for okay Mr Maro I see 635 I see that you have a quorum of the board the attendees are coming on in we have Amis media with us in the house um I don't
see kin in the attendees um but I'll just keep watching for her I think you're good to go okay thank you you're welcome welcome to the emmer planning board meeting of February 19th 2025 my
name is Doug Marshall and is chair of the emers planning board I am calling this meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. this meeting is being recorded and is available live streamed via ammer media minutes are being taken pursuant to
chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended by chapter 2 of the acts of 2023 this planning board meeting including public hearings will be conducted via remote means using the zoom platform the zoom meeting link is accessible 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 adequately access the meeting in real time via technological means in the event we are unable to do so for reasons of economic hardship or despite best efforts we will post an audio or video recording
transcript or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the town's website board members I will take a roll call when I call your name unmute yourself answer affirmatively and return
to mute Bruce Cen I am here red Hartwell I am here uh Jesse major present Karen winter here and I Doug Marshall I'm present uh
Lawrence Kutz and Johanna Newman had a advised us they would not be present this evening so we have five members present and we have a quorum board members if technical issues arise we may need to fix the pause pause we may to need to pause to fix the
problem and then continue the meeting if the discussion needs to pause it will be noted in the minutes please use the rais hand function to ask a question or to make a comment and I will call on you to speak after speaking remember to remute yourself to the general public the
general public comment item is reserved for public comment regarding items not 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 t phone please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star n on
your phone when called on please identify Yourself by stating your full name and address and put yourself back into mute when finished speaking residents can 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 first item on the agenda is our minutes approval of minutes uh we have
one set of minutes in the packet is from December 18th uh did anyone have any comments on those minutes Jesse thanks um yes I like the new format seems to be new format so seems a little easier to
digest um one one minor comment I guess it's really grammatical I noticed a few places uh particularly in section six General housing discussion where I think what was meant was discussion regarding something and just says discuss a
definition for example so it's really just maybe a little grammar cleanup do that make sense particularly in points two and three under Section six I noticed and then oh I see what you're saying Jesse
those are actually um how it was written on the agenda and I and I just try to match it up to be the exact same way so if somebody wanted to compare an item on the agenda they could easily find it in the minute well I think Jesse are you
noticing the difference between item one which says discussion yes and and if you're correct and if you're reading a minutes you know it you know you you would read There was discussion of content X but I I understand what you're saying Pam and like I don't know what's
proper so but two and three probably could be discussion and that would be an improvement I'm happy to change it I'm just I'm just I'm H I'm happy to change it yeah Bruce the agenda seems to be what's
intended in the future and the minutes of what happened in the past so that's why I think discuss changes to discussion yeah and we probably ought to be consistent in our agendas
too uh Karen yeah teeny think with the comma on page 39 did you see that along the
minimum from Pama setback line to that yeah there's an excess comma there yeah okay Point me a little closer to where upper near the top of Page Three
yeah item go ahead Karen sorry n on 19 that line do you see second line of item 19 yeah on the Frontage and generally be looking oh I sure do thank
you thank you so much all right any other com comments Jesse nope I was going to move to accept the minutes okay so moved I will second thank you Bruce any further
discussion so we're moving to approve with the edits that we've discussed we have discussed this evening uh okay we'll go through the rooll uh
starting with you Bruce I approve and Fred yes I approve thank you Jesse I and I approve as well and Karen excuse me I approve thank you
okay time now is 6:42 we'll go to the next item which is public comment and uh so anybody who wants to make a comment this is the time to raise your hand so that I can call on you uh at the
moment I see 10 attendees in the public uh and they they are indicated as follows Janet Macwan a person whose phone number is available uh
1619 5781 1809 Maybe you know that person Barry Roberts Christine brep EDM capitalized Gail flood James from
wamc Jonathan salvan Mora keen and Tom REI and I'm I know that a number of those folks are here for our first public hearing all right there's one hand up at the moment Janet mcgaan uh Pam why don't we bring Janet
over and Janet give us give us your name and your address again and uh you have three minutes hi hello friends I'm Janet mcowan I live in at 706 um Southeast Street um I have a
general comment that goes to some issues that you've been discussing um and I'm really excited the planning board is taking on a lot of the issues about protecting neighborhoods and quality of life there in my years in amorist I haven't seen the planning department ever address this issue
about protecting Neighbors from an influx of student housing that is bolstered or enhanced by investors efforts um I feel so I you know basically I've been attending the housing subcommittee meetings and other um forums in the town and I don't think
there's one solution that's the fix but that we need a series of fixes the master plan directs density to the Village centers and ammer Center not into residential neighborhoods and so we need to balance needs the need for student housing which UMass can easily
and simply address by building more on campus um since they have more students um you know we need mixed neighborhoods of students Elders families single people long-term residents and I think that restoring footnote m is a good start to that's that's later on the
agenda tonight so let's hold off on comments about things on the agenda thank you yeah I think I'm just saying it's it's one of many solutions about figuring out ways to keep neighborhood quality and density at a reasonable level um and also there's other things the housing subcommittee is looking at
in terms of um maintaining the N mix of housing that we have so I just appreciate the planning board taking it on and and taking such efforts with it all right thank you Janet uh do I don't see any other hands
at this point one last call if anybody is a member of the public that wanted to make a comment at this time about something not on the agenda so it doesn't look like any hands are raised so we'll go on to the next
item time now is 6:45 we'll have our we'll get our first public hearing going all right in accordance with the provisions of Mass General Law chapter 4A this public hearing has been duly advertised and notice there are has been
posted and is being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity for interested citizens to be heard regarding spr 224-1 you drive Amity LLC University Drive at Amity Street
advertised for 6:35 pm and we're after that time so we are good to go on that request site plan review approval under Section 3.35 325 of the zoning bylaw to redevelop
existing commercial space into an 85 residential unit and commercial space mixed use development including parking landscape lighting and storm water infrastructure parel located at 13
b-18 also 27 28 20 and 54 in the BL zoning District this hearing is continued from August 7th September 18th November 6th December 18th of last year and January 22nd of this year are there
any board member disclosures at this time for this continuation of this hearing don't see anybody just indicating they have a disclosure all right so we'll go to our
applicants Mr REI welcome back and Mr Roberts and Mr salvan I guess uh tell us why you're here sure uh thank you very much Mr chair members of the board for the record Tom Rey attorney
with bacon Wilson out of ammer uh here on behalf of you drive Amity and its application for a mixed use site plan approval for the corner uh of University drivein Amity Street in ammer with me Barry Roberts the the principal associated with you drive Amity and then we have our
architect Jonathan salvor here as well uh we have been here as a chair mentioned a couple of times um most recently about a month ago where we unveiled an updated plan as you recall we had a a two building uh three
curb cut approach uh that had 85 units uh with some interior parking we revised the plan to be a single building two curb cut approach with now it has 78 units it was 77 last time now it's 78 because we added a
studio um there are 78 units 225 beds still the same amount of commercial space and the same amount of surface parking of 160 parking spaces and when we were here last we went away with some homework um discussion about some of the
exterior spaces um in the the area approximate to the roundabout and then on what I'd call the the inside elbow and then we also received some correspondence from your a town planner uh who had asked for some
additional information which we provided um last week potentially uh maybe last Tuesday so hopefully you've had the opportunity to look at it what I'm going to do is walk through the architectural plan is updated the site plan the
lighting plan just to touch on a couple of those pieces the landscape plan um and then we're happy to answer any questions that you have um one other piece last Wednesday we were in front of the Amis Conservation Commission and
received the order of conditions and so that was voted last Wednesday we need to get a variance from the zoning board of appeals or strike that we need to amend the existing variants from the zoning board of appeals the one that we
have uh has two pieces that we need to amend one of those uh is that it it restricted the height of the building to no more than 57 feet uh we submitted a modification
request to be 59.5 ft um and this is a result of a couple of things one additional due diligence on site uncovered that we're going to have to raise the site a bit or at least the first floor level of the site um to the
way that height is measured in ammer is from the average grade on the street side side and we've got two Street sides we've got University Drive in amid Street and so I think amid street is the um the determining height and then three
this is going to be a passive house construction and so there are and Jonathan can get into it more if if you'd like him to but we need some additional spaces between floors you know additional uh height in
between floors to allow for duct work um to allow certain air flow and so because of all of those things we're requesting 59.5 ft we're in front of the zoning board of appeals on March 13th one of the other conditions of that
variance um that requires us to modify it is that they the zba approved that previous variance um in accordance with the site plan that they had in front of them and so this evening what we're going to be asking for hopefully is an approval and
that approval conditioned upon the zoning board of appeals ultimately granting the variance for the additional height which we believe won't be an issue why we're asking for the approval instead of waiting is I don't want to get into a a a leap
froger a chicken in the egg where you don't approve tonight we appear in front of the zba uh they approve they condition it on that site plan being approved and then we're back in front of you and then something changes and then that site plan changes and then I've got to go back to the zba and so we'd
request if you find everything else satisfactory uh we'd ask that you approve us this evening so that's a little bit of where we are um where we've been and where we hope to go to and so with that let me share my screen uh and then we can talk through
some of those changes I uh misspeak At All by all means please hop in uh here you should be able to see my screen which is uh uh rendering of the elevation from the East so this is the easterly side University Drive is at the
bottom Amity street is at the top um we will get into a little bit more detail on some of those changes but you can see just from first blush we've changed the material on this corner to be the the Brick uh that is on the adjacent par the
adjacent panels here so we've got brick here that um metal siding and then brick here you'll see that and we again get a closeup but you'll see that we've um modified the materials on this um
interior or exterior Courtyard and we've got some other um seating here I'll scroll down so you can see and I'll zoom in just a little bit so you'll see Campus View is shown
here that's that's the signage proposed for the project um it would be likely back lit because we think that's probably the classiest for for something like this um I'll scroll down a little so you can
see and I'll zoom in so you can see the screening proposed so the electric meter bank and the Transformer are located in this general area and so we've got some um screening some vegetative screening I
know that every source is sensitive about uh proximity and uh obstructions and so we've designed this and I I'd say Jonathan has designed this based upon what he's learned over at 4555 South Pleasant Street for uh proximity and
clearance and all of that so this is i' show you if I could take the trees down but where that electric bank is going to be and then as I promised here's some some closeups of what those exterior
spaces um we do want to be careful you know programming them because we don't have commercial tenants yet we've been talking to several but we don't have any of them uh signed up with leases yet so that's just to say you know these are
conceptual uh We've added some vegetation on each side the back of this Campus View as you'll see here the signage is actually a whole level of seating and then we've got some chairs and tables proposed for out uh in that
area and then we've carried some of that brick through um the tie in with the building as we get to the site plan you know one of the requests was to have a sidewalk connection here um you we we think that the way that it's currently
routed after talking to the town engineer makes the most sense and so we've left it that way uh I'll show the rear Plaza I'll call it the inside of the elbow again and just picking up some different textures adding some you know here with
