Yeah. Okay, well then my other comment is that also what I'm saying is I don't know that we need to widen the space on the West by reducing them on retail I guess that. I was getting a sense of that we should push that West wall further east that only the first floor and I'm not clear on why we need to do that. And the other point I forget who said it but it was like saying that this project but filling in a missing tooth I think I think that's right on point because, you know, on the town common would have those big blocks where there are zero setbacks and it creates what everyone points to when they say what they love about downtown these two big block buildings. So I think that this project, you know, although it's not zero, it is continuing this sort of this continuity that creates a nice sense of place across from Kendrick Park. So, I mean, similar to Chris brush up findings, you know, I feel it's a very. It works really well with. Sorry. It does not create the harmony with this effect through the terrain to the use I mean, all the findings talking about the setbacks, saying that they don't create this harmony, and that they work with the existing use scale and architecture of the buildings in the vicinity. I agree with all of that and I would just hate to keep pushing and pushing the project smaller and smaller and losing more affordable units more housing units. I feel like we've seen the same project and that we've gotten more and more information and tonight we've got even more and in my mind I've gotten the information I need and I just, I think it's there. I know that there's some hesitation about the street, but with that right of way, I feel like that really resolves a lot of the issues about you know the pedestrian scale and how people experience this building walking past it. So, yeah, I feel like I, Jack, I do think some people did say, you know, like the West still needs more space me. I'm not sure I see that, honestly, so. Yeah, I mean I was just using the terminology pinpoint that I know I used, but it wasn't for this project but good comments Maria thank you so much. We have Chris did you have your hand up. Yes, I had my hand up but I don't remember why. Okay. Doug and then Janet. Yeah, I wanted to just say thank you to my colleagues on the board for their responses to my question, asking about the setback potential on the West side. You know, I, I don't, I'm not really sure I'm advocating that, but I thought it was worth talking about, because this is the time for us to, to make a decision if we wanted to do that. I certainly did get a lot of comments from a lot of people in, you know, in the public hearing parts of this, you know, this process, asking us to push, push the building back. So, thank you for that, for those responses and I'm, I'm, I'm not necessarily going to advocate for it from this point on. And then Kyle, I guess I will ask one question about the easement and that is, is that a perpetual easement that you and your team as owners of this project can retain in perpetuity. One question that's an existing easement that was put in place when the bank property was, as I understand when the bank property was split off from the other five properties that we're discussing. So that easement is in place, and it serves the bank, and we don't want to impose on that or impose on the bank in any way shape or form nor do we have the rights or desire to so there's no intent to change that existing easement. So you have acts that you have rights to pass in that easement, and that is that you retain as an owner of that property. Correct. So if you're driving in here, this easement serves the bank. It serves this property, which is four parcels, and it serves the parcel it's on which is the pub parcel. Okay, so, so no one can take that away from you. Correct. Okay, thank you. Janet. So, Doug, the easement could be extinguished if Harrison Street or bought that property. And so, you know, if they owned all the parcels they could extinguish that easement and kind of reconfigure things but that would be down the road. So they're not in this in the easement doesn't live forever necessarily but can live a very long time. So I think it would be useful to have pictures from that northwest corner, like what a pedestrian sees. And then also from pray street, because what other pets will see if we don't really have those views. I do appreciate the public space I do feel like it's still going to be sort of dark and looming. And, and obviously the building gets pushed back, or, you know, we have a 10 foot setback on the west side. There's less space inside the building there could be more units depending on the configuration. You know, maybe less probably less profit but so I just, I do think that I just think we should do the setbacks. I wonder also Jack this is sort of a thing I know we have a lot of people in the audience. So talking about the setbacks I haven't even talked about the rear setback so I want to like push that off. But would it make sense to take comment on this or are we going to have people wait to like the very end because we sort of have a, this is like a package here of public space. Yeah, I mean we've been having some very healthy discussions I think. I mean, I, I haven't really totally chimed in. I don't know that we've. I think Andrew Spogan Johanna, but I think we're very close to getting some public comment. But if I can say, you know I was intrigued by by Doug's proposal to move it back and then I think Tom had a, an interesting, you know, addendum to that. But it is, it is, you know, significantly wide open, similar to what we see, I think in the, in the other, you know, wider areas as you go toward Main Street, say in front of, you know,henyans and areas like that. Again, Kendrick Park is just right there. It just, it really, I think we'll have a very open feel to it with regard to this set the side setbacks.  I think it's going to be gorgeous with regard to the rear setback. I agree. It's like an eyesore dumpster fire.  And those trees will be replaced by you know younger trees but I do feel like aesthetically from the cemetery that you're going to have a very nice looking building compared to what we have now. And so I, I, you know, I think I'm okay with that 10 feet rear setback. And I guess that's just just some of my, you know, cursory comments on this at this point in time. So, did you want to, if I, if I could I Jack just quickly just to make sure there's been make sure everybody's aware that these this brick column and all the brick columns in the retail space as they rise up and go through that wood ceiling. There's LED lights around that column. So those columns are lit at the top. So it's a, it's a, it's intentionally a design feature that allows for this outdoor space to have a very pleasant ambient light. Downcast of course, correct. Janet. So the, the, the rear setback.  I think that the view from the cemetery of one East Pleasant Street 11 East Pleasant Street is just going to look like a canyon. And it's pretty shocking. I had some I was visiting the summit Emily Dickinson's grave with some friends and we just were, you know, looking at the cemetery we just turned around. And it was just I think one East Pleasant Street was being built and it was like we almost stepped back we just kind of reared back because it was seemed so such a contrast. And I think the Historical Commission pretty much agrees they, they kind of went along with the 10 foot set back but they preferred the 20 on the design review board. I don't remember her name I want to say Sean or Schwange, the architect kept on talking about a set a step back of the top floors to make it less kind of intense and so I also think if it was a 20 foot setback which as we know the requirement for that spot, it could be great space for the tenants there's no real space on this thing for people to sit. The plaza is kind of small the front plaza I think could be a place if it's bigger, but there's no real green space or outdoor amenities for the tenants in this in this plan. It's a great seating area for tenants. They could have tables they could you know have lights and the whole thing or you know whatever a place to go and I think the importance of a place to go. Most of us experience in our own homes but I think that you know I looked at one East Pleasant Street and I thought where do people go during the pandemic, I mean, I think in a possible place to go would be where the drain I have the wrong