Welcome to Access a Trader, the number one community for those who are committed to taking control of their trading in order to achieve success, profitability, and longevity. Thank you for joining us. Here's Dan Shapiro to help you find your edge, master your process, and own your future. Hey, guys. Good evening, everybody. Welcome to another edition of theaccesatrader.com. Nightly wrap up show. Hope everybody is having a great day. Hope everybody is happy and healthy and just understand. I don't care if you are religious. If you're not religious, the point is there's nothing you can do. If you put God in your heart, stay focused and don't settle. Usually good things will happen. So let's talk about the market. So if you look at the scoreboard today, nothing is going to really jump out of you, right? The diamonds, and again, we'll use the diamonds as a proxy instead of the Dow Jones. But the Dow has been on a magical, magical run, right? And what's the common denominator here, right? They reclaimed the 50-day moving average and they had a run up. So you had a nice little, a couple of days rest in the Dow, not a big deal. The S&P 500 and we'll use the SPYs as a proxy. Again, it's starting to build, right? It's starting to build and starting to get really, really comfortable above the 50-day moving average day three. Granted, we got rejected here at the top of the range here, but it's not really that big of a deal. Because if you look from the 50-day crossing with the five, crossing with this, whatever the hell this is, right? It's a very tight range. It's really not that big of a deal. The more important part about this is the longer the SPYs stay above the 50-day moving average, the higher probability they will go higher. Again, we'll get to some key levels a little bit later on the flip side of that. The biggest problem child that we've been talking about this for the last two, three, even four or five days has been the Nasdaq one composite, right? And we're going to use the Qs as a barometer. We saw in the last few weeks with earnings kind of in the middle of its way right now, we saw Meta, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, right? These are four of the horsemen, right? There's a Jason horseman. But these are four of the horsemen stocks and they all blew up on earnings. I think we could all acknowledge that. And the most important part was, if you remember last Friday, Microsoft in the initial move was to the downside and then they kind of reverse course. And on Friday, we had this really, really big move and you had these dead cat bounces happening on those stocks that blew up. But the problem was these are four out of probably four out of the six, seven more most important companies that compile not only the Nasdaq 100, but there's a lot of crossover, the S&P and to the doubt. But the most important part is not what the Nasdaq did is what it didn't do. And that's the most important part kind of how we start tonight's video and kind of how to kind of echo our thoughts or potential, what could happen down the line. If you guys notice out of all three major benchmarks, out of all four, excuse me, I don't want to discredit the IWM. IWM as well is above the 50-day moving average. So out of the four major benchmarks that we have, three of them are way above the 50-day moving average. The Nasdaq composite or when you use the Qs as a tracker, it is below. And not only is it below, it can't even get above the recent highs it put in a week ago. So that's a very, very big problem. And the question that we were kind of asking for the last two, three sessions was, well, are the sellers finally going to go numb to them as well, right? Are they going to finally say, hey, you know what? Everything is good. The market is rallying. We're going to the fourth quarter. We've got Thanksgiving on deck, Christmas, January, January effect, New Jersey, all that good stuff, all that happy stuff that people look forward to the holidays. Is everything going to start rallying? And that was the question, right?  Or are these stocks going to turn around and say, hey, listen, we just reported really crappy quarters. We're not going to give the markets, not going to give us some all again, and we're going to start going lower. And that's exactly what happened today. Really, really aggressive session. Initially today, and we'll get to the individual pivots in a second. Initially today, again, we had all upside bias, right?  I mean, everybody was aware that it was just a matter of time that stocks do retest their earnings lows. That's exactly what happened today with a lot of names. But the most important part was, you know, we were watching. I was watching the video to the upside. I was watching Tesla to the upside.  And my point is our initial game plan was, hey, you know what? Maybe these indexes will pull up the NASDAQ 100. Let's see what happens.  If you are long Microsoft, you're long Microsoft. You're not making your judgments on a day to day. If you are, you know, if you are long Tesla, you're not making your judgments on a day to day. If you're an active trader, right, and you trade both sides of the market, you don't understand the significance, the ramifications of what happens. If the stock takes out the previous day's high, right, something will go higher. If the stock starts confirming below previous day's low, what happens? And kind of where we are underneath supply, stocks is a very good chance stocks will get hit, especially if there is a catalyst already in front of us that we knew was poor. They knew that the stock performed poorly on that catalyst. And it's only just a matter of time that stocks will retest those earnings lows. And that's exactly what happened today. So that's, again, we'll get to the pivots in a second. So going into tomorrow, right? There has to be some series of data points that we have to acknowledge. Let's start off with the Dow, right? So the Dow has been on a phenomenal, phenomenal run. And it goes down what? 70, 80 points say nothing, right? Absolutely nothing. But now we want to pay attention to the five-day moving average. This is a pretty big, important level, not because it's the end-all, be-all, because, again, five-day moving average is the shortest-term sentiment who has control, right? Who has control? Bull's a bear. It doesn't mean this will be a long-lasting performance on one side of the channel or another. It just shows you, as you can see here, every single time it touches the five-day moving average, a balance today that did exactly the same thing. So for the diamonds, right, we really want to watch this 324 level, okay? Any breach below 324, you know, there's four points. There's four points in the diamonds. Again, you know, 400 points or so in the Dow. Again, it doesn't seem like a big deal. And it's probably not considering how big the move was from the 50-day moving average. But at least you want to be prepared, right? You know, if you start seeing 324 lose on the diamonds, you don't want to be anywhere near stocks, because you know there's going to be a potential 3-4 point pull into the 150-day moving average. Same thing that happened today with spies, right? They tried to pull the market, and there was a really big battle, right? A really, really big battle for control of the five-day moving average. And I even tweeted out a big, big battle around the 3.84 level, which the bulls did a good job for now, right? They did a very, very good job for now reclaiming the 3.84 on a close. So we have to watch today's load as 3.83 level. If the bears start coming back for the 3.83 level, then they're going to get a retest of the 50-day moving average that they just reclaimed last Friday, where it becomes very, very sticky, okay, for the bull case. If the bulls want to continue this pretty good move that we've seen the last two weeks, the spies are going to need to reclaim