Okay Doug, you are the co-host Amherst media is in the house and we are good to go. Okay. Welcome to the Amherst planning board meeting of October 6, 2021. My name is Doug Marshall and as the chair of the Amherst planning board I am calling this meeting to order at 633pm. This meeting is being recorded and is available live stream via Amherst media and minutes are being taken pursuant 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. The zoom meeting link is available on the meeting agenda posted on the town websites calendar, listing for this meeting, or go to the planning board web page and click on the most recent agenda, which lists the zoom link at the top of the page. No in-person attendance of the public is permitted. However, every effort will be made to ensure the public can adequately access the meeting in real time via technological means. In the event we are unable to do so for reasons of economic hardship, or despite best efforts, we will post an audio or video recording, transcript or other comprehensive record of proceedings, as soon as possible after the meeting on the town of Amherst website. Board members, I will take a roll call. When I call your name, unmute yourself, answer affirmatively and then please place yourselves back on mute. Maria Chow. Present. Jack Gemsec. Here. Tom Long. Present. Andrew McDougal. Present. Janet McGowan. Here. And Johanna Newman. Here. Thank you. Board members, if technical issues arise, we may need to pause temporarily to fix the problem and then continue the meeting. If the discussion needs to pause, it will be noted in the minutes. Please use the raised hand function to ask a question or make a comment. I will see your raised hand and call on you to speak. After speaking, remember to remute yourself. The general public comment item is reserved for public comment regarding items that are not on tonight's agenda. If appropriate, public comment may also be heard at other times during the meeting. Please be aware the board will not respond to comments during general public comment period. Please indicate you wish to make a comment by clicking the raise hand button when public comment is solicited. If you have joined the Zoom meeting using a telephone, please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star nine on your phone. When called on, please identify yourself by stating your full name and address and put yourself back into mute when finished speaking. Residents can speak their views for up to three minutes or at the discretion of the planning board chair. If the speaker does not comply with these guidelines or exceeds their allotted time, their participation will be disconnected from the meeting. All right. So it looks like the first item tonight is our minutes. Pam, do we have minutes to approve? You do. You have minutes submitted by Maria. All right. I was just going to say so they were for the meeting September 29. They were in your packet. Good. All right. Does anybody want to make a motion to accept the minutes of September 29. Andrew. So moved. Here we have a second. Mr. Long. All right. Is there any discussion of those minutes? I'm seeing Janet raise her hand. Janet. So I'm very sympathetic to the, how hard it would be to take minutes as you're in a meeting. And I hope that your job will be soon relief relief Maria. I did think it, I'm happy to support these minutes. I just didn't think there was much stuff like about what the planning word, like the discussion was of Mr. Long. I know you've been talking about the 46 Main Street and the Unitarian Church screening. I know that people talked a long time about the problems with the screening on that and made suggestions. About ways to fix it. And so it looks like two people voted against it, but you can't see why. And so I thought. people on the parking line. So I'm happy to vote for these. I just think that we need to leave more of like a path of breadcrumbs for people to understand why the planning board voted. That's it. Thank you, Janet. I see Mr. McDougall. Thanks Doug. I was just going to compliment Maria for doing this on the fly. And I just, yeah, I would echo what Janet just said. I'm impressed that you could do that and be able to keep up with the conversation as well. But just kudos. Thanks for doing it. Great. Thank you, Andrew. All right. Is there any more discussion? Seeing none. I guess we can go right into the vote to accept the minutes. All right, Maria. Approve. Jack. All approved. Tom. Move. Andrew. Aye. Janet. Aye. And Johanna. Aye. And I'm an aye. So it's unanimous. Thank you all. All right. So now we'll have the public comment period. And before we start that, I will repeat what I said earlier. So this public comment period is for comments for items that are not on the agenda. The main item on our agenda this evening is the rezoning of the parking lot that's town owned behind or sort of beside the CVS in the center of town. So this period is for comments that have nothing to do with the rezoning of the CVS parking lot. So does anybody want to make any comments during the comment period? I see nine attendees. And I see no raised hands. Oh, one from Ronnie Parker. All right. So Pam, do you want to? I have. Goodness, I'm so sorry. I do want to comment, but not about what you've just said. So I think I inadvertently touched the hand button. All right. Thank you. No problem. Thank you. All right. So that's the end of our public comment period. So now the time is 640 and I will open the public hearing on this zoning amendment. So the zoning, it's a zoning bylaw for the official zoning map, map 14A parcel 33 rezoning North Prospect Street continued from July 7th, August 4th and September 29th, all in 2021. To see if the town will vote to amend the official zoning map to extend the general business district BG to include a vacant parcel of land owned by town of Amherst in the vicinity of North Pleasant Street, North Prospect Street, Coles Lane and Amity Street currently located in the general residence district, RG. All right. So Ms. Brestrup, will you be introducing this or will we go right to Nate Malloy? I will be happy to introduce Nate Malloy and he will make the presentation. And we also have Rob Mora here to answer questions. All right, thank you. Nate. Sure, thanks. I also want to mention that Evan is here as well as a proponent of the zoning measure. Yeah. That would be Evan Ross, that's for the record. Thank you. I don't want to share my screen. I'm going to just go over the overview document and then the actual zoning language. Actually, what are my, what do people see? It says parking overlay district, is that? Yes. Yeah. Parking facility overlay district. All right, sorry. So we'll share the other screen first. Too many PDFs open sometimes. It's hard to. The, thanks. So Nate Malloy, a planner with the town, I'll be talking about the parking facility overlay district. And it's proposed on one property, 14A-133 that has front of John North Prospect Street. And, you know, there's, we're some questions about the history of the site and its appropriateness for a parking garage or parking facility.  And so, you know, over numerous studies, it was, you know, one of the better sites. And even Nelson Nygaard in 2019 said that it is a site with the greatest potential, you know, a municipal owned property with the greatest potential for a parking deck or a larger structure. So I'm not, you know, gonna belabor it too much. You know, some of the earlier studies did include the lot to the south in terms of having a structure, but it's still, you know, my opinion that the site on its own is appropriate and the right size to have a zoning overlay. You know, there's a question about the use of an overlay district. And if it could apply to a single property and, you know, I provided some information that, you know, Massachusetts Smart Growth Toolkit considers an overlay district. It really, you know, a really good tool, a flexible tool for unique properties or for zoning, especially because it doesn't supersede the under, well, it can supersede the underlying zoning, but it's actually on top of it. So, you know, it's its own entity and it can have incentives or different requirements that then can supersede the underlying zoning, but, you know, they really say it is, it can be a really great tool to use.  You know, and some of the benefits of an overlay, like I said, is it's a distinct zoning measure so that if in the future it needs to be changed or modified or removed, it can in its entirety and the underlying zoning is still in place. Existing conditions of the property, I think it's useful to see the, you know, the site is almost seven-tenths of an acre. It's, you know, a surface parking lot. It has been surface parking since the 60s and it's almost, you know, it's 97% covered by pavement. So it's a non-conforming lot. There's approximately 75 parking spaces on the property. That includes spaces that also are used by CVS south of the last median. So, you know, there's about 70 spaces in the municipal area, but 75 total parking spaces. There are really no cider rear setbacks. It's about 20 to 22 feet from North Prospect Street. The setback and the distance from the curb to the parking area to the edge of the parking is about 35 feet. So, you know, that's just the general characteristic of the lot. It's, you know, it has access from North Pleasant and from the lot to the south. And then, you know, this, the next page shows what a potential build out of the site could be with the zoning overlay and using Greenfield's parking garage as an example. So, you know, Greenfield has a garage that's 272 spaces, it's four levels. It's, you know, basically a rectangle of 120 feet by 204 feet. If that were placed on this site, it would cover 83% of the site. The front setback from North Prospect Street, you know, we're assuming an entry and exit from North Prospect would range from 15 to 30 feet. The side setback on the south side would, you know, be right along the property line. So there wouldn't be a setback on the north. It would range from zero to 40 feet. So, you know, this is an odd shaped lot. And the rear setback, again, would be zero to, you know, five feet or, you know, give or take. The, you know, a previous plan from the 90 show to garage that was stepped back, you know, every so many spaces that would step back to try to mimic the shape of the lot.   Here's an image of Greenfield's garage. You know, this became a cost effective garage because it was also modular construction.  You know, it would have been more costly. Originally they wanted to have decorative friezes and sculptural elements on the facade and different things. But, you know, the shape of it didn't change. It was always this relative shape. I don't know if there's any questions about this at all or? Well, I would, at least the Greenfield rendering shows the stairwell outside the rectangular area. So if you have a vertical circulation might be outside the rectangle you've shown. Right. And so, you know, the proposal in terms of the zoning amendment, in terms of law and building coverage would allow something, you know, perhaps, you know, outside the rectangle or within it. There's, you know, Greenfield's garage has an elevator and two stairwells. And it's really, and then it has, you know, parking on the upper deck. So, you know, there's also some, you know, someone could consider having a covered parking and not having parking on the roof deck too. So there's different variations of how it could be designed. It's a double loaded corridor. So, you know, each half of the garage is 120 feet or 60 feet. You know, it's double loaded traveling. And so, you know, you don't have to have that as a garage design, but it is typical to have that. Okay. Thank you, Nate. Chris. Thank you. I realize I should have taken Doug's opportunity to give an introduction to this zoning amendment. I wanted to say that the zoning amendment was brought to us by, it was sent to us by the town council and it was initiated by members of town council. And currently they are Evan Ross and George Ryan. There was a third proponent who has since dropped out. But when we looked at the initial proposal, we realized that there were issues related to dimensional requirements. And then once we heard from the public during our first one or two public hearings, we realized that there were concerns that we could address with an overlay district. So the planning department and the building commissioner actually came up with this idea to recommend an overlay district. And we took what we had heard from the public and we met with, and we came up with this idea. And then we met with the proponents, Evan Ross and George Ryan. And they agreed that this was a good mechanism for moving this rezoning forward. And so I just wanted to explain that a bit because it wasn't something that the planning department initiated. It was something initiated by town council members. And what we're trying to do is come up with a plan, come up with a zoning amendment that makes sense for this location and addresses some of the concerns that we heard from the public as to height and bulk and massing and what this thing is gonna look like, et cetera. So thank you very much for allowing me to make that introduction. Certainly. Mr. Gensack. Thank you. Yeah, so the overlay district I'm finding, I guess I need more clarification because I was concerned that, so we're not calling this BG anymore. We're making an overlay district for this individual lot. But I know going back, if it was BG, and I said this in prior meaning and Nate had said, well, you don't have to worry about a five story building here because I didn't really understand why. So I'm just, I'd like some clarity with regard to what's going on. I guess I'm a little bit lost, despite what Chris has said and Nate has said. So I need some help. Okay, Jack, Nate, do you wanna respond to that? And I'm wondering, you haven't really gotten into the specific proposal yet. Would that maybe clarify things for