word where the sweat the water recharge area is that's a pretty big green space, but there's nothing on this site for people who live here to go anywhere outside and that's a requirement of site plan review and special permit. I love the idea of Kendrick Park is there but you know the landowner has to provide the space and Kendrick Park is an open after dark and so people can't do recreation there. They can't be on a in a winter's night or you know the sun goes down earlier and so I think that. So I just think the rear setback is a great spot for for the tenants and also to soften the impact of this very large building on a very historic cemetery. So if we zoom in on the rear setback issue we've gotten a couple of letters or memos one from KP law one from Kyle's attorney I don't want to mispronounce his name but Barowski perhaps, which, which I think are pretty convincing that that we are as a planning board, you know, within, you know, a safe area in terms of approving the 10 foot, the 20 foot. Again if it was prescriptive, it would not be coming in front of the planning board, I mean it would just brought more would be approving it and we'd be done, sort of thing but this is to the taking all an account. So I mentioned for term kind of opens it up that Joe Bard mentioned in his memo. So again that gives me, you know, some, some ease with regard to the decision to keep it at 10 versus trying to get more back there. And again I personally I've been in Amherst for 20 years I, I haven't been in that cemetery until this project. I know there's a lot of people are frequently, but, and it's a, it's a, it's a, I know it's a, it's a highlight for the town, because of its historic nature. But I'm just thinking of like cemeteries in downtown Boston that are dwarfed by who knows what, and, you know, that doesn't really, I don't think to track from these the historic nature of the cemeteries and people wanting to see things so I just, I mean, I don't know. So, Maria. Yeah, I totally agree that I think all those memos from the various councils with the f EL council completely convinced me that we, it's within our right to just sort of understand this project, the space limitations that has and yeah I'm fine with the latest rendering called image 001 showing it from the cemetery. It looks great. And I think stepping back the top floor would actually look like a mistake. I think if you were to look at the building from other angles, it would look like this sort of notch in this really sort of simple form, it would just kind of make it look like what why is that there you know kind of thing and so I feel like the attention on the street side is the most important and again, this is such a valuable, you know, amount of downtown has such minimal amount of usable, buildable space and to give it up to open space when Hendrick Park is there seems a little backwards but again, I don't think it would set a precedent saying you know other projects. Don't need to provide open space. It's just because this parcel so strange long and narrow that it really seems like it should be taking advantage of this adjacent open space and use its own parcel for as much sort of amenities for the people on the site people walking by the site, people, you know, sitting outside on that sort of town right away space. Yeah, I think that those are my two points on end of this. Yeah, and, yeah, I did and I, I mean I don't I know, you know, there's many neighbors that that utilize the cemetery I don't want to say it's again I, I'm impressed by that it's I didn't see very many people there when we were on the site visit, you know, but it is, it is a resource, but if I'm in the cemetery I'm kind of looking at the gravestones and I'm not looking along the perimeter of a cemetery that's not why I'm there. And it's just, you know, it's rich with regard to, you know, the things that cemeteries bring in terms of history. But hey, I'm, I'm wondering if now would be a good time to take a short break and kind of like kind of regroup, get some public comment unless there's, you know, probably about time for that but let's take a little recess and come back at, you know, around, you know, 810 does that sound good. So everyone just take their video off, put themselves on mute, and we'll reconvene Maria is your hand up still or you may not be back check. Okay, I'll just lower it. I can never see Maria or her hand so I'm so happy you can. Yeah. Well you can't see it Pam. I've been having star nine and sometimes it goes through and sometimes it doesn't. I'm sure with star nine I don't know that you can actually lower it. No problem. Oh, well, if you can lower it for me that'd be great. I, I've been toggling mute with the mute button but I didn't know I might be able to just hit start nine again. You're doing a great job Maria what is like a clock. Oh my god. Yeah, but I'm currently making a pot of coffee so I can go another two hours no problem. Yeah, I had like a four hour long hike today to some physically and mentally. This is worth it to me. So, yeah. Keep going. I'll take a long map tomorrow. I want to have what do you call it attendees. I have no sense of that. Oh, there's 10. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you asked for an attendee and no you're not you're a panelist. No, just a quantity. Okay. So we got everybody back I believe. So Pam you want to flip us back. I am, I am flipping us back. I'm just looking to make sure I see everyone except for Maria but I know she's here because I hear her so. Okay, don't carry on. Okay. So we're returning from from a short break here and I would like to open this up to public comment and give people chance to raise their hands. Hi, I'm Rooney, number one. So Pam, why don't you begin. And set your name and address please. Hi, Pam. Hi Pam, Pam Rooney 42 cottage street thanks for letting me speak. I have a couple questions and then maybe people could respond after I finished. I heard one East pleasant street mentioned in something about maybe widening the green space. Who pay for that is that actually a project underway, and hopefully the town doesn't have to pay for that mistake. Mr Wilson, could we see the, the North facade please one of those images that you had up was really helpful, or whoever is whoever is. Do you like to see Pam, if we could see the the images again of the building, and there was a great image, a recent one of the North facade of the building from where the show the bike rack, show the bike rack. Probably from North pleasant street or East pleasant street. Do you want to do that or do you want me to try. I could do it. Okay. Thank you. It's easier to talk about it as, as we see it. So, oh, Pam, since there's a little there's a pause here. Perfect. The one East pleasant street I mean Chris can correct me but that was that was built consistent with the zero offset so there was no mistake there, but you know perspective wise. I thought I thought I thought I heard some discussion about maybe the town was going to be. I'm not sure you're rating that that horrible situation, but maybe I just threw that out there is like on my wish list, you know, but it would be on that I would be on the town's nickel, there's not a mistake by. It was reviewed. So thank you Mr Wilson for showing this image. In all of the public meetings that we've, that we've been listening since May I think there has been a concern expressed by many, many people that the North facade of this building is pretty massive. And sadly, I have not heard any or seen any ramifications or or modification of this plan by the architects to actually respond to some of those concerns. There's a slash that you describe which in this picture is completely blocked by it by the bank so it's insignificant as far as a spatial defined definition, and it occurs to me that even if you took your grazing and utilize the grazing as the material for the fourth or fifth floor that it would in fact help break up some of that height and width of facade and I'd like to have the word discuss something like that that seems like a very low cost change that would actually affect some something we have a there's a there's a 15 foot high or 12 to 15 foot high brick wall on that North facade that the pedestrians have to walk along. And again it's just, I would love to see some movement from archipelago to address the issue of this bulkiness and the blockiness and nobody seems to be holding your feet to the fire. The question that if there was another