this 3.90 level, right? That's where they got rejected today at the top of the channel here, and you can see this purple line. That is a supply, right? It's a 100-day moving average, so it's going to be very, very important. That's the 100-day EMA, so it's going to be very, very important. Where it gets very, very sticky for the bulls, and then we can have a scenario saying, oh no, here we go again, is if the spies lose 3.82 on the close, that's where they reclaimed it. So if they lose 3.82 on a close, again, it won't be a one-day swan dive. But again, we already know, right? Below the 50-day moving average is bad. Above the 50-day moving average is good, and that's the most important thing. Here is where the wildcard is, and this is where you can see the obvious disconnect between the strong indexes and the out-of-favor technology names. This is where we are. We're still below the 50-day moving average, and again, all this, and there's been some pretty good moves, but this is all taking place below the 50-day moving average. The catalyst and the market leaders that we've been talking about for three, four days are obviously not helping, and I'll show you why in a second, and the most important part is this directional balance right here. You see how many times the cues have held this 2.72 level? Right, guys? You see this? It held it on October the 24th, it held it on October the 27th, and it held it on October the 28th. Three days in a row, or three sequences in a row, it held 2.72. If the bulls lose 2.72 on the close, then yes, we're going right back down to the bottom channel, because again, if you believe in the theory of stocks straight from supply to supply, demand to demand, well, here's 2.72 is demand, and there's nothing below 2.72 until we get all the way down to 2.59. So it's definitely, definitely very, very important that the bulls kind of do what they got to do to get it back above this 3.84-60 level to kind of maintain and kind of confirm the upside bias of everything and catch up all the other indexes, but also we have to be very, very prepared, and that's kind of where we were today, pretty much the whole day on the downside action of catalyst stocks, and that 2.72 level will be a massive line in the sand going forward. So let's talk about today, right? So initially, again, you know, initially we talked about, initially we talked about the upside, right? We wanted to give the bulls the benefit of the Dow, and again, I'm not talking about the Dow, the S&P, we're talking about the Nasdaq 100, and initially I started putting in upside pivots, right? 138.50, 139. NVIDIA needs to build. It started, you know, it started moving up a little bit, right? It started moving up a little bit, you know, it rallied to like 39.25, and then the problem was up here, I hate to skip little steps here, but right around here, Q's for ETF lovers, 281.70 needs to build. They got stuffed, right? The Q's got stuffed right at the top of the channel, and what do you think is going to happen if Q's gets stuck in the top of the channel? Well, everything in the Nasdaq 100 will get affected, and this is what we knew right away. Uh-oh, let's start looking for downside channels.  Tesla, which I had a lot of hopes for today. You know, I got along with this 235 level, it went to like 37 and change, everything looked good, and then Fed came out with some news, the Nasdaq got rejected off this 281.70s level, and everything got pulled. Man, Tesla's still held up relatively well to everything else, and there's still some weird, you know, end of week 240, 245 call buyers coming in. Okay, you know, that's fine, but again, just like everything else, nothing will get spared if the Q's get rejected off of a big level, and they all got rejected, literally at 281.70s, exactly the same place. Rivian stopped once again at $36, it's kind of funny how it literally stops literally at the same place all the time. Eventually, above 36, it will go. Roblox never got to the 47 level, DXCM again got rejected off the 122 level, and I started saying to myself, well, you know, now things are starting to, you know, starting to roll over, we have to start looking at the other side of the equation. So the upside, we talked about Netflix 298 upside 289, as you can imagine, at the open like everything else, it started spiking, it went up to like a little less than 300, or maybe a little more than 300, and then, you know, we had the two-sided pit, remember last night in the video, we started talking about, there was a rounding, I don't want to use the word rounding top, but if you look at Netflix's chart, and you watched last night's video, you can see how orderly, right? It lost a five-day moving average, and today it traded down to the 10, so if you see what happened here, we have 298 to the upside, 289 to the downside, and Netflix took out the 289, it closed right on the 10-day moving average, roughly around this 286 level. If it starts losing 286, and there's more, and you know, if the queue starts to pull, I mean, look how much room you have down, granted, it had a phenomenal run, we traded it to the upside, we traded it to the downside, but if it loses this 10-day moving average, and we refer to this as the birth of the trade to the upside, well, sure, it's not going to be the birth of the trade to the downside, so it starts losing this 286, I mean, look how much room you have down to operate, so good job for all you guys who traded Netflix, again, queues we just talked about, they got stuffed, Apple, again, 155.70 rejected, twice cream market never built, so that was the question. Then we got to where, this is where things started getting really, really aggressive, and that's the most important part, identifying technically where things get rejected, identifying levels to the downside where things could get aggressive, and the little we know, it's like Moses parting the Red Sea, a lot of good things happen very, very quickly, so let's talk about this, Amazon, right? There's a theme here, Amazon, Microsoft, Google, right? Common denominator, they all blow up on earnings, so Amazon, $100.74, if it builds below, can flush. Here was Amazon, we actually started at 102, that was the opening range low below the 60 minute view, but once it confirmed the $100.74 area, it tested, right? It tested the earnings lows, which was 97.66, went all the way down to 96. They're still coming, guys. This is a phenomenal move this morning. They're still coming. They came from the 95, the 93 weeklies. We saw some 90s as well, so there's any more weakness, especially in NASDAQ starts losing the bottom range. Amazon has a lot of room to go down, so really great move on Amazon. Here's Microsoft, 231 held twice. If it builds below, can flush. Here's Microsoft, again, stocks that blew up on earnings and the first ones didn't get a hit, so it took out the 231 level, traded all the way down to 27. Look, if this thing starts taking down this bottom channel here, these are the recent lows, right? These are the recent lows, that's the earnings lows. If this Microsoft starts taking out earnings lows, this is a room all the way down to 220. Again, contingent upon, you know, the Q's crash, well, I don't think these were crash, but if the Q's confirmed that bottom channel, you have to assume the weakest stocks will continue to go lower. Google, again, 93, 98 held twice. If it builds below, can flush. Here is Google, right? It took out the 93, 98. It took out the earnings lows, right? You see the common denominator, traded all the way down to 90. I mean, this thing has a lot more room to the downside as well. Netflix, we just talked about 89 went down to 86, and I believe that is it. So, going into tomorrow, I just trade primarily Nasdaq names, right? The same, probably 10 stocks, 90% of the time. So, for me, I really don't care what the Dow is doing or what the S&P is doing. It's all about the