said. So welcome to the Amherst Planning Board meeting for August 5th 2020 based on Governor Baker's Executive Order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law GL Chapter 30A Section 20 and signed Thursday March 12th 2020. This planning board meeting is being held virtually using the Zoom platform. My name is Christine Graham-Mullen and this chair of the Amherst Planning Board. I am calling this meeting to order at 6.32 p.m. This meeting is being recorded and is available live stream via Amherst media. Minutes are being taken as normal. I will now take a roll call. Board members as you hear your name called unmute yourself answer affirmatively and then please place yourself back on mute. Michael Burtwessel. I'm here. Maria Chow. Here. Jack Gempsick. Here. Doug Marshall. Here. Janet McGowan. Here. Thank you. Board members if technical difficulties arise we may need to pause temporarily to rectify the problem and then continue the meeting. If you do have technical issues please let Shawn or Pam know. Discussion may be suspended while the technical issues are addressed and the minutes will note if a disconnection has occurred. Please use the raise hand function to answer a question or to make a comment. I will see you raised hand and call upon you to speak. After speaking please try to remember to remute yourself. Opportunity for public comment will be provided during the general public comment period and at other times throughout the meeting. Please be aware the board will not respond to comments during the general public comment period. If you do wish to make a comment during the any of the public comment periods you must join the meeting via the Zoom teleconferencing link. This link is shown on the slide and can be entered into a search engine. The link can also be found on the meeting agenda which is located on the town website in two ways. One is through the calendar listing for this meeting on the home page and you can find a link within the event details. A second way is to go to the planning board web page and click on the most recent agenda link. On the agenda there is a link towards the top of the page where it states virtual meeting. Please indicate you wish to make a comment by clicking the raise hand button when the public comment is solicited. If you have joined the Zoom meeting using a telephone please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star nine on your telephone. When called upon please identify yourself stating your full name and address and put yourself back in mute when finished speaking. Residents are welcome to express their views for up to three minutes and at the discretion of the planning board chair. If these guidelines are not um complied with or the speaker exceeds there are a lot of time their participation will be disconnected from the meeting. Included on tonight's agenda item three public hearing site plan review the board will continue the public hearing for Amherst media's SPR application to construct a new home office building which is being continued from July 15th. Additionally the board will open public hearing for SPP 2021-01 submitted by Amherst media to request a front setback modification requirement. The SPP and SPR public hearings will be combined as a joint public hearing for the purpose of discussion. Moving on the slide will now show the meeting agenda. Again note the virtual zoom meeting link. We now move on to item one which is minutes and we actually have two sets of minutes to reveal here. So I have we have June 3rd minutes from that and June 17th. We'll start with June 3rd and I'm watching for any hands. Are there any comments or additions that anyone would like to make? Chris I see your hand first. Chris. So Janet McGowan sent me some comments about the June 3rd meeting. I can read them to you now if you're ready for that. So on page 11 paragraph 4 in the second sentence. Ms. McGowan would like it to read. Ms. McGowan expressed concern that the proposed process does not provide notification to a butters, neighbors, or nearby businesses. And that seems fine to me. So that's item one. Item two is on page 12 at the very top of the page. The first paragraph Ms. McGowan added she asked about voting requirements on the planner's listserv. Other towns with a super majority voting requirement reported that it was not usually a problem but at times it can be a problem to have a quorum. So meetings were rescheduled for a vote and that seems fine to me too in terms of content. Okay thank you Chris. Are there watching for hands? Are there any other members who have comments to the June 3rd minutes? And if I am not seeing any hands I could also take a motion. Michael. There we go. I move to approve the motion of the minutes as suggested amendments by Ms. Brescher. Okay. Is there a second? Second. All right. Any other discussion on these June 3rd minutes? I'm not seeing any hands. Michael yours is still up but so at this point we can take a vote. I'll do a quick roll call. All right. So for the June 3rd minutes to accept them with the changes Michael Burt whistle. Yes. Maria. Yep. Jack. Yes. Doug. Yes. Janet. Yes. And myself Christine. Yes. So that's six zero zero. So if we move to the next one June 17th again I'm watching hands. Does anyone have any comments or additions they would like to make on the June 17th? Doug. Yeah. One brief minor edit on page 11. The first paragraph under board comments and discussion. Second line. The line I would like it to read a band on the facade that separates the stone and the sighting so that it aligns with the second the first floor level. Yep. And where is that? You said page 11. Page 13. I'm sorry. Oh okay. Thank you. Can you read that again please? So that it aligns with the first floor level. Thank you. Is that all Doug? I'm not seeing any other hands. I could also take a motion. Anyone, Michael? I move to approve the motion. The minutes as amended. I will second. Okay. Great. Any other comments, concerns? I'm watching for hands. I'm going to lower Michael's ears. So I see no hands. So at this point we'll take a quick roll call. So to approve the June 17th minutes as amended. Michael? Yes. Maria? Yes. Jack? Yes. Doug? All right. Janet? Yes. And myself? So that's 6-0-0. Approved. Great. And thank you both Chris and Pam for joining me. They're both very long and detailed. Thank you. Okay. So we will move to item 3. Public comment period. So this is, Pam, if you can start looking. This is a time where attendees can address the board for something that's not on our agenda for tonight. Something different. They want to bring to us attention and just remember that we don't give a response back but we will listen. Pam, do we see anybody in there with raised hand? I'm not seeing any. I don't see any raised hands and we have nobody who has called in at this point. Okay. Great. So at this point I see no public comment. We'll move on. What time is it? Yep. 6-41. So we can definitely start our public hearing. Okay. So I'm going to move Mr. Sparklin. Okay. Great. Let me see. All right. I'll start. Okay. So it is 6-41 in accordance with the provisions of MGL chapter 40. This public hearing has been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted and is being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity for interested citizens to be heard regarding SPR 2020-11, Amherst Community Television, DBA, Amherst Media, corner of Gray Street and Main Street, continued from July 1st and July 15th, 2020. Request site plan review, approval to construct a new building and associated site improvements for Amherst Media, a 501c3 educational institution under section 3.330.0 of the zoning bylaw, BN zoning district, map 14b, carcels 250 and 251. Same time. I'm also going to open a special permit, SPP. So now it is both of these were combined and advertised at the same time. So now it's 6-42 in accordance with provisions of MGL chapter 40. This public hearing has been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted. This hearing is being held for the purpose of providing an opportunity for interested citizens to be heard regarding SPP 2021-01, Amherst Community Television, DBA, Amherst Media, corner of Gray Street and Main Street. Request a special permit under footnote A of table 3, article 6 of the zoning bylaw to modify the front setback requirement if required for a new building for Amherst Media, BN zoning district, map 14b, carcels 250 and 251. So with them both combined, first thing I'm watching for hands, are there any board board member disclosures? I'm not seeing any, but I'll continue to watch. Welcome. Welcome, Mr. Sparkle. I see you there. Good evening. You have different things hanging behind you now. I try to keep it interesting. Yep. Thank you. Thank you for that. Is there anyone else that you need here or you expect that we'll also be presenting or talking? I did send a list to Pam. I'm expecting that Jim Lesko, the executive director of Amherst Media, would be available. There may be other members of the board with him. I also know that due to the power outage, a couple people who would normally be here are not able to be here tonight, but I don't think we're worried about it at this time. Bucket, do you want me to move Jim Lesko in as a panelist now? Do you want me to wait until you tell me to? How do you want that to work? If you're able, please bring him in at this point, and I'm sure Jim will use restraint and speak up if he feels it's pertinent. He is my boss after all on this. Okay, I'll move him. Let's move him in. I can tell you who else is over here. Ed Severance. Oh, Ed made it great, sure. Would you like him to come on into? Yes, please. And I believe that is it, unless somebody is logged in with a different name, and if they are, they can raise their hand and let me know. I'll be watching. Okay, thank you. Sure. Okay, so do you want to share your screen or okay? Let me get this rolling. And give us a heads up if there's anything we need to pull out of our packet to look at. I don't think so. The presentation is not extremely long. In fact, I'll probably spend more time reading things on my screen than extemporaneously going off on tangents here. So let me just get into it here. Again, I'm Bucky, representing Amherst Media, and Gillian Collaborate Architects is also around sometimes, maybe not tonight, to support this process and was the designer for the building. First, since this is a joint meeting, I want to focus on the site plan review. This is my only slide for the site plan. From the continuation from two weeks ago, there were a few requests that the board made. There was lots of discussion, but just a few requests. One, they wanted to see the parking management plan as a separate document that was separated and submitted with a very minor edit, basically that there was also the request for two spaces to be labeled as guest parking. And those spaces are number seven and eight. And those are the two that are on the east side against Gray Street. So we'll have guest parking signs for those two spaces. And there was a question about whether or not the roof was solar ready. And yes, indeed, it is designed to be solar ready. And as far as I know, that was everything that came out of that meeting that required a response from me. Today, I did get a copy of a letter from Attorney Matt Massingill, which I just want to bring up. He mentioned propane trucks and fueling in that letter that he wrote. And maybe you've had a chance to read it or not. But I just want to point out that there are no propane tanks on the site and that his hypothetical concern regarding what would happen if a truck showed up to fuel is not a concern because there's nothing to fill. There is no propane tank. No. Okay. Yes. And really that wraps up the site plan review portion of my presentation tonight because really what's new on the table is the special permit that has been in much discussion. So moving into that, yes, Amherst media is absolutely a 501c3 educational nonprofit use functionality institution, whatever you want to call it. And bylaw 6.60 does say that educational religious uses shall have the minimum front side rear setbacks of twice the distance shown in table three, which is the dimensional regulations in article six. Normally the front setback would be 10 feet. And if bylaw 6.60 were enforced to this application, then that would be 20 feet, which as previously discussed would be problematic for the current layout and go contrary to what the local historic district commission was hoping to achieve. However, of course, I think we all know that footnote A of table three says that the setbacks can be modified under special permit by the special permit granting authority, which in this case is the planning board. So that's what we're doing here today, hopefully. So we are requesting a reduction in that setback requirement such that the building may sit where proposed. And to look at that, the familiar side of the site plan, zoom in a little bit just to the front of the building because it's really what is for the hot topic here. So presently the building sits at closest 13.3 feet from the front setback to Main Street. Some of it sits back almost 26 feet, actually the majority of the building. And this is over 31 feet from the front lot line over on the east side. So just to give people a sense of what we're talking about for this site specifically. But you know, when we're looking at these things, it's in relationship to the neighborhood as I'll bring up a few times here. So in one case, we have location, okay, so the local historic district commission also did write a letter of support, which I've brought up a few times of the last few meetings. And one of the sentences in that report, it was really a letter I think I said report, but it was a letter. And it said that the location on the site amassing the proposed building were very important considerations for the commission because these attributes make this structure consistent with the character of the historic district. So we have already located things according to the historic district commission in an optimal manner regarding placement on the property and looking relative to the neighborhood and a larger scale, not just our site. What I've done is I prepared a little sketch based off of the 10 of Amherst GIS system, which shows buildings across the street on Main Street in the historic district, well, most of them are. And the front setbacks are nine feet, nine feet. That's also nine feet, but it's really the same building. This one's 15 feet. That's the biggest of them. And this one is negative two feet, which means it's actually encroaching into the public right away. And on average, these buildings are 7.75 feet from the front property line. And Amherst media is proposing 13.3 feet. So almost twice what the average is in the area and almost as large as the largest setback in the one block area of commercial district. So we are a little more generous on our setback as proposed than is, you know, sort of experienced in the neighborhood currently. So that's how we sit relative to the neighborhood. But then also then comparing the use, the educational use of Amherst media, like, yes, it is an educational facility, but it's much more like a tutoring facility. For example, there is not a classroom in this building. And most educational facilities would definitely have classrooms. So it's not a typical educational use.  Simultaneously, sometimes they can have hundreds of visitors in large classrooms or scores of visitors in multiple classrooms. And normally, the properties of these institutions, you know, have ample room, they have a little more wiggle room than Amherst media has. And looking at the proposal that I'm presenting tonight, you know, it's a fairly unassertive building. It has been designed in residential scale with the buildings on Gray Street and have a diminutive commercial feel smaller than some of the buildings across the street that are commercial buildings, only getting a handful of visitors at a time, quite literally, like no more than five usually on people in this building at a time. And it's a very modest lot area. It's only just over a half acre.   