Um, I see an Katherine McCloud in the participants and I'll bet that's Angus. >> Oh, he's got his hand raised. >> Yeah, I'll bet that's Angus. >> I'm going to move him into the panelist. Yeah,
>> Johanna's there as well. Oh, no. Big P. Oh my goodness. Look at that. Hey Angus, >> sorry I don't know what happened >> glad to have you with us. >> We are Okay, Mr. Marshall, let's see. I have
made you the co-host of this meeting. Um, my phone says it's 6:36. Ammeris Media is with us. Nate Malloy is with us tonight. Um, this meeting is being recorded. I do believe we are good to go.
>> All right. Thank you, Pam. >> You're welcome. Oh, we got a very special guest. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> All right. Welcome to the Amoris Planning Board meeting of December 3,
2025. My name is Doug Marshall and as chair of the Ammeris Planning Board, I am calling this meeting to order at 6:36 p.m. This meeting is being recorded and is available livereamed via Ammeris Media. Minutes are being taken pursuant
to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021, extended by chapter two of the acts of 2023 and further extended by chapter 2 of the acts of 2025. This planning board meeting will be conducted via remote means using the Zoom platform. The Zoom
meeting link is available on the meeting agenda posted on the town website's calendar listing for this meeting or go to the planning board web page and click on the most recent agenda where the Zoom link is listed at the top of the page.
No in-person attendance of the public is permitted. However, every effort will be made to ensure the public can access the meeting in real time via technological means. In the event public access is disrupted for meeting for reasons of economic hardship or despite best
efforts, we will post an audio or video recording, transcript, or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the town's website. Board members, I will take a roll call. When I call your name, unmute yourself. Answer
affirmatively and return to mute. Bruce >> I'm here. >> Fred Hartwell, >> I'm here. >> Uh, we believe Jesse Major will be joining us late this evening. I, Doug Marshall, I'm present. Angus ML McCloud
>> here. >> Johanna Newman >> here. >> And Jara Smith will also be joining us later. So we do have a quorum with uh looks like five members in attendance. Board members, if technical issues arise
and the discussion needs to pause, it will be noted in the minutes. Please use the raise hand function to ask a question or make a comment and I will call on you to speak. After speaking, remember to remmute yourself. to the general public. The general public
comment item is reserved for public comment regarding items not appearing later on tonight's agenda. Please be aware the board will not respond to comments during general public comment period. Public comment may also be heard at other times during the meeting when
deemed appropriate by the planning board chair. Please indicate you wish to make a comment by clicking the raise hand button when public comment is solicited. If you have joined the Zoom meeting using a telephone, please indicate you
wish to make a comment by pressing star9 on your phone. When called on, please identify yourself by stating your full name and your street address and put yourself back into mute when finished speaking. Residents can typically express their views for up to three
minutes or at the discretion of the planning board chair. If a speaker does not comply with these guidelines or exceeds their allotted time, their participation may be disconnected from the meeting.
Okay. So, uh time now is 6:39 and we will start with minutes. We have the minutes from October 22nd of this year available for approval. Uh board members, any comments on the
minutes from as included in our packet? No comments. Uh would anybody like to make a motion to approve? Johanna, >> move to approve the minutes from October 22nd. >> Thank you. Uh Bruce has raised his hand.
I'll just assume Bruce, you want to second that? >> I will. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh any further discussion of the minutes? Okay, then we will go right into
uh voting on that. Starting with you, Bruce. >> Oops. I'm an I. >> Thank you, Fred. Fred, you are muted. >> Yeah. Hi. >> Thank you. Um, Johanna,
>> hi. >> All right. All right. And Angus, >> hi. >> And I'm an I as well. That's five in favor, two absent. The motion passes. All right. Time now is 6:41. We'll go
into the public comment period. So, we have 26 attendees. 20 21 rather. Um, now it's down to 20. I'm not sure whether I'm misreading or they're dropping away. So, I typically read the
names of the people that I see in the attendees at this time. While I'm reading, if you want to make a public comment about something that does not appear later in the in the agenda, um, this is the time to do it. >> So, [clears throat] uh, raise your hand
if you are interested in doing that. >> [clears throat and cough] >> So the people the 21 attendees I now see are Kaiping Yao, Carol McNeri, Donna Mard, the initials EM
Gustavo Oliviera, Jason Baan, Jennifer Ta, Jenny Kellik, Kathleen Woods Masowski, Just Katie, Ken Rosenthal, Chris Baker,
Maria Copeki, Mora Keane, Michael Gilbert, Michael Leinsky, Mindy Sonner, Pam Rooney, Robert Bazu, Bazooka, Bazucha, Sarah Bar, and Sher Wilson. All right. So, I still don't see any hands
from folks who want to make a general public comment. I'll make one last call and then we'll move on to the next item. >> [clears throat] >> All right. No hands are raised. So I am going to consider that we are not we
have no general public comment tonight. All right. Third item on the agenda. I site plan review and special permit application. In accordance with the provisions of Mass General Law Chapter 48, 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 special site plan review 2025-08 and special permit application 2025-01
from Archipelago Investments LLC. Gould way and Lannon Lane continued from the following previous hearing dates May 7th, June 4th, June 18th, July 16th,
August 20th, September 1st, and October 22nd all of this year. Request site plan review approval under section 3.325 of the zoning bylaw to construct a new mixeduse development with the with three buildings including 140 residential
units approximately 12,000 square feet of commercial space 180 parking spaces and associated site improvements and request a special permit under for footnote A of table 3 article six of the zoning bylaw to modify the front setback
beyond the maximum required building height to exceed the maximum allowed and the number of floors to exceed the maximum allowed located in the BBC zoning district on map 25B parcels 52 and 58.
All right. Uh does anyone do any board members have a disclosure for this evening? uh uh I haven't se heard of disclosure in any of the previous uh se uh episodes of this of this
hearing. Okay. U in that case uh Nate, do you want to introduce this topic tonight? >> Sure. Thanks. Hi everyone. In the packet, there's a letter from the developer and um applicant asking that the planning board accept their request
to withdraw without prejudice the site plan review and special permit application. And so, you know, without prejudice means that they could come back and apply for a similar project in the future. You know, if the planning board it wasn't if it was with prejudice
or didn't allow it, then you know, there there's regulations about who and how they could apply in the future. So, I actually think that, you know, as the letter states, it's really an opportunity for both Hampshire and it may be a different developer applicant at the time to return to the board and
the town with a with a project in the future. So, that's something that, you know, we can discuss or have a motion. Yeah, I guess we would we would want to take a motion to um
to accept the withdrawal for the interview. >> Accept the withdrawal with with without prejudice and then close the hearing. >> Right. >> Bruce, >> so moved. >> All right. Does anybody want to second
it right up front? Fred, I see your hand raised. I'll assume that that indicates you want >> I'm seconding it. >> All right. All right. Um board members, any any discussion you want to have about this? Um Nate, maybe you could
tell us why they may be withdrawing. >> Yeah, the applicant withdrew from the Conservation Commission um a number of weeks ago. I think that they just, you know, weren't making progress there in terms of a site development or site
plans. Uh, you know, I'm not sure exactly, right? It could just be, you know, to work I think it might be also to work with the owners again and come back with a different plan or strategy. So, um, you know, I think they had thought maybe they would uh continue with the planning board, but after, you know, withdrawing from the conservation
commission, I think they had just more time to consider the best option, and that's I think why they withdrew or requesting the withdrawal. Okay. All right. Um, well, unless there's more discussion from the board, I will ask the members
of the public. Uh, does anyone from the public want to make a comment about this topic before the board votes to accept the withdrawal or not? All right. I see two hands. Pam, could we bring over Gustavo
Oliviera? What happened there? We can. Oh, maybe we can't. >> It looks like I don't see him. Oh, there he is. >> Yeah, something happened when I tried to
put up the timer. Okay. >> Hello, Gustavo. >> Hello. Can you hear me? Okay. >> Yes, we can. You have uh three minutes. >> Thank you. Good evening. Uh thank you for uh um considering this request. Uh
thank you, Nate, for clarifying uh what um is the the request about and perhaps some background on it. Indeed, the developer uh withdrew recently from the uh conservation commission um after
repeatedly uh disregarding the conservation commission's requests to bring in plans that would conform with the bylaws and insisting again not only that they were not required to conform to our town's bylaws, but that the bylaws should be
changed and thereby took took up an extraordinary amount of time from the conservation commission and from us citizens engaged in it to ultimately withdraw. Um so I'm glad that uh uh
they're requesting you know the the withdrawal of this proposal now from the planning board too. But there's also the consideration of with or without prejudice. I would hope that if uh the property owner were to come back either with this or with a different developer, they
would do so at least with the willingness to, you know, conform to our bylaws rather than uh asking that our town bend around their project. Um so what was mentioned but not explained fully for me and my question is um if
the request is for it to be withdrawn with prejudice, there are regulations for them to bring it back. Well, what are those? Could those be regulations that would for example make sure that any future projects that they bring before this or the conservation commission and all you know conform at
least have the intention in the good faith to be conforming to our bylaws rather than coming in with projects and asking our town to redraw our own legislation around their interests. Um, in any case, I would I would like to understand more about that distinction of with and without prejudice and why is
it what what would those regulations of it be for um if it were with but with prejudice um and if those might actually address some of the way in which uh this project has been um you know brought to
these multiple uh town uh boards and commissions. Thank you very much. >> All right. Thank you. Nate, do you want to give us a summary of the distinctions between with and without prejudice? >> Right. So, that's a it's a state law.
Um, so if it's with prejudice, it means the applicant, you know, and the owner, you know, Hampshire College at this time couldn't reapply for two years. Um, and so, you know, it wouldn't necessarily mean, you know, that they could, you know, they could possibly change the project,
but if they were to do something that's allowed by zoning and it was any way similar to what was proposed, even say it's a mixeduse development, that could be considered similar enough to this current application that they couldn't do it. And so typically with prejudice is um you know reserved for something
that you know perhaps it was you know you don't think is is um you don't want to see come back. So to me you know that's a discussion for the board you know given the the property zoning and what could happen there. Do we want to have the possibility of something coming
back with the same owner applicant or a similar development? It could be a mixeduse development that's smaller and so without prejudice would allow that to happen within two years. Otherwise, essentially, we've we've kind of, you know, said that a mixeduse project, you know, I'd have to I don't know
exactly how similar, but, you know, essentially could not be reapplied for on this property for two years. And so, that's really the difference between prejudice and without prejudice in terms of the town's bylaws. And you know, I think that the applicant saw with the conservation commission, you know,
what's reasonable in terms of requests for waiverss or um and you know, they had had a special permit from the planning board, which never was really discussed. And so, you know, I think that any applicant can request waiverss or special permits and then knowing that
they're discretionary and could be denied, uh that's something they have to, you know, consider with every application. So I don't you know I you know in the future I think that maybe someone applying here would realize well okay I have to be aware of the wetland regulations and you know zoning
regulations as well and try to you know have a development that's more um appropriate. >> What did the conservation commission accept the recommendation to withdraw with or without prejudice? >> It was without prejudice. >> Okay. Thank you.
All right. Uh, Gustavo, I hope that's an adequate answer to your question. Maria Copeki, let's bring her over. >> Great. >> Hello, Maria. >> Hi. Thank you so much. Maria Copeki, South Ammerst. Um so I also uh Gustavo
mentioned um some of what I was going to say what happened at the conservation commission and it's kind of I I do find it troubling that there isn't a more fullthroated like you know just report about what happened there. The problem
uh was that the proposal from archipelago was very much in the wetlands and it was very much not consistent with the bylaw. The wetlands bylaw says that you cannot build between 0 and 50 ft of the wetland
and between 50 and 100 ft you can only encroach upon that by uh only up to 20%. and the the plans, even some revised plans that they produced were taking up the vast majority of that wetland
buffer. And that was the problem. Um the plans never uh despite repeated requests by the conservation commission uh for archipelago to come back with plans that did conform to the wetlands
bylaws. um Archipelago just basically refused to do that over the course of several several um uh hearings and um they were eventually told that look you know we've asked you you have to do it
by a certain date and they did not produce any uh plans that would have conformed uh within that time frame and so that's how it ended at the conservation commission um this This property it's actually two parcels but
about 50% of it is taken up by wetland and wetland buffer and that is an extreme limitation which was very much noted even back in the studies that were done on this uh this parcel of this area
uh u uh back in the 2002 studies the the limitations because of the wetlands has been known um and it is now very well known and there are uh the wetland delineation is now very [clears throat]
much up to date. So I uh really encourage members of the planning board to watch some of those meetings um of the conservation commission so that you'd you'll have a better sense of what went on. But I hope that this was a um
an adequate summary for now. Thank you so much for uh allowing public comment. Sure. Uh, thank you, Maria. Thanks for that explanation. Um, Pam, why don't we bring over Ken Rosenthal? Looks like he's the third of
three folks who wanted to make a comment. >> Thank you, Mr. Thank you, [clears throat] Mr. Chairman. U my comment is going to be simply this, that when Nate was uh answering Mr. Olive's question about with or without prejudice, he used the word owner. And I
think technically speaking, the owner has not applied to the planning board. It is the the applicant is is Archipelago. I'm not sure I have the proper name. And I have to say I'm not privy to the agreement or understanding between Archipelago and the owner, which
is Hampshire College, the trustees of Hampshire College. But I think that when you act on the request of the applicant, you're acting on the request of Archipelago period. And uh I don't think that anything directly affects Hampshire
College in the future. Uh I I suspect you're not going to see anything that you don't want to see from Hampshire College. I just want to clear that Hampshire the owner is not the applicant in this case. It is Archipelago. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> Sure. Thank you, Ken. All right. Uh I don't see any more hands raised. Um, board members, here's one. Here's a hand from Johanna. >> Thank you. Um, I think it's a real shame
that this project is getting withdrawn. I saw it as offering a lot of benefits to our community and to the public. You know, some of the things that were top of mind for me were incredibly energyefficient housing, quite a bit of housing,
you know, solar panels screening the equipment at the top, transitoriented development in an area we've designated as a village center, really bike and walker friendly design. like there was so much that I appreciated about this
proposal and um yeah, I'm sad I'm sad to see it I'm sad to see it was wrong. >> All right. Thank you. >> But yeah, but I will you know I'll support the motion that's on the table. >> Right.