Nasdaq. So, we already know what happens if we lose the bottom channel, and now we have to look for the players that could complement that move. So, let me give you guys some plays. Obviously, we're still looking for further downside with Amazon, with Google, with Microsoft, right? Look at a chart like setting up like Wolf. Talk about an earnings low play. I'm going to give you just one couple of names here. Look at Wolf. You see the same thing, right? Look at Amazon, right? Check this out, right? Amazon, right? Amazon, Microsoft, right? Google, what do they all have in common, right? They all took down their earnings lows. Look at Wolf, right? Look how Wolf is setting up for tomorrow. Looks really, really good. Keep an eye on that. And it's actually if the market does rally, right? The market does rally, and, you know, take a look at Gilead. Look at Gilead. Nice three-day channel here. If it starts taking out the top of the channel, maybe this thing can wake up as well. So, that's it, guys. We are set. We are ready. We're always ready for both sides of the market. Again, if you're not prepared to come in with a thousand points, excuse me, a thousand point attention span, don't turn on your computer, because, again, there are no mulligans. Nobody cares about how good of a person you are or how much you want it. The market is relentless, and it's played by relentless contras on the other side of the trade. Guys, stay blessed. God bless, and I'll see you all tomorrow.


Sentinel-2 images have been used to improve global crop monitoring in smallholder agriculture zones, such as those in Madagascar. A combination of random forest, RF, classifiers and object-based approaches were used to reduce the number of variables and optimize the performance of the classifier. This resulted in a reduction of the data processing time and an increase in the overall accuracy of the classification. Spectral variables derived from an HSR time series were found to be the most discriminating, while VHSR data were only needed for segmentation purposes. This article was authored by Valentine Le Bourgeois, Stéphane Dupuis, Elodie Ventrue and others.


So welcome everyone. This is the Wednesday April 17th 2019 meeting of the Amherst Planning Board First item on our agenda is minutes, and we have two sets of minutes in our packets So if members have had a chance to review these I'd entertain a motion on either of the sets of minutes These are from Wednesday April 3rd and Wednesday March 20th. Well, I move we approve the minutes of April 17th I'm sorry today's April 17th. Would that be April 3rd? Motion has been made and Seconded any further discussion? If not all in favor raise your hand This is March 20th, okay So we have four in favor all opposed all abstaining such passes four to zero with two abstentions Christine I think you were absent for that one All right, so that's moved in party seconded just out of abundance of caution there any further discussion If not all in favor All opposed And all abstaining Zero opposed and three abstaining All right, thank you very much Next item on our agenda is public comment This is a time for public comment on items that will not be heard later on the agenda Yes, Chris, I'm sorry.  I see the hands of the people who stain On which one April 3rd Thank you Is there any public comments again, this is for items not related to any material on our agenda Yes, please come forward to the microphone introduce yourself. Is it related to the tree here? Yes, yes That will be heard later on the agenda Yes, please. Thank you Yes, please if your comment is related to the tree hearing that will be coming up shortly This time is for public comment. That is not related to any items on our agenda Is there any such public comment? All right seeing none. We're now going to move on to the next item on our agenda This is item 3 scenic roads joint public hearing with tree warden and in accordance with the provisions of MGL chapter 40 section 5c scenic roads and chapter 87 section 3 Shade trees this joint public hearing between the planning board and tree warden has been duly advertised in the daily Hampshire Gazette and posted in town hall And this is a scenic road tree removal for construction of a mixed-use building and site improvements in the town right-of-way At 133 to 143 southeast street map 15c Partials 3 and 4 the public shade trees impacted by this project include the following trees Sizes indicate diameter at breast height a 6 to 18 Inch arbor variety sorry this is 6 to 18 foot arbor variety on northern property line a one 42 inch catalpa tree one 24 inch spruce tree one 22 inch spruce tree, which is currently dead one 14 inch crab apple one six inch hickory or And one swamp white oak to be transplanted by the town as well as several large oaks and a red maple on southern That might have impact to roots as a result of grading and so we're now going to move on to hear a little bit more about this And it's my understanding that we have received a letter of opposition to the removal of the catalpa tree And what that means is that that tree will require action by the town council I would just ask the author of the letter if they could come forward to clarify if that was the intent of their Submission today as long as the green light is on yep. You're being amplified. Thank you Yes, was it my intention to have it go to the council. Oh, and I'm sorry, could you please introduce yourself Molly Turner? Yes, and again if I understand correctly you've submitted a letter in opposition to the removal of the catalpa tree And so under the relevant state law that would mean that this matter will go to the town council rather than be determined by the Tree Warden and the planning board and so your objection was specific to the catalpa tree. Is that correct? it's actually To all the trees, but I focus on it And I'm sorry, I don't have a copy of the written submission in front of me. Does that submission mention? Yes. Thank you I've been provided one so if I understand correctly you are protesting the removal of all the trees that were mentioned All right, and if I could then ask either Miss breast strip or mr. Snow to confirm my understanding that this means that There is not need for a public hearing at this time because this matter will go to the town council on all of the trees Mr. Snow that is correct. All right If there's no further comment or objection then I would propose that we close this public hearing and the matter will go Forth to the town council. Thank you. All right The town council will review this accordingly The public hearing has actually been closed so there's not an opportunity at this time for public comment But there will be a town council takes up the matter. Thank you very much We have not formally moved to close the public hearing Would someone make such a motion? Moved and seconded any further discussion all in favor Thank you again.  