It does not make sense in the case of Amherst media. And that ties into what some of the town's experts have said. The building commissioner wrote in a determination last month, quote, in my opinion, section 6.6 of the zoning bylaw does not apply and the additional setback is not required. And the town attorney backed that up just a few days ago saying, I interpret the building commissioner's determination to be finding that it would not be a reasonable regulation to apply section 6.60 to this project given the site, the proposed use, and the foreseeable impacts and so on. In my opinion, this determination is when, within the building commissioner's discretion. So in some ways, if we just listen to what the experts said, the special permit isn't even necessary, that we're sort of doing a belt and suspenders approach with the additional special permit process, because we just want to make sure that we cover all the possible bases that we can for this overall project to move forward as proposed and design in conjunction with the local historic district commission. Looking at the bylaw a little bit under bylaw 1038 specific findings required for special permits. There are 19 items as proposal does comply with all of them. And I do want to point out a couple. The first one is 10.391, which indicates that the proposal should protect the historic features in the area. And the entire site design, the shape, size, mass of the building have all been very finely tuned through the seven meeting process with the historic district commission. That the whole design is predicated upon protecting the historic features of this neighborhood. Obviously, we're not blocking the important views on the west side of the lot. The building has been brought down and the architectures in line with what would be expected for the Emily Dickinson historic district. Going a little further into both sort of the finding section and table three, bringing these ideas together under the findings 10.395 says that the proposal should not create disharmony with respect to the train and the use scale and architecture of existing buildings in the vicinity, which have functional or visual relationship there too. And I bring this one up because footnote A brings this one up and it says in applying the criteria established in section 10.395, the special permit granting authority shall consider the proposed modified dimensional requirements in the context and patterns of that same and I've got my screen blocked off with all your faces here. I got to move that. In the context and patterns of the same dimensions established by existing buildings in the surrounding neighborhood. So I've already shown that we are more generous in the setback and doubling the setback is would be significantly at a step with the existing surrounds, which really then sort of brings me to the end of this brief portion here. You know, just I surely do not need to remind the board in purpose of special permits is to ensure a harmonious relationship between proposed development and the surroundings. And that of course is consistent with the purpose intent of the bylaw, which certainly we don't have to get into. So I do want to say that the proposal, the building, the location, the scale, the massing is harmoniously integrated with the surroundings. It's already been assured by the local historic district commission's review, as well as protecting the historic interests of the district. And that the educational use of Amherst media is nothing like the use and functionality of the middle school or UMass or Amherst college buildings. So this is the reason that we are requesting a special permit per note A of table three for this project as we have offered it. And that concludes my presentation to the board, and I'm happy to open the discussion now. Thank you. Thank you. And is there anyone else from Amherst media who wants to speak at this time? I don't see any hands. All right. Thank you. Thank you for that information at this time. And if you don't mind just leaving your screen up in case one of the board members has a question on one of the slides. So I'll open it up to the board members right now. Does anyone have questions on this new information? Can also be questions to Chris Bestra regarding the special permit and any administrative or internal questions?  I was just wondering about the argument with the propane. Tank submitted by the butters, one of the butters represented there. Was there some confusion? I'm just trying to recall. Was there some confusion in terms of initial submittal referencing propane deliveries or where did that come from? I guess is my question. I am not sure where that came from. Our plan has never shown a propane tank. In fact, the plan has always shown the mystical gas connections. We've always indicated that if it's available, we might make a gas connection. And architects have been working with mechanicals that could potentially work off of a gas system if we're available. But nobody on our end of the table is really interested in a propane tank. I think it has been discussed at the meeting somehow extemporaneously and I can't put my finger in my memory as to how that came up. But it's we're not interested. We don't have room for it. We don't have it on the plans. Never have. So how is the building being heated? Electricity. Okay. Okay. Are there any other board questions at this time? I'm not seeing any hands. If not, we could move on to move on to the public comment. So at this time, I'll ask attendees. I don't think we have too many, but if I could see a show of hands in our attendees, who would like to speak tonight? I'm just watching just to see. I'm seeing one hand. Okay. So I see one hand. Pam, I'm sure you see that. So I'm going to let you hear it. Do we have any calls? Just I'm not seeing any calls. So I just see the one hand. Attorney Finnegan. Okay. Well, I'll recognize Mr. Finnegan. I think he's still muted. We can. Welcome. If you could introduce yourself. Sure. Thank you very much, Daniel Finnegan. I'm an attorney and I represent the Abutter Harmsway LLC. Just very, very briefly. I just want to make a couple of comments. One, I just want to point out that the setback requirement can't be complied with. It's just further evidence that the project, as we've stated before, just appears to us to be too large for the lot on which it's proposed to be situated. So I just like to make that comment again for the record. Then also for the record, I'd just like to note that we disagree that the appropriate mechanism to vary that setback requirement is a special permit in front of the planning board. And again, I just make that comment for the record. That's all. Thank you. Are there any other hands? I'm not seeing any other hands. So I'm going to close the public comment. Pam, still no phone calls or anything. So this okay. So this would be closing public comment for both the site plan review and the special permit. I'm going back to the panelists. I'm going to ask, are there any other questions? Okay. I see a couple of hands popping up. Michael and then I see Jack. Thank you. I'd like to ask Mr. Finnegan to explain why he finds the setback inappropriate. He's still okay. I just unmuted. Can you hear me? Yep. So we can hear you. Okay. The question was why I find it inappropriate. Yes. The setback, well, as I say, the fact that the building is this close, and the issues we've stated with the parking lot, the whole project just appears to us to be too large for the space in which it's proposed to be located. We feel that the setback requirement is there in the bylaw for a good reason. They can't be an educational use when it benefits them under the bylaw, but not an educational use when it doesn't benefit them. They're an educational use. They should be required to comply with the setback in the bylaw, which in this case is 20 feet. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to mute you. Thank you. Going back, Michael, is that all or can I move to Jack? Oh, you're muted. Michael, oops. Let me unmute you. Try again. It's fine. My question is answered. Thank you. Great. All right. Jack. Yes. Whoops. I'm just thinking that there's, in terms of the quote-unquote record, I was wondering if maybe Chris Breistrup could summarize all the supportive information from the town council, from Rob Mora, and then there's the attorney letter from, what, Miles Lipton or something like that. But there's a kind of a significant argument how this is all okay. And I just, if I know Bucky, maybe Bucky could just, you know, retort. Yeah, sorry. We don't need Chris to... I'm happy to do it. I'm happy to let Chris go as well. She's, you know, obviously, she's always acting in the interests of the town and I'm just the hired gun. But I'm happy to summarize. So we do have a letter, an email from Rob Mora that says, because the real, the functionality of the educational use is not so typical that 6 and 6.60 would not apply. And then the town's attorney, Joel Bard, indicated that the building commissioner's opinion is defensible. And it's his, I guess, right to make that kind of determination in this case. And you mentioned a letter from attorney Michael Pill, who has represented pro bono Amherst media. And that letter, while it is not in my mind quite as clearly, that was in response to kind of that come out. So there was another letter, oh, there was a letter written to the, I believe it was a planning board, it was, there was already an appeal filed for, I think, this very meeting before the meeting even happened. And Michael Pill, and this is where really, really we should be having a lawyer describe this, but my understanding of that letter was that was out of order. And that the indication that an appeal being filed prior to a meeting ever happening wasn't an appropriate situation. So I think that's where Michael Pill, and he's from Green Miles in Lipton, the other attorney organization. And I very much encourage and would appreciate if Chris Brestrop also either verified what I'm saying or added something if Biden and Quay hit the nail on the head. Yes, I would. Chris, could you give us a little bit of what, you know, in-house town hall and with the, our legal counsel? So am I muted or unmuted? So we hear you. Yep. The butters have filed an appeal with the zoning board of appeals. And they are appealing the advisory opinion of the building commissioner. And the advisory opinion of the building commissioner was that the front setback issue can be dealt with with regard to a special permit for modification of the front setback. The building commissioner also had the opinion that section 6.6 didn't apply in this case. So the, I think I had sent you a copy of the appeal that the butters filed. If not, I apologize for that. But the thrust of Mr. Pill's letter is really against the appeal that is coming before the zoning board of appeals and isn't necessarily, you know, speaking about the things that you are considering other than to support the idea that a special permit, if section 6.6 applies, that a special permit could be filed. I think he said that, but I'm not sure. Let me see. Actually, he didn't even refer to the special permit that you are considering. He really has his arguments against the applicant or the butters filing of the zoning board of appeals, appeal of the decision of the building commissioner. So it's really outside of your realm of jurisdiction, but I wanted you to see it anyway just so that you have all the facts. So the building commissioner essentially said that this building isn't really in terms of its practical function. It doesn't really operate like an educational institution or like UMass buildings or Amherst College buildings. And he gave me the example of some of our group homes here in Amherst. And the group homes come in under the use category of nonprofit educational institutions. And these group homes are usually for older adults who can't function on their own and need a sort of protective environment. And we never require, never even comes up to require a doubling of the setback for group homes. Because even though they are considered under 501c3, they really operate more like a home. So the effect on the neighborhood, the impact on the neighborhood, the traffic, the number of people coming in and out, the height of the building, etc. isn't really similar to other educational institutions. So that's an example of a case where something comes in under the nonprofit educational institution use category, but is not required to comply with section 6.6. The other thing that Joel Bard pointed out is that the Dover amendment, which governs these nonprofit educational and religious institutions, says that municipalities may apply reasonable regulations. And so there's a, you know, differing opinions about what reasonable regulations are. But in this case, the building commissioner has made a discretionary determination that the reasonable regulation in this case does not require that there be a doubling of the front setback given the impact that this building will have on its surroundings. And so you can find out more about that by reading Joel Bard's email of August 2nd, which I have forwarded to you. But I could, I interpret the building commissioner's determination to be a finding that it would not be, quote, a reasonable regulation to apply section 6.6 to this project, given the site that proposed use of foreseeable impacts and so on. But Joel Bard goes on to say that even if you find that section 6.6 does apply in this case, you can still consider the application for the special permit under footnote A and grant that. And that he would consider that a good thing to do. So one of the things you need to do in this case is you need to make a finding as to whether you think section 6.6 applies or not. And then after that, you need to determine whether you want to grant this special permit. And in the case if you thought that section 6.6 applied, then granting the special permit would be a confirmation that you agree that section that the doubling of the that that, excuse me, that you will grant a modification of the setback under footnote A. If you think it doesn't apply, then it's not absolutely necessary that you grant the special permit, but we would recommend that you do nonetheless as a kind of built-in suspenders. So in any case, we think that you should, our recommendation would be to grant the special permit. And then prior to that also make a finding about whether you think section 6.6 applies or not. Does that help? That does help. So should we do that now and discuss as members whether we find if it does apply to 6.6 regarding the special permit and that we should go forward with this process of a special permit.  