This program is brought to you by cable franchise V's and generous donations from viewers like you Okay, so are there any comments our Suggestions corrections that any of the board members see for the March 4th minutes, and I see I recognize Michael He has his hand up. I'm going to approve the minutes March 4th Okay, I see no other hands raised. Is there a second? Excuse me. Yeah Um, I think Janet had some comments. I don't know if you saw her hand. I do not see her hand Her hand is not raised. Physically it is raised, but not Symbolically. Oh, yeah, I'm sorry. It's too because I don't even see you all on my screen No, I'm trying to get us. I'm trying to get back to that bigger screen I have I see most of us and I don't see where it says raise hand and I'm struggling If you go to the bottom of the screen, it will highlight and you'll see participants. I right now it says 14 Okay, good. Thank you. Yeah, right participants. I I clicked 14 and then my hand raising And I will raise my hand somehow Oh, raise hand. Thanks. I had a completely different screen a good strange green screen. Okay. Thank you So I believe you have a comment about the March 4th minutes. So I have a couple. One is on page two Which paragraph sorry on the fourth paragraph it starts attorney reedy And so I wanted to change um the part of that first sentence that said of parking study data To two days of observation of parking because I thought that was you know, a parking study is sort of a different thing than just writing down Or isn't a lot on two nights Or it turned out Janet, can you repeat what you wanted it to say? Sure. I'll read the whole sentence. It says attorney reedy before the last provided That support the parking waiver request including a third spreadsheet of And I would write two days of observations of parking in lots about spreadsheet of parking data for two time periods Yeah, I'm fine with that. I just think it's not a parking study So I think because we're talking about doing a systematic study of parking And so I thought that was kind of an I didn't like the characterization of that And then on the next page I had made comments about my observations of parking And that's sorry Janet. Janet. Can you you're on page three? Yeah, what paragraph? Well, um, I'm not well, it's kind of not there is I had made a comment during that discussion About parking that I had observed. I had done some parking counts and parking lots on two dates And It's not in there and so I wanted that to be added to the minutes Although I didn't have their comments that I made so I didn't I have notes of things I saw I'm not sure exactly what I said And so I talked to I emailed Christine and she didn't have that down So I think we have to go back and look or someone of us has to look at it and see what that data was Because it did show a fair amount of parking use Well, we then cannot approve the minutes So you're proposing we put it on hold until the next meeting and some research be done Looking at the video for what you actually said. Yes. Yes I will withdraw my motion then Okay, and you've got that Chris and Pam Yep, I do Okay, so um So I had another um edition of something that mr. Burt whistle had said Michael had said during the discussion of the um Discussion of proposed draft zoning by-law amendment process on page 15 The full one makes me realize this was a very long meeting And I remember Michael talking about being concerned that the planning board might wind up holding two meetings public hearings like one When it was looking at a zoning by-law Decided to hold a public hearing and then sent it to the town council And then it would come back for a joint hearing public hearing with CRC and the planning board Okay, why don't I open it up to Michael and he can give some feedback on it because you're You know and see what he's comfortable with or or if he feels he needs to um Or let me put you this way Michael you read the minutes Is are there items that you want to include that you stated that are not there right now? Janet you're talking about the second paragraph under B I think you know it's actually it's another kind of comment. I remember And it's not here. So it's not really You know, I can't say oh, I don't remember exactly what it was said, but I remember you talking about This process that we were given might lead to more public hearings for the planning board and then you raised a sort of different point that If there's a joint CRC planning board meeting when they're supposed to be two separate ones It might mean that the public participation part isn't impactful like people like usually the planning board holds a public hearing We might take some take some input make some changes and then send it to In the old days a select board in town meeting and if we have a joint hearing It might sound I'm paraphrasing here like it's already been baked and no one really it's a public hearing For input, but it's already been decided. So remember those two points because I thought I thought about that a lot after you said them Well, I recall making them, but I don't know where they would be You know, I could go back and listen to these parts of the hearing because um, I just remember them, but I just don't I can't say oh it came after You know Ria's comment or you know, I can't say when it was. I just remember hearing it. So Janet can I can I remind you something about minutes? minutes just capture the general of the meeting mostly importantly taking on action items and votes and you know in the end things passed and You know transcripts, you know, that's why we have the videos if people want the details They can go and watch the whole meeting, you know, I mean these minutes are already 18 pages long if we turn, you know and try to capture everything that everybody says it's a transcript So if we're missing something you said or michael said I could tell you there's like 50 things that I said that aren't in here But that's not the point of minutes Well, I think that you know when I when I look at minute. I mean my experience with minutes and also looking at the um Open meeting law is like so somebody who wasn't there can understand what was said And so I thought these were important points and I think they're actually important points because In my experience with the crc is they're not getting What we're saying and we're not getting what they're saying and so I think You know if somebody read this they would think okay This was a full discussion and I thought those points by michael were actually very important So if you want I can do is I can take these minutes You know add my changes in red and then we I could send them out and then we could vote on my the next meeting I would hope that would be the choice I do any other members have any Feelings on this um You know should janet keep more to her comments that she made and where she feels she wasn't fully um disclosed uh or you know captured um You know, I I just don't want just to get minutes done to get spinning that we're worried about what everybody said because like I said Then it goes to a transcript Um, we could look into a chris. We've talked about this before about running this through some of the google softwares to produce a transcript Which could be posted I just think minutes like what you're saying janet is people should be able to read this and get A feeling of the meeting but not necessarily that they sat through a four-hour meeting and I get concerned that minutes would start to become You know over 20 pages That's not good use of our staff time when it's being captured in other ways I understand that you might feel that they're important parts So I I guess it's the prioritization. How important and vital do you feel that these comments have to be in the minutes You know it well, I I'm bringing them up because I think they are Yeah, well, that's important and there's like we can't have these minutes finalized because it's vital um I see chris's hand is up michael. Oh great. Yes. I will call on chris bestrup. Thank you So I think i'm unmuted I just wanted to say if janet listens to the video and comes up with exact wording that she would like to include here You could review it the next time around I don't really have time to go back and listen to those videos to get the exact wording But janet could propose some kind of summary of exactly what was said and then we could include it next time around does that work We can do that. Um And wet so she'll submit these and then you'll incorporate them Can you put them in red or highlight them or something when the document comes back to us so we can Go right to it. Um And i'm gonna call on michael. Oh no michael's got uh david Thank you. If a board member thinks that it's substantive and important to revise the minutes I would encourage them to speak up. I think that it is I take your point chris steen that these are not transcripts These are minutes and so there should be a balanced judgment used But if a board member thinks that That that's substantive and should be edited But you know and weighing a part of that balance is also the staff resources. So I appreciate that I support chris's suggestion and appreciate janet's willingness to go back and and propose revisions keeping again this the balance of all of the resources and our time Um, uh, but but if it's there you go if the board members thinks it's important it should be taken up and Uh, the minutes can be revised. That's it. Thank you Great. Can I also um bring up we are given these minutes ahead of time in our packets. Um Maybe it would be helpful for people to save time to send me their comments if they have issues You review the minutes and send them to chris and then chris can reissue the minutes. Um You know chris, what are your feeling? You know so that we some of this might be able to be addressed before we actually get to the meetings That makes sense Sure as long as everybody's clear that you know These are things that so and so would like to change and then we'll bring them to the meeting And you can decide whether you want to change it or not. Yeah, right I think then we'll know what to expect and we have a list and we can work off that So if everyone can just try it then to be a little more proactive if they do have Comments and we won't just leave it to right now. I'm looking at the hands if there's any other comments On march forth if there isn't I'll give it a couple seconds. We'll move on to april 15 Well, I see jack has his hand raised I just wanted to say um I'm not an attorney, but There is a video Of our meeting and can there be some sort of disclaimer at the bottom of the minutes Saying that if you want the you know exact sort of uh Or proceedings referred to this video Uh That's all that's all I have to say Thank you That's also a possibility And send somebody in the right direction if they're looking for more Um, I'm going to move to the april 15th minutes. Again. I'm looking does anyone have comments or additions to these I Don't see any hands so I could also take a motion Move to approve the minutes And is there a second second Thank you So this is the first time we've done this I guess I have to do a roll call to Um pass the minutes So as I call your name, um Give your answer and then re-meet yourself so I will go to michael Maria Approve jack Approve David Yes, approve Doug Janet Yes And I also approve them. So we have unanimous chris. I think we're good with those So we will move on to The next agenda item, uh And I believe we have a slide We do I'm I'm going Thank you Oh, we moved public comments. So now let's try this one So we're going to open the first public hearing Yes, we are Okay, so it is now 652 I'm going to move tom reedy great, um Amherst planning board notice of public hearings the amherst planning board Is holding a public hearing right now to consider the site plan review and special permit applications Okay, so s pr I'm going to open the first one. Uh, the site plan review first Uh, s pr 2020 dash 06 paul schoenway 314 and 330 college street request to modify s pr 99 dash 0005 To cause, uh, the existing multi-use building to exist on its own lot lot too And the existing shopping center to exist on its own lot lot one Commercial and b bc zoning district map 15a dash 24 15a dash 97 and 14 b dash 222 All right, first I just want to ask, um, are there any board disclosures and I'll watch for hands Raise your hand if you have a disclosure Uh, I am seeing none um So we are going to move to the applicant who will give their presentation which I believe is mr tom reedy Um, is he set up? Do we hear are you there tom? I'm here. Can you hear me? I hear you welcome Thanks for having me I just see your name, but we hear your voice And if you say next slide or backwards or forwards Pam will drive those around Sure. Okay We only have just a no time. We have these three Slide we have three slides Perfect. That's all we need. Okay, beautiful Okay, uh, so good evening everybody Um for the record tom reedy attorney with bacon wilson here in amherst here on behalf of mr paul schoenway owner of the college street shops Um, which is the subject of a couple of different matters in front of you this evening We've got the site plan the modifications of the site plan approval, which the chairwoman just mentioned We've also got a couple of special permits, which we'll get to later um, and also Seeking the endorsement of an approval not required plan so This parcel Or maybe I should say these parcels there. There are three parcels all together 15 a 24 15 a 97 and 14 b 222 um The shopping center that that retail center With kelly's on on one end and then the vacant space on the easterly end is on 14 b 222 according to the assessors map And then you've got 15 a 24 labeled as 330 college street the building of A mixed use it's a mixed use building On its own assessors parcel and then you have And what looks like a flag lot, which is 15 a 97 And so they're all separate assessors parcels But um In about I think it was 1998 paul sought and was granted approval through site plan review For a mixed use building which contains about 5 000 plus square feet and 