We'll work our way through some other items on our agenda So I'd like to turn to old business item 7b and this is SPR 2018-11 Off-university drive you drive LLC. I believe the applicant is here and has some updates for us Chris I just wanted to point out that you do have an email from Attorney Tom Reedy on your desk that outlines all of the things that are being asked for and I'm sure mr. Burson will Reiterate those things that this might help you when you're making your motion. Thank you. That's all in the email Yes, please introduce yourself and tell us about the latest on this project. Thank you Just briefly is there anywhere? Here tonight on behalf of the drive LLC with me tonight is Barry Roberts who's one of the managers So back in May 2018 we received the rate joint planning board zoning board appeals process a special permit with site One of the conditions specifically condition number seven Effectively stated that any proposed changes to the submitted materials Required planning board approval and review So to that end we are here tonight because we have submitted some what we believe to be relatively de minimis changes to what was originally proposed And specifically what we are requesting is first a change of the proposed color Unfortunately the colors that we originally Were unavailable Just you can see the the previous colors shown here. There was a yellow Brownish red color as well as a slate gray and what we are proposing instead is light gray cranberry low-bred as well as a brown and It's somewhat difficult sometimes to see or get a clear idea of what those colors actually look like So in addition to the change in the proposed color similar to the general color of the building originally we have proposed some black trim on the windows and Same with the other exterior colors. Unfortunately, we only have white available. So we're proposing white trim on those windows Additionally on the westerly portion of the building if you're looking at the building from the south There was a bump out There's a bump out right here That was adjacent to a stairwell in the building And we are actually proposing to no longer have That pump out as you can see is not flat. That was adjacent to a stairwell So there's no change any of the square footage to the proposed units in the building itself and finally There were originally proposed sliding doors on the second and third floor with this raw iron And we are now proposing Same exact shape as the sliding doors now. We're just proposing standard windows So we're not proposing any other changes not proposing any changes which would impact the Previously approved site plan and layout of the proposed structure We believe that these changes are relatively Hoping that this board will agree with us Thank you very much Questions or discussion Jack curious about the bump out Correct Additional questions comments And again, we've been provided in writing a list of all the changes made to the plan which mr. Burson just described And which the applicant is requesting the board accept if there's no further discussion I'd entertain a motion to approve the changes as presented So move all right, that's been moved and seconded is there any further discussion if not all in favor And that's unanimous. Thank you Yes You might consider taking mr. Wilson next for apple brook even though he's also farther down the agenda Because I believe it's going to be a short item and he presented last time to four of the board members So they have a pretty good understanding what it is. He's going to be asking for so mr. Wilson is sitting in the audience Very good. Yes, that would be a 720 item so We'll give that just a minute or two before we turn to that, but I agree we can take that out of sequence Yes I think mr. Wilson is an untimed item. Oh, you're referring to item number 5a. Is that correct? 7a 7a. Yes, very good Yes, that's fine, so we'll now turn to item 7a and roll business SPR C 2018-10 Paul Cole apple brook cluster subdivision 1194 West Street now Vista Terrace to review change to footprint of house on lot 5 in accordance with condition number 2 of the decision And this is can Continues a discussion from April 3rd of this year Great. Thank you I'm the contractor We're I'm here to ask You folks through the flipping of the house the on lot 5 Originally Well, this plan of change originally we had the garage at the eastern end of the property And we've got some folks that are interested in purchasing this house But they want to flip the house so that the master bedroom would be toward the woods and This plan depicts the change and then I brought some pictures that it would show I may approach you guys Yes, please The same Thank you for that information and as was mentioned this was discussed previously at the board's meeting on April 3rd Are there any further comments or discussion on this item? Christine I just remember from way back when that It was the long driveway because it was for the firetrucks to turn around or something. Are they okay with this? This doesn't affect the Hammerhead Is this one this is the hammerhead turn around right there? So that is not affected Thank you for that further comments. Yes, Michael Is there any likelihood that you wonder you will ultimately make the same request on lot 4 because it seems to me that if you Did then that would put all the driveways in the same cluster all the garages facing each other and all the bedrooms facing away from The garages will not necessarily it might be your decision to reverse them Further comments questions If not entertain a motion to accept the changes as proposed I so move That's moved and seconded further discussion All in favor That's unanimous. Thank you so much All right, so we're now going to move on to item 4 This is a public hearing on the planning board rules and regulations and in accordance with the provisions of MGL Chapter 40a and chapter 41 this public hearing has been duly advertised and noticed thereof has been posted This hearing is being held for the purposes purpose of providing an opportunity for interested citizens to be heard regarding proposed amendments to the Amherst planning boards rules and regulations This is a 715 p.m. Public hearing p.m. PBR 119 planning board rules and regulations to review update and amend the planning board rules and regulations to bring them into conformance with the Amherst home rule Charter as adopted March 27th 2018 this was a amendment previously discussed by this board a Draft was prepared by staff and reviewed at a previous meeting recommendations were made and We're now here to vote on that draft Chris do you have anything to share? I do not accept that eventually the Planning board may wish to make a proposal to change the zoning by-law with regard to the voting requirement But that's not what you're doing at this time And to add on to that part of what these changes would do is remove the reference to voting requirements and the planning board rules and regulations and simply point out that the regulations those voting requirements are in keeping with the Zoning by-law in the current situation. We have voting requirements in both documents When the zoning by-law would take precedence and so the planning board determined it was not necessary to have the voting requirements stated Duplicatively in the rules and regulations Are there any comments questions on this change? At this point I'm looking for a testimony from the board and they'll turn to public comment after yes Michael I'm still concerned about the The differences in which The differences in the way in which the voting requirements are stated for the special permit and site plan review only one of them refers to the zoning board the zoning by-law and It seems to me that I Still maintain that the voting ought to be the same For both on the other hand, I also wonder why we're referring to the Zoning by-law in the site plan review section, but not referring that way in the special permit Voting requirements section it seems to me they out those two ought to be in parallel Chris So you could actually probably drop the reference to the special permit voting requirements because those are dictated by the state state requires a two-thirds vote for special permits and So you could probably do without that unless you wanted to be explicit and say explicitly that it had to be at least five Michael I would think being explicit would be useful Whoever reads this document is not necessarily going to refer to the state law But they're going to take it off what was written here if they're concerned with the issue at all And it seems to me that however we come down on this The clearer we are in this document the better things will be for us in the long Chris I Think that zoning by-law doesn't even refer to special permit voting requirements for the planning board because The assumption is that