I see I'm going to call on Doug and then Janet and then I see Michael. So Doug. Yeah, I just wanted to let Chris tell us whether in reference to Attorney Finnegan's assertion that the planning board is not the right authority to grant a waiver of a setback requirement, whether there are any other boards that are so empowered. Thank you. Thank you. Excellent question. Chris, can you pop back on? So ordinarily or in many cases the zoning board of appeals is the special permit granting authority. They're usually listed as the special permit granting authority in the use table. In this case, the building commissioner has made a practice of having dimensional modifications go to whatever board is considering the use. So in this case, the planning board is considering the use of this site under a site plan review and therefore the building commissioner has sent the special permit application to the planning board. If this were a use that were under the jurisdiction of the zoning board of appeals, he would have sent the dimensional modification special permit to the zoning board of appeals. So the building commissioner who has, he's the zoning enforcement officer in the town of Amherst and he has discretion to make certain decisions. And in this case, he's made the decision to have the special permit for the modification of the dimensional requirement for the front setback go to the planning board because the planning board is considering the site plan review for the use. Thank you. I had, I had one other question which was regarding the findings that we are going to be discussing whether it would be a stronger finding to first find that the 6.6 does not apply and then grant the special permit versus finding that it does apply and granting the permit. Good question. Chris, any insight on that? Well, I think that the building commissioner and I both feel that section 6.6 does not apply, but we do encourage you to grant the special permit. So that would be the direction that we would encourage you to go in, but you may differ from that and therefore you could find that section section 6.6 does apply, but you would still grant the special permit. Well, assuming assuming that this is headed toward at least the zoning board of appeals, if not other venues, would we be making a stronger case for those other venues if we said both that it does not apply and granted the permit? Or would we not be making a stronger of the two choices? I think that would be a strong choice for you to make. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know which choice would be the more convincing in court, but I agree with the building commissioner that section 6.6 does not apply in this case and he has that discretion to make. And so my advice would be to find that section 6.6 does not apply and then still to grant the special permit. And that would be part of a motion stating that like we're in agreement with you and the building commissioner that it does not, but we're still moving forward with granting the special permit. The legal ad was written is that you would you're being asked to grant the special permit for this front setback if required. So you can even put that in your motion that if someone decides in the future that section 6.6 does apply then you are still granting the special permit. It's confirmation that you think that a 10-foot setback in this case or actually it's a 13.3-foot setback, but that the 22, that the 20-foot setback is not really necessary. That the setback that's being proposed is appropriate. So in the preamble where I read if required, is that how it was stated in the ad? Is that what you said? Yeah, that's right. So you might want to include that in your motion. Okay, thank you. Thank you for your comments. Okay, thanks Doug. I'm going to move to Janet and then Michael. Hi, thank you. I found myself in a somewhat uncomfortable position but I when I feel confident in I do think that section 6.6 applies and I would encourage the board to look at the language. It says that table 3's dimensional requirements quote shall apply to all educational and religious uses located in the zoning districts. And so this is an educational use and that's what we presented it. There's no other, I mean not that entertainment. Amherst media is educational and providing our community with you know tremendous and important services to our community. Also the 6.6 goes on to say that all structures approved after January 1st 1994 by a permit granting authority for quote, for educational or religious uses. And so I would encourage the planning board not to think about you know the various lawsuits and sort of setting up what's the best way. I think we should need to do is look at our zoning bylaw. The language is very simple. It's very clear. This is an educational use. This applies. And so then we move on to footnote A. And I think that footnote A applies and I think the conditions for a special permit are easily met by this application. The supporting materials we've heard in previous hearings and the presentation by Mr. Sparkle tonight, 13 foot setback is appropriate. And so I think we can very easily write an opinion that supports this special permit. I could go through every you know possible thing but it is an appropriate use setback. It fits the neighborhood. You know so much of this project is really trying to preserve the historic character of the district that it's in. And I think they've done an exceptional job with that. It fits into the neighborhood. I could go through all the different special you know permit conditions. But I do think we should not interpret the bylaw in a way for results. But in fact the language is very simple. It's very clear. And you know I do find myself disagreeing with the town attorney and the building commissioner who I have tremendous respect for. And so but I do think you could read the you read the bylaw as a layperson and you can see this is a very broad term that would encompass this use. That's it. Thank you. Michael. Yes is there any reason why we couldn't simply avoid voting to voting that 6.6 applies and that but simply grant the special permit which it would be a simpler approach to it. We're not in a position necessarily to rule on whether 6.6 applies. It's been decided by the building commissioner that it does. And if we simply grant the grant the special permit isn't that isn't that enough. So I guess that's out to the board. So our two options as I see it is if the board feels we could take a motion to just vote on whether either an agreement or not an agreement that it is impacted by 6.6 or or we can not address it all and and just move forward with the special permit. Doug. Yeah I wanted to ask Michael and I or at least to clarify what I thought he said which was that the building commissioner had decided that 6.6 did apply. I was under the impression he decided that it did not apply. Right. I assume that's what Michael meant. That is indeed what I meant. My my idea is simply to avoid that question and to move on to the question of granting the special permit. Thank you. Would Michael comment motion that says that we are voting to affirm the decision of the building commissioner and the director of planning and and that's part of our reasoning for granting the special program. I don't think we need to do that. I think we just need to to vote to approve SB 21 2021 01 grant to grant that special permit. Period. Okay so we've got two different ideas on the table. If there's any other members who want to state that they feel one way or the other if we want to make a statement that we're in agreement with the town staff and then vote on the special permit or would just not even address it. So I see Janet's hand. So I I think what Michael's saying and I I endorse it is the applicant has applied for a special permit and we can grant it or deny it you know on its merits and if we don't need to say section 6.60 applies why you know can we just you know they're asking for a special permit. We grant it. We don't have to make you know I you know and I can't vote to say yes it does it doesn't apply and I would actually be happy to write a memo on it. I was hoping that KP law would write something a bit more detailed but I think I you know they've applied for a permit special permit for whatever their reasons are you know let's vote to grant it or deny it on the you know the merits of their application and the bylaw requirements. I would support that idea. Okay thank you Chris Bestrip I see your hand. I just wanted to say I think I agree with Michael that you could avoid the issue entirely not make a finding on section 6.6 but do add the words when you grant the special permit if you choose to grant it that you are allowing this modification of the front setback if required and that kind of leaves it up to someone else to determine whether it actually applies or not but you've granted the special permit and that gives confirmation that you agree that 10 feet or 13.3 feet is an appropriate setback for this particular location. Thank you Michael I see your hand. Yeah I move we close the public hearing and grant special permit 2021-01 if necessary. Okay before we move on to emotion I just want to confirm a few things we should do final comments and check in with the public for any other additional comments and would we do Chris the special permit and the SPR at the same time should we do findings and conditions first or would we move forward with the special permit first Chris? I think you can do them separately you need to take a separate vote so I would definitely make separate motions I have a question about whether you need to go through the findings of 10.38. Traditionally what you have done when you're granting a special permit under footnote A is that you really look at the requirements of footnote A and the requirement is that you examine what is going on in the surrounding neighborhood and if what is being requested is compatible with the similar dimensional requirement in the surrounding neighborhood in other words these these buildings across the street for the most part are closer to the front setback than Amherst media is being proposed to be then you know making that finding that complies with the language of footnote A I think is really all you need to do but if you want to go through the 10.38 special permit findings we could do that as well and I think that was the direction that Ms. McGowan was moving in and maybe that makes sense because maybe it's you know again built in suspenders just sort of confirming that this is really what you believe and you are voting you know with clear eyes that it that you feel that it meets all the 10.38 criteria as well as the criteria contained in footnote A so it's really up to you as far as I tend to deal with Ms. McGowan. So I think we can handle this separate if it's okay with the board we can move forward with just the special permit right now and sort of take care of that and then we can go back and take care of the site plan review so Michael has proposed a motion would you be able to repeat that again Michael and we'll look for then a second. Sure I move we close the public hearing or the special permit yeah and grant special permit request of SPP 2021-01 if that special permit turns out to be necessary if if required for a new building. Yep second we worked out and who second that Maria okay Maria all right so that's on the table at this point can I just Pam are you there can we just go to attendees to make sure that there's no additional is at this time if there's any other final public comments to this um I see one hand so I'm going to address that um I see town counselor Dorothy Pam has raised her hand I'm going to click a lot of talk um oh I just did Christine okay is she good don't mute her yeah no Dorothy can can can you hear us can you say hello I don't see the mic isn't that weird can you hear me now yes we can hear you welcome we're without power for that we have no internet so I'm on the phone which is interesting okay I just wanted to make a little remark at this point I don't have any argument with the whole question of the permit for educational institution I follow the arguments and I have no problem with that but I was a little bit unhappy with Bucky Sparkle's statement that the buildings the setback was consistent with those that surrounded it looking only to the east and across the street and ignoring the Amherst woman woman's club and the boys and girls club which of course have huge setbacks so I know the historical group worked as hard as they could to try to keep the new building as much out of the view range of those buildings but I just think that in terms of the record it should be acknowledged that it's right next to incredible setbacks as part of the historical district and you know the Amherst woman's club has is not fighting this many times things happen and people don't fight for lots and lots of reasons but just understand that that there is a change being made in a very beautiful block and I know people are trying to do it in ways that are least injurious but it is a serious matter so that's that's all I have to say okay thank you all right so coming back to the board so we're open for comments and discussions from us I see uh Janet McGowan's hand I'm not seeing any other hands at this time so we're discussing the motion that's on the table right now Janet um I've never really understood until tonight that expression built since suspenders um I would think that when we discuss we look at this we might want to go beyond the usual um practice of just looking at a few dimensional you know the special permit requirements about the neighborhood and dimensional requirements and fill in you know look at the other special permit requirements um which are very most of them are very similar to the requirements of site plan review and I think that would be a very um that would be um the testifying or challenges and so I would encourage to do that extra piece looking at what we've seen in the record and have in the different criteria what we've seen that would support those things I know it sounds a little tedious but I just want the belt suspenders the raincoat and I know what else people wear you know but I think that um maybe that's a prudent course of action you know I'm not sure I just that's my okay thank you um so Chris I don't have that in front of me I don't know if we can pull it up on the shared screen before Mr. Sparkle pulls this down Chris do we have that that we can pull up to read I didn't give it to you um Pam can pull up um 99 of the zoni bylaw um I haven't been trying to me so I can read it and we can go through each one as I read them if that would be suitable and maybe if Pam can find page 99 section 10.38 of the zoni bylaw can you do that Pam so the other I do have something what you included in the email today I did I didn't I did that let's see if that's what you're referring to I think that was 11.24 yeah that's a different one but all right why don't I just read them yeah why don't you read it Chris because that's what we normally do before zoom so 10.380 um the proposal is suitably located in the neighborhood in which it is proposed and or the total town and is deemed appropriate by the special permit granting authority yes yes anybody disagree with that if you disagree raise your hand and I will be watching for those um so Chris you can keep going I'll let you know if I see a raised hand 10.381 the proposal is compatible with existing uses and other uses permitted by right in the same you can say yes you could also argue that the dimensional modification doesn't really have anything to do with uses but um if you really want to do belt and suspenders you can just say yes I think I'm seeing no hands in protest Chris so I think everyone's in agreement the proposal does not constitute would not constitute a nuisance due to air and water pollution flood noise odor dust vibration lights or visually offensive structures or site features I'm seeing no hands the proposal would not be a substantial increase or hazard letters vehicles or pedestrians seeing no hands yes okay um 10.384 adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided the proper operation of the proposed use agreement I'm seeing no hands 10.385 the proposal reasonably protects the adjoining premises against detrimental or offensive uses on the site including air and water pollution flood noise odor dust vibration lights or visor visually offensive structures or site features um I do see Michael Burt whistle I think it could be argued and this is a complicated for me uh we're talking