Jack? Yeah, I was gonna mention that but I still haven't gone through the zoning amendment language yet either. And so I can do that next. The questions I asked of there are questions just on what had been presented. But right, so Jack, what we're proposing is on just this property shown here, the municipally owned property that there's an overlay zone. So we're not changing the underlying zoning. It's an overlay zone that only allows parking facilities as described in the zoning bylaw in section 3.384. So public or private parking facility, whether that's a garage or a surface lawn. So it doesn't replace the zoning. It has its own dimensional standards, which I'll go into in a minute. So it's really, it would be a separate section added to Article 3 of the zoning bylaw. And it would only allow for parking on this property. And so it's not changing the zoning at all. It's not changing dimensional requirements in the zoning bylaw for RG. It's not going to be G or BL. It's really just a separate overlay zone. And I believe that that district proposal was in our packet and was, I think it was actually what you first showed on your screen. Yeah, let me go to that. Maybe that'll help if. Before, maybe we should let Janet ask her question before you go there. Thank you. Thank you, Doug. I just have a quick question for Nate about the Greenfield parking garage. It's like, how high is it? What's the height of the garage? And, you know, just up to the top deck. And then how high is the tower? Yeah, so those are good questions. I think, you know, in the zoning overlay, when we get to it, we've said that the height of a garage would go to the highest point of, you know, a pericot wall or railing above any surface deck. So, you know, if this is the street side, it would be, you know, up to the point of, I can zoom in just a little bit on this, you know, be to the highest point of, say, these columns is the height. And then we excluded, you know, the enclosures for stairs or elevators. And so, you know, the Greenfield garage is on a, you know, it's built into a hill. So further back is actually up higher, but the height ranges, you know, from, it's like 48 feet to 53 feet. I think that's exclusive. That doesn't include the towers. And so, you know, the height of a parking deck between levels can be as low as seven or eight feet. And depending on the slope and the size, that, you know, it can vary. So there's never a constant height. Usually, you know, usually longitudinally, it's always sloping. So the, you know, the lower end actually here might be as low as like 45 feet. And then it's 48 feet up on the back end, you know, because of the difference in height for the pitch. So, you know, usually there's not really a, depending on if it's a level here, there's might be a slight cross pitch, but you know, we would say the height is measured across these, you know, this wall. So in the zoning overlay, we're saying 40 feet is the height to here. So, you know, any wall or screening or railing has to be 40 feet or less. So that's how we'd measure height with the overlay. All right. So why don't you go ahead and go into the specifics of the proposal? Sure. Thanks. So as I mentioned it, it's a, let me just see if I want to minimize that. Is that still legible to be able to see everything? Yeah. So this would be an overlay in article three, the zoning by-law. So it would have, you know, a purpose section to allow for a public or private parking facility in the town center, it would apply only to this property. So, you know, whether or not someone would want a parking garage and another lot, this overlay is really only specific to this property at North Prospect Street. And so the setbacks and some of the standards and conditions, you know, might be adapted to another law, but really this was written specific to this single property. And it says that the provisions of this section shall only apply to uses authorized below. So only a parking facility, the requirements of the underlying zoning. So the general residence applies to all other uses. And unless specifically replaced or modified sections of article six, seven, and eight still apply to a parking facility. So the standards for signs, you know, parking design and everything would still apply to this parking facility using this overlay unless it's mentioned specifically in the zoning here.  So it's a public parking lot or garage or commercial parking lot or garage. The dimensional standards are something that, you know, would replace table three. So there's no lot, frontage or lot area requirement. The frontage zone. So it would mimic what's currently there, 15 feet between the property line and the right of way line, the side and rear setbacks. It's five feet from an abutting property in a residential use in a residential district. Otherwise, there's no setback. So currently there's no residential use in a residential district abutting this. So there isn't a setback required. The maximum building coverage could be 90%. The maximum lot coverage is 95%. So it would still be less lot coverage than there is now at most. That's including a parking facility, walkways, entry drive. And the maximum height is 40 feet. And that's measured to the average finished grade, which is taken from the current height definition in the bylaw to the highest point of the parking structure, including any wall or screening or vertical element. It does exclude the stair or elevator enclosure and mechanical equipment, including solar panels. Typically, even in the zoning bylaw, we don't include this mechanical equipment in the height definition and calculation. And then there's a number of standards and conditions. And so we're saying this is allowed by site plan review. So it'd be the, now it'd be the planning board would apply, would be required to apply the design review principles and standards, landscape standards and site plan review criteria. And there's always the ability through 11.24 to ask for an advisory opinion from the design review board. So although they're not, it's not mandatory to go to the design review board, that's always a possibility to refer it during permitting. And so we're not in this zoning overlay. There's some parts that zoning doesn't get into in terms of absolute number of parking spaces or a very detailed prescription of certain things. But what we are saying is that the maximum number of parking spaces would need to be approved after analysis of current and future traffic conditions. And it says a thorough evaluation provided by the applicant's professional designer, subject to peer review at the cost of the applicant, providing traffic analysis, parking analysis, parking impacts. And so this first bullet is really helping provide guidance to both the applicant and the permitt granting authority about how to review a parking facility. The parking structure shall be designed to be compatible with the adjacent neighborhood in downtown. And so we have a condition that is somewhat subjective, but it allows the permitt granting authority to use the design review principles, to use the standards and conditions in the by-law to look at the design of the structure. The next bullet says the parking structure shall be designed and or facade treatments shall be applied to minimize visibility of cars parked inside the facility. And so there's different ways to handle this. Some have a facade treatment that may look like a building with window fenestrations or other architectural details. Some could be artistic screening or different materials that screen the car. So we're not trying to prescribe exactly what the architecture will look like, but we're asking that there be treatment to minimize cars inside. And this is both for anywhere along North Prospect Street. So that's coming from the North or coming from the South. So really, any time that the structure could be visible along North Prospect Street, we're asking that cars inside be screened. And this will also help with headlight layer too. So if there's some type of screening, it can help with minimizing light diffusion into properties. We also require that architectural details and materials be used to break down the scale of the parking structure or facade. And so again, without being overly prescriptive, we're expecting that the applicant would show either change in materials, change in planes, columns, different architectural elements that would reduce the mass and monolithic scale of just a flat facade. And so this is something that would be reviewed during permitting and the applicant would have to show how they're reducing that mass and scale of the building. We do provide a few conditions in terms of the entry drive to the facility. And some of it is to try to keep the width without getting it having to be too wide. So we're saying that a minimum of 12 feet wide for one-way use, 18 for two-way, and a maximum of 24 feet wide at the street line. We're saying that it should be designed to minimize curb cuts and access over sidewalks. And at least one vehicle could be able to queue on property without blocking the sidewalk. And so we can't prevent that, but if it's the facility step back enough that at least there can be one car waiting to enter the facility if it's an entry off the North Prospects Street without blocking the sidewalk. We're also saying sustainable design objectives shall be incorporated into the design of the parking facility. And so this is something that through permitting would be looked at is that how it's operated, the materials, how it's designed, rainwater management. So what are those objectives? And it's something that the permitting authority would have the ability to ask into discuss during permitting. In the frontage zone, so in the first 15 feet we're saying it needs to be a landscape with plants having a height of at least one story at time of planting. And so those are not, those are pretty substantial plantings. And the idea here is that that's already screening, a third or so of the facade. So we're saying that these plantings have to be pretty mature and will grow even taller so that they're pretty big plants. Continuous sidewalks and walkways need to be provided from the facility to adjacent properties into the sidewalk on North Prospect Street. So we're really thinking about connectivity here, pedestrian connectivity or for cyclists so that there has to be some walkways provided. Lighting needs to be installed and shielded to prevent light disbursement. And then we have our other lighting requirements being dark sky compliant. So all those other standards in the bylaw would apply. In terms of signs, the one thing we have here is an additional freestanding or projecting sign we say signs, so it could be one or more that do not exceed a combined total of 100 square feet an area maybe provided in accordance with other standards of article eight. And so in any other signs we'd have to comply with article eight. And so the idea here is there may need to be a banner or banners on the facility or not directing traffic where's the entry, where's the exit. And so Northampton's garage has those, a number of garages have a larger sign than permitted. So currently in the RG, it's like 12 square feet so there's not a very big sign is allowed in the RG district. So we're allowing for bigger signs to help direct traffic and wayfinding. And then we're requiring a parking management, operations and maintenance plan to be submitted at time of application. And we list a number of things we wanna see in this plan. It's not an exhaustive list, but it's a number of things in terms of parking spaces and how many are available to different users, the public, long-term users, businesses and permit holders. Parking rates and fees, hours of operation, safety measures such as lighting, security cameras, sign edge or call box, enforcement operations, including ticketing, trash storage and removal, snow management, the treatment and maintenance of interior surfaces and then rainwater management. And some of these pieces in the management plan may also be aspects that are more defined and a request for proposals that the town would issue in terms of how many public spaces or short-term spaces should be available to patrons and the public. And maybe we have some other conditions in terms of hours of operation, but that's something that we wouldn't wanna restrict in zoning or have something, it's really an applicant would propose it. And so that's the overlay district in a nutshell. So was this the text that would be recommended straight to town council if we endorsed this? It would, I noticed that the sustainable development principle should have its separate bullet and the standards and conditions. I think that that was lost and I have a Mac, I think when I converted to PDF that was that formatting change. But yeah, so this is the language of the proposed amendment. All right, great. I'm seeing Chris's hand. So I just wanted to mention that I think we need to put this into a format that fits into our bylaw and I'm not sure that this is in the exact format that would have to go into the bylaw. The words are correct, but the format may need to be tweaked. We probably need to put a number on it. In other words, this has to look, once it gets to town council, it has to look exactly, it's supposed to look exactly like it will look when it goes into the bylaw. Right, right. So we have to sign a section number and then subsection numbers to each of these with the ability allowed uses. And then instead of bullets, it might be numbers, but yeah, the text wouldn't change necessarily, but the formatting would. Okay, thank you. Andrew. Thanks Doug, thanks for the presentation. Very thorough, which is great. That was really good to see the details. One thing I just circled back on Jack's question earlier on was in the agenda it mentions that we would be extending BG into the vacant parcel, but that's not what's being proposed just to confirm. So it would say our G. That's correct. Cool. The height from