you're going to refer to state law. So That's just the way that's the way it is that you referred to stay law for special permit So I believe Chris had suggested that we could omit section one under voting requirements Which refers to special permit simply for the reason that we would need to be in keeping with state law And I'm fine with that omission Yeah except that I mean the point about two-thirds of seven is not a whole number and that as Strafted here and it clarifies that two-thirds equals five for a second or seven Clarification I think is helpful as opposed to leaving ambiguous check With regard to the state law Is that something that we can go higher than two-thirds or how does that bind us? I mean sometimes the town's could be more conservative I don't know I'm not sure what that means in it in this context Unfortunately, I don't have the state law in front of me, but I could research that if you wanted to continue this We have someone in the audience that could comment on this. Yes, please Would you mind using the microphone, thank you David Berson from Bacon Wilson. Thank you for letting me speak This is actually my first time actually giving public comment as opposed to presenting something but With respect to state law the requirements are based on the size of the board itself So if it's a board that has six or more members in that case, it's two-thirds If it's a five-member board, you need at least four votes And if it's less than a five-member board, you need unanimity with respect to special And just as an aside, I think you know making a reference to the relevant section of 40 a which I believe is 40 a section 9 Can only be helpful for clarification Thank you. Thank you further discussion on this item Chris Would you like to have town council review this draft before you vote on it? Has town council reviewed this draft at any point up to town council has not reviewed this draft town attorney. I Would be in favor of that and would you like to have them give an opinion or suggestions about What to include in the voting requirements? Yes, would yes that being the case Entertain a motion to continue this public hearing unless there's further discussion at this time Do we need to continue the public hearing or do we need to simply table the issue? I believe that continuing the public hearing would be a prudent approach to this given that the discussion is ongoing We're seeking additional input in the form of advice from town council Chris Advice from town council is usually considered testimony or additional information so that would come during public hearing So I think it would be wise to continue the public hearing I'll move to continue the public hearing until such time as the town council has had a chance to review the issue and given us their advice Second that Moved and seconded any further discussion Chris I think you need to move to a date certain But then you can always choose at that time to move to another date certain so you might want to move to May 15th or May 29th Which do you think would be more appropriate? Probably the 29th would make sense and then the motion to move to Continue the hearing until May 29th second that Motion amended and seconded further discussion all in favor That's unanimous. Thank you Next item on our agenda 720 number 5 ZBA application review and recommendations on ZBA FY 2019 dash 17 Brecht Group Amherst, Massachusetts LP Aspen Heights residential community requesting a special permit to modify the previously approved special permit ZBA FY 2017 dash 0024 for the reduction in height and density of the project along with the amendments of other applicable conditions of approval and for the Modification of fencing to exceed six feet in height under section ten point three three ten point three eight and six point two four And six point two nine of the zoning bylaw at four or eight North Hampton Road Matt parcel 13d 51 professional and research park zone Can could please introduce yourself Tell us about the project Good evening. My name is David Burson. I'm an attorney from Bacon Wilson. Mr. Chair and members of the planning board Thank you for having me tonight. I'm here on behalf of Brecht Group Amherst, Massachusetts LP limited partnership So in November of 2017 we received an approval relative to a three-story 115 unit multifamily structure located at 408 North Hampton Road, which is the location of the Amherst motel It's a four point one acre parcel split between Amherst and Hadley and it's located within the PRP zone Following receipt of that approval. There was an appeal filed by the abutters located at Greenleaf's and subsequent to that appeal there was a court decision and order that the Matter be remanded back to the zoning board of appeals consistent with some changes that have been discussed between our applicant or us and Greenleaf's So to that end we are actually on tomorrow night's agenda agenda with the zoning board of appeals relative to some proposed changes to the plan that was originally approved for the residential multifamily structure there So we're here tonight seeking a recommendation from the planning board relative to our proposed changes so that we can have Hopefully a positive recommendation from this board when we present tomorrow night for our modification of our previously approved special permit So that being said Specifically the primary change of the most substantial change that was made here was with respect to the density of the project originally It was a three-story 115 unit dwelling unit structure that was what had been proposed We're now proposing a two-story structure with 88 units The primary the way that they were able to do that is they effectively eliminated all the four-bedroom units from the project There are no longer any four-bedroom units proposed So Let me show you Evations So this is the new proposed elevation for the Aspen Heights residential community as it's as it's called There's no proposed change with respect to the building footprint or a parking area It's all going to stay effectively the same. I think the the thinking here is that it certainly can't hurt to have more parking space than Was originally proposed for the number of units Additionally the As far as the changes to the site plan there's only one other change That does impact the site plan which is relative to the fencing along The green leaves drive on the southerly portion of the property I apologize the easterly portion of the property. I'm just trying to find the so the portion we're talking about Is right around right here? Originally what had been proposed was a six-foot tall solid wood fence That would run along green leaves drive Now what's being proposed and starting right here at the wetland buffer? We're not crossing or making any changes within the wetland buffer. We're now proposing an eight-foot tall fence Along this drive and the ground clearance is going to change So the ground clearance within the wetland buffer is Approximately nine inches and the proposed ground clearance for this eight-foot tall section of fence which actually will end Right here as soon as the drive curves will be four inches So that is the the only change to the actual Proposed site plan that had been shown Once again, the building footprint will not change It's merely a matter of density at this point So that is the primary change if you have specific questions, I will do my best to answer them But once again, we are seeking a recommendation from this board Relative to our special permit application Thank you Chris I Wonder if miss mr. Burson would comment on the number of affordable units now that the number of units has been reduced to 88 Yes, so the number of affordable units is now 5% of the total units and that's going to be four units Chris. Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize that That's 5% of the units are fully accessible The number of affordable units Will be 11 units. So two one-bedroom units seven two-bedroom units and two three-bedroom units Mr. Burson repeat that please. Could you please repeat that count of units? Yes, and I will slow it down. So two one-bedroom units Seven two-bedroom units and two three-bedroom units Thank you Do you have information available on the affordability level at which the units are proposed to be provided? I do not at this point. My understanding is that there's still some discussions going on with the Amherst Housing Authority and Thank you. That's what we are My comment relative to that last question would be that to the extent possible I would like if the project could provide some housing at below the 80 percent median income level that was stated in the previous special permit Don't want to Negate any Recommendations you're receiving from the Amherst Housing Authority on what they think would be ideal in terms of units But something we've seen pretty commonly in new units and new developments that provide affordable housing is units provided at below the Standard 80 percent level. We see 50 percent. We see 30 percent and I would like to recommend the ZBA explore that possibility throughout this process Thank you. I'd like to second that I think it's very important that we not go backwards on this point We continue to remain where we were in the original proposal or improve on that. Thank you other comments or questions Again now what we are doing is providing recommendations to the ZBA, which is the body that will be permitting this project I've requested one recommendation be made any others before we move on Chris. I Just wanted to clarify what mr. Stutzman's recommendation was I believe that what you said is that you would like some units to be available at 80 percent or less some units to be available at 50 percent or less and some units to be available at 30 percent or less. Am I correct in my understanding? Yes Thank you Further comments if I can just make one comment relative to that if the planning board or miss Brestrick wouldn't mind Just sending that to us in an email communications that we could share that with our client just think I want to make sure That I don't get it wrong when translating that that request Thank you. Yes. Thank you. All right. There's no further discussion and entertain a motion to recommend again. Yes, I Just want to make sure I understand so Although the number of units is defining the dollar I Correct, there's no proposed change to the number of parking spaces and just for clarification originally with the Three stories there was a proposed bed count of 295 beds within the overall structure And the current count is a hundred and ninety two beds All right, there's no further discussion. I'd entertain a motion that we recommend the ZBA Approve the changes to this project Incorporating the recommendation previously discussed Relatives to the affordable units. We will so move second Moved and seconded. Thank you any further discussion If not all in favor And that's unanimous. Thank you so much. Thank you very much for having me. All right We'll now move down further on the agenda to item 6 planning and zoning item 6a the zoning subcommittee report zoning subcommittee met this evening and we heard from a Citizen who's interested in taking a look at the regulations for marijuana uses specifically cultivation And how we might revise those regulations to allow a project in North Amherst to go ahead This is not the first time we've heard about this issue We've heard from a number of people who are interested in cultivating marijuana in the town that the current interpretation of the buffer zones which restrict marijuana uses by the building commissioner which Incorporates the driveway for such uses into the use itself has made it difficult to locate these uses and So the zoning subcommittee agreed to take a closer look at Revising regulations to bring them in line with state regulations which have since Adopted removed the buffer requirements with the exception of the buffers related to schools So the zoning subcommittee and staff will be looking at how this might take form and what effect it might have and generally We're supportive of the notion that marijuana cultivation uses should be able to locate in the town Also David is working on drafting a memo to town council town council is going to be hearing from Planning staff on May 1st about the master plan and on May 8th about zoning in general And at that time or shortly after zoning subcommittee will Provide the town council that is the community Resources subcommittee of the town council with a memo describing a few small zoning changes We think could be appropriate as well as our much larger list of changes that have been discussed over the years The zoning subcommittee will next to meet on May 1st Is there any public comments on the zoning subcommittee report? All right seeing none. Is there any other? Yes, Jack So that's going straight from the zoning subcommittee to We're going to review Yes, coming out okay on May 1st probably or the intent is that we'll have a document by May 1st and the planning board can review it at That time prior to Submitting it to town council That's the intent and so if I deliver by May 1st, I'm really hoping and expecting you're all going to read it Closely carefully and say it's great Thanks for volunteering to write that yeah, thanks All right, any other comments on the zoning subcommittee report? Are there any planning and zoning other issues? No, all right moving on down the agenda. Are there any old business topics not reasonably anticipated? No New business topics not reasonably anticipated Any for me and our subdivision applications? We do have a for me application. This one is from the common school I'm going to pass around a locust map which shows you where this is located. It's down on South Pleasant Street on the west side of South Pleasant Street the common school owns a Owns their own property where the school is and then they also own a property with a house on it That they had intended to turn into an office building So this plan here shows that house lot and then I will come around and show you an image of what they're proposing to do with Mr. Stutzman to sign this All right Very good. Thanks for that Do we have any upcoming ZBA applications? I'm going to look to miss Field Sadler to tell us about ZBA applications if we have any new ones very good. Thank you Any upcoming SPP SPR SCB applications? Yes, we have several we have one For IA which is the new noodle sushi restaurant in the one East Pleasant Street You're going to be hearing about that on May 1st and that is a class 1 restaurant with Seasonal outdoor dining and live and pre-recorded entertainment. That's what they're hoping to do there The second one is the dog park that's being proposed by the town of Amherst over at the old landfill on the west side of That is west. No south side of old Belcher Town Road and So that will be coming before you sometime in May probably and then the third one is Amir Binkchi Who is proposing his 62 unit building on Southeast Street? He hasn't yet submitted his application and I think that part of the hangup is about what to do in the town Right-of-way as you heard tonight There's been an objection to removing the trees there. So that would Cause him to need to go to the town council and then in in addition to that His consultant who was here tonight in the audience a mic From Berkshire design is working out details of what's going to be going on in the street itself In other words exactly where the bus stop will be exactly where the crosswalk will be and then Mr. McChee will have to Have a discussion with the town about exactly Who's paying for which portions of this so many things need to be kind of finalized So I'm not sure if he's going to be coming forward in May, but he