about the special permit which is essentially we're not talking about the site plan review here we're talking about the special permit correct correct I think it could be argued that the special permit the the the offensive structure the visually offensive structure is certainly there is no visually offensive structure relative that the special permit is not concerned with that but I think you could argue that the entire site plan is visually offensive to the neighborhood it's not a question of the setback here it's a question of the entire project so there's that's an issue and I don't I don't know how to resolve that I would be happy to have somebody tell me how to resolve that I wanted I wanted to bring this up in connection with 10.380 but I couldn't get to unmute myself quickly enough and raise my hand quickly enough I've got a new system with my computer but the suitably located in the neighborhood in which it is proposed I would submit that it is certainly the the setback question the proposed the projecting element from the building that is in question is appropriate to the neighborhood but I would still question whether or not the entire structure is appropriate to the neighborhood I understand that the historical commission the historic district commission has approved the the proposal and I am I am persuaded by that largely but if we're making a finding specific to these question to these to the language in 10.3038 sorry then I'm not so sure about the question of suitably located and or visual and visually offensive in 10.380 and 10.385 chris pester well that's why I usually try to limit when we're making findings about dimensional modifications I try to limit the finding to the specific dimensional modification rather than going through 10.38 because 10.38 really relates more to the use which is normally you know if this is a zba special permit for the use you would go through all of these items here so I I think there's some reason not to go through 10.38 but Miss McGowan thinks that it's a good idea and it's more strengthening of your decision so it's possible that you could take a vote on each one of these if you wanted to and if mr. Burt whistle wishes to disagree with 10.380 and 10.385 maybe that's um that's what we should do here we should say well we have one we have a kind of a what is it five to one vote on 380 whether it is mad or not and a five to one vote on 10.385 I don't know I mean that's that's one way to say we vote to approve or not approve the special permit I do agree with you Chris where we're sort of diving wider on the special permit than what we were actually what's been requested for a special permit um I'll I see Janet's hand so a very similar in when we get to the site plan review there's a very very similar language in a requirement about visually offensive structures and harmony you know like fitting in you know with abutting properties so I think that um as much as you might want to escape the issue it's just going to show up again in the site plan review so I think that maybe having a vote on that and having it you know five one or whatever but I understand Michael's you know qualm basic qualm but I think that you know the special permit and site plan review criteria very similar and they're very overlapping not quite though I mean special permit permit is a little more rigorous but we're going to have the same issue or Michael will have the same question and issue when we get to site plan review and start reading through those criteria so I think we just have to face it and I just you know I know this seems like a tedious exercise three part of the new special permit criteria sorry and you know we're gonna we're not going to have skipped any point we'll be wearing our belt our suspenders our rain boots you know whatever and so it takes a few minutes here and we might have some disagreements but I think we should go forward okay well what is that what may I speak yes what is the conclusion about 10.385 do um is there a general consensus I think Michael has spoken against it do we I don't think we need to take a vote on each issue I'm not I'm not uh I'm simply raising question I don't necessarily want to vote against it in fact I I don't want to vote against it in terms of the special permit request because I think the special permit requests is is a modificate reserve request to modify what is an existing design in place which we theoretically will be approving in site plan review and I I think they're separate issues and I am not concerned with the setback issue as according with the whole building I'm I'm concerned with the whole building so I don't really think we need to go into the issue of the set the site the setback and with uh with with great detail I think we should just simply grant the setback modification uh and if in fact uh I if I and and let and let the issue of whether the building belongs on that site go to site plan review and not worry about it now okay well your motion is on the floor um and Miss McGowan wants to go through each one of these items I am going to switch to I see Doug's hand up and then Jack well I was just going to say that when I look at 10.38 the words suitably located mean to me we're not putting a bar in a residential neighborhood so putting this educational use into the neighborhood that we are talking about here seems perfectly appropriate without any further discussion thank you thanks jack yeah I was I was just also the historical commission's decision on this weighs heavily in terms of it fitting or not so for me it's a you know kind of a moot issue I'd like to vote you know the special permit findings in it in their entirety okay um Chris is there any more to read on those since I can't see them yes I can read them quickly um so I'm going to say about 10.385 general consensus but some disagreement um 10.386 is the proposal ensures that it is in conformance with the parking and sign regulations of this bylaw so what you would have to say there is that um this proposal has asked for modifications of the parking requirements and that when you get to the point of um your site plan review you will determine whether you're going to grant that parking modification or not right um I'm going to put down Doug and Jack's hands um and if anyone has an issue then re raise your hand up keep going Chris 10.387 the proposal provides convenient and safe vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and in relation to adjacent streets property or improvements with the special permit granting authority deems the proposal likely to have a significant adverse impact on traffic patterns it shall be permitted to require a traffic impact report and the proposal shall comply with section 11.2437 of this bylaw so they've asked for a waiver of the requirement for a traffic impact statement so that's something that you would grant under your site plan review right um 10.388 is the proposal ensures adequate space for the off-street loading and unloading of vehicles goods products materials and equipment incidental to the normal operation of the establishment agreement not seeing any hands 10.389 the proposal provides adequate methods of disposal and or storage pursuage refuse recyclables and other wastes resulting from the uses permitted or permissible on the site and methods of drainage for surface water i see no hands agreement okay um 10.390 is not applicable because it talks about flood hazards and refers to the flood conservancy district flood prone conservancy district and this is not in that district so i think we would say it's not applicable here um 10.391 the proposal protects to the extent feasible unique or important natural historic or scenic features and here you could refer to the local historic district commission um certificate of appropriateness agreement chris i see no hands um 10.392 let me see what page i'm on here um 10 point the proposal provides adequate landscaping including the screening of adjacent residential uses per provision of street trees landscape islands and the parking lot and a landscape buffer along the street frontage when a non-residential use of joints a residential district an uninterrupted vegetative buffer shall to the extent feasible be established and maintained between buildings associated with uses under this section and the nearest residential property boundaries um i would say that they're instead of providing a an uninterrupted vegetated buffer they're providing a stone wall in the direction of in the northerly direction and they're providing vegetation in the westerly direction i agree i see no hand 10.393 the proposal provides protection of adjacent properties by minimizing the intrusion of lighting including parking lot and exterior lighting for use of cut-off luminaries light shields lowered height of light shoulders screening or similar solutions um all exterior lighting shall be downcast and shall be directed or shielded to eliminate light trespass onto any street or abutting property and to eliminate direct or reflected glare perceptible to persons on any street or abutting property and sufficient to reduce the viewer's ability to see all-site lighting including architectural sign and parking lot lighting shall be kept extinguished outside of those business hours established under an approved site management plan except for lighting determined to be necessary for site security and the safety of employees and visitors agreement i see no hands um 10.394 the proposal avoids to the extent feasible impact on steep slopes flood plains scenic views grade changes and wetlands there really aren't any steep slopes or flood plains here and or substantial grade changes or wetlands and in terms of scenic views again you could refer to the certificate of appropriateness that the local historic district granted and make a comment about the effort that has been made to keep the building out of the view shed of the adjacent property owned by harms by agreement see no hands um the last or excuse me not the last one the 10.395 the proposal does not create disharmony with respect to the terrain and to the use scale and architecture of existing buildings in the vicinity which have functional or visual relationship there too within the BN zone and others which are also mentioned any rest and any residential zoning district where the project in question occurs within the boundaries of a national registered district which this does the board the permit granting authority shall if it deems the proposal likely to have a significant impact on its surroundings be permitted to use the design principles and standards set forth in the design review board section of the zoning by law to evaluate the design of the proposed architecture and landscape alterations and again I think that this has been reviewed by the local historic district commission with great detail with regard to the architectural features so I think that there's really no necessity to invoke the design principles and standards of the design review board agreement I see no hands 10.396 the proposal provides screening for storage areas loading docks dumpsters rooftop equipment utility buildings and similar features there are no dumpsters or rooftop equipment no loading docks there is a there is an utility area out back and there is screening around the utility area both by the wall the stone wall and by the um shrubbery that's provided to the west agreement I see no hands 10.397 the proposal provides adequate recreational facilities open space and amenities for the proposed use I think this is an n a not um not uh applicable applicable and the last one is the 10.8 the proposal of the master plan yes I I see one hand Janet McGowan Janet you're on mute Janet you can't am I here sorry you have a tough action you keep breaking up oh I'm sorry I'm kind of I'm I'm kind of in the national um I was in this recreational area you know we're having a hard time understanding you you're all gone get me I'll try turning off a couple of mics and see if that makes a difference hold on Chris I'm just going to mute you for a minute um everyone is muted except for Pam and I do you want to try again Janet yeah I was just saying there is you know there's a whole empty lot for recreational space if it comes to that so I think we talked about that during the hearing so okay we could hear half of that your your Wi-Fi must be um a little rough wherever you are okay Doug Marshall I see his well first Doug hold up I'm gonna call on Chris I see her hand up and then Doug you're next oh Chris yeah I heard what Janet said she said there isn't there's no need to say that um the recreational uh requirement is not applicable because there is a recreational area in the empty lot next to the building so we can say that instead of not applicable is that satisfactory I think she's nodding Doug yeah I was going to have a slightly different argument to say I didn't think that it was not applicable which is to say that that I find it is adequate for the proposed use which says needs essentially no recreational space Chris which do you think is best oh either one um but we could say it's adequate for the proposed use which needs no recreational space however a lot available next sorry you didn't hear any of that heard half of it sorry can you say that again so which one do you lean towards I'd say combine them combine them adequate use which needs no recreational space however if recreational space is needed there's an empty lot right next door to the west of the building that sounds wonderful um I see no other hands okay we got through that I think we're fully dressed and have raincoats and and hard hats on so at this time are there any other um um I think you should go through footnote a oh where's oh what page is that on you know page 81 it says the requirement meaning the dimensional requirement may be modified under a special permit um in applying the criteria for content with 395 the special permit granting authority shall consider the proposed modified dimensional requirement in the context of the pattern of the same dimensions established by existing buildings and landscape features in the surrounding neighborhood so we can make a statement um that you have found that the testimony presented by mr. sparkle with regard to setbacks on the other side of the street meets the meets this requirement yes that reasonable I think that's reasonable I'm not seeing any hands okay anything else um that we I think that's it okay this time um if there's any other comments or questions either from the applicant or um from the board members I'm watching for hands we'd have a very minor comment if committed um and that's that's your address Dorothy pams indication about the setbacks I don't think it's a big deal but if you were back at my screen the you know I was really talking about the the commercial buildings in the bn zoning district and the emmer's women's club and the henry hills house are not that type of building whatsoever and I don't believe are in the bn district if I'm correct um so I was really trying to compare apples and apples the things that were closest not only in proximity but in in use and functionality there aren't a lot of pieces of property in downtown amherst that are anything like the emmer swimmer's women's center or a club uh so I'm glad we don't have to live up to the standards of that magnificent property okay thank you I'm not seeing any other hands at this time um so I'm assuming that we are ready to vote on the special permit Chris is there anything else we need to do or can we take a vote can take a vote okay so I will do a roll call um do we need does anyone need to hear the motion again are we good hands okay so I'll do a roll call this is for um actually I'll say it's for SPP 2021-01 amherst community television dba amherst media corner of gray street and main street