12 residential units that was issued by the planning board in 1998 And then there was a wetlands determination. There was a wetlands appeal. There was a superseding order of conditions issued which was appealed and at that time the building was Where the detention basin if you've been out to the site was where the detention basin currently is And so as a settlement what happened was the parties agree just to flip-flop the detention basin with the building So the building ended up where it is today but It required um a modification to that previous planning board approval. So in 1998 it was originally approved in 1999 Attorney macana went back and got a modification of that site plan approval to put the building where it exists today But at that time If you're familiar with the zoning About where the back of that 14 b 222 lot line is if you extended that all the way across the property That's about where the zoning line is which separates the commercial district, which is towards college street From what's now the bvc business village center zoning district, which is to the rear by watson farms At the time uh in 1999 It appears that The whole parcel was commercial Because what happened was once that building ended up where it is today The applicant needed relief Because the building was going to violate the side and rear yard setback at that time in the commercial zoning district The side and rear yard setback was 25 feet that building was going to be less than 25 feet from the side and the rear yard And so this is kind of all by way of background And I think it's going to feed into each of the pieces of relief that we're going to be asking for this evening So the zoning board of appeals Granted that relief for the rear and the side yard setback to allow the siting of the building where it is As part of that site plan review approval However, it appears that the applicant at that time considered the entirety of All three parcels And so when you look at all three of those parcels You've got a combined lot area of 115 193 square feet That affects directly the lot coverage Which we will get into later and the building coverage because that as a whole would form the denominator With the building coverage. So building on the entire site is 26,808 square feet Which represents 23.27 percent Which is less than fortunately both bdc and commercial have the same Building and lot coverage requirements. It's 35 percent building coverage. 70 percent lot coverage So overall as a whole site The building complies 23.27 and the lot complies it's at 68.81 percent and it's a 79 268 square feet of what lot coverage for the entire site a couple of different And this is going to lead into something that we'll talk about later So I don't know when you want to open that public hearing for the special permit piece of it But that's going to impact the overall lot coverage and building coverage when we ask for this division And so one of the things we're asking for is an endorsement Of an approval not required plan and pan if you want to go to the next slide that probably shows it better And if you want to maybe zoom in just a little bit If you could zoom in How do I do that? Maybe in view Next two over from slideshow and then the zoom Okay Is it doing it? Yeah, we we can probably make do with that if anybody needs to See it closer Go into slideshow Could you make it bigger? Sort of better. We all have paper copies of this. Don't we? Yes. Oh good. That would be great If you can if you could look at that Thank you Michael and I do notice some of the members don't have themselves on mute So if if you're looking at The plan that's up in front of you You'll see that what we're asking for is a division Of that essentially it's three assessors parcels, but it's being considered as one Parcel for permitting purposes. There's never been an 81x plan or perimeter plan recorded So really what we're looking to do is clean it all up part of that cleanup is to put each of these, you know, the shopping center distinctly on one lot, which is going to be called lot one and the mixed use center on lot two and To in order to do that we need to modify the site plan approval So that it now runs with both lot one and lot two So that each of them are on their separate lots one of the things that i'll mention is When you're looking at so we talked about the overall site and the overall lot coverage and building coverage for the overall site When you look at just lot one that also will as an overall site Without regard to the lot line the zone line rather Which if you're looking at the paper copy in front of you or if you're looking at your screen You'll see that in green about at that rear of 14 v 222 There's a zone line where as I mentioned college street is commercial To the rear of that is bdc so without regard to the Zoning line lot one complies it's building coverage is 25.8 percent and it's lot coverage is 69.5 percent um And then lot two complies Where you've got a building coverage of 17.2 percent and a lot coverage of 66.3 percent However, that's not the way you look at these the way you have to look at these is bvc And lot coverage of building coverage within the bvc and a lot coverage and building coverage within the commercial So that's really what is precipitating our request for relief through that special permit where we're asking for um alteration or extension of a Pre-existing non-conformity, which is the lot coverage and building coverage in the commercial zoning district For the modification of the site plan review. I think as you'll see in your proposed findings. There are no Physical changes to the site. We're not proposing any use changes to the site We're not proposing any pavement any pavement markings nothing it quite literally is just The lot line that is now dividing lot one and lot two um I'm happy to answer any questions. Yeah, I know that's a lot. I'm happy to answer any questions that you have On that request or the the a and r uh endorsement Thank you So I just want to ask chris We have three related public hearings here and we've opened the site plan review and we have two others for a special permit um Should we open the other two or Chris are you there or Just do one at a time. This is the raised hand. She does but she just has to unmute herself and she can Yeah, so I think it would be a good idea to join these public hearings together Uh for purposes of being able to discuss all of them at the same time And then once you decide to um close the public hearings, obviously you'd have to close each one But we do have um suggested findings and conditions Findings and conditions for one of them and findings for the other two So you'd have to um vote on them separately But it might make sense to You just have them all open now that it's after seven o'clock and all open and joined That's what I was thinking because we passed the seven So I'll open the other two and then we will move to the site visit report. Um, I believe miss mcgallin is gonna give that and then I'll um We'll just uh stick to questions right now about well the The site plan review And then yeah chris So, um, just make sure that you're going to read the description of the two special permit applications. Yes Um, okay, so uh 645 we had spp 2020 dash 0 4 paul schoenway 3 14 and 330 college street Request special permit to modify Um by extinguishment the existing special permit zba Fy 99 dash 0 5 4 relative to the side and rear yard setback for the mixed use building map 15a dash 24 bvc zoning district And at seven o'clock opening the public hearing for spp 2020 dash 0 5 paul schoenway 3 14 and 330 college street Request special permit under table 3 footnote a of the zoning bylaw to modify the side setback requirement Of the existing shopping center to allow the reconfiguration of the lot into two lots and to alter the pre existing non conformity of lot coverage And building coverage to allow the division of the lots map 15a dash 24 15a dash 97 and 14 b dash 222 commercial and bvc Zoning districts. So now we have all three open um I'm gonna call on uh the site visit in a moment, but I just want to ask mr. Reedy Do you have anything else you want to add at this point? Not right now. I think, you know, we can get into the footnote a modification the extinguishment and then the lot building coverage after but great Okay, so um And since I've opened the other two, I just want to ask the board. Are there any disclosures? I don't think I I see no hands. So I'll call on um jennet mcgowan right now to give the site report Which I believe happened yesterday at four o'clock Yes, am I unmuted? Yes, you are we can hear you. Thank you. Um, so at the site visit, um, we saw that there was one we we walked around the entire lot Um, which has two zoning classifications. So we walked around the calm part and we walked around the business Um village center part Um in the commercial is the building that's in front along college avenue It it has eight small shops in a building um, and one of the shop spaces Um on the corner is empty. That is a potential place for a marijuana retailer I think they have an application into the cannabis control commission the back section is um behind that building was the um kind of an The bit the bit the area the zone business village center and it was noticed it was noticed that it was kind of like an island of zoning um Kind of just hanging in there and on that um on vbc Is a building that has a few few stores on the first floor and then two stories of apartments And there's 12 apartments up there um And then like across from that to the west was what I would call a sump or now it's called a retention pond um And so that was that and there's a parking lot. There are parking lots all around the commercial building and parking spaces And then to the west of the multi um use building. There were um two lines of parking spaces um Let's see what else did we see um, there's entrances and exits to the to the entire lot On the west side and the east side of the property um Let's see what else Um, can I ask who was there? Oh, um, michael burt whistle was there. Um, christine breast up um attorney reedy and Who am I forgetting? um Doug marshall Thank you And then we we kind of walked along where the proposed lot lines were and we saw that um at the back of the commercial building to the east side um The lot line sort of angles off And it goes, you know through partly for the detention pond, which is um a little unusual and The purpose of that lot line was described partly because it um The marijuana retailer if it comes in needs to be 500 feet away from the fort river school um And that and then so that was I think that's the gist of it. I'm trying to think if anything else If somebody wants to jump in with some more stuff, it'd be great Uh michael I see your hand Yes, there was one other thing that we did notice that the parking the the driveway on the east side of the building uh Would ultimately be some kind of uh shared driveway The the lot the the curb cut on the uh on the west side would serve only the uh Building the curb cut on the east side serves both the commercial building and the apartment building behind it So there's a complication there of some sort. It's hard to know exactly what that means, but that is a difference Excellent. Thank you. Um, any one else have anything who is at the site visit want to add anything? um, I see I Chris you waited it. Yeah I saw a hand wave So I just wanted to mention that mr. Reedy told us that the uh mixed use building has four two-bedroom apartments And eight one bedroom apartments for a total of 16 bedrooms So I thought that was a an important point because we may be talking about parking a little bit later on Chris, could you repeat that? um Mr. Reedy said that there were four two-bedroom apartments And eight one-bedroom apartments For a total of 16 bedrooms and also 12 apartments So four four plus eight is 12, but there are 16 bedrooms all together Thank you Okay, so I'm going to at this point open it up to questions from the board um Either to chris or mr. Reedy Who you're looking to answer or either I'll watch for their hands um Okay, I only see one hand. Uh, whoop. I see two. I'll call on janet and then next will be michael Am I unmuted I hate to just keep on asking that can you see your button? So if you click on that participants Yeah, and it lists everyone you connect and the other places if you go to the very bottom left hand side of your screen It says mute and stop video and those are you can control and toggle those All right, I will get I will get into this thing. So for mr. Reedy Could could you reiterate for us what the non conformity is? It seems to me from what you've said that um for your entire lot Your media the the property meets the lot and building coverage. So what's the non conformity? On this parcel sure so Even though the entire lot pre-division And both of the lots post-division would meet the overall building coverage and lot coverage combined That's not how you look at it. Uh, the building commissioner looks at it per zone and so within the bvc and if you look at the Site plan slash special permit plan um that hopefully you have and if not Pam maybe you could put it back up. It was that slide that we were just looking at We've got the calculation shown Right at the top in the middle and so Perfect, so you've got the commercial district called out in the bvc district called out if we go to the bvc district first because That's going to be compliant Before and after you'll see that the pre-division building coverage is 10.1 percent, which is under the 35 percent And the pre-division lot coverage, which is 36.9 percent and that is under the 70 Lot coverage requirement So everything in the bvc complies if you Look at the commercial district Pre-division building coverage are it it exceeds the building coverage maximum So it's at 35.1 percent where 35 percent is required And then it exceeds the lot coverage. It has 96.8 percent when 70 percent is required So both the building coverage and the lot coverage in the commercial district are those non-conformities That are pre-existing