##VIDEO ID:6mWUWWWxHds## there's Karen okay Mr Marshall uh you have a quorum of the board your attendees are coming on in we are recording I made you the co-host to this meeting so I think we're good to go okay thank you Pam you're welcome welcome to the emers planning board meeting of December 4th 2024 my name is Doug Marshall and is chair of the emmer planning board I am calling this meeting to order at 6:33 PM this meeting is being recorded and is available live streamed via amoris media minutes are being taken pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended by chapter two of the acts of 2023 this planning board meeting including public hearings will be conducted via remote means using the zoom platform form 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 imperson 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 reason of economic hardship or despite best efforts we will post an audio 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 all right do we have Bruce cuum yet I do not see him um Fred Hartwell bred Hartwell is here thank you Lawrence Kutz present Jesse major present Johan Johanna Newman present Karen winter present and I Doug Marshall I'm present board members if technical issues arise we may need to pause to fix the problem and then 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 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 listed on tonight's agenda Please be aware the board will not respond to comments during general public comment period public comment may also be heard at other times during the meeting when deemed appropriate by the planning board chair please indicate you wish to make a comment by clicking the raise hand button when public comment is solicited if you have joined the zoom meeting using a telephone please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing 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 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 time is 6:36 and we'll go right into the first item on the agenda minutes um Pam uh I did not see any minutes in the packet and uh am I correct there are none tonight there you are correct and I'm going to um be off screen just for a minute here to try and help Bruce get in okay okay great so Bruce is out there somewhere he's out there we're gonna get him in here okay great okay uh we can now go to the public comment period uh as I said this is for comments of regarding items not that that that do not uh appear later in in the agenda so any comments about the udrive uh project udrive LLC um anything about the site plan review on the high school anything about uh the University Drive overlay District um about accessory dwelling units um that can that that should wait so if you have a public comment you want to make about something else anything else uh Now's the Time to put up your hands I will uh remark while waiting for hands to go up that it looks like Bruce CM has joined the meeting here at [Music] 6:37 yay all right we have one hand raised from uh Janet Keller why don't we bring her over hi Janet hi Janet um all right so this is a time for comments not about things later on the agenda and I know you did send in a letter about something later on the agenda okay so um I'll I don't have anything else to say until we get to later on in the agenda thanks okay thank you are there any other members of the public who would like to comment at this time while you're waiting I guess I'll read the names of the people who are that I can see in the attendees they are Janet Keller uh Becca Briggs Bill Hunter Bob parent Christine brep Elizabeth verling KL donabedian NL crom Pamela Rooney and uh pel Patel so um I don't see any other hands and uh I guess I will conclude there really aren't any other public comments on items that are not on tonight's agenda the okay so time is 6:39 our our next um public hearing our first public hearing is posted for 655 we obviously have about uh 25 minutes or no 15 minutes until that time so we'll go jump to items later on the agenda and hopefully fill up that time productively so um why don't we go down to item eight old business uh topics not reasonably anticipated 48 hours in advance Pam or Nate are there any old topics of old business I don't have anything Nate have we talked about anything uh no I don't think so yeah okay all right uh likewise for new business not anticipated Nate I have that I have the same thought that no we haven't thought of anything we wanted to bring up old or new do you agree he nods yes I agree okay thank you all right uh for a anr subdivision applications anything no we we don't have one um tonight but you should have one in front of you on December 18th okay uh zba applications anything of interest to the board um I don't have any to talk about Nate do you for the zba yes no wayfinders is going through the process um Sho spray Road solar maybe coming back um next month it was continued um you know there's other applications that the zba is actually pretty busy right now but you know those are probably the two bigger projects okay um SBP spr SUV applications no we don't have any brand new ones okay that are waiting we probably have some in the pipeline um that haven't exactly been handed to us so nothing to report at this time okay uh committee and liaison reports starting Bruce with you anything you learned about pvpc in the last six weeks uh other than my uh report last time I thought there was a meeting last week but it turned out that it was an executive committee meeting and I'm not on the executive committee although actually Jack is um so whereas I thought I would be reporting something I I report only that I misunderstood the the purpose of the meeting okay uh we don't have any CPAC uh report since we don't have an representative at this time design review board Karen uh we did we have not met since the last time I reported so no all right okay um I at this point in the meeting I don't have a report as report of chair Nate anything you General announcements from staff yeah I would say that the uh downtown design standards there's a a an online survey again uh for residents and community members to complete and there's a um you know a public meeting being scheduled for gosh I'm blanking on the date um December 9th the 9th yes yeah um so you can uh you know members are you know welcome to attend that um that's still you know that'll be ongoing for a number of months still um there's the housing needs assessment that will be coming back to the planning board to look at as part of the housing production plan that we're hoping to finish next June uh and then the town's still working on the open space and Recreation plan again it's something that the planning board will need to review and we hope to get something to you in January for that so those are two town planning documents that will'll have some draft form in the next you know hopefully in January to to discuss okay that's it all right um I see two hands Jesse and then FR and then Bruce I thought but he his went away okay Jesse uh just a comment on the committee and the aison reports I don't know if you want to continue to have the subcommittee on there wasn't on there uh we did meet last week you're you'll hear about the consequence of that meeting later on tonight but nothing else to report okay yeah you're the committee was on there for a couple of meetings and now it's not on there I can always just raise my hand if there's stuff to report which is fine too okay I was just going to move to a Jen well we could adjourn for 10 minutes and come back everybody could go finish their dinner take a break Marshall did did you want to remind people about um January we will not have a meeting on January 1 but instead we will have our first meeting in January on Jan January 8th yeah you should all have gotten uh the 2025 schedule from Pam um you know we don't usually have to change right out of the gate when we get into the new year but this year we didn't think anybody would want to come come do this on January 1 uh Bruce um this is actually serious I think uh um did everybody else get the uh typical U uh Zoom link you know that comes uh about 5 days before and then 24 hours before and then an hour before did they I did yeah uh I didn't and so that's the first time ever and I I wonder why that is and it didn't go to junk or anything like that it just didn't come Pam could you because that was I I just assumed that it was there somewhere and I when I look for it I realized I didn't have any of them sure I can tell you that what I do is the day like so tomorrow I will be sending you your invitations for the very next meeting yeah so when Chris called me to let me know you didn't have a link you know I was going through the back end to try to get to you but you already came on board so I jumped right back into the meeting so I'm going to take a look at it but I will look at it tomorrow I mean there is a chance oh I hate to report this but it could be human error I could have admitted you that is the only thing like if you didn't get it at all I'm questioning whether you know I go through a list and I'm wondering you know if it is human error and I omitted you so I would say moving forward if you don't get that those reminders if you can reach out to me um do so so that I can I can help you a little bit sooner I I yeah I will just say that anything people can do for checks and balances in terms of my work right now my plate is pretty full um and I do a pretty good job of dotting all the eyes and crossing the tees but I I I need reminders too so please feel free if you don't get I will but let me just ask because I didn't get any of the three uh does that tell you does that give you any useful feedback well as soon as you said that you didn't get any of the three I went Ah that's probably human error so and I will I will check into it tomorrow and I will let you know okay um so I'm wondering if folks want to take a seven or eight minute break and come back at 655 um uh Fred I see your hand yeah um since we have a little bit of dead time here I had a this afternoon my normal procedure is before the meeting to go to the the uh publication packet for the meeting and um I had uh a devil of a time getting my printer this has never ever happened before uh getting my printer to print out a couple of the documents and uh uh I I finally after three times I was able to get it to print out uh in a bizarre way I would I would tell it to print and the printer would print the first five pages and then without missing a beat would start back at the first page and print out the first seven pages and then keep Printing and then print out the entire packet I'm I I I can't explain how that could happen and I'm just wondering whether uh any of the other members uh had that happen uh to them or whether this is somehow unique to to my computer and printers uh well anybody else if you did any anyone else try to print out from the packet BR did you did you first of all download the thing as a PDF onto your desktop and then print the PDF uh uh no I didn't I just I I've never had to I just went site and uh clicked on it and it it arrived in my computer which means presumably there was a PDF on my computer but anyway when I went to print it uh it it first failed and then it it finally agreed to print under a bizarre way so okay never had that happen before no idea FR you may need to do a software update we printed it at Town Hall and didn't have any trouble getting it printed yeah um but Karen did you have trouble with it um I didn't print out the package because I got it but the the two other things the planning board meeting schedule and um and the addition to the Adu I printed those out and uh the same thing happened to me as to Fred usually you know in the past I've just been able to put print and it printed out this time I had to play with it and download it as a PDF so it's being sent maybe a little bit in a different way and you do have to change it into a PDF and then go into print it out so it was a little bit different this time good feedback make any kind of it sense to you oh did you ask you cut out a little him are you asking me yeah I'm asking you if like this makes sense to you I mean I know that our programs at work are getting tight tight tight tight um security wise and I'm just curious if I mean I'm going to reach out to it tomorrow but um yeah I mean you know it could be the difference being on like a Windows or you know PC or a Mac um if we send a Word document and maybe we should convert it first to a PDF I don't I don't know I um it is interesting to hear I yeah yeah okay all right I think it's a good policy always to send PDFs rather than words because uh when you open a word in a different platform or a different place the formatting can change a little bit and that could be rather important but the PDF locks all that up and uh so there's no real need for us to be editing things that you're sending us um unless unless that's specifically requested so I I think it would be a safe and useful policy to Simply send PDFs and then then you know what the recipient is going to be seeing you're correct Bruce and that is my standard practice to only send PDFs um unless I'm working with somebody on a document so sometimes I might send things to the chair that are a Word document but I do try to always send PDFs so um I'll do my best to work with it to get a look at this um I do know that when we open PDF documents through at the town we do have to choose a a viewer um so that may be something Karen and Fred that you're going to need to do as well but I'll look into it and try to report back thank you all right well we have two minutes uh folks you can stay here you can turn off your camera you can wander off but please be back here in two minutes if you need to wander off um Doug maybe I should just take this moment to declare that as you already know and I think Nate does as well that I intend to recuse myself from the high school track uh uh portion of the meeting uh because uh my wife and I own a house it's not where we live but it's where my mother-in-law used to live and we own it and we rent it and it's uh within the 300 ft and uh I've been advised that I should recuse myself unless I go through a a rather somewhat elaborate set of Hoops uh and I did spend quite an amount of time two hours I think reviewing all of those documents there's a lot there and I concluded that from my point of view there wasn't enough uh it seemed to me fairly clear comprehensive and thorough piece of work and and I I didn't have a position that I want are you are or are you commenting I'm explaining why I'm recusing myself it's not out of lazy I mean I could have I could have taken the trouble to establish uh bonafides I suppose and I'm I'm explaining why I didn't do that okay which I guess is probably not something I should be doing so I will recuse myself all right well we're at 655 and you're probably going to have to say that again when we get to that in that part of the uh oh the meeting oh all right it's okay so we are now at 6:55 we can continue with the hearings that are published uh one note for Pam and Nate we should we should post these hearings starting any time after 6:30 uh even if we think we're going to start a little bit later so I'd rather not have to kill too much time okay so in accordance with the provisions of Mass General LW chapter 40a this public hearing has