a brick and then adding some seating and some some bike racks um I'll go to the first floor plan and then just zoom in a little bit we've we've added interior bike storage so one of the comments that we
heard last time was you know exterior storage is good interior storage is better um and so we've got that interior bike storage here this is likely to be key fob entry you know Nate had asked a question whether or not we'd be doing exit only but I think this is probably
key fob entry um there will be a division similar to U Drive South or one University Drive where uh the key fobs access only the residential space you know so once folks are in if you have a key fob you can go into the residential
space if you don't have a key fob you can't go into the residential space there'll be a system where folks can actually Buzz down and and let their their guests in if needed but it's just to separate the commercial from the the residential interior trash room same as
when University Drive South which uh keeps the parking lot quite a bit cleaner than if you've got exterior trash storage same uh office retail space breakout as we've had
before I'll scroll down Fitness Center on that second floor uh community space here in the corner again community space and then uh fifth floor we've added dividers and
exterior space to some of the units you know so this one will have an exterior space that will have an exterior space uh this is not exterior space the exterior space is here we don't have exterior space in the front um so some of the fifth floor units do have a
exterior deck um but others do not again um maybe I will I'll go down to this one so here you've got uh brick
color signage metal paneling spec and we've got that um Hut through view so you can see the building the step back what we've got for uh rooftop Mechanicals and and their
screening it will be that metal screening but it'll look more like a fence uh than anything else uh Jonathan anything else we want to hit on with the architecturals just can you hear me I was having video and
audio while can folks hear me yes great um to if you scroll down just a little bit to Brick colors um you know we had been showing two colors of of masonry the the traditional red brick a tan
brick um what's new here is the the gray uh tone that we're pling to coordinate with the Met siding and now if you spread back up to the elevations one of the things that that you know Barry and I sat down with GA in his office and we were looking at the elevations one thing we thought would be
nice would be to to bring you could up to the elevations simply have a masonry base all the way around the building so we have added that that third tone of brick um in as a accents at the base of the
building kind of under the area that are shown as light gray that that darker gray would be that that third tone of of masonry and metal sighting here
Rick Rick and then Rick comes all the way down to the ground now I think that's up a little bit higher on that page Tom there you go so the corner is the yellowy brick is
the T tan yellow Bri corre oh okay it didn't read that way on the rendering looked pretty gray but just we can look at them again okay well yeah know it's it's it's
a it's it's difficult to get a perfect match between screens and printing and and you know materials but that's that's the that's the intended range of the [Music]
okay all right um so I'm trying to remember the last time we approved a site plan was that when you had two separate buildings and when you say approved you
mean the site plan you are presenting tonight you are asking for approval because it has changed you've never approved it for us at all okay at all Z zoning is is something we're returning for a new approval
okay all right um so Nate are you available to speak for a moment I guess uh we've been advised that we would be better off not approving the plans
tonight and what that if we did it March 19th that we would be on firmer ground um and that's approximately a week after your visit with the
zba so I just wanted to say that at the outset of this conversation um board members uh comments other than that you're you've seen enough of Tom and Barry in the last
six months anybody have any comments I do they like what they've done with the building Bruce yes I mean I've been uh I've reviewed the the documentation that was put into the packet and so forth so
I've seen uh but one of the things I hadn't perhaps noticed before but it makes sense I think I'm seeing two elevators and I imagine that whereas um yeah there were two elevators and not just just one yes
um interesting okay well that's uh um uh I do have something at the appropriate time about affordable housings and the the affordable units and the distribution of them I know that the uh
the development application report suggested that we look at that somewhat more critically and and and I'm not uh disposed to agree with what the development report said so uh at the appropriate time Doug you could uh call
on me to make my case um I think uh otherwise the the and I found the lighting plan uh I know that last time you were here uh Tom we we looked at the lighting pan but I no we
didn't we looked at the light fixtures and and I was trying to get a sense of where some of these fixtures were going and then very quickly uh but not during that meeting but a day or two afterwards a lighting plan was distributed and I opened it up and it it's difficult to
understand not because it's small because you can make it bigger but when you make it bigger the text is overlaying particularly in places around the building and it's still uh not really possible to get a clear sense of which fixtures are where and I also
couldn't quite locate some of those fixtures as uh on the on the lighting fixture SC schedule I I I I uh I I couldn't make I couldn't make a clear connection between the uh SLE package of
fixtures and which uh um what the reference number for those fixtures I would like the S package to have the uh fixture A1 or B1 or whatever it is so
that we can quickly go from that fixture to the uh lighting PL uh I mean I don't suppose I mind going through the fixture schedule but the fixture schedule has to be able to make reasonable connection to the submittal package and I wasn't able to make that
connection so the lighting arrangement in terms of the fixtures and so forth is still Greek To Me although I did look at the uh the illuminations and so forth and generally speaking I think I understand that you've got at least enough lighting um it does spill a little bit into the wetlands I don't
know whether the Conservation Commission care about that can I ask whether they saw the lighting plan um and appreciated there was a little bit of spill over um it would have been part of our packet I don't know that they even paid
attention to the existence of spillover into the wetlands I don't know uh that that would have been any factor in in their decision I'm looking and seeing uh because I'm looking at the lighting plan now you know I don't know
that theyve for a portion of the wetlands proximate to Amity Street which is probably already going to be illuminated because of Street lighting um I don't know that there is any light spillage into the wetlands proper it might be into the buffer zone of the wetlands but I don't know that it's into
the wetlands itself and I don't know whether that's a problem I I was really asking whether anybody knows whether that's I mean you can see that we've got one and twoot candles going um a few
uh bullets into the into the Wetland and it's a little bit the same on the other side some of those big lights right next but I take your point that it's the it's filling into the buffer zone so my guess is Without Really knowing you know what Wildlife think about this sort of stuff
that is probably fine and I think I'm just going to leave it at that but I would like to be able to understand where the fixture package submittal occur on the plan sure and so if I could one of the things that we did was uh I
put together I'd call it maybe a relatively crude uh fixture document to show right so this is type A this is the recess and I'll I'll go back to the lighting plan and then show you so there's three fixtures that we're
proposing that's it a which is the recess yeah B which is the pole this is what the pole will look like it will vary in height between 12 feet or 18 fet and I'll show you that on a plan yep so any B is this the the B2 the B3 the B4
is just the LD configuration in this Top Hat here right so it's not like there are different B fixtures the B's are all these freestanding and then you've got C which is the wall Scots okay that's what I
yeah um I mean I think I'm fine with it it's just so I couldn't understand it easily that's all but this helps don't think you had type C's type B's and type A's on the submitt pack that was put up in our uh it should be the same the same
fixture designations yeah and this was I I had it was in the Dropbox link or stri that the one Drive Link so I know I I uploaded it last Tuesday but you'll see just for complete completeness right so you got the A's here which are those
recessed A's which are the recessed C which are the the scones A's are the recess the B's as I said those are the freestanding you know here 18 feet 18 feet 12 feet 12 feet 12et 12 feet 12 feet oh I see and B goes all the way
down to a ballad which is just a low Pole right uh the the bees all the bees are those uh um I'll go let me go back to the but I see a couple of b1s in the elbow which look like they're probably ballards but I no they're still they're
still taller all of them are taller right so these are 18 feet these bees are 18 feet these are 12 feet and I'll even go not going to be a problem for the first
floor uh residence and that's where the the LED um configuration vares boost they got of them have it's been a week since I talked to in person but it basically had and so that it shines you thought about
it you thought about it this what you're saying yes tried to think about it that's probably good enough anything so Bruce I think I'm done sorry uh are you are you asking for an additional
submittal I mean from what I've I think at the moment I know enough I didn't realize there was uh it was that these basically we've got three lighting fixtures and and then and these are the variations and and the photometric variations are there some of them quite
tight and everything but whereas I I have to determine whether where where where my Cur where where my curiosity becomes irrelevant to the uh uh the review the rational review of this stuff and I I think I I think we my curiosity
doesn't have to be satisfied anymore than that currently is so no I don't think I am asking for anything further than what we've seen okay thank you Bruce Jesse thanks um thanks Tom for the presentation uh
just mostly a comment just to say I think it reflects our conversation last time I like like the improvements um one minor question about access I didn't quite catch what you're saying about key fob entry on the first FL plan really I'm just wondering about that corner location if that's the newest hot
restaurant town for example and someone parks in the back are they able to go through the first floor or they're walking all the way around I just didn't catch what you said yes uh they would be able to go through the first floor uh so that's the keyop correct yes
yes thanks that's it all right uh other board members any other comments Karen yeah the commercial space how uh
are now if there's a shop on the bottom that I want to visit would I be parking behind the building and entering from the back or how I'm I'm trying to to picture this this commercial space how that's
working so you'll see uh we've got you know space here a Lobby here and so there's there's parking spaces parking spaces parking spaces here entering through this Lobby into
this space entering through this Lobby into this space you've got um entry here and then entry here and entry here so it it I mean you can also come in
through this front door as well um or directly into the space like you can see that there's direct access from the easterly side also so you know it it I think we tried to consider both
vehicular pedestrian um you know bus traffic folks who are just you know take the bus walk need to get into you know one of the stores they can just walk in the front or if it's vehicular come around the back and and come in that way yeah okay
I got it yeah it's a little it it's true it's kind of tricky because you have the pedestrian and then you have the people that are coming by cars and so you're essentially going to have to lure them in from two sides yeah y a little tricky
it will somewhat depend on what the individual tenants are you know some will have more foot traffic um some will have more more car traffic depending on who was actually interest interested in the spaces all right Karen are you also set I'm all set all right thank you
Bruce um Tom John can you tell us run us through the trash pickup a little uh the trash is nicely stored in the building there's probably a trash shoot is there somewhere yeah I guess this trash is is
still in design I'll say Bruce we discussed it with with bar we're going to try to work something out but we didn't have time to to connect our our five five floors yet with a with a shaft but that's the whole through intent that there might be a trash shoot um and then a couple times a week probably given the
volume of people here they would wheel someone will wheel the the bins out and that you know there's no it's a flush curve at that point and at 600 or 7 in the morning whatever the the time is that the trash gets picked up before the start of the of the work day so the
trash is going to be picked up right in the in the in the in the in the turnar around in the in the busy path so I guess you've thought about this You' probably you might say yourself well it would be nice if we could uh put it less to the center but if you put it less to the center then the the trash is less
convenient for the people on the upper floors in order to get to it to put it down so I guess I'm looking at a a classic uh design uh choice between convenience at one level and and disruption and another so but anyway I
can see so the trust truck has to come in and and probably make a loop around that in the parking area and stop there and pick up and so forth okay just needed to know what you were intending it's a similar pattern to what has
happen one drive it's hard to understand you Jonathan much more than I mean I see you on quite a few zooms these days and you're in a different place or something because I I've never
I was trying to get away from the sounds with my children in the background and uh I'm GNA have to buy a new camera and and and mic I think okay um all S I don't have anything else
now all right Karen so from the picture I'm also trying to understand the sidewalk the 10- foot sidewalk is that right smack next to the the road there's no strip between it I was trying to see