Um, we're not looking to have any new non-conformity And what we are looking to do is just to alter extend or enlarge those Because of the drawing of that lot line so that post-division The lot one building coverage within the commercial zoning district will be 40.2 percent again above the 35 Um and an increase from the 35.1 that existed prior to this redrawing of the lot lines And then post-division lot one lot coverage will be 99.1 percent Which is up from the 96.8 percent that it existed as pre-division If you look post-division for a lot two building coverage in the commercial zoning district It's zero because there are no buildings in that portion. It's like that access strip if you will um So that's zero but the post-division lot coverage Is 81.5 percent. So that portion of lot two which is in The commercial zoning district is at 81.5 percent for a lot coverage. So you can't just look at it as bvc plus commercial you've got to separate it out per Zoning district and it's when we separate it out by zoning district and specifically within the commercial zoning district That's where prior like as of today Prior to this division The building coverage and the lot coverage Both exceed what is otherwise allowed. And so that's what makes them lawfully pre-existing not conforming And that's what gives you the ability Under 9.22 to alter extender and large of those provided that The change so it's I think it's 2.3 percent for the lot coverage and 5.1 percent for the building coverage That those are not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing Building and lot coverage in the commercial zoning district Not conforming to the requirements So so as a follow-up a question I actually follow what you're saying I believe and would it be would your job be easier if The building inspectors interpretation was just hey, this is one lot You know the building coverage is fine under both, you know either or Zoning district and you're dividing it into two lots with and they're implying Is that would that be easier for you because I wonder if this is a question for kp law About how we should be looking at this should we divide one existing lot Into like mentally separate lots just because of zoning changes And then give them different Coverage is one as the entire The entire parcel now Meets both zoning classifications. I'm just kind of lost on How we got from what I think is just logical to this more kind of detailed and difficult Look Chris Christine Brestrup. Do you have a I call on Chris and then I see tom has his hand up and michael as well. Yes michael's next I'm just trying to finish this janet's um questions. Okay michael And so chris. Yeah So we have always looked at um lot coverage and building coverage and any dimensional requirements Based on the zoning district in which whatever it is is located. So it's been a common Um Interpretation of the zoning bylaw both by the previous building commissioner and by the current building commissioner that you have to look at the area that's in the zone When you determine whether it meets the uh requirements or not and you can't Um, just look at them overall if there is a Division and two or more zoning districts appear within one lot. We we face this, you know numerous times I can give you the example of Applebrook subdivision which is in two separate zoning districts I think it's in ro and rld and we had to jump through a lot of hoops to make sure that The eight lots in that subdivision met the requirements for the zone in which they are Currently located in Thank you chris. Uh tom. Do you have something to add? He is Your hands. No, I think chris. I think chris summed it up. And if I guess janet if your question is Would it prevent us from dividing these lots? I would say no because if You either way there's an avenue for us to do this whether it's through this pre-existing non-conforming Or If there was an interpretation that you looked at it Holistically we could then divide it into a lot one and lot two and both would comply with the zoning requirements As a whole so in either scenario we would be Still requesting this Division Thank you Okay, I'm going to thank you move on to michael. I recognize Thank you I I want to ask a couple of linked questions The first is If if this division that you're proposing is approved Will there be any kind of physical barrier between lot one and lot two? uh tom No, there will not okay, uh now In case the lots were Uh fell into separate ownership at some point which is at least part of what you were suggesting Was the reason for doing this uh division If that were to be the case if lot one was owned by someone and lot two was owned by someone else uh the uh the access to the Lot one from the east side would be severely compromised That would it seems to me would mean the removal of all of those parking spaces on the east side of the shopping retail building to provide access of vehicular access to the back and The side the west side of course would have its own entrance which is not a problem But it seems to me that those parking spaces would become Unusable unless you were going to have some sort of easement From the owner of lot two to use their lot twos driveway to get into lot ones parking areas on the east side of the building Am I correct in that so far? um Yes, you are correct Now the second part of that is um How many parking spaces Are required for the existing commercial building or is the losing of it looks like 12 parking spaces on the east on the east side Is that significant in terms of the number of parking spaces required? for the uh for the retail building Tom Thank you, madam chair I don't know if I I don't know how many parking spaces are required for that commercial building what I I think You know instead of saying you're going to lose those number of parking spaces on the easterly side of the commercial building I think and like I've seen in the findings and like we talked about at the site visit A condition and I think practically this would happen anyways of an easement from lot two as the Surveillance state to lot one as the the benefited estate um allowing The passage and repassage by vehicles Persons on foot and otherwise so that those parking spaces would remain And that there shall and I think that's enough You don't even have to put there shall not be any physical impediments or infrastructure between the two parcels because If you were to put something up there you would frustrate the intent or purpose of the easement which would be illegal, so I think it's it's a simple fix um and the planning board could impose it as a condition of this approval Uh where they would require an easement to be recorded and evidence of such Um to be provided to the planning department after it's recorded should these fall into separate ownership and frankly, this is something that I see often um When we're dealing with this type of thing I've dealt with it I just dealt with it in Aguam for a cumberland farms who owns An adjacent parcel that they're looking to put a car wash on And one of the conditions of the planning board was if the lots um are separated in ownership Then we will have to provide an easement showing access to that other site because it was even a little bit More intense than this um which We're going to be able to do so I would suggest that an easement would be the answer here I I would I would agree that an easement as part of the condition Would be an appropriate solution to what might be a problem what probably wouldn't be but conceivably could be I think it's a good idea Okay There um Any other questions, uh from any other board members? I do see janets um up there But this would be her second round. So I just want to make sure everybody else is covered Um, I don't see any so I recognize janet Here we go. So I want just to re to ask that question again, um about how many spaces are required by the commercial building um, and I have like three a few related questions one is I think that they There's there's 28 spaces that are for the mixed use building And i'm wondering and I know they they already have a parking waiver for the whole site And so i'm wondering is what does the commercial building require? It was a separate lot And then will you need to come back for two parking waivers? Because now you have to sort of get a new waiver And then the observation is from you know Driving by that spot a lot and actually using that um going to those stores a lot Is all those parking spaces along the east side? Right close to spirit house not alongside the commercial building are very frequently used by people who use those commercial buildings And so i'm concerned that if we split those lots in two There's like 22 spaces along that right hand side kind of adjacent to the spirit house parking lot I'm afraid that that parking will be lost or could be in the future lost to customers of the commercial building And and actually hurt the businesses there So my question is how many spaces would the commercial building require? And I know there's parking around and in the back and then Will they be you need to come back for two parking waivers or could we do a parking easement to allow? Um people using that building access the commercial space access to those spaces. It's kind of a bundle Tom sure So thanks As far as I I don't know how many would be required in that um Commercial shopping center, you know just with that singular building I know that the decision from 1999 suggested that The entire site would need 156 spaces and the planning board granted a waiver for there to be 104 spaces um, which is what should be out there today I think that That is pretty good evidence I've not seen parking overflow there. I think that there's sufficient parking. It was underutilized at the time Um, and I think it's probably evidence of those waivers, you know that waiver under article section 7.9 working um, if the board so I think it's sufficient. I don't think we have to come back for additional parking waivers um, if somebody in the future wants to have a different use In one of the spaces or proposes physical changes Then as part of that approval process, whether it's with the zoning board of appeals or the planning board They're going to discuss parking. I mean, it's just that's what happens in every town, but especially this town And so I think it's going to be at that time that if they needed some To justify their parking or to show that there's sufficient parking on site They would have to do it at that time. But again, you know, besides this lot line Reconfiguration still being in the same ownership Um, you know, we think that there's sufficient parking Thank you. I recognize david All right, I think that thank you. I think that the the criterion here is that the requested Change is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conformity Or and I think that that would apply to the the question about parking In the future, you know, right, there's no there are no proposed changes to the commercial site except for the lot lines and the extinguishment of the whole What what how would you say it the extinguishment of the or the How do you say it the new non-conformity with the lot and building coverages, I think Um, but I don't see it. I've never seen this there'd be a problem with parking there now and there's no Really substantial change to the proposed use or to the neighborhood other than this The the the technical lot boundaries So I don't I don't see that the parking issue is for this Application Um Uh, that's significant That's it. Thank you um michael yes, um I agree with jack or with sorry with david that uh, it's um Not an impediment to any kind of approval, but i'm curious to know, uh Tom you mentioned, uh 100 and some parking spaces that were uh required or were um Allowed by uh by uh waiver Is that right? Yes. Yes 104 four uh was What was allowed? Do you know do you know whether included in that 104 are spaces in the back Which are currently not lined just plumbing space to park back there, but there there are parking lines and also that Gravel space on the west side of the building are those included in the 200 in the 106 spaces because it looks to me like there are 23 or four spaces in the front and something like 15 or 16 on the side So I don't see how Yeah, the gravel is certainly not included um in that I think The the parking along that um On the northerly side of the zoning line. I think was included in that Um, but not that not the gravel on the westerly side. Okay Thank you I recognize jack Yes, um Whoops Okay, i'm unmuted. All right. Um, we hear you. I'm wondering I was wondering if we could just like Move to approve this special permit Do the the SPR? Um, are you proposing to make a motion? I am Okay, so we will handle these individually um So your motion would have to close the public hearing for 2020-06 SPR Correct and that you'd want to approve the request To modify the previous SPR Correct You can And with that really great motion. Does anyone want to second that? I um, there we go. I see a bunch of hands. Um, maria. All right Sorry, is this the one that we need to say there's a condition where um, I think someone in the planning staff already drafted up that Was sent today that if either parcel is sold an easement would be provided over the 40 foot wide Access trip to the benefit of owner of lot one. Is that part of what we're doing right now? Good question I thought it was under the SPP chris. Are you there? This SPR 2020-06. Yeah Uh Chris so I assume that condition will go under one of the special permits I thought that special that condition should go under the site plan review because the site plan review is Reviewing the division of the lots And when the lots are divided then the property line goes Past the commercial building and cuts it off from the driveway So there needs to be an easement over The lot that holds the little mixed use building in order to allow The commercial building to have access. So I thought that was An important part of the site plan review Um, and I don't think it really relates to either of the special permits, but maybe I'm wrong about that No, that's great. Thank you. Pam. I think that's like you put up. I didn't Hold on So that was helpful. I only have the two that have SPP I think it was this one star. No, that's the SPP. Sorry. Sorry. Pam showed the right one a minute ago So, uh jack, would you uh Agree that that should be added on to your motion? Uh, yes. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry for that oversight Okay, um So we have a motion on the table. I'll open it up to questions or if uh, other things need to be included um I just remembered something chris that I probably should take Let me just ask. Let me check attendees Um, because we only I see only see one unless Pam we have phone. Is there any public comment out there on just this SPR? I don't see any hands. Pam any phone calls or I have not. Well, no, I didn't get any phone calls. Um, Okay They would pop up into the attendee So let's see. Yeah, there's no there's only one. Um, and I don't see a hand up So I just okay good. I think we're clear on that um So I'll go through I see some hands. I'm going to call on uh, dug marshal Okay, um I guess I have a couple of comments about the way the easement Uh condition is worded on SPR 2020-06 The draft that was circulated and um Whoops. Well done. Sorry. Pam's pulling it up All right. It was there. Um So first of all Uh, it just says an easement will be provided And I there are different types of easements and I assume that what you meant was an easement for vehicular and pedestrian access To those parking spaces that are along the east side of the building So I thought that could be a little bit clearer and then uh, the conversation about the parking spaces on the east side of that Parcel that are up against the spirit house Um, since those are essentially a resource or for the benefit of what would become lot one I wondered whether the applicant would be willing to Uh provide an easement for the use of those parking spaces to uh lot one activity As a as a part of a condition and I'll stop there Tom Or um, so I guess Thanks, mr. Marshall two points one, I think yes vehicular and pedestrian access to those parking spaces, but I think also To allow circulation around that shopping center building so I just want to be careful about the planning board drafting something that private parties Are going to end up drafting so as long as it's general enough to get the sense of What you're looking to allow I'm fine with the condition which leads me to the next point that I don't think that I don't think we'd accept the condition or we um Would respectfully request that you don't impose a condition relative to designating any of those parking spaces Um for the use of lot one. I think that might I I would suggest to allow the free market to decide how those parking spaces are going to be used um Especially with You know, we Who knows if the residential tenants end up parking along that area In its entirety because the commercial uses at the first floor of the mixed-use building Are such where they need to have parking for people right out in front So it might be a business decision by the landowner at that time Where he wants to use the parking spaces that way If there's a parking issue I'm always of the mind that the free market will decide And if the parking is not working people are going to get together and figure out how to make it work Um, so those would be my responses to those two points Um, tom did I hear you say earlier that the to the condition of the easement Something about recorded and provided to the planning department if properties Um, if they go into separate ownership So that's the calling for the easement if the properties become owned by two different people Correct Because I think when one person or one owner they probably let the parking share for the most part Yeah, and they can't as a legal matter they can't grant an easement to themselves Okay, um So chris, I think your hand is up Yeah, so, um, I wonder if pam would show the um conditions and findings for Um 20 20 oh six Because that's a oh 2020 oh Review that's the one we're talking about. Yeah, isn't that what I had up there earlier? I think you did Up there. Yeah 20 20 oh six this Not not what's showing now Okay, so what's for now No, I'm seeing oh six. Okay. Let me see. I see 20 20 oh four That's what's up. This is oh five I'm not seeing that either. No, you're not um Okay, it's not reading that part of your screen. I I think you're going to slides I don't have that in the slides christine. So hang on.  Yeah, I'm sure on that whiteboard they all look the same You know and blurry. So yeah Somehow I didn't have it up there for you guys because I was looking at it I've been looking at it for as long as Doug was talking. So I'm sorry. Thank you for For saying something Okay, great chris. Yes. Well, I wanted to ask um the board About the conditions that we have here one of the conditions is that um The conditions of the previous site plan review be carried over For both of the new lots although I didn't really make that explicit And the second one was that an easement be granted and I wondered if mr. Reedy would offer us Some language for that condition so that it's Broad enough so that it could Encompass the things that mr. Marshall talked about and the concerns that other people have raised Um sure So I would think that it's upon separation of ownership between lot one and lot two Or of lot one and lot two lot two Shall grant to lot one sufficient an easement sufficient for access and circulation to lot one to allow continued use of the parking spaces on the easterly side of lot one for both pedestrians and vehicles And to ensure. Yeah, I mean I could just send it to you Pam somebody wants to make the motion and we can make sure that it That it works. I mean it it'll be pedestrian vehicular Access and circulation To ensure Efficient operation of the site something like that We get what you're saying Sure, you're gonna put that in writing tom and send it to us Yeah, I can get that I can get that to you tomorrow morning. You're great. Thank you Sure. Okay, so the second condition will be Per the final write-up agreed upon between mr. Reedy and miss bestra Okay And I just wanted to go back to whether you agree that the conditions of the previous site plan review should apply to both Properties and also to ask mr. Jim sick who made the motion to approve if he agrees that all the relevant sections of worse criteria in section 11.24 are met by this granting of this modification of this site plan review Jack Sounds good. Sounds good by me Okay so that Covers that sheet and we have a motion on the table And I do see uh tom. Do you have something to add? No, yeah, I just okay when we're talking about modifying SPR 9904 and having it run with the land When you look at some of the conditions of that original site plan review Some of them are just not going to be applicable to that new lot one Um, so I don't know if you want to restrict it to a lot two or just say as applicable You know, however the board wants to do it. I just I'm just thinking of 10 years down the road when Who knows who from this board is going to still be on it or if I'm still doing this and saying You know, what was this really about? So just the more clarity the better Uh chris, do you have a comment on that because you were the one saying tying it to both? Yeah, I would be happy with saying as applicable or You know, it really applies to I guess it applies to lot Two, isn't that correct? It applies to the lot with the mixed-juice building on it, right? Yeah Yeah, and there's there's one like condition seven which talks about a traffic island with two 40 foot entrances entrances shall be constructed along college street So that wouldn't be relevant anymore. No, so as applicable sounds fine. I think that's fine. What did that Okay Okay, so we've got through that uh for um additional questions on the motion that's on the table I recognize janet and I see no other hands Janet you have a question maybe not I haven't I haven't had a chance to read the conditions that came sort of late and i'm Not sure what they are now and i'm not even sure what the motion is at this point And I know we have three different actions to take and so here's my plea for Talking out some ideas and then continuing to the two weeks So we actually I don't really I don't I'd be so uncomfortable voting right now because i'm very unsure what we're voting for um, I I actually want to speak in support of Doug marshal's idea of having an easement and access to those parking spaces That would be part of lot two along Um the east side of spirit house. Um, you know, we don't know how much parking is Would lot one would need a lot one would need for its commercial building I know those spaces are used by customers To the commercial building and I went to the marijuana The hearing at the hearing a public meeting on the facility That is trying to open in that building and they were expecting their peak Traffic to be around rush hour, which is also the peak time for use of mom's house And also the neighborhood market and so I think that there is there's a detriment to the neighborhood as well as those businesses if those if they if You know members of the public and the neighborhood didn't have access to them and so I support Adding that to the easement and just have people work it out. Maybe there's 22 spaces along there I guess, you know, I counted them today And I think eight mr. Reedy had said were needed by the By the people in the mixed use building So maybe You know 22 minus eight could be in that easement to make sure that those building those businesses are viable and can and their customers can Use the building. I think that's very important um If people don't support that I would like to know before I vote How many spaces Would be required under our bylaw for that commercial building because there's eight businesses or seven businesses there And I wouldn't want to hamper their ability to operate and their customers to use it in the neighborhood also so um That's my I just but getting back to my first point I don't really know what the motion is for what the conditions are under each permit I'm kind of lost and I would like maybe to see that written in Okay, maybe I can clarify a little bit for you janet. Um The motion is if you look at the public hearings Um, we closed the public hearing for the site plan review And we would approve the request to modify the SPR And if you just read it there, we're just approving what the hearing is about And then there's two conditions and can you see them on your screen? Yes, but I'm not seeing what mr. Reedy is going to add in the Um, like well just and also to remind you You know right now the two parcels have the same owner the easement only gets triggered if one of those lots is sold And they're different owners because right now it's the same owner. So there it's All the same ownership on parking Um, just I just want to make sure you were uh saying you weren't sure where we were at So, uh, mr. Reedy can give uh His little, um Maybe he's been scribbling something down. I know chris did too about that number two And we just made the smallest reference on item condition one about how it's locked to But what was the word in chris for that if it's we ended up with? I have something like Under upon separation of the ownership between lot one and two lot two shall grant to lot one and easement sufficient for access and circulation to lot one To allow continued use of parking spaces and pedestrian vehicular access and circulation To ensure that uh the efficient operation of the site So the way I interpreted to allow continued use of parking spaces Was the continued use of the parking spaces that's in the uh strip the 40 foot wide strip That leads back to the mixed-use building that those could continue to be used by um lot one Tom does that sound right? I don't know if I would go well first of all miss breast strip did a fantastic job of understanding What I was trying to say so who does um But I don't know that I would read it or would suggest it as broadly as allowing or requiring an easement to those spaces along the spirit house side um Again, I think that's something to be dealt with by private parties at the time and Based upon whatever uses are are in the shopping center and in that mixed-use building in the back I just I don't I think it's dangerous for the planning board to try to regulate that at this time Especially when there's no separation of ownership And there's no known plan for that in the near future correct correct so it could be A couple of years it could be 10 years and correct parking could be completely different then What's the downside of doing that kind of easement? for the future Doing many commercial transactions You let the parties figure out the business terms and I think by Requiring something like that It adds another layer of potential uncertainty, especially if Then you have to go back to the to the planning board and get something approved or have a conversation with the planning board about get some getting something approved And so it it can chill sales or it can chill folks who are looking at Getting through the process quickly and so It's just I I think it's best left for folks who are actually going to be There on the ground Actually using the site whether it's an investment or otherwise and if you know I think all of the tenants have redress if Let's go down the road and say the the parcels are separated and there is insufficient parking on lot one for the uses One of a couple of things is going to happen Um And it's probably going to be those tenants talking to the landlord and saying you know What the heck how come I don't have enough parking spaces? I'm going to need parking spaces and then the landlord's going to go to the owner of lot two and say I need some and then the owner of lot two is going to say okay, but you're going to have to pay x y and z and so I think letting that happen organically Is is important um Instead of the planning board saying we're going to tell you how to operate Okay, um, thank you. Uh, I'm going to recognize dug