been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted and is being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity for interested citizens to be heard regarding Su 2025 d02 UD Drive Amity LLC University Drive at Amity Street request approval for a three lot sub preliminary subdivision plan under Mass General lot chapter 41 sections 81 L and 81s map 13 b-8 27 and 28 and 54 in the BL R and RD zoning districts uh do we have any board member disclosure I do not see any hands raised for any disclosure um Nate I think uh you probably have the opening um statement uh on behalf of the applicant sure the applicant has requested that the hearing be continued till January 8th they're not able to be here tonight and so um you know we would ask that the board you know move and vote to to continue that without any testimony or or public comment and then we'll we'll pick it up um on the 8th okay all right so uh we have a request from the applicant to continue this hearing to January 8th uh Pam can I assume that the time would be 635 at this point I would say 6:35 Nate I just want to double check with you January 8 I the only thing I have on there is this um is is this is this project so we could do 6:35 um and if anything else comes up or gets continued it would just be after that yeah I may have a conflict on the eth so we could either do it the eth or the following meeting I mean I would we could just keep it the eth right now and you the agenda can continue with that night too yeah okay so I I see I see one hand from Jesse sorry I can wait till after this apologies okay all right uh Bruce move that the uh hearing be continued uh to january8 at 6:35 p.m. all right uh second Johanna yep I'll second okay great any other comment from board members on this we are hoping not to have much conversation tonight and we're not taking public comment no no presentation from the applicant so we'll just go ahead and vote on a continuation starting with you Bruce hi and Fred I Lawrence I Jesse hi Johanna I car I I'm and I as well that's seven in favor no opposition or exstension or absence all right thank you all time is 6:59 we will go to the next item on our agenda another public hearing let's see oh we can't go to that yet that's advertised for 705 as is the third public hearing for tonight all right Jesse I was just going to point out so in the electronic packet for the first hearing there was a comment letter from Cinda Jones which content was really about University Drive overlay so I was wondering if it just got put in the wrong place just wanted to make sure everyone was aware of that in case they wanted to see it in reference to University Drive that's all The Heading was this but the content was not so I don't know what you do with that but just want to okay thank you all right so um I guess if I mean I guess the other thing we could do would be to start talking about accessory dwelling units Nate and just have that conversation sure it could be a really quick conversation for five minutes it sounds good well we could can go as long as we want and can the other hearings can start late they can the um if we wanted to talk about adus there had been you know after the last meeting staff made further revisions simplifying the draft bylaw to um take into account what the planning board had discussed and so really it's just one unit with you know 19 General requirements in the bylaw you know nothing you know nothing else um the housing subcommittee then proposed something that um you know was also sent out I will say you know I'll reiterate again that we do have a current bylaw and so when February 2nd rolls around when this takes effect you know even if we move the the current Adu bylaw forward it probably wouldn't be ready for February 2nd I mean maybe if it was maybe but unlikely so we do have a bylaw in place that has standards and conditions um anything that's inconsistent with the state law can't be used by by The Building Commissioner and so you know where we require owner occupancy or a special permit that can no longer be the case but you know we do have some design standards and some other conditions that could be um uh used and so you know we're not totally without some regulations and you know concerning adus um I will mention too that the definition of an Adu is half the size of a dwelling unit n or 900 square feet or whichever is smaller and so uh you know if you had a 12200 foot home you'd only be allowed to have a 600 foot Adu uh you couldn't do a 900 square foot and I you know my guess is the state really wanted to have the accessory dwelling unit be an accessory you know structure and use to the primary dwelling unit principal dwelling unit and so you know they're trying to do that through size and maybe they also consider that that size limitation could uh influence the number of occupants and so um you know if you have a a you know 2,000 foot home you still you can only get up to 900 square feet and so you know our current bylaw allows up to a th000 uh and we're not proposing that so we're just using the state definition and so I just want to make that point point and so you know even if it was a really big single family home the the largest Adu that could be allowed would be 900 square F feet if it's less than you know what gets you 900 square feet for half that's what it is right so 1,00 or less you have whatever the half your your floor area is um that does you know based on building code that doesn't include um it's only habitable space so storage space basements attics porches are not included in that calcul and so you could have an Adu that has 900 square feet of habitable space and then has a crawl space and a front porch and a back porch uh so it looks like you know it is a bigger looks like a bigger structure than 900 square feet but that's the way um it is worded now there's really no the legislation doesn't provide a definition for what the you know how the square feet is calculated and the work shops by the state they reference the building code and so we already have that in our bylaw um you know I don't know if we need to get into you know too many specifics but you know we're only allowing one Adu it has to be on a single family property so you know an existing duplex or townhouse uh does not um would not allow an Adu would not be permissible um and then I think you know the other changes really are ones that the board had discussed uh you know I'm trying to see what what would be really new um you know we didn't provide any there was some discussion about having a loot coverage calculation or maximum or number of parking spaces for an Adu but we you know we did not have you know any standards or requirements for that I think you know there was a discussion about you know someone could have a big driveway and they could put parking for the single family home and not say it's for the and it just becomes something that we don't regulate the town doesn't anyways on a single family property and so you know we don't regulate how big a driveway is or how many parking spaces there are for any single family home and you know don't think it's necessary for an Adu as it's not a second you know principal use on a property and so you know it was in the packet it's online uh the other changes some of them are you know minor but it really is just you know taking into account what the board discussed in putting it in you know in the bylaw form all right um so I see Jesse and Fred and Karin's hands um I guess I'm suspecting that you guys would want to bring up the modification that the housing subcommittee proposed um and the way our agenda is structured at the moment we have the Adu discussion and then we have General housing discussion where we could discuss definition of a student home and um so but in fact I think these are all all three of these topics are are really all interrelated so um before we get to the student home discussion um does anyone have comments about the draft that Nate has prepared and want you know anything you want to change about that or you know argue for or against it or whatever time okay so Fred you've got some something about something other than the student home it's not that simple uh the uh I want to encourage the planning board to move quickly on this because of the uh what the zoning sub what the uh housing subcommittee came up with was a definition of a student home and that is extraordinarily relevant and pressing because it operationalizes a limitation that does more than anything else that we can do to mitigate the disallowance in the state law against a requirement for owner occupant so Fred we'll get to that we'll get to that right now I'm just asking do you have any comments about what Nate has drafted yeah I don't want to go ahead with what Nate has drafted without the other we're not proposing that okay so you're fine with what Nate has was dra has drafted except so far and and this is very freshing okay thank you Karen yeah so this is this is going to be uh these are the requirements and it's by right and then there is that one problematic number six under General uh requirements who is the one that judges whether it is uh compatible with the dwelling and the character of the neighborhood who's judging that I think one of the questions that was given to us by uh somebody wrote in question that too and I'm not sure who judges this so Nate the way you've structured this I assume it would be uh probably the building official Rob Rob MOA or the building commission yeah the Building Commissioner with consultation from staff so something that's by right doesn't go to you know permitting board and so um uh yeah it would be staff I mean we would you know look at the neighborhood apply the design review principles I mean I guess if we wanted to um you know what the the way it reads now is it says an access accessory dwelling unit shall be designed so that the appearance is compatible with the existing single family dwelling and with the character of the neighborhood um you know and that so that's the one General requirement and you know so there you know um you know I don't know if people would feel comfortable adding language about you know following the design review principles or anything there but again that's just it's a staff it's an administrative process because this is a bu right application not you know there's no site plan review or any review by a permitting board The Building Commissioner the building commission I will say can always ask for guidance from the design review board or you know ask for input from others right so there's always a process for staff to ask for some you know additional input um but you know um right now it is just an administrative decision okay and I guess there's no other way you can release State this so um and the other question I had is uh Nate you know at the present I think you can build an Adu larger than the 800 or 900 if it's handicapped accessible right there are some exceptions oh well that's a that's the that's Amorous local bylaw which would then no longer be in effect and so oh so so under no circumstances can you build thousand square feet right wow under this proposal right and I you know I will say after the last discussion I talked with a Building Commissioner and there's really no requirement or Ada kind of guidelines on what a what an accessible single family dwelling means and so you know in you know when when the planning board reviews a project and we have to have you know certain turning radi and you know bathroom sizes and an accessible route none of that applies to a single family dwelling and so you know typically The Building Commissioner will say okay our doorway is wide enough but it's not as if uh they have to show that they're meeting all the strict Ada or aab requirements in terms of counter height or all those things door poles and all the you know so uh you know after the discussion you know the staff said well really we don't get to that level of detail and so it's you know we had it in there because we it was a way to try to have bigger units knowing that you know someone that may need an accessible unit needs more space but because the way the state legislation works it's really you know difficult to say well let's do a th000 square feet for an accessible unit when we really can't confirm whether or not it is truly accessible so all right any other comments about okay okay Jesse and then Bruce yeah it's it's really there's a problem I see in need of a solution relating to the character of the neighborhood and the parking issue and I know the the terms really refer to the structures but I also see the parking issue as character of neighborhood problem this came up in our last discussion with some of the public comments um but it's even a problem now you know there are house single family houses that have eight cars parked filling the whole sidey yard and it very much changes the character of the neighborhood and so I've tried to look around for other places where they've tried to have some kind of regulation on this I've come up totally blank I'm sure I'm not looking the right places but I just wanted to put that out there as a comment that I do think planning board or I don't know who else should try and address this because I I think there is potential for it to really have significant impact um in certain areas that's all okay so Nate that was discussed some last week did you think any more about that yeah um like I said we don't regulate parking on single family properties and so you know in the bylaw now we talk about having a parking management plan and a parking plan that would be reviewed by staff you know no additional curb Cuts or driveway Cuts unless Allowed by Public Works no parking in the front setback except as allowed currently in the bylaw and so we do have some Provisions but you know really we're not you know we're not saying you can only have two parking spaces for an Adu or a single family home because you know the the idea is that it's an accessory use and there could be you know they could just say the park is for the other unit on you know other single family home it's it's really difficult to kind of tease out what you know which parking is for which unit and so um you know and then typically to do driveways uh you know driveway is an improved surface so it's a defined term so there's some lock coverage you know if they exceed it then we can do something about it but typically to pave a driveway there's no permit or review by the planning department or the Building Commissioner necessarily right so someone wants to add a little three- foot strip along their driveway or something we don't you know we don't typically get involved on a single family property so it's a really difficult thing to kind of regulate when there's not you know a threshold that triggers much all right uh Bruce um I I think having a building having the Building Commissioner prepare pair two way in on the character of the neighborhood particularly given the resources in the town the design review board staff and and so forth um I think that's a a perfectly satisfactory solution very often I mean we've had this with the uh on the historic district commission um that the Building Commissioner wasn't so prepared to uh do things and and we had to hold public hearings in order to uh make determinations on on on rather small things we thought but nonetheless that's our job and ultimately we we