North, so in the proposal, it's 40 feet maximum from North Prospect. I know there's a change of grade on that lot. Do you have a sense of what that is? And if we did go at the 40 feet, how tall it would be as you approach North Pleasant Street? Nate, you wanna answer that? Yeah, I mean, I think that, so there is, it's a number of feet over the site and then North Pleasant Street is further downhill. So it's also behind an existing building. So right now, if that were a straight 40 feet built behind the existing building, I'm not sure it would be visible from North Pleasant Street. Yeah, I don't know if it would be or not. I guess that'd be curious to see. It's not a, it's just something to consider, right? If it's open parking up top and you walk down Main Street and you can see cars essentially on the roof behind a building. And then also just, I'm not sure if I fall completely on the signage. You mentioned the 100 square feet. That would be 100 square feet that would go onto the garage facade or that would be like freestanding signage on the property. What do you envision that to be? Yeah, I think the bylaw doesn't, it allows any of those, right? A combination of projecting signs or freestanding signs. You know, they couldn't be backlit or LED or a scrolling sign. So it's off to follow conditions in the zoning bylaw except for the size, right? So right now, only 12 square feet is allowed for signs. So, you know, say two feet by six feet, we're saying that there could be an additional 100 square feet up to 100. It doesn't have to be that big, but an applicant could propose to have different signs on the property. So it could be that, you know, some garages above the entry and exit will have, you know, pretty big lettering saying entry or exit, right? Just like relief letters or something. And so that's considered a sign. And so to make it, to be able to be visible from the street, we've allowed, you know, that big of a square foot allowance. So, you know, I was envisioning, you know, it could even be, you know, if someone, if we think that they're entering from North Prospect Street, there could be something on the south facade or a freestanding sign that has something about like parking facility entrance, you know, it, you know, I don't know the size, but it just would have to be bigger than 12 square feet to be visible. And so. Okay, yeah. That helps. I would suggest that we, so the hundred in total seems all right. I would suggest that we would maybe limit, still put sort of a cap on individual signs. I think North Prospect, I don't think anybody's gonna just accidentally go down North Prospect and stumble upon it where they'd need to see the sign. So, yeah, another thought there. And then also, and I know this, I think this goes beyond the scope, but just before I forget would be, as we envision this particular overlay, have we considered making North Prospect be open to two-way traffic? Because to me, as I was thinking through like, how you would go about accessing this, if, you know, if the only access is from North Prospect, I live in South Amherst, so it's fine. Like I can drive through town. If I don't find a spot, I can just turn on North Prospect and loop around. But if you're coming from the North and you drive past it, then you've got to do like a fair amount of navigating to like, you turn your way back, go back through town and access it. It seems like for this thing to be effective, that would need to be two-way traffic, in which case you'd need to address like the on-street parking. So I think that's, you know, maybe beyond the scope of what you're talking about or certainly what we've talked about, but I think it is something that we should consider for this to be really viable would be, would being open to the ability to make North Prospect be two-way. Yeah, Doug, if I could, yeah. Thanks Andrew. You know, staff has said that that may need to be a possibility. And so again, I guess it would be, you know, if there was a proposal on the site, you know, what the applicant was saying in terms of how the parking facility would be, how it could be accessed. And so, you know, really it would be up to an applicant, you know, do they use the one-way entry from North Puzzle Street as it is, or would they have a different design configuration with an entry and exit solely from North Prospect Street? And then the applicant would propose, you know, here, you know, they'd have to engage public works and the planning board and have a traffic study saying why two-way traffic is needed and what that impact is. And so, yeah, I think that the overlay doesn't address that, but I think it's something that, you know, we'd respond to if an applicant came forward with their proposal, you know, in terms of how they want to enter and exit the facility. Yeah, two-way makes the most sense, but I think to do it, you'd have to be taking off your on-street parking, so you're just kind of, you know, shifting chairs around a little bit. But anyhow, thanks for the presentation. Thanks Andrew. I see a couple of more hands from the board, but before we do that, I saw that Evan is still here. And Evan, since you've taken the time to join us this evening, did you want to say anything? Sure, and excuse me if my internet gets choppy, the connection's nothing great. So I'm mostly here just in case there are questions on sort of the non-zoning aspects, but I did just want to thank the planning department for their work on this. You know, this started back in February 2020, I believe, when the town presented their destination to Amherst Plans of the Council, which included a public-private partnership to build a parking structure at the site. And George and I were interested in seeing that move forward and brought the zoning amendment forward to create that opportunity. And what planning department has done is essentially expanded on that and created a much better proposal. And what makes it better is I think it's responsive to the concerns we heard from, especially residents on the process. And that's why George and I have rallied behind the proposal from the planning department, is we heard really legitimate concerns during the public hearing. And what we did is we came over to the modified proposal that is directly responsive to the concerns the residents have. So I think from a process perspective, this has been good to be heard from the public. We heard concerns and we made changes in response to those concerns. And I really just want to thank the planning department for the work they did. We're bringing forth a much more workable, a much more sensible proposal and one that also takes into account all of the concerns we heard during the public hearing. So I'm here to answer questions if there are non-zoning questions, otherwise I'm just here to listen to your conversation. Thanks Evan. And your microphone is a problem. All right, Tom. Thanks Doug. And thanks Nate for the presentation. I was gonna comment on something I think you just answered, but from my perspective, access from North Pleasant on the one way seems super viable. And I just wanted to make sure that we would be able to maintain that pass through from the CVS lot into this particular lot as a point of entry, because then you limit the traffic on North Prospect as just an outflow of traffic. And it could be a one-way Helix-like experience that lets you out onto that other end. So I wanted to just make sure we still had access to that as the through way for a single directional traffic flow. But I think that question was answered. Yeah, I mean, I will say that the, sorry Doug, I just jumped in here, but the entry drive that's there now is allowed through an easement. It's a perpetual easement on the property. So a 13 foot wide public access to the back. So that's something that was granted decades ago for both properties, right? So what was Louis Foods and what's on the property now? So that's been in existence and it will continue to be there. And then the access to the public, to the town-owned facility lot has been there as well for many decades. So that's something that could be considered depending on how the applicant wants to design a facility or the circulation. Just so that that 13 foot easement is from North Pleasant and is for the benefit of both the property where CVS is and the property where this parcel is. Right, right, right. Okay, great. Are there any other easements as part of this property? Not that I, you know, I looked through the registry quickly and, you know, so the CVS property is actually five properties under common ownership and the municipal lot was part of that. So at one point it was six or seven properties all under common ownership. You know, it came to be in the late fifties and then in the sixties, it was all a parking garage for the market along North Pleasant Street. And so it's been a parking lot since, you know, the 1960s. And the town took the property, you know, currently in 1989 for parking. And so, you know, since the eighties this has been a publicly available lot with access over the property. And so it's mentioned in the deed that, you know, the 13 foot wide strip is for access to the CVS law and to the municipal law or to the tract four is what it's called. And so the deed, you know, there's no easement per se but it says for access for the public for parking. Okay, thank you. All right, so we'll move on with the other raised hands from the board, Jack, you're first. Actually, before you start, Chris, do you need to interject something? I just wanted to say that we've talked internally about the potential for having two way on North Prospect Street from Amity Street into the entry to the new parking garage if it is built. And then having the remainder of North Prospect Street remain one way towards Amity Street. So that prevents a lot of traffic from going past people's houses. We haven't talked to the DPW about this but internally in the planning department that seems to make sense. So I just wanted to offer that as an alternative that is being considered. But of course, that wouldn't actually come about as part of this rezoning that would only come about if someone proposes a parking garage in this location. Thank you. And I assume there'd be some traffic studies to assess whether it's needed and if it is needed, whether it's functional. Jack. Yeah, actually, Chris just kind of addressed what I was gonna say. It seems like just two way up to like Cow's Lane and then keeping the remainder of Prospect one way seems like a great solution to the situation because I agree with Andrew that access and exit to that parking garage would be facilitated by two lanes. And I don't know, it doesn't look like, a heck of a lot of impact would be made by removing the parking that is on the Prospect there, especially with Perry apartments and et cetera. But it seems like those houses may need to get like a discount on a parking permit within the garage or some accommodations if that happens. But my real question was going back to Andrew again. Geez, his comment from last week with regard to spot zoning.  But in this situation, obviously we need parking and, you know, this seems like a great solution. Thank you, Nate and your team for coming up with something that really seems innovative to solve this problem. So, but I was just wondering, going back to Andrew's thing, is this, could this be criticized for, you know, this, you know, spot zoning and what is spot zoning? I guess I'm asking the planning department what that means and... All right, thanks, Jack. Nate, do you want to have... Yeah, so over you, I said as an overlay zone, it's not spot zoning because the underlying zoning is still in place, you know, so the overlay only would apply if someone proposes to build a parking facility.  So, 40 hours can be on one property, 43D excavated permitting can be on one property. And so it's actually, you know, I think it would be, it's an appropriate use of an overlay here. It actually addresses, can address many of the concerns as opposed to, you know, if we were changing this zoning to something, so then spot zoning would be, if, you know, even BG, right now, BG abuts its property. And so there's concerns about, say, changing the underlying zoning. And staff wasn't concerned that that was spot zoning because it's adjacent to properties that have the zoning. The concern with BG is that the height, the massing, the allowed uses, you know, may not be appropriate. And so that's why an overlay was considered. Spot zoning, you can consider it, you know, it's something that's owned in isolation from what other allowed uses or compatible uses are. So, you know, putting, you know, an industrial zone in the middle of, say a residential neighborhood. And so, you know, what we're proposing here is allowing, you know, a parking facility that would actually be compatible with and compliment the surrounding uses. So it's, you know, and as an overlay, it wouldn't really be considered spot zoning. Great, thank you. Thank you, Nate. I think Rob will have a better. I'm sorry? Rob raised his hand. He might want to address the spot zoning issue as well. Oh yeah, Rob. Yeah, I just wanted to add to what Nate said, and hopefully not, you know, have to continue the discussion about spot zoning because we're certain the overlay does not constitute spot zoning. And that's what we've transitioned to here. But two important factors that are looked at when considering spot zoning are, whether or not there's a public good and whether or not there's a significant financial benefit to a single property owner. So, you know, just more to answer Jack's question, just, you know, larger picture on spot zoning, which isn't really the issue here, but those are two really important factors that are looked at in, you know, when a court is trying to decide on a case related to spot zoning. In my research, there wasn't a single case where spot zoning on an overlay, even on a single parcel, had ever been, has ever occurred. And, you know, and a quick