I'll say I also think it it calls into question the designation of that area as a town center for me. I mean, I I don't know how much more other how many other parcels are designated that way, but if it's really just that area,
you know, maybe it's not viable. Uh, so I see three hands starting with you, Bruce. >> Um, I I agree with Johanna. I first words out of my mouth when I'd seen this project. Of course, we had seen it uh in the package before, so I had looked at it for a number of hours. Uh, I said,
"This is what a good project looks like." That was nine months ago and I really haven't changed my mind. I I t typically don't tend to get deeply involved initially in matters related to wetlands and so forth because I know we have a very functional body in town that
does that. So I uh if I if I have a dog I don't bark. Um, but I did see the I did attend these uh some of these conservation commission meetings because like uh I was curious and uh and I did hear Carl make his
pitch for a change. >> Oh, Bruce, you're out of time. [laughter] >> Sorry. What happened? [laughter] >> Make a P. Yes. I just want to speak to the uh this this is there's some concern in the in the public commentary about uh
the the the the right or the appropriateness of an applicant to try and change the bylaw. Um it's typically not wise to do that. I mean, it's 50 years of experience on my part. It's I never tried to do that in an application hearing, but we have people who make
petitions to change the bylaws quite frequently, and they're usually because they have a strong feeling about how something could be changed for the better. And hearing Kyle's argument on this, it was essentially an argument about the value of wetlands versus the value of housing. And we know that this
guy has been very passionate about the uh explaining the need for housing and so forth. So it wasn't un wasn't surprising that he went down that road to me uh in so far as uh the values and that he has but I think it was surprising that he would uh uh see it as
a strategic move um because it's very unlikely to be successful but um repeating um sad to see this project withdrawn. >> All right, thank you Bruce. I will just note that Jara has arrived uh at 7 o'clock.
Uh Fred, you're next. >> Uh yeah, [clears throat] I too uh knew exactly what I was doing in participating in the uh supporting the motion to withdraw without prejudice.
uh and uh uh I think that this project uh successfully addresses a great number of public policy objectives that this board has been very active at promoting and so I look forward to seeing if they
can pull the rabbit out of the hat and get through the conservation commission and come back to us. >> All right. Thank you. Thank you, Fred. Angus, >> I don't have a comment about the actual uh project. I have a comment about
Hampshire. Um I I my understanding and I'm sure more people with more history on the board are more familiar, but my understanding is that Hampshire is in pretty dire financial straits. Um and so I know I'm I'm going to be abstaining. I wasn't privy to the discussions about
this project earlier, but um I think my my comment goes back to Ken Rosenthal's point, which is that I'm uh I'm worried about the property owner, Hampshire College, and um I don't have full access to their financial information, but from
what I understand from the outside, um doing something with their land is one of the only pathways they have to financial solveny over the short term. And I think that's um thinking about our role as planners for this community. If something were to happen to Hampshire, I
think that would be pretty dire. That's all. >> All right. Thank you, Angus. I do remember uh I think it was the some of the representatives from Hampshire early on in the hearing indicating that that they
they it was kind of a financial necessity for this project to go to happen. And uh obviously that's not going to be the case at least in this form. Okay. So um we've heard public comment.
I don't see any more hands from the board. We have a motion and a second on the table to accept the withdrawal without prejudice and close the hearing. Uh anybody object to us going ahead with
a vote for that? All right. All right, we'll go ahead and and vote. Uh, I'm going to go from the end of the alphabet for your last names. So, I'm going to start with Jara. >> I abstain.
>> Abstain. All right. >> And Johanna, >> I. >> And uh, Angus, >> I abstain. and Fred >> I
>> Bruce >> I >> Lyman I as well. We managed to have four in favor, two abstensions and one absent. So it the motion does carry. All right. So this hearing is closed.
>> Members of the public who came for this hearing, thank you for checking in with us. All right, time now is 7:04. We'll go on to the next public hearing.
Uh, this hearing was advertised for 6:40 p.m. and we've passed that time. So, I think we can proceed. In accordance with the provisions of Mass General Law Chapter 48, this public hearing has been duly advertised and noticed thereof has been posted and is
being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity for interested citizens to be heard regarding SUB subdivision uh subdivision application 2026-01. Applicant is WD Kohl's Incorporated and
the location is on Shootsbury Road. request approval for a four lot preliminary subdivision plan under Mass General Law chapter 41 sections 81L and 81S parcel being consisting let's see I'll
say the parcel is located on map 9B11 and 9B12 9D26 and 9D27 in the RO zoning district.
All right. Do we have any board member disclosures that folks want to make before we get into this? I do not see any hands raised from the members of the board. All right. Um
Nate, do we have an applicant? the applicant uh contacted the town asking that this be continued to the next meeting December 17th. They're not able to attend this evening. Um you know we uh we have seen this application
before. It's a it's the same preliminary subdivision plan that's been submitted previously. However, they want to be present during the discussion. So they've you know they've asked for a continuence to the next meeting. We can make it the first item on the agenda at
6:35 >> and that would be to December 17th, >> correct? >> All right. All right. Um, Bruce, I do see your hand. Go ahead. >> Okay. I'll I'll move continuation to the
uh 640 635, did you say, Nate? on December 17th. >> All right. Thank you. I'll go ahead and second that just to since I didn't see anybody else jump up. Um,
all right. So, Nate, is there anything else you wanted to say about this? Uh obviously we have a couple of new members since this was last submitted. So uh we will need to orient them to what's being proposed and how it
you know what what the applicant's actually doing as opposed to what they're showing us. Uh do you want to do any of that tonight or do you want to wait and do all of everything on the 17th? >> We can wait till the 17th unless there's questions. Um, >> okay, that's fine.
All right, we'll go ahead and vote on this. Um, all right, I'll start tonight with you, Bruce. >> Hi. >> All right, Fred. >> Hi. >> Angus, >> hi.
>> Uh, Johanna, >> I >> and Jara. >> And I'm an I as well. That's six in favor, one absent. All right. >> All right. Thank you all and we will go
ahead with into the next part of the evening here. All right. This was advertised for 6:45 and we've passed that point. So this public hearing in accordance with the provisions again
of Mass General Law Chapter 4A, 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 site plan review 2026-02. Applicant being Ammeris College,
location is 40 Dickinson Street. Request site plan review approval under section 3.339 of the zoning bylaw to modify previously approved site plan review 2014-00006 and add a vehicle washing area with
storm water and sewer connection. Construct a 20 footx 30 foot salt shed with 6 ft high block walls and a 9 ft high metal arch roof and repaving parcel located in the BL limited
business zoning district on map 14B parcel 52. Do we have any board member disclosure? Uh Angus, >> um Amoris College is my employer and so I would like to be moved to a um viewer
of this instead of a panelist and I don't plan on voting. >> All right. So Angus is recusing himself. Uh Pam, are you able to move him back into the attendees? >> Um
it seems like I should be able to. Nate, can you I don't see it as an option. >> I think I just did. >> Okay, perfect. Let's see. >> Disappeared. There he is. Yep. Yep, he is over there. >> All right.
All right. So, uh I guess we can go ahead in that case. Uh who is our applicant tonight? Chris Baker, I see your hand. Yeah, good good evening everyone. Thank you so much. So, my name is Chris Baker.
I'm with Birksher Design and I am joined by Jason Bjon from Ammerst College. Um, so I'll just uh give a quick rundown of the project. Um, and it's probably helpful. Do I have screen sharing permission here? I should. Okay, >> you do.
>> Let me do that then because I think that'll help the discussion. Um, so this project is, uh, located at 40 Dickinson Street, which is, um, you know, kind of a little bit off
of the main campus for Ammerst College on Dickinson Street. It's where the maintenance facility is located. >> Chris, just so you know, we're not seeing a >> Oh, are you not seeing it? >> We're seeing your Windows Explorer. >> Do you see it now? Now we got a drawing. That's better. Okay. Thank you. Um, so,
um, yep. So, like I was saying, the the maintenance facility is located on Dickinson Street, and the proposal is to it's twofold really. The first part of it is to create um an outdoor vehicle wash station. So, there's already one
inside of the garage that goes to an existing oil water separator. And the idea is that the larger vehicles can't be washed inside of the small bay. So the area here, it's a small small area
of the lot will be regraded to create a depression so that the vehicles can be washed outdoors. There will be two inlets that will be uh installed um in the pavement. So there'll be catch basin openings. One of them will go to um the
sewer and the other one will go to um the um essentially the drainage system. Um >> storm water >> storm water system. Yep. >> Um so they um they sell industrial outdoor
covers for catch basins. So essentially when there is vehicle washing that's taking place the cover will be uh placed over the drain so that no water from vehicle washing will go in be discharged into the storm water system and vice
versa when it's not in use there will be um a cover over the sewer so that the normal uh storm water runoff that was already going to this catch basin here um will just go in into this um inlet from the small depression area that's created uh around the vehicle washing
station cuz otherwise it would just pool there if we didn't have any kind of storm water outlet there. Um we did receive some comments from the town about um making sure that both of these are deep sump catch basins with hooded outlets which we did um we did
add to the plan. Uh the area that you see that's shaded in gray is proposed to be repaved as part of this. So it'll be just a a parking lot resurfacing element to the project. And then the uh third element to the project is the addition
of the salt shed which is being moved from another location on campus. So it'll be more central to their facilities and um easier to use for the college. And that will be constructed of um it'll basically be 6 ft blocks,
concrete blocks that'll be put um and then a 9 ft metal arch roof will be put on top of that. So it's kind of a typical um salt shed that you you've probably seen before. Um, so that'll be placed a little bit off of the um the
side of the lot and we'll have to regrade the backside a little bit uh just so that there's actually space for the trucks to come in and pick up the salt and um actually navigate around the site. Um I did want to mention this 100 foot buffer zone. So we did have a
wetland scientist go out and mark the wetland. So the nearest wetland associated with Fairing Brook is more than 100 ft away. So, um, she did indicate that we, you know, we're not subject to the wetlands protection act or the the town bylaw.
Um, and that's really all I have for presentation. And, you know, either Jay or I can hopefully answer any questions you might have about the project. And I just want to jump in and just introduce myself. Jay, I'm the newest project manager with Ammeris College. So, um,
very nice to meet and see a lot of you here and just excited to, you know, work on many projects over the next couple of years with you. >> All right. Thank you. Thank you, Jason, for introducing yourself. And thank you, Chris, for the presentation. Um, I guess to get things started, I
guess I'll ask one question. You said, Chris, that the concrete blocks would be six feet. Uh, was that six feet in height or length or what? >> Six feet in height. Yes. Okay. So,
you're proposing to have a 6- foot high concrete block structure that's pretty close to Route 9, isn't that right? >> Uh, well, there is a parking lot here. I wonder if I can bring up >> there a parking lot south of that
between Correct. Dickinson Lot is just south. >> Can you Yeah. Can Do you see my other screen with Google Maps on here? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, this is the facility. So the the salt shed would be here and there is the slot here. >> Okay, thank you. I was forgetting the additional lot.
Uh, all right. So that'll be pretty far far back from College Street and uh I don't need to worry about it being a uh an attract a nuisance, let's say. Um,
and the aluminum arched top is sits on top of the six-foot concrete block walls. >> Yep. And I'm wondering >> I think there was a some information about that in our packet. Yeah, I think this is sort of
the idea of it where there's block walls and then the >> So, would they be pretty large concrete blocks like are shown in these photos or are they like what I would consider a typical, you know, uh, concrete masonry unit that's only 16 in long and 8 in
high? >> I'm assuming these ones. >> Yeah, correct. It would be a larger uh pre-cast concrete block more along the lines of what Chris is showing there. So about 3 to 4 foot blocks and then the metal rib structure on top of the blocks
the total height would be uh just about 15 ft. >> Okay, great. And it's open at both ends. uh open on one end just where they will be uh loading uh the salt and on the back end facing the Dickinson parking lot would
be a closed uh back. >> Okay. All right. Um I see a hand from Fred. Go ahead, Fred. >> Yeah, a question on that. Uh the [clears throat] the photo
shows a semicircle roof and the plan shows what appears to be angular uh conventional uh framing for the roof. So I'm having a little trouble connecting
the photo to the plan. >> Um which uh which plan are you looking at? Which plan sheet number is that? >> The one we're looking at now. >> Looking at now. So the when you when you're looking at it from a bird's eye, it will be a square shape, but when
you're looking at it headon, it will have more of this shape. So if you were to actually look at this structure from above, it would appear to be a rectangle. Does that get at the question? So the
plan that represents shows a hip roof is incorrect. It doesn't really matter. We just need to know that your plan designating a hip structure is uh not accurate. >> Press the lines in if you go back to your plan. >> Mhm.
>> And you see the the diagonals and the line50. Is that is that grading or is that a roof line? >> That's just a call out for the spot grades at the corners. I'm sorry that does appear to be confusing.
>> Those are a set of leader Yes. [snorts] that are pointing to the corners saying all the corners are at elevation 250.5. >> Correct. It's not Yes. Sorry. It's not meant to depict the roof shape. >> All right. So, I don't see the arrow heads, by the way.
>> There isn't any. Yeah, it's it's just a line. Yeah. >> All right. So, you confused a number of us. >> Sorry about that. That I see that that's confusing. We can um revise that. >> Yeah. >> And then to Fred and to Bruce, it is going to be the arch structure that we
see from uh the spec sheet. >> All right. Thank you. That was the confusion. >> And so the the closure of the arch at the south end would just simply be a a a flat semic-ircular
piece of metal or something. >> Correct. Yep. >> Okay. All right, Fred, I'm going to drop your hand. Uh, board members, other other comments and other questions?