created a a specific list of things that the Building Commissioner could uh have so-called executive Authority you might say on so far as the local historic district commission is concerned so I think that if if Mr Mar is prepared to um act in this capacity and as Nate said with the support available and bearing in mind that this are very small buildings you know they they potentially will be a number of them but there haven't been a lot of them so far um so it seems to me that this is a perfectly satisfactory Arrangement until proven otherwise um and if it is proven otherwise either because Mr Mara decides that it's a little more honorous than he thought or because there's an up uh uh Welling of uh of constructive hopefully opposition to it then we have a problem to solve but at the moment I think this is a perfectly sound and intelligent solution and a quite responsible one and thank Mr Mara for preparing you know being prepared to uh take initiative in this so I don't think we need to do anything other than what's in um section six of that uh that that the current documents all right um boy there was another hand up for quite a while and then it went away I think it was Karin's so you no longer are wanting to comment are there any other comments on the draft other than the student house home issue um okay all right I don't see any hands uh about this as it's written so okay so Nate um I think you know what you've got is generally acceptable with the exception of this student home conversation so let's move on into that uh yeah sure I just want to say quickly like where we are in this process and so you know right now kind of like with University Drive this is you know we could just call it a planning topic that if the board likes it would recommend it to go to council as a referral as a zoning Amendment so you know right now it's a you know we could say it's a draft zoning Amendment but it's really not you know an official zoning Amendment yet so what we're working toward is having the board you know vote this to council and then they would refer it back to the board in CRC for public hearings and then you know it's officially a zoning Amendment kind of like what's happening with University Drive and so um you know there is still a process to go to make comments um I think we're getting you know close uh you know Town meetings have voted um bylaws there hasn't been any determinations yet by the AG's office but you know we're we're assuming that in January there'll be some guidance in terms of what is acceptable in terms of a reasonable regulation but nothing you know nothing yet and it sounds like you don't consider this an absolute crisis that we need to act quickly immediately on you were hoping to get something in place by J by February 3D but if we if we don't you know we already have our existing bylaw that can be selectively uh implemented right yeah I think you know some communities don't have anything right so if someone came in right now we still have some conditions about design appearance um parking you know stairways and fire egresses on the side and so we have some standards and conditions that we can use um right and so some communities if they don't have anything then all it is is just a building per application and there's no way for any review or or anything like that by even by staff and so you're right I I mean I think it's urgent I don't think it's a you know um you know necessarily um something we have to get too worried about but I would like to move it forward just so say you know if we had a goal in mind Say by you know sometime in March to have this in place or April one or something I feel comfortable you know I don't want to think we could just take four more months doing this but you know say let's try to get a bylaw in place by April one okay all right so then Jesse why don't you uh introduce the uh student home proposal great thanks Doug um so hopefully you all had a chance to read what was sent around and um I would I would like to couch the introduction a little bit differently um than in terms of the this Adu law change and as Fred pointed out it eliminates our ability to have owner occupancy requirement and the as far as I understand and we' talked about this a little bit the intent of the change was to provide more housing of more varieties and that's great I think we need to recognize ammer is probably a different situation we talked also about than many other places in the state probably most of them one example I came across I couldn't find the data to share with you all I think we're the only either town or County I'm not sure which where the water use reduces in the summer the rest of the state I think it increases and that's just because of our residents right who's here and who's not here in the summer there's one way that we are clearly extremely different from the rest of the state um and it's definitely true around housing comparing the numbers of short-term residents versus long-term residents and that's this law uh state law change felt like the right opportunity to try and introduce this definition to do something about it this specific change and it's again as I wrote in the beginning of the the what I submitted it's not anti-student it's Pro permanent resident so we want there to be more opportunities for for long-term stable households that's really the point and because the law took away our ability to say when you're occup occupied this is one way where we could accomplish a similar goal to what we believe the intent of the law change was about I think the change was not meant to say okay emmer you can now have more student homes in town you can have more density with student homes we don't think that's the purpose and this feels like a potential way to allow obviously not go against the state law but to allow more adus to be built and it will provide more rental opportunities for non- students which is really what we're talking about um so that kind of sums up the the motivation um and the idea here for the Adu bylaw was to Simply state that only one of the two dwellings on a property can be a student home so therefore we need a definition of what that means and we can go through the details of that or we can have different discussion first I don't know how how we want to go with this okay um Bruce did you want to elaborate on that introduction or are we are we ready to go to questions no elaboration I can simply say that I support uh what Jesse has said uh entirely I think we would be well I think I think this is appropriate that we should put this forward and see how it goes okay um in terms of how it goes uh Nate um there was discussion about some attorney general review of these bylaws but uh is that is that applicable to ammer or is that not the case for us what would be what would test the legality of this with respect to the law a lawsuit okay no I mean yes so you know ammer is no longer you know no longer has town meeting and so Town meetings submit zoning changes and the review by the state um you know we don't follow that process anymore with the Town Council and so you know we'd have our legal council review it um and then um essentially that's it um um and then you know if uh if right after it's adopted and enacted then someone could appeal it um to say that it's unreasonable um so you know I think that is the that is the process they could appeal to the zoning board if there's an issue if a building commit you so if a say we adopted a student home definition someone could appeal to the zoning board the issuance of a building permit and then they could go further and then appeal it through courts um you know at the housing subcommittee this was discussed and you know I think you know I think the idea the concern is that you know like Jesse said the the overwhelming demand in the market will change what who occupies these adus and just kind of change the the housing Dynamic you know other college towns have it outside of Massachusetts staff did look at it um and said that there are some pieces of it that are pretty difficult and um to enforce or manage and there's some language that needs to be modified or removed U and it's something that had been discussed kind of during the rental registration and I think there is some acknowledgement that would be you know it could be a definition that works but it does need you know it need some time and some refinement and so I guess my question is you know would the board want to try to spend some time incorporating it into the Adu BW now or move you know say the draft without it forward and then we can you know figure out how to proceed um um you know could there be you know we could set up two parallel review B draft bot to look at or do we want to have you know this Incorporated and then have it worked on um okay thank you Bruce um uh I think that we should use this bylaw is as the vehicle to move towards getting a student home definition Jesse's explained one way in which amist is unique and it's explained by the high propensity of students the other is the fact that we have a high prop a high uh number of students in town uh more we out numbered as a population essentially we're a unique uh community in that regard certainly in Massachusetts and we should have a definition of a student home it just we just if any community in the state should have it we should and and clearly we can't wait for other communities around us to take the initiative here it's going to be up to us and this bylaw is a very good opportunity as Jesse has mentioned perhaps not tonight but previously um now is the time now is the time we should do this it's appropriate that this town should have a definition of a student home and this bylaw is the U impetus that drives that so we should recogn ni that State College particularly has a a pretty robust program of identifying uh defining and identifying student homes it's a it's it's a practice in that part in that community and if we have any problem understanding it ourselves we should find out how they do it uh and see why we wouldn't uh learn and and apply a similar lesson I I I think there's no excuse for backing out of this saying it's too difficult or it's going to be Troublesome or what have you I think it's okay uh I have three more hands uh Fred you're next there we go um yeah I think we can chew gum and walk at the same time uh and we ought to uh I think that this ought to be addressed at the same time as the uh uh General uh correction to acceler accessory dwelling unit bylaw I think that absolutely should be on the same piece of paper absolutely the uh housing subcommittee has the uh one sentence addition all written out to uh the uh accessory bylaw list and and then there's a definition that makes sense uh let's go for it okay Lawrence hey so I um uh I I as I prefaced I think the last time I um made some comments at the last meeting I I am new to all of this relatively new to all this so um bear with me if I ask a foolish question or don't have have um uh the full background on some of these things um but but as I was uh reading through the packet um uh I was looking around just to see if there were other definitions of student homes and I noticed one of the things that that popped up in my search um it it looked like it was a working draft uh that the CRC did to some broader um bylaw changes um I'm not sure what the context is I just see the draft um in 2022 and 2023 that had some of the same um some of the same student home definition language included um and so I'm I'm wondering if that's where some of this language was drawn from and um if so sort of how those discussions unfolded in the CRC and and if anything that that happened in those conversations could um uh illuminate the discussion that we're going to have I don't know if I'm making any that's that's good um Nate why don't you uh take first dibs on that um then we can get Jesse to see if he cribed anything from CRC right so what you probably saw was when they were looking at the rental registration uh there was a long discussion about how you could right have that definition and so um you know that was a separate process working with the Building Commissioner and inspection services um you know was for it's a general bylaw not a zoning bylaw so they were still they you know you know they right probably had a similar discussion or considerations as we're having now and they opted not to you know move forward with that the definition that um Jesse proposed you know came from I believe State College and was then modified but it wasn't you know I don't perhaps he saw what the you know the document you referenced Lawrence but I'm not aware if he did so you know you know whether or not he did it probably has some of the same language or meaning um probably because there's probably just a few limited uh communities that to have that definition yeah and I I I in no way am implying that that that's not a good thing that it's the same definition I actually think it it is because it shows that there's there's there's broad consensus on these issues um I was really just wondering you know if that CRC discussion and their decision not to include that um uh if there's any any um uh you know relevant information um to our discussion here about why they elected not to um not to move forward with adopting a student home definition yeah I think you know just that it could be difficult to determine and monitor and possibly enforce uh but yeah I mean it occurred to me that if somebody wants to build an Adu and they go to the inspectional services to uh get a building permit that this issue will never come up during the building permit so you know there won't be there's no sort of physical difference between a student home and a non-student home in terms of building any Adu so so we have a requirement that is more about operation than it is about what you can build in town and so I guess partly I was kind of wondering a is that something that's appropriate to have in the the the planning bylaw um and then B how would we or how would any enforce that and how is how does that work because right now we don't have that sort of infrastructure to have that level of knowledge about what's going on Jesse yeah I I was going to come out on some of that exactly Doug uh let me back up for a second Lawrence uh I love the saying that a great artist borrows and a really good artist steals but but no I didn't steal the language I did we did steal it straight from State College modified very slightly and our thinking there was that it's been in place for quite a while guessing it may have been challenged um and it's still there but we don't we don't know the details around yeah thank thank you for that contact sorry yeah I just it popped up when I when I Googled and I just wanted to ask so I was not part of that when it happened so I don't know why it didn't go forward what I would add is I raised I brought this to planning board I don't remember how many meetings ago but the subcommittee we mostly decided without a a use without a purpose for the definition it was very unlikely to move forward um we we were pretty concerned about assumptions about how it would be used if it were on any bylaw in our town and I think that's why we backed off a little a couple months ago in trying to push it forward we also have discussed the Enforcement issue Doug that you're bringing up and we recognize that at the moment prob there might be none