good image that I think Mr jumpsick described as a wonderful green alley, going between 11th Pleasant Street and one East Pleasant Street that that a doesn't really reflect what your new plan shows so it's a little misleading. But it occurs to me that, in fact, because 11 East Pleasant Street doesn't really get to utilize this strip of green the strip of Armstrong maples on its south side, it is really all to the benefit of 11 of one East Pleasant Street. And that's the whole building. Since, since you refuse to give up the set that the side setbacks, let's take, let's take the south setback and make it zero, or, or five, and let's make the north side, the 10 foot setback as it should be. And that is the side that the public will actually see the public will not see the benefit or get the benefit of this green alley. On the south side of the building so let's flip it and give the public actually something that it can see from a distance, which will help soften that huge north facade. Lastly, I guess the, the interpretation of, of section 9.22 which allows, you know, a full override of non conformity. I know the town has put this some good use, but it concerns me greatly that 9.22 can be used in any case where there is a non conforming use in, in some cases, even to allow inappropriate uses or setbacks that cannot be really controlled by a board so I would love to hear some feedback on this very, very broad general interpretation of 9.22. Thank you. Okay. One, we have Kyle. If you're willing to speak to some of those points. I think that obviously the intent. We have a 80 foot wide site. We've got a 60 foot wide building. It's really hard to create a situation where there's a new view back to the cemetery that currently does not exist because the Piper building blocks it and all of Cousins Market blocks it so we've in worked hard to, to provide that I think that the trees obviously serve both buildings serve the courtyard and will obviously be apparent by the pedestrians on the street and anywhere in the, in the rendering here. Okay. And you have Nina. Nina, state your name and address. Hi Nina. Hello, Nina while 103 high street and immersed. Thank you. I actually have one question first and Kyle I'm not quite sure if you're from archipelago or from the architectural firm that designed the building. He's archipelago. Okay, and who, who, who are the architects who designed the building. Kyle. They're shown on the plants here motor studio. Yes, and I can't read the address or anything I've no idea they're in Fayetteville, Arkansas. They're in Arkansas. So I guess I, I also was wondering why, why we can't use a more local architect. We've done a national design award for housing. We've, we've worked with them based on their broad experience and and skill. Okay. So I, all I really want to talk about is the West facade and I, I agree a lot with what Janet McGowan was saying. I actually feel there is a bit of a pinch point right there at that North West corner where the lower level comes almost flush to the facade of the rest of the building and the sidewalk cuts back toward the building. So to me, that, that is kind of a pinch point. And I do want to say something about the whole front plaza. In the rest of downtown, we have curbside parking.  But stationary cars are much quieter than moving cars. Stationary cars kick up less dirt and dust than moving cars and create a little sense of buffer and safety. So even though I really do appreciate that there's been a big effort to enlarge that public space. I still feel it's a bit skimpy, especially that pinched corner, it kind of funnels in and just when you kind of want it to be gracious and open and inviting. I'm a little concerned about the big overhang at the West. South corner with that big round column, but maybe, maybe that would work for retail. And I'd like to see the first floor plan and just see how much retail, there is, if we could see the floor plan of the ground level. Do you want to do it as public comment come in or do you want me to do it all kind of at the record. I think we're doing well with just, you know, one on one here. So is all the pink retail. We have listed the 1700 square foot retail space we have 500 square foot back a house we have a leasing lounge leasing fitness parcel bike and hot water electric storage trash and service all in pink. I see, we have a lobby and affiliated spaces and hallways in yellow and then we have residential units in blue. So the lobby is this facing facing the south this, that's the main lobby entrance facing south there. Yeah, and the interest is right below it right there. And there's one to the north, you can come into the lobby either side. Uh huh. So you kind of point out a circle. I'm drawing a circle around is that the retail. Yes, that that is 1700 square foot retail and 500 square foot back of house that would serve. Okay. So that's probably for one client. I see you. One tenant, hopefully yes. All right, well thank you, Nina. Thank you. Thank you very much. Elizabeth Verling please state your name and address. Yes, this is Elizabeth Verling at 36 Cottage Street. Thank you for recognizing me. I've already stated this in letters that I've written to various people but I'm, I just wanted to say that I think the, the view of the north side, and also the views of the, the view of the public way are somewhat misleading in the sense that knowing that I walk by this routinely multiple times a week. Basically this space is no wider than what is in front of that northwest corner of one is pleasant which is not very much. I just wanted to reiterate what Miss Wilds just said is that those benches are basically sitting where buses are going to be pulling in. If I understand correctly where, where they stand so I don't think those benches are going to be very appealing right there up against the street. And that national standards on national standards are for eight foot sidewalks in this type of area. So maybe the fact that we have six foot sidewalks for the town is just because these are old regulations and we should be rethinking, I also just wanted to say that I don't think that I think the idea of saying, oh, this is just the same kind of buildings that are up against the sidewalk in the AJ Hastings block. That's really not the case. In that block we have multiple small storefronts. The ground floor is broken up from the upper floors and those buildings are only three stories tall. So this is a very different look and feel. And I really would like, you know, Doug Marshall and Janet McGowan to push more for additional setback, which I think would make this front space be able to have more green than just trees sticking out of the great. And I find it a little bit disingenuous that the zoning bylaws are applied when they're convenient and they're not applied when they're not convenient, like the 20 foot setback from the, from the cemetery. I agree that I don't care if we give another 10 feet to the cemetery, but I would like to give another 10 feet to the public. And that would also be setback consistent with the spoke and with the former buildings. So let's use becoming whatever it's becoming. That would be more consistent with the setback on those buildings. So rather than using one of these pleasant as the precedent for setback. Let's use the setback on these other buildings. I realize it's the same setback as the bank, but the banks only one story. That's way different than five stories. So, thank you. And I see no other hands from the public at this time. So, turning it back to the board. I see Janet's hand and then Doug's hand. No, your hands not up right Kyle. No. All right, Janet please. Um, so I know this is it's hard to kind of manage the topics at these, these kind of hearings but going to the legal analysis by KP law. I was perplexed and a little befuddled by the two emails from KP law. So what I was hoping for was what I think of as a regular legal analysis, which is what does the statute say, what does the bylaw say, what are the cases say, what are the legal standards that we should apply and then have these legal standards apply to the facts that we have. And so, and then you can figure out possible outcomes and so that that's what I was looking for. I know I had a wide net of questions but they were all. Hopefully they would have been answered in that normal kind of legal analysis. I also know that people don't like to answer my questions which is why I keep asking them because I asked them