Thank you um Having heard the all the alteration of condition two that Chris uh read to us I was completely on board with what she read Um Except that I interpreted tom's original intent to that that that easement and the benefit of access was for the Use of the spaces that are on the east side of lot one Not the spaces that are on the east side of lot two I agree I guess I would also say that I will defer to mr. Reedy in terms of the possible detrimental effect on On the businesses in lot one If the parcels are separated and Uh, they they no longer have access to the parking on the east side of lot one of lot two rather So chris, I can't see you on my screen right now. Um, have you adjusted that writing Try to read faces. Hold on. I can't There you are Um, so I have not adjusted it, but let me see if I can Upon separation of ownership between lots one and two Lot two shall grant to lot one and easement sufficient for access and circulation To lot one to allow continued use of parking spaces on the east side of lot One Right And pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation to ensure the efficient operation of the site So I think this needs to be I I need to draft it and I need to Send it to mr. Reedy and find out if that's what he meant and then send it to board members and find out if that's how you understood it Unless somebody wants to take another crack at it like mr. Reedy and Just say it all over again Tom I I thought that was perfect. I think with that little clarification about With reference to those parking spaces on the easterly side of lot one I think that accomplishes Exactly what we're talking about I agree. Um, I don't see any hands right now. Uh, um Janet I would support this Whole process If I knew that there was sufficient commercial parking for the commercial building um And that that was guaranteed in the future and so I still feel very uncomfortable not knowing How many I know there's parking in the back available. I just don't know what How many spaces are left and if it's you know 20% less than it's required by or by law um, I would love to ask People who own those businesses how important they think those spaces are along the The east side of spirit house and get their Impact because they're they're part of the neighborhood and so the only detrimental I can see to the neighborhood is the loss of those spaces By the commercial building but in that I'm completely on board You know, I know people buy and sell property all the time with odd easements It would probably it could reduce the value um You know a lot too, but I also think it's going to prevent problems in the future and um Instead of you know, I could see those problems easily And I just would you know, that's just my point. So those are my thoughts and I would love to wait For two weeks just to see the language that we're voting on and have some time to reflect on it Okay, jack Hello, um So based on the comments there, I don't agree with janet's last set of comments there um, but I do agree with what christine excuse me christine Mentioned as well and then tom reedy. I think I acknowledge that So again with those amendments I would move to The vote on this Okay, thank you jack chris.  Do you have anything to say chris? Oh, I forget what I had to say all right Raise your hand again if you need to um david Hands are flicking around david. Hi. Thank you. Um, may I make a suggestion that? uh I don't know the rules of order so uh at all but but that the motion I would In deference to janet and to the the the confusing uh, um not so confusing but just the the the Abstractness of the discussion that I would propose that we That a motion to approve the site plan review And that that we will consider revised Reflecting that approval at our next planning board meeting I I think that that meets the meets the concern that janet's raising about the language But we but but the parties know that where the applicant knows that that we're moving forward favorably For that I would be that's my suggestion if that flies So are you saying david you're uncomfortable with voting right now even if if we Read the read the motion again um For the two conditions No, I'm comfortable voting for them, but I'm trying to meet meet uh janet's concern and and I think that we and think about Voting to approve the motion I'm just not sure what we're waiting on because we have the wording. We just don't have it written on a slide Um, why don't I hear what michael and yeah, yeah, but I hear you Thank you david michael Yes, I'm comfortable with voting now. I think uh janet's point is well taken but on the other hand There's not going to be any change in the number of parking spaces no matter what we do It's going to still be what it is now And what we're basically approving is a redrawing of the lines And there's going to be no physical change to what's going on in the buildings if in the future There is a change if one building is sold and the other one is not Or if both buildings fall into different hands, then the parties have to negotiate what's going on with the parking It seems to me. It's pretty simple And I think the original uh condition number two that that chris drafted this afternoon Is fine. I think the one that is now we're now working on is also fine But I think we're making more out of this than is there. So I think we should vote on this and move it on Thank you, michael. I recognize jack Yes, I just wanted to apologize. I I felt like I Called janet out there and that was like I would never do that if we were actually in our regular planning board, you know setting so I just I am sorry for that, but uh, but I agree with mike. Um I hope we can vote on this. Thanks. Thank you jack. Um, I see No more hands. Uh right now. Um, I I will just put it out there Are there any other members right now who are uncomfortable with taking a vote right now on this s pr I'm watching for hands Um, I see david's hand up No, I second second the motion to vote for approval. Okay. All right. So we have the motion. Um, I will do a roll call for um Um Maybe I can do this off to my head. Um, I'll start. Um With michael I approve And maria prove and jack Approve and dug Approve and um david approve And janet Could you read the motion? Can you read it again for me? Sure, I need the condition for me. I can't it's not can you read the condition? Um, sure chris or tom or chris. I think has good There was just a small add-on on the first one. Um You okay. Am I am you are you can just read the two conditions for janet the first condition, um Let me see here Uh that the conditions of the site plan review decision for sp r 9904 shall remain in effect for lot two Okay, thank you and that um Upon separation of ownership between lot one and lot two lot two shall grant to lot one An easement sufficient for access and circulation to lot one To allow continued use of parking spaces on the east side of lot one And pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation To ensure sufficient Excuse me efficient operation of the site. Okay I'm just going to abstain. Thank you Okay, and for my vote I approve So we will Move on to the two special permits. I'm going to open it back up to mr.  Uh, yeah, maybe pan if you could the second to the last one So the one that is the site plan slash special permit slide, please It's a colored one correct this Can you see it? Not yet. We see you It's beautiful. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Great. Thanks. Yes. It's big enough. Okay So maybe we'll take the low hanging fruit first So if you look at the easterly side of lot two so that mixed use building As you'll recall from the beginning I talked about how The applicant needed a special permit because it violated the side and rear yard setbacks As it was located in the commercial zone It is now located in the bvc zoning district bvc Requires 10 foot side and rear yard setback and this building complies with both so technically what we need to do is and what we've done is requested a special permit to modify the special permit by extinguishing the special permit And so the the building as far as side and rear yard setbacks in the bvc is compliant um, so hopefully that one's a pretty simple one And then the other special permit is both for a footnote a Modification so you'll if you look at the plan you'll see that coming off of college street the lot line division Moves northerly in a straight line and then jogs to the northwest at an angle and then continues Um in a more severe northwest early angle the distance from the corner of the Existing shopping center to that property line is 24.7 feet Where 25 feet is required? and so In the commercial zoning district in the dimensional table um under footnote a You are allowed to under a special permit grant this modification to the side yard Setback and so our suggestion is that that it's a the minimus But also you've got the spirit house which Violates the is already less than the side yard setback. I think spirit house is about 15 feet City tire which is on the other side of shumway street is 20 feet And then the subway building adjacent to the dunk and donut. So at the corner of shumway and college street Is about a little less than 25 feet. So those are all examples in the neighborhood of Building existing buildings that do not comply with the side yard setback. So we would request a special permit approval for that request and then We we talked about the Alteration extension or enlargement of the pre-existing non-conformity and that's when we went through that commercial district pre-division post-division and the increase in as Doug put it yesterday. It's because the the denominator is changing and when you're starting with um, you know The entirety of the commercial district on this site and then going to um a commercial district that is smaller Then really it's that access way um It it just mathematically increases the percentage because the denominator is Decreasing the the numerator Essentially staying the same. So yeah We end so we end up with just a higher percentage based on math and the way the lot lines are drawn So our suggestion is because there's no physical changes Um, we're not adding pavement. We're not adding building. We're not doing anything like that That it's it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conformity And they're both the minimists There was math in that. Tom, you said 25 required. Can you repeat the first number? What what this ends up? 24.7 20 that's what it's a really close. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, very close very close Um, I'm gonna open it up to questions. I do see chris bestrups hand up. I want to see if she has a Sorry, just turn your hand off great. All right. Um, so I see david has his hand up That was a mistake too. Sorry Okay, so at this time do any members have questions to mr. Rida or miss bestra And I see none Um, I'll take this moment to just check to see if we have any public comments. Um I don't see any attendees with their hand up ham. Are there any phone call questions? Not that I am seeing no Okay, great. Um So back to board members I see michael has his hand up now I'd like to move to close the public hearing for SPP 2024 and and spp 2025 And and approve both of those special permit requests Second um christ should we pull up? We had findings. Uh, thank you. Is there a second to that for anyone? Sorry, I had seconded it. It's a so great. Thank you, maria And I should have said with the conditions has drawn up by the planning department. Okay um Pam if you can pop up so that's on the table right now I can pop up four and then five and just give them a peek Oh, I don't know how to share two at once. No, just you can go with oh four first Oh, that's oh five, sorry, that's okay Then why like slides I shouldn't shouldn't have said with the conditions. I should have said with the findings binding. Yep. Sorry. No, that's good. We're good SPP oh four this right here. Can you see it? Not yet. We see you Are you sharing your screen? I'm trying to I have so many documents open that it's not showing them all And paper don't we in front of us? We do we have them So I can while you're fighting with that Pam and I can Recognize Doug if you want to say something I was going to say if you have your papers you can read through them And if there's a bullet item that you have a question or want to bring up Um, just click your hand. Michael. You do have your hand up right now. Sorry. Nope. No problem Um All right. Janet just said I've oh geez Janet's having a technical issue. So hold on here I've lost everything but a picture of you. I can hear also That's what she says. I don't know what that quite means Um, Janet if you're in doubt You could leave the meeting and then come back in she's probably on speaker view now Yeah, I can see her. I'm gonna I don't know what control I have right now. Um Okay, and it can you unmute yourself Can you go down to the lower left hand corner? Can you toggle that on and off? Yes, I just I just really clicked on an arrow and everybody came back. Okay. Okay. Great.  