just like only four unrelated people can live in a house there's basically no enforcement of that but should the town reach a place where we have some ability to do it there will be a mechanism to try and make people stick to that rule likewise when there are if there are problem houses with complaints repeated complaints and whatnot it's something that the building commissioner or whatever Town officials can lean on to say hey there's a problem here and look you're also not adhering to our bylaws so we recognize that's an issue but I think I also wanted to reframe the conversation slightly because to me there's there's a first step which is if planning board if a majority of us think this is something that should happen if yes then we need to spend some effort in the weeds with the definition enforcement etc etc etc if the answer is no I'm not sure we should spend our time debating how it could be enforced and what the actual definition is I certainly am on the side of thinking yes we we we should put this in place and I completely agree with Bruce that now is the time this Adu law change is exactly the right moment because there's a real purpose and a real positive use for such a definition in this specific instance which would only apply to adus for the moment thanks okay Bruce um Doug I agree uh that uh that that this would only become apparent after it's constructed and yes uh it won't be an issue when someone is pulling a permit but uh just like uh a parking management plan is supposed to be submitted here and indeed any management plan this is akin to a management plan and for the reason Jesse says it's important because it gives control and it may be that it's violated by somebody who doesn't uh doesn't behave in a way that gets attention and we might not ever know about it but it is a it is a tool it is a lever it is a hammer it is a device we can use to further the purposes that uh Jesse has mentioned are the goals here so so I don't think we should be dissuaded by the fact that this doesn't show up or won't show up uh when someone applies for a building permit okay Karen I totally agree with Jesse and Bruce and I do think that we are going to start getting an onslaught of investors who see this as an opportunity to just get more rental income by putting an Adu with another four students in it and if we uh you know and and they might not know that they're going to get into management problems if we put it in now then someone that's looking at it says okay but it is perhaps going to be difficult for me to have in my student house an Adu with four other students in it so I am very much in favor of using this time to add this even if we see that uh it's going to be an issue after the building is built it still gives you the pre-warning as an investor that this maybe not a good idea okay um a couple one comment and one question um why did you include both graduate students and undergraduates my impression of the behavioral issues is that there predominantly among I'm I'm talking to you Jesse um mostly mostly about undergrads and you know I mean you could have a a a middle-aged couple that decides oh we're both going to go get a PhD and we've been living in our Adu for 20 years now they're now they're not in compliance completely agree because the reason is because this is not trying to solve a behavioral problem it's trying to increase long-term residence and yes the example you just raise the people who live here who go back to school sure that would would suddenly they'd be out of compliance I think that's the vast minority and I don't know how we would deal with that but I don't think that's a real problem um okay and then the other question the point is and I would like to always come back to this the point of this is not to try and fix Behavior the point is to increase permanent residence period okay um the other thing I guess the comment I had the only sort of downside or one downside that occurred to me was if you have a if you had a fixed number of a set some number of students that want to live in town in rental housing this would tend to spread them out because they can no longer well you know well it it would concentrate not allow more density it would not allow more density in neighborhoods right it wouldn't spread them out more than they are now it just wouldn't allow increasing density to single family house neighborhoods right okay um all right so why don't we have let's see I think I'm G to have uh just a moment for some public comment about this so uh members of the public if you want to make a comment time is 7:40 just for reference I see so far two hands Pam why didn't you bring over Janet McGowan can I make a comment to Mr Marshall first I just I just want to say that the um ammer high school project also has to go to concom tonight I'm not exactly sure what really yes um I'm not exactly sure what time that needs to happen um but just for us to be able to be mindful about that thank you okay I was unaware of that all right so bring over Janet mcgaan why don't we limit public comment for this moment to two minutes not three two minutes hello give us your name and your street address you have two minutes I'm Janet mcowan I live at 706 Southeast Street um I was going to just make two quick um comments other than the fact that I support this and I'm glad to see it moving forward um first of is that you um the reason it said it says students is that students are not a protected class under state or federal law but age is and so if you if this said graduate students are okay there would be a possible inter ration that that was discrimination against younger people the undergrads were usually younger um and the other thing is to keep in mind is that no rule or law will fit every circumstance perfectly there's always something where like the one you cited Doug where it's just not it doesn't feel right but your goal is to get to fix a problem or to forward a goal and catch as many as you can and do it as well as you can but you can't say in every possible circumstance in any rule or law it's always going to feel like just or fair so that was all I was going to say but I'm glad to see the board addressing you know issues that have been brought to us again and again by permanent residents and people and um people who are in neighborhoods with just a lot of students and struggling with that thank you okay thank you next let's bring over Pam Rooney uh Pam you'll have two minutes if You' give us your name and your street address hi Pam Rooney uh 42 Cottage Street thanks for letting me in uh I'm very heartened by this approach to having a pro permanent resident Focus I am I am in fact delighted um a couple of things went through my head if it's not specifically written in the state law since I haven't seen the town staff draft if not specifically written in the state law can we retain our occupancy limit of three three people because that is the cap right now in an Adu if you think of any Adu being um at half of the size of a of a regular single family it's a much smaller space and the limit of three occupants seems very reasonable um I missed the conversation about was there an a management plan required and a parking plan required I would I would strongly urge us to keep both of those aspect and in and especially um as the town staff and inspections are developing their rental registration program to be able to use that as a basis for tracking uh occupancy or um not occupy um occupation of residents because I think that is something that is requested of um in these leases thank you I'm very happy to hear this conversation all right thank you okay uh given the uh perhaps schedule issue that the other hearing has I think what I'd like to do is just have a a vote from the board about um about this about this general idea um you know I I was in a conversation with Nate uh and Rob MOA and earlier this week and it was clear he had some concerns about the way it was worded so uh I think I'm not viewing this as ready for prime time to refer to Town Council but uh you know if if a majority of the board wants us to go this direction then we should basically refer it to Nate to work with Rob and try to words you know word Smith it or think about the process or whatever uh and bring it back to us uh and that's really what I want would like to vote on tonight um I see you Yanna and then Jesse thanks um I think I disagree with kind of the whole premise here and I'm not really in support of this approach like to kind of I don't know make like permanent residents in town like a somehow more valuable than other people who live in town like we are a college town and I'm worried that this approach could prompt legal challenges I think it's distracts from other important things that we know are in our lane I think it has the potential to add really combersome kind of red tape and more regulations and to me it just kind of like screams Nanny state government at its worst um so I am not particularly excited about continuing to explore down this line of thinking all right um Nate um kind of on I guess that prompts a question that I would have which is what do we know about the strength of the rental market other than students is this going to actually discourage people from doing adus because they don't think they can rent the other unit uh do we know anything well we have the housing needs assessment that's taking place now I mean I think mean I think if things I think you know with the building costs and interest rates you know an Adu is an investment for most probably single family home owners uh you know it's it's not like a $20,000 thing um you know and even if it's with contained within an existing dwelling you know all the code requirements and other thing you know it is definitely a process um you know I guess I'm saying that it makes me think that an investor own property might have the ability or collateral to you know put on an Adu because they can recoup costs differently um I do think there's a rental market or ownership Market in ammer for you know for all types of units from different types of households um you know I think the the thought is that an accessory dwelling unit is probably considered a lowercase a affordable unit not typically deed restricted or restricted to a certain amount of income it's just that by their nature and their size uh that you know they would be you know rented or purchased for less than a single family dwelling I think that right now the market in amorus has such demand for housing that the cost you know whether it's for any any type of you know occupancy will be pretty high so I think there will be demand I do think though the student Market you know really drives the amoris housing market so um you know I think you know if if there's an owner occupied unit and they you know even today if they want to build a single you know an accessory dwelling unit we allow that so you know I don't you know in the last few years since we changed our bylaw there has been a number of accessory dwelling units you know I think um with the state change maybe people will know about it more but it I I think that there could be some people who applied for non-owner occupi duplexes who you know through the zoning board now instead of being you know a special permit it's a bught um process and so I think it it changes that a little bit um but I do think there's demand for you know students and non-students to use them I do think however the if most of these are built I think the majority if they're rented will be to students just given the nature of the housing market okay Jesse uh given that the definition might work I think I'd still like to move to include that addition to the bylaw like we don't have to have the final definition to have that one sentence included in the Adu bylaw unless unless I'm mistaken uh what sorry what well um we we could I would like to move that we include the one sentence addition even though the the definition of student home might need work I would I'm moving that we planning board vote on including that one sentence addition about only one of the dwellings okay is there a second Bruce you're the next hand yes I I I'll second that but I would also suggested that if you wanted to conduct it your way Doug I'd be happy with that too which is basically a straw pole that takes it on to well we now have a motion so never mind about the straw okay it's a seconded motion okay okay um I guess uh I'll just say before we vote that I I this seems like a sort of major step in terms of the way we're thinking about zoning H occupancy in ammer and so I'm I'm a little bit uh hesitant to jump to that conclusion immediately so uh at the moment I'm not sure I'm ready to do that so I'm likely to oppose this not forever but at least for a while um so uh I'd rather just move Nate's draft as he has drafted it on so that that can get implement mented at this time and that later we would think more about this and talk with Rob MOA and probably CRC and um so anyway that's that's my preference so I'm G to vote against it but I'm not you know I'm not forever against it all right so uh well we have a motion we have a second Clarence you can speak yeah I just I and I don't know what the Parliamentary rules are here but can I make a motion to the motion to you could offer a friendly Amendment my recommendation would be to offer a friendly Amendment for consideration that we um uh continue the vote on this motion to the next meeting oh so you want to just table this and talk about it in the next meeting I I the the I'm I'm I'm comfortable with Jesse's perspec persective that that we should have a vote on this this one sentence being included in the Adu bylaw but I feel like hearing that that there are other perspectives and other things to consider here I I I don't feel fully prepared personally to to take a vote right now um and so my friendly Amendment would be and again I don't know how this works from parliamentary perspective but if we could instead take the the um uh the vote on on Jesse's motion um at the next meeting uh I would appreciate that all right so I don't know what the Parliamentary term is Nate are we would that be to table or to suspend or uh having moved and seconded we need to go forward with the vote and tonight anyway yeah I think we can go forward with a vote I don't I mean to me this is a you know this is the planning board encourag staff to you know work on this I don't I don't see that as a um a big deal I mean during the conversation I was already marking up the definition of a student home anyways to share so I'm not can can I can I clarify what what Jesse's motion was because I understood it as a motion to include the one sentence in the revised ad the pulled together into the draft draft yes right rather than a you know a continued discussion of what the definition should look like so so it seems to me that we're taking a vote about whether we collectively as the planning board think that folks should or should not be able to rent both a house and an U to students yeah but this and this is a vote to add it to the draft and the draft at the moment is not headed you know it's not going anywhere automatically but it's being worked on by staff so essentially we're directing Nate and the staff to include this provision in their working draft as they continue to work on it okay uh Jesse last comment just to clarify also yeah so if staff works on it and they