on the so this is the existing where my if you can follow my cursor that's the existing this here this wider one that's the proposed 10 foot wide so a little Landing here and I don't think we're on the same
page are we yeah theur yeah yeah okay okay s sorry yep yep I see it and maybe I'll go back up so you can see this is probably a better representation see how you've got the sidewalk that
exists and then internal to that interior to the site you've got this wider one and then kind of pull offs for each of those different commercial spaces okay great good nice
Bruce I just wanted to uh thanks Doug not so much me although I would join in but I wasn't the person who talked about it but uh I think it might have been you Doug or might have been Johan and or or maybe Lawrence I'm not sure but there
was some cons conversation about the uh that uh front area the the the nose at the very point of the building and the landscaping and the finish and so forth and and as Tom said when he was uh uh re
reintroducing that that they've made uh they've adjusted that and I guess I'm curious who whether the the members of the board who were interested or concerned that it wasn't perhaps as salubrious as it might have been do
we agree that it's uh feels good now uh Jesse I think I raised that point um and yeah I think it's a pretty good adjustment um my main comment was that it was not for us in the first
generation and now it looks like that's brick and which could be and I I totally understand your comment that you don't know who's in there yet so you don't want to be too prescriptive that makes sense to me so yeah I think it's a it's a good Improvement yeah and I had also commented about the facade at that
corner this is the this is the rendering where I didn't read it as being yellow brick um it looks pretty gray to me but uh I'll take your word for it that it's yellow and I think it looks better and
um the plaza looks good Karen yeah I want to thank for using brick and making such an effort to make the outside look attractive in New England and contemporary so thank
you all right Bruce um this is probably a good view to raise the question about the uh screening on the top of the building and whether it's solid or whether it's uh um semi-transparent or what have you I I
think that was in the in the development report or maybe the uh the proposed conditions but I think there was a a an it was in the development for that's right it was issues to be considered and a question to be raised or a question that the staff thought we
might want to raise was how do we think about about this screening and I think it was relevant related to that top what looks like about a 5 foot uh screen that's set back and uh I thought at this point since it'll come up just tell us
what it is and describe how you what how you're treating it the same or similar metal siding they most of the companies that make the metal siding products also make it in a slightly one boost can you hear
me if Tom knows the answer it would be E Tom I'll answer so it's it's the same or similar to what's going to be the metal siding and it's going to be uh like a fence so a solid um fence without the slats of the spaces
okay thank you I'll get my hand down all right um I let me go to the public uh any comments from the public at this hearing about this project not seeing any hands
raised um board members is it is it uh does anybody have any objections to where this design is and uh are we are we basically in support of the site plan
review all right I'm seeing I'm I'm ready to move on I'm sorry Bruce I think I'm I'm I think I'm ready to move on okay I mean move on to reviewing findings and and condition right well good then why don't we do
that um Nate are you able to take us through the findings and conditions uh I will be able to in about five minutes and I could do it now I just I wouldn't be able to share my screen okay [Music]
um well let's see what could we do for five minutes we could start if someone else could share the screen we can walk through them I don't I don't I think we start with findings you have the findings and conditions available to share we
should and and and Doug if you wish I I'm prepared to read them because I know Nate used to do that actually that reminds me Bruce you wanted to talk about the affordable units it comes up in the uh in the uh in
the in the draft conditions there's two pages of it but there's yes okay there's one that I found a little perplexing and and actually concerning and it was the it was the suggested condition that would have at least it would have one of
the portable units on the Upper Floor having a deck or kind of a porch access and I and I and relevant to the section in in
Article 15 and I went and read through Article 15 a bit and found out where I think it would probably uh where we might conclude that that was appropriate but it seems to me that where is Article 15 and I think the
intent here is that we want to make the affordable units comparable is the word that's used to the other say the market rake units and it seemed to me that since there are only four units that have got
a landing space and that's a kind of a premium uh uh feature it seemed to me unreasonable to ask the applicant to make one of those four or available to an affordable unit because I would think
the argument would be one of the ways in which we can afford to make units affordable is by having the market capacity to get a a um a premium for some for these four units and that's going to help create affordability and I
don't think it's reasonable to say that in in the quest of comparability that one of them one of the affordable units should also have a deck access because to be comparable to the other units in the development all
the other 74 of them which don't have deck access I think that's where we are finding comparability and that some of the units are different and special and this is uh appropriate I think because
that's how we afford to create this level of affordability because the market rates are underwriting them so I I take issue with the with the proposition that that should be a fine that should be a condition okay Nate did you have any
thoughts about that I mean the board can find that that's okay I think you know and speaking with the Building Commissioner he said well what you know if some if markate units have certain amenities then you know proportionally the affordable unit should have them so you
know even if if it was only a few that have the deck then you know a minimum of one affordable could have a deck you know same thing if they had ground level patios or you know something else and so but the board can find otherwise similarly the three and four bedroom units the
board might find that three-bedroom units are sufficient you don't have to have four-bedroom affordable units and you can just make that a part of the conditions and findings um but you know I just wanted to raise it as part of discussion okay all
right all right um Nate we will continue with Pam's screen until you're at a position where you can share your screen um y Pam why don't you scroll up
just a little bit and um Bruce I think you volunteered to read these at least to start and we can trade off I think I can do that from here um the board found under section
11.24 of the zoning bylaw site plan review as follows 11.24 00 the project is in conformance with all appropriate provisions of the zoning bylaw with the exception of the variance required for dimensional regulations to allow for a
59 ft uh Building height the zoning board of appeals granted the variance on March 7th 2024 to reduce the additional lot area per from 4,000 ft to 2,500 the 160 parking spaces Prov
proposed for this project rather than the 193 spaces required by the zoning bylaw 7 uh tri0 and [Music] 7.4 is or are adequate to meet the uh demand
of the project uh is in uh as it is in close proximity to the uh public transport and the shared use path the project advances many goals of the master plan by concentrating housing and Muse development in an area that is close to services and transportation
options but that's 11.24 so there were two sort of typos that Bruce stumbled on there Pam the first one was in the uh after the 70 and 004 is should be an R
A and um okay there's probably and then the end of that same line as as the project is in close proximity is adequate as the to meet the demand as the project I think I stumbled in Reading I I don't think that's a
stumble in text in writing 11.24 well if I could just one more uh 59.5 ft oh in that second line is 59 we need 59.5 right that was rather
important thank you Tom 11.24 01 count amenities and abutting properties will be protected because detrimental or offensive actions are not planned for this site 11.24 two abing properties will be protected from
detrimental site characteristics resulting from the proposed use lighting will be downcast will not shine onto adjacent properties St storm water management will be improved from the existing conditions and there are no visually offensive features okay Pam can
you scroll up a little bit great uh uh hold on 11.2 403 three okay adequate Rec recreational facilities open space and amenities will be provided because there are because there will be recreational spaces within
the building there are outdoor space plazas and there is multi-use uh there is a multi-use path along University Drive that connects uh to the nor norat Tu rail trail rail trail thank you 11.24
one0 not applicable and do I need to go further than not applicable I suppose I should there are no unique or important natural historical Scenic fixtures features on site the parcels that have been
previously developed and none of the existing buildings actually that should be is historic by my standard I know the New Yorker and half the publications of the planet don't agree with me but it should be none is history 11.24 one1 proposed
methods of Refuge disposal are described in the management plan they are considered to be adequate solid waste material shall be stored inside the building and the building and transported and in the building and transported off the site there are no dumpsters proposed 11.24 one2 the
ability of the proposed sewage disposal and water supply systems to serve the proposed site is considered to be adequate the property is connected to town Sewer and Water Systems fire connections on Amity Street 11.24 one oopss I went just a little too
far Bruce sorry about that okay right there the ability of proposed drainage system within and adjacent to the site to handle any increased runoff resulting from the development is considered to be adequate a previous iteration of the
project was approved by the Conservation Commission 11.24 one4 provision of of adequate Landscaping is satisfactory the landscape plan submitted includes landscape buffers along the street Frontage and a landscape island in the
parking lot and natural vegetation in the Wetland will be restored with Native plantings I guess by the way if anybody thinks that what I'm reading is not correct or not satisfactory we should say so I I'll I'll interrupt myself if I think that's true but so far I'm good
brce I haven't seen any hands go up well hold on go ahead Jonathan real real quick correcting or I don't know if it's a correction but the previous item I think the Conservation Commission has reviewed this version of the project and approved it not not one of the previous
ones is that correct Tom that is correct oh that would be good to say too okay has so uh I got it so we got that yeah 11.24 one5 the erosion control plan will be reviewed will be reviewed by the
Conservation Commission has been reviewed and approved has been reviewed and approved by the Conservation Commission okay hold on hold on hold on so these are the and conditions that we will Pro most likely approve on the 19th
of March so they should be written such that Conservation Commission is finished you're breaking my heart Doug what's that I said you're breaking my heart Thug I know I know approved okay actually that's wrong
because the the zba is the group that has yet to go right you are finished with conservation right correct yes correct all right so I'm incorrect 11 not too that's good enough good 11.2
416 adjacent properties will be protected but from the intrusion of various types of nuisances including air and water pollution flood noise odor dust vibration through appropriate sight and structural structural structure design and the use of appropriate
designer materials for containment ventilation filtering screening sound proofing sound dampening and other similar Solutions the use of the properly mixed and use and Retail property mixed use and Retail is not expected to produce air and water
pollution the storm drainage system has been designed to prevent flooding noise from Noise Within the building will be contained by the building's outer walls and windows noise from within the site will be contained by the five-story building sections odor is not expected
to be produced in the new building dust will vibr dust and vibration will not be produced by the finished building and will be controlled during construction by requirements of the construction Logistics plan 11.24
17 protection of adjacent Properties by minimizing intrusion of lighting has been determined to be satisfactory a lighting plan and photometric plan have been fermented and all exterior lighting is shown to be downcast and the dark sky compliant cut sheets have been provided
for all fixtures and are considered to be satisfactory okay I'm good with that 11.24 one8 there is a small stream that runs through the southern portion of the site that is in the FPC zoning District this
stream is governed by section 3.22 of the zoning bylaw the stream has a 25t jurisdictional area from the top Bank this small FPC zoning district is contained in a large Wetland area that was part of the previous conser is part
of the Conservation Commission approval delete the word previous yeah I assume the conservation don't we want to just delete this sentence this last one the commission will review that yes
I believe we do I think that just goes away Pam you good got it okay 11.24 one9 that notice of inent was filed in with the Conservation Commission and an order of conditions was issued by the
commission at their meeting December 24 December 4 2024 is okay I'm going to keep reading and see what we get to here um for a previous iteration of the project while the revised plans were reviewed by the Conservation Commission
on March uh 12th sorry on February 12 2025 and and and we probably should say and where I think you can just go back if I if I may to after an order of conditions was issued by the commission at their
February 12 2025 uh hearing or on February 12th you can eliminate the whole second part so where it says December 4th 2024 that should be February 12 2025 yeah meeting period perfect okay and
then get rid of everything else yeah okay so it it will just read as this a notice of intent was filed with the Conservation Commission and an order of conditions was issued by the commission at their 212 2025