with purpose. Um, so I would love to see a better and more clear legal analysis I found it really hard to read the, I read the first email and I was like, huh, you know and I had to go back and look and I've done some research in this area read cases or read Kowski's section on this several times. I read enough to know that I needed to do more research and then I also realized that's not really my job and no one's paying me. So I was hoping that KP law could provide some depth and a little more clarity about 9.22. I know that the town is using this kind of as a way of what I see is possible a possible incorrect expansion of what could be should be allowed for non conforming buildings and so to me that's a real this is an important understanding and analysis. And after I read, so I was actually very confused and I read the second email and I was like, you know this is too late in the afternoon, I can't sort this out. And so I, I think that people are lay people reading those emails could think oh it's okay. And I don't know how anyone could say why, with any understanding of the law and so I would love to get to kind of do a do over and get sort of a more clear sort of a traditional legal memo on this topic of I was left wondering after reading these like when would variants ever be needed and, you know, it's, you know, can, you know, is, can we just take any non conforming building and build anything in its place and there's never a reason to go for a variance and I know that's not true and so I would love to see a more clear legal analysis that everyone can understand including me. And so, you know, I just, I don't, I don't know if I can get a do over or just something a little bit more clear and traditional in terms of a legal memo on this. I didn't, I'm not trying to like push a point to say, you know, to say no, I don't know when I would say no and when I would say yes based on those two emails was coming kind of late in the day. Okay, well, I mean, I'm not an attorney like you are Janet but I do know that the way it's written. And I'm looking at KP laws thing that that we can, we can deliberate like we're doing now and decide whether, you know, it's acceptable or not when it's not 20 foot. I think, I think we got a clear path from the town's attorney. I mean I don't know I don't, I don't need additional research, you know, personally. But maybe the other board members, you know, feel differently, but I have Doug and then Maria. Doug. Yeah, I guess I, I'm, I'm not in a position to answer Janet's question. I guess I would expect Chris to be the one to tell us whether what she received from the town attorney is all we could reasonably expect from that attorney or whether. You know, that attorney just decided to send it in an email form because of time constraints or something else. But the comment I was going to make was, I guess a follow up to Elizabeth Veerling's comment. And that is probably also a question for Chris. Whether whether this section of East Pleasant Street is ever likely to have or be able to accommodate parallel parking by vehicles along the travel way. And also, actually I can't remember my second, my second question. Oh actually yeah it was about the width of the sidewalk because I also find the six foot sidewalk to be kind of. Skimpy or, you know, minimal and just extending that width from East from one East Pleasant Street I would hope that we could eventually get to an eight foot sidewalk. And maybe that's part of refining the improvements in front of the building, which I would be looking for when this comes back to us. Thank you. Thanks Doug. Maria. Oh, excuse me Chris first and then Maria. Chris you're muted. Sorry. I did ask Joe Bard for an analysis I sent him Janet's questions I sent him questions of my own and he came back with what he sent us which is essentially that it's really up to the board to decide and if the board can make a finding on what is being proposed is not more detrimental to the neighborhood, then that can support the reduced setback on that side it can support the declaration that it's a reconstruction of a non conforming structure. We do have Marco Browski here who represents the applicant. Unfortunately, we don't have Joe Bard here I think he's up in a plane somewhere coming back from California I did speak with him this afternoon. But we do have Marco Browski here and if we wanted to question him about this he may have some insight. What was the other thing. Oh six foot sidewalk versus eight foot sidewalk. I think it's legitimate for the planning board to ask the applicant to install an eight foot sidewalk if that's what you would like to see. I think what the applicant was trying to do was match the existing town sidewalks at either end but if you would prefer to have the eight foot sidewalk in here and less sidewalks that could be accomplished so you can make that recommendation and that suggestion. And then there's a parking thing as well right. Oh, so I haven't seen any plans for that portion of East Pleasant Street but the DPW was always making plans for different parts of town and I know there have been comments that East Pleasant Street is very wide in that location and it could be that DPW is thinking about putting parallel parking spaces on one side or the other, but I haven't seen those plans myself. Okay. Thank you Chris Maria and then Andrew. Oh, did you want to let Mark speak or no. Oh, Absolutely good point. He is here. Yeah, I think that if Mark, you know, Mark can provide some depth if, if that would be helpful. I think that the letters that have been written have done that but if you'd like Mark to opine he could. Yes, it would be very helpful I believe. Mark. Thank you Mr Chairman. I call your attention to the wording first of the bylaw which is in section 9.22. The first sentence doesn't seem to be applicable here it talks about non conforming use of a building to be changed to a specified use so it's more focused on uses. The second sentence says said authority may also authorize under a special permit non conforming use of a building structure of a building structure or land to be extended, or non conforming building to be structurally altered in large store reconstructed the authority finds such in this case reconstruction shall not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Then the existing non conforming use or the non conforming building so what the court is saying there specifically with regard to non conforming buildings is that they can be quote reconstructed. The whole question turns on the issue of what does reconstruction means. As I said in my memorandum this was the focus of a case that Judge Trombly had at the Land Court back around 2000 2001, and it made its way up to the appeals court neighbors on Nantucket claimed that a building could be reconstructed only if it was placed on its original footprint, and not in any bigger area. And I directed that and the quote that the court provided is that reconstruction simply means the actor process of rebuilding recreating or reorganizing something citing blacks dictionary. There's nothing implicit. I'm still quoting the court in the meaning of the term or its use in the bylaw that excludes reconstructing a structure at a different site. As I said in chapter six of my book and I'm this often locks me into a position that I really can't change because it's available in the fourth edition. This allows reconstruction of a building after voluntary demolition not just after catastrophic demolition, and it's been used to great advantage back here in the capital of tear down, which is basically every city around where I live in Concord Lexington, and the communities around 128. Thank you, Mark. And again, we're, we're actually increasing the setback from what the current setback is as. Yes, the court addressed that in the glidden case. They were improving the setback the neighbors argued that it the building had to be shrunk until it conformed. Mark said that the argument and said that the building could be relocated. And because it was relocated in great greater conformance it met the test that you have in section 9.22. Thank you Mark. Marie, then Andrew and then Janet please. I was going to basically say that in my experience on working on residences and East Hampton North Hampton, South Deerfield, basically almost a town city around here. It's exactly that it's, if there's already a non conforming structure, and direct to setback, you can rebuild anything you can add