will be coming forward soon Thank you Moving on to Planning Board Committee and liaison reports PVPC. We had a meeting In handling last week and the featured speaker was Joanne Moran and she's with mass Department of Energy Resources and the topic was on the Massachusetts conference of energy plan and this is focused more on Conservation measures so there's targets just in terms of like where the energy comes from and that this is complimentary to to that in terms of Reducing Basically, it's Conservation or making buildings more efficient. It's more on the HVAC component of things It also addresses transportation And electricity, but HVAC is where it seems like the state wants to make more progress and Then she just went in the background of you know about electricity in Massachusetts and with where that's coming from The director there's a search for replacement for Tim Brennan and that's Should be happening, you know within the next month Big shoes to fill their tip Brennan's been there 40 years And then the annual meeting is June 13th, you know, we're all welcome and Ken Kimmel used to be the commissioner of the mass DP who is now with the Union concerned scientist is going to talk about Have a climate change focus for that annual meeting and it's going to be a gateway No, excuse me. Where is that going to be? Yeah? Well? Sorry, I don't know where that is, but I will But then you know in the next meeting or two All right Thank you CPA Yeah Committee has Prepared and I think submitted its final recommendations to the to the town council, which will then be automatically funneled to the finance committee and then returned to the to the council the The primary issues which relate to this body, I think are the major recommendation to fund the Valley CDC single enhanced single room occupancy project on North Hampton Road To improve purchases of three tracks of land for conservation and recreation purposes those of those are the major items that You see back a stretch before you wonder all right, excuse me. Yes, David Michael were any proposals Rejected yes How did you have a like estimate how many I? should have the information there were I believe five Proposals that were not advanced and they were ascent. They were minor proposals in terms of the dollar amounts They're clearly major proposals in terms of the people who are proposing them But they were not a significant dollar and else with one exception which was a Housing proposal which was semi withdrawn by the proposal in favor of another proposal Which was recommended for you. Thank you and commission Yes, party. Yeah, there was supposed to be a meeting which I believe did not happen Last week and there will be one upcoming in May. So hopefully I'll be able to attend that and report great. Thank you Design review board There has not been a meeting since my last report. Okay Housing trust has met has been working on updating its draft housing policy for the town Which it would like to pass on to this body and others for adoption. It's also discussing a potential update to the housing production plan which was Drafted and approved in 2013 also working on the East Street school project and The 40 our consultant study which is ongoing for which the forum was held last week I think some members of the planning board and some members of the town council attended that forum and We should be expecting a number of other forums to be held in the near future Which would be of interest to planning board members again This is a study that's being done with grant that was awarded to the town and it's looking at the possibility of creating language for a 40-hour smart growth district, which is a type of district that allows the municipality to receive a zoning incentive payments for Allowing greater density than currently is allowed with a minimum Affordability requirements in the district and we've seen this used Effectively in Northampton in Village Hill and in other areas around the state So that's an exciting project. That's ongoing Housing trust will meet again next month zoning subcommittee. We've already heard from UTAC has been Winding up hasn't been in a while, but there was a meeting recently Christine. Did you attend? I? Did attend that meeting it was only the town side of UTAC that was meeting It was with the town manager the assistant town manager and the director of economics development And it was to solicit comments from members of UTAC about how if UTAC was to end what should continue in its presence what kind of relationship with the university or universities or colleges and They were also working on a strategic agreement that comes up. I think every five years so They took the comments and they're gonna have another meeting in the future Was there any Common themes or any sort of consensus about a recommendation on how the group might proceed or reform Everyone seemed to feel that some kind of organization or group should be there were various forms Frustrations were similar that it was hard to get Like I said, this was only a town side of it So there was you know frustration in trying to get the university to Interact on a higher level with the town And be concerned about the same issues that town people are concerned about So that was why the strategic agreement was coming up And and I think the town minute they were looking at this not just about UTAC But in a larger sense they're trying to figure out their tactic for strategy with you know having relations with the university or Colleges So no one from the university was present No one just town side. Okay Thanks for that and the downtown parking working group the downtown parking working group continues to meet and work with the Consultant Nelson I guard there was an important event last week. There was a public forum where the Consultant continues to collect feedback from stakeholders and residents On issues of parking and it was also a good public forum. They had quite a long 40 minute 45 minute talk sort of bringing about the history Because this has been going on for a long time the history of what's been going on and they Showed that they're sort of up to speed on on all the pack because there was a parking study in 2008 2016 so it was very educational so they're taking all that information and now They're starting to work to come up with a draft report, which we would expect Maybe in the next month or six weeks So it seems relatively early in the process and I had one observation I wasn't able to attend the forum, but there was an article in one of the local newspapers about it And I believe it said that the consultants even at this early phase As my understanding that the recommendations about the feasibility location scope of potential second parking structure were within their scope and that this article was saying that the consultants recommended against Such a parking structure because of cost is that an accurate reflection of what the consultants are saying at this time They presented information and information But there was no recommendations that will come with this draft report I think it was more just they were addressing it part of their scope of work is at least a memo detailing You know the pros and cons of parking structure. I think what do you they also brought up was it isn't just about one parking structure it's about we have development going on in different areas of downtown and So parking needs could be different and one place if you built a parking garage or where do you build it and We only we have very limited choices for public space that could you know Have a parking spot. So then it gets pushed back on to private Which they you know, how do they pay for it or whatever? So I think the point is all options are on the table. They're just talking about it generally But it's in their thought process. And of course, there's a large price tag with the parking garage What