opportunity to talk about that with our town attorney who did confirm that for me recently. Great, thank you, Rob. All right, Janet, you are still muted. So I'm hoping, Doug, that we just, can we just focus the discussion on access like car, truck and pedestrian access? Because sometimes we sort of jump around from topic to topic. And so- I frankly, I think that the access is something that would come out of any proposals that people made. And right now we're focused on the proposal for the overlay on that specific parcel. Okay, so, but just anyway, just my hope that we can focus on those just thing. So can we have the screen which shows the lot with the parking garage, like the superimposed Greenfield parking garage on the lot? Is that visible? That's pretty visible. So, Nate, I have a few questions. One of them is, is there an easement that allows the cars on the town lot to exit on North Prospect Street or do the cars just do that? So currently, let me just scroll down. The lot itself is this trapezoidal shape with furniture on North Prospect Street. So if with the overlay, there would just be a curb cut made to enter onto the property. There's no easement necessary. They would just enter and exit from North Prospect Street, say into a parking facility or parking lot. So there's no, nothing, there's no easement or access, easement needed for that. So, but currently, obviously all these cars are using the town lot. They're crossing onto CVS land and exiting. So there's no easement that protects our right to do that. It's written into the deed. So the 13 foot wide easement, if everyone can see my cursor is here and it comes in here and it's to the benefit of the public and vehicular access to it says for this law and this law. So- So there is no easement on the North Prospect Street, but you're saying that, you know, it's just something that we all do and that in order to get access to the parking garage, curb cuts could be made just directly off of North Prospect Street. Okay, that helps. I kind of, you know, what this goes to the issue of like zero side and rear setbacks, you know, say the parking garage was built right to the property line, I was concerned about people walking out of CVS, you know, the CVS cars parking along on the, let me see, the South side, which is hard to see from this picture. And then trucks coming in to the CVS lot to unload and cars coming in to the CVS lot just to use a space. And perhaps go into the parking garage. It just seemed like a lot of pressure to put on a smallish area and it could be dangerous to pedestrians, drivers or the trucks really can have access back and forth. And so I had concerns about that. And I had a lot of concerns about the zero setbacks side and rear setbacks because I think that's no gift to the adjacent landowners. It really constrains how they can use the site and then what they would like to build on the site or use their site when there's just a building right on the property line. And I speak from deep personal experience because I own a house that is on, with a building on the property line. And it actually has done a lot of constraints in how I can develop that site. And, you know, if there was a building right up to the property line and the town wanted to repair siding or the sides of that on the outside, they would have to literally be on somebody else's property. So I would argue very strongly that there has to be some sort of siding rear setbacks just out of fairness to adjacent property owners. And so the town isn't imposing their building and, you know, restricting their use, the adjacent owners use. So I thought that was a big issue to me, sort of a red flag. I was a little worried about the setback. I was a little confused about zero frontage and then the frontage zone where it just seemed to make sense just to have 15 or 20 feet of frontage. I didn't understand the distinction between those two terms. Well, the minimum frontage was the standard requirement for a particular lot to have a certain amount of linear street frontage on the street. But since this is an overlay, I think he just put in zero. And similarly for the minimum lot size, is that true, Nathan? Right. And so the frontage is really right. As Doug said, the linear dimension, you know, left to right or whatever you want to say, across the curb street. And then the frontage zone is the setback from property line to a facility or parking lot. So the frontage zone is really a front setback. Is that right? Yes. Okay. That was a little confusing to me. And the current one right now is like 20 or 20 feet. I also thought that North Prospect Street, there for, you know, this is, there are a lot of people who live along there. I went and visited today and a lot of the houses are multifamily houses. And I thought that we should put in design guidelines that basically say that the parking garage that no cars be built, it'd just be a solid wall. And I pictured people coming out of the Drake for the bars at night at, you know, 12 or one in the morning, feeling very happy, slamming doors, their cars beeping, maybe setting off an alarm, maybe people talking or shouting. And I just, and all the lights of cars starting up. And I just thought, I've been in a lot of parking garages that have a solid wall. And I think that would be really a kindness to those people to basically shield them from all that kind of activity and sound. And then also that facade should fit in with 19th century homes and not just be the very attractive green field parking garage facade. And I've seen parking garages in cities that you really can't even tell is a parking garage. Like you'd have to do like three double takes until you realize, oh, this is a building for cars. And so I think that the design guideline section is aspirational, but, you know, the design review board guidelines, we've ignored them before, we've ignored the design review board on many occasions. And so I think let's put some very, you know, this is an overlay, let's put in some very specific requirements that protect those property owners and renters from, you know, the negative impacts of this garage. And not just hope that a future planning board will impose requirements that we just haven't been imposing for, you know, years, it seems, at least the last two projects. Thank you, Janet. So I think quickly, Doug, the, you know, the overlay says that the permit granting authority shall apply the requirements of the design review principles and standards. So it can't be ignored or overlooked, it really has to be applied. And the thought is with some of the other standards and conditions, it's really then a discussion between the planning board and applicant, what is compatible and what does work. So, you know, a modern structure can be compatible with, you know, 19th century architecture. So we're not, you know, we're not trying to say that it has to be a certain material or architectural style because I think that, you know, that's open for discussion during permitting because I think a number of materials and styles can be compatible. And so I think by stating that the requirements of 3.204, section 7.1 design standards and landscape standards at 11.24, we're saying that all those have to be applied during permitting and reviewed. So it's not, you know, the permit granting authority would have to walk through all of those criteria and discuss those with an applicant. So, you know, we, you know, staff things, that's a pretty good safeguard in terms of making sure things are compatible.  And so again, you know, setbacks are, you know, that's allowed, you know, that's a maximum build out and it's also allowing flexibility for an applicant. And so, you know, it's really then, again, through permitting, what is the shape and the design of the site? And so, you know, we're expecting that there needs to be pedestrian connections to adjacent properties to the sidewalk. And so, you know, the overlay is allowing enough flexibility for the possibility of a parking facility and also all these other pieces of it. And so, you know, without saying exactly where a parking facility could be located on a property or where a pathway could be located, you know, we're providing, you know, actually a building and law coverage that would be less than, law coverage then is less now. So, you know, we think that's sufficient to allow for all these things to happen on the property. Thank you, Nate. Maria. Hi, I got a screened open. Thanks, Nate, for that presentation. I really appreciate you going to this level of detail, although I'll stand behind my previous thoughts that, you know, I really feel like we're getting into the weeds. This is, like you said, trying to provide a very flexible sort of pathway to a parking facility that, you know, a team like of engineers, architects, surveyors will all sort of come and study and do all of this and answer a lot of questions. And I appreciate you, you know, writing in a lot of specifics that you want as well as leaving a lot of flexibility. I think that, yeah, giving as much of the lot as possible to the structure makes a lot of sense. I don't think this is the time to start adding more setbacks. What's adjacent is the backs of a lot of adjacent parcels. So it's not like you're on Main Street, you know, facing a lot of pedestrians. This is something where we really want to optimize this particular use, the parking deck. So I think that's great. I mean, this overlay idea is brilliant. Whoever in the planning department, building department sort of all working together to come up with it because there's just zero risk. There's no more risk of, you know, what people are worried about if we had changed the zoning. So I really hope this moves forward because, you know, obviously we've heard there's a big need for it. And our solution is a very safe path, I think. I honestly didn't see anything that sort of was a red flag to me at this point. And so I feel like, yeah, if you just sort of reformat it to the zoning bylaw format, I guess we could maybe then, whenever this comes up to the next planning board meeting we could send it back to town council or I think that's the next step. But I feel like the way you sort of created this is just, yeah, there's just very low risk of anything happening other than exactly what it is you're asking for. And I can't believe how much detail you put into these standard conditions. But I mean, I think that will sort of calm a lot of the worries that have come up to you. So to get this to move forward. So you did what you had to do. And I hope that this, you know, moves forward and you can put your energies and expertise to all the many more zoning amendments that we want to accomplish. So thanks again for all this great work. Chris, were you expecting that we would pretend, were you thinking this would be something we might approve this evening? Or did you intend that we would wait until it's formatted another meeting? I think you need to wait until it's formatted, but you can give us your blessing to move forward with it. I think that's what we're really looking for because this is the first time you've seen this. And so we wanted to get some sense that this is something that you're interested in. And then we can bring it back on October 20th in a format that could be presented to town council. Thank you. And you could vote on it that night. Okay. Maria, your hand is still up. Andrew. Thanks Doug. So I think that makes sense in terms of providing some support and getting it back. I would like to be able to sort of have a closer read on it. And I do think, excuse me, just my point earlier, I would like to see some sort of cap, like maybe it's a hundred feet in total, but let's just make sure we don't, developer doesn't put a 10 by 10 sign on the back that building right in front of those residents because it seems like an easy way to piss someone off without really actually gaining much. I had, this is just like a more of a technical question relative to Janice on the zero setback. I just don't know exactly how that works. So like if a developer came in and tried to like, know that exactly a lot and they're right up on the zero lot line there, what sort of rights would they have to access like the St. Brigid's parking lot if they needed to do work? You know, I'm a parishioner there. I know that people park in that lot for Saturday services, like just how does it work in the town? Like if somebody needed to get some service equipment on there, could they just squat in the St. Brigid's parking lot for set up some scaffolding and like some restrictions on how they can do that? I think they would need to obtain permission and have a full agreement, especially concerning liability. Nate, how would you answer that? So yeah, thanks, I got was muted. I was gonna answer it that way too. And I think then it's, it would be incumbent on the applicant to enter into those agreements prior to construction. It's also then with the zero setback, there's possibilities of maybe different material and building code just so that there is reduced maintenance. So there is the ability to access it maybe from above or something. So I think that a zero setback, although it allows for flexibility, right? There are more considerations in terms of how you'd actually develop that and maintain that. So, we're not proposing, that's really then the applicant or the owner or adjacent neighbors, how to work with that. Sounds good. Thank you. Let's see, let's see, before Janet, before we go to you a second time, I'm gonna just ask a couple of questions. Nate, the reference to the heavily, heavily landscaped area in the frontage zone with plants having a height of at least one story. Would you, do you interpret that as not allowing any plants that are less than one story? Well, now that you ask, I would say yes, but that wasn't necessarily the intention. And so it's really to have some substantial plantings at the time of construction or, you know. Yeah, I mean, I guess it seems to me you probably want to have a landscaped buffer zone that provides substantial visual screening of the structure, at least to the height of the second story or something like that. Right. Yeah, so that way you worded it could be modified to say that. Yeah, okay, so then the second question I had had to do with the continuous sidewalks or walkways provided to key areas served. You're not expecting anybody to build sidewalks off of this property, right? I mean, they're not going to do a sidewalk from this property to the library, for instance. No, that's not a requirement, no. Okay.  