a whole story you can enclose it as long as you don't increase non conformity and this is my experience for residences I had with commercial, but that's how all these towns have been interpreting that and, in fact, one town, I forget which one it was, was it was just, it wasn't a very it was just the administrative review I just needed to show the original footprint and then show what the new project was going to be on that original footprint and it didn't need to go to a planning board of any kind so the concept the same. I just each town city has a different way of treating it, but that's exactly how I read it and how I've been using it in my sort of over a decade of working here is that as long as you're not increasing the non conformity, you can, you know, add a whole another floor and change all the exterior. And I guess to that point also as long as it's not more detrimental to the adjacent properties but yeah I haven't proposed anything like that I hope so but thanks for that that was very good as far as sort of clarifying the memos we got because like yeah most of us are not attorneys and it just sort of went over our heads but as far as just the use of it as an architect I have definitely used it the way that was explained to us just now. And it replaces a very unworkable case that was coin of the realm for years called Loma list I don't remember the town but in that case the court ruled that you had to leave one wall standing and the court actually ended with a fight between neighbors and the proponent, when he says the wind blew the wall down and they said he pushed it over. So this is a whole lot better world. Yeah. Thank you Maria. Andrew and then Janet. Yeah. So, Chris I was curious about that, the eight foot. If we did go to a foot sidewalk. That would presumably add two feet to not to the west, or could it be done. Could that sidewalk replace the papers. When you're on mute. The sidewalk could replace part of the pavers. Okay. Yeah, I think that might be worth looking into I, because there's hard to get there and papers I think like it'll be still fine for path of travel but I don't know. Just from an ADA perspective it might be nicer to have the, the, the, the eight foot just may make it easier for two folks in mill chairs to pass. But I do like that idea I think that a six foot is exceptionally narrow. So I'd be supportive of making that request. Thank you, Andrew. Janet, please. So, um, I appreciate the information provided by attorney Borowski and for him. I know that he's an expert in this field I also know we always seem to wind up talking about residential cases, which is not what we have here. I think I'm trying to say sort of gracefully is, I would like KP lot to present us with a memo, a legal opinion that presents that does the legal analysis that I had been looking for originally and he and presenting it, you know, representing the board and in our effort, not a particular client. So, I mean I can start talking about cases and language and I just don't want to go there I just, I think we need our town attorney to, to present to us clearly what the standards are. And please let's not talk about residential tear downs because that's not what we have. And we don't know if, I mean, has the non conformity increased. That's an actual question. This, this building, you know, so that's, so we haven't done that analysis substantially more detrimental we can discuss that. But let's start let's start off from a legal presentation from our attorney that I find comprehensible and easy to understand. I'm trying to be diplomatic and say I think that was a very poor presentation of information by KP lot. I didn't appreciate it at the last minute. I didn't really, I had trouble piecing together two different emails and the cases. There are key cases in this area we don't know what they are because no one's, you know, all of them. We don't have to go through every single one but there is a way of establishing what the statute says, what the by law says, what the cases say, setting up a legal framework for analysis and then we apply the facts of this case to those standards and I don't understand that yet. And I think we need to from somebody who's not representing somebody but representing us and our effort to figure out 9.22 which seems to be, I'm concerned that we're using it way too expensively and, you know, we're basically going into the area of variances it's very unclear to me when, you know with the non conforming building, you'll be going in front of the ZBA with a variance. And I think we need to understand that. We need to ask KP lot to do a memo, which is I think we were asking weeks and weeks ago for. Yeah, I don't know.  I don't know. It seems like there's, you know, it's it. We, there are waivers that we that we can allow and I think, you know, I test back, you know, viewing from the cemetery we've done the rendering back there. I don't know how it's going to, you know, improve in terms of getting rid of the buildings there that and and and all the trash and all that that is that is there but I'm pretty happy with interpretations today, the, you know, in my, my opinion. Maria, is your hands still up probably not. No, I did I raised it while you're okay. I need more. I'm sorry. I agree. I don't feel like I need more attorney research or information. I feel like I have a fact I need. Very good. Thank you. Any other comment from the board. Jack, can I. Yes, what can we just hold on one moment I had gotten a message that Chris was having power issue but I see her back now. Chris, can you hear us okay. I can hear you it seems that I wasn't completely plugged in. I'm very sorry about that. Okay, I'm plugged in. Thank you. Okay, perfect. Johanna, did you have your hand up. Yeah, okay. Yeah, I've been toggling back and forth. Sorry. Okay. You know, I think my reading also not a lawyer, but basically KP law says we as a board are empowered to make this decision and I, I personally don't think we need to spend more town resources to get more clarity on that like that seems pretty clear to me. So, I am kind of with Jack and Maria on that. Let's not send them down an expensive wild goose chase if we don't need to. Thank you. All right, well we're at the point.  I know there are some fine points that were that we could discuss more.  So does this mean that we're, we will close the hearing and then go on to discuss conditions like requiring 40% of retail of, you know, commercial or business. I mean, I don't understand where we are. Well, no, no one has made a motion. Are you interested in other news that people have other. Do you want to ask the board if they have any other questions or issues. Well that's I'm looking at I don't see hands up. So that's why I said that because I didn't see a lot of traction for further discussion so Chris. I see Dorothy Pam's hand up in the public realm. We wanted to grab her. Okay. Dorothy. Dorothy. State your name and address of course. 229 Amity Street Amherst, Dorothy Pam. I just want to make a brief comment, which is when a lawyer says it's up to the group. That means to me as a person of the public, not a lawyer. That it's not by right, it's not clear and there's an area that you can decide, but I'm concerned about precedent. And this particular planning board might feel very happy with how they're working. But they should think about other planning boards, other members, and would they be happy with them having that total discretion. I mean, I know we have to do this, we have to do that. I mean, I just think, are we the idea that because something existed and was non conforming you can knock it down and then put up something that's not conforming its place is kind of magical thinking. I'm not saying it's not illegal, but it's magical. Is that the kind of precedent you want so that that's just my comment there. Thank you. Thank you. And Maria. Oh, I didn't know how to lower my hand. But do we normally go through fine. Well, do we normally go through findings with where we go through all the sessions or I forget what the next one. So we do a motion first or to go through findings. Maybe Chris. Yeah, Chris. So I think it would be useful to go through findings and conditions before you close the public hearing because then if you need new information you can get the new information if you close the public hearing then you can't accept any new information.  