to approve their special permit request so uh michael burt whistle yes maria chow approve jack gempsick approve doug marshall approve janet mcgowan approve and myself christine gray mullin approved so that's six zero zero and that closes out the uh permit so now we're going to go back to our site plan review and I'll open it up to the board um are there any questions or concerns uh that they want to ask about the site plan review we also can comment on we were sent I'm digging here through our massive paper uh findings and conditions hopefully people gave a look to I'm pulling out one right now okay conditions and findings okay so janet janet you are muted so we cannot hear you can you hear me sorry um I have a question which is can we vote on the site plan review and then add findings later because I have a bunch of findings I'd like to add to both if the board votes to approve again strengthen decision and refer to the testimony and evidence that we've seen I don't want to go through it now because I think it'd be kind of a tedious thing so I wondered if we could vote if the vote is to approve I could send Christine Brescher my you know supplement to her findings and we could look at it our next thing is or is there a desire to wrap it all up tonight are you are you saying you want us to approve the site plan review and then you would send more findings to be added to it or um I guess I'm just I guess I can just I'm just trying to I'm asking how that's if that could be done and if it if it seems we have to vote on those no I'm just I just okay then I just add findings now okay I think that's how it works so that would be great um so you have findings you want to add to the already draft findings list and you have possible conditions so normally um Chris confirm with me I would read through the draft findings like what we're doing and then if there's things to add Chris I see your hand up feel free to talk if you you could probably say this better than me so what I would suggest is that Christine Gray Mullen read the draft finding and then Janet add whatever she wants to add and then um the there'd be discussion about whether others feel the same way for each of these things and then in the end Janet can send me her written document and I can incorporate it into the findings but you should make your findings before you take your vote because you're going to vote on the findings and the conditions and the waivers and to approve the site plan review so it should all be as we wouldn't want people to think that board members are you know slip in there stuff in later we want to do it as a board and make it look like it there's unity I had slipped it a little earlier I'm just on vacation this week so I didn't get to that okay okay uh jack vice chair I'm gonna ask a favor of you wake up you're in your sunflower field there if you could do what I was doing for Chris can you watch the hands and let me know if a hand goes up while I'm reading because Chris is writing okay I can have a pants doing other things too but you know I was I was not sleeping I was I didn't accuse you of sleeping I was slouching I was slouching in your field of flowers so I'm gonna read you know just so y'all know you're probably see it's a page and a half it's about what Chris read so if you want to add or you want something in that section please raise your hand and jack either say approve jack no hands or call on their hand okay all right the board found under section 11.24 the zoning bylaw site plan review as follows 11.2 400 the project is in conformance with all the appropriate provisions of the zoning bylaw the applicant is applying for a special permit to modify the front setback requirement under footnote a of table three to overcome the apparent doubling of the setback requirement in section 6.60 of the zoning bylaw for educational and religious uses the applicant is also applying for a modification of the parking requirements under section 7.9 of the zoning bylaw 11.2 401 town amenities and abutting properties will be protected through minimizing detrimental or offensive actions the proposed use of the property is unlikely to create detrimental or offensive actions 11.2 402 abutting properties will be protected from detrimental site characteristics resulting from the proposed use lights will be downcast or shielded 11.2 403 n a provision of recreational facilities is not relevant to this use just saying do we want to make it the same as we had with the special permit yes i'll do that same 11.2 403 reference special permit finding yes thank you 11.2 401 zero unique or important natural historic or scenic features will be protected the local historic district commission held seven public meeting sessions hearing sessions with the applicant and worked with the applicant to resolve design issues eventually agreeing to a building that fits well in its surroundings the local historic district commission issued a certificate of appropriateness for the building in january and the new building will not will not walk views of the historic the women's club or the henry f hills house since the building is confined to the eastern side of the site and the grassy area to the west is maintained as open space 11.2 11 i'm sorry point 2411 the project provides adequate methods of a refuse disposal as described we have a hand yeah michael thank you jack yeah uh back to the previous one i'm kind of lost where are we we're in 11.2410 unique and important natural historic or scenic third line uh resolved design issues eventually agreeing to a building that fits in i would suggest that we say that eventually agreeing that the building fits in well with its surroundings because there's a little difference um they agreed that the building fits in well when you say agreeing to a building that fits in well what you're saying is that you're making the decision that the building fits in well the historic commission made that decision we can agree with it or not i tend not to but i think it's it's more appropriate of what they did just to use to use that that language uh eventually agreeing that a the building fits in well do you want to see that chris yeah agreeing to that the building eventually agreeing that the building fits in well that proposed building if you okay did you get that chris i'm not seeing any hands of disagreement so um all right is that it michael yes thank you okay so i'm gonna go to 11.2412 uh jack if you're back on the project will be connected to town sewer and water and the town engineer has reviewed and has not expressed concerns about the town services or their ability to serve the proposed use 11.2413 the proposed drainage system within and adjacent to the site will be adequate to handle the storm water the town engineer has reviewed and has not expressed concerns about the proposed storm water management system 11.2414 provision of the adequate landscaping has been addressed and the project includes new plantings on site 11.2415 the soil erosion condition control methods are considered adequate to control soil erosion built during and after construction 11.2416 adjacent properties will be protected by minimizing the intrusion of various nuisances a construction logistics plan is required to be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit 11.2417 adjacent properties will be protected from the intrusion of lighting because a condition of the permit requires that exterior lighting downcast or shielded and or shielded and not shine onto adjacent properties 11.2418 and a the property is not located in a flood ground conservation uh conservancy district 11.2419 and a there is no wetlands on or within 100 feet of the property 11.2420 the planning board did not choose to refer to the design principles are standard set forth in sections 3.3040 and 3.2041 of the zoning bylaw because of the local historic district commission has done a thorough review of the building design and its location on the site and has issued a certificate of appropriateness 11.2421 the development is reasonably considered with respect to setbacks placement of parking landscaping and entrances and exits with surrounding buildings and development the applicant is applying for a special permit to modify the front setback requirement under footnote a of table three to overcome the apparent doubling of the setback requirement in section 6.60 of the zoning bylaw for educational and religious uses 11.2422 building sites shall avoid to the extent feasible the impact on sleep steep slopes floodplain scenic views and gray changes and wetlands there is no steep slopes or flood plains on this on the site the applicant has located the proposed building to be mostly outside of the view to or from the women's club and the henry hill henry f hills house there is no serious gray change proposed and there's no wetlands on or near the property 11.2423 na there is only one building proposed for the site 11.2424 screening has been provided as appropriate via a stone wall at the north side of the property and via a slope and set of plantings along the west edge of the parking lot 11.2430 the site has been designed to provide for the convenience and the safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement both within the site and in relation to the adjoining ways and properties the parking lot although tight has been carefully designed to allow backup and turning movements and pedestrian circulation 11.2431 the location of the curb cut has been designed to minimize turning movements and hazardous exits and entrances and the applicant has submitted a plan showing turning movements within the parking lot the town engineer has reviewed the location of the curb cut in relation to the intersection of main street and gray street and has found the location to be satisfactory 11.2432 the location and design of the parking spaces bicycle racks drive aisles loading areas and sidewalks have been have been provided in a safe and convenient manner 11.2433 na provision for the access to adjoining properties is not an issue 11.2434 the proposed driveway is located almost opposite one of the driveways from 446 main street that's it 11.2435 na joint access driveways between the adjoining properties is not an issue since the adjacent property has an existing driveway on the other northern side of the property 11.2436 the requirement for um the middle of a traffic impact statement has been waived there is very little traffic expected to enter or leave the site and traffic at the site does not overturn uh overlap in terms of timing with traffic to and from the nearby school 11.2437 na no traffic import no traffic impact report will be required the end all right so that's findings i'm not seeing any hands for additional findings i can move straight on to the conditions up i just saw two hands jack well first jack chris bestrick and then jack sorry i always trumps yeah i would who's going first chris is going to go first just to make whatever she and then you thanks yes chris janet has some additional findings that she would like to um describe to you before you vote on these findings okay so i'll go to jack and then i'll go to janet thank you jack i was going to say for 11.2436 that uh mentioned the bus stop somewhere in there uh you know public transportation is proximal very proximal uh to the site yeah in addition yeah anything else jack nope okay so i'll move to janet janet um just so i can find space on pick how many uh findings are you proposing janet you're um muted so we can't hear you okay i'm going to skip the additional findings but i do have a question about whether um about the waiver the parking requirement do we have to vote on that separately or does it have to be mentioned in the findings that we the board has agreed to waive parking requirement based on the information presented to it about very little need for parking i assume that's under the go ahead chris um when you make the motion about the site plan review you will um include uh the findings the conditions and the waivers and if you want to know exactly what the waivers are i can tell you they are in the um in the document that has been disappeared from my desk here um the development application report that was part of your packet for july 15th have the waivers i think i have that the application report that was in the packet for july 15th so that was waivers great okay then you can um you can see what waivers were requested this is the special permit yeah i just have to get there hold on i don't have that within my here so i'd love to see that again thank you here oh here they are waivers traffic impact statement number of parking spaces and the proximity of parking driveways to the building okay those were the three waivers yeah thank you thanks uh pam could you pop up you probably have at the uh possible conditions this might be easy for people to see it while i i have to read this which i have to warn everyone it's even longer than my last bit they are okay so let me jack are you back on can you watch hands jack your hand is actually up do you have something to say yes i'm here so i'm gonna um read if you can kind of watch hands again and um and chris is gonna scribble away and check so okay so this is possible conditions for a site plan review for amherst media spr 2020-11 all right under general number one development shall be built substantially in accordance with the plan submitted to the planning board and approved on and chris we just leave these blank for now because we don't know that's right number two development shall be managed substantially in accordance with the management plan submitted to the planning board and approved on to be determined three upon a change of ownership or if the property is no longer managed by amherst media the new owner and or manager shall submit a new management plan to the planning board at the public meeting for its review and approval the purpose of the meeting shall be for the board to determine whether conditions of a permit are being um complied with and whether any modifications to the site plan review approval or management plan is required uh sorry i just saw chris throw me off chris are you trying to say something i wanted to say something about um the massingill letter which mentions this condition i think he misunderstood the condition because this condition applies if somebody's coming in and doing essentially what amherst media is doing now but it's a different company if there's a change in use the building commissioner would look at that change in use and determine whether it is similar enough to amherst media's use that someone could just bring in a new management plan to the planning board or if it's substantially different from amherst media's use in which case they would be required to file a new site plan review or special permit application so this is really just for um say amherst media changed its name or say a new company took over from amherst media to do essentially what amherst media is doing um they would come back to the planning board with a change in a management plan otherwise it would be a whole new ball of wax and it would go through the building commissioner and he would determine that it needs either a site plan review or a special permit for a new use thank you for um identifying that and clarifying thank you chris number four all exterior lighting shall be dark sky compliant exterior lighting shall be downcast shielded or shall not shine onto adjacent properties or streets five changes to the project and are substantial changes to any approved site plans or to the exterior of the building shall be submitted to the planning board for its review and approval prior to the work taking place the purpose of the submittal shall be for the planning board to approve the change and or determine whether the changes are de minimis or significant