So, right, they wouldn't carry the sidewalks off property. Okay, all right. All right, that's all I had, Janet. So just to circle back to my comments, there is no zoning district in the bylaw that doesn't have a side or rear setback less than 10 feet. And so, I don't really understand what is the problem with having a building with right side and rear setbacks. Not having a zero setback clearly gives the maximum flexibility. We just don't give it to anybody else. And so, I don't know why that would, why you're putting this kind of burden on the, you know, like how are they going to build this building without being all over St. Bridges or CVS? And after they build it, how are they going to repair it? And then what happens to CVS if it wants to, if they decide they don't want to use their parking lot, they can use the one next door and they want to build a building and there's a building right up the side. I can tell you what happens is that you all run into all sorts of problems with building codes and access and things like that. And so, I just think it's sort of odd that, so anyway, I don't know why the planning board, members are arguing against rear and side setbacks. It's in our code. We need to apply it uniformly. And there are good reasons for it. And I don't see the reasons not to have that. But getting back to the CVS lot is if you built a building up to that lot line, trucks would have trouble getting in there. People would have trouble walking to the cars. Cars would have trouble coming into that lot. If all those three things were happening at once, that just, it's gonna be sort of a disaster. And so, I think we have to think about with courtesy and thought with the adjacent property owners, not just the people on North Prospect Street, but definitely the people on North Prospect Street, the CVS company, and then also St. Bridges Church. I don't know what the reason is to impose onto these different adjacent landowners other than to give maximum flexibility to this facility. What about giving some flexibility to the adjacent property owners? I do like this proposal. I think it actually is a really good strong start. I think it needs a lot of refinement, in terms of the green barrier on North Prospect Street, I would say make them ever greens. So people aren't looking, and there is a beautiful evergreen barrier there right now. So I would make it year round, not just seasonal. But I wonder if the planning staff could address the concerns about how a build-out right up to the edge in the rear and the side would affect the use of the CVS lot for users of that lot, including trucks, cars, people parking and people walking out of there. Thanks, Janet. So in terms of that and the evergreen plantings, my thought is that becomes a discussion during permitting when there's a proposal. So we're not prescribing evergreen plantings because it could be a mix of deciduous and evergreen. So staff's thought is that what you're asking are great questions that would be asked of an applicant. And so not necessarily sorted out right now. So the zero setback, the reason we have it is it's unique to this property as an overlay. And so it can be unique and it doesn't have to conform with the other zoning districts. That's why we're proposing an overlay with its own dimensional standards to allow for a parking facility. Sorry, Nate. So I think that- There are reasons for that. Janet, please hold. So my thought is that if there is a proposal and there is no setback and that becomes a discussion as to what can there be done to accommodate traffic? But at this time, we can't envision what a proposal may be. So the thought as an applicant would be considerate of how is there access if there is this 13 foot wide easement? And so we're allowing someone to build up to that corner. It doesn't mean that they have to. It means that they have that potential. And so it's really an applicant's decision on how they want to design a structure at that junction of those properties. And so I feel like to have a setback in case of to not allow that as something that I think the planning board could discuss during permitting. All right, thanks, Nate. Johanna. Thank you so much. I have a couple of thoughts. My first thought is if we continue this hearing which it sounds like we will, would it actually be possible to change the name of the hearing? So we're not talking about extending the general business district to the vacant parcel but instead clarifying what it is which is an overlay district just for public transparency. And so the public knows what we're currently considering. That's one question whether that's doable or perhaps once a hearing is started it just has to have the same name. My second question has to do with that 13th. And again, it might be that now is not the right time in which case Nate or Chris or Doug just tell me it's not the right time. But I feel like a couple of months ago when we were talking about the zoning downtown we talked about wanting to move into a direction where we're reducing sidewalk cuts and improving the walkability and the safety for pedestrians on Pleasant Street. And to me that like cars ducking in behind CBS is that's a spot where people get worried about their pedestrian safety. And so I don't know, I've like again might be that we need to talk about it later. And I guess CBS for now continues to have access there but it seems like getting to a place where we're moving the increasing the walkability on the front, moving in a direction of reducing that sidewalk cut and having the cars beyond North Prospect would be desirable for a downtown walkability standpoint. And maybe that these way becomes a pedestrian passageway rather than a vehicular passageway. And then I think those are my only questions right now. Okay, good thoughts. Chris, I see your hand. You wanna interject here? Yeah, thanks. I just wanted to point out that there are two places in the bylaw where we do have zero setback and it's not clear from table three but if you look in the text of article six you'll see that the minimum side yard setback and the minimum rear yard setback in some zoning districts including general business have to be a certain distance if they're abutting a residence district but otherwise side yards and rear yards are not required at all. So, but if they are provided they need to be 10 feet. And we've dealt with this on projects such as Spring Street where they got a special permit to deviate from zero feet or 10 feet because those were the two choices. And I think their setback is one foot or something like that. So, I just wanted to point out that we do have these cases where zero foot setback for both side and rear yard is allowed. Thank you. Thank you, Chris. Johanna, your hand is still up. I'll assume that's a legacy and Jack. Thanks, Doug. I just wanted to, you know in terms of the information we have gotten and emails and things like that. Janet Ford, the Samur's parking facility studies, you know, dated 1990. I don't know how relevant that is but I was wondering if Janet wanted to point something out from that or, you know, I had 75 pages I'm not gonna read it but I just was wondering what Janet's if you wanted to say something about a minute or two. All right, Janet, thanks, Jack. So I was just responding to, you know that site, the CVS lot site was selected as like the top site amongst the three sites. One of them was the Bank Center lot. The other one was Amity Street. Although they were sort of close to each other. Like it wasn't like an outstanding competition in CVS lot one. But when they were considering what could be built on there that report really delves into the CVS lot site. It was talking about the whole lot, including the CVS spaces. And so when Nate was saying, oh, this was the preferred choice the preferred choice was the entire lot, not just part of it. And so that actually got me thinking about like how will that CVS lot function with the building right there? And so I just wanted to be clear that we're looking at a smaller version of the lot and so, and obviously a smaller, you know building and things like that. So another, I wonder, can I segue into another issue Doug or do you want to go to public comment and we can come back to that. Well, I wanted to make one comment about something you just said, which was, you know if the town, if this moves forward would there be any opportunity for the CVS lot owner to partner with the public, you know with the developer for the parking lot and come back with a parking garage that spans that and extends into the CVS lot area, Nate? I'm not sure. We're not changing the zoning in the CVS lot. Right, I think, you know there could be some preexisting non-conformings that may be applied, but, you know, interesting question. I don't know if Rob had or Chris has an idea there.  Yeah, well, I mean, it sounds like from this study that Janet was talking about it actually did encompass both properties. Rob, did you want to comment on that? Just to add that it could occur but it would be very limiting by lot and building coverages which was really what was the original issue of looking at this lot for a building with a preexisting non-conforming a lot. It doesn't benefit from any non-conforming building coverage. So it is subject to the limit in the table for the RG district and it would be in that case unless the zoning change or overlay was expanded. Okay, thank you. Janet, I did sort of interrupt you there. Did you want to say anything else? Well, I'm always interested in your questions, Doug because I always lead to more thinking. And so just maybe to, so the CVS lot is RG. I thought it was BG for some reason. No, it's RG. So that got me thinking. So if we did an overlay district it could be larger or it could be somewhere else which I think Nate said, if we could put down one or two overlay districts and let developers decide where they want to build something, I guess. But if we did the overlay here, we could extend it which would give some flexibility for the CVS lot, I suppose. Is that correct? I was muted. That is correct. I think though, I'm not sure the property owners necessarily want a parking facility there. So we're choosing a municipally owned lot because that's something that is under town control. And we can apply it to the, to the slot. Okay, thank you. Andrew, I see you but I'm going to ask Chris what she'd like to say first. I just wanted to say that the owners of the CVS lot have been reluctant in the past to engage in conversation about anything that might happen on their parking lot. However, they may, their situation may be changing. They're elderly, they have a representative who lives locally. And as far as I know, no one on the town side or the bid has spoken with her or with the owners. And so there may be, you know, an opportunity to consider what Janet was talking about, which is to have an overlay zone that would go over that property as well. But that hasn't been a conversation that we have had recently. And the other thing is that the owners of the CVS lot are committed to a lease with CVS, which includes parking. And so I know that they would be reluctant to do anything that would disrupt the situation that CVS has now. So I think it would be complicated but it's probably not impossible but as far as I know, no one has engaged them in conversation. And since this, I think this was taken on by George and Evan as kind of a first step. And perhaps if this first step were to be achieved, then it would make sense for someone to engage in the conversation with the owners of the lot that includes the CVS store. Thanks. Great, thank you, Chris and Janet. So nobody's contacted St. Bridges or the CVS lot, CVS built lot owners about this proposal. That seems like kind of a huge omission. I wonder if we could do that. You mean in terms of notifying the butters of a conversation going on? We'll be possibly a rezoning that would affect them. They might have some points of view. Okay, Chris, Chris. Yeah, so there's no requirement for us to send a butters notices to a butters for a rezoning. And there's been discussion about this in the past, like should we do this? And since I think if this had been a zoning amendment that originated in the planning department or with the planning board, we probably would have done that because we would have felt ownership of this proposal. Right now we're kind of accepting some ownership of it as a result of this change that we're proposing, but we didn't start out with it. So all of the probably courtesies that we may have offered didn't come to pass because we were not the owners of this. So we're proposing an alternative solution here. And it may make sense to talk to the owners of CVS and St. Bridget's, but again, we didn't feel like it was our proposal to really take that step. So. Thank you, Andrew. Thanks Doug, yeah, I think it would be a good courtesy. I know that St. Bridget's makes heavy use of that lot on Sundays and they have sort of their pass through from that lot to their property. So to the extent that that's changing, I think it would probably be useful to let folks know at least that it could change, right? Obviously, as we mentioned before, we would need someone to build it, but I think that would be a nice courtesy to extend. Thanks. Thanks, Andrew. Janet, I assume your hand is a legacy. Okay. All right, any more comments from the board? All right, I see two hands in the attendance. Let's go with