Um, I guess then I'll ask Oh, Bruce, go ahead. >> No, you you go, Doug. >> Well, I was going to ask Nate and Pam. Um, I did see a couple of comments from Jason Skills and it sounds like those got to Chris and Jason uh from Ammerst
and they have addressed them. Um, were there any other outstanding comments from uh town staff? >> Yeah, I mean I could walk through the development application report at some point. I think what hasn't actually been answered from the town engineers uh
emails are if the existing oil water separator is up to the town standards and so you know the you know the pavement markings to label the each you know the storm drain and the sewer drain uh have been included on the revised
site plan but I haven't seen any response that the existing um you know separator shown and you know off to the right a little bit is adequate. it. So, um you know, as part of suggested conditions would be that that needs to
be assessed and you know, if not, then it could be needs to be replaced. Um the town engineer also asked that the drain covers be tested and he would like to be there. I think other staff would like to be there. Uh you know, it's a lowcost solution, but it takes, you
know, effort every time, right, to have those covers on and know that they're working. So, you know, if someone accidentally takes the covers off and forgets to put them down there, then, you know, depending on which one's open, there could be, you know, you know, water, storm water going into the sewer
or, you know, wash water going into the storm drain which goes to the Furing Brook. So, I think, you know, there were some questions there. I had questions actually about the aesthetic of the of the of the salt shed. It's actually highly visible from College Street and Dickinson Street. And so, you know,
further south on the property, there is what, you know, a historic barn. It's the Okonnell barn. You know, my, you know, I, you know, in the development application report, I suggested, is there a way to put plantings around this salt shed or actually just enclose it within a barn-like structure? You
probably want the concrete block, right? You need something that's not going to road and is sturdy enough to, you know, drive a machine in to scoop up the the, you know, we'll call it salt. But you know it is a highly visible location. Um you know even though it is set back from college
street it is quite visible. You know I think another question was where the pavement cut is along Dickinson. It's you know and as a proposed condition was if there was a cut along if it interferes with the sidewalk then the recommendation would be to pave the whole sidewalk. So, you
know, the Dickinson Street in the sidewalk was repaved five, six years ago, and it's hard to tell on this plan, but if there's a, you know, a saw cut that then, you know, is longitudinally along the whole length of the sidewalk and now all of a sudden you have a seam in the middle of the sidewalk, I think a better solution would be just to have a
brand new sidewalk or manage where that pavement cut line is. Um, the sidewalk has also been formed so that water doesn't sheet flow into the site. It then runs south to the catch basin on the street. So, it's hard to tell from this plan exactly how much, you know,
they're getting into the um you know, into the into the sidewalk. Um you know, there's not, you know, they're keeping the existing down lighting. So, you know, this so this was an amendment to a 2014 site plan when Amoris College purchased it. Uh you
know, they fulfilled most of the conditions. They submitted a revised landscape plan and site plan that met the planning board's um approval back in 2014 after it was originally approved. The town then repaved the street which changed the front of the building a little bit and it's been like that ever
since. Um I don't you know I didn't have too many other concerns. It was really the aesthetic of the shed, you know, the ability to maintain the wash basin area and whether or not the water goes in the right direction. And then along the sidewalk there in terms of um you know
having a clean sidewalk in terms of payment cuts or different payment levels. >> All right. Um do Nate, would you like us to go through your development application report section by section? I'm I'm perfectly happy to do that. >> We could. I mean I see Bruce has his
hand up. I don't mind waiting for other board questions or comments. >> Okay. Well, that's fine. I mean I just we'll make sure we do that. >> Well, >> yeah. Bruce, I see your hand and after you talk, I see there's a hand from the public, too. >> Well, um I was I've just been going
through uh the development application report and and some of the things I'm less concerned about. Um but, uh if I would defer to have Nate take us through there and then I'll ask my questions as they arise.
>> Okay. All right. Um, uh, Pam, why don't we bring over Pam Rooney? Hello, Pam Rooney, 42 Cottage Street. I have questions about the drainage and I'm seeing that this is a newly paved
project, but the drainage lines the the the contour lines appear to be the existing probably gravel um drainage from from the original site. So my question is uh and I I must have missed
somehow that all of the washing will occur within this new fairly steep little uh depression. If there is washing anywhere else on the site, how is that water being collected and treated? I don't see any catch
basins collecting probably 95% of the rest of the site which appears to be draining to the west. and Dickinson Street. So, I'm concerned about sheet flow not being captured because you're doing a lot of washing and um the oil
water separator that that somebody mentioned is reassuring to me that somebody's looking at that as well. Thank you. >> All right. Thanks, Pam. Chris or Jason, do you want to let us know what other what other washing will occur within
this parking lot? Yeah. So for in terms of our washing, the vehicular washing will only take place at the new structure locations and it's only going to be as an as needed basis for a few select facility vehicles. So that is the
only location. There wouldn't be any additional washing at other locations around the the building. >> All right. Uh Pam, I see you're back in the attendees and I hope that answers your question. Uh Jason, since you said this
would be for select vehicles only, uh I guess I might as well ask uh the other vehicles that are not select within the Ammeris College fleet. How are they washed? >> Uh I'm not I know that we're only
dealing with the facility vehicles here. I'm not open and sure on other vehicles if they're taken to an off-site location, but these are just for our facility um primarily that are being currently washed at the existing car wash location.
>> Okay. All right. Um Nate, why don't you take us through the development application report? Maybe Pam, maybe you could bring that up instead of the photo. And Chris, you can stop sharing for a little while.
>> Nate, I have it in PDF. Do you have it in Word that you would prefer? >> Uh Nate, you're you're muted. >> Yeah, I I started sharing the screen if that's, you know, visible for everyone. >> Yep. Um yeah, so you know the request as
Doug mentioned at the beginning of the you know hearing um you know in terms of the site you know the building is non-conforming um but there's no changes to it. So you know there's really no concern in terms of say the dimensional standards the uh
the salt shed you know given the height it does meet the setback for an accessory structure the way they proposed it. Um, you know, as part of the findings and conditions, there's an existing site plan review and you could look through those conditions. So, there's, you know,
about a dozen conditions on the 2014 site plan. You know, I think half of them could be removed and half of them could remain. That's up for the board uh to look at. They're asking for a number of waiverss which I think you know again can be
discussed. A landscape plan, a lighting plan. There's an existing lighting plan from 2014. There's no signs being proposed. Uh, you know, nothing from traffic, a construction logistics plan, and, you know, a waiver from pollution hazardous materials plan. I don't see any issues
there. Uh, so the previous permit, you know, here's the um conditions. We can go through those during the findings, but, you know, they're um I think they it all makes sense. You know, this is a, you know, a salt shed
for a winter storm. So, you know, I think it's difficult to, you know, we say, you know, normal operation hours except for winter snow removal operations. So, I think it's really hard to have anything concrete there. Um, the proposed building architecture,
if anyone wants to raise their hand or jump in, sure. I think it's, you know, again, this six foot block with the arch metal roof, uh, you know, is there other considerations for a different style or, you know, screening. That's, you know, something I put in there.
>> Doug, if I may, this was >> Oh, yeah, sure, Bruce. Um, I I I think that if it's possible, the easiest way to solve this problem would be if you can if you can get something that isn't
white. Uh, so I guess a question to uh to Chris or to Jason, uh, can these dome structures be uh purchased not white but uh um brown or or green, you know, basically like tarps and so forth? Or is
there some reason why white is the uh necessary color, >> Bruce? I mean, at least the photos we saw, it looked like it was galvanized, you know, steel or it was aluminum, bare aluminum. >> Okay. >> The the roof at least. And >> yeah, >> I assume the big concrete blocks could
be painted. >> I guess personally, I'm not so troubled by galvanized material. I I I'm I've become accustomed because I'm an Australian to corrugated or galvanized irons. So maybe I'm not so concerned. Um
but uh um would it be possible for Chris to put some plantings to uh to screen that to some degree from um probably on the slope? I don't suppose you can put them in the parking lot
without losing a a space, but uh how difficult would screening be? Yeah, we uh we haven't looked at uh putting those plantings there. It is on a 3 to one slope, so it's it's not very easy, but I think we could get some kind
of plantings, even if it's some arbites or something like that to grow on the slope around the structure. >> I suppose you could have ivy climbing the concrete, too. >> Mhm.
turn it into a Chia building. >> I don't know, Jay. Do you know about the coloring of it? >> Yeah, we can we can definitely ask Bruce. I try to get it Amoris purple and it'll shut down. So, we will we will see what we can do. [laughter]
>> Yeah, purple doesn't strike me as being the right choice right now. >> No, totally joking. But yeah, we can definitely look into um shading of the concrete block or painting. You know, I think it's it's something easy where we can definitely get a durable type of paint to paint the exterior and kind of
mask it into the slope and then we can also look into some plantings for sure. >> Well, well, Bruce, is that some should we put something to to that effect into the findings and conditions?
>> I I uh >> I'm sorry, Nate. I have something about plantings and the conditions and findings if we get there and we can always discuss it then too. Um >> Okay. All right. >> Uh I think I'll pause for the moment and Nate you go.
>> Go ahead. >> Sure. You know so a lot of these aren't necessarily relevant. So you know unit types, you know, I'm trying to standardize the development application report so it's similar to every application. There's really no issues with the, you know, special permits or demolition of a building. you know, the
landscape plan again. Um, you know, the 2014 plan suggested some planters in front of the building. Uh, then the town repaved in 2019. So, it changed a little bit what's happening on the street. It's just something again for the board to, you know, if you
wanted to consider that or not. Um, some of it was to delineate. >> You have the the 2014 document available so that we can go through that at some point too. if you're, you know, it said, you said there were like a dozen conditions and
maybe half of them could go away. >> Yeah, I have that. And then the um trying to find the 2014 plans. >> Well, they're farther down. >> Okay. Yes. So, >> by by the way, Nate, I I'm a little I'm
mentally maybe I'm slow, but I I get a little confused when you talk about the building because the building you're talking about is not even what we're talking about. We're talk the only building we're talking about is the Salt Building, right? >> Sure. Right. Yes. When I say the building, I mean what you this was the
old, you know, car dealership and, you know, it's it's historic building. So, it's shown here in gray. Mhm. >> Um, so I guess yeah, to me I would call the salt shed the shed and this is the building. >> Okay. >> Um, so with the landscape plan that had been proposed was, you know, some lawn
with some some mulch here in front of the the building. When the town came in and repaved Dickinson Street, the uh rightway gets pretty close to the building. So this is still lawn Ammeris College planted I think two dog woods has some plantings here but what's really right in front of this bump out
of the building is just pavement now uh given there's not much area and so you know is that something that's important to have some kind of you know separation between the building here it's pavement and then the sidewalk
>> but you're saying the town basically removed those >> a bit yeah so you know one of the suggestions I had as a condition was, you know, could there just be some pavement markings here, painting even just to delineate the sidewalk? You know, sometimes cars park in front of
here and it could block the sidewalk. It's hard just because it's, you know, it's all asphalt. It's hard to tell where the sidewalk ends and the property begins. >> Okay. >> Yeah. You know, there's no changes to the site uh improvements or furnishings.
You know, it looks like some of the snow plows are stored out, you know, in front. I don't know if that's just because this application was received in the fall and they already had the plows out ready to be hooked up. Um, you know, the lighting the management plan offer is, you know, that the site
will be illuminated 8 a.m. to 6 pm. You know, I think if as you know, if that's managed, you know, that's what it says. So, I don't, you know, I don't I guess my only question was is there additional lighting planned for the salt shed? There hasn't been any indicated. I just would want to confirm that.
>> That's correct, Nate. There's no current lighting plan for it. >> Um, you know, and then, um, >> so, so on that, uh, illumination, you know, if there's a snowtorm like we had last night, um,
would the lights stay on during the night for this lot? Uh Nate, I guess my question would be is the are the hours that are listed there the maximum or the minimum or
>> Yeah, typically that would be you know we could have like an exception you know as we did as there was noted previously except except during you know winter storm or storm events or something >> you know on a typical you know Tuesday you know this the site could be
illuminated 8 am to 6 pm And >> right. Well, I mean, it's just a little bit weird to have the illumination during the daytime as opposed to the night time. >> That's I mean, it's from the management plan. I'm not Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. >> We could always change it. We can change
it now if we think it's an odd. >> All right. >> Um, you know, no signs. The site management plan is the is the lighting downcast? Is it is it dark sky compliant now or not?
>> Yeah, this I think my screen's still visible, right? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Um yeah, so there were existing lights, but and here's what they look like. So they're a flat head and they're downcast. So there's, you know, three of these um or a few of these on the
building. >> Okay. >> And they're above the a bay door. So they are downcast. >> Good. So, there isn't any actual general illumination on the parking lot? >> Um,
no, >> I don't see any. >> No, I think I thought there was a street light on one pole, but uh right here, right out front, but yeah, there's no sidewalk. >> Yeah, there's nothing within the site, >> right? So, here's the area I was talking about
with the landscape plan. So, you can see the cuts for the sidewalk, you know, in the right of way some, you know, somewhere in here. And in the 2014 plan, they suggested having a strip of bulge and plantings here as separation.
But I it looks like all this was repaved in 2019 even into the site. So I'm not sure exactly why, but that was what was decided I think with public works and Ammeris College. Jason, would you guys be would you object to having some sort of
delineation right along the edge of the rideway just to break up that expanse or do is that essential for, you know, short-term parking or something? >> You know, I don't I'm not opposed to it, but that's the only thing I'm thinking
because I know through that door is right into their main office. And I know their little um the Kabutoa four-wheelers, they might pull up, be able to run inside, grab something, and and take off, but I I'm not entirely sure and I'm not opposed to it. But I
there might be some efficiency just because it's been it's been this this way since the paving took place. >> Yeah. >> For some time. >> One of the other ideas I had was just to literally put a pavement stripe like, you know, pavement painting here. >> Just painting. Yeah. Yeah, I think
>> even a painting if not if not planting and then a painting just so that you know if a vehicle's parked they don't overlap on the sidewalk. So you can see the sidewalk comes through here. >> So even if we just striped you know a little bit of section here just so people know. >> Yeah, >> I think that's a great idea, Nate. I
think cuz since we'll be paint doing line striping anyways within the parking lot, that's something easy we can add into the plan. And I think it kind of it meets really in the middle and kind of hits both functions. >> There had been a hand a hand raised.