Yeah, I think Chris has explained to me I was one question I had after last week's meeting was whether. You know, closing the hearing means we simply don't hear from the public anymore, or whether we can't obtain or create any additional analysis as we deliberate. So my understanding is that you can ask for clarifications on things that you can't receive new information on new testimony so my. But could I as a board member create new information that I then share with the board. No. Okay. Then I then I guess I would support going through the findings now. Okay, so either Chris or I could could do that but I imagine Chris you have a better handle on on the drafts. Are you okay with doing that Chris. Sure, do you want to go through the findings first and then. Okay, but Jan has got her hand up and. And then we can do it. So, I would just. I would like to see a better legal opinion from KP law or another attorney outside council I don't want and I appreciate my Mr Barowski's very short memo and, you know, argument in support of his client I just don't know that we know enough about whether what's going on but when you reach go for a variance when it's okay to, you know, do the 9.22 by special permit. We don't even know if this is increasing the non conformity or not. I don't know what the cases hold, you know, and I actually, I just want to be very honest with you. This is, I'm a lawyer, and I've been looking at this, and I've been getting the email and I just don't. I don't think we've gotten good legal advice from our town council I hate to say that I don't think it's clear. I think it's clear that everybody thinks it's okay to proceed. I think we have the information we need legally and also just in terms of what is the non conformity and blowing up a building by 10 that might that probably increases the non conformity is just okay.  I should ask an outside attorney. I know KP laws on retainer. I just don't want a bunch of late afternoon emails that don't really make that much sense to me. Kind of like hey, you know here's here's my thinking off the top of my head. I want to know what the law says, I would never hand this into anybody, what we've received. Kind of like not to be ignored by more than members, you know, for my professional opinion. I find it kind of insulting. Yeah, but I think we talked about a scenario just leaving what all that awful building back there and actually reconstructing using that existing facade. Who would want that. And again we're planning for that's not what the cases say. Doug. Yeah, I guess it seemed, I guess the legal cases aside. The level of whether we're increasing the non conformity. Wouldn't that be something that between the planning staff and us, we could decide. You know, I might start by asking Chris for her analysis of the existing non conformity versus how this new building might not conform. Chris. So the existing building is about one foot one and a half feet from the property line at one point. And it's about seven feet from the property line at another point. So that's pretty close. This proposal is to have the entire building be 10 feet from the property line. So I do not view this as increasing the non conformity in order to increase the non conformity you would have to have part of the building be at least as close or closer than the existing buildings which this is not. I think it's clearly not increasing the non conformity. Rob more is here in the wings if you wanted to ask his opinion he's the zoning enforcement officer for the town and he could probably be brought over as a panelist if he would agree to that and. Yeah, if he would. Yeah, because I know he, you know he was the kind of like the front line there in consideration of what would be reasonable. And I think he was okay with the five foot. You know within the initial proposal. Yep. So, Rob if if you are willing. We'd love to bring you in and just kind of give your perspective on this. We could measure it. Yeah, yeah, Jack, I'm here now Rob more building commissioner so yeah and you know I did make the recommendation to the applicant originally to when I saw the original proposal at five feet. And that they have this path to to make this application through 9.22 so that is where it all started. Obviously since then they've decided to increase that rear set back to 10 feet. But you know we've used this over and over again I've used it in other communities in similar ways and I think KP law, you know as as general and basic as the opinion or the information that was provided does what it was what it needed to do for tonight and I think it's very generous that the path is there. And that's what we were really, you know, looking to confirm with with Joel Bard is that 9.22 can be used in this way and I think he points out that our bylaws even more generous than than than state law, and that this isn't the only area that it does that so our bylaw is very inclusive by you so it doesn't matter what's being proposed my job is to find a place for it, even if the bylaw doesn't specifically say that this can be done here in a particular zoning district I have to find a way for it to fit. And that's different from other bylaws that say if it's not specifically listed it's prohibited. And there's just another way that our bylaws consistent and being more generous and open to these opportunities so I do want to address I know Janet has mentioned a couple of times what's what's a variance one is a variance use because we, we, we don't need it often in Amherst like like we would, or we have in other communities that I've worked in and see all the time is that we have this 9.22 and if there's a non conforming situation that exists. That's when 9.22 works if there wasn't a non conformity that existed, then the only option would be variants so you know, if, if the setback was non conforming but the lot coverage wasn't. We would not have the opportunity under 9.22 to vary the lot coverage above our minimum standard that would require a variance. So everything that's being asked for here tonight with this application is either modifying adjusting reconstructing however you want to look at it, a non conforming setback, which is what 9.22 was designed to do. So my last attempt on this is just say we should accurately measure the current non conforming setback, because it's, it's not just one foot or seven feet it's different at different points. But I sort of give up after that I just think we should have at least a common set of facts to work off of. I would like to have a common set of legal standards and principles but that at least we understand. Chris. There's a surveyed plan that's stamped by SVE associates and they are surveyors and engineers, and that's what I used to measure the setback so if someone could bring up that plan that might be helpful in helping us to sort out what the existing setback is. It's one of it's one of the first SVE plans perhaps Kyle to bring that up. It's part of the civil set. There it is. And if he zeros in on the area at the back of the building. There's that one place that is towards the south that's a little corner of the building jetting out near the property line. And that is about one and a half feet based on my measurement I used to scale to measure that and then further up where the other corner is that's about seven and a half feet I think. So, both of those points are closer than the 10 feet which is currently being proposed and this is a surveyed plan. And so I think we should believe it. I would also add one he's pleasant as five feet back. What about the spots that are farther than seven feet and 10 feet on the back of the building. Those don't count. It's just ever is closest. Okay. Thank you. So Chris, why don't, why don't we go over your draft findings. Okay. These are findings that relate to the building project 11 and 13 East Pleasant Street and we're addressing the required findings under section 11.2 for the zoning bylaw. So I will read these slowly and pause after each one to see if anybody has any problems or questions. So the first one is 11.2 400. The project is in conformance with all appropriate provisions of the zoning bylaw. The second has applied for a special permit to modify the site setback and height requirements under footnote a of table three, and has applied for a special permit to allow a 10 foot setback rather than a 20 foot setback on the eastern side of the site under sections 6.141 and 9.22 of the zoning bylaw. The second one is 11.2 401 town amenities and abutting properties will be protected through minimizing detrimental or offensive actions. The proposed use of the property is unlikely to create detrimental or offensive actions. Exterior lighting will be downcast and will not shine on to adjacent properties or streets. The second one is 11.2 402 abutting properties will be protected from detrimental site characteristics resulting from the proposed use. Again lights will be downcast and or shielded. 