Um Okay, so, um, I don't see any hands up chris. You have your hand up Um, does anyone have any particular issues with the draft findings for either 0405? special permits I see none. Chris. Do you have something to say? I just thought I could read through them Um, sure essentially Yeah, Pam, I of course as soon as you say that she's gonna. Oh, she's got the six again. All right You know what pam, why don't you try to bring up 05 and chris if you want to read the 04 Yeah, I will read 04 There's 04 All right chris cancel that. Pam's got that. All right. Take a breathe take a deep breath. You did good Anyway, just so everybody's heard them and everybody knows is that okay, sure go for it Okay, so these are taken from the 460 to main street when we extinguished a Special permit on that property. So they're essentially the same conditions just rewarded to the current case So the board found under section 10.33 of the zoning bylaw modification amendment or renewal that the extinguishing of the previous and current special permit zba 9954 is consistent with the purposes and intent of this bylaw and a public hearing has been held Now my internet connection is unstable that the special Had been granted When the property was in the commercial district commercial zoning district That the special permit was required for modification of side and rear yard setbacks when the property was zoned commercial That the zoning of this property has been changed to bvc business village center That therefore a special permit is no longer needed for the side and rear yard setback that exists on the site Thank you chris. Um, I see dug's hand is raised I cannot hear you dug snap mute. Oh, yeah I was going to make a comment about The spp 2025 Oh, okay. Maybe we're not there yet. We're not. I'll call on you put keep your hand up and I'll call on you after we read through the 05. So I don't see any other hands up. So I think we're okay with those Uh, Pam Yes, I want to switch out And chris you can start reading them if you want Okay So, um, there were two special permits requested here one for A modification under footnote a And that had to do with Sideyard setback for the large commercial Um, that's oh six. Yep The board found under footnote a table three of the zoning bylaw But the modification of the side yard setback is consistent with the purposes and intent of this bylaw And a public hearing has been held That the side yard setback modification being requested 24.7 feet versus five feet is minimal That there are existing buildings in the surrounding neighborhood that exhibit the same or less setback in the commercial district In which this building is located and I would strike Surner oil and add city tire in its place Um, and then the second part of that is the board found under section 10.395 of the zoning bylaw That the proposal does not create disharmony with respect to the terrain And to the new scale and architecture of existing buildings in the vicinity Which have functional or visual relationship there, too Thank you chris. Um, yeah I revised this and sent it to you Like five minutes before the meeting started to acknowledge the The special permit under section 9.22 That the alteration of the lot line and its impact on the lot and building coverage Is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conformity Since there are no proposed changes to the buildings or pavement But only a change in the lot line There will not be a perceived difference in the lot or in the impact on the neighborhood All right, thank you chris and thank you pam for getting that up there. Um, doug, I recognize you Okay, uh, my my comment was simply that I would hope there would be a more permanent way for us to reference the three Properties that contain spirit house, Surner oil and subway Um, you know those occupants could turn over pretty quickly and Good point. Nobody's going to know where where that is in five years So excellent point, you know, let's let's reference parcels or addresses or something more permanent. That's all yep If you don't mind chris putting both it's nice to have the visual but absolutely Its proper name is vital. Thank you. Any other questions on the findings for 0405? And I see no hands so we do have a motion on the table Oh Janet Janet you're um muted. I believe. Yes, you are. Um, I have a question for christine breast strip about um Put note a does it apply to the calm? in terms of The side yard and Setback because I didn't see that it was and I was I think this is a very de minimis Change it but I just didn't understand. I look like footnote a didn't apply. So I just wondered about that Chris is the building this the commercial building in the commercial zone We're talking about the setback of the commercial building From the new property line and the commercial In the commercial zone So I didn't see footnote a Applying to calm in that. Yeah Put note a doesn't apply to calm Uh, why christis look I'm gonna call on mr. Reedy. I do see his hand up. He might So, yeah, if you look at the table three dimensional regulations Um, you go to the basic minimum side in rear yards and if you follow that across and then You look down from calm. It's 25 feet and next to it. It has that footnote a Okay, I'm seeing that okay All right, thank you Okay, I see no other hands. I believe we're ready for a vote. Um, there's been no second to the motion Didn't we get a sec did maria set maria maria chat Sorry, because I waited for a second then it's on the table. We've had our discussion. I don't see um any public comment No other hands Um Chris can we vote do I I should roll call twice? Break out do oh four and then oh five Okay, so we'll have to do this twice everyone um So we'll start with SPP 2020-04 And uh, uh, michael Maria Yes, approved jack approved David approved Doug approved janet approved And myself. I also approve. So we have seven zero zero and I'll move now to SPP 2020-05 And starting again michael Maria approved jack approved David approved Doug approved janet approved And I also approve So seven zero zero Okay Nicely nicely done. That was a lot the three Thank you, mr. Reedy. Uh, chris. Is there anything else or can I move on? Okay Thank you, mr. Reedy. Thank you. Good seeing everybody And if cam could just pop up the agenda for a moment Yes, ma'am. Thank you Just to show when we're at we're here number four. Okay, so um Item four is old business A is review and consider the uh, the discussion at the crc meeting of april 15th Regarding the process for amending zoning bylaw and um chris I Assume that you'll give us a summary of that meeting and um A link was provided to us through I think it was youtube at amherst media Um, and I I know a few of us did watch it I did Um Ms. McGowan Janet McGowan asked me to um give a little summary of what happened at that meeting and um, I would say A few things were discussed. It was actually Discussing about an hour long. Um, and they kind of went back over um, their suggestion or recommendation of a few months ago Which outlined a process for um, amending zoning bylaw and kind of started to question What they had proposed as a process Um, one of the questions That came up was whether Zoning should be considered Three times a year or more than that There was some discussion about the fact that town meeting used to only consider zoning twice a year and Now we're proposing to consider it three times a year And is that enough is that going to be enough to cover all the things that want to be changed? The other thing that people were talking about was Um, what should be who should really be The main body that is working on zoning and in the past we've always had the zoning subcommittee proposing zoning along with planning department staff and there was some interest in the idea that A new body could be formed that would be Um A task force or a working group or something like that that would probably be a multi-member body appointed by town manager, although that wasn't discussed but um That uh, you know, maybe what we need is a bigger group of people not just people on the zoning subcommittee to Talk about zoning um and include You know, some of the business people in town and others who may be interested in zoning um But then there was also consideration of an idea to Have zoning go through the crc Instead of going through the planning board. So in other words The zoning changes might be generated by town staff or others and be proposed to the crc who would consider The zoning amendment and work on it and then present it to town council And then at some point it would come back to the planning board for A public hearing because state law requires that the planning board hold a public hearing and make a recommendation on zoning amendments To the legislative body. So those were Probably the three big things that I took out of that meeting and there was a lot of discussion And um since miss mcgallon was the person who really wanted to put this on the agenda tonight I wondered if she if If the chair recognized her if she Wanted to talk more about this or emphasize something that I haven't emphasized So I've gone to a lot of of the crc meetings. Um, occasionally I make comments I usually make the format has changed a lot. Sometimes I comment in the beginning as a member of the public Occasionally I'm allowed to comment on a substantive issue during their actual discussion and um, so the crc Is handling zoning and planning and the people from the council have different levels of experience with this through either town meeting Or being on the select board Um, and then steve schreiber who is obviously on the planning board and has a deep experience I've often been struck by We were they're doing planning and zoning and obviously we are too at this Um, kind of lack of flow of information and communication between us And I've you know, I kind of I think I've mentioned this previously Like I think that we need to have somebody, you know as a liaison to the crc And I've mentioned to the crc They need a liaison to the planning board because you know, we would naturally collaborate and work closely together On the master plan and on zoning and so So and then their crc has a whole new set of members some of them have been on before but there's also new members So so they're in kind of a reset mode And then they've been trying to figure out these processes for master plan update and zoning bylaw revisions and you know, whatever and so I think there's kind of a lack of communication between our board And the crc members and I just wonder if there's a way For us to kind of open it up and exchange ideas and experiences and kind of work better together Like that's sort of how you know, and that last meeting kind of took me back to put it You know kind of in one to characterize it in one way because I just thought This is so different from what we've been hearing and it's so different what we've been doing the zoning subcommittee Which we have been struggling For a long time trying to figure out how to work with the town council And I just wonder if this is a good opportunity to kind of open up and Have some joint meetings where more people participating and more conversation But I think your summary christine was excellent Can't hear you Okay, thank you janet. Uh, I just wanted to say that um There is communication between the chairs And a lot of what they've been talking about has been talked about on and off for the last year If not longer ever since we've moved into a new form of government And I think my fee like what i'm seeing is that a lot of the town counselors want to re-examine Sort of like the by-law system because it's completely new and different and this is a time of change Because it used to be a town meeting and now it's town council How I see it because I watched the meeting is there's just a lot of dialogue right now And they don't actually have a plan or a firm forward path But I'm hoping that in the next month or so They will be sending something to us And then it's time, you know, we will have to reflect on it and have some discussions And there's other groups besides us that will feed into it, you know zba and and of course staff There'll be lots of different groups that um, I'll have Um Thoughts on whatever they're proposing But chris my understanding right now. There's nothing they're just really just Looking at different options and I couldn't even tell if they were leaning towards one or the other Last thought is there really was a lot of harping on looking to other towns. They're looking at north hampton Um, I know I've been looking at like arlington and how different towns are moving forward because you want it to be a success I think we all agree that there needs to be a lot of by-law changes and improvements so I think everybody's on the same ship for that and Hopefully they'll come up with a good plan on how they want it to come to them through them and to town council And I see david's hand up Hi, thank you Yeah, it seemed like that's sweet the crc meeting. There's a lot of process call And since I've been on the planning board That's there's been a lot of process talk and it's understandable. It's a new form form of governance um It's I think that While thinking about processes one thing moving forward It's it's time for us to as we discuss both the zoning subcommittee and at this body, I believe presenting to Or having discussion of of actual substantive proposed zoning amendments and then handing that to The crc or the town council And so that they they can figure out. Well, okay, here's the thing What's our what's what should be the process? Because it's just continues to be feels to me like spinning wheels and so While listening to the crc meeting I You know rob morrow was there too and a lot he's And we had sanctioned him and asked for him and and encouraged him and his team to move forward with revisions proposed revisions that were the To help with the administration and the staffing Or the administration and the staff Use of the zoning by-law. I think we should continue that and encourage rob and participate in that again to give substance and me To the crc and the and the town council So that they can decide what process they want Really, I think that my second and last point is that I think it would be useful for the planning board and perhaps the zoning subcommittee is to sort of noodle on what the goals of zone of any revisions would be And I've got for example, I've got examples That when we consider revisions to the zoning by-law and and the development of the town that that that it's important to consider land use and development and economic development hand in hand So that it's not just about so yeah The second the second thing is a second goal that I would suggest or propose for discussion Is that that the zoning law conform with staff process the process that that the staff in the town hall goes through in order to Approve proposed projects or work with proposed projects and that that the zoning by-law be Clear and enabling rather than a hindrance The third goal I would say for any or principle for any revision would be that the zoning by-law Have sufficient flexibility to meet future Unforeseen