>> Yeah, there's a hand from the public. >> Um why don't why don't we go ahead and continue through this development report and then we'll get to uh to the hand to the public comment. >> Sure. >> U you know again just hours of operation
of the site and buildings we can have a condition to that effect if we need to. Um you have a question about how the parking spaces are allocated or used. You know I don't you know I know um the town's never had any complaints. So I you know I just something for the board
to consider. Um we just talked about kind of this edge of sidewalk and site. Uh no issues with traffic. So, you know, there, you know, there is a few, you know, as far as I can see, there's a few, you know, pickups and, you know, like Jay mentioned, utility vehicles,
but it's not a huge operation coming in and out of the site. So, you know, we've, the town engineer didn't have any comments about the traffic. It was only about, you know, the um sewer connection. So, you know, what we have here, the storm water drainage was just what we talked
about in terms of how to manage that. Mhm. >> Uh it is outside the jurisdiction of the conservation commission. You know, I would suggest a condition that there be some monitoring um in, you know, in in coordination with the conservation agent from the town. And that's just pictures during, you
know, once a month during a storm event for a year, uh and it, you know, just to confirm that the covers are working. So that, you know, you the outfall is on the Fearing Brook south of College Street. Uh but there's no you know there's no issues in terms of their drain connections or anything that's
happening especially with the addition of the deep sumps and hooded outlets. So Nate there had been a a comment whether it was from you or somebody else that this is a relatively inexpensive way to
handle runoff from a washing station. Mhm. >> Um, you know, I'm not familiar with what the alternatives are that are more expensive. Are you or >> Yeah, that may I don't that may have been my comment may have been from the
some another staff, you know, I'm not sure. I think that I think what they were thinking is in terms of how to treat the the water, you know, so once you wash your vehicles, you know, what happens, you know, sometimes in a in a washing
area, especially on an interior one, there may may be a more sophisticated methods to clean the water, right? Or they just >> rather than the oil water separator that's being used, >> right? But I I don't I don't know that
for sure. That's I think what um you know I was told. I don't I didn't research it. I you know >> the town engineer seemed to think that if the oil well oil water separator was worked then it was sufficient. But um >> and did you talk to the town
conservation officer about it at all? >> Yes. And so there wasn't you know again if the covers work and they're in place then there's no issues. Um, you know, the issue being that the um
I don't have the the current site plan, but the new drain line that connects to the catch basin on the street, it you know, it goes directly and outfalls to the fearing brook. We'll say that this separation between pages is is college street. There's a outfall right into the fearing brook. And so
>> the only comment was, you know, if that if the storm drain isn't covered >> and you know there's a storm event, then if there's any chemicals remaining on the pavement or if they wash the trucks and don't cover it properly, then those chemicals go directly untreated into the
fearing brook. Um >> and then that's why the suggestion of the monitoring for a year. Um you know, if if you know the county engineer said if those covers don't work, come up with a new solution. I don't you know there it wasn't proposed it was just you know
at that time you have to think of something else. >> All right well I guess I just maybe I this is a question for Chris and Jason you know are there other approaches to collecting the water from
such a facility? Um, so I haven't personally designed anything more, you know, that treats the water any further than an oil water separator, but I think, um, a lot of these facilities, um, would try and just exclude storm
water from the sewer by keeping the wash areas indoors, uh, which is just not easily, you know, it's not easily done on this site. And so the original wash station was in the bay. And so the whole thing is set up and was permitted with,
you know, the plumbing inspector um in uh 2015. So that the the vehicles are washed inside of the bay. That's where the sewer connection is. And then it doesn't have any any other connection to the storm water system. >> So that's
Yeah. So that that you know and that's I don't know what else like at a you know I don't they're not washing enough to I I don't think I would recommend anything that you would need at like a you know commercial car wash or anything like that where it's happening all day long. This is you know
>> so the alternative would be for us to ask you >> to build a little building around this spot and raise it so that storm water doesn't then get in there at all. >> Yes. I suppose a roof could be it would
be it would just be really hard to do because you couldn't really navigate the site, but just say you could build a roof with with no um with no pilings or anything that had to go on the pavement, then you would be excluding the storm water from getting into the wash area and then you wouldn't even need a you
wouldn't need the drain connection at all in that case. >> I see. >> But I don't I don't know that that's possible. um and still be able to, you know, get the vehicles around the site. If we were to put any columns or anything in there, it would just be too hard to navigate. >> Yeah. >> Unless you, you know, did it right next
to the salt shed with a second bay. >> Yep. That would be something that would be possible. Um I know that they're kind of in need of those parking spaces, so losing the three parking spaces to the salt shed was, you know, >> already difficult for them. So, but th
those are yeah, those are essentially I think their their options here. It's, you know, a tight site and the the sewers obviously upgradient of the back of the facility. And it's it's a little misleading because they actually don't really own a lot of that gravel area in
the back. They really own the majority of the paved area that's on the side. So, >> all right. Okay. Um I guess we'll go ahead. >> Yeah. Erosion control, you know, um they
note there it's noted on the plan, but they don't indicate, you know, the plan don't indicate what kind of erosion control on the back of the the toe of the slope by the shed. And then I, you know, suggested having something during the catch basin during the pavement milling.
um you know just if there's I I think the runoff I to me the site is going to drain to the catch base and a not to the street but it was just something to consider by the for the board um you know work within the right of way just you know if there is depending on
the permanence of it it may need to be coordinated with public works and possibly town council I don't I don't doesn't look like there's much I just um you know that was something And I don't I don't you know I don't have anything else. I think you know we've talked about with the town
engineer and conservation commission agent had uh the site you know as Chris just mentioned the property behind the site toward the railroad tracks is owned by a different property owner and essentially there that parking area you know the whole thing I think is an
access easement for the owner to get through. So if we look here, the site back here is not owned by Amoris College. And then this, you know, this drive aisle is actually there's an easement for that owner to be able to access that property back there. So you know, I think the location of the salt
shed is probably done in a way to um you know to keep that easement um so that there's still access back there. >> I don't >> All right. Yeah. >> Um, why don't we let the public uh member make their comment or and anybody
else? Uh, first Pam, could we bring over Mindy >> Sonner? >> Hello, Mindy. You can unmute. Give us your name, your street address. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Hi. Um, this is Mindy Sonner. Um, I live
and own a building on 20 Dickinson Street, White Barn Studios. Um, uh, three doors down from the site. Um, I'm I'm so surprised at this presentation.
Um, it just seems like it's very cavalier. Um, there's not a lot of drawings. There's there's no site plan. There's no lighting plan. There's no
uh planting plan. There's no landscape plan. Uh the building is just a preh prefab building that you would just throw up in an area where you really weren't worried about the aesthetics.
It's looking quite industrial. Um I'm really wondering about what's going on on that uh lot in general. It it's gone from being rather charming looking in 2014
when Ammeris College first took it. Um, the down lights that they did install on the building have been removed. And there is one downlight over the door into the building, but the two garage doors now have these like industrial
lights that do not face down. So, there's light pollution from those. It just looks like an industrial backhouse facility that the college doesn't want on their campus and is instead relegating to an area outside the
college on a prominent corner of the nearby neighborhood. It looks like the site is being used for industrial overflow and for parking um that's been increased since 2014 to include parking
for the science building. So the parking lot is just so much bigger than it was. And now on top of all of that, there's going to be this industrial building that you would expect to just not be
seeing. you'd expect to see it behind a physical plant and instead it's on this really prominent corner. And I'm just wondering why these plans are just not developed at all. And it just seems
like, you know, other than how the water is going to be handled, there hasn't been a moment's thought about what this is going to do on that location. and throwing a row of Arbor Vite in is not going to solve the problem.
>> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, Mindy. All right. Uh I don't see any other hands from the public. Um does anybody else from the public want to make a comment? All right. Um, board members comments.
Bruce, >> um, I would like to go back to, uh, that, uh, Google Street View that you had, Nate, because I saw lights over the garage doors that looked exactly like, uh, Mindy mentioned, and I was going to
raise it uh, later on. Uh but now would be the time I think uh because we we uh passed that uh Google Street View uh of yours uh with the uh understanding that the all of the lighting was as per the
one over the door. But uh the the very uh sharp view that we had it did look like we had just look upside down uh jars. Uh the Google view, the street view. There you go. So you see those ones,
they uh they look less pull your Yes. Don't Yes. Don't take don't don't put your your square over them because then you can't see it properly. But you can zoom in on it. But the the ones over the garage doors don't look the same as the one
that's over the entry door. It looks like they have a a that looks like the fixture comes sticks down into the jar, the glass jar that's below it. So, can you zoom in? So, they don't look like uh they're particularly
dark sky fixtures. That one maybe uh quite possibly is. >> Um >> the lighting plan from 2014 indicated a light um that's over the door. Yeah, >> those lights would also be over the
bays. And it looks like they're no longer the same lights. So, >> right. So, these light, it looks like this what's over this door had been or were proposed to be here and here. >> Yeah, >> they're not there now. Well, I know that Mindy made comments uh
whatever it was 10 years ago, 11 years ago, I think if I remember reading through the uh the uh the 2014 um >> minutes, >> I guess it would be the minutes uh minutes embedded in the decision.
And uh it seemed that there was a commitment to plants and I think even plants in pots because some places you couldn't put them into the ground. So the uh applicant had committed to having
uh planters uh and so forth. Um one can see that this hasn't uh the the aesthetic quality of this place isn't isn't wonderful. I guess is mostly to do with the paving and the absence of plantings.
Um, and I can see from this view here too, if this if we're looking straight down a right ofway, then the scheme that uh that would cause a building to be built over that wash station wouldn't work because it would be obstructing the
rightway. Um, I'm con I share many concerns. I I I don't think I can share them enough to vote the application down or or even if we can do that, which I guess we're probably not empowered to
do, but I'd like to uh condition it uh to get back some of these downcast lights to put a little bit more planting in there if we can and uh and to look at that salt shed in a way that can um
uh improve its uh uh aesthetically. All right. Thank you, Bruce. Uh, board members, any other comments right at the moment? I see Mindy's got her hand up again. She wants another three minutes perhaps. Uh, Jesse, yes, I noticed you arrived
probably around 7:53 is when I first noticed you. Four minutes ago. So, have that noted in the minutes. Um, Pam, and when you're done noting that, if you could pull Pam Mindy back over, we'll
>> hear what else she has to say. >> Hi, Mindy. >> Uh, you can unmute yourself. There you go. >> I I I just wanted to note that yeah, things have gone a bit downhill since uh Ammerst College's original commitment uh
to to meeting some aesthetic requirements. they did meet them, but then they pulled back. Uh things were changed and and I just have to note that they've imposed the purple color scheme on that building now. And you know, it
just [clears throat] the Dickinson Street, it's not part of Ammerst College. And the purple just seems to just be like just one more thing that's not part of the New England vernacular.
That's it. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh well, I guess I will I will say I I haven't noticed the lighting on that property, but I have noticed that sort of sensation of this vast expanse of
pavement that goes from Dickinson Street all the way to the front of the building. Um, and I would like I would welcome something that delineated the ed the back edge of the of the sidewalk. Uh, you know, and the start of Ammerst
College property. Um, and I I know you we talked about paint earlier. That feels kind of uh I don't know, inadequate, I suppose. Um, you know, if if the sidewalk were concrete, uh, and there was a change of
material, that would, you know, that might help me. But, um, I know that's a town responsibility as opposed to the colleges. Um, you know, I I was trying to think of
what I what I might do short of trying to plant in that area in front of the bu of the the building. And um you know I wondered about a granite curb even if it was flush with the the
pavement. Um you know otherwise you know just a change of material and plant it or or even you know gravel probably would be better. Um because right now just the
undifferentiated ex sweep of the asphalt just seems strange. Um, as for the salt shed, um, I'd welcome whatever whatever we can do to have have it softened and, uh, um, you
know, not not not enhance the industrial quality of that area. I think I I do uh I do share Mindy's perception of that and that use of the word industrial. Um, and I I mean she's obviously accurate
that that's where you're doing your back of house work. Um, so you know, Jason, we may want you to respond and tell us how willing you are to probably spend a little more money. Bruce, go ahead.
>> I'm uh going to piggyback on your suggestion comment, Doug. uh that space between the edge of the uh pavement and the the building the which is the the the office part of the building which is currently pavement which in the uh the
2014 drawing had uh plantings along there. Uh I would like to ask that those plantings be restored or have a reason why they couldn't be and if uh so either either restore the planting to so wraps around the building there or install
some kind of uh house paving material that's uh as you say Doug differentiates uh so that we but not differentiating the sidewalk leave the sidewalk as it is because that's the town and we don't get to choose easily.
or to regulate or to condition that. But between the sidewalk and the building, I think we could ask the college to uh do do something better and more interesting and more agreeably aesthetically agreeable to the neighborhood. And I guess we could uh since Burkshire
Design have been doing this kind of work for a long time, ask them to suggest uh how that might be done or or Jason if you've got other places. But I would like to uh uh push the applicant here to
do a better job particularly in that area because it's right on the street and it would do uh a small area there would go a long way to softening uh that building if uh we put some plantings there and they could even continue further to the the north I guess into
that grassy area on the north west corner. So, can what what what can we expect from you, Jason? What can we expect from you, Chris? >> Yeah. So, first I want to just say thank you for all the the comments and the feedback. I think I do agree. I think,
you know, first off, on the lighting, I think that's something very doable where we can get the lighting fixtures to match and have more of that dark dark sky compliant. I can look into when those lighting fixtures were swapped and get them to be more consistent for that dark sky compliant. I think that's going
to help soften the lighting on the building itself. Uh, in terms of the plantings, um, Bruce and Doug and Mindy, I do agree. I think that's going to be something we can definitely work plantings into that plan. Um, the only question I would have from that, Nate,
was was it plantings there previously and then the town paved that front portion? Uh, I just want to make sure if we do put some plants, we just have that coordination to know that we don't lose that space again. Um, so I just want to make sure, but I don't have any
objections to definitely doing planters. Um, a mixture of, you know, maybe paintings and planters in there and adding some plants around the, uh, salt shed or at least investigating it so we can soften the feel of it because I definitely don't want it to look like an
industrial park. I definitely wanted to have more of a softened look to the building. Obviously, you know, it's salt shed. It's it's kind of it is the type of building it is, but I do want to whatever we can do to try to make it kind of blend better and kind of soften the feel of it. And I think plantings
would definitely solve a lot of that. And Chris, I can let you >> Well, would it be uh appropriate for us just to continue this hearing and have you come back in a couple of weeks with something that was, you know, what you thought you could do that would address
some of the concerns tonight? Uh, I don't know. Um, Chris, what are your thoughts? Is it something that we would think it could be conditional approval and we can have the the board kind of look at what we currently have and that can be one of the conditions that can be cons that
could be submitted. >> Yeah. I mean, that's something that's up to the board. I mean, we have I'm I'm personally not a landscape architect, but um we have many landscape >> need to draw a landscape plan. >> Yep. That's what that would mean. Yeah. So, I
mean that's it's really up to the college. So, Jason, I'll leave that to you. And I think that's decision of the board whether or not it can be conditioned or not. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, I guess I'm kind of feeling like I'd want to see what you are planning, what you are proposing so that we
>> we're clear about what you're doing and you're clear about what we're expecting. Um, I think I'd rather see a drawing than to try to >> condition it, you know, something that isn't defined tonight.
>> So, unless you're going to object and tell me that you've got to finish this job by the end of the year or something, >> um, you know, I think I I would probably ask uh recommend that we continue the hearing. Bruce, your hand is up to you.
Uh that's where I was headed and because I uh you know we try and we've we've you've been on the board a long time Doug more than I have and uh there's a limit to what you can put in words of conditions when you want to essentially
uh uh convey an aspirational improvement on something which is what we're doing here. So I don't think we can condition it because that would be designing it and Chris has already said that he's not a landscape he's civil. So we we don't have the people in the room. So we we have to condition we have to continue
this I think and and and I can we do it Nate for the to the 17th is their room. >> Well and we should ask Chris is that and and Jason is that a reasonable amount of time or do you want to wait until that first meeting in January? >> I mean I think we can we can get that
done. >> I think we can get that done by the 17th. And I and I I think it would be best so that way we all can look at something together and make sure that we all feel comfortable with what we'll put in place. >> Okay. >> Yeah. If I may, if I may, Doug,
>> what's our agenda look like on the 17th? >> Uh the 17th we um um we continue the primary subdivision, which isn't, you know, I don't think is too long of a discussion, and then it's uh pretty open, so we could have we have room for this. >> Okay.