Ronnie Parker first, Pam. Yes, I'm with you. I'm here. And if you could start the clock at zero. I will, I will do that. Okay, this is Ronnie Parker. I'm sort of in day two of my home on North Prospect Street. And I'm not, I think I'm not, we are not directly across from this overlay that you mentioned, I think. So that's one of my questions because we are sort of at the corner at the place when people come out of this current CBS exit, a turn left and that light, the turn, reflects entirely on our house in ways that I'm shocked. I didn't, obviously didn't sleep here before we bought the house, but I'm really surprised at the extent to which that light comes around at us. So first, if this new overlay, I actually should start that I'm so impressed that the city listened to all the people who came and spoke and really tried to do something different. I really am. And so we're not directly across. And then there was this thing about how the entry and exit would abut directly. And on the PowerPoint, you drew this line right across the middle of the new proposed lot. So my question is what happens to the existing entry and exit does that still operate on its own? And will the people using the garage will have their own entry and exit? And then how is that managed with signs and traffic going one way or two way? All that's very confusing to me. And I think really does need just a little more work and clarity, but I did want to express my opinion that the two story green is really important because it is very difficult to imagine the impact of the light and the glare. And again, in your requirements, you said that it will be screened for lights and glare, which sounds great. That's like, we have a solution for polio or whatever, but the real question is, what is that? So I would like to understand more about what that screening requirement is. And I assume in your RFP, you won't just say screen for light and glare. There'll be some kind of standard. So I would really be happy to tell you the truth, to come and talk to the appropriate person, now that I'm here physically in the town government. So I don't feel like I have to say so much at every meeting and that I can be more concise. But I want assurance and I know you keep saying, well, that's up to the applicant. Well, let me give you an example. You said, oh, you can have a facade that is consistent with the historic nature of the homes across the street. Well, but what if none of your bidders, let's say you have four bidders and none of them really have anything that is, you know, they have something that's unsatisfactory. Would you not do the project and say, we are rebidding, we want somebody who really addresses this criterion? Or will you say, well, look, you know, we're lucky we got four bids. This one is a good price for us. And somebody said at a previous meeting, it doesn't cost the town a thing. Well, the cost of the town has to do, the cost of the town has to do with us who live around it. So I think all this, I just have these questions, but I have to tell you, I know my time is up. I have to tell you that I'm really impressed by the responsiveness to the comments and I'm willing to engage some more and not be disruptive if I can have some answers and speak within my time. So I appreciate the time to speak. Thank you. Thank you, Ronnie. Next comment is from Pam Rooney. State your name and address. Hi, Pam. Hi there, Pam Rooney, 42 Cottage Street. Thanks. The previous speaker had made some really good points. I think it would, we're obviously in the details, we're in the weeds, but unfortunately in this case, the weeds are what make a project sort of viable or not, especially for the neighbors. The cost saving the facade that the previous speaker just talked about is a pretty important one. The example of Greenfield in their cost saving effort eliminated the texture and scale and the fun details that were clearly going to be part of the project to dress it up, they got eliminated. So the reality is that we truly need more control over writing in some of that character and scale. A true description of several proposals for how the flow of traffic will occur, the pedestrian traffic, the vehicular traffic is really important because I think people really need to grapple with what would be functional and what would not in fact disrupt that neighbor with lights shining on them every single time. Having a duplicate exit drive for the CVS and for the garage greatly diminishes the ability of anything to be screened from that neighborhood and from the sidewalk. So you're multiplying the open space between and the visibility of this structure. Side easements, most of you may not know, but if you have angled parking, you actually can have 55 foot lanes instead of 60 foot lanes. Therefore you have 110 foot wide building plus the wall widths. Maybe there is some opportunity to squeeze that down a little and force people to use their compact cars but give a little bit of more lenience to the St. Bridget side of things for access and for St. Bridget's patrons who need that respect. I was curious about the comment about the builder would have the opportunity to do long-term permit holders or short-term IE public holders. I think the only reason we're doing this project is because theoretically we're a destination town and therefore we need lots and lots of public parking. So to see a proposal that comes in with minimized public parking, I think is not constructive. Let's see, any other comments? Oh yeah, the fact that we rely heavily on the design review board criteria and all of the sections of the planning in the bylaws, those have been ignored time after time by the planning board in the review of previous buildings and therefore I as a occupant of the town, resident of the town have no faith that in fact you would be able to rely on those standards being in place for controlling the look and feel of this building. So you might want to think about that in how you describe that building. Thanks. All right, thank you. Next we have Susanna Muspratt. Hi Susanna. Hello there, Susanna Muspratt, 38 North Prospect Street. I want to talk about the height of the building. I have heard Evan Ross and several other counselors insist that they wouldn't contemplate more than a three story garage. And that included the roof deck because I asked that specific question. Now I think tonight I heard Nate say that a parking garage level could be as low as seven or eight feet and you've got a 40 foot height and that is a five story parking garage which I hope you all are going to say we cannot permit to be in these dimensional standards. Thanks, thank you Susanna. Next is Dorothy Pam. Hi Dorothy. Hi, I apologize for not having been here earlier. I was at the UMass meeting about the massive demolition construction project which will take place just north of Fearing and Lincoln. But what I'm hearing is and I hope I've missed some really wonderful stuff that the only benefit so far is that if the parking garage does not go through it will revert to the RG because you're saying no setbacks. And then to quote Spring Street as an example of them existing when that is a terrible example and certainly one that has made people lose faith because every recommendation of the design review board was completely ignored. So what are the benefits and what are the protections for the neighborhood besides there will be some trees? Thank you. Thank you Dorothy. All right, it looks like we have no more hands than the attendees. So I think Chris, you were looking for us to either support or not support having you and the staff continue to work on this and bring it back to another meeting. So do you want us to have a formal vote on that matter or do you want to just a sense of the meeting? I think we'd like a sense of the meeting. All right. And maybe Rob has a different take on that. I would like to consult with Rob if you would be so kind as to ask his opinion. Sure, Rob. No, I think that would be fine. I don't think we need a formal vote at this point and that'll give us enough direction to finish this up and put it in the proper form. All right. All right, so I guess I'm the phrase I'm generally supportive comes to mind. And so I'm thinking maybe of going through the roll with a roll call on how people feel about each, you know, each person feels. But first I'm seeing two hands up from the board. Janet. I am generally supportive. I would like to spend some more time talking about specific issues, Lacey, but when I was thinking about this, you know, nobody in the planning department or on this board, as far as I remember from our previous meeting has come out and said, yes, we recommend that this parcel be, you know, rezoned from RG to BG. And that's the question really in front of the board. You know, and I think it looks to me like we're going to recommend not to do that. And so, you know, so I was pondering that, you know, there's really no support that I see for the RG kind of. And I think when we talked earlier, there was really no other zoning district that really fit, right? Cause you wanted some more flexibility, you wanted to limit height and things like that. And so that's what we're being asked to do is recommend to the council this specific rezoning. And so it strikes me that what we're talking about is a parking garage overlay that is more flexible and, you know, has the limits and flexibility and we can tailor it to a parking garage, not a zoning district which has, you know, 18 uses. And so I wondered that are we just, we have just embarked on a completely different zoning amendment and how we should proceed on that because there's a lot of, you know, there's so many details that need to be ironed out and language and issues. And so it seems to me this is like a separate endeavor that we're no longer with inside the first zoning amendment we're on a completely different one with different dimensions. It's bigger, it's smaller, it's higher, it's lower and things like that. And so that I just have been pondering like where are we in the zoning amendment process legally vis-a-vis the town council. All right, thanks, Janet. Why don't we, well, let's see, Nate, you've got your hand up. Maybe you'd like to take a pass at that. Oh, sure, I wasn't, I can address that. I think the initial zoning amendment was general enough that it's still within scope. So this was discussed with council town attorney as well. So, you know, there wasn't the detail or specificity in the original proposal. So in terms of addressing parking, this is still within that scope, you know, I would raise my hand just- So your understanding is we're not, we haven't departed from one process into initiating another one. Right, right. Okay, fine. So let's talk, let's hear from Jack. Thanks, Doug. I just want to say, you know, I've been, you know, on the plane board for five years and certainly accustomed to taking some hits by just wanting to say, I have a few, a couple of things to say, but I just want to say that the planning board, I think has disagreed with the design review board maybe once. You know, so I would say it's rare and the Spring Street development was unique and just wanted to make that clear because I don't think that was a fair statement that I heard.  I think that's a, that has to be done at some point.  So, you know, that's basically the two points I wanted to make. Thanks. So Evan, you got your hand up slightly before Chris. Yeah, I just wanted to actually, that's a good segue, Jack, to mention that while I know the planning department hasn't specifically reached out to abutters, there have been conversations with the owners of the CVS law and they've expressed support for the overlay idea. I don't know the conversation hasn't gone to would they want the overlay to also encompass their district, but the owners of that parcel have been supportive of both the idea of a parking structure and the overlay, no response from St. Bridges, but not for lack of trying. So the abutters are not unaware that this is happening and there have been conversations, they just have not happened from the planning department because as Chris said, this started originally as a proposal from Councillor Ryan and myself. Great, thank you, Evan. Chris, do you want to add something? Yeah, I would just want to say that, you know, since this wasn't initiated by the planning department and it did come to us from town council, but I would kind of want to get some support from the town manager for the planning department to make contact with CVS owners or with St. Bridges, you know, since I think we're in a little bit of an awkward position, as I said before, it didn't originate with us. So if the town manager feels that it would be a good, a good whatever idea for us, for the planning department to reach out to those abutters, I would be happy to do that, but I just need to get that, go ahead. Okay, well, it's great to hear from Evan that they've already had some contact from someone in the town, maybe it's through Evan. So that may or may not be required. Nate, you have your hand up too. Yeah, just to say quickly that, you know, there's, I think the public comments, there were some really good comments and, you know, there are some aspects of the project that would be conditions and a request for proposal that was issued by the town that may, you know, wouldn't necessarily, they couldn't be inconsistent with the zoning, but they could help shape the project a little bit more. And so, right, zoning doesn't regulate some things. And so, you know, my thought is, for instance, how parking spaces are allocated within a facility, the town may want to have, you know, some that are dedicated to public use or patron use, right? And maybe there's a minimum number for that. And then beyond that, it could be really the developer's choice, how can they finance the garage through who parks there? But, you know, so certain things like that really are not, you know, we're not going to cover in the zoning overlay. And then I was