meeting yes that's it okay yes thank you thank you much 11242 the site is located in the BL District however the project is not located in the National Historic register district and the proposal is not like to have significant impact on
its surroundings as the design is in keeping with the density use of the density and use of the area therefore the design principles and standards in section uh 3.24 and 3.24 one0 sorry 3.24
01 were not applied to the project 11.24 21 the development is reasonably consistent with the respect uh with respect to setbacks place of parking landscaping and entrances uh and exit with
surrounding buildings and development parking will be provided behind the building in an open lot um one and two-way one and two one two one two-way driveway and Amity Street will be retained for the access and a new
two-way Drive is proposed on University Drive um 11. 2422 the building site avoids to the extent uh feasible impact on steep slopes flood planes Scenic views grade changes and wetlands 11.24
23 not applicable there is one building proposed for this site 11.24 24 screening is proposed for electric meters near The Amity Street entrance and for mechanical features on the roof
I think we saw both of those 11.24 30 the site has been designed to provide for the convenience and safety and of pedestrian pedestrians and there's a little bit of a you got it got it movement both within the site and in relation to uh adjoining
ways and properties there will be vehicular access onto the property from two from two driveways internal drive aisles will be 24 ft wide for two-way traffic a sidewalk with Crossings is proposed to bring pedestrians safely
from the parking into the building there are direct pedestrian connections to the sidewalk on the front of the building okay scroll down 11.24 31 we're getting there the
location and number of curb Cuts is designed to minimize the Turning movements and hazardous exits and entrances crosswalks hazardous entrances sorry hazardous exits and entrances crossworks are provided between the buildings and across curb Cuts 11.2 432
the location and design of parking spaces bicycle racks and drive AES are provided in a safe and convenient manner bike racks will be provided at plazas and entryways into the building and accessible parking spaces are provided
on sidewalks near entrances do we want to make any reference to the covered biking in the building which I believe was a later addition we're we will be approving the plans as
submitted which include the yeah it's a finding that's all I just wonder do we we could find that because it's it's now available to be found moving on 11.24 33 not applicable
11.24 34 not applicable no commercial or business property is located across University dri Amity street from the site 11.2 what what does that mean I think it's relative to that particular I don't know we we I me there
is commercial there is commercial property across University Drive oh of course I was thinking yes okay um Nate do you want to comment on this I'm happy if before Nate jumps in I can just tell you it it says um 11.2 434
is where possible driveways located in commercial and business district shall be located opposite each other so 11.24 34 I think it's talking about driveways and I think the point is that there aren't any commercial uh or other business
driveways located across so in that case why don't we just say no no driveways no commercial or business property access commercial are are present across the streets
maam does that make sense um hold on one second so let's see no commercial or business property access accesses are present across University Drive or am street from the
site is that what we're trying to say I think so accesses Tom does the uh does your Southern or the only curb cut on University Drive is that opposite the is
that aligned with the exit coming out of the little mall across the way with that has the hanger it's offset here oh it's offset yeah y yeah and you wouldn't even you don't have probably even own that far
south right and if we do there's Wetlands there and circulation and and and so so right okay are present or would we say are located are Lo go ahead um I I think we
we can say it is there are no there are no commercial or business exits on Amity Street and it is not feasible for the exit on University Drive to line with
the exit on the nearest exit on the other side of the of the street oh University Drive you gotta say that again okay so there there are no commercial or business
exits along Amity Street on Amity Street okay and it is not feasible for the exit on University Drive to align with the
opposite exit period um you drive to a line period okay with with the
opposite exit with the opposite okay actually opposite should really be nearest with the nearest exit because it's it's not off
nearest um you're the Wordsmith in the group so I think you did great do you want me to do you want me to read what I have or you want me to sure why don't you read it back to us okay I'm going to give it my best here
there are no commercial or business exits on Amity Street and it is not feasible for the exit on University Drive to align with the nearest exit I think I missed
something well you could say with the nearest exit on the opposite side of the street on the opposite side that's what I missed on the opposite side the the finding is is always to be
read in relation to the uh the context in which we have to make the finding in the zoning bylaw and what we did once before was we put that in italics in the findings and then we made our findings in plain text and we're missing the uh
the talized versions of this but it doesn't seem to matter because we know where to find them if we need them and I need the last two uh oh I stole your screen Pam sorry so do I have to go back and share it again here
we go yes yeah all right sorry about that and that's okay Tom I don't [Music] mind okay there you go Mr CM okay I think we're at
11.2 11.2 35 which is not applicable 11.2 436 the traffic impact ass M prepared by stantech Consulting Services Inc dated May 15 2024 was submitted I'm assuming Tom and
others will correct if that if that date is wrong I assume it's correct was submitted with the site plan review applications the project is not anticipated to have significant impacts to traffic
operations and finally 11.23 37 given the results of the traffic impact assessment the requirement for a trfic impact report as described in section 11 2437 of theing bylaw will be
waved yes will be wave can be wav is wav yeah this is a finding this this is we're finding we're finding that it can be waved right yeah and then and
the the the conditions wave it whatever I think that is it wait so now I'm not clear is it is it going to change to is is waved I would think it should say can be wave but but I'm only one out of seven
here can Nate is back I saw him do the conditions refer to the waiver of the traffic impact report well the way the the zoning bot is written it says a traffic impact report is
required if the um proposed development does you know four things and so we could say that given the results of the traffic impact assessment you know there is no requirement to submit a traffic impact report you know as opposed to saying
wave you say there is no requirement can perfect then so you could say given the results of the traffic impact assessment a traffic impact report as described yada yada is
not required right so remove the words the requirement for from the first line and at the end of the second line we remove the words will be
waved and replace it with is not required okay uh Fred I see your hand uh yeah I was going to suggest is being waved I know this is a finding we're not finding that is being way we're finding
that it is unnecessary yeah we're saying the report is not required that seems pretty straightforward I agree all right Bruce thank you for reading uh now we'll go to the
conditions Nate do you want to take over the screen or do you want to keep uh Pam at the ready I can I can uh if you have the word document then we can edit right on the word document this is
PDF yeah I have is that that is that is that visible for everyone yes works for me and do you want to read it or do you want one of us to [Music] read so I think first we have the
waivers and then we have you know the conditions and so some of these waivers may or may not you know we so you know kind of like the development application report and the findings this was written before uh some of the revisions so there a few waivers here the number of parking
spaces required for residential uses 7.04 number of parking spacers required for retail office or similar uses 7.10 design standards for parking
spaces 7.11 landscape standards and then section 8. 321 size of a monument sign in the BL zoning district and so I explain the last one you know essentially that whole curved wall out front could be considered part of the sign it has you know um you know rais
lettering on it now and so and speaking with the Building Commissioner you know really we're not going to say well it's just the size of the lettering typically there's a backing to the sign and so it's easier to say that that whole curved wall could be considered part of the sign display as opposed to you know some portion of it around the lettering
right um this has been done before when they have a similar sign on a on a wall so so do we need to add the traffic the traffic report to this list I no I think the way the finding was written is not required now is not it's not a
waiver okay all right good I've got three more uh based on the development application report 7103 which is parking closer uh than 8 feet from a building it's closer than 8 feet to a building
right to a building yeah exactly uh 7104 um allow compact spaces for up to 50% of standard parking spaces so allow compact spaces for up to 50% of
standard parking spaces and then 7.2 allow shared parking between Peak parking needs generated by onsite uses
occurring uses occurring at different times I think that does it thank you okay any comments from anybody at the board here about uh all these waivers don't see any hands go ahead and
Nate let's go down sure so in the conditions you know the things that are bold and italics are somewhat tailored to this project or application and the rest are standards I don't know if we want to you know Bruce had asked that there'd be some this you know there' be
some way to tell just so we if we don't want to read all the conditions it's up to the board now um I don't know if you if I should start with one or just read the number three well I guess um you know I think if you want to just
kind of give a brief mention of of the ones that are not italicized and then read the read the ones that are bold in as they are specifically written sure you know so one and two you
know the development should be managed or designed in accordance with the plans that are submitted and approved on whatever date number three uh there shall be an on-site manager who resides as a fulltime resident in one of the units
and shall be available during normal business hours and available as one of the emergency contacts outside of normal business hours and so um Tom do you find that that's an easy thing to do to find to to have
somebody who lives onsite or is the workforce that typically would be an on-site manager somebody is it hard to find somebody who's willing to live there oh great question Barry I'm G to ask you um to to chime in but I think it
was a discussion between Barry and Gail who said we want to have an on-site resident manager here so not only does Barry manage it but I think for a project like this given the commercial uses uh and the number of residential units number of bedrooms I think it
makes sense Barry is that fair to say yes I think Gail and I decided that this project is big enough and should have the attention of somebody there full-time um which will probably perform some janitorial services as well as
being available for nighttime calls weekend calls all that we are also always available Gail and I but um I think to answer your question Doug it's going to depend we're going to have to
uh probably uh comp on apartment form uh and pay them a little be so but I we really think it's important in this side project okay all right so you think that conditions uh
workable then Tom and Barry yeah I I think so y number four is you know any substantial changes would come back to the board for review yep five we say Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the plans what's added here and what I think actually should be
added to actually any every condition become standard is a minimum height at time of planting and so you know not necessarily what happens at this plan but we've seen we we someone will say well we're planting this type of shrub for screening and they plant it and it's
you know nine inches and it'll take you know 20 years before it actually gets to three feet or something and so I'm saying the minimum height of any shrub at time of planting shall be three feet as this is needed for screening and so we could change that but I do think it's important to start having a minimum
height all right Nate I see Bruce has got hand up yeah I I was wanting it says as this is needed for screening you shouldn't say if this is needed for screening because there will be plantings that are that are not needed
for screening that don't have to be 3 ft High all right and I guess maybe I'd have just one comment on that if you look at and I can bring it up the the um landscape plan so we've had a landscape architect actually look at it there are
a whole host of different minimum measurements and so it's like you know two to three foot height um it's like 1 in caliper it's you know depending upon what is being planted um and so our request would be
and and I mean I can bring it up so you can see like the act the sheer number of planting that are going to occur here and I don't know in you know outside of the electrical meters I don't know how much screen is actually needed for this
project so I would just you know we may be back here at another project and we say oh my gosh we need higher you know plant um for this I would suggest that we rely on what's speced in the landscape plan um unless you want to have some
additional piece for the the electric meters uhuh um so we're really just talking about the planting that serves as screening with this sentence [Music]
um and and it's really just at the electric metors right if everybody agrees that's yes that's all I can think of for actual screening if that's what the intent is you've got zero problem yeah I mean sometimes for instance people will say we're gonna put plantings at the edge of a parking lot
and they go and they install like I said like you know a a 12 to 15 inch tall evergreen shrub that won't even block headlights for five years and so uh you know for here it might just be the electrical um meters um yeah well why don't we just