Did you have anything else you wanted to say? >> I was going to say that you know I did have draft findings and conditions and so if we wanted to we could go through some of those and then you know really determine what you know if Ammeris if we're going to continue this what Amoris College we'd expect them to come back with. So right now it seems like the front of the building is there anything
to do with like you know additional plantings along the slope or around the salt shed or the salt shed itself. Um, I mean, we could, you know, get through 90% of this and when they come back the next time it's really quick or we could wait and go through findings conditions then. I guess that's really a just, you know, a question for the board if you
want. >> Well, I think we I I would f vote in favor of going through them tonight. Um, you know, just uh see what else comes out of it that we might want them to think about in the next couple of weeks.
Anybody object? All right. Um, I'm gonna say that I see Mindy's hand again. So, Pam, uh, can we bring her over for a minute or two? >> Hi, Mindy.
>> Hello, Mindy. >> Hi. I'm so sorry to request this, but I I will be out of the country on the 17th, and I would really like to be seeing this landscape plan. Um, so I'm
just wondering if there's any way to make that happen. Um, I I really >> we would we would certainly have the material before the meeting and it can be in the packet >> and then uh yeah, certainly you could
access the packet from probably anywhere with an internet connection >> and and send some comments to Nate or or you know through the regular public comment portal. All right. Thank you. That is possible. Appreciate that. I appreciate that. Um I
I'm really happy that we're headed in the direction of having some real plans done for this project. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. So Nate, is it how far in advance would we want to see have the the the landscape plan that Chris is
going to get one of his colleagues to produce? Yeah, typically we'd say by, you know, um the Thursday, you know, end of day Thursday before. So, um that's not much
time. So, that'd be, you know, the 11th. >> So, a week from tomorrow, Chris and Jason, does that seem enough time for Chris to draw something and Jason to make sure he's okay with it? >> We'll we'll try and get it done. Yeah.
>> Okay. All right. Good. That's a plan. All right. So, so Nate, let's go through the findings and conditions. Um, actually, I'm gonna I see that it's 9 minutes after 8. We normally try to take a break around 8. I don't want to draw out this particular
topic any longer than we need to. Is everybody all right continuing getting through the findings and conditions and then we break at the end of this discussion tonight? >> Okay. So, we'll keep going. >> Sure. Yeah. I'll start with the conditions. I actually think we might as well just get through the conditions. To
me, the findings would follow that. And so, you know, if we agree with the conditions, to me, I think the findings are um, you know, they're in the packet. We can go through them quickly probably at the next meeting, but I think the conditions are more important. >> Okay. >> The uh
uh you know the first condition that the you know that this site plan 2026 uh is you know represents the new site plan for the property you know so it takes place with the 2014 plan. Uh we said the project shall be you know built in substantially in accordance
with the plans that have been submitted and reviewed. So there's the site plan, some civil details, the operating procedure for wash the washing um bay and then the lighting plan from 2014. Uh that would remain and
we can add you know we can change that as necessary. The rest of these are um Yep. and and uh you can put F there as a placeholder um Nate because we're going
to get a landscape plan, >> right? >> Or a planting plan. I think something like that. I mean there's some other >> we we are guessing reasonably that there will be a subsequent document that that's added to that list. So that's >> a placeholder. Thank you.
>> Thanks Bruce. Uh these are the some standard ones. you know any substantial changes would come back to the board for review. Uh the site plan expires within two years. All work should be done with you know completed within um or commenced within
um oh completed within 24 months. Uh so here's where we get into kind of sight specific conditions. There shall be no more than 11 cars parked on the property as shown on the site plan. All parking spaces shall be delineated. Nate, given the use of this lot, should
that say vehicles rather than cars since there'll be a lot of trucks? >> Um, number seven, there should be no vehicles parked in front of the building at 40 Dickinson Street as this could block the public sidewalk. So, this is something that, you know, we just discussed in terms of the planting as well. So,
>> that may become moot. >> Yeah. Same with eight. There should be pavement markings doing the public sidewalk. So again, that's something that we could look at. >> Yeah, >> I'll just highlight those. >> All right, Bruce, I see your hand.
>> No, I was just going to say you to to gray the things that look like they might disappear, but you've got another way of doing it. That's fine. >> Yeah. Yeah. Sorry, I just >> That's fine. Uh number nine, uh trash and recycling shall be kept in containers at the rear of the property as indicated in the management plan and
if you know if they're they shall be returned within 24 hours if they're emptied by the waste hauler. I don't know if they're moved, but you know sometimes the waist hauler might pull out dumpsters or something. So all exterior lighting shall be downcast and shielded in order to be dark sky compliant. And I added here what's in
yellow and meet the specifications from the 2014 lighting plan. So, if we light those heads, those light fixtures, that could always change. >> Well, I mean, if they're going to put in new fixtures, wouldn't we want them to
comply with our current bylaw? >> So, I think the one above the door and the ones proposed in the 14 plan do. Um, >> do we know that? Do we do I mean >> yeah the from the 14 plan. Sorry for the
jumping around. It was this fixture right here. >> Yep. >> So it's what's currently above >> Y >> the door. >> The door. >> Oh, sorry. This is an old Google Street View when it was a car dealership. So you can see uh >> Yep. >> what it had looked like. So this light
fixture to me looks like the one from 14 above the door. >> Right. I I'm just I guess I'm just saying that if they're going to put in a couple of new fixtures, don't we want them to meet our current bylaw rather than the 2014
bylaw? >> Oh, right. But to me, this is a dark sky compliant fixture. This may not be. >> Okay. All right. I'll drop it. >> I I guess you know if Ammeris College, if you're proposing a different light fixture, you know, we don't have to reference the um the 14.
>> Yeah. I mean, the the lighting industry changes so rapidly. You know, you can barely get a fixture 6 months after it's offered. Um, I just >> Sure, >> that's fine. That's fine. I'll I'll I'll drop it. >> No, I'll keep it highlighted just to
note that maybe it changes as well. >> Change the word specifications to the intent. >> Yeah. Um, here's the hours of exterior lighting which was in the management plan. Again, is this I I I agree, Doug. an odd way to phrase it. Um,
>> yeah, Jason, >> it looks like it should be 8:00 PM to 6 a.m. for exterior lighting. >> How how is the lighting timed at the moment in reality?
>> So, the management plan that was shared with me was 8 to 6. So, what I'm thinking is there may have been a typo that it's 8:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., but I can I can double check on that. Yeah, why don't you do that and we'll try to
>> All right. And here's the the monitoring condition in terms of the storm drain. So once per month over a 12-month period during a rain event when water is flowing out of the outfall, photos shall be sent to the conservation agent with written observations.
Um, you know, and this this can just be an amorous college employee. We're not asking for, you know, hiring an outside consultant and, you know, the monitor can coordinate with the conservation agent uh to ensure the photos are taken at the same location. And
>> it should monitor be applicant or something? I mean, is the monitor a a person? >> It would be. So, it could just, you know, I mean, it could be could be Jason. It could be someone from the facilities and grounds department or any anyone really. Um, we could say
applicant. >> Okay, that's fine. >> Uh, third. So, >> so we're asking for photos, but we're not taking water samples to see if there's chemicals in the water that we don't want. That
>> I don't know. That's a >> so you know it's not this isn't the you know the the outfall also collects water from other other areas. >> I think the what I've been told is that if given the um what's happening on the site if you know say there's suds right
they say if there's suds or there's some something visible in the water then there might be future analysis um and that would be coming through the conservation commission. So, you know, we're not I don't you know, it was never it was never discussed that we would ask for water sampling qualities. It's
really just a visual observation during events. >> Okay. >> All right. >> And I think that's typical. So, we you know, unless we know for sure there's some kind of there's some issue, we wouldn't the town wouldn't ask for um you that kind of testing. So, you're
saying, you know, it's possible that, I don't know, uh, the Ammerst College volleyball team would hold a car wash on one of the other parking lots in this area that would contribute to suds going down the and the outfall,
>> right? And, you know, this, I think, collects water coming down College Street, so there's catch basins along the road. So, during a rain event, that first flush of oils and other chemicals might make its way into the fearing brook. >> Uhhuh. you know, and so it's hard to determine, you know, to separate those out. So really >> the source.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. Is there any Well, never mind. That's a never mind. Okay. >> Yeah. We were thinking this was kind of a a I don't want to say simple solution, but something just to make sure that the covers are working, right? So it's kind
of a performance measure approach as opposed you know it's a really difficult thing to you know unless there's a camera that watch that is there and watches the the covers over the drains we thought this might be a way to >> check it. >> So you mentioned that if there's a
problem you know there might be further analysis. Do you say that somewhere in here? >> Well that becomes an enforcement if it's in the actual stream then it becomes an enforcement action through the conservation commission. So I don't I don't think you have to say that. >> Okay. All right.
>> Number 13. The applicant in coordination with the town's engineer and public works shall assess the existing oil water separator. If the existing unit does not meet current standards, it shall be replaced. I don't that's something the town engineer suggested.
>> All proposed drains, basins shall have deep sumps and hooded outlets. I think they've changed the plans. I just want to reinforce that. So I think I've seen that on the drawings. So I don't think we need to say that Chris. Is that correct?
>> Correct. >> Yeah, we added those to the revised. >> Yes. >> So we think this can be removed. >> Yep. >> Again, here's one uh shall be clearly labeled and that labeling needs to be maintained. Um, you know, again, that looks like it's on the site plan now
that there's pavement painting. >> What What label would you put on the cover? I assume there's one cover and it just moves from one drain to the other drain. >> Yep. So, they'll there'll be um so there
is an industrial catch basin cover mat that would be moved back and forth and so the pavement markings would stay on the catch basin, but it's not a manhole cover. is actually a great So the markings would be like next to the the catch basin opening.
>> Uhhuh. >> To say either drains to sewer or drains to brook. >> These are these are these this is also on your drawings. So once again I think this can be deleted. >> I mean you know I guess one thing I said was shall be maintained. I'm assuming that's what it means on the plan.
>> Yeah, I mean it's I mean you want to be sure that it doesn't get worn off and >> right >> I mean I think that's a reasonable thing to say here but it sounds like we could remove the including the covers >> right >> from the text.
And I guess we could um I mean we could even delete this if we feel comfortable. Sure. >> Um 15. The drain covers are required in coordination with town staff shall be tested and if you know if they're not leak
proof, a different alternative shall be proposed and presented to the planning board at a public meeting. So >> okay. >> Uh this was a new one I added this evening just listening. You know, all vehicle washing shall take place within the wash area delinated on the site
plan. Um, you know, we say all exterior vehicle washing. I don't know. >> I was going to say exterior vehicle washing. >> You know, here's something about the salt shed being screened from view. you know, again, maybe we just hold on to this.
Um, >> same with 18. >> Yeah, 18. Well, this is interesting. It's It's really difficult from the site plan to tell where the pavement cut will be, where they're going to mill and then repave. And so, you know, this condition here, 18 is saying if the new pavement interferes with the existing sidewalk,
the applicant shall repave the entire sidewalk so there no cuts or seams running through it. So, you know, I don't know. Um, I can go back to the site plan. >> It sure it sure looked like it went through past the sidewalk. So, oh, it
seemed to me that it was uh it was it was documented to show that it bothered the sidewalk, the drawing at least. >> Yeah. Sorry about that, everyone. Um, if we're on the street view, right? You know, to me right now it's a,
you know, you can see the sidewalk and it was hard to tell if, you know, all of a sudden the cut line is going to run kind of all the way down through the sidewalk and it would seem silly to then have a, you know, half the sidewalk be existing pavement and then a cut line and then a new pavement. So, either just come all the way to the end, you know,
front side of the sidewalk or leave the sidewalk. There will be a cut to get to the catch basin here, but I don't, you know, it was hard to tell in the plans exactly where that new cut line would be. Well, if they, you know, since they're going to think about what to do in front of the building,
you know, it may be that the the cut line changes, >> right, >> in the next couple of weeks. So, why don't we just highlight this and see what what makes sense next time. I also the the intention was in the
repaving to not redo the sidewalk. So I can make sure that that line I thought you meant the trenching because there will have to be trenching through the sidewalk >> for the drainage line. So I can make sure that that's more defined so that we're not we're not intending to touch
the sidewalk at all. >> Yeah. I know understood that you'll have a trench here, but you know, it wasn't clear to me like if right you're the cut line was going to somehow run down inside the sidewalk for >> that was not the intention. >> Um, >> so so you're okay with the transverse
trenching and patch across the sidewalk? >> I mean, yeah, I I don't unless you know there's not there's not really a great way to do that. Um, unless you know, someone has an idea, right? So the drain line will come through here, you know, and here's the
existing catch base. And you know, there'll be a cut right here with it, you know, the drain line connecting here. I don't >> Mhm. Okay. >> All right. So that's highlighted. And then 19 are the conditions from the 2014
permit. Uh so you know no change for the first few um the hours of operation. It says 7 to 3:30 except for winter snow removal operations. And so essentially you know these conditions are you know still in place. I'm assuming they're being met. Now is
the time to change them. So Jason if you know if we think that you know these are not accurate. They can always be this is a time to modify them. Um, number two, mechanical equipment, including the air compressor, shall be on timers that are set to minimize the impact of this
equipment on the neighborhood and to operate in an energy conserving and efficient manner. >> Can I just say I'm hearing just a faint sort of music in somebody's background. So, if you are not muted and you have
music behind you, you might consider muting. Sadly, that's not me, Doug. I It would be nice to have [laughter] the heater. >> Uh, number three, use of vehicular and mechan mechanical equipment outside of
the building shall occur during business hours except for snow removal operations. Number four, deliveries on shall be on the south side of the building. Number five, smoking shall be limited to the south side of the building.
I'm suggesting no changes to those. >> And then the remainder I'm suggesting that they can be removed. So number six was in three years the applicant shall submit a vehicular and pedestrian circulation plan to the B board for review and approval.
I think that with the new plans and what we're going to see with the front of it, I think it satisfies this condition. Again, number seven was in three years if the use of the property does not change, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan
for review and approval. Number eight, the applicant shall submit a lighting plan. So, you know, shortly after the 2014 permit was approved, they came back and submitted a lighting plan and um landscape plan that were approved in 2014.
Number nine, there's the planter shall be placed along Dickinson Street to define the pedestrian area in front of the building. A plan showing this location shall be submitted to the board for review and approval. I'm suggesting remove this and we can see what what we see.
And then uh one hard copy the final revised plan shall be submitted to the planning department and so suggesting remove that >> and that that's it for the conditions. Okay. All right. U board members, any any
comments about those. >> So, we'll end up with five conditions at least at the moment, the five the first five that don't change. >> Right. >> Right. So, they would carry over from the 14 permit >> with with along along with whatever we
add. >> Right. So, when you when you write up the conditions for this application, you would list these first five plus whatever we add. >> Or or I've done it this way in the past where we reference the 2014 permit.