going to just talk to the height. In the RG, it's three stories and 40 feet. And so, you know, with staff, we took 40 feet as that's what is allowed in the RG. And that's actually measured typically to say if it's a peaked roof to the midpoint. So the actual height of a peaked roof is more than 40 feet because that's the midpoint of the, you know, depending on the roof slope or, you know, style of roof. So, you know, we thought 40 feet to the uppermost level of a wall or screening above the upper deck actually, you know, is pretty much like to, you know, the roof, basically a peak of the roof of a parking structure. So it really does, you know, keep the height down and it's, you know, similar to the height in the RG district. So we, you know, I think I just wanted to address that, that, you know, that's a maximum too. It's not, you know, they don't have, someone doesn't have to build to that height. That is, again, a maximum, not a, you know, not saying you need to build there. All right. Janet, can you go ahead? So we are in a sort of a strange spot. I think, Chris, in terms of where we are. And so I was wondering if we could just vote not to recommend the zoning change, but keep working on this idea. Cause I think it's a good idea. And I think it solves a lot of problems. I think I would feel, I mean, I have other issues, specific issues that to bring up, but also I think it would be great if we sat down with some kind of working group of to work on this overlay. And I think it's pretty, it's sort of unprecedented to see a zoning amendment and then voted on it at the next meeting and have it sail forward without more work. And I do think this needs work. I think it's a really strong start. And so I was wondering if the next step would be to put together a working group of, you know, a planning department, a planning board member, somebody from the bid, a builder, somebody from South Prospect Street, and just sit down and hash out like a really workable proposal. And I think it also could be a template for other parts of town. Because I think that the disadvantage of the North Prospect, this location is North Prospect Street. There's a lot of people who live along there that can be impacted. They have other sites in town that have very few, either no residents or very few residents, but also those residents would need protection. So I would like, I think that we can just vote hopefully to recommend not to change from RG to BG, but also vote to recommend to town council that we keep working on this overlay. And I think it's a great idea and really hash it out and have a really strong, well-worded, you know, document that has a lot of support behind it. And that's something that we kind of ran through because we were sort of at the public hearing and the clock is ticking on stuff like that. I mean, I really want to move forward on this idea, but I'd like to move forward on the way that we have time to go through the detail and talk things out. And I just wonder other people's thoughts about this. Would that help get us out of the awkward jam Well, at least what I heard from Nate was he didn't think we were in quite the jam that you are afraid we are that we don't really need to vote on the original way the proposal was structured. Chris, do you want to comment on that? Yeah, when I was referring to this being awkward, I was referring to the situation of my taking it upon myself to go and talk to butters. And the reason that I am reluctant to do that without 10 manager approval is to, you know, make sure that the town manager is on board with this idea and that he feels comfortable having the planning department reach out to butters about it. So that's my feeling of awkwardness. It doesn't have to do with the proposal in general. I don't think there's anything awkward about the proposal. I think it's a good proposal. And if someone were looking for my recommendation I would recommend that this is a good proposal and it should be recommended. So I also wanted to say that there are two opportunities for the planning board to talk about this before the public hearing that the CRC is going to hold. The CRC is required to hold a new public hearing because the charters, or no, actually it's the state law. The state law says that the town council has to vote on a zoning amendment within 90 days of the close of its public hearing. So the town council's public hearing was held by the CRC. And the CRC closed its public hearing quite a while ago. And they didn't have an opportunity or they didn't have a, they didn't desire or whatever you want. However you want to characterize it, they didn't take, they didn't, well, and the planning department continued this public hearing making it impossible for the town council to vote on this zoning amendment. So the fact is that the CRC is holding a public hearing. They're going to newly advertise it on November 9th. So the planning department has October 20th and November 3rd to talk more about this proposal. And the planning department would be happy, I would say. And Rob, I hope would go along with this, that we would be happy to keep working on this and make it a stronger proposal. So I would be reluctant to go along with the idea of voting this down or not recommending it at this time. I would want to keep working on it at least within the timeframe that we have. And I believe that by November 3rd, certainly we could achieve something that people would feel comfortable with. All right. I want to mention that it looks like George Ryan has joined the meeting. Thanks, Chris, Andrew. And by the way, if we could, we've been going almost two hours, I'm not sure how long people want to spend on this this evening, since we are going to see it at least twice more. So I'm hoping we can get a roll call on whether people are generally supportive, probably in the next 30 minutes, let's say. Andrew. Sorry, I'm taking warmed up. And we had four hours. Like this is, we're at halftime. I think I just want to make sure- Oh, you want to take a break? No. I think if I heard you right, Janet, you're saying let's just clarify, clarify that we're not going to change the underlying zoning. And I think we've heard that, right? That we'll keep it as RG, makes sense. I think, I know I have a couple of minor changes that I think I might just from seeing this that I might recommend for the proposal. I don't think it's going to be very much. I'd love to see what Nate comes back with. And I feel like we probably have, we've got some letters of support in our packet from a local business, local businesses supportive of this. I feel good, certainly to answer your question, Doug, of like, do we generally feel good about this? I generally feel good about this. And would feel comfortable asking the team to just make the tweaks we've talked about. And then let's kind of do our homework over the next two weeks and bring some good questions in to try to put this thing to bed. Because if we can make this happen, my gosh, like when you sent that thing out, Janet, from like 1980, it's like 40 years we've been trying to get this thing, it's crazy. So anyhow, I'm in support. Okay, thank you, Rob. Thanks, Doug. I'm just a question for Chris actually here. I just wanted to make sure I understood the dates properly because in my notes, I have the CRC public hearing on the schedule for October 26th. And I just wanted to make sure if that changed, I just wanted to make sure that I'm not missing that. There's another parking amendment that was scheduled for November 9th. So if that's true, and I see Chris already shaking her head, the October 20th planning board meeting ideally would be the time to make a recommendation on this. Okay, that's helpful. So we really don't have two more chances to deliberate before CRC wants to hear from us. Janet, you have a brief last comment. So I think it sounds like people are in support of moving forward on this. And so the other issues I had were, I think we should have special permit, not site plan review because we need to take a close look at this project and site plan, special permit gives more tools for adjustments and sort of controls. I do think we need clear design guidelines to match the historic district across the street. And the fact, we keep on talking about form-based zoning. Let's do a form-based wall and just start with showing what we can require. I would want the mechanicals tower to be away from North Prospect Street. And then I would like more detail on sustainability. I thought it was like hopeful and positive, but I thought there were some specific things that we could require. I also thought like if the roof is not gonna be used at the time, it could be a green roof. And maybe, if it's not gonna be needed for parking, the other thing is that I know we're requiring EV chargers. We're gonna need a lot more than two chargers. I know the EVs are coming. And actually, I think if we had fast chargers, we would attract people to the town town because you open up your app and you find out like most of them are on the interstate, but if there were fast chargers in Amherst people would come and charge their cars and that would be more stuff. So I wonder if there's more green things and just saying sort of aspirationally, we want green sustainability, but maybe more specifics on that. And then I just, I need to, I was a little confused by the applicable sections and why they come in and why they come out. Like I thought that could be tweaked up a little bit. All right, thanks Janet. And Nate, I guess I, as I hear what Janet's talking about, I'm reminded that I think at least at some point there would be an RFP, a public request for proposals and that that document might have more definite and more specific requirements for what the proposals can, or the responses need to contain. So we could get more specific about charging stations and proportion that's proportion of spaces that are devoted to public short-term parking. So am I going to talk about that? Right, so yeah, I mean, we'd have to come up with comparative criteria and there could be design criteria that has things like it's highly advantageous or most advantageous to have the parking, our towers further from North Prospect Street or it's more advantageous to have a higher ratio of EV charging stations or other things, other amenities. So yeah, I mean, I think that, I think staff can consider what, there are a number of comments here. It's really then, what's feasible to have in a zoning overlay? Is it going to be so prescriptive that actually is detrimental to the project? And so the RFP is where we can have some more conditions that we'd wanna see in a facility or in a design, in a response, and that's where we can have some of that. Thank you, Chris. Oh, I wanted to thank Rob for correcting me about the date of the public hearing that the CRC is going to hold. But even so, the CRC is holding its public hearing on October 26th. They don't have to make their recommendation on October 26th. So if the planning board hadn't made a recommendation before that, the planning board could still consider this on November 9th, or November 3rd. So the planning board could take the time it feels that it needs to come to a conclusion about this. So I just wanted to offer that. The planning board could consider this on October 20th and it could consider it on November 3rd and come to a conclusion then and the CRC could come to its own conclusion. And the agendas for those two meetings that we have, are they very full? They are, October 20th, you're considering mixed use buildings. So you have that on the schedule and you also have a parking lot for the Podic Coal Conservation Area. Those are the only two things you have on October 20th. Right, well, we could easily spend two hours on the mixed use building and we've spent two hours on this and we could spend another two hours, I suspect. So that could be another four hour meetings very easily. Jack. Yeah, I just wanted to follow up on something Janet said. I guess with the guard of the roof, I mean, does the current overlay allow parking on the roof? So there actually would be four levels of parking because right now I feel like the garage is on the smallest side and I think that roof parking would be paramount and then solar on top of it in terms of those on the stanchions, whatever is what I would read between the lines is what we were thinking. I just wanted to make clear that the roof is not a roof. I mean, it's, it would be a fourth level parking. Okay, that's it. All right, thanks, Jack. Is this a question, but yeah, I think it probably depends on how we structure the RFP and whether we want to maximize the number of spaces or we want to get some something else on the top surface. Chris, you are muted. Chris, you're muted. That was a legacy hand, I'm sorry. Okay, all right, so we've heard a couple of people say they were generally supportive. We didn't go through every single member. I guess I'll ask at this time, is there anybody who is not generally supportive? Raise your hand if you are not generally supportive. All right, I don't see any hands. And so at this point at 834, I guess we can continue the hearing to October 20th. I guess I'll need a motion. And Chris, do you have a time specific we should put in the motion? The Podic coal conservation area is scheduled for 635. And so you could schedule this for seven o'clock. All right, so I guess I'd like a motion to continue the hearing to October, it's the October 20th at 7 p.m. Janet. I move to continue this hearing to October 20th at 7 p.m. All right, thank you, Janet and Andrew. Second the motion. All right, going through the members, Maria. Brown. Jack. Approve. Tom. Aye. Andrew. Formative. Janet. Yes. And Johanna. Aye. And I'm an I as well, so that's unanimous. Doug. Yes, Janet. I want to just jump in and following up on something Johanna said is it is true that if you read our agenda, you would have literally no idea that we're talking about a parking overlay district. And so, and you wouldn't