realize there's some critical problem with this it's just a draft so it could then be taken out right just process clear is that correct and even so the draft would then go to Town Council which will probably come back to us and CRC right so it goes round and round again so we're gonna see the draft more before it goes to Town Council all right all right so why don't we go ahead and vote um we'll we'll go ahead in alphabetical order as usual it's starting with you Bruce I am an i all right Fred I am an i Lawrence uh I'm Mano All right uh Jesse hi uh Johanna no okay Karen I okay and I'm a know as well that's four in favor three opposed the motion carries um Nate we'd like you to work on this so there we go all right so time is 9 10 7:56 um customarily we'll take a five minute break at this time uh it seems like that would be a smart thing to do so we can get into the uh High School conversation and um so when we why don't we take four minutes and come back at 8 o'clock and uh at 8 o'clock Pam if you could bring over the folks for the high school hearing then we will jump right into that and please come back at 8 I don't I'm sorry to have delayed this as long as we have was nice e e for e all right when you guys when you're back please turn on your your camera so that we know you're back all right we have Fred we have Karen Johanna everybody but Nate okay Pam so once you get settled uh if you can start to pull over the folks from for the high school okay time is eight o'clock and I think I'll go ahead and launch into the intro for this even though Nate is not back Bob is there other people joining you or are you our applicant uh yes if you could Pam if you could bring in Mark aragoni okay from SLR and Mike G Mike may have to jump out because he's the lead on the Conservation Commission meeting but definitely Mark and Mike if he's available M gagan and M aragoni yeah I see they're both listed with [Music] SLR okay all right s time is 8:01 in accordance with the provisions of Mass General Law chapter 4A this public hearing has been du advertised and notice thereof has been pro has been posted and is being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity for interested citizens to be heard regarding spr 202-6150 matun Street under Section 3.33 of the zoning bylaw request site plan review approval to remove existing track and field construct a new track and field facility with the site improvements including replacement of field lighting and Ada upgrades located at map 11d parcel 81 and 2115 and 11d to70 in the RG zoning District are there any board member disclosures Bruce um I will be recusing myself uh as AATA okay thank you all right we're ready for the uh actually Doug I I will just turn it off and I can listen I suppose so I know when the uh when you resume on the following uh thing but I otherwise I'll be turned off okay all right um Bob are you leading the presentation for the applicants uh yes I am I will start off and give a little update on where we stand with the project right now and then I'll turn things over to Mark to provide a description of the project and and really serve as our technical Representatives as you know I work for the town of ammer I'm the town's uh special Capital project coordinator this is a project Town asked me to get involved in about a year and a half ago uh representing both the town in the school district um obviously it's a school district project but the town has a major Financial investment in this project and it's a major benefit to the town as well as the school district so and given the um transitions that have occurred um at the school district over the last year or two the thought was that the town would be in a better position to help lead this project forward uh with the support of the school district than having the school district Take the Lead itself um project status where we are as you may know we did meet with the da a we received a positive recommendation with no comments no recommendations for any modifications from the daac we did meet with the drb similarly we received a positive recommendation with no requested modifications or or comments um on the plan that was proposed uh to the drb and as you've heard we are meeting it'll actually be the third time with the Conservation Commission tonight unfortunately our second meeting uh couldn't be held as a public meeting because they lacked a quorum that evening although we did receive a written comment from one commission member uh that we're responding to this evening so we're we're hopeful that we will make it through the Conservation Commission process uh tonight since um the commission has heard it um in in full one time and has commented on the project uh our members of the commission have commented uh twice now and we' been responsive to both of those comments um and that meeting we were thinking is coming up about 8:30 tonight but we'll see we don't know exactly what their timetable is going to be um from a funding standpoint and not really a planning board item but just want to let you know that all the pieces of this project are coming together um the town of pelum has appropriated the requested CPA money the town of shutesbury last night at town meeting appropriated the requested CPA money and we have uh two steps left to complete we're meeting with the finance committee amher finance committee next Tuesday uh to hopefully receive their recommendation for additional CPA funding to be put forward by the town of Amherst and then ultimately there'll be the town of Leverett um unfortunately because of their town meeting schedule we likely will not be heard until the springtime um from the town of lever but we've got you know out of the five entities we're optimistic that we'll have four of them on board in the very near future um you may have heard some discussion of the project and the use of alternates in the project design uh we are seeking approval of the entire project as you see presented on the project plans today um we have two moving pieces really we don't yet know what the construction bid cost will be we don't know for certain what the financing availability is going to be on this project and as I mentioned the town of Leverett um decision may not be known for a number of months so we have put a plan in place where we believe that we have a project design that can be built within the funding that has been secured um and possibly defer making some decisions on some components of that project until a later date either during this construction cycle or possibly as a future phase but we are seeking approval of the entire project uh this evening as you see on the plan um we are gearing up and we are hoping to be able to release this project for bidding at the beginning of January we really to to do this type of project we have one opportunity every year to do it basically is after school um is done uh during the the the summer construction period so in order to put those pieces together we need to get the project out to bid we need to get it moving we need to have everything in order so that as soon as the high School shuts down and the students get off the field we're ready to go to construction and we're hoping to move the permitting process along to support that um if we can't do that It ultimately it kicks us to to the the construction season of 2026 and we really don't want that to happen we really want this to happen during the season of 2025 um you will see there were a number of questions asked by planning department staff we responded to all of those some of them we responded in a manner that may not fully satisfy all the planning board questions and concerns I understand that um there are a couple of items that relate to school district operational questions and issues and some of those are actually part of an ongoing discussion between the town of Amherst and the school district and we expect that there'll be a memorandum of understanding executed between the town and the district that will better sort through mainten responsibilities and obligations and things like that um that will be in place before this project is put in service um in the late summer early fall of 2025 but those agreements aren't yet fully worked out but they will have to be in place uh before again before things um get used and there may be some conditions that the planning board puts on this project as a result of that uh let's see if it's all possible we we'd love to see an approval this evening even if it's a conditioned approval um we want to make certain that we can put any requirements that the planning board uh puts on this project that would apply to a contractor into the bidding documents so the contractors bidding on this project fully understand what the requirements of them will be um and so getting through that approval process at least having a a draft uh decision I understand the decision doesn't get signed um until the end of the appeal period but at least having a draft decision that we can insert it into the bidding documents is very important um and then the last am I wanted to mention I understand you have not received comments from the town engineer from Jason skills as we've yet I did speak to Jason this afternoon and he asked me to pass on um the following information to the planning board um he is very busy so he hasn't been able to put this in writing but he did indicate that he's been involved in this and he he authorized me to to to speak these words on his behalf that um he's been involved with this project from the very beginning uh he's very aware of it and that he has no concerns with what has been put forward by um by by the town and by the school district um and and the documents that have been put together from SL by SLR so with that I think I've said enough and I will turn things over to Mark to get into some of the more interesting aspects of the project thanks Bob uh good evening Mr chair members of the planning board um if I could I'm going to share my screen um I plan to walk you through um the primary elements of the plan then I will show you a rendering that sort of brings everything back sort of in a little bit more into perspective on what's actually prop proposed and what we plan on this facility looking like um and then obviously I'll be available um for questions I'm a licensed landscape architect in Massachusetts and Senior principal with SLR I'm joined by Mike gagnan who is a professional engineer he may have to jump off as Bob said um to jump and and continue on bringing through the project through the um Conservation Commission so um hopefully I'll do a good enough job but if we do have some questions and I can answer them and Mike has to jump off um we will definitely get back to you with any any unanswered questions that you may have but with that being said I'm assuming and hoping that everybody can see a black and white plan that looks like a survey drawing yes indeed perfect um I figured I'd just start here um I'm sure everyone is aware um of the orientation and the condition of the actual field and track that's out there today um this is an existing condition survey um again I'm referring to the package of design plans that have been submitted on behalf of this project um so what you're looking at here is just a topographic survey um we did go through a pretty extensive Alternatives analysis on where exactly to build this field what orientation the track and field should go into um the next plan that I'm just going to show is basically um the project sits now as an existing East West or west east orientation um the proposed project takes the track and field and turns it on a north south axis which is preferable for many reasons um what you're looking at here is just an exist a removals plan so basically the plan is to remove everything having to do with the existing track um and field that exists out there today so that includes the track that includes the lighting um that includes any of the jumping and field events all that will be removed as part of this project in favor of of a reoriented field and new track um which is shown on this plan here so a few of the highlights of this project um the existing track what was a six Lane track um the new track will be an eight Lane um competition track um synthetic surface the actual New Field inside of the proposed new track will be a natural grass field with full irrigation um completely reconstructed and then SED um so this will not be a seated field the reason for that is we want to have a quick turnover um so once the drainage layer um and growing media is replaced in the field the field will be slded and then after a couple weeks that field is going to be ready to be played on um what's shown off to the West in a rectangular um field location in order to construct the track and redo um a competition level natural grass field we're going to have to excavate the material um that sits within this area in order to construct the track and rebuild the natural grass field we're going to use that material um to actually regrade and create a a nicer more usable um we'll call it a recreational level rectangular Athletic Field just to the west of the new we'll call it the Stadium Field um to the West what's also shown in these um Contour um Amic shapes kidney shapes in these areas are the engineering and storm water control of the site is completely designed and engineered um and there will be a 10% reduction and Peak flow coming off of the site um so Mike gaget is on the call this has been fully designed and I'm sure as you can imagine um has had quite a few questions back and forth through your Conservation Commission as Bob mentioned we're in our third meeting over there um and we have been answering questions and making revisions as necessary and we're very comfortable with where we stand on this project um to date I'm going to switch from the black and white drawings and I'm just going to pull up a rendering are you looking at a rendering right now yes indeed okay I think it makes it a little bit easier to sort of understand exactly the extents of the pro of the um actual project so some things that will be done um on the outside of the actual Synthetic Turf track are we will be reconstructing a shot put here's the reconstructed um rectangular athletic field and then what's just shown in striping is the javelin and the throwing events will just be striped on the natural grass we are making sure and we have been requested to just make sure we could in future construct a softball field that will not be constructed as part of this project but the dimensionally we can construct that infield and not impact that proposed recreational field and then we will be having a a discus new discus Circle fencing um and concrete area here that will be part of this project um what's highlighted as number two in this area right here this rectangular area that's proposed to be a concrete pad for a future bleacher system the bleachers will not be installed as part of this project um and then what's shown here is the actual um Runway um for the pole vault which will be outside of the actual track area um what's shown number four will be that Synthetic Turf track surface that will be where the high jump will be um what's shown up in number 12 and we're calling it The Northern dzone um that's where the long jump triple jump um events will be held and then as you can see there are two areas for straightaway sprinting events