Um, we can do it either way. >> Okay. All right. Well, that's fine. I guess we'll get there. >> Um, I don't know if we want to go through the findings or we can wait. Uh but I think >> well uh is there very much in them at
the moment? >> Yeah, I took the 14 permit uh and you know just um Oh, that's interesting. Um you know went through the findings from 11.24. So you know I think this project had
enough to not just say it meets the criteria but actually you know state what it does. So most of these are re repeated from the 2014 permit. Um yeah, I mean you know u they kind of get
to all the conditions. Mhm. >> I don't know if we want to read through them or look at them, but I don't have any. Um, you know, I think, you know, I think some of these are, you know, once we see that the drainage system works, then, you know, the site can handle the storm water.
>> Yeah. this the ability of the proposed sewage disposal system is fine as long as the oil and water separator work. So I don't you know I don't I don't know if there's any other comments. Um >> you know I I do think there's limited
ability for landscaping beyond the existing sites. I think it's interesting to see what they'll come up with in front of the building. So we can wait for that. One thing that just went through my head, maybe you mentioned it at the beginning. Um, is this site non-conforming because it has excessive
lot coverage. >> I think that's one. It's also the building doesn't meet the uh setback requirements. >> Okay. >> So, by by creating this salt shed, aren't they uh >> increasing the already non-conforming
lot coverage? >> No, I think they're within the lock coverage. they're still they're within so I think it's you know it's like within 1% of the lot coverage and the addition of the salt shed going beyond that pavement you know an extra I don't
know 200 or whatever small square feet still keeps it within that percentage so >> really okay >> you know um >> so you're saying it's not non-conforming >> I guess yeah right I guess it is and it's right at the limit um Okay.
>> I guess that's what a, you know, a 70 or whatever percent lock coverage looks like. It's >> okay. All right. >> You know, um, you know, there's adequate soil erosion controls on the site plan. Adjacent properties are protected from nuisances,
including pollution and noise. You the lights will be downcast. So, some of these are, you know, as long as the conditions are met, then these findings hold. In terms of wetland protection, we're saying that you know again conditions of the site planer approval will make sure that the wetlands protection act or
wetlands bylaws um are adhered to. You know the proposed salt shed is is reasonably consistent with setbacks except for the existing nonconformities. I guess I can remove and lock coverage. I think you know 11.2422 2422, you know, it's dealing with steep slopes
and grades on a site and it says, you know, the location of the salt shed avoids steep slopes to the extent feasible. You know, I think if you know, if we think that's correct, I do think given the easements on the property, there's a limited ability to where to locate the salt shed.
again. >> Actually, Chris, you know, would it be possible to show on your site plan the the that easement? >> Yeah, I believe it would. I'm not sure if it's a I'll have to look back on if
it was just a a descriptive easement to allow the passage of vehicles through the site. I can show it if if there's something to put on there. I can show it. >> You know, I guess if if that's a re the reason that the salt shed couldn't be,
you know, say at the east edge of the site or up against the building or in a an even less obtrusive location, it would be useful to see that justification or be able to deduce that
on the drawings. >> Okay. Right. I mean, could could you have put the salt shed up against the building? >> Well, unfortunately, the w the shape the actual shape of the ownership of the lot >> Mhm.
>> is um pretty restrictive. >> Okay. All right. Well, just the the more you can >> provide to that kind of, you know, kind of make make evident the constraints you were working under, >> I think that would be helpful.
>> Okay. No problem. >> Because obviously I mean I think most of us would rather not not see it. >> Yes. >> Yeah. The the the 2014 application or site plan or survey from that time showed that you know it said existed or
said um access easement to rear property and it had arrows essentially over the whole parking area. And what I read I don't know if it was clear like oh there's an 11 foot wide rightway. I think it was I think it designated that the entire property that this that this
site is whatever access there is was at the time needs to be maintained to the rear property. So it was written really generously uh or vaguely so that it's like you know any that that rear property could be accessed at any any any point along this
property. >> So it wasn't like a single swath where they had to have access onto their property. It was along the entire boundary, >> right? >> So, uh, >> that was my understanding of it. So, it was a it wasn't like, you know, here's a
12t wide easement. It was >> Yeah. So, Jason, has the adjacent property owner objected that that salt shed is reducing the amount of access?
No, we've only been asked if we could buy the adjacent property, which that's not within our plan. >> Okay. >> All right. All right. Well, Chris Chris, if that's feasible, you can show it. If it's not, >> okay, >> never mind, I guess. >> Okay.
>> Um, you know, here 11.2423, the salt shed relates to the existing building in terms of architectural style and existing entrances and exits. I'll highlight these. I think you know these are things to you know does it really um as a finding >> you know the existing conditions of the
site with extensive lot coverage offers limited abil opportunity for screening which I think you know is is accurate actually there's not a lot of perimeter landscaping area but again it's something for the board to consider if this is an accurate finding
>> I mean you know we've talked about the planting between the >> right >> the dealership and the sidewalk, you know, we could I mean, I suppose Chris and Jason, you could consider should you put in a hedge, you know, and just have
something obviously there's a maintenance requirement to trim a hedge, but you know, should it just be entirely screened? I don't know. >> Do you mean along Dickinson Street or even on the >> Yeah, I just mean along Dickinson
Street. Yeah. So and the the remainder of these findings are from the 14 permit. So you know the vehicular movement within the site is adequate for safety. You know the number of curb cuts has been minimized actually from what it used to be.
The design of the parking spaces is is adequate. Um there is access to the to the um adjoining property and there's no need for traffic impact statement or traffic analysis. these last two findings.
>> Okay. All right. All right. Thank you all for going through that with us. Um All right. Anything else we want to do before we vote to continue? Bruce.
Oh, I was going to vote to continue or move to a move. >> So far, nobody else has raised their hand. So, I'll >> move to continue u to uh well, I guess it's u 6:45
on uh um December 17. >> All right. Thank you, Johanna. >> I second the motion. >> All right. Thank you. Any further discussion? Jason and Chris, you're okay with where
we're headed here? >> Yeah. And I just want to thank everybody for taking the time. >> All right. Uh and I don't see any hands from the public before and obviously they can make additional comments on the 17th.
All right. So, um we'll vote on this motion to continue. Starting with Bruce. >> Hi. >> Fred. >> Hi. >> Uh, Angus is abstaining.
>> And Jesse, >> hi. >> Uh, Johanna >> I. >> Jara. >> I. >> And I'm an I as well. That's six in favor, one recusal, and the motion
passes. >> Jason and Chris, thank you for the presentation, and we'll look to see you in a couple weeks. >> All right. Thanks very much. >> Thanks all. >> Have a good night. >> Good night. >> All right. Does everybody want to take five minutes?
All right. We'll come back at just about 8:45. All right, I'm seeing 6:45 646. So, if you are back and can turn on your camera so we all know you're back, that would be great.
Got a couple of board members yet to go. >> [clears throat] >> Hey Pam, can you take down the uh the >> on it? Yes. >> Great. And you can bring Angus back over. All right, we have one more member. Here
he is. Okay, very good. All right, we're all back. Time is 8:47 and we'll go ahead with the rest of the agenda. Next item is general housing discussion. Starting with discussion of areas
townwide for possible housing development or redevelopment. Nate, um, was that something you had anything to say to start with or I know you did a map at one point that showed some of the
areas we talked about. >> Yeah, I haven't updated it much. I was going to let the planning board know that the town did apply for a grant um to study East Ammerst and we were awarded that. So $70,000
um to look at East Ammerst, you know, I don't I you know it could be something from like you know South Whitney Street. So like Fort Hill Auto Body heading east ending somewhere along the road. Um, you know, we focus on the commercial
district, maybe all the way down to like Maplewood Farm or Stanley Street. The idea is to assess the existing zoning and look at ways to increase density in that area of town, whether it's with a 40R district or some other type of zoning mechanism. And so, um,
>> so with this grant, um, I assume you were not going to be compensating the planning board. um what were you thinking you would do or what was the process you had in mind? >> Yeah, I you know when we um previously the state had maintained a list of
consultants that you could choose without going through public procurement and um you know we haven't we don't have a contract yet uh but I was going to look at that and see if that's a viable option. If it isn't, the town would develop a scope of we'd still develop a scope of work, but we'd have to then
publicly procure, you know, a consultant to do this work, uh, you know, with the planning department and, you know, involve the planning board and others. So, you know, it's something that would be starting this this winter and going to the spring and summer. I'm not sure when exactly the deadline would be, but
you know, I think we we've talked about East Ammeris and so now this we have some money to kind of, you know, jumpstart this discussion. you know, I think we've talked, you know, about different ideas there. And so, >> you know, I just say that this will become a, you know, will be an upcoming
item in the in the next few months where we could, you know, if we wanted to develop the scope of work or if not, what are ideas we'd want to pass on to a consultant in terms of what we're looking for? >> So, you'd look to the board for some guidance on the charge to the
consultant, >> right? Y >> Okay, good. >> Yeah. Even you know for instance we had talked about 40y or cottage style development or what you know if there were ideas we wanted to draw you know from what we've talked about in the last
few months we can have them look >> well I guess the some of the conversation would be whether those typologies are appropriate for that area >> right >> or whether we want to go in a different direction. Jesse, >> thanks. Certainly relevant potentially
for East Ammerst. Um, the last few weeks I've got on this interest of formbased zoning and I was actually curious to ask the board members if any of you were involved and this came I think to town
meeting in 2012 2013 as a proposal. obviously didn't go anywhere but I I was certainly not involved in any of that. I was here at that point. I don't know if anyone has any memory of that discussion probably is the only one.
>> There is a document sort of loosely describing what was had in mind but it seems like an attractive idea at least to me in this preliminary sort of thinking about what it means. Um but along the way I've been reading I found my way to huge list of minutes from the
old housing subcommittee. I just wanted to read one quote if you can give me 30 seconds which is from January 4th of 2012. Quote, "We need more student housing and housing for empty nesters in the form of multif family units. UMass houses an unusually large percentage of his students, but we need more housing for
them and others. Speculators are buying single family houses just to convert them to student housing. Sounds very familiar. 13 years later, same exact conversations. So, I don't know exactly how that makes me feel, but [snorts]
uh feels relevant and so [laughter] I hope we can make some progress on these fronts. >> Well, we'll wait to see what the minutes from 2038 look like. >> Right. Right. >> And whether they say the same thing again. [laughter] So uh in any case the idea of form based
zoning as I understand it is rather than designing specific uses or or it's about designing the standards and allowing almost any use that fit those design standards right so whatever three stories high these kinds of setbacks
this kind of architecture and then it's up to the developer to decide what should go in that building and so partly prompted by the articles that were presented last meeting and some things that happened last couple months. I was actually thinking about similar ideas more broadly for our town. Uh I really
like the idea of the the major thoroughare maybe possibly for base zoning on theirs. Other ideas I had were like oh some distance from UMass edges. Could we figure out some kind of increased density just based on distance
not any other sort of specified location? In any case, back to the East Ammers idea. I'd be curious what consultants had have to say about that kind of approach, the form-based zoning approach. Um, in addition to the things you you mentioned already. >> Thanks.
>> All right. U Nate, you're or rather Jesse, you're reminding me of the of the downtown design standards that are in process and eventually everybody's going to see. um which
uh do get into dimensional standards, you know, a new set of dimensional standards. I wouldn't call them exclusively formbbased zoning, but uh you know, that's been part of the conversation.
Yeah, I think yeah, there's um if you keyword search the town website, there's you know a formbbased you can it's called I think a formbbased report for you know around Prey Street and then at one point it was looking at North Ammerst I think it was by ACP planning
and consulting it didn't yeah it didn't materialize you know I I don't know maybe it was a town meeting I'm not sure if it made it that far but you know I think Amoris has a bit of a hybrid of kind of formbased zoning and traditional zoning. Dodson and Flinker,
the the consultant doing the downtown design standards, you know, worked with Northampton mostly in uh you know, the village of Florence a few years ago and have has formbased zoning there, but it's it's to me it's a mixture, right? There's a lot of narrative
kind of like when forbased zoning came out it was more illustrative with say more images but you know in Northampton what they call formbbased code is images and a lot of text but the idea is it gets to you know design standards you know roof sto slope standards you know
windows storefront sidewalks it's really inclusive I think the downtown design standards that are being developed are you know would be pretty close to it you know As part of my staff report, I was going to say I'm hoping those get out pretty soon. You know, Dawson has come
up with a a plan to get to the planning board probably in January and start getting those public and looking for feedback. So, we'll develop a web page and you know, it's it's a lot of um there's a lot of material there in what Dodson's done. We're trying to distill
it a little bit. I think it's, you know, two volumes. I don't know how many pages, but >> yeah, there's a lot. Jesse, your sand's still up. Anything else you want to say? >> Yeah, just one more comment about that. Um, I mean, yes, I'm aware of that, looking forward to that. Let's really
focus on the downtown, right? I was thinking also, is this an opportunity to figure out for base or some hybrid version that could be applied to other areas, not just the downtown, as a as a more sweeping way to increase density
>> rather than approach pocket by pocket. And I mean to be granted we had success with the university drive. I don't know where North Ambers is going to go but it it's it's a slow and stuttered approach. Right. >> Right. Yeah. You know I think what
Dodson has done is they've identified um I don't say it's like four or five kind of subdists within downtown that kind of have their unique standards. And so, you know, what I've always thought is that, you know, say, you know, district three, we could apply those to East Ammeris or
other village centers because it's not the same as, say, the core where it's taller buildings. And so, you know, I I feel we could take parts of those standards and right extrapolate those and apply them elsewhere. Might they might need to be tweaked a little bit, but I feel like they're going to show
enough variety that we could we could do that. Um, I think the East Ammerst grant, you know, allows us to do it in more depth specifically in East Ammerst. And so, uh, yeah, I think that'll be a good, you know, we can have a good discussion about what we, you know, kind of what's the geographic area and then
what are the methods or tools we'd want to to, you know, to use or to be explored. >> All right. More to come. So, anything else you wanted to say now about um discussion of areas townwide for
possible housing development? >> No, you know, I think the you know, the Atkins project, you know, we do have different village centers. I think, you know, with the new planning director, um, you know, probably in the next few months, we'll be talking a little bit more about that. You know, the planning board has been talking about it for a
while now, too. But, you know, I think it, you know, it seems like North Ammerst is a priority. East Ammerst and maybe just coming up with ideas, you know, the housing and zoning subcommittee has talked about, right? Like do we apply some ideas to zoning districts which are then, you know,
townwide, right? So if we said in all the RVC districts, we do this. So it's maybe not specific to a village center but it's specific to a zone. And so that's something the housing and zoning subcommittee is also talking about is, you know, what are what are kind of the approaches to to to zoning changes to
allow different types of housing. Yeah, there's a few different routes to take. >> Okay. All right. Anything else? Anything anybody wants to say? Oh, on that topic. Okay. Continued discussion regarding a potential overlay
for existing parking com apartment complexes. Um, you know, we had that meeting in North Ammerst. Um, and I haven't it's not clear to me we've taken any more steps on that.