circumstances So that it needs to be clear and present but also flexible enough to address To address things that one can't anticipate today, but might be might occur down the road 5 10 15 years Thank you. That's it Thank you. I recognize Michael Yeah, thank you. I agree with everything that jack just said So I keep calling you jack. I think the jack is right on the list. Thanks to me. Anyway, um, That's great. I agree with everything you said And I would add two things to it, which are not in any way contradictory to what you said first that It seems to me that and I do watch the discussion of the crc It seems to me that most of the ideas that are coming up in that body complicate the process rather than simplify the process And I think we have a reasonably simple process now It doesn't work because we don't ever get anything to the crc and they don't do anything about what we do get to them But if we started to get material to them, then They are the legislative body. Apparently we are not we have the recommending body They are the legislative body and when they get stuff from us recommendations, then they legislate They do what they want with it. They put it throughout whatever committees they want to we don't really said things to the crc We said things to the town council then the town council refers it back to the crc and so on and that's a council function It's not our function And if we go to the root of some task force which involves people from the council people from the business people from the planning board And anybody else from the public who would make it a representative body Then we're just adding one more layer and maybe even two more layers because it might have to go back once to them And then back and then back and then back we have to have a process at the planning board through the zoning subcommittee and the planning board which is Open to the participation of everybody who's involved When we have meetings public meetings for public forums, whatever they have they are they must be planning board forums and we must Take the responsibility of getting that in getting recommendations As specific and well considered as we can make them to the council Then the council can do with them what they will um I've run one point And I lost it. Maybe it'll come back to me and I'll jump back in but that's that's the way I I'm seeing This process going right now, and I do think we need to Get working and oh, I know what it was Many many people in the at the crc made the point or suggested that in some way Oh, we should be doing we should have this burden taken off the planning board should have this burden taken off them Because the planning board is too busy. Well, I submit that we are not that busy and that the crc If they're doing their job ought to be a hell of a lot busier than we are And I think if we take the responsibility of putting these zoning changes and doing the helping assisting and working with robb to make the major changes organizational changes that he's anticipating Get those through The our zoning committee and the planning board and then get them to the council I think that's the best thing we can do and I think this Fooling around with trying to invent a process that we don't have control over is ridiculous I think the planning board. Sorry. I think the council has to figure out what they want to do process wise and not involve us So that's my saying Thank you. I recognize maria um Thanks. I appreciate everybody's thoughts on process and you know wanting to Stay involved and understand that you know, we just hit This pandemic and so everything kind of went on pause, but I think it's a little early right now to get deep into a discussion about process and how we're moving forward because The crc hasn't figured out with rob mora Exactly what they're even thinking they sort of threw out a lot of big picture ideas and nothing was actually resolved so I mean as much as I'd like to keep going on about like What we think the process should be or what we should do I don't think we should be reacting to anything they've said because they didn't really say anything in my opinion um, honestly, I I feel like um They're going through exactly what we already went through Which is talk to rob and talk to about the process and what could work and who should be involved So I say we just give it however alone a few weeks just because We can't get together and work anyways. Um, why sort of deliberate about Which group or which task force which committee gets formed? Um, I think we should just see what they propose Let rob keep you know doing what he hopefully is doing in between all his other tasks that he has day to day and go from there I feel like yeah going around circles and talking about process ourselves is sort of you know doing the same frustrating thing that we saw them do You know, it's nice to talk to you guys, but I I feel like it is a little premature to just go deep into You know, what next steps are at this point. So Um Yeah, I wonder if we can just table this perhaps because um They didn't really give us I guess a clear path forward and we don't have one either And a lot of it's in rob morris plate. So Um, yep, that's it Thank you Um Janet So I'm glad we're having this discussion and I really I just I'm really getting a lot from it. Um I think the town council and the planning board and the town staff all we all have the same goal of a better zoning bylaw Um, you may have different paths to it But I think simplicity and flexibility and you know lack of contradictions is a great idea I think that we should proceed with the zoning subcommittee and our work and working with rob and you know just chugging along Because under statute changes can always come from the planning board. They can come from the public They can come from a town counselor for their crc or proposals So I think we should do that. I think that I really did feel like One of my big feelings after the meetings I've attended for crc is that The plant this board has had a lot of experience with zoning changes Proposals going to town meeting the process and how hard it is to actually draft and get things through and I thought that I was hoping that I think it just needs a more communication and information exchanged and We don't control what the town council process is going to be And we can kind of take care of our piece of it of what we do But I really do think that there just needs to be more communication and information going back and forth and I was just maybe I'm just You know, maybe it's a simple thing of just encouraging people to attend crc meetings or Us have a liaison who just I don't know. I just I just feel like You know, it's like everybody seems to be in the kind of parallel universe And I'm kind of jumping back and forth between them thinking there's so much experience in the planning board and ideas That you know information or just kind of they could talk through things You guys could talk through some of the ideas with the different crc members So I don't know if that's appealing to people or just this is an idea I had Thank you. I see no more hands So I'm going to move on to item b old business Topics not reasonably anticipated in 48 hours prior to the meeting chris. Is there anything? Nope. Nope. Okay And then item five new business topics not reasonably anticipated 48 hours prior to the meeting Nothing Okay, Janet you want to say something? I don't know if this is old business or news business, but I'm just not getting my packet until Like three times. I've gotten it on a tuesday and the last two have come on tuesday But fortunately my mailman is coming a little early Er and then once I got it on a wednesday and I just wonder if there's a if I know it's kind of a big ask for the planning Department if you could mail it out a day earlier like on thursday Is that or or is there some way for me to get because I It just seems to be getting later and later I know the post office is also struggling because of the pandemic and so I don't know what other people's experiences are, but I can tell you mine over the last five years. My packet comes either monday I mean, I'm sorry. It comes tuesday Or wednesday once in a blue moon. It's come on a monday, but that's why I really appreciate how our packets are coming through the email now So it's actually to me an improvement because now I look at the packet on friday or saturday or sunday Where I never could before until tuesday or wednesday I'm probably thinking other members probably are the same thing with mail, but hopefully the email is is helping um, I do see uh I chris you can address I mean, I I think this has come up over the years because before we had that email You know It sometimes when we had a really heavy agenda, it's really hard to get it on wednesday And we had asked chris, but they're really pressed, you know to get it out earlier than what they do on friday Um, I don't see her or if pam have a comment. Um, I'll go to michael Do you have something to add to this michael? No, it's totally a different issue Okay, hold then one sec. Let me just check jack. You have your hand up jack Yes um, I'm just saying at this point in time I am totally relying on digital media When I get mail I'm like, I don't even really want to touch it At this point in time I don't But I know that everything is delivered to me via email So I I slide it in an over into a folder on you know on google drive um And I don't really want mail from the town right now or in the future because We have advanced technologically as As a nation and as a world that do we really need paper copies of anything at this point in time?  I completely agree with you now that we have the electronic Um, I used to really just want you know the packet the paper was for the drawings and figures But they are so much better to look at online. You can zoom in Move them layer them like it anyways I am willing to forgo my paper packet Maybe we can have that discussion at another time because I'd rather save the trees and I really you're right I don't want to touch the mail right now. So um It's it's different I I'm going to go to chris because her hand is up right now and then I'll go back to Janet and michael. I know you're still on so one thing um We tried I think this was probably before the shutdown Was that um, some people came in to pick up packets So david levin steen came in a few times to pick up his packet because he didn't want to have to wait for the mail to arrive so You know, usually pam has the packets done sometime afternoon And you know, if somebody really wanted to come and pick up a packet. I could walk out to the parking lot and hand it to them um So that's something that we can offer if you want to do that on a friday afternoon Um, and then if you don't come I guess I'll take it to the post office. So You know, you'd probably or they could Or they could set up with you that they just pick it up on monday or something or tuesday Okay, so people want that um, they'd have to set that up in advance because This, you know, obviously pam would to get the mail out on friday afternoon if it's if it needs to be mailed so I guess we're offering if anybody wants to have a packet to pick up Let us know by You know, probably thursday evening and we will be able to put that packet aside and Give it to you whenever you feel like driving into the parking lot and picking it up Right and We could have the option to say no packet And you could have that option. Okay, so give that some thought people As we try to move into more and more into the digital age Janet I see your hand. Oh, nope. She took her hand down. So she um Jack your hands out Jack Yeah, I was just going to say it's it's kind of ironic that we're doing these meetings via zoom And we're thinking that we need That's all but um, I understand two screens help in this situation, but I use two screens. Yeah. Yeah, I just would encourage You know people to like You know increase their technology just a tad bit And I don't think really we need paper I don't Yeah, I set up a laptop next to my my desktop and utilize that so, you know, play around with what you can and um Thank you. Uh, so if there's no more discussion on that, I'm going to move to michael Is this under new business michael? Um, well, it would be like a committee report But we're not we they're not on the agenda, but I do have something You know New board it's free The design review board met last week to review a proposal from the bid to put a mural on the side of the michelson building In that in that parking lot area behind the bank near the cinema There's a big broad brick wall back there. They wanted to put a mural on there All five members of the design review board had Issues with the particular project Uh, to to the point to the point that uh, uh, Ms. Gould decided or said at the meeting that Well, she was not going to bring that that proposal back again. So it was Taken by her apparently With some hard feelings. I'm not sure about that But it seemed a very abrupt withdrawal of a proposal which had some merit to it But had many problems Different kinds of problems from the point from all five different points of view of the board members. So that's just for your information Thank you. And do you actually For them to put it up. Do they have to get approval from someone or was this a Nice to know Well, the the the design review board is an advisory board. Okay But maybe this gives them some thought to go back and and Give it some more thought I don't know Thanks for the update glad. Did you guys and this was through zoom? Yeah, okay, great. Thank you. That's true. Does anyone else have any other committee reports? I know a lot of committees aren't meeting Um, show your hand if if you have something you'd like to um report Uh, if not, I'm going to move on to uh item Uh sex which is Christine Chris breast rub has her hand up. Oh, she don't Chris. Thank you I just wanted to um speak on behalf of the bid I know that they had a difficult meeting with the drb and they um seem to be Sort of miffed at the reception that they received but just to put a little uh different