we're hoping first off from the report is that they will address Things we could do in the meantime because first you have to find the money and design it and it could take years and We want to improve parking now and make it better for everybody in the short term and the long term Great, and is there a time by which we expect the final report from the consultants? I Were expecting that by the end of July would definitely be done Jack so you have this consultant report and how do how does the public the local Amherst residents weigh in and For non Amherst residents, how how was all this kind of weighted in terms of? Proposal that is presented to the town is that Well, it's not just one proposal It will be a whole list of recommendations and different things everything from managing the parking system to signage the actual Spaces size of spaces everything so it we expect a laundry list of things that can be done to improve parking Not just a couple things If you look at their scope of work, there's a lot of Things they're going to cover so Part of public feedback is like I said, this process has been going on for many years so back in 2014-2015 Through now there's been many public forums What we had last week was the public feedback forum But that doesn't mean the public doesn't have a chance to weigh in the draft report will come out and then They'll also have a chance to make comments at that point Yeah, I'd just be interested just in general Does the town feel like we have a parking problem or not? And how urgent it is because it just I think the consultant report came out and what 2016 it said we were we were good Generally, I mean now we're getting into the deep thing so It says good except we have peak points Lunch is the highest peak and then dinner time especially on Thursdays Fridays and Saturdays are our peaks and Peak means you want lots to be 80 80% that's okay or even up to 90 because that means you have people downtown and they're using it And there's still spots for people to fill Where it gets to be a problem is when it's a hundred percent Right because then there's no spots, but we've never had where everywhere is a hundred percent What happens is certain lots like the one in front of like town hall here that will hit a hundred percent on a 7 p.m. On a Friday night But the lot behind the town on lot behind CVS might only be 50 percent or 60 or 70 So you want to move people to that but part of the problem is we have you know We're lacking in signage and wayfaring and you know So that people know that there's other spots there and people they do get a little bit into a routine where they always go to the same place But if they knew that there were other places they could go and park then that help you want to move the system around so We do have two peaks and there are times where some lots and street parking is full So what we're hoping for is recommendations for strategies To help improve people to find the parking spots that are available Chris There were a couple of other things that came up that I found really enlightening and one of them was that people don't understand the Permit parking system and that many people think that the permit parking system precludes you from parking along these streets at any time and what it actually says is Until I think it's five o'clock in the evening. You can't park there unless you have a permit But after five o'clock you could park there. So there's actually a lot more parking available on the street than people Recognize the other thing that they brought up, which I thought was interesting was that we've been thinking all along that the town should make an effort to Be in touch with private landowners and try to arrange with private landowners to have the town manage their parking so that it could be used by others and What Nelson Nygaard seemed to be saying was that it's not the town's job to do that that we should leave it up to Private property owners and developers to make these arrangements So if somebody wants to build a new building downtown, maybe we say to them You really need to find some parking or come up with a parking plan And maybe your parking plan involves making a deal with some landowner whose property is only used during the day So these are all things that I think are Interesting to explore you could significantly expand the amount of parking that we that is perceived that we have So I agree with you. I just wanted to add that Where some of the confusion was on the first point is there are some resident parking areas So you have to read the signs and if it's a resident area then there's more limitations than the permit Which is five o'clock and also distress that the permit is not in effect on Saturday and Sunday, so People can if you just have to walk a little bit more which some people don't like Jack oh, I had a question for Chris but for the development that we've seen recently and the but then the Downtown parking zone is that what it's called municipal parking this is parking We can't really ask them to provide parking can we we could change the bylaw to Require them to come up with a plan to provide parking Or we could make recommendations during their public hearing that we really think you should try to find parking for your people and Come back and tell us about it So there are numerous ways you can do it you can either require it or you can make strong suggestions and encourage Things to happen. I think it's going to be an evolving process and Nelson Nygaard will probably have Suggestions about how we can manage this based on experiences. They've had in other towns, so I'm really looking forward to hearing what they're saying Christine So just one more part about the shared parking lot or agreements with the town I think what they were also saying is Particularly for the smaller lots it's just too much work legally and to get small lots that have five or six spots for the town to manage that which They did in the past like behind the Unitarian Church before they added on that was a Few spots of the town actually put meters in but for larger lots that could still happen because The town could take the initiative to work with land property owners if they if they could put meters or whatever All right. Thanks for those updates Report of the chair no report reporter staff I have two things to mention one is that I don't think I mentioned this at our last meeting But we had a wonderful day in March where four of us Pam and I and David Levinstein and Maria Chow went into Worcester and we went to the Citizen planning training collaborative program on a Saturday in March, and we really learned a lot all this went to different programs and Learned about all kinds of topics related to planning and it was really a worthwhile Experience and it was fun to ride a car with the other people and get to know them a little better Yeah, but you only told us tonight that you have nearly bald tires I Having that looked at Yes, and one more thing I wanted to remind you or tell you about the upcoming Public meeting that's going to occur here in town hall on Thursday April 25th at 7 o'clock, and it's going to be mass DOT Department of Transportation Highway division coming to tell us about their proposal to make Significant improvements in the route 9 corridor between University Drive and South Pleasant Street They have presented plans in the past to the public and also to the transportation advisory committee They've taken our recommendations and comments and now they're coming back with Revised plans, and I encourage anybody who's interested in that Harder to come to this meeting because this may be our last chance to really have much influence on what they're doing going forward But I think by if I understand what they're proposing to do. I think they're coming up with a pretty good plan Thank you. All right, everyone. We're adjourned. Thanks so much