enough to require modification of the special permit or the site plan review approval six landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the landscaping plan prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy and once installed shall be continually maintained all disturbed areas shall be loomed and seated otherwise unless otherwise specified uh construction section number seven prior to the chris i just want to say um didn't we in the past decide like number nine we can just say a construction logistics plan and not read like i through j can i do that you don't have to read them but i think the building commissioner would um encourage you to keep them in here oh keep them in but do i have to can i just say read the first like a construction logistics plan to be provided at the pre-construction meeting and and cover shall cover the uh following items a through j yes and i okay and i see Doug Marshall your hand um okay i don't see you but uh yeah i'm here hey you are hello yeah i uh number six uh in my experience it's not uncommon for the landscaping to be to wait to install the landscaping until you get to either a the right time of year for planting shrubs and that kind of thing which could be after the certificate certificate of occupancy or at least the temporary certificate of occupancy has been issued so you know i think i don't know what the practice here is in this town but i think it might be uh a benefit to the owner to have a requirement that the landscaping be installed within six months of the certificate of occupancy or something like that i agree chris has never come up before so what usually happens is that someone applies for a temporary certificate of occupancy and gets into the building and then finishes up the last few things that need to be finished and the building commissioner is generous in his acceptance of the fact that landscaping is often not installed at the time that the building is finished and a temporary certificate of occupancy is um is issued so this wording seems to be working in our world but if you would like to modify it you you can do that um but this it's worked in the past and it seems like the building commissioner can can work with this language that's fine let's leave it if that's like i said i don't know the practice in town sure and now that chris has said that is i guess how it's worked in the past and and you and there haven't been complaints chris oh there are always complaints yep everything gets worked out looks out in the end yep okay thank you um so number under construction number seven prior to the issuance of any building permit a pre-construction meeting shall be scheduled with the applicant the applicant's contractor the town engineer the building commissioner the superintendent of public works planning staff and the fire chief and any other staff personnel that may have a role in the construction of the project eight a written construction fire management plan shall be submitted to the fire chief and building commissioner prior to the issuance of a building permit nine a construction logistics plan shall be provided at the pre-construction meeting and shall cover all the following items a bro j number ten our construction logistics plan shall be subject to the following conditions as listed a through d um where where yeah there is what i just noticed this could end the page come again oh sorry oh and there is this condition may need to be amended there's some question on b before i just chris is that something we need to whoop we need to address right now on number ten whoa ten there we go ten b chris all right ask mr. sparkle what his plans are for parking the contractors i believe he said to me recently or it was written um in an email that um parking for contractors would be accommodated on the site and so this condition can apply so i don't think it needs to be amended but we might want to confirm that with mr. sparkle um mr. sparkle yes um and i'm actually taking this on the word of the expected site contractor uh they do anticipate keeping all construction equipment and materials on the site during the project and they'll just be doing a little bit of dosy dough as the project continues from one area to the other in intensity dosy dough all right great um so i'll move on up dog i see your hand popped up yep yeah mr. sparkle just said equipment and materials would be on the site he did not say all the contractor parking oh you know i guess i think of vehicles as equipment but um yes so the park parking also on site i think we can get everybody on there yes so nobody parking on gray street that's the most important thing yes i mean perhaps the contractor might fire other places other properties off street to stage materials they sometimes do that at their own convenience but we're not going to be occupying the public right away for this construction process thanks for the clarification Doug excellent 11 as part of the building permit application the applicant shall provide the building commissioner the name address and business telephone number of the project manager or on-site supervisor who shall be responsible for all activities on the project site 12 there shall be no exterior construction activity including fueling of vehicles on the project site before 7 a.m. or after 7 p.m. one day through saturday there shall be no construction on the project site on the following legal holidays new year's day memorial day 4th of july or july 4th labor day thanksgiving and christmas the applicant agrees that the hours of operation shall be enforceable by the amherst police department and or inspection services 13 the project site shall be fenced during construction 14 appropriate measures shall be taken to control dust dirt debris and construction materials on the site water for dust control shall be tracked in from offsite unless otherwise approved by the department of public works 15 all catch basin shall be protected from soil and debris contamination during construction and shall be cleaned at the end of construction 16 no stumps demolition material or construction debris shall be buried or disposed of at the project site 17 town engineer and the building commissioner shall inspect the construction of the entry driveway and all on-site paved areas for conformance to town standards 18 the applicant shall provide as built plans that show building location grades accessways parking areas sidewalks and walkways curbing stormwater management facilities lighting and utilities to the building commissioner town engineer and to be placed with the site plan review decision in the planning department 19 the final certificate of occupancy shall not be issued until a final top coat of paving for all driveways and access areas sidewalks and berms have been completed b landscaping as shown on the plan of record has been installed c as built plans have been submitted to the building commissioner and the town engineer by all the design professionals from site and building construction and have been approved by the building commissioner and town engineer 20 a temporary certificate of occupancy may be granted by the building commissioner any incomplete work may require a bond okay i see michael burt with size his hand up michael what number here we go can you hear me now we can hear you number number 20 uh any complete work will require a bond as opposed to may require a bond we've been going back and forth about bonding a bit lately uh so maybe we ought to be more specific about that will require a bond oh we don't always require i mean are you talking about the the three-party agreement kind of thing for subdivisions we've been talking about various kinds of bond with with the subdivision with the exchange of properties lot one lot eight lot four for lot seven this is the third time well there's three times bonding has come up in recent months right right maybe chris can talk about this more but i think that's for subdivisions and this is well this is here may require a bond i'm just saying should it chris can you give any examples where a bond would be required well i think if someone were we're not able to complete say the planting in time for what they need as a final certificate of occupancy then they could be required by the building commissioner to get the bond but that would be up to the building commissioner and he has control over that process because he can refuse to grant the final certificate of occupancy if people don't comply so they it's sort of a negotiation at the end of a project if for some reason the winter has been really bad and they haven't been able to get into the site but they really need a final certificate of occupancy but they haven't completed all the planting or the seeding or the seeding isn't working out well or something like that then the building commissioner can say well i will issue a certificate of occupancy a final one but you need to give me a bond so it's it's kind of giving the building commissioner the ability to do that he can do it anyway but this is putting the developer on notice that the building commissioner may do this so it is a little different from the subdivision because the subdivision really the building commissioner doesn't have much to do with that it's really all the the town engineer who you know right different parties and chris do you know if this has happened many times in the last it's happened it happened recently because of when he's pleasant street i remember this investments stated that they would work with the town to design and install signage for the west cemetery to direct people back to the west cemetery from north pleasant street and they never really followed through on that so the building commissioner got them to put a bond i think 25 000 bond up because they wanted a final certificate of occupancy for the building but they hadn't complied with that requirement so he's got a 25 000 bond to make that happen even though they didn't make it happen themselves so that's the kind of thing that that would be useful does that explain it is that it does so is does the existing wording sound okay michael i was going to suggest why don't we why don't we insert the phrase at the building commissioner's discretion after bond okay that makes sense yeah thank you and i think that's the end so um are there any other questions or any other conditions that anyone wants to add any other last questions for the applicant i'm not seeing any hands um chris do you have any last statements or at this point could we uh take a motion bug marshal had his hand raised i'm sorry i see it back up um yeah i was just going to remind everybody we need to make sure those three waivers are included in the motion yeah we will in the motion close the public hearing you want to include the conditions the findings and the waivers anyone feel motivated i do and then i see maria well i mean i guess i will move that we close the public hearing and what was it include the waivers the findings and the conditions yeah the findings conditions and the waivers and approve the site plan review yes we approve the site plan review and a second from maria okay so that's on the table um any other questions from the board members i see jack's hand yeah i just forget the three waivers can we say what those are again i'm just there's the um parking um waiver there's the um traffic impact statement and the proximity to the uh someone help me the parking proximity of parking driveways to the building yes that's it thanks ma'am you're welcome i'm seeing no other hands i see michael sand did we have a second on the motion yes maria and michael your hands up but you are muted okay thank you um i i want to say that i intend to vote yes on this site plan approval even though i think this is the wrong building in the wrong place uh unfortunately uh we are bound by a bad decision that town meeting made some years ago to rezone this piece of property uh and that gives the owner of the property essentially the right to build the building that they're proposing uh i think the historic district commission has done a wonderful job trying to make this building reasonable for the site uh and in fact since the building has since the owners have the right to build the building uh they've done about the best they can do i just need to register the fact that i believe this building should never have been built there that the land should never have been rezoned and that this this building destroys the remaining ground space that fronts the hills house and the women's club and it's it's it's for me it's a great shame that the building is being built there nonetheless i'm afraid the owner have has the right to do it so i will vote yes any other comments uh chris um i just wanted to note that prior to this land being rezoned i believe that the land had been divided into two frontage lots and at that time it was in the rg zoning district so um if this rezoning hadn't occurred two individual single family homes could have been built on each of those lots or excuse me one single family home could have been built on each of those lots in the rg district so the result probably would have been well that was prior to um the local historic district commission having been formed so i don't know what would have happened then but in any in any event i just wanted to say that um that would uh that would have been a possibility back then before this property was rezoned that um two single family homes could have been built here and the planning board wouldn't have had any control and the zoning board wouldn't have had any control and so it would have actually marred the view of the two buildings um significantly just wanted to remind everyone of that thank you chris that was important history to hear i'm seeing no other hands at this time so i think we're ready to do a roll call vote if you have something to say speak now see nothing um and i'm sorry i have to sneeze all right bought it off okay um michael burt whistle yes okay and just this is for the site plan review yes michael burt whistle said yes maria chow prove jack gem sick prove doug marshall approve janet magowan i barely hear janet okay thank you and christine graham mullen approve so that's uh six zero zero uh mr sparkler you're still there i want to thank you and um amherst media for all your hard work and a pleasure working with the town thank you very much and chris thank you for the history as well great good luck and uh we're we are very indebted um as a town to amherst media they do a lot for the town so i'm pleased for them that they can start to move forward with this because i do think there'll be a lot of benefits for the town as a whole and with that i think we can um move on to uh our next item thank you so we're great thank you and um we're gonna go to item four which is old business uh and number oh yeah okay number one zoning review priorities list zoning amendments and tam if i can request for you to put up um yep that the old 2019 um so i just want to sort of promise this where we're at this is um an old table that has been and i'm gonna turn it over to um maria chow who um is the chair of the zoning subcommittee and probably has the most history with this but um and she can go into this table i was surprised when i dove deep um kind of how on a date and confusing it kind of is um the end goal what i'm hoping for tonight is for us to come up with sort of uh top hits of requests suggestions to town council and our planning department staff on of all this stuff and you know there's a lot um and i asked the board to all kind of come with their top three in their own head and then we can kind of compile them and um because that list will go to chris bestra and it will go to rob mora our building commissioner and it will also go to crc because everybody's trying to do this right now and