the um facility will be fenced in with a 4ot high um galv uh chain link fence and it will have um accessibility um from maton Street and it will also have accessibility um from the school parking lot which is shown as number 13 up here that will be a universally accessible walkway around 4% obviously not to exceed 5% that'll be graded at about 4% um the existing field today is lit by a six pole lighting system the those will be removed in favor of only a four pole LED lighting system those poles will be 80 feet tall um but we be going from uh six pole lighting system to an a much more efficient um LED four pole lighting system a lot of the benefits with the LED system are they're much more efficient um they're cheaper to operate and some other things are they turn right off on and off with a switch um they're dimmable and you can change the actual light output from a competition level to a more recreational level or to a more safety um just getting people in and out of the stadium level so a lot of benefits um go um into that the existing staircase access um will be maintained which is highlighted at 17 um the parking in the school parking lot labeled as number 16 that's adjacent to the field at the top of the hill that will be restriped in favor of two additional um handicap parking spaces that will be striped um and then the existing walkway will be removed along matun Street in favor of a a new 10- foot wide walkway um and curb along matun Street um to provide um better access to and from the field with a with another um universal access drop curb system that will add access into the field off of maton Street in this area okay let me take a breath make sure that I went through um the majority of the stuff Bob if you feel like I missed anything certainly I'll I'll just note that there's been a couple of enhancements beyond what you see in this rendering this rendering is a little bit an earlier version of the layout one that comes to mind where Mark was mentioning the accessible p path coming off of maton Street the design plans that were submitted uh to the planning board show a wider pathway there because that will be the ambulance entrance into the field area so it's critical to have a a a wide enough paved pathway and gate such that an ambulance could get onto the field so I think the rendering does a great job of showing the big picture there are some minor differences between the rendering and and the detailed plans okay uh Mark anything else um no I think it's a good time to answer any questions that you may have all right board members Question Time Jesse thanks thanks for the presentation um question about the multiuse field to the South is it I guess um is that surface actually different than the surrounding grass and is there any barrier or it's just shaded for the illustration here um are we uh let's see it would be the um what's labeled as number six or the field outside of the stadium field that will be that will be seated that will not be SED and So eventually it'll end up as I mean and there's no fence or anything there's no border restricting really right besides the discus area and correct okay it will be regraded the soil will be enhanced and then it'll be seated so it'll be a a better quality field than currently exists there but it won't be at the level that the uh field inside the track will be is is the is that area going to be raised significantly above its current height the answer to that is no not significantly um you can see here we're looking at uh there are some grades on this plan so existing grade is around [Music] 290 and the proposed grade is roughly going to be around the same 290 um potentially a little bit higher um maybe six inches to a foot in the middle but basically we're going to be pretty close to the existing grade all right so it's not going to look like a raised rectangular area no okay but you're using you are using the spoils from the construction next to it correct correct and are there any hazardous materials in the soil that are having to be uh buried or somehow managed no there isn't we have done actually multiple rounds of soil testing uh first were some some you know relatively shallow uh test digs that were done and we tested for a whole whole range of soil parameters and then we also excavated test bits and inspected the soil at that point and we have not found anything that is a concern all right um is the history of this site was it originally Wetland and it was filled in when the high school was built that is the uh story that I've heard Dave Zac tells stories of of his dad working on this property when he was a kid in having some photographs of what it used to look like um so I I believe you are correct yes okay all right but you don't have any concerns about the stability of the soil uh you're probably augmenting it with whatever you need to create the right base for all the right track and field activities and and to make sure the ambulance doesn't get uh stuck in a rut or something like that right we found you know the good news was we didn't find any buried organic material or anything like that in all of the test borings and test fits that were done you know feels like there's sometimes a notorious of being former stump dumps or things like that and we found no indication that there was anything but clean fill that was used uh to to fill this area okay great um I'm not seeing any other hands at the moment um so uh Nate I'm going to ask you uh you prepared the development application report oh I see now I see Nate and then Fred all right so Nate well yeah I mean if you want me to walk through the development application report I can I was just goingon to say that you know um a 1930s aial photograph shows that this is you know Farmland with some drainage ditches it wasn't as if it was like a wooded swamp and then the high school was built you know it had been managed land um and you know uh you know looked fairly dry I mean so it could have been seasonally wet but it wasn't as if there was you know feet of water on here and it was a pond and then somehow there was a high school built it could have just been seasonally wet um but it you know had been managed since the early 20th century for for use so okay well then let's hear from Fred and we'll come back to the development application report Fred yeah I'm uh could you just uh take a minute to uh walk through uh how traffic is going to move uh to the uh North and Northwest of here as opposed to the way it moves now I I'm not I see the high school parking lot which looks a lot you know looks smaller than the way I remember it right now and I and then of course at the North West corner of the parking lot there's a a roadway that goes past the end of Memorial Pool and out the triangle Street and I I'm just not clear in my mind how that traffic movement's going to take place uh with this uh accomplished that's easy to respond to there are no proposed modifications to what currently exists the the alignment of matun street is proposed to be exactly what it is now the only modification we're proposing is off the edge of the roadway to expand the sidewalk to a 10- foot wide walk and then on the parking lot we are uh proposing to retain the existing curve line make some relatively minor improvements to the parking lot to create the ad a spaces in the parking lot and and that's it um nothing else moves nothing else changes yeah so the parking lot that you're showing is the one that's on the west side of the of the high school it's not the primary parking lot that is sort of southeast of the high school so Fred I'm not sure whether you're thinking of the larger Main parking lot but this is not that parking lot and yeah I'm yeah I did put the Arial up on the on the screen just and Mark maybe you could just put your cursor on the parking lot that you're showing been showing on your drawing it's this it's that one there on the west side so there really isn't any traffic vehicular traffic change at all Mark can you roughly sketch on the reorientation to get a sense of what we're talking about here I don't know if you have the sketch ability there or not um let's see how good and Fred the the pool is at the bottom of the page across matun street so the major change highly technical I'm glad he's the landscape AR I'm not I'm embarrassed Fred are you there yeah I'm I'm here and I'm still confused uh there's a uh okay uh oh I see okay now I now this was very helpful now I uh so I believe you live toward the right hand side of this screen yeah I do yeah my my four kids all walk to this uh High School um and yeah I I and I well I just want I just want to make sure you're clear and we don't have you know yeah that that street that I okay so this is that's matun Street where he's got the cursor now yeah now now I I I was mentally placing this on the opposite side of that uh you know uh south of that roadway that is not being moved no what this is this is this is all taking place north of that that roadway now now I get it thank you okay great okay um then why don't we go back to Nate and um Nate is there you know you you put together the development application report um and as you as you wrote it it looked like there were a few issues that you wanted to highlight for us and there was some uh suggestion that maybe we hold off on approving this until we hear from the Conservation Commission uh so why don't you go through what you've written here sure I I I won't take credit for it um a new planner Walker had had worked on this with you know that input from staff so um yeah there are a few things that may you know that I think could be addressed um you know I'll say one the sign so the scoreboard is considered an oversized sign um but uh after speaking with the Building Commissioner the the zoning bylaw allows the permit U granting authority to wave any part of the sign by law so it doesn't need a special permit it would just need a finding that the scoreboard uh you know for safety site design aesthetic or convenience uh is is permissible and acceptable and so we can wave um that that uh that size requirement um in the development application report it was mentioned about the lighting and the finish on the polls and you know I spoke with Bob and so they're going to go with something that is more durable and you know is what's recommended and so um you know I it um you know so I don't I'm not recommending that there be a painting or anything on it I would I would recommend whatever is most durable and requires the least maintenance but it was just something that was noted um let's see you know I think they did complete a management plan and as Bob mentioned you know there a will need to be a partnership with the town and the Regional School District in terms of some of the operations and maintenance and so there are some details there uh that will be would be worked out um and there're requesting waivers from traffic uh there's no change in parking or traffic anticipated uh and then you know fire didn't have any NE you know any comments other than that the Double Gates provide access for ambulance and emergency vehicles and the design review board and the DAC supported it as designed and in terms of the Conservation Commission review you know I think that they're addressing all the issues related to that and so I think the board could have a condition that says you know any changes as a result of the Conservation Commission review would be brought back to the planning board although we have a standard condition that basically says that anyways um that says you know any changes have to be brought back to determine if they're dominous or need a public hearing and so you know if the board is comfortable with that then we could move forward with you know that or we would you know continue the hearing to determine if the Conservation Commission uh review would have any site changes so I spoke with the town's Wetland administrator today and she didn't anticipate any you know any changes that would change the site plan so even if the Conservation Commission may have had some suggestions it wouldn't necessarily changed what we're seeing here on the screen in terms of the planning Board review uh so um you know I don't think there was a lot in terms of questions I think outside the development application report there were questions as Bob mentioned that staff asked that were then addressed and so you know for instance there's no additional storage shed being proposed you know no permanent bleachers or concession building or things like that and so you know if in the future the school wants to put in a concession building or a structure then that to me that would just you know would have to go through the site plan review process again and so you know at that point it would you know be a amended site plan or a new site plan so I think you know what we see here is what we would review and you know I don't think we need to try to write conditions supposing what could happen in the future um and so uh you know it's a pretty straightforward project in that respect okay um so the only finding you've mentioned is the the the waiver of the signed bylaw um you know usually Chris would use to sort of draft findings and conditions for us um is that something you're prepared to offer or is that something we should Cobble together tonight no I I I do have a Word document actually available I can share if we're if we're there we could you know then why don't why don't I make one more call for uh board comments and then I will make a call for public comment before we get to that I'm still not seeing any hands from board members members of the public are there any members who would like to make a comment at this point uh Pam can you bring over Pam Rooney hi Pam good evening Pam Ro 42 Cottage Street um I in a wonderful layout wonderful plan what I have missed hearing tonight um is any uh discussion or acknowledgment of tan Brook piping that runs now under the new orientation um uh of the track and I was uh I've heard I learned that the pipe is currently in good condition that with but but current but current layout did not necessarily have heavy construction work on top of it it looks like it skirts the main area of the track a little bit underneath it um are there any are there any statements in your specifications or um or any uh conditions that ackn that pipe and direct the contractor to protect essentially to protect at all cost I think we would find it very hard to go after the contractor once the project uh is underway and complete if something does in fact go wrong with the with the piping um the other the other thing that I'm missing on this very very small scale drawing on the screen is I'm not seeing any drains in either of the two sort of kidney-shaped uh depressions catch basins that would indicate to me that any moisture any rainfall collecting there is being piped out and maybe I maybe it wasn't a big enough screen to see it so I think my question has been answered that yes there is a drain from each of these catch Basin catch areas is that correct that is correct good thank you and Mark uh or or Bob could you address the question about tan Brooke and it's yes I can and I it'll be similar the question had come up at the uh Town Council referral meeting the other night it very good question very good point that we want to make certain that the the existing Culver is protected it is as as Miss Rooney indicated uh we