say the the shrubs that provide screening at the electrical meters shall be at least three feet tall when installed well this capture is something else if it's not you know say there is you know we can look at um if there's anything else that
needs to be screened okay well then the minimum height of any shrub serving a screening function shall be at least 3 feet tall can I ask a just like a practical implementation uh who's making that
decision how is their predictability Etc yeah this well so this becomes an enforcable condition that the inspectors would use right and so you know it'd be that if they go in there and they you know you can although it says two to three feet Tom I get what you're saying you know I'd say well you can select say
three feet and like a one and a half inch caliper tree is different than saying a twoot shrub because a one and a half inch caliper tree has a height say of eight to 10 feet or something it's a certain size oftentimes we'll approve shrubs or understory plantings without
anything and like I said someone could come in and plant a whisk right and not actually plant anything more than what what is shown so if we you know this is saying a time of planting it shall be 3 feet I mean can delete it if we think the planting plan uh here is sufficient
enough right their landscape plan has the heights if we think that's good like I said I think this should actually become kind of a standard part of the condition just so we're you know we make sure that anything that's supposed to be used for screening has an adequate height at time of
planting uh Nate I my uh my editor self would really like to have the screening closer to the word shrub um so I would like the minimum height of any shrub right providing a screening
[Music] function to be at least three feet tall at the time of planting right period and Bruce I see your hand is up still yep Bruce um
I I I think I was just going to say that uh um we could rely on the planting plant for this that's logical but I noticed that repeatedly through these conditions we are asking for all sorts of things like that it has to comply with the Massachusetts architectural
access board and and various other things so I think Nate if you want this to kind of be a prompt uh and to kind of reside in these conditions to be more per more General then I think we should
keep it uh as you've written it and uh recognize that the uh that in this case it's really only the uh um the the the electric meters the electric meters that need screening I
think that's correct and and so forth so this is just another one of those redundant phrases um but it's not doing any harm I don't think Tomy disagree you know it could be conflicting with the landscape
plan which we've you know so if it does I I'd rather have I mean well if it does it's conflicting in the way we want it to be conflicted right right so maybe not withstanding the the heights stated on the landscape
plan then the minimum height shall be at least three feet but oh I I would just go with what you've got there I think it's pretty clear that that's what we're trying to and and uh I mean the only thing I will say the there's a vault on near the entry from University Drive
that doesn't show any screening and is that I just it's underground sorry Nate I should have responded and I didn't it's subsurface yeah okay good good catch though Tom are we good with this Tom do you object to this no as long as I mean what we're
hearing is uh meter Transformer particularly make sure they're at least 3T no problem okay thank you br uh yeah I would say uh rather than 2B I
would say shall be at least because we're stating a condition good point okay Nate all right uh the spr you know approval expires within two years years any work once is started shall be
completed within 24 months uh if they need to extend it they can we're requiring an anr plan be submitted to combine the the lots and that happened before the issuance of a building permit so you know there's um few lot separate Lots
there now uh building exterior and site improvements the town engineer and Building Commissioner you inspect the construction of Entry driveways and pay areas all utility connection shall be underground we say all exterior lighting shall be dark sky compliant and downcast
and then we added there shall be no uplighting of signs or landscape features and so at one point it looked like there had been some uplighting but you know I don't think there is now again this could become a part of a standard condition right I see your hands raised oh yeah yeah the item nine I think it
should be four conformance to town standards oh yeah got that thanks Fred um number 12 except as shown on the approved plans any air condition conditioning units communication devices uh shall be screened from View
and noise muffled with fencing plantings or other suitable material so that's a provided in the plans I number 13 the baller shown on the 10- foot walkway along University Drive shall be removable now I you know I don't know if that's the case it didn't
look like it on the construction details but I just we can talk about it and if we want to remove it we can or change the condition but so I'll say they're not but Barry do you have any reason why they should they couldn't be
removable so yeah that's fine if you want them removable we can make them removable not a problem I'm just thinking for ease of any say snow plowing or something or you know if the town ends up doing some of
that um so the exterior signs I'm proposing to remove that um because uh you know the further one and in the other one there's other conditions that address that so uh 15 the applicant shall provide to the
planning board for review and approval at a public meeting the final details and specifications FR amenities such as bike rack site Furniture benches prior to installation I think we they shown most of it but maybe not some of it so this is we have this condition actually
in other um permits number 16 the applicant shall provide to the planning board an updated parking agreement with emis public house at Ford University Drive detailing how the requirements of the special permit will be met going forward and I guess my
only comment there would be something on the lines Nate of like or that no agreement is required and what is prompting this and what's the relationship to the amoris public house so fora University Drive Barry
owns that as well uh you may recall like it might have been like 2020 2019 2018 a restaurant savanah's was going in there at the time uh folks were worried about the parking volume and so the solution to that was really to like do valet
parking uh I don't think it was ever used and that there's a parking agreement to allow folks to park across the street at 2535 again I don't know that it's been used so what we have to do is just go through the zba to modify 40 University Drive their special permit
to eliminate uh that agreement and so that's what we haven't done that yet um but we're we're going to all right you have any objection to the way this is written my only comment would be like I
said like if this this anticipates there being an updated parking agreement which there may be uh but so you want to add or that or in or alternative or alternative solution has been achieved something like that reporting reporting
that no agreement is required yep yep as a as a PR iCal matter right if um if nothing is required then we will the planning department will already know um based upon going through the zba
process okay okay all right uh 17 the applicant shall return to the planning board at a public meeting within one year after the final certificate of occupancy and present information about parking usage and demand including adequacy of parking for
non-residential spaces the board may ask the applicant to return again after the non-residential spaces have been occupied and so in the past we've done this with some other projects where certain uses haven't been determined again it's something the board can discuss now and so this is really just
for our information to find out how things are working right yeah okay uh building interior in use uh the building shall meet all codes the total number of drawing units to be
constructed she'll be limited to 78 units one Studio five one beds one bath 30 two bed one bath nine three bedroom and two bath and 33 four bedroom two bath the building shall not exceed five
stories and 59 and a half feet and so 21 is you know um another one the principal you shall remain mixed use uh remain a mixed use building include a combination of dwelling units and a non-residential use
occupying at least 30% of the first floor um number 19 so say they build the building and five years from now it's clear the market for four bedroom units is not very good and they want to split a unit
in two do we have to change these conditions well they'd come back and present it to the board and say is that one you know if it's one unit is that a DI Minimus change or if they're changing all their four bedrooms that might be suff sufficient enough that they have to amend their site plan right I mean if
they're going from but is 78 units and now they're adding you know 16 more units but the site plan is not about the interior of the building well it's also it's about the number of units right in our in the
um for mix use building and for site plan it's you know we have to know that there are a certain bedroom count or bedroom size and breakdown so you can't have more than 50% of one bedroom size okay uh you know I don't know if if
anyone else has any comments about that in terms of 19 you know if we were the condition differently or well I mean it seems sort of repetitive because we've approved the plans so what's the point yeah the point
here is you know a building whatever is in conditions becomes enforceable and it's recorded and it's to me it's easier than defined right so we're not going to say well oh we refer to the plans and let's go try to find the unit breakdown on the plans we refer to the conditions in the permit and so okay but we want to
have as conditions to be enforcable and to be used in the future we'd have them as conditions so okay 22 and 23 you know 22 the building shall meet all as Bruce said the mass architectural access access board requirements uh they should be
registered in terms of the residential rental property bylaw 24 and and those are Rel I mean 22 is needed to make sure that the building inspector refers to
mab when he issues the building permit right or right if there's ever any if there's any if a comp if there's a complaint made and there's questions about it we can refer to this permit or to what the inspector has finded all
right I agree this I mean this one's a little redundant uh you know the other one uh you some of them maybe aren't but you know really that has to meet the so we always we say up above it has to meet all other codes too here I mean if we wanted
to is uh somewhat you know redundant uh 24 there shall be security measures in place such as key or fob access to the elevators and stairs so that only residents and not the general public have access to the residential
spaces in the building okay uh commercial ret non-residential tenant spaces um Doug if I may on that one uh it says and and and not the general public um do does anybody want to be
specific enough to say not the general public or uh tenants of the uh non-residential spaces or I mean we could delete we could delete the parenthetical yeah yeah I'm asking whether whether
because the General Public uh the the the res the the the attendant of the non-res residential spaces may may perhaps be considered not the general public and uh I I was thinking that that
because you probably want to have key access for the for the for the separately for the uh the non-residential spaces as well am I getting to uh oh if you remove the
parenthetical then you're just saying that only the residents have access to the residential spaces oh I see what you mean yes yes do the do the commercial tenants have access to that trash room that's inside the residential
area you you think you read my mind um yeah uh Barry Jonathan is that the how is trash for non-residential spaces going to be hand L will there be a separate entrance to the trash room
like do they have to go outside and in the in the outside door to deposit their trash in the toter there yes they'll they'll go through the outside doors and won't be able to go into the unit be a keypad inside the trash room to go into
the residential and they won't have the code for that so there's a keypad on both sides of that inner door correct so this um we could remove the the parenthetical and just have it read the way
it I agree all right there that's are we good with number 24 yep 25 any use uh so for commercial or the non-residential spaces any use authoriz in the non-residential space at
this project site shall be among the uses Allowed by WR or permitted by site plan review or by special permit in the liant business zoning district and shall be required to follow all appropriate permitting and so that means if you know something goes into one of the
non-residential spaces it could be administratively approved unless there are some changes that needs you know some some other application okay U mark lease agreement any substantial modifications would come
back um okay work within the right of way again this is kind of standard language any repairs or improvements would be fixed you know prior to thiss with the final Co all crosswalks sidewalks and amenities would
be reconstructed to match existing and all utility work shall follow regulations and permits of the town okay uh the management plan we number 30 the management plan including supplemental information submitted by the applicant
details parking management as follows there shall be 160 parking spaces 24 compact spaces 120 spaces will be reserved to Residents and 40 spaces will be available for non-residential uses in shared space for residents tenants will be required to register vehicles with
Property Management in order to obtain a parking sticker spaces will be numbered and assign to Residents in the commercial spaces shall be available from 8: am to 5:00 pm the only comment the only comment I'd
have there is uh the 120 spaces reserved and 40 spaces available uh just that whole maybe a positive I'd love to take that out and just it was more of an example to say here's what we will likely do but I think um it comes down to management and
if there's a commercial tenant that says here's how many parking spaces with we need we need and we think that we can rent the residential spaces maybe with less because people don't have vehicle like I just don't want to get tied into 120 and
40 so just that uh from the comma after the parenthetical spaces to the comma right before tenants we would request that um be removed yeah exactly that and then we're happy to register the vehicles we're happy to have parking stickers uh Barry spaces numbered is