know to look for it. And so I'm wondering if the planning board could publicize this fact or the next time we post the agenda, describe, you know, it better. But we have these community participation officers that keep on telling me about district meetings and the legal women voters having something. And I wonder if we could get that word out in a more effective way. I now find out the bulletin will no longer be delivered to my home. So that's not effective, but I wonder if there's a way we can just reach out and just tell the public, this is what we're working on. Can it be a banner on the town website that, you know, and I know the parking garages is like explosive issue. And when I first moved to Amherst, I couldn't believe these people constantly talking about what looked like a really chill underground parking garage. But I just think it's important that, you know, we be out there and get support for the garage instead of like, you know, kind of it erupts and people feel like they're kind of blindsided. So is there something that we can do to inform people what we're working on? Cause it's a good project. And we want to hear what people think and, you know, let them vent the feelings and offer their good suggestions. Thanks, Janet. Chris, do you want to comment on that? So I think Janet's suggestion about wording the agenda differently is a good suggestion. I think we can roll in what we started out with and talk about what we're doing now. I think we have to keep going with what we started out with because we have this public hearing that opened a while ago and we're taking advantage of the fact that this public hearing is open, but we can do a better job of describing it on the agenda. And then, you know, internally we can talk about how else we can get the word out that this proposal has changed significantly since it was introduced. So we'll work on that. Great, thank you. All right, I don't see any more hands. So, and we've continued the public hearing. So we'll move on. Do we have any old business, Chris? We have no old business as far as I know. Yeah, none. Do we have any new business? I would just like to address the issue of the open meeting law complaint. We got another one today. We've already gotten two of them and they relate to minutes that have not been approved and posted. The planning department does have a plan. I think you're all aware of it to deal with this issue. We've been given the ability to hire somebody who takes minutes for town council and CRC to catch us up on our old minutes. And Maria has been very generous with her skills in taking the minutes for the current meetings. And many of you have already written minutes. I'm three quarters of the way through the five hour July 21st meeting. But so I just wanted to bring you up to speed. I'm gonna be writing to the complainant on Tuesday, the 12th of October, which I think is day 14 and telling her what our plan is and how much we've accomplished since we received the complaint. And I need to send a copy of that to the Attorney General's office. And then after that, I'll address the complaint from the other person who is local person. The first person was from California. Second person is a local person. And the third complaint came from the person in California. So anyway, we're working on addressing those. And thank you very much for all of the planning. Board members who have stepped up to help us out of this whole. And we hope that by October 20th, we will bring you minutes that you can review. I actually wrote an email to you all last night and contained the minutes, three sets of minutes that were written by planning board members in addition to Maria's minutes, but I never sent the email. Not that you would have had time to review them before tonight anyway, but I just wanted to bring you up to speed and tell you what we're doing to address this issue. Thank you. Right. And so you've got several minutes from a couple of board members. And I think every board member volunteered to do one set. So those who've completed their minutes, we won't be coming back to you again. And Maria, we're hoping to let you off the hook with your minutes, probably maybe the next meeting. I think maybe one more meeting might be enough, but those who haven't finished their minutes, Chris, would ideally you have at least a draft? You could send the complainant on the 12th, but would you like to give people that target? Yep. Yes, that would be great. And if you could get me a draft by October 12th, then I can send it off to the complainant, the first complainant, and the second complainant, I'll probably send her what I've got to. So... And can we post our drafts on the town website before they are approved or not? I think we could. We'd have to label them as drafts, but we could do that. Okay, well, I guess I'll look to you to make that call as to whether it's worth the effort, if it seems like it's gonna be a while before we actually approve the final version or not. I'll consult with Pam. All right, Andrew. Thanks, Doug. I was wondering, would it make sense just to have like a meeting with a single item, which is just approved minutes? And we could do that, you know, some time within the next two weeks to be able to more closely comply with the timing for that. Chris, what do you think of that? Well, that's a good idea, except I'm gonna be going out of town on Friday and Pam is taking Thursday and Friday off for a family event and Tuesday, and then Monday's a holiday and we would have to do this meeting probably on the 13th, which would make sense, which is next Wednesday. So I think it's... We could meet on Tuesday, the 19th, October 19th and just do minutes on the 19th if people are available then. Would you like to do that? Andrew? Yeah, I mean, I think if it's something that will help us address the complainant, then it seems like it's a reasonable thing to ask. We can just jump on for literally five minutes, hopefully. You know, I suppose that there could be some questions about the minutes, but maybe that's something we cannot... I don't know. Well, if we have all the drafts by, you know, the 12th, that could give people a couple of days to look them over and send any suggestions to Chris so that maybe she and I have gone through those comments and responded in the way we think would make the best sense that they could all be ready by the 19th. Is the 19th useful for your timeline with the complainants or the attorney general, Chris, or should we just wait until the 20th? Well, may I answer that? So the 19th is a week after we are supposed to respond to the first complainant. And I would say the, did I say that, right? Yeah, we're supposed to respond to the first complainant by the 12th. And the 19th is the date that we need to respond to the second complainant. So, you know, anything after the 12th is problematic, but it's better than nothing. So yeah, if we can meet on the 19th, that would be fine. That would be good. We'd get those off our plate. We could post them as, you know, final draft, final approved minutes, and then we could move on to the next set. So that's probably a reasonable thing to do. Are people available? Do you want me to send out a meeting request tomorrow in the email and ask people if they're available or do people want to say now whether they're available for the 19th? Well, let's see, why don't we go through everyone here? Janet, are you available on the 19th? Well, I was going to say is, I think we just have to give a response to the complainants and just say, here's our plan, here's some minutes, here's our plan, we're hiring somebody. And you can post draft minutes on the website. And so I would just go with that. And then I'm not going to, and then I'm not going to have like sit down for five hours and draft minutes and have them ready by next week. And so I don't want to slow the group down, but I don't think we have to resolve all the late minutes by the 19th. And so the 12th really won't work for you? Yeah, I kind of think it's too fast. And so I think we're all diligently working on our minutes or everybody but me, but I just don't, I would rather not plow through sets of minutes plus the agenda. Like, I mean, I think the packet and the work that we're doing is really important. And I think we can do a couple of sets of minutes at our 20th meeting. And then I think it's fine just to do a few and the rest in November and just, as long as we're making progress and we give a plan and if we're posting our drafts, I think we're in better shape. So I don't want to... I think I'm eager to get this behind us. And maybe I'll go ahead and do the minutes that you were going to do. And then we'll have those all finished. Pam, I see your hand. I am not probably won't have mine done by Tuesday either if I really stick to the idea that I have scheduled time off. So I'm just putting it out there and I have a big one. I have a five hour meeting that is two public hearings that include the CRC. Okay, Chris, how do you feel about, you know, having most but not all by the 12th? I think that'll work. We'll have most but not all by the 12th. We're gonna get some from Emily who's helping us out. And I'll just, I'll write a letter to the complainant and copy the attorney general and I'll send copies to all of you outlining what our plan is and what our progress has been. And I don't think that's gonna be a problem. All right, do you think we need to have a specific date by which we promise to have them all finished or can we leave it open-ended? Interesting question. I would like to say the end of October. Okay, Pam, would that work for you? The end of October? Well, at this point, I have the May 19th minutes that I am responsible to do, which I will work like a little rabbit after this weekend, I promise. I get what happens to me is I'm so diligent but then it's also time to build another packet and attend another meeting and, you know, all the other little things. So it's hard for me to say but yeah, once I get through this weekend, if Chris Brestrup tells me it needs to be done by such and such a date, it will be done. Okay. Right, Chris? All right, Chris, is your hand is still up? No, okay. And remind me of the date you gave, Chris? I gave a date of the end of October. End of October. So Janet, would that work for you? Yes, okay, good. Andrew. Thanks, I just wanna make sure none of us are accidentally doing the same minutes, right? I know I was given a date, but just when I hear someone say that someone else will pick it up, like we, it's all perfectly assigned. Yeah, I have, you know, I kept track of all the dates and made sure everybody got a unique date. Perfect, thank you. And Janet, I'll leave that set of minutes with you. Sounds like we don't need to rush quite as much as I thought. Okay, I guess that one. Thanks to Maria. Yeah, well, we do wanna let Maria get back to full participation. So, you know, and hopefully have, I guess, Pam, go back to doing the minutes for the meeting in real time as soon as we can. So thanks everyone for that. Chris, no other new business? No other new business. Okay, Form A, A and R? Yes, I promised you I wouldn't have another topic, but we do have a Form A. And so if Pam can bring that up, I'll show it to you. It's on Market Hill Road, and it is a property that is owned by the Stoge family. And there's a house on it. And you can see the property here. So Market Hill Road is between Flat Hills Road and East Leverett Road in North Amherst. And the property is surrounded by the turquoise line. And it's actually two properties. It's the yellow property and the turquoise property. So if Pam will bring up the A and R, I can show it to you. This one? Yes, thank you. So what they're doing. I have it a little bigger. Thank you. So what they're doing is dividing this property into one, two, three, four, five lots. This property here is a kind of strange shape, but it does meet the zoning requirements. It's got the square footage that's needed, which is. Chris, we cannot see your cursor. I'm sorry. Pam can use her cursor. So there's a strange shaped lot at the western end, which kind of horseshoes over the existing house. And this lot has greenhouse and it's got a barn on it, but it does meet the zoning requirements of 30,000 square feet. And it has more than 150 feet of frontage. So that lot is okay. It's got its building circle drawn on there, the 150 foot building circle. So that's a lot. I can't read the number. Is that lot five or six? I think it's a lot of eight. It's a lot of eight. Okay. So that's a lot eight. The lot to the immediate east of that, I think is lot six. That's the lot that has the house on it. It also meets the requirements of 150 feet of frontage and more than 30,000 square feet. As do the other three lots, which are more conventionally shaped, five, four, and three. Lot three is a flag lot. And it has more than twice the number of square feet that it needs. With its access strip, it's got more than 60,000 square feet. So that, those are the lots. And what you are declaring is that this doesn't have to go through the subdivision control process. And you're not creating a new road. All the lots are frontage lots. So I think you can feel confident that this does not have to go through the subdivision control process. And what you would be doing is authorizing Doug to sign this A&R plan. All right. Do we need a formal motion, Chris or? No, you could just ask if anyone objects. Anyone object to that? All right. All right. Not seeing any hands. I guess, I guess we need to schedule our next meeting in the back parking lot. I'll send you an email. Okay. And that's it for the form A&Rs. Yep. Report of chair. I really don't have anything to report. Report of staff. I don't have anything more to report. All right. And then, so at 854, we can adjourn. Thank you all. Thanks for all your help again. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you for you. Good night. Good night. All right. Bye, Pam. Goodbye, Mr. Marshall. Thank you for everything. Enjoy.