Um, I mean, who who thinks the ball's in their court? I guess I'll I'll ask that. And I guess I would I think it might either be in the housing subcommittee's court or it might be Nate in your court. Do either of you think you have the
ball, Jesse? >> Uh, I think we both do. Nate, correct me if I'm wrong. My memory was you were going to try and put some more specifics on the the vision there for us to then go
through with at the housing subcommittee. So, housing and zoning subcommittee. >> Yeah, I think we have a little bit more discussion. I mean, I've heard, you know, I heard the summaries Bruce, Doug, and Jesse from the meeting. I guess I wanted to hear a little bit more, you know, so we had I thought, you know, three stories along the street, five are
taller in the back, and there's concerns about, you know, infrastructure in terms of, you know, traffic, maybe water, sewer. Yeah. I I guess the question is, you know, do we, you know, what is the right um kind of density or given those some of those concerns from the neighborhood,
I haven't really, you know, I think the housing and zoning subcommittee could talk about it. They're meeting tomorrow. I think it's an agenda item. So, I think after that would have a little bit more kind of direction where that would go. >> All right. I I will say, you know, the
water and the sewer, that sort of infrastructure seems to me to be a little bit it's something we should be aware of, but it's not something that should necessarily drive how we would want to do the zoning. I mean, it's I
mean, let's just say we we zoned a parcel for, you know, no more than a hundred stories and and it would create, you know, a thousand beds and need a 20 foot diameter sewer, you know, line to
get to the treatment plant. I am Am I right uh Nate that if a developer came in and wanted to build that tower the first one of the first things they'd do would be to talk to you about that sewer connection and between you and
them there'd need to be some sort of agreement about who was going to pay for the upgrade to the sewer >> right >> and and it might be the developer that pays to do that right >> yes y >> okay so that being kind of the way it
works. Why should we be constrained by existing infrastructure when we do zoning? >> Yeah, I I agree with the water and sewer. I think traffic and you know, you know, vehicular and pedestrian, cyclist movement, something else. You know, when
we talked about North Ammeris many months ago, public works said we're we have the capacity. you know, some of the lines might need to be replaced, but in terms of our system, our water systems, we have the ability to handle, you know, much more development. So, I yeah, I'm not, you know, for instance, we were at
our if we were at a critical capacity, say with our water with our, say, public water supply, drinking water supply, I would say, okay, we have to be really careful with it, right? if we were if we we were really close to what you know gallons per day usage was maxing our system but that's not we're I as far as
I know we're we're not there so it's not >> we don't have to worry about it >> um uh Jesse rather go ahead >> yeah thanks um basically the same point I think this happened at the last subcommittee meeting that we did have half of this conversation and it was
just unfortunate we weren't prepared at that north amormer's meeting to say yes we the infrastruure structure we were told would be fine for this because that was a big topic of conversation and I don't think at least in my mind I agree with you Bruce uh Doug we're not going to
zone based on that but I feel like we do need to make that part of the message moving forward whenever it comes up like oh yeah we have had the conversation the town thinks that's fine so >> well as far as and as far as traffic goes you know we did hear from at least
that one guy about how bad Meadow Street or Pine street were we heard from Bruce that his experience is completely different. Um, but I think it would be helpful to know, Nate, whether you know
the town engineer or DPW or whoever it is that pays attention to traffic in town, maybe it's the transportation advisory committee, I don't know. Does anybody up, you know, at in that group
think that there is a traffic problem in North Ammerst and that we that we would be exacerbating a pre-existing problem um if we upzzoned that area. >> So that would be helpful to know.
Jesse, >> just another comment because I've so my wife used to be on TAC. >> Oh, yeah. >> My understanding longer meeting so I don't know who's thinking about those things. Nate, maybe you know if it's if someone else we could ask.
>> Yeah. No, I think it's a I think it's a good point, Doug. I um you know, years ago we looked at that, you know, like like Fred mentioned, the four-way intersection was examined. I know there were some traffic counts. I don't know how recent, but I think I'll just, you know, I can ask around, you know, if public works has any recent studies or
or data. >> Okay, Bruce. >> There's clearly a traffic issue in North Amist. I mean, I disagreed with that chap who used words like Armageddon. Oh, no. Catastrophic and words like that. I
don't usually rise to extreme words. uh because there seldom are uh so this a situation and it's and it it gets cat it gets uh um very um chaotic
uh one day a year or at least for portion of one day a year on commencement to the UMass commencement but it's but that doesn't mean that there isn't a a legitimate and reasonable concern of the citizenry about that intersection
Um and I think that this is to some extent similar to the sewer in that we would expect there would be uh traffic impact studies done. And and since we don't know exactly uh how this uh
uh overlay would be built out if we were to if it were to be agreed to. um we don't know what those impacts are going to be and and how the uh future um sophistication of of of uh traffic light controls will will will grow with the
problem. U so it it may be that uh smart lights get smarter. Hopefully they do. Um it may be that the traffic impact of a large uh um uh significant increase in density there is not as bad as is
anticipated. Uh if uh we could get the university for example or someone to to to be able to accommodate student cars um elsewhere uh because there is you know this is a good site for walking,
cycling and buses. So it would be a very good site for uh to provide um very little parking or in other words certainly no more parking than there is now for twice as many houses let's say. So that might be something we want to
write into this. Um and and we might want to suggest how that might happen. And one uh clear way it might happen is that uh the the the students who bring their cars here but don't need to use them every day but maybe use them very infrequently would park them away on a
on a remote site and they would uh therefore not have the kind of impact. So that's the direction that I think we should take with traffic on this site. um recognizing that a traffic impact study will be done where the impact will be
understood and and and and won't surprise us and expect that we um solve the traffic escalation or the the supposed traffic problem differently than we pres we solve the sewer problem. We don't solve the traffic problem by
building a big as we would with a sewer by building a bigger pipe or a bigger road uh which we would do with sewer and water. we solve it differently. But we don't imagine that it there isn't going to be um some kind of thoughtful
engagement with uh the prospect of uh um with the traffic impact with a with a doubling or tripling of density. >> All right. Uh Fred. Yeah, this is [clears throat]
this is where um I think we should at least take a look at uh the engineering study that was done 20 odd years ago uh regarding that intersection. I've been down I went down to DPW and I had a long
talk with Jason Skills and he remembers the study and he said he would talk to Guilford about freeing up a copy of it. I haven't seen it yet. Uh Nathan, maybe you'll have better luck than I've had so far in uh getting a hold of that copy,
but I I know that it exists and uh it is a uh I it might be a useful tool as we look at the North Ammerst overlay. >> All right.
All right. Um, Nate, do you I mean that seems to make put you in the driver's seat for the next steps. >> Yeah. Know, yeah, I that sounds good. I mean, I think we had kind of talked about parking as Bruce was mentioning, you know, for instance, in the overlay, could we actually, you know, say only,
you know, a maximum of one space per unit, for instance, and >> limit it rather than minimum. >> Right. Right. Uh, and have some different approaches through the zoning than we've normally taken. Uh, and I think that's where, you know, I think it is worthwhile to contact public works
and think of different ideas for how to handle that. Uh, because I think we could do that through zoning a a little differently than we could with say like the water and sewer. >> Okay. Um, Jesse, >> thanks. I was just going to say that yes, I I think we will discuss in more
detail tomorrow and I think last we spoke about it in the subcommittee, we would try and bring something to the board in much more detail. Uh, I think we said early in the new year hopefully. So that I think is still on track. >> All right.
Okay. Uh, time is 9:09. We'll move on to the old business. Not reasonably anticipated. Pam or Nate? Anything? >> I don't think so. >> I don't. No.
>> All right. Um, I I had an email from one of our other one of our members uh this week asking about, you know, how how to find out about topics we've talked a lot about in
the past. Um, and I think this was an outgrowth of the the conversation we had about this the zoning proposals last week or last at our last meeting where several of us said, "Gee, we've talked about a lot of these ideas before."
um you know what where were they when we talked about them the first time or you know they should everybody can keep up uh the public can come and and listen as we continue to talk about them. Um so
you know that sort of suggested to me that maybe we needed to I and I don't know exactly how to do this. I mean, one one way to to to to do that is to just go through the minutes, you know, and I know how what despite Pam's best efforts, they're not always
scintillating. Um, reading u but just to figure out what, you know, what has the board been doing? Um, Nate, do you think that there's, you know, is there any way for us to have kind of a I don't know, I'll call it a crib sheet
or something of the kinds of ideas that we've talked about for housing. um or is that I mean I'm not sure that it's possible and I haven't thought of the right way to do it without a lot of a lot of effort but it does
feel like you know what goes around comes around and and maybe we ought to just have a list of all those you know 35 ideas that we all just cycle back through every 12 years
uh and reconsider. Yeah. No. [clears throat] Yeah. As you were talking, G um Dog, I made a note. You know, we have been putting online packets up there, but I'm not sure we can keyword search them
uh very well. And just search the the packets. Same thing. Like I don't think you could go on our website and just search planning board agendas going back 10 years and say like you know cluster development and you know that would be a really interesting way. Um you know you
know all the materials online it does it takes a little bit of work to go through it. >> That's where the zoning priorities worksheet we have. I mean the planning department's kept them over the years but it may not be what the board's discussed. And so I mean it could be
something moving forward we try to have like a thematic um document but I don't you know in the past it's it's kind of difficult I guess you know it used to be that if there were ideas it would get to town meeting and a warrant. So all the previous town meeting
uh warrants and articles are through the town clerk's web page you know and they're archived but you'd have to know to go there and then look by year. Um, if it was just a planning board discussion, right, it's the minutes. I don't have a >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, it's almost like for every meeting, we ought to have a set of
keywords of what we talked about, >> you know, and I don't I don't know how you do that, >> right? >> Um, all right. Well, [clears throat] >> yeah, >> just thought I' thought I'd mention it while we're talking about old business.
So, doesn't sound like we have any other topics. Uh any any not unanticipated new business? >> No. >> All right. Form A and our subdivision applications upcoming. Anything?
>> Nope. >> All right. Uh ZBA applications. Anything we ought to know about might want to hear about? >> Not at this time. >> Nope. Not at this time. >> All right. What about special permits,
site plan reviews, subdivisions? Yeah, on um Southeast Street, uh the Conservation Commission is also meeting this evening and there's an application for, you know, 126 through 148 or I forget the exact numbers on Southeast
Street. So, uh you know, the applicant had built the building on the west side of Southeast Street um behind Florence Savings Bank a few years ago and they're proposing to do a mixeduse building now across the street. Um, and they're going
through the conservation commission right now. They'll probably be submitting a site plan review application and a special permit application for additional height and possibly a floor soon to the planning board. So, that would be, you know, a um,
you know, a like a four or five property application. Um, it's on, you know, it's um, gosh, I'm bling on the name of the auto place uh, too, but yeah, it would be, you know, it's a it's a pretty big project. you know, I forget how many units, 70, 80 units, maybe more. A lot of parking,
mixed use on the first floor. >> So, it includes that auto body or the auto zone or the oil change place, whatever. >> It includes there's the used car dealership um you know, off Belchuretown Road off Route 9. >> Oh, okay. So, you know, that would go
away and then there's three apartment three individual homes that would be demolished and the mixeduse building would would front on Southeast Street and the parking lot would connect from Southeast Street to Route Nine. >> So, it kind of goes behind the Pride or
the Is it Pride or is it Cumberland Farm? >> Cumberland. Yeah, >> it goes behind Cumberland's. >> Yeah, if you went to the Conservation Commission packet for this evening online, you could see some site plans. So, >> you know, they're within some of the jurisdictional areas of the conservation commission. So, there may be changes
happening with the parking, but I think the building might would probably stay the same. I've only seen it in floor plan. >> Okay. So, you think that'll come in January? >> Yeah, I think they wanted to submit last week. I I don't know if it came in. I was out. So, I think the application is
is imminent and so it'll we'll we'll probably hear it in January. >> All right. All right. The time is 9:16. We'll go to planning board, committee, and liaison reports. Bruce, anything for PBPC? >> Next week, I promise.
>> All right. >> Uh, Jesse, anything for housing subcommittee? >> Uh, no. We're meeting tomorrow, so next time. >> Angus, you must be hot and heavy on uh CPAC at the moment. Uh
Jesse, there Jesse, we could uh talk about meeting with uh Kitty. >> Okay. >> Do you uh how did we get connected to them? There was a there was public hearing, wasn't it? And there was a they
were uh among many people who who uh made many comments. >> Yes. So Kitty and Darcy uh reached out to Bruce and this wasn't an official subcommittee action but the two of us got together two of them just
to discuss further uh [gasps] how they could be involved basically. So, we talked a fair bit about what the subcommittee is doing, invited them to attend um and um yeah, they they are planning to get
more involved to help move things along >> and I invited them to take some of the towns that I hadn't towns like Amnest that I hadn't gotten to. I had uh as you know three years ago beginning uh identified dozen of 15 15 I
guess I'd gotten uh through or at least init for the first round through seven and then uh for various reasons uh stalled and uh we talked about reinvigorating
that and and I could pass uh the methodology that I had adopted for the towns that I had been engaged with and then the next two or three towns uh that were on the list um Oxford uh Ohio Mano
University uh probably stores Manfield in Connecticut. So the the the the invitation is for them to pick up that ball and to uh continue to develop in conjunction with uh myself and others on
this board to expand that research and they seem to be positively disguise in disposed to doing that. Wouldn't you say Jesse? >> Yes absolutely. uh just along the vein of finding ways other towns have handled
this that we could consider. They were very energetic and interested in >> spending some effort. >> All right, great. Uh okay, now to you, Angus. >> Yeah, we um we've only had one set of
hearings uh or pres set of presentations. We missed the one before Thanksgiving because we it didn't get posted publicly in time. Um, so we're uh continuing tomorrow. I think we have more hearings next week. There's like 16
proposals, so it's a lot to to go through. Um, nothing really to report until probably January, which is when we're going to be deciding uh doing, you know, ranking and figuring out how we want to distribute funds.