11.2 403 provision of adequate recreational facilities open space and amenities has been addressed because the proposed project is located in downtown Amherst, across the street from Kendrick Park, a public open space. The second one is adjacent to the West Cemetery and other public open space. The adjacent the applicant is proposing to make site improvements to the public right of way in front of the property along East Pleasant Street including tree planting seating and a bicycle rack. And the applicant is proposing a generous landscaped area and a small sitting area to the south of the proposed building. 11.2 410 unique or important natural historic or scenic features will be protected. Although a line of existing trees will be removed as part of the building project. Historic West Cemetery which lies to the east of the proposed building will be protected with a relocated fence to be located along the property line, and a row or rows of new trees planted along the property line with the cemetery. The historical commission has reviewed this project with respect to protecting the West Cemetery and has made recommendations, which have been forwarded to the planning board members. So we have a hand up. So yeah, everyone chime in for, you know, to be a discussion. I saw Janet and then dog. I think that we ever since I've been on the planning board jumping back to provision of adequate. I've lost track 11.2 403 provision of adequate recreational facilities open space and amenities. So I've never seen us look to another park or another facility for this and when you think of the word provision you think you provide it and so we have covered onsite spaces for recreation. I know there is I think there's a recreational spot inside this building but I'm not quite sure remember that I do think we need some more open space like the designer view board has recommended more space for the plaza or combining that with the front plaza. And then I think we could do, you know, seating or outdoor space in the, I can't I'm always forgetting the name the area for stormwater recharge or the holding area. That also could be a space so I'd like to see those sort of discussed I don't want to say Kendrick Park is nearby so we don't have to do it. You know, I think that's a bad precedent. Kyle. I don't recall what the amenities within the building are. I think we should talk about those if we're going to talk about it. May I just say something. Yes, for both Kendrick place and for one East Pleasant Street Kendrick Park was used as an available open space and we're talking about dense downtown development and it's not very common to have a green open space on properties in in the dense downtown development, if, especially if they are surrounded by which is in this case it is surrounded by publicly owned open space so the board has in the past talked about the fact that properties are across from Kendrick Park and that provides the open space that is talked about in 11.2 403. Doug, every hand up. Yeah, I think I would probably word this differently to to say that and sort of key off of the word adequate. I think the fact that Kendrick Park and West Cemetery exist in the immediate proximity of the of the project allows me at least to to feel that what is adequate is much less than a project that didn't have those amenities in the vicinity. So I feel like what's been proposed is adequate, partly because yeah it's a downtown, you know apartment building and doesn't really, or mixed use building and doesn't really need a lot of open space but, you know, rather sort of basing the conclusion that everything is adequate off of those I just say, because those exist. We, we felt that the minimum adequacy was less than in a situation where they didn't exist. I would prefer just keying off what they're actually providing. There's there's an exercise room. There's a probably too small plaza. And there could be there's there is green space on site that can be used. I mean I think you can talk about one East Pleasant Street and Kendrick place but I think that one of the problems with those buildings is those people have no green space they have no place to go outside and you can't wander around Amherst parks all night. You can't have one out. You can't have a beer in one, you know. So, what am I going to do here. I would just, I would just refer to what they're actually providing.  I can get the, what Doug said and what Janet said together and come up with something. I don't know now but I will do that and when I send out the decisions on people can write back to me and tell me if they agree with what I've said. Sounds fair Chris thank you. Okay. Do you want me to read this are you how you doing with your voice and I think I can get through this one and then read the next one. Let's see. Let's see. We were on unique or an important natural features. In 2410 unique or important natural historic or scenic features will be protected. Although a line of existing trees will be removed as part of the building project the historical West Cemetery, which lies to the east of the proposed building will be protected with a relocated fence to be located along the property line and a row or rows of new trees planted along the property line with the cemetery. The historical commission has reviewed this project with respect to protecting the West Cemetery and has made recommendations, which have been forwarded to the planning board members. 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 plans and has issued a letter of comment dated April 30 2021, a condition of the site plan review approval will require that the project comply with the town engineers comments and recommendations outlined in his letter. 11.2413 the proposed drainage system within an adjacent to the site will be adequate to handle the stormwater town engineer has reviewed the project and has issued a letter with comments and recommendations. Condition of the site plan review approval will require that the project comply with the town engineers comments and recommendations outlined in his letter of April 30 2021. 11.2414 provision of adequate landscaping has been addressed. The project includes new plantings on site as well as proposed new plantings in the town right of way. 11.241. Do we feel that do we have like a landscape plan that we we think is adequate or will that come later because I think there's been a lot of discussion about the plantings and whether you know this that ties into the setback on the west side and the front and stuff like that so is this just generic language and we can address. I mean I don't even feel like I have a landscape plan. Maybe I'm wrong. You did have it you saw you were using it yesterday when we were at our site visit so why doesn't Kyle bring up the landscape plan and the boy can look at that. So, so are we accepting that landscape plan or can we address that later. I'm going to address it now. Okay, so I just wondered if people I didn't get the feeling I didn't get the definite impression the board thought that that front space worked. And then the idea of the set, having trees along the west setback, having a 10 foot setback with trees and plantings which I think actually is a requirement of the bylaw, when you have residential properties adjacent to non residential there should be a vegetative buffer. So I didn't feel like those things were addressed. But I know if we should, you know, I mean, like are we doing that here or later or. Well, that's one of the reasons for going through these criteria is what you want to do. So why don't you talk about it now. I just did. Janet, remember to raise your hand. Just, if you don't mind. Thank you.  