fine yep space is numbered is fine so all of that is okay all right uh Jesse yeah I I don't disagree at all didn't think our interests are aligned here I mean they want the right parking mix for the uses so I think that makes a
lot of sense thank you okay all right Nate I guess looks like we're not even halfway through but are we through most of this before you get to the construction boiler plate yeah so management plan the rest of this is you
know boiler plate snow would be removed drainage structure is kept clear of snow trash pickup and everything during 7 am. to 7 PM except as you know provided during emergencies move in move out shall occur
during 7 AM to 7 pm and coordinated to you know minimize impacts of multiple moving trucks 36 upon change of ownership or if the property is no longer managed by udrive Amity LLC the new owner and our manager shall submit a new management plan to the planning board at a public meeting
for its review and approval the purpose of the meeting shall be for the board to determine whether conditions of the permit are being complied with whether any modification to the site plan approval or management plan is required all right Construction 37 a demolition permit shall be issued
before demolition takes place uh you know prior to the issuance of a building permit this is 38 a preconstruction meeting shall be scheduled um there should be a written fire management Plan before the issu of building permit number 39 40 was 40 was redundant usually don't
don't really need to go through all of these y so we say the final construction Logistics plan shall be provided at the pre-construction meeting and shall cover the following items so I just say the word final there was some something submitted but this all gets worked out after the
permit these are all pretty boiler plate all through here there's any questions about up through 50 you know those are things we always require completion of work we're saying as buil plans you know digital plants the town
55 would be new construction of the project sh comply with the requirements of the Town engineer as listed in his letter of so Jason provided a letter the town engineer in relationship to the variance that noted a number of things uh was relevant to the site plan
intereview so we can include that [Music] here Bruce might be the appropriate time I read the Jason's letter and uh he talks
about um a a pad that needed a concrete pad I think as a for for uh getting off the bus uh and he he says something about it has to be with the something area and I think he
meant to say within the area and I and I uh and I thought that that just to be clear because it's a little confusing but if you but if you make it if it reads within then I think it makes sense my guess is that that's what he was trying to say in that letter that we are
currently discussing I yeah I don't know whether we need to pull it up I think we should just uh perhaps uh um Pam Nate if you could uh have that letter maybe look at it right now and see whether that's not
correct and if so you could just deal directly with the town engineer to change that wood yeah no yeah you're saying to have a larger pad so if someone needs it to get off the bus they have you know there's basically a turning radius if they have a device yeah I I understand
what he's but I think I understand what he's saying it will make sense it's just that the the wording in the letter doesn't communicate exactly what I think he intends to say all right okay right 56 57 are standard to you
know in terms of what we want for the final certificate in 57 so affordable units we uh you know this project provid number 58 provides enough affordable units that some have to be at 80% Ami and some at 60% and so
that's what the um condition 58 says so according to Article 15 inclusion res zoning of the zoning bylaw at least 12% of the dwelling units nine units shall be and shall remain affordable in perpetuity according to article 157 unit shall be marketed to eligible households
whose annual income may not exceed 80% of very median income adjusted for household size as determined by Hud and two units shall be marketed to eligible households whose annual income may not exceed 60% Ami and so all that language basically
just says that okay uh so the rest of these are in terms of what it how it meets the definition in the bylaw and it should be on the Shi where you have your hand up are you oh yeah if I get to 61 is the unit
breakdown right so now I do have my hand okay Bruce um uh I I I would uh suggest that we delete uh item a one of the affordable oh one of the affordable
units shall be located on the fifth floor that's fine but I think and have access to a deck is an unreasonable requirement well there's not much point in having the any part of E if we remove that isn't that true yeah right now I
have four four bom units which wasn't being proposed it was more three bedroom so I think we can talk about what we think is a the right yeah I there's a the we have a we have a plan that uh was submitted that shows the
distribution of the uh of the units through the building and there were two comments associated in the development application report and one of them saids that uh that there should be one of them at least should have deck access and the other says that uh some of them
shouldn't be or they shouldn't be next to stairs and uh I take you see with both of those uh requirements but more specifically with this one here for reasons that I've mentioned already uh so I would argue that we delete e out of
number 61 Nate it sounded like earlier you although the The Building Commissioner was recommending this it there's not any requirement for it and it's really up to the discretion of the
board right there's the ability of the board to say that we think you these are the appropriate affordable units okay so board members uh do you support Bruce's suggestion or do you oppose it
Karen I support Bruce's suggestion for the same reasons that he said that he explained so well all right uh Jesse has his thumb up I guess I'm I'm okay with it so I think that's a majority
saying go ahead and delete it and then the other piece to talk about is the number of bedrooms so you know a one one bedroom three two bedrooms you have one three bedroom and then four four bedrooms there was no proposal to have four bedroom units be
affordable you know I this is just based on the proportionality of taking you know the number of units and then breaking down the 12% and doing some rounding uh you know I will you know again I think it's up to the board I have heard sometimes that four bedrooms are hard to occupy given the that Bruce
are you I was going to ask I guess I was going to ask whether the housing uh the affordable housing trust has ventured an opinion here because I would imagine in town that would be the organized that would have the um the clearest knowledge of what uh the affordable housing market
in amous is and whether there's a shortage of four bedroomroom units or not um so my question is uh perhaps of Nate uh do we have any indication from the Housing Trust the affordable housing trust that four bedroom units uh should be we should take the opportunity of
putting four bedroom units uh on the affordable housing register in this building no I I this this hasn't been discussed by the trust uh and so you know we we could ask them I know in the past even the Housing Authority has said that four bedroom units are hard to
occupy because you know if you you know you may have to have a minimum household size of so many occupant pretty high yeah I mean that's our just I'll chime in that's our thought as well so we we loaded it with 31 bed 32 bed three three beds uh that's
our experience just really in practice of what is filled um and so that that would be our suggestion however you want to break it down and fine with the way Nate suggests like the 60% Ami that 60 and 80 I think that's fine but we would
say 31 beds 32 beds 3 three beds and we're almost certain that they're going to be filled which is like that's really the the point of this so we we were we did not include four bedrooms for the reason that we're talking about right now all right um
any expressions of support for the mix that Tom has proposed or any objections any any comments about that Bruce I I think I would go with uh what Tom's suggesting because in the room I think
uh there is that's where the greater experience is which is why I ask whether the portable Housing Trust adventured an opinion and if they haven't then I'm uh um I'm I'm backing up to Tom and Bar's experience so yes as it as it spread as
it as you have it currently now I I would support I think we'd have to make one other decision in terms of what is the other 60% unit is it a one bedroom or a three bedroom uh you know we'd have to
wouldn't we want to do like do another one-bedroom so you know there's two units at 60% Ami so sorry you know this essentially you know we'd have to figure out what what Ami levels these would
be and and what what mix of 60 and 80 do we need is any anything going to tell us that or we can completely decide ourselves well because there's three bedroom sizes and only two units are require to be at 60% you have to make a
decision about what okay so so that's the answer I needed there's you're say only two need to be at 60% right okay um and for what it's worth I just I'm talking to Gail she's the one who does it she said the three-bedroom at 60% is
probably the one that is I don't want to say easier to fill but that's there's more of a demand it's probably the way to look at it okay well I think you know that's more likely to be a family at 60% which I think people would
be supportive of rather than a single person at 60% Jesse uh yeah I guess in the absence of a recommendation from the Housing Trust Tom and Barry know what'll be filled I
think that's the way to go yeah this looks like where I where I was headed Nate okay sounds so any objections to what we now have on the screen
all right all right why don't we move on sure so yeah all these close are we close to done Nate so we can take our break soon or do we need to this is it so I think we're pretty close actually okay all right so you know we there um
so just to reiterate that you know all these conditions are about the affordable units that we have basically until the end of the um the conditions you know uh there's one piece we talk about you know um they you know the
applicant works with us to submit a local action unit to get it on the Shi they're affordable in perpetuity um I think right here number 68 there's a local preference so up to 70% of the affordable units at initial Lottery can be reserved for you know
eligible households that meet local preference which is listed here is the permit granting you know authorities ability to say it could be any percent up to 70% is the maximum it could be 50% it could be less and so it's a discussion to have if you feel
strongly about having a certain percent local preference um I'm going to ask why 70% and why not just say U seven of the nine uh you just based on it's a percentage
um just on in terms of the legislation and the regulations it's yeah the state regulations right right it's a percent yeah well what don't we then put in parenthesis I.E nine of seven of the nine because I mean basically it's a proportion and the question is whether
we're rounding up or down and so I thought it might just make it clearer if we said what it means for this project well we say No More than 70% so that' be so we would round down
right all right okay I mean so you know some you know there is you know some discussion out there that local preference is exclusionary right that if you know you don't have a a demographic you know certain demographics in your town the local preference doesn't help
fill the units you know equitably in terms of you know who's available in terms of who wants affordable unit so you know we have to justify this to the state anyways that we have the need and demand and so I just want to you know let the planning board know that there you know there are discussions about what is local
preference you know a good or a bad thing yeah I mean it seems like a lot of the conversation around affordable housing is about accommodating people who otherwise can't afford to live here right which
implies they're not here until they move into the affordable unit so local preference kind of works against that it could or it could you know or some people would say that you know it's a if we're providing some local support
that you know we're giving these categories you know the ability to try to get into one of the units again this applies only at the initial lease up and then afterwards everyone just goes on a waiting list and so right all right do so do we need
to specify a you know do we need to say a specific amount you could say 50% or up to No More than 70% is the maximum allowed by the state and so folks are you good with six out of nine Jesse looks good Bruce looks
good can't see Karen Karen looks good and Fred looks good I guess I guess it's six out of nine all right uh 70 the regulatory agreement shall be approved by the state and
recorded at um the Hampshire County registry of D's prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy with a copy provided to the Building Commissioner I just wanted to call that out I think that's the right order Nate I would just put in front of
any c maybe any final certificate of occupancy or eliminate any and just puts like the issuance of the final because I think then later as we've experienced right as long as you're in the process sometimes Rob will issue a temporary certificate of occupancy but you don't
get that final until everything's put to rest thank you does that work for the board yep all right 72 and 73 similar to you know somewhat redundant to 70 the 4 shall be available and the Tenant selection process shall
be um shall be in process at the time of any full or partial certificate of occupancy for completed units however at the discretion of the Building Commissioner a certificate of occupancy may be issued and exclude the affordable units until the tenant selection process
has been completed and inspection services have has been provided documentation of the completed selection process the affordable unit shall be occupied at all times only by qualifying tenants and ordance with the regulatory agreement and so this allows for what Tom mentioned sometimes the way the
marketing of affordable units works and then the tenant selection it can take a little bit of time to go through the list of applicants to qualify them and then get them into units uh 73 is new um something we haven't done before with affordable units but I think it's important the
applicant shall report to the Building Commissioner on the occupancy status of the affordable units at six-month intervals following the issuance of the first certific C ific of occupancy until all affordable units are occupied by income eligible tenants the report shall include reasons and explanations if the