inspected it uh with the assistance of DPW before we started any design work on this project to one verify its condition to see whether or not any improvements or modifications would have to be made and we found it to be in very good shape um we have discussed it based on the meeting the other night that we would do a post construction TV inspection as well while the contractor is still under contract to make certain that uh if there were any problems that those problems are identified and fixed while we still have um a Contractor on board under contract with retainage with with insurance and other types of things we will also we're in the we're really in the beginning process right now of writing the technical specifications for this project um you know you'll you you see the plans here there'll be hundreds of pages of documents that become part of the bid documents that ultimately go out um at the beginning of January hopefully and we'll make certain that we incorporate restrictions in terms of what can happen on top of that pipe and make certain that the contractor aware that they need to protect it throughout construction so very good point and we'll make certain in the specifications that it gets addressed okay um I don't see any other hands raised from the public uh so we'll come back uh and Fred you have your hand up uh yeah I um I think it would be helpful on uh some of these plans to uh actually show the location of the tan Brook Culver uh I I agree with Pam Rooney this is this is critical and uh yeah we we have to uh keep this uh very much in view okay and Mark uh I see some lines that might be tan Brook um yes the help us appreciate that sure as as Bob mentioned um the tan Brook Culver was a extreme part of the design it will continue to be um a part of the specifications protection of it monitoring of it through construction and then making sure that it's exactly how it was when we're when the contractor's done as it was the day he started um it is located on all of our plans I can highlight it I'm seeing a a sort of dashed line that yeah it runs right here bangs the corner right here and then Runs Out gone off the screen yeah there we go let's scroll down a little bit and then you'll be able to see it hopefully let's try that again how about we try red so that Tamra Culvert will go this way runs here here and then it runs straight up here where it connects into um the day light portion of tan Brook so this is where that cul exists as Bob mentioned we camera inspected it um we didn't really know what the condition was going to be we found it to be in a very good condition um we will put specifications together that call for protection of it and then as Bob mentioned we will be doing a post construction um inspection um to make sure that it's in the same condition as it was um when we started I guess the main point is we're paying very close attention to it it's a big part of this project and and I assume I mean it's am I correct that your the life expectancy of that Culvert without damage from construction exceeds the life expectancy of the track you are installing correct a concrete Culver can easily last 50 to 100 years if not more depending on conditions you know when it was installed I presume it was like 1960 when the high school was built or something like that I believe so yes um okay so we're 60 years into that right and it you know the the track surface the the and correct me if a wrong wrong Mark the urethane material the surfacing itself is typically a 20 25 year design life um if that yeah so the way track surfaces run are they look they're looked at in seven-year intervals okay um track surfaces should be good for 21 years until they need to replace the caveat be every seven years they need to have a new um color coat put on the top they don't need to complete be completely replaced they just need to have a maintenance coat put on the top of them if that's done seven years seven years you should get 21 years before you have to replace that surface okay we did talk with the DPW about making Provisions for access to the Culvert so wherever the Culvert bends there is one Bend right underneath the track so the way we're dealing with that from a design standpoint is underneath the urethane surface and the track is an asphalt surface we're bringing the manhole structure the the the the metal structure up to be flush with that asphalt surface so in the event there was a reason to have to get into that Culver during a you know critical event it could you could get there by removing or cutting a small hole in the urethane surface and then patching the urethane surface DPW has not had a need to get into that Culvert really at all in the past 20 years um but if they did we want to make certain that they can do so with doing the minimal amount of damage and then then we'd be able to repair and patch that urethane with no problem after the fact okay great all right um not seeing any other hands maybe Nate why don't we go um is there anything else you wanted to say about the development application report or should we go right to your findings as drafted Oh Johan I just have one quick question um I really appreciate being briefed on this thanks so much for the yeah taking the time and being so thoughtful with it I remember at one point point in this very lengthy project development there was talk about using artificial surfaces for the playing fields and I'm just trying to remember like when that got changed I believe it was within the last year as we were having discussions concurrently with the Town Council as well as with the school district and although there were certainly some strong opinions from folks that would have liked to see a synthetic turf field they recognized that it would be a major obstacle in the permitting process for this project particularly with the Conservation Commission permitting so and and and you know there there there's as I understand it I haven't been any of those meetings but there was a strong outcry I believe um by you know some portions of the public uh that were strongly against the use of Synthetic Turf um It Off for some Advantage is you know that we're not going to get into that because that decision's been made at this point there definitely are advantages to it but there was a strong opposition by a group of of uh public and the decision was ultimately made by the school district to be able to move forward in a positive manner get the financial support that was necessary and move forward with a natural turf field thanks so much for taking the time to explain that okay Nate could we see your draft findings and conditions sure let's do uh I'm gonna ask one more question before Nate before you get into that um the lighting is the lighting uh likely to annoy any of the neighbors such as the folks on Cottage Street so a photometric plan um was also part of the design and application package um part of the development of that photometric plan um is to show the foot candle measurements um around the site and pretty much the entire site um within the property line itself at the property line or into the site the actual turf field or the track and field property is at a zero um light level which is good um there is a little bit um of light shed out onto matun Street on the southern end of the the project which is actually not a bad thing because that's where we have drop off and sidewalk area um but it does not get anywhere um off the site other than just at that one area and again the photometric plan is included in the plan set okay thanks sorry Nate uh no that's fine and then so in the photometric plan it shows you know like up to 50 or so f candles on the field and I'm assuming you know as you mentioned the lights can be adjusted to meet whatever playing conditions are needed or mhm uh and can we can we make them do like a little dance or change colors when there's like a a touchdown or a point scored or something they uh you can do anything for the cost let's put it that way yeah I I know I I I was talking to someone who's having um another school is working on new LED lights and he's like it's controlled by my phone yeah he's like I can dim them from my phone now and I'm that's pretty amazing actually yeah it's similar to how the irrigation systems are going now too so just to touch it not to take any a lot of time but this this natural grass field on the interior is going to be a completely designed it's not going to be just tilling up the existing grass this is going to have a full designed drainage layer um it's going to have a full designed um and a mended organic sand layer this is going to be a very very nice field highly draining field um very good air ation system that you can control by your phone if you'd like to along with the LED lighting system sure thanks yeah I'll share my screen the um you know the there are two findings if this is visible for the board yep um just that it meets the um you know relevant criteria of 11.24 of the zoning bylaw and then another Finding under 8.5 modif modifications and waivers this is to the sign regulations that you know applicable sections of article a can be weigh for the scoreboard for aesthetic site design and public convenience uh you know so what they've shown is a scoreboard that um you know is a typical scoreboard but it's much bigger than what we'd allow as a sign U it's taller it's wider it faces nor so it faces the field so there's no you know it is illuminated LED you know lights on the portion of it but there's no Lighting on the back facing south so from you know triangle what you'd see is just a you know a blank um you know back of the scoreboard okay I don't know if there's any questions about those findings or that or the scoreboard I am not seeing any all right um and so for conditions you know these are all pretty um standard conditions you know the project shall be built substantially in accordance with the plan submitted to the planning board and we can date uh and you know um acknowledge those the project shall be managed substantially in accordance with the management plan and we can include the date uh and this is you know condition three can also you know um you know to me it also incorporates anything that happens with say the Conservation Commission so substantial changes to the project or substantial changes to any approved site plans shall be submitted to the planning board for its review and approval prior to the work taking place the purpose of the submitt shall be for the planning board to to approve the change Andor determine whether the changes are di Minimus or significant enough to require modification of the site plan approval so that you know essentially if they apply for a building permit they will need to and there's changes uh you know it'll come back to the board for some type of review uh this site plan review approval shall expire within two years of the date that it is filed with the town clerk unless it has been both reported at the registry of deeds and substantial construction or use has commenced within the 2-year time period all work associated with the project shall be completed within 24 months from the date of issuance of the building permit if more time is needed the applicant shall come before the planning board at a public meeting for review and approval of a construction and completion schedule for an extension of time I don't know if there's any questions with any of those or comments I assume Bob the the durations that are listed here are acceptable most definitely the the construction that'll be completed within the current funding will be done by September of 2025 so yes a two-year window is perfectly fine all right we' categorized the conditions so for site improvements the review of The Final Storm water management system and required material shall confirm that there shall be no increase in rate of storm water flow caused by the project post construction when compared to pre-construction conditions and that the storm water management system is designed designed in conformance with d storm water management standards and technical specifications um unless otherwise approved all exterior lighting shall be dark sky compliant and shall be downcast shielded and shall not shine onto adjacent Properties or streets um I will say that maton street is actually not a public way it's considered a driveway to the high school and so although there is a little spill over it was you know 0.1 or02 foot candles which uh in some respects is considered negligible in terms of um you know visible white but it is not actually a public way condition eight all work within the town RightWay shall be reviewed and approved by Town Council prior to the issuance of a building permit and start of work and although I said no work is in the right of way we have this as a standard condition in case there is something that um you know does take place there and so the nearest RightWay is on triangle Street correct okay and so this condition if we want you know could be removed I'm not sure how relevant it is um I was working on a possible condition number nine uh one of the suggestions was that there' be an accessible drop off on maton street and I'm not sure if that was actually shown on the plans and so um Bob or Mark I don't know if that's something that's you know I I think Bobby acknowledged that it was maybe under consideration and so I just want to know where that would be um now and I can stop my share or have a new share to show what we mean by that so right now the accessible spaces are up on the at the sort of main parking lot area that's on the west side of the high school right there's two existing spaces right at on matun street right at the parking lot itself and then we're putting in two new M uh two accessible spaces within the parking lot itself what Nate is suggesting here is that it makes sense and it's a great suggestion that we move those accessible spaces down from the intersection of the parking lot to uh directly at our accessible um pathway into the site it it's something that will work with the DPW it's not directly under the school district's control um but we'll work with the DPW to to make that happen so you're saying it's not something you can actually commit to because it's not under your control um it's not under the school district's control it's that portion of the property um as as Nate indicated is it's actually Town property there a sliver property that goes across to the north side of matun street that is under Town control and the balance of the site is under the school district control so uh it's very feasible and I would expect the DPW would have no problem uh working with us on that so adding a condition to that effect I don't believe would be a problem right so this right here is is a what whoops was a town property and the rest was the school district property and so um you know anyways I don't know if we want to have a condition stating that I know that like Bob said they're working on it and it was suggested and so you know if we want to have some condition that it be well I mean wouldn't the condition just simply obligate the school district to work with the town DPW to you know coordinate the location of the accessible drop off or parking spaces as you know feasible or something I mean it's pretty sort of it's not particularly concrete right so yeah like I said you know it's a kind of a difficult condition to enforce it's you