spin on it They are trying so hard to Help the businesses that are, you know, essentially failing in downtown Amherst and they're working really hard to get Some money from some small business administration loans or something They've set up a foundation that was originally going to be used for downtown improvements like the Shell if if we want to call it that, you know, the musical show And other things but they're turning their attention now to Helping the businesses downtown and I think that Perhaps their frame of mind was colored by this You know difficult situation that they're going through they're trying to help and so Anyway, I just wanted to put that out there that they May not have reacted the way they would react in normal times Thank you Chris I recognize Michael I'm sure that's true chris On the other hand, uh, they did bring it forward to us They could have withdrawn it without any difficulty at all And I understand that the funding is an issue for them And I'm understanding I understand and appreciate the fact that their funding efforts are going entirely towards supporting small businesses in the area Which is wonderful But I just felt the need to report on this because that's what the design review board is all about Thank you um, I recognize uh, janet So, um, just to support what christine was saying is at the crc meeting, um, the bid and um The amherst area chamber of commerce. They had a really excellent presentation And I don't know maybe chris you could send that out to the board It was really quite comprehensive what they're working on. I thought it was useful for people to know I didn't I didn't cite it in my notes because I didn't have the link and stuff like that that was They had a really fine Their whole view of what they're trying to do And trying to use this as an opportunity to move amherst forward and stuff like that. So it was very impressive Uh christine So if I remember to do that, I will send you a link but you can also go on the crc Page and I think that they included that in their packet after the fact. I think they got it late before their meeting and um, and it should be on the crc webpage in case I forget to Find that and forwarded. Okay, but it was definitely worthwhile Watching that and and hearing about the foundation and hearing about the opportunity for all of us to contribute to that I did watch the whole crc meeting and uh, their presentation was very informative and Um, my family is definitely making an effort to do a lot of takeout from downtown and I have to say I won't mention specific But the ones that we've been going to really have very good technique and nice systems that they've set up You can just call ahead place your order. It's just waiting for you. You know pay ahead with a credit card We usually try to stick a gratuity in there But I highly recommend it and I have a bunch of young adult children. They really seem to need some of that food that's down there So, um, I don't see any hands. So I'm going to move on to the next item Pam in case you're just hanging out there. Could you pop up the agenda again? Just so See where we're at So I'm going to item six It's form a anr subdivision applications. Do we have any of those? Yes Um, so I don't know if I'm muted or not muted. No, you we hear you. I'm sorry Um, so we do have an anr and it's related to the things that tom reedy was talking to us about before It's essentially, um, you know splitting the lot Into in you know with that lot line running straight north and then off to the northwest and the Plan that you're looking at right now that Pam's brought before you is in fact the a and r plan and if you would authorize Christine gray mullin to sign it then she and I can make an arrangement to have her come to town hall to sign it uh, should we have a show of hands or I don't want to just click their hand on for a sec. If you're good with that I'm good with it and okay. I heard someone. Yep. There's maria dug um jack Great, so I've seen almost all of your hands. Great. Thank you. You can turn them off chris Uh, we'll figure out how I should come by and do that We'll call that a consensus Yes And um item we'll move to seven is upcoming zba applications Um, yes, we do have zba applications and I had them all lined up here and what did I do with them? Here they are Okay, so colonial village um is coming before the zba to alter their their approval for the um development in general they have acquired a playground from um north village north village is you know undergoing changes. They're um, you know demolishing the buildings and building new buildings there so they're giving their playground To colonial village. I don't know exactly if there's a monetary transaction there or not But it's pretty nice play equipment and they want to install it at colonial village. So that's one thing Another thing is 948 east pleasant street. Um, apparently there's a a woman there who wants to put in an eight foot high fence and She is reacting to some difficulties in the neighborhood and so the zba will be considering whether she Should be allowed to put in an eight foot high fence And then um 65 high street Um, it is I believe it's I don't know if it's a single-family house or a duplex, but there's some special permit that's needed to Either acknowledge or create a duplex there at 65 high street And that's it. That's all I Thanks, chris. I will move on to I see no hands Eight upcoming spp spr suv's applications Yep, so um, you know, you have the kendrick park Playground coming to you on may 6th And um, we won't have all of the details worked out by then but we'll have more than we had on april 15th So I think um, you'll be able to comment and then probably want to continue the public hearing to may 20th So that we can really um, you know, acknowledge all of the details Then russ wilson who's a builder is building houses down at the apple brook cluster subdivision So one of the houses that he's built the owner of that house would like to put on a a deck and um In a three-season room. So he needs to come to you for um Change a modification of his site plan review All about learning is a preschool in the palmeri village area On palmeri lane and they Occupy some space in seven palmeri lane, which is the building right next to the jahovah's witnesses And they'd like to expand their play area They had a proposal to do that at a different location a couple of years ago, but they that didn't really go through and then amherst media is Just on the brink of submitting their site plan review application to you after having gotten approval from the local historic district and Recently the pioneer valley planning commission has upheld the decision of the local historic district. So I think that's it up all I have right now Just a quick question on the first one kendrick park. So that'll come back to us won't be complete so we'll send it to the next meeting which is um End of may are we I assume we're going to do a meeting at the end of may But wasn't there a deadline a june deadline or something with a grant or something? Well, yes, there is and that deadline may be extended, but it hasn't been extended yet So I thought as we could get as much done on may 6th as possible And then we hope that we'll just need to come back with some Final details to you on may 20th and that we'll be able to wrap it up before The deadline on june 1st, but maybe I'll have good news for you next week and be able to say the deadline's been extended but Since it hasn't been yet. We need to push forward with that one Okay, um, thank you Uh reported chair. The only thing I had is a little bit about scheduling. Uh, we're sort of rolling again here and we have A meeting uh next week, uh On the 6th and then we have it on the 20th And then it would be june 3rd. So that's what we're looking at right now Do you want to know other things that are coming up on those two dates? That uh, that would be helpful. Yes. I see some nodding. Yes Okay, so on the 6th you're going to have the consultants for the 40 r district coming to you with A presentation about you know, what they've done in general and what they're doing right now Oh, and also a proposal for a zoning amendment that would incorporate What 40 r is all about including design guidelines? So they're going to be making a presentation on may 6th and then on may 20th On may 20th. I think um, we decided that that I would come and give you an update on the master plan and where we're Where we are with the master plan So you long ago had sent us out An example of one of the chapters. I think the land use And we were supposed to get back to you with comments and then all this happened Should we reset and what are your expectations of us right now? Yeah, if you want to read it and uh, send me some comments, that would be fine And possibly I'll have some more Done by then, but I don't know it's just to let you know this is an Unusual situation. I work in town hall most of the time other people don't work in town hall So there are a lot of things that need to be done to coordinate all of this work And that actually takes up a lot of time. So For my actual work, it's hard to Actually work and get it done Just wanted to share that with you But um, possibly by the 20th, I will have more than just chapter three ready for your review All right, that would be great. Thank you for trying. Um, and then we'll be into june um Thank you. Is there a report of staff and after that, I still have to stick in public comment I don't think we will have any but just in case. Oh, I Excuse me. Yeah, I see your hand I don't recall the draft chapter three land use. Can you Either resend or just let me know where what the time frame was so I could try to find it Here. Yep. I will send it. Yep And by the 20th for that meeting, I will also Reach out to Brianna and it and see If they're lightening out and have any bandwidth so we can get that website up All right May I make a plea as part of my Which is that if you could I I don't know if you're all planning on taking vacations this summer if you're gonna stick But if you are planning to take a vacation, it would be good if you could send me that information because then I would know You know how to plan planning board meetings, whether we're going to have a quorum for some of the dates that we have And you can you know look at the calendar and count on having a meeting scheduled for the first wednesday and the third wednesday You know to have an idea. I think I've sent you a planning board schedule, but if not, I'll do that again Summer vacation. So what does that mean? Like we just don't go to a planning board zoom meeting and stay at home Or do we actually get to leave our houses? It's kind of weird to plan for summer vacation. Yeah But yes, thank you. Um I also want to say that since we'll be entering june. I think there's three of us that are up for reappointment Um And the steps for that are are we supposed to fill out a form? Um, I would if I were you um, let's see christine gray mullen and michael burt whistle and Is there another one or so don't it Is david. Yeah, I was thinking david. Yep. There's three of us david also. Okay. So I think it would be advisable to fill out the caf You know, if you can figure out your old one Send that along but um I never know from time to time what the requirements are going to be so I I err on the caution side and Have people send in the form and that sort of prompts people in the office upstairs to consider consider your application and they recently the town council recently appointed a number of members to the zoning board of appeals so That's really good because they were down to only four people. So They'll be able to carry on with their work. So I I hope that you all The ones who have their terms coming up Will agree to keep serving and um, I look forward to keep serving with you Um, I just because there doesn't seem to be Any rules they've tried other process interviews and stuff like that, but they don't seem It's unclear how to proceed. I also wonder in the charter it says that there's three year terms They've been giving less than that to replace members But like Michael and I um, he'll he's closing in on his fourth year and myself on my fifth um Would it be for three year terms? That's my question to them They've seemed to be sticking that they want the six year max. So That would mean Michael only would get a two and I would get a one. It's just, you know, when you're weighing your commitment and Life The difference between one year and three year is is quite a bit different. So I was wondering if you can reach out to them or are they, you know I don't know if Michael has any feelings on that. I see his hand. I'll call him Michael Yeah, I do. I filled out an application and it's part of the application. I said I would be interested in serving a three year term Which would be for a total of seven. Yeah. Yeah, okay.  It's just right I've been saying but it's unclear Thank you. Um David has his hand up I see jack also I'll call on jack first Oh Jack is that it?  All right. Oh, there he's back. Hello I thought I unclipped it. Um, sorry um, I just want to say that I think uh Christine you're doing a great job and And I really would like to see you continue For whatever we know one two three, you know, whatever the next assignment is um Thank you. I know I'm on on the The vice chair And it would be and it's telling everyone the board that You know, I don't know. I just feel like you just I hate to see what happened like before with the guard of chairman because it's just Such tumultuous times Let's keep some You know, you know consistency to what we're doing I think it's good and That's all Thank you jack.  Okay All right, so we'll go to well, it's back to the beginning. Let me just go to item two public comment period I'm just first going to see if there is anyone who wants public comment. Um, I only see one attendee right now. The hand is not up Um, hey, I'm just checking. There's no phone calls No, ma'am Okay, so we can pass through that and if there's no other hands or anything I think we can move to item nine adjournment and thank you all