units remain vacant for an extended period of time and efforts taken to fill the units and so sometimes we hear that with projects that have inclusionary units an affordable unit might not be filled for a year or eight months or some extended period of time and staff
will look into it but I want to you know put the onus on the applicant to come back and kind of follow up with this we've never had the ability conditions that do this and so usually it's then staff you know chasing it or hearing about it um any objections no I think it's a I
think it's a terrific uh terrific condition all right all right and then the last one uh for amenities which just says the entire project site and building shall be smoke free non-smoking to the extent Allowed by law that's that's the heading
amenities seems a little strange to to be for that content I know you know it sounds like it ought to be talking about the the roof decks and the workout rooms and that kind of thing yeah we or we could
move this condition and put it that's that's it for the condition isn't that kind of part of a management plan this is I mean we like I you know I'd be okay moving this up into the general conditions yeah why don't we do that all right so we're gonna we're
gonna hold off Tom tonight I know you don't want to come back and see us again in a month but we're all looking forward to seeing you again um so uh everyone uh I'm G to need a motion
to continue to March 19th I think it is is that right Nate March 19th and at the moment we don't have anything at 6:35 yet do
we no no but we will have we'll likely have something uh that evening as well but well don't we want to kind of oh no I agree this should this should be first on the agenda should be first and treat it quickly and move on
Y and just so I'm clear nothing else is needed from us will show up that evening you open it um say okay you've got your variance approval yeah you show up with your variance and we'll be expeditious
with you okay perfect any objections to my statement board members all right I think I've got someone lined up to make a motion to continue and someone to Second Bruce uh
so moved all right thank you Jesse I'll second that all right board members starting with you Bruce I'm an I thank you uh
Fred I thank you Jesse hi and I'm an i as well and Karen oh Karen why do I keep forgetting you tonight I think I think it's because you're at the bottom of my checklist here and there's a couple people who are
not here sorry about that thank you so that's five in favor two absences Tom we'll see you on the 19th be in a month thank you very much thank you we'll see you in March time now is
8:39 I guess it's time for our five minute break please come back at uh by uh 8:45 e e e e
e e e e e e [Music] for for Pam did we lose Nate oh there he is okay um yeah no he's there yeah he's
there I just all right time is 8:46 I'm hoping Bruce and Nate and car and can come back [Music] all right Bruce is back it's now down to Karin and Nate there's Ken
is there's Nate okay all right so the time now is 8:48 and we can continue with our agenda um next item number four General
housing discussion first part of that is to continue the footnote M discussion and possible vote to consider as a zoning Amendment um I guess uh anybody from the housing sub commmittee want to make a
motion uh I guess I'll thank you guys for withdrawing your motion two weeks ago and giving me two weeks to think about this while while we waited for the next meeting Jesse uh sure so yeah it's a little ironic but Doug do you want
want to discuss it all I mean four of us I have a couple comments I was going to make um the rationale for my my objection to this but uh I can do it before after the motion it doesn't matter okay then I'll move to vote that
we adopt like I guess that we send this amendment to council is that the right motion to make well why don't you read what the motion what the amendment is because uh so we've got something you know because I don't I don't know is that is that sorry is that the right
thing to do we're moving it because we're not approving it we can't approve it right we would be recommending to councel for their okay so for footnote M we propos to change from 4,000 squ ft to 6,000
square ft in each instance as follows m in addition to the areas required by this table for any existing dwelling units on the lot the density for new tow houses section 3322 and apartments Section 3 323 shall not
exceed one dwelling unit for 6,000 square F feet of the remaining lot area or in the case where there are no existing dwelling units 6,000 square feet for each new dwelling unit beyond the first unit so I move that we suggest that
Amendment recommend to council Town Council all right anybody want to Second it uh Fred raised his hand before Bruce got his digital hand up okay discussion and maybe I'll just
say my piece and then we can move on but I will ask for public comment at some point soon uh so if some of you in the public want to comment about this Now's the Time To Do It um so the points I wanted to make were first of all I don't really
there was uh in the sort of document you uh that the housing subcommittee uh sent to the planning board there was discussion about the the legitimacy or illogic of the reason that it was originally changed or
or previously changed to uh 4,000 square feet I don't really I don't really care about the logic in the past um my objection is that I do not want to be moving in the direction of reducing density
uh in areas where there's high demand for housing um I think that's the wrong direction to move um and so you know I know that that uh some of the uh proponents of this kind of thing
are living around the university um in neighborhoods that are increasingly occupied by students and um you know I I do not think that it's a bad thing for for students to be congregating around the
university um where they can walk or bicycle to to school and leave their cars at home um and so or not even have a car although that doesn't seem to be the case with very many students that I
I see on my street um so I think that by uh by passing this we would we're preventing a a a natural demand from happening and a concentration of students around the
university um which will continue but just in a slower uh um at a slower rate um this is also countered to the governor's efforts to create more housing and um I don't think
that's a good look for ammer especially if we're interested in getting exemptions from some of the re requirements um thirdly um you know by letting by letting more housing happen around the
university um I think it will reduce or slow the pressure on other housing in town and that that would be those of the neighborhoods that long term are likely to stay predominantly residents rather than uh have a high concentration of
students so those are the reasons that I uh oppose oppose the the motion um I recognize I'm probably the only one in in the room or on the board tonight who who opposes it um so I I can read the
room and uh we can have whatever conversation we want to have but I expect us to have a vote and move on Karen um I I also think that we need more density in the middle of town I
think by approving the um the 6,000 squ ft go going back on on uh footnote M gives us time to plan this density in a way that it's not going to
destroy um some very in my opinion essential areas residential areas um which need to be preserved for the university for for the sake of everybody to have because the the spread of uh
close to the university houses is so fast and and occupies a lot of the central part at Lincoln Avenue Sunset Avenue all these places which I think add a lot to the way the the uh Town
feels the residential feel which I think is attractive to faculty and people that want to live here that could so quickly be destroyed if we don't take measures to preserve it it's not just one street after another and it yes students are
are good we need them but look at these neighborhoods that were once uh residential neighbors neighborhoods what they look like now if you're going to Page Street and some of these other streets where you have maybe one uh family left where that used to be all
families and and walk there on a weekend a and see what will happen to the inside of uh ammer of this residential area this central part I would I would uh say
will be lost if we don't act to to reserve it and then we have time to say how can we do the infill in a way which is attractive which will still allow uh families with children and not just
students to be able to live here it's going too fast and it needs to be regulated all right Jesse thanks um I respectfully disagree with your
position that's totally fine I do need to push back a little bit that I do not think this is a not in my backyard situation yes I live in the middle of one of the neighborhoods as this K but that's really not my motivation I don't think those KS either we're really
thinking about the whole town and the longevity of having people who want to live old time year round raise families contribute to schools libraries Etc be this a
possibility to move in here and the way we're going I just don't think it's going to happen and we'll quickly be we're already priced out of that and and we're working towards bringing that back that's all thanks okay Fred uh at the end of the day um I think in
fact I'm quite certain that the people of the town want this uh yeah um
I'm I completely understand the uh the principle that the uh General rosid and Zoning district is a higher density uh zoning District I don't have a problem with that
um uh I I live in high density housing uh in a three family house um and as I said I don't have a problem with that but
uh the uh the consequences of low lowering this to 4,000 which should not have happened uh uh is uh extreme and uh as I at the end of the day
uh this is something that uh well when when this came to a representative town meeting in uh in November of uh yeah uh of uh
1993 uh when it came to a representative town meeting uh the town meeting passed it unanimously so uh yeah this is this is something that it it should not have been decreased to
4,000 and we can correct that uh if we take this now all right any other comments from the board um I'll go ahead and ask the public if there are any members of the public who want to comment on
this all right I don't see any all right um we'll go ahead and do a roll call uh starting with you Bruce I'm an i all right Fred I thank you Jesse I
Karen I all right and I am man Mo motion passes uh four to one with two absences Nate I guess we need to have a memo to Town
Council uh recommending this uh change to the Zoning for them to vote on and then I guess send back to us and see RC right all right any more discussion about that all
right uh the second part of our agenda for General housing had to do with the potential overlay for existing apartment complexes um Nate um have you got any new material on that
or has there been any advancement in terms of materials staff has propos has available no there hasn't been anything uh any pen to paper there were some comments submitted and forwarded to the board considerations for this um you
know at one point we said we'd look at a map and kind of walk through the area um you know so you know we could do that you know my thought like I said was keeping it you know south of Meadow Street and West of North pleas streets so one quadrant but no well what about
Hobart yeah I I you know so I think that's a something to talk about I I was really considering it you know this one discrete area contiguous area not jumping streets and so I guess that's something for the board to discuss if we wanted to right okay uh
Jesse as reticent as I am to delay things I think Lawrence in particular has not been part of the conversations and I you know I don't know what to do I feel like if we make any decisions now and move any forward we're G have we have the same conversation when the full
board's here so part of me feels like let's spare ourselves some time and maybe again maybe the subcommittee if we meet next can work on some of the details and bring it back to the full board when everyone's here I mean I think I'm fine with
postponing a real discussion about this to meeting Nate do you think um in two weeks you could have a boundary at least a boundary drawing or something yeah Doug you won't be here on the 5th but um I think I can have things to
share yeah and then we had some conversation last time about you know height and um you know but it was kind of all over the place whether we were kind of at our five story standard or
whether we'd even entertain some Towers so uh I don't know it seems like we the board seems to do better when we have something to react to so if you were to sort of dra just draft something that we
can then take shots at sure um that would probably be the way to go Jesse I guess and I don't know if it's too much to put together at least for me having some sense of how many units and bedrooms we're talking about with the
different Arrangements is really helpful also just to think that way so like what's the current number of people that are housed there and then with any iterations what are we talking about just numbers wise okay
Bruce um I have asked Nate uh I can't remember I did the board meeting or maybe it was at housing subcommittee meeting or actually no it was by email because for for this uh um um uh housing uh unit number chart and Doug you
provided something in fact it was Kathy Shane counselor Kathy Shane who who asked me for these data and I said uh asked me whether I the board had this and I said well um in various ways but I said I knew that UD Doug had put
together a chart and that's when I wrote you that email and and then Nate you came with an yet another chart and I thought that your chart Nate was so you were going to send that to me and then I could kind of consolidate so if these
data are already out there in some ways and I can begin to help you put that together because I've got time to do this so if you could just send me the uh the the uh the you've sent me a a spreadsheet I mean a PDF of it but I can't edit it so if you can send me the
uh your actual XLS spreadsheet then I can uh I can fold in what Doug's got and uh and then put some additional columns in for things that Cathy was asking for and then perhaps go and do some uh digging around for my myself and see
whether I can uh be a contributor useful contributor here sure yes I I meant to I you know I looked I didn't find it readily available and then I forgot to dig into where that spreadsheet is so what Bruce is talking about for the town for the housing Choice Grant going back a number of years we started keeping
track of units that receive building permits in a spreadsheet and was broken down by single family home accessory U you adus or accessory structures and then multi-unit development and and then we have some other details with it uh and it pulled from a number of of data