Yeah, I mean, I think that the landscape plan is provided is sufficient and demonstrates what's happening at the street. It demonstrates clearly was happening along the south facade, all the way around to the west facade and the intent for those plantings to be also then negotiated with the town. I guess, tree expert resident tree expert forgetting his name. So I mean, I think we've seen those things represented clearly in the last round of plan drawings as well as in the renderings and they've been out there so I feel pretty confident that the plantings as presented are sufficient and do what they were intended to do. Thanks Tom Maria. I agree with Tom with the addition of maybe like a couple other board members to death that we increased the sidewalk by two feet to the West. But otherwise, yeah, I feel like the landscape plan was very sufficient. All right, thank you, Janet. You know, I think I misspoke I meant a 10 foot setback on the north side. And that would be where plantings would go like trees. Which I think is a requirement of the by law and then also it would help break up the building, which are soft in the building in the words of the DRB. So that was that's I think I had the wrong direction for that. Can you point. Excuse me, may I raise my hand. Yes, Chris. Jenna, can you point to the exact location in the bylaw where it talks about the screening that's required. It might take me a little bit but I just I'm looking for it and I'm just seeing it but I don't see it. Yeah, it's not on the top of my head. Well, but we've had a couple of members. I think in, you know, general agreement with what's written here so maybe we can just move on Chris. Well, I also wanted to point out that section 7.9 of the of this of the section on parking which is I think where this is. It talks about things that may be waived. So I'm not if it's in the parking section that can be waived, but it's elsewhere. You can look at that if Jenna can find out where we're exactly. I'm sorry. I don't remember where it was designed. One, two cars. Why don't we move on and we'll search or and if we can't find it tonight, save it for another later, I guess. Okay. Let's look. Design. 11.2415 the soil erosion control methods are considered adequate to control soil erosion both during and after construction. The town engineer has not expressed concerns about soil erosion. 11.2416. Adjacent properties will be protected by minimizing the intrusion of various nuisances. A construction logistics plan is required to be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11.2417 adjacent properties will be protected from the intrusion of lighting because a condition of the permit requires that exterior lighting be downcast and or shielded and not shine on to adjacent properties. 11.2418 is not applicable because the property is not located in a flood prone conservancy district. 11.2419 is not applicable because there are no wetlands on or within 100 feet of the property. The planning board did not choose to refer to the design principles and standards set forth in section 3.3040 and 3.2041 of the zoning bylaw, because the project is within the jurisdiction of the design review board. And the DRB has reviewed the project and has issued comments and recommendations. The development is reasonably consistent with respect to setbacks, placement of parking, landscaping and entrances and exits with surrounding buildings and development. The applicant has applied for a special permit to modify the side setback under footnote A of table three and has applied for a special permit to allow a 10 foot setback rather than 20 foot setback on the eastern side of the site. Under sections 6.141 and 9.22 of the zoning bylaw. No parking is proposed on the site. 11.2422, building sites shall avoid to the extent feasible, the 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 on the property that the applicant has met with the historical commission to obtain recommendations as to how to minimize the impact of the project on the historic west cemetery. 11.2423 is not applicable because there's only one building proposed for the site. 11.2424, screening has been provided as appropriate. All trash and maintenance equipment will be stored within the building and there's no loading area. 11.2430, the site has been designed to provide for the convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement, both within the site and in relation to adjoining ways and properties. The next season to the north of the property will remain open to allow unencumbered access to the adjacent bank and its drive up window. There will be no vehicles entering the site itself other than during construction. The pedestrian movement will be provided along the north side of the building via a five foot walkway along the south side of the building via a sidewalk that varies in with. On the west side of the building they fear via a sidewalk on private property as well as proposed improvements in the public way. 11.2431 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 cup which will be on the adjacent property to the north, leading to an existing access isn't the curb cut will be a widened and improved version of the existing curb cut in that location. The other existing curb cut at the south side of the property will be eliminated and no vehicles will enter the site. 11.2432 is not applicable. There will be no parking spaces on the site. Tenant bicycle parking will be accommodated in the building public bicycle parking is proposed to be accommodated in front of the building in an improved area of the public way. There are no loading areas located on the site and access to the easement will remain open. So Chris, let's do a pause here, Janet and then Doug, and their hands up. I was wondering if anyone on the board thought that the five foot walkway on the north side of the building with the ball year was sufficient because I still think that's very tight, and I've seen people kind of, I mean it's tight super tight on one of these pleasant streets. And it's not even the width of a crummy six foot, you know, Amherst sidewalk so I wonder if other people would agree with that. And what's the width of the sidewalk on the, on the south side to I guess. I think that's more like 10 feet. 10 feet. Okay. All right, so I see that as an alternative but we have you on a dog and then Andrew. When I think about that north side I think back to Maria's comments where we don't really. We don't know what's going to come next to the building. It's kind of it's still a little bit of an empty canvas I mean for now there's that easement and there's the bank but I would be surprised if that's what it looks like 20 years from now so you know, I think the master plan and would encourage us I think to do more dense development there. And so I'm, you know I'm not wildly concerned about what that sidewalk or the setbacks look like because I think it'll be the next project where that gets kind of, I don't know, looked at and you know like a vision for that northern part really starts to come to life. Yeah, so it's work in progress there. Doug and then Andrew. Yeah, I guess. As long as that easement is there. I guess I'm okay with the five foot dimension. And when the next project comes I, I guess I have to assume that the solution for the next project will keep any windows in the next project from being five feet away from the windows in this project so that, you know, the owner of this project doesn't have to sue the next project to have units that are rentable, because otherwise, you know, you don't want to see somebody five feet away from you in the next window. So, I guess that I kind of agree with Johanna that that's all to be worked out later and as long as that easement is there we've got about 17 feet plus five feet so 22 feet of clearance. So Chris or Rob that has that easement, the language there, you know it's been checked out and confirmed. You have the language it was presented to you in a previous meeting. So we have we have the language. And you're happy with it. I didn't see a problem with it. Okay. All right. Andrew, did you have your hand up. I put it down. I was comfortable with the five feet as well. I think that with the easement I think we're good. All right, thank you. So, Chris. We have a few more things right. Yeah. I think we're on 11.2432 I think we got finished with that 11.2433 provision for access to adjoining properties is not an issue the access easement on the adjacent property to the north will remain open. There's also a little bit of a pedestrian access between 11 he's pleasant and, and one he's pleasant if you wanted me to mention that it's not handicapped accessible but there is handicapped access if you go out onto the sidewalk, and then back around. So I don't know if that's worth mentioning. I'm sorry I found it and I have a question about it. So these the screening of residential things is it's actu