>> All right. and DRB. Anything on that, Nate? >> A Karen had emailed, you know, before the previous meeting and said that they looked at, you know, um a sign downtown Mc Murphy's is changing locations and so
they looked at, you know, the signs there. It's really the similar um style and and you know, design. And there was another uh restaurant downtown with a new sign, but that was it. So, not you know, no building projects. It was two it was like a few sign reviews. And so,
um, you know, that's all she reported. You know, I'm not sure there's any new ones coming up either in the in the downtown, but >> All right. Speaking of Mc Murphy's moving across the street, I guess that's because is it Barry Roberts that owns
that property and is soon going to be proposing to demolish that building and maybe the adjacent one? Is that an application that he's been in contact with you guys with? And is when might
that show up with the board? >> The um right so he's you know 37 North Pleasant Street that building you know it's an older wood building. Uh he's I think he has applied a second time for a demolition permit. It's been re you know it's been um granted so that building
could be demolished. You know I think they're working through plans right now. there is some difficulty given the heights of the bu the buildings adjacent to it in terms of wind and snow load and other kind of engineering considerations. Uh so I think they've been working through what's possible on
the site given you know right what's what's adjacent to it. So um you know my guess is I don't know may you know probably in the first few months of next year we might see an application. I'm not sure how you know how close it is. is I know there's been different ideas
discussed, but I don't I'm not, you know, in terms of actually getting a full plan set together, I'm not sure. >> Okay. All right. Um, we're getting toward the end here. Report of the chair. Um,
I guess the only thing I'll say, um, you know, is that if folks have folks here on the board, if if you have topics you would like to discuss, um, feel free to email me and Nate and just
say, "Hey, here's something I'd like us to spend some time on." And chances are pretty good that we'll oblige you and uh let you lead a discussion on your topic, you know, unless we're totally buried with
uh hearings or something that we have to uh keep moving. So, I just wanted to say that in case there's any sense that that uh we're not receptive to it.
All right, that's that's the report from the chair about from staff. >> Yeah, I have a few things and then you know Pam, if you have anything you can add. Um, so you know, the new ADU bylaw is effective. You know, town council passed it a few weeks ago. There were the changes to inclusionary zoning as
well. So the payment in L there's some additional factors. So those are all in place. With that, we've actually printed new bylaws. So, if any planning board member wants like a physical paper copy, you know, just raise your hand or email me. We have copies available. Um,
>> so did it end up in the form that we sent it off or did it end up somewhere like between us and between our version and CRC's version or how how much was it changed? >> Uh, well, so there's, you know, the and I'll say just for everyone listening,
the bylaw is also online. It was uploaded I think last week. So, uh the November 2025 version is online. So, the for the inclusionary zoning, you know, the um there are some minor changes in the wording. So, the planning board had,
you know, said for the additional cost of delaying the unit um and I think it was like five to eight that all stayed in there. I think what changed through the CRC and go subcommittees of the town council was that uh the trust shall be consulted or
recommended you know have recommendations. So it kind of you know you know kind of included them uh more as opposed to then may be consulted. I think they said Shelby have recommendations from the trust on that. So that pulls them in a little bit more
for the ADUs. uh the it was is pretty much the same. there were some changes in terms of breaking up a parking requirement um just so it was clearer in terms of protected and um local ADU
and I think the um there was one design condition for a local ADU that it had to be um you know compatible with and same style and architecture of the existing principal dwelling and there was some changes to that one. uh there was some
discussion about that but otherwise it was really you know there was you know some minor changes like really minor uh kind of to me it's um kind of grammatical changes but nothing of meaning really to the so the there's a local ADU there's a protected use ADU
and you know pretty much what the planning board saw uh remained in the in that bylaw so >> all right Jesse >> thanks I was going to ask about the ADU bylaw Uh, I didn't follow very closely.
The only one I'm aware of that's now basically done is 295 Lincoln I think is addressed. And the >> right >> the the massing of it, it looks bigger than the than the first house, the height and the scale and and
obviously it met the standards that were in the bylaw, but it's just really surprising. And so, uh, I guess it's really just a comment. I don't know. In my mind, that's not how these ADUs were going to look because they had
all these limits on them. Um, >> this you said 95 Lincoln >> 295 is the it's the corner of Fearing and Lincoln. Um, >> Oh, okay. >> And so it it just looks tremendous. >> And >> by that you mean big, not good.
>> Correct. [laughter] Um, nothing to be done about that one now, but it maybe and I don't even know anything about other ones. It's just something to keep in mind. I'd encourage you all to take a look at it. I can share pictures. >> Is that on the east side?
>> It's on the east side of Lincoln, right on on the north side of Peering. >> Okay. >> Um, sorry. >> That's a student That's a student. >> It's already a student rental. >> It's clearly going to be another student rental. >> Yeah.
And the second comment is about the parking allowance requirements. There's now a huge part paved right on the street. There's going to be probably eight cars. It's just really ugly and I don't what anybody would want for the town. Um I'm sure there's other ways to
do it. This just again just comments for consideration. [sighs and gasps] >> Uh yeah. >> Huh. Okay. >> Yeah. I think there was a limitation of so you know the plan board had three parking spaces as a max. I think the limit is two now. So I think the CRC
recommended two and I think that's what stayed. So you know uh it's a >> you know there's what there's what they say and then there's what happens is the problem and it's a big expansive black top now covered and it'll just be a
parking lot anyway. Food for thought. >> Yeah. Um, so I can get there's paper copies available. You know, come to town hall if you'd like. Um, the housing production plan is still being discussed by town council. Uh, we're hoping it'll be approved next week. Uh, so, you know,
the planning board looked at this, you know, it was completed um, you know, over the summer. The planning board had voted six uh, in favor to recommend adoption and the council recommended to CRC. You know, there's a lot of discussion about some of the data, some
of, you know, the tone and language used and kind of emphasis in terms of strategies. And so, uh, there's probably going to be a half a dozen changes to the plan, uh, that the council, uh, hopefully will then get a, you know, we can get a a positive vote on Monday. I
can relay those to the board. I don't think it changes the it changes some things, but not not drastically. So for instance, in a few places the plan mentions um increased student housing and I think some of the the comments are
it seems like it's encouraging you know only student housing offampus and so you know including the phrase you know and on campus right so kind of qualifying what that means and where what the onus is in terms of student housing so kind of modifying some of the discussion around student housing
um having there's a you know kind of uh adding a little bit more to the executive summary. So it it pulls out it you know pulls in some of the uh results and and strategies from the report and then some of the there was a community survey done. It was over 300 responses.
Uh and then there's you know some other data pulled from the census but some of the kind of from the needs assessment into the strategies just making sure that it's consistent. So there may be some again kind of modifications to the language. So you know Amoris does have you know there's some discussion about
missing middle housing and you know Amoris has some it's not say it hasn't grown as much as some other towns say in Northampton for instance but you know in terms of the region it does Ammeris is doing really well. So just again kind of modifying that language. So I I can I'll
send the plan to you. I don't think it's you know I 99% of the plan is the same as what the planning board had looked at months ago. Um, but so there are some changes. If you want to look at it again, we could bring it back on the 17th. I don't, but I'm hoping it gets to
a vote and then it goes to the state for approval at the end of the year. >> All right. Thanks, Jared. >> So, when the housing production plan is approved by town council and approved by the state
like that then then what's next? Do we follow the implementation plan in it? Do we does it change our prioritization of or what we're doing? This this maybe this is a rhetorical question. Absolutely. Actually, it definitely is at 9:30 p.m. But just something to think
about is I'd be curious, you know, like does this change how we address North Ammerst or like East Ammerst? Um, you know, I'm I'm I'm curious what is our how does once it's >> well and what is our charge, you know,
like how does it how does it impact our our direction and our strategies and our priorities? So, >> yeah. No, I think it's a really good question. So, you know, I feel like some of the stuff that planning board is doing is already picking up on the housing production plan. I just think you know for instance if it doesn't get
adopted you know the question is are we still going to use it as a local plan >> and I think what I had always hoped was after it was approved the planning board could meet have a combined meeting with the housing trust and the community resources committee and kind of talk
about what you just asked here like who does what from the plan you know how are things being prioritized and you know so if you know if the housing trust really wants to look at say some of the financial strategies or public education or something or the planning board really wants to look at some zoning or
you know what if there was some other part of the plan it would be discussing that just so we're you know we could to me it would be like okay now the next step is you know does the town's comprehensive housing policy from 2021 change because of this and is that something we'd want to work on you know
does the planning board you know do we kind of have synergy with these other boards and committees to know what we're working on and say give ourselves six months and we're going to work together to come up with a few zoning proposals um you know, as opposed to right now we're working on it. The housing trust might be having ideas, but we don't you
know, we haven't worked in concert yet with them. And so, um you know, it's hard because the plan hasn't been adopted or approved yet. And so, um hopefully it will be and then we can kind of have those next steps. uh you know if it isn't I still think you know
we have some of our zoning priorities and maybe in January we look at that list again especially if the plan is has been adopted and say okay you know do things rise to the top you know given the citizen petitions we heard uh recently you know discussions around year round population
you know so um yeah I think there's a lot that is there and I think let's be realistic like what will what does the planning what can the planning board do what can staff do we do have a new planning director they're going to be working on things but you know maybe it's like okay give ourselves you know
do we chart out a year of what we do um and so that was the other thing I was going to mention is that you know staff's working on some zoning amendments the housing and zoning subcommittee has some ideas and I think what what I'd like to do is have you know three to five zoning amendments maybe six I don't know let's be
ambitious ready to go to town council in a by April or And so, you know, it's a new council. There's some new members. They're looking at the BN zoning change. Uh, but we have a few things kind of in the
works. The housing and zoning subcommittee may have a few things. And so, you know, I'd like to say, well, let's, you know, I'd like to get things to the planning board in January and February, have the planning board look at it a few times, and then try to move some things on to town council. Um and
you know more to be said about that in the next meeting or two but um you know some are housing related and some aren't but I think if the housing plan is approved um and adopted Jar I'd like to you know kind of talk about it you know we have all these ideas but you know are there
some discrete strategies we'd really want to investigate uh you know the housing and zoning subcommittee is talking about 40 y for instance >> right >> you know maybe that's something we pick up maybe you know a tweak to apartments or we really want to look at that missing middle housing. What does that
mean in terms of you know housing typology, income, whatever end user and how do we achieve that? Um so I don't I think there's there's probably a lot there's a lot to do. I and so I yeah I think having narrowing it down and being focused would be helpful. So if you know
that's where kind of that zoning priority list was started to try to do that. Um so you know one of the things I want to look at is a tiered approach to apartments. We haven't changed our apartment definition in decades. And I think, you know, maybe we have three
three definitions for apartments or three kind of use classifications or subclassifications and then they're permitted differently in different zoning districts. So, you know, a three to eight unit apartment building or 10 unit, whatever it might be, is maybe by site plan review in most parts of town.
And, you know, right now it's they're not right. They're not allowed or their special permit. And so, you know, maybe the bigger ones are then, you know, a special permit outside the village centers, but maybe in the village centers. You Anyways, so that kind of thing. Um, >> great. That I mean that's a very
thorough that and very encouraging answer. I just wanted I'm I'm I'm ready to get started, I guess, is what I'm Yeah. >> Yeah. No, I'd like to take momentum from this, you know, the downtown design standards and like keep moving as opposed to like great, we finished the plan and now it sits and we don't look
at it. So to me, if the downtown design standards are done by July next year, that's going to be, you know, a lot of zoning changes in the downtown to implement those. And so let's get a few things going this year knowing that later next year or, you know, in 27 we're going to really maybe we focus on
these downtown design standards and then push those to some village centers, too. Um, >> great. Yeah, as a uh as a as a consultant during the day, I I have a particular um interest in plans not just sitting on the shelf after being
produced. So, uh I'll uh so thank you, Nate. I appreciate that. Nate, uh, I was going to ask you since is there a point at which the new planning director might want to come to the board and talk about
kind of his or I guess it's his vision for, you know, what he hopes to get done in town and how we might help that happen. >> Yeah. I, you know, uh, we could say early in the new year there probably will be a meeting. Yep. >> Okay, that'd be great.
Jesse, >> just a quick comment. I think I've said this a few times in different ways. I really support the idea of bringing multiple things at once as a package so that it's not an isolated part of town we're trying to push on. Um, so yes, I'm
all for that. >> We can make a lot of people unhappy all at once. >> Exactly. [laughter] >> Well, yeah. you know, to that to to that comment. I what I would say though is um you know, knowing the sequence of how, you know, how zoning amendments are
referred and then getting it back to council. Realistically, the idea is if we can get them in the spring, hopefully then by the end of the year, next year, some are voted on. You know, they may not all get through the process, but it'd be nice to, you know, move things along. So, for instance, you know, staff's looking at, you know, like
temporary uses, I think I mentioned it, or like, you know, um reoccurring uses that aren't necessarily allowed. say like you know at different locations outside of village centers you know administrative approval for protected uses or limited site plan review and Jesse you know we've talked about this
you know are there ways to kind of codify looking at certain things so that's something we're looking at you know the apartments is one the housing and zoning subcommittee is looking at you know housing and different zoning districts as well and so you know all of a sudden we're building up what could be
you know um you know I mean it could be six zoning amendments I don't know if I'll get through, but you know, ideas that the planning board would then discuss in more detail, you know, January through April. >> All right, Bruce. >> Oops. Nate, maybe this is the uh next
item or the last item on your uh staff report, but if it isn't, tell us about this new planning director. >> I haven't I haven't heard anything. [laughter] It's there's there was a press release and uh the it's Jeff Bag um he had
worked for the town 10 years ago. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Yeah. So he you know he was a planner senior planner with the town. He had worked with the zoning board when he was in Ammerst. Then he became the planning director in East Hampton. Uh and then he left there a few years ago and he wor he's worked in the private sector as a
consultant. Uh still as a planner and he's back in Amber. So he has some familiarity with the town and he's still spending some time you know just getting acclimated you know things have changed in 10 years. Uh so um you know he's it's planning and economic development. So
it's a combination of you know both. I think you know that's I'm not sure how that'll be split or what you know what'll happen. I think you know the this the role of the director is really you know looking broadly at the town making connections with you know Ammeris College, UMass and Hampshire and other
you know institutions and ideas uh and then you know coming to the planning board or other boards and committees as needed right as Doug you mentioned to share ideas or or things. So I think you know we'll we'll see what happens in the next six months. I think you know there'll definitely be ideas and things that the planning board can you know
work on or do in support of the director and the planning department. So um you know I you know at the same time I will say the master plan is going to get going in the next few years. So there's a lot happening. Um but in the in the short term yeah I think the director
will have some ideas in the next few months that can the planning board can be you know brought in on. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Anything else, Nate? Okay. >> Oh, no. That's it. >> Okay.
All right. Time is 9:40. Unless anybody has anything else, speak now or we are adjourned. All right. See you in two weeks. >> Bye. >> Good night. Good night. >> Good night.
>> Night, Pam. >> Good night. >> Stop recording.