sources it's something that we don't have one you know it's not easily reportable in our in our software so um you know it's been asked it's been asked before is being asked again to have something like this and you know it would contribute to the discussion of say an overlay or if we talk about
something you know in terms of units and so Bruce has offered to update it um I actually I've talked to staff about trying to use our new permit software to kind of create a database where this could be entered into and reported out again um just a discussion so you know I
can share that with the whole board as well too and you can see the spreadsheet and then I'll find the the Excel version too Bruce for you okay great okay good good oops hand down Brucey
yeah okay um any any so no we'll postpone a longer conversation about this until later and Nate I think it would be great I mean if it's next time great if it's not till the time after that that's probably okay too yeah no since our discussion I I
haven't think about that you know like I've driven by thought about buffers height I can I just need to get like pen to paper and a map or two and we can okay all right all right uh time is 906 moving on to Old business uh topics reasonably not
reasonably anticipated anything Pam or Nate nothing no nope new business anything no uh Karen um we mentioned it at some
some time we wanted to put on our agenda the idea of slowing um slowing traffic down that's our constituents keep asking me is there anything that the planning board can do to kind of slow traffic in
the in downtown particularly AMD and try to work toward making it more pedestrian friendly in that way can we put that on our agenda as something that we isn't that something that the that we have a Transportation subcommittee or a
transportation Committee in town aren't is aren't there other entities more appropriate than the planning board Nate than that would deal with traffic calming there is I you know I think it's a good point um you know Jesse had also um emailed and ask about
food trucks and other people have asked about food trucks and although it's not necessarily under the planning board's jurisdiction say food trucks or say what kin's talking about things happening in the right of way it could be that we have an agenda item you know it could be related to Traffic calming and the
planning board could then you know vote to recommend or send a letter to you know count Town Council Transportation advisory committee or others and so it could I don't I don't see any harm in having it be an agenda item and then the board doesn't right have jurisdiction over it but we could recommend others
consider things and I think that's fine to do okay all right so Nate maybe it's something to yeah put on a an upcoming agenda yeah I mean you know South Hadley's right it's been there's been articles in the paper the whole town of
South Hadley you know there's a survey asking residents what they thought they're trying to implement it on a few streets different traffic calming measures and so I think you know if the board has ideas or recommendations or just you know try to point people to um
to areas of concern I think that's worthwhile okay Jesse well I'm certainly happy to talk about these things in this group do we have the do we have the expertise to even recommend something like um it does
feel outside of what we're talking about normally and I would like us to focus on the planning pieces yeah I I guess when I say recommendations I mean it's like really generic like look at traffic calming measures or safety measures you not it's not like we're going to
research what those are just yeah I'm kind of in Jesse's uh court on this one um I'd rather talk about things we have to talk about then or and that we're the only ones that do talk about
and leave the other stuff to the other groups I'm not saying it's not a real issue Ken like yeah I just but the transportation Advisory Board is that what the name you know that's their
baileywick oh we lost Nate uh Karen and then Bruce I just think it would not take that much lot a time and I think to give a nudge uh in this direction that this is something we have a lot more visibility nobody really heard hears
that much of a uh people tuning in from the town to the Transportation uh committee and they do to us and I keep getting comments about about this so I think if we take a little bit of time to recommend that
this is something that be taken up it would be helpful okay Bruce Karen I is going to suggest that perhaps you uh talk to the chair or somebody perhaps you know uh anyway
somebody on the transportation advisory committee and find out what their level of interest and activity is uh you know in other words it may be that they're already doing something or it may be that maybe in other words rather than have us go in
cold on this I would prefer to uh have uh have have have some particular strategic meason why we uh we're spending time on it and and you could provide that by uh by having uh first of
all um surveyed the uh the the group and and and verified that as you say that some engagement by the planning board actually would be useful I'd like to know that that was true you were speculating there but you don't have to you could go and find
out all right Jesse I I actually have been meeting with Tracy from the Transportation committee so I kind of do have been active in that way and and they've indicated that uh action by and
energy from the planning board would be useful no no they haven't actually um no okay would have you any sense whether they think we'd be meddling in their
territory no um okay all right but that's not the case either I I'm just going to withdraw this I'll bring it back in a different way after I coordinate with them good point sorry I was going to jump I think
Ken if you wanted to you could email you know the town manager's office uh or you know I could if you send me an email I can forward it on you know that's fine if you email me about that and I can forward it on to staff and others yeah I mean it I mean passing along complaints is something we
certainly can do as individuals um the thing is that these are not really so much complaints but these are very good ideas from a lot of neighbors and they just say can't you would sort of bring this up and I have talked to Tracy about it and then it
gets very Technic about like do you want to study the map and see where the sidewalk should go and things like this so and I and I think we have also uh sent emails to the transportation and and maybe to you Nate too in this
direction about the food truck about parking you know just different things but yes I'll pursue it and I'll be more specific if I bring it up thanks okay uh all right great time is 9:13
we'll go on uh form a an our subdivision applications Pam no nothing tonight uh upcoming zba applications uh Nate I don't have a report but do you are you
aware uh not I mean there's you know there's a few upcoming applications one for you know a duplex um the variance request at Tom for Tom there's a batter battery energy energy storage system on Sunderland Road
that's proposed to be made smaller so they're going to amend their permit but I don't I don't have any you know any other projects necessarily okay upcoming SP spr Su applications sure so the Jewish community of
ammer uh will likely come before the board on March 5th to request a site plan review modification to install a solar canopy over the parking lot um you know there's and then there's small changes like a Transformer Pad in the back of the building but it's a
pretty straightforward project and then uh archipelago Investments has submitted a site plan review application to put buildings down by Atkins and so they had previously requested a variance and I can't remember if it was denied or withdrawn I think it was withdrawn but
anyways they've they've redesigned it so that uh there mix these buildings and you know it um will need some waivers or a special permit from the planning board for possible height and setbacks and so that'll probably be on the second March
meeting okay Fred uh yeah Nate I remember talking to Hilda green bomb about the uh uh one down near Atkins and that was an actual rejection by the uh Z ba that
that that was rejected all right all right um committee n Lea on reports Bruce anything for pvpc yes there was a meeting last Thursday it was um I have to say that it's I I should report that it's
interesting experience this uh um pioner Valley Planning Commission um they have zoom meetings of course um there are upwards of 20 or more 20 or 30 people I
uh uh two 2third or more than 2third of the screens uh have got the people's screens are blacked off the way we are when we do our five minute break um it's it's it's a very discouraging experience
participating in in this thing because you you really feel that half the more than half the people are probably either not there or doing something else so it's it's hard to get energized um and I think you've heard me on in a different way on this before so
it's it's it's it's not it's not very satisfying to know how this function Works however they did have U reports from uh two two folks who are giving presentations one on the the um the the
the the political situation in uh in Washington and another you know in uh in in Boston Visa the current legislative agendas and so forth um the uh report from Washington was as you can imagine
was was was surreal um the one from Massachusetts was much more interesting and so forth as we begin a two-year legislative uh season apparently I mean apparently I didn't realize that our legislative season run two years and not one but I'm learning
um I was we were told that beginning in um April um we will be doing face-to-face uh meetings because the it seems as though the state are not able to do what they've done before which is
to renew the ability for us to conduct ourselves by Zoom it's not that that piece of legislation hasn't been filed apparently it's just that it's been filed in conjunction with other pieces into a bill it's not a unique uh item in a bill as far as I could understand it's
clustered and so it's going to be more contentious or it's going to be just more complicated and it'll take longer and it and so uh the pppc me meeting in April we are told this is the next meeting will be a face-to-face meeting so um I guess people will either be not
at all there or they won't at least be behind their Zoom cameras turned off um the the uh so I don't know what that means for um for planning boards for building Elementary School building committees or these other things that
happen around town um but it may be that we are heading towards face to-face meetings as as far as I could gather um there were other items the town assessments were passed and then budgets and so forth was discussed and set up for the next meeting and there
was one final piece um the the uh the municipal joint trans trans the municipal joint Transportation committee or Commission of the pvpc has two people
from each of the 40 towns and this was another one of these very not terribly well attended meetings and over the past year amist the two people from amist on that commit committee haven't attended a
single meeting so Nate I was uh put it on my agenda to to to say do we know who are the appointed um members to that pvpc
subcommittee or that that Regional committee because uh they're having increasingly trouble getting a getting a quorum and it's apparently because people are appointed to these um committees and then they leave town or
they die or they whatever and they're not reappointed and so these committees are kind of dying on the vine and uh but you know this is a committee apparently which is with these uh um these
Transportation budgets and so forth not being at the table is perhaps consequential so I thought we should find out who those people are and make sure they realize that they are either not attending in or that they're they disappeared and we should ask the
appointing authority to have two more people who will show up Bill DWI the fellow in Hadley the neighbor is is the chair and so he's uh quite active so he's not we got a lot of activity just across the line but for amist um and
there's probably two a third of the other uh towns no representation at all in the in the past 12 months um I there's a bunch of other things but that's uh that's essentially the the the
the grab bag of uh interesting things that I learned uh at the last meeting all right thanks Bruce thanks for your can I ask whether we know whether this are we prepared for face to face in a month or
two uh I guess we'll have to wait and see I know that it's also in the municipal empowerment act you know filed by the governor so there's you know some thought is that if if it's not if the legislation isn't ready there may be an executive order that extends hybrid or
remote meeting so you know right now I'm not you know I'm not we'll do whatever we need to do so I'm not I I don't I don't know we'll see what happens yeah uh and then in terms of Bruce in terms of your your pioner Valley Planning Commission we you know we list you and then Jack as the alternate so I I guess
would would be asking again probably angel on the town manager's office what or who are these other you know appointed officials I don't I'm not aware of maybe I should send you an email with the best effort I can to see what that
actual name of that commission is because I I'll try and remember to do that and uh and then I maybe I could maybe I can send it to Angela and copy you um I think I've got her email
address you're sure it's not you Bruce right no no no this the the the commission membership is is clear it's the this other body that is a part of or in the orbit of the Planning Commission
okay all right um Jesse anything from the housing subcommittee um we did not meet last week we're hoping to meet next week um I can also report I was asked to go to the Housing Trust meeting uh last week which I
did and it was a how do I say this it was it was a um tense conversation they they just wanted to hear what subcommittee was up to um and conversation quickly turned to student home definition and there was a
lot of resistance to that idea which I like to think we talk through um but yeah it was good good to get some different perspectives for us to consider as we try and move forward with that so okay Karen design review board
um we're g to meet again this Monday we haven't met since the last meeting okay uh report of chair time is 9:23 uh my only thing to report is that I will be away at the next meeting so
Johanna will preside uh Nate and Pam anything from St [Music] no I mean I'll mention the downtown design standards you know there that's an ongoing project and uh there's a working group I think happening next or a week and a half and then there will be
some public meetings to look at draft standards uh so I just you know make sure everyone stays aware of that okay all right time is 9:24 I guess we are adjourned thank you all
thank you Doug thank you Doug night Pam good night Mr Marshall um I'm trying to find the record button where the heck is it