come up with prioritization and this will um be compiled into a bigger effort so um and then hearing from town council what but they think they want to um how they want to attack it in uh in our prioritization level so i'm going to turn over to maria are you there maria and maybe you can talk about this a little bit and what you're thinking yeah just a tiny bit because i think most of the existing planning board members have seen this for years now and um basically the short history of it is that it was created by the last zoning subcommittee greg stutzman rob crowner and i and with chris breasthoff's help of course where um we took literally over a decade's worth of notes town meeting articles and um issues that the planning department had been dealing with and tried to call it down to the big picture priorities there's a whole bunch of other smaller more specific technical issues that then we compiled into it just like a word document but this is sort of big picture and it was going to be reviewed it for today's agenda because i realized we as a zoning subcommittee have put our own when we organize it we already prioritized things before we even gave a chance for other people to prioritize it in that we prioritize the five top columns you see housing downtown village centers and zoning bylaw repair and overhaul we've already said like those are the five priorities and then under each one we then said here are objectives or strategies to improve each of those five priorities so um i could see how this chart was a little confusing because it's already kind of setting a tone so um yeah i'm really curious to hear what other planning board members think are sort of their big sort of red button kind of things they really want to get to and i appreciated michael's focus on housing i i share that sort of passion in creating a more diverse stock for amherst and um so i guess you know if we you know whether you want to rewrite this whole chart or just have a sort of list of 10 items i'm up for you know however you guys want to organize it but um this is basically a collection of a lot of issues from decades of work that the town has done so um yes it's outdated and um there's a lot of things that are a little too specific maybe for what we want to present to town council but um i'd like to hear more people's response to this um Greg actually did so many presentations of this chart and i was there for all of them and i cannot do what he did or he literally went through every single one and explain the history and the reason why it's on this chart and i can't do that i am just not mentally capable of doing that maybe chris pressed out ken but i'm not sure we need to do that right now i think i would just like to hear what other people what their sort of priorities are um i did have a chance to read michael's and it was really useful but um yeah i'd like to just open up and see what other people's you know priorities are and to not necessarily follow this chart but just to use it as like a springboard to you know other ideas that's a good way of saying it this is a great framework that can springboard to that list that we want to forward exactly you know can we find agreement on um you know i'm thinking somewhere between seven max 10 you know we don't want to make too long of like a whole unrealistic but maybe thinking about is is town council moves forward and um over the next year i know uh their elections are oh chris maybe you can help me is that october of this year or november of this year when do they have their elections does anyone remember because i know they want to make their dent they want to start taking action on this so if reasonably if we can sort of keep it to what are we highly recommending in a perfect world what they could sort of get done um in the next well i guess it's about a year and a half for a little shy of that um chris i see your hand and then doug's i just wanted to acknowledge that doug had sent me an email that i didn't get a chance to post on the website so i didn't circulated to you but he did list several things that he thought were important priorities and i'm sure he'll present them himself but i wanted to apologize to him for that and i um i did manage to post michael's um email and chart because that was received a little bit earlier i think that was received last week so those are two uh board members that i heard from and i have my own list of priorities but i can save those for um for later and uh so that's all i i wanted to say well chris maybe is we're kind of i'll use the word grinding through this and establishing our list um you know what your thinking might help if we're having difference of opinions on um what people are thinking is reasonable to attack first or whatever so please speak up if if we're sort of headed down the wrong path um i also uh think we should and this is we can determine i was thinking we give them the list and we say we don't like it's not weighted or prioritized we feel they're all equal or keep in mind we we could say you know we could number like the first three and then not number the rest you know what i think you're i'm saying so think about how we're presenting it to them too um and and we could incorporate a memo with it you know chris could do that also um explaining some of our thinking if if so needed so um chris uh dug no chris i see hands popping down dug uh well i i put my hand down when i thought chris was gonna read what i sent her but but uh and and since i don't actually have that email available at the moment i'll i'll try to remember what i sent and chris please correct me um it seemed to me that when i i essentially got uh the charge to i guess it was somehow the invitation to be on the on the planning committee uh focused on improving the vitality of downtown so it seemed to me that we really ought to be focusing on downtown i know there's a the master plan envision multiple village centers but i think we ought to start downtown and fix downtown before we spread our efforts out in other areas so i was suggesting that we um work on the the actual physical zone and the dimensional requirements for the bg zone and the bl zone and um i think my third uh was to do with clarification of mixed use uh buildings and then uh i think i what i said to chris was that if she thought that the bl and b uh and bg zones were really one conversation uh that my alternate third item would be uh the reformatting of the bylaw recodification yeah i mean i spent a fair amount of time looking at the newton massachusetts zoning bylaw because i figured they're a well-run town with lots of resources and if anybody can do it right it's probably them um so uh you know it looks a lot different than ours and um you know it seems uh like a model worth following but i'm sure there's others as well i'll stop there thank you i also watch um harlington massachusetts there's has some really good stuff and they've been redoing it so i'm sure rob more and chris are looking at these two um does anyone have any comments those are really good starting points Doug i like the um breaking it out like first downtown and then doing some bullets under it on specifics to that which i heard you say bg dimensional bl dimensional um clarification to the mixed use i also want to just toss out there if anyone's thinking inclusionary zoning is very complicated but maybe it could just be focused um for downtown and design guidelines are another thing for downtown um so i see michael's hand yes um pam can you put up this the uh um this this the uh chart that i sent in i see several other charts on the on the the other on the page are there is there a comparison chart there's a well we got this one that i believe came from jack okay and then so then i took this one and oh this slide isn't that terrific because i squeezed it in and then these two um i just didn't know what all those others were yeah that's what it is so this one is yours okay i could i'd be happy to talk about mine for a second uh um my sense i when i looked through the chart that was sent to us in the um in the packet um it seemed extremely redundant in several different categories uh form-based code was mentioned in several different under in several columns the uh parking was mentioned in several categories and the mixed use standards were mentioned mentioned in several categories and i think those are all important uh but i i what i did is i combined all those several mentions into one particular category one particular category so they're only listed once in the chart that i've i've sent in um i think the most important thing that we need to do is um and i'm not sure what exactly it is but it has to do with encouraging um varied and more housing particularly at the lower end of the scale now whether that's something that needs to go in downtown or in the village centers or both i'm not so concerned with at this point so i think i'm i'm saying that rather than doug's focus on downtown i think we should focus on housing in its multiple approaches and one of the issues there is clearly the inclusionary zoning uh another one is the standards and conditions relative to a mixed use buildings so those those two things uh the mixed use building standards and the um um development of affordable housing through um um the um i lost the word lost the phrasing um you know inclusionary zoning uh are the two places where i think we should go and the third and fourth are up to other people so those are your top three right because there's a lot there michael say that so what would be your top three it's hard to put them they all kind of link together in a lot of ways and i'm not sure that top three is is really a useful thing i think working on housing in its multiple incarnations and aspects is what we should be doing and that includes things like uh mixed use developed mixed use definitions and clarity it includes things like affordable housing and inclusionary zoning and yeah inclusionary zoning and small houses on small lots all the stuff that's basically under the housing column uh although i'm not sure where the 40 are uh district planning full process falls in that i don't know where we are relative to that because we haven't been talking about that much and we have supposedly have a presentation on that at some point in the near future but it's clear who's you know that's that's all up in the air so i haven't listed that as something that i think is important but i it's the housing issues for me for housing um would that include um you know two or three families by rights expanding supplemental dwelling absolutely um reducing single family zoning only and some districts absolutely just considering all those things i'm not necessarily advocating all those things but i'm not i'm advocating that they're on the list so i'm gonna call because this is really maria's area um so if we can define some of those down maria we can put that on the list um for people to consider yeah no that's been something i really had hoped to work on more but then all this stuff can happened um with uh covid and then rob more before covid was like thinking about zoning bylaw rewrite and so was town council but yeah i think um michael's exactly right i think the keyword is unlocking housing because a lot of our parcels just are locked up they you know it's particularly downtown they're just unable to um have residential allowed and um also yeah if we'd better define mixed use or apartments we could also again unlock the ability to do um a denser high quantity of housing type so those are like for um so i guess to say to town council one of my parties would be housing and then it's basically unlocking the ability to create a diversity of housing stock but so that's you know both apartments and mixed use which would help revitalize downtown yeah i the diversity is the key word there exactly right right and so somehow we want to include inclusionary you know requirements within that kind of use um then there's the sort of missing middle i keep bringing up in previous meetings where we create the ability for new families to move in whether it's through infill or um unlocking the ability of parcels to by right have multifamily units or supplemental dwell well supplemental dwellings already by right but um sometimes uh you need a special permit for certain types exactly so um just really unlocking the ability for both individual property owners as well as developers to really bring a diversity of housing stock so i guess the way to phrase that as one big umbrella statement would be good for town council and then like you were listing off christine all of those are ways to do that um there's so many strategies to do it and so i think we need to not say one is a solution we just need to create a toolbox and um i can't say one is a prior priority and the other as far as like the type of housing but um some of the easier ones might be just unlocking property owners rights um you know people be able to put ad use and extra like a duplex or a triplex on properties so that requires study it's not like you can just rewrite it in the zoning and hope for the best you know it does require some careful study of our residential zones um and then yeah looking at downtown as far as how to unlock certain parcels like um Doug had mentioned the bl and bg where you just simply aren't allowed right now because of the um lot requirements what size requirements so um yeah housing is my number one i think because i think that solves a lot of things and brings a lot of things to our town um it touches on downtown it touches on um some zoning repair that needs to happen and so um i don't know if we need to like list specific uh objectives or strategies i think i would like to just present to town council that housing creating a diversity of housing stuff or unlocking the ability to create diversity of housing stuff would be like my number one because that's a really broad umbrella and so i think it covers a lot of the other issues um downtown certainly an issue but i think if we can get more housing more people down there make it more walkable that will actually resolve a lot of things and other things and particularly emphasizing the toolbox aspect of it all there may be a diversity of types exactly yeah so i see a couple more hands just to sort of trying to pair this um so what i'm seeing is three of all with some subcategories because i think sub suggesting some tools in the toolbox will be helpful for them because they look to us as the the experts and that you know we understand all these these new parts so i'm seeing downtown and under that you know chris can help us pull this together and then we could review it you know for the next meeting um the bg the bl um you know inclusionary zoning and clarification mixed use but um number two is the housing unlocking the diversity of housing and there can be suggestions in there about the two or three family um you know by right expanding adu and supplemental options um infill um you know removing the single family only dwelling um and allowing other um densification of certain zoning districts so and then the third one i see is recodification and supporting that whole effort and that i kind of like how and and then sort of leaving out the villages is what i'm hearing a little bit um i i just want to throw out um downtown if anyone feels that design guidelines would be helpful in the next year and a half um we do have some drafts to start with from the 40-hour consultant um and so i'm at that i'm throwing it back out jack and then janet jack yeah so i agree um you know housing is is huge downtown very important recodification uh but just looking at um some of the lied items there that that pop out of me um you know i just i just you know that that bl zone is so dysfunctional that really bugs me that that we have a zone you know in our prescribed you know in our bylaws and math that that doesn't work for anyone uh that's embarrassing um and i think in terms of village centers i i think those are important i i think north amherst is in good shape with the development that's going on there i think i mean i and adkins corner is good christman village i'm not so sure about i i haven't really seen much there but i do think east amherst and the pulmonary village south amherst uh i think they can i would not lose sight of those when we're talking about you know areas within town when you know for example downtown um and certainly the the thing that keeps on coming up is the parking requirements we certainly got to do better there because that comes every every time um and i'm going more than three but i think north am at north amherst flat hills road is like a accident waiting to happen with regard to the reliance on private wells and septics there with such small lots you know within a bedrock terrain up there uh that's not you know that's going to come back at some point and so you know that's not to be ignored very difficult problem uh hold up jack first like pam can you slide back to the 2019 one because this is michael's which is good but okay all right so where is that hydrology oh all right it was in the medium under zoning and by law yeah and um you know can i can that's a good point can i ask chris bestra is that something do you think that would be handled in the recodification or does that need to be a separate thing i think it can be discussed in the recodification it's something that probably requires some analysis of a consultant as to what those lots can actually accommodate right now the zoning i think is 30 000 square feet per lot it's probably better if it's you know more than that but the next step up in our zoning by law is 80 000 square feet which seems kind of beyond what should be required so it's it's got to have some technical analysis to figure this out but that's certainly something that that i think is important and there is going to be more development up in that area so you might as well face it and do something about it jack it just made me you know think about this so chris would that be an in-house thing or hire a consultant thing or have to go apply for a grant and get money to do that kind of thing that would probably be hire a consultant and um currently we don't have enough money to do that right now we have but we only have 40 000 to work on downtown and gateway rezoning so that's you know the downtown in the area immediately north of downtown or northwest of downtown we don't really have anything in the budget to do other types of zoning analysis so that's something that we would have to ask town council for as part of the capital budget and you know i'm not sure if that's going to happen this year or if that's going to happen it's probably not going to happen this year because of our financial stresses so you know there may be some things that we can some suggestions that we can make for that area but really to get serious about it i think we do need to hire someone who knows about theology and how septic systems work etc so that may take a little bit longer than some of the other things which we can handle without hiring a consultant but jack uh just back to you so in your professional opinion because you really know you do feel what did i forget what you said not a ticking bomb but accident waiting to happen accident waiting to happen which is kind of funny it's about sewer so yeah septic okay yeah accident yeah it's like that all right just watering of the area because of the density you know with private wells and small lots like that you know so uh you know so it's important to be on the list but yeah it's not the top three okay and then uh you know i would like my you know i and i don't understand it but i'd like to make you know make my pitch for the form form-based code whatever that it sounds great uh i just uh so much of the of the the the code we're looking at is this seems so arbitrary um so that's my two cents thank you janet and then i see marina's hand um i can you hear me uh yes good um so i'm kind of kind of lost in process and so i know that we've agreed um to work with rob mora who's working on a rewrite of the zoning bylaw and he was talking about working very closely with the zoning subcommittee and the planning board for direction and then you know hiring consultants for issues downtown parking and different you know probably form-based zoning it's just a way to guess and we have the master plan which has an implementation matrix that has a lot of zoning changes on it we have the housing production plan which has a ton of recommendations for zoning changes the emmerced housing markets are the same thing and then the open space and recreation plan which i think is still a draft but also has recommendations in terms of action items needed to protect um and buffer you know farmlands and recreational lands and in open space and so i'm kind of completely lost about how like the town council i just don't understand what we're doing tonight because i feel like we have a lot of plans we have a lot of recommendations the zoning subcommittee had last year was working on multi-use buildings we were starting to talk about affordable housing for the zoning requirement across the town which is part of the recommendations of those two housing things so i just don't understand how like the town like what are they coming to us for like taking you know 75 recommendations and what's our top five and are they going to be doing zoning changes with rob mora and the planning board and the zoning are they just going to propose do you know i mean like how do we coordinate all this and you know and how will we work with neighborhoods and business people and the public in terms of getting support for these changes and so they can understand and have input in the process so i'm just kind of lost here about what we're doing i mean i could give you my right you know my top hit is inclusionary zoning across the board every neighborhood every project a special permit site plan review 10 or more residential units any which way any permit um let's just get that job done it's very you know and but i but you know and the housing is the you know behomoth of our town because we're basically a resident a residential community for you know UMass and others so i i don't i don't get it like do you know what i'm saying i just don't get it i mean if we're going to do form-based zoning and say to the town council why don't you do some form-based zoning that's a massive project and how do how do they work with rob mora and us on getting there i mean do they have are they i mean what do they want from us kind of thing and how how can we work together am i so i'm sorry if i wasn't clear but what they're looking for is a short list of what we as the planning board and semi-professionals would recommend for them to start tackling for the next year and a half now that doesn't mean they're they're going to listen to us they could completely pick a different list or or the planning department could have a slightly different list but it's giving them a starting point because crc will be their guiding group um to get the town council to decide what they think they will first pursue over the next year and a half and then they will tell us that and we will assist them and work with them and the planning department to get those things done so this is our moment to speak to say what we feel is important and realistically trying to give them a short list of what we think they should do so for top three as i said everyone should bring their top three i heard you say inclusionary zoning and i heard you say you know the housing stock increasing that um do you have any other top things that you would like them to work on or is that it um i i think i i you know i i do have more ideas but um i i wonder if we need to so our is town council going to be working with rob mora or on a separate line or i mean i i see this i need i mentioned this before i think we need someone on the planning board of the zoning subcommittee working as liaison to crc kind of open those lines of communications i just you know i could look at this list or the 75 recommendations and give you my top 10 or five but are tonight are we going to come up with the top three to give to the to the town council regardless of what rob mora is working on or rob mora is working on the recodification which is its own separate thing that is based on him working with the bylaws inconsistency uh inconsistencies adjusting the framework so it's easier to read and understand it hasn't been reworked in decades and aligning with current building codes like that's his thing that's his specialty that's what he'll be working on and then he will be presenting it in parts i'm sure to planning board crc and town council then this the other part we're talking about like inclusionary zoning that would be more under the planning department and chris and she would either be working on drafting bylaw or if there's more resources needing needed like a consultant well town council has the power to get the funds to get whatever they need to get it done we don't so um and list wise i said for everyone to bring their top three because i figured by the time we finished compiling this it'll be more like seven to ten but like i said we don't want to send everybody's top 10 we'll end up with like this chart like 70 things and then that's not really helpful to them they are looking for what are they going to work on for the next year and a half i think one of those things is the recodification but what other things can we put on the list as heavy suggestions as they look to us as experts is a recommendation for them to start figuring out that process and we still do our role and have our public meetings and interact with the public you know as these bylaws roll out it's just different than it used to be with town meeting and the zoning subcommittee and that kind of thing that doesn't really work anymore so so when we talked to us he was talking about you know the issues of the downtown requiring a consultant and direction from the planning board um and it wasn't just like i'm doing the recodification but like more substantive issues and things like that so i thought it was like a deeper process than what you're describing now based on what he was saying so i think he was just giving us a basic what he kind of thought nothing was written in stone and a lot of what he was talking about isn't and isn't really his jurisdiction it would be chris bestreps i i guess i just was i just got a completely we talked for an hour we had a long discussion about the whole redoing of the bylaw and it wasn't just moving sections around anyway i i'm just lost on the process and how to kind of work together and i wonder if we need a liaison to the crc to kind of open up the discussion and things like that so i will be quiet for a while and the other way the crc has a liaison to us they don't have anybody now they plan to so and that's how it was before but the players have changed on crc but they'll have a new rep that will be the liaison with us i wonder if planning board members feel like we should have somebody too um so that said um i would put village centers i think we've kind of neglected them and that's a big priority and a source of economic development for the tent um like keeping you know bringing in more more housing to them that in a way that people want to go to them and can actually walk from this to business with so i think that village setting planning is really important and there's not a lot of focus on the downtown i think that that would be a very long process um you know questions about building heights density um the bl i don't know if it's broken or we can just redo the bl or make it into build business village center for more flexibility um you know part of the brokenness of the bl is just that's broken up into small you know property ownership but there are owners are combining and they have more flexibility there's also some really nice buildings in the bl i would jump on the parking issue it just seems completely i don't know what we're doing on parking and i think it really affects i think there shouldn't be a no parking district downtown because everybody in those buildings and apartments need parking um you know the mixed use building standards i think tie in very closely to the apartment complexes i would push for greater density at where we already have it which is you know apartment complexes and like see if we can get better design and more amenities for people and also increase the density of it um i the 40 r is not my favorite because i just don't i think that whole prop i think i just think we need to involve the neighbors and businesses in the processes before we kind of pop on a big form-based zoning um and then you know we we a lot of the master plan talks about sort of protecting open space and recreational areas and buffer zones for farmlands and so i think we should look at those other sides not just always you know increasing density and housing so if we develop our village centers we also need to protect our open lands and our farmlands and recreational lands so i would look at those two as kind of a balanced type of thing um and then inclusionary affordable housing we just have to do it across across developments is that thank you i see maria then dug then jack um hmm uh someone said something that triggered uh i might have been jack who mentioned form-based code and the reason why you guys picked up on this there's a lot of repetition in this um chart from last year is that every time under each column there was a strategy or solution that could help that column we put it there and so that's why form-based code shows up i think in all of them and it's something that would just solve so much but it's a huge undertaking it would take way too much money that we don't have right now but that's just something to put in the back of their minds the town council's minds that you know one day when we do have the funds for it that would resolve so much of the issues happening downtown so many of the con yeah the conflicts that are going on the really controversial issues form-based coding form-based zoning is like the solution to all our prayers i really is it's just we can't you know handle some attest that monumental right now um the other thing that um janet was talking about that i don't know if we should get into this right now christine or not but about the process and the zoning subcommittee in particular because right now i'm hearing a lot of feedback that town council rob mora the planning staff they're all sort of figuring out this process about zoning fixing zoning rewrite zoning issues zoning amendments and in my mind as zoning subcommittee chair i don't think that at this point the zoning subcommittee needs to exist there are too many cooks in the kitchen that actually make the decisions and um no zoning better than the zoning subcommittee i'm speaking for myself um with you so i really i mean we can talk about when we do the subcommittee update but it's kind of tied into this we're trying to step out of the process as individuals and work more with like the bigger entities that are the decision makers and have them work with the planning board because there's really great people on the planning board who all have really great ideas and experience we should work more with them rather than creating yet another small subcommittee that's storing around ideas that has no say so in anything and not only that it's it's a huge load on the planning staff as far as getting ready for yet another committee meeting um that happens twice a month so i just might throw that in there that the r