know we've already made the suggestion and so maybe that's good or enough okay I'm not sure I would pursue it all right and I'll just share my screen again for that then um uh I don't know about the RightWay should you know if this is necessary either um I mean it's not hurting anything right so I would just leave it all right and then under management plan um all trash pickup deliveries the operation of construction maintenance machinery and landscaping equipment shall be conducted during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday exemption shall include emergency vehicles snow removal or other emergency situations as approved by the Building Commissioner the project shall comply with and be managed in accordance with all terms of the management plan any alterations to this plan should be approved by the planning board at a public meeting and so you know if for instance there is another moou or MOA with the school and something changes that can be brought back to the board at a public meeting no work including demolition on the property shall take place prior to all approvals and permit being issued okay and then the construction conditions are those are usually boilerplate do we need to go through those too no I'll just remove this um yeah I think they're all there it's everything we normally include um there hasn't been a construction Logistics plan um submitted and so it's something we do say you know she happen they'll have a meeting with staff and I think that's realistic um it is a large site so you know I'm not sure that there's actually any work taking place outside of the two properties um but I think all of this um is reasonable um and then uh let me just see what else we have here um you know right you know um uh you know names and identification you know the site should be fenced um you know dust and debris control and I guess that is you know that's really it since since so little of this is vertical construction with the exception of the scoreboard is there is there a building permit involved yes yeah there's a building permit involved so yeah there's um there's the light poles there's 20 foot height fencing at the end of the north south with there'll be screening put up uh and then the um uh the walkways will also be inspected for accessibility so you know all the new walkways are are meant to be universally accessible and and inspectors will confirm that they are you know the right slope when it's being built okay so that's what they'll look at just you know footings uh Pathways a few things there um and then completion of work again you know these are kind of boilerplate uh you know asbill plans we we do issue temporary certificates of occy if necessary through the Building Commissioner we can impose uh any shies U and then the final certificate of occupancy wouldn't be issued until you know um everything is basically done and confirmed by the um by The Building Commissioner and town engineer Okay so Nate do you see any reason we couldn't vote uh on this this evening no I I you know so I mentioned for instance that you know they're not showing a concession building so you know when I've been at certain sporting events parents or the school may just set up a table or two and they sell tickets right there and then they remove it and that's you know that would be allowed um if they want to do something different it's a you know a new site plan in the future and so um you know they're showing the concrete path for the bleachers they're not showing the formal bleachers or game box if that came back that would have to be reviewed and so you know there are bleachers now on the field I think there're like five rows with wheels and those might be placed you know temporarily on the concrete pad um and you know I don't you that's really not a change from what's there so I don't see any issues um why the board couldn't approve it tonight if you wanted to wait for what the Conservation Commission could do we could continue it to the 18th knowing that we've reviewed it and on the 18th it would just be then a quote final vote so you know e either way it would work okay um one other question um when you do when you build a uh a track and and field facility like this with a bleacher uh slab uh does it require uh any any any public [Music] restrooms yes so there is it's actually the plumbing code requires restrooms and so that's something that hasn't been you know quite determined there's restrooms uh at Community Field and then there's restrooms in the high school there is a distance requirement and it has to be on an accessible route um I think there are restrooms in in those locations um you know I'm not sure about the the distance and everything else um you know ironically a lot of schools and I think a lot of places will then put you know porta potties or temporary restrooms which aren't necessarily um You' have to get a variance or an exception from the code but I'm not you know I'm you know I'm not sure that's been completely worked out yet in terms of what would be open you know is it the Community Field restrooms or the school restrooms but there are restrooms available so Bob um how have you guys been thinking about that we we are aware of that that concern and that need we're brought it to the attention of the school district um they haven't proposed a response to that concern to this point but we we did indicate to them that it may be a condition of an approval you know that the school district prior to use of the new facility shall um make Provisions for restroom facilities during public events or something along that line um because I I can't speak on their behalf and say that yes they're going to open the school or no they're not going to open the school but um if the planning board feels that's an important item you certainly have the ability to attach a condition to your approval that requires them um to respond to that concern it's again assume I assume there's there's some sort of is there a plumbing permit that's likely to be required as part of the work or is it all just storm water and sort of the type of uh utilities that that do not involve a plumbing permit yeah there isn't an actual plumbing permit but on the other hand we have to comply with the requirements of plumbing code which it's not quite the same thing but um the plumbing code does have an effect on how this facility gets used right yeah this is considered a facility so whether even though it's not a building per se it's a right that code okay well it sounds like you're aware of it and um that's as much as you can do now obviously if if somebody requires you to put some restroom buildings out on the site that's a that's more than a DI Minimus change so I assume we would hear about it at that point right okay um board members are you uh interested in approving this with the you know conditions that are included in the in Nate's uh in Nate's draft tonight and put this behind us or do you want to wait until next meeting when they've gotten farther with the Conservation Commission Johanna sorry uh Doug you know and there's also request for a few waivers you know just to mention you know like a traffic impact statement you know landscape plan and then a sign plan uh so although there's a scoreboard and then you know parking signs those typically parking signs are those kind of required signs aren't really part of a sign plan anyways and so um you know and there's no other changes to circulation or or parking on the site so the three you you said were traffic impact sign assign plan yeah right and a landscape plan so it surprises me maybe I didn't look through the package complete enough but you don't have a landscape plan not landscape plan is is planting of grass so I guess it surprises me we would need a waiver for that but whatever it's not a typical landscape plan in that there's you know other plantings and so I mean it doesn't necessar have to be a waiver I kind of agree that there's a okay Johanna I was just going to say my inclination is to go ahead and act on this tonight and close the hearing and be done with it all right um how' you like to make a motion Johanna um I'd love to make a motion but I was gonna see if there were any other board members who disagreed with that course of action but I'm not seeing any other hands at all great okay uh let me see if I remember how to do this so I moved to uh or what is it it's like moveed that this is in accordance with uh public hearing and accept the conditions so we would approve we would adopt the two findings that that Nate had one of which was that it's in accordance with 11.24 or whatever and the other is that the uh I think it was the sign wasn't it the is scoreboard is not a problem with the signed bylaw and then the conditions that he had listed uh with the addition of at least a waiver for the traff approved waiver of the traffic impact and sign plan uh submissions that we're waving those submissions and that um let's see we approve the findings and conditions we close the hearing um and I thought there was one other thing but I think that's it I think that's it Pam's nodding okay so that's my motion all right well done Jesse I'll second that okay all right um great so any anybody else want to say anything before we vote on that um no hands No Hands Johanna your hand is still up all right um we'll go through it and Bruce has is a abstaining so we'll start Fred with you I vote yes thank you Lawrence I vote yes thank you Jesse hi Johanna hi Karen hi I'm an i as well that's six in favor one exstension the motion passes uh Bob thank you for coming thank you good luck and uh can't wait to see it in the fall of next year definitely and the unfortunate news is we have not come up in the Conservation Commission yet so night over thanks Mark thank you all right good night all right so our time is 909 we can go on to our third public hearing and I will say in in advance of that I guess I'll just I'll just introduce it in accordance with the provisions of Master General Law chapter 40a this public hearing has been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted and is being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity for interested citizens to be heard regarding the University Drive overlay District this hearing has been continued from October 30th and November 20th of this year to consider amending the zoning bylaw by adopting the University Drive overlay District as article 17 and amending the official zoning map by adding the University Drive overlay District the overlay District would include properties on the east and west sides of University Drive between Northampton Road and Amity Street and establishes its own requirements for only uh mixed use buildings including dimensional standards standards and conditions and design guidelines uh is there any board member disclosure okay um so as as I said this is a continuation from the two previous dates um Nate uh do you want to introduce anything obviously the two of us were at the CRC meeting last night uh be before we start I wanted to say given the hour um I was kind of thinking maybe we would talk about what the board uh what CRC discussed last night um and maybe not very much more before we continue this uh maybe to the 18th but uh we'll see how the conversation goes Nate yeah sure I think the um I think continuing to the 18th is is is a you know a good suggestion the CRC plans to meet on the 17th to talk about it again and so really last night was their first um formal review of this you know after referral from Town Council and so I think there were some you know good points brought up um you know I I will say before that you know there's been a number of public comments submitted that have been emailed to the board and you know they came in a number of them came in at after 3M today and so uh they most of them were uploaded to the packet and emailed to the board and so I'm not sure if everyone's had a chance to look at them the owners of the Big Y property also submitted a letter saying that you know they really you know their properties they highly value them they're high performing and and they're occupied at the same time they support they actually want to be in the overlay they like the idea of flexibility longterm uh and see it as you know an advantage um at the at you know at the CRC hearing last night um you know I think what um just going to share my screen it might be easier uh to if that's visible for folks the I you know um I'll work kind of north to south um you know there is Charles Lane right here and there was considerations about you know if if it's five floors and only a 10 foot s rear setback you know what is what what does it do to these properties and so you know speaking with staff today you know we don't want to create a setback that makes this building non-conforming but we can at least match the existing setback we could have a step back you know say after three floors still allow upper floors but have them be Ste back some and we'd write a condition that you know something like um you know um you know adjacent properties with single family existing single family homes have this additional kind of rear side setback and it really would just apply here there's no other kind of I mean it apply possibly here if there's something that happened back here although it's Wetland and so you know I think that kind of consideration for Charles Lane is is something to to um to discuss in the overlay we have different setbacks front setbacks along AMD you drive in Northampton Road uh you know 20 24 and 25 feet and they asked whether or not you know is that necessary and I think really the setbacks are meant to respond to each of the different street conditions in context so I think I think it's fine but if the board wanted to you know have a different kind of setback on each of the streets you could Northampton Road the property line is um far back from the curb uh so 25 ft is pretty far back so maybe on Northampton Road it could be different you know I will say that you know the idea is to have the opportunity for wider sidewalks and if you were allowing taller buildings to not have them too close to the street and it's really difficult to say well in some areas you know the right of way is centered on the or the road is centered in the right of way in other places it isn't and so um but you know there could be some considerations for setback they you know the big why prop owners um staff met with them and they are okay with having 100% ground floor retail as part of the mixed use requirement for this part of you know for their properties and so it I think you know again there could be a consideration for that this corner we could write it in that you know the mixu standard is 100% ground floor um and the rest of it it would be what's in the existing overlay um there's some questions about multiple buildings on a property and what is the street facing facade and so in the uh standards and or in in here in the mix use requirement we say at least 75% of the street facing facade of the ground floor uh needs to you know have you know be non-residential to a depth of 24 feet and that parking can be allowed in the remaining of the area the remainder of the area and their questions like well what does res could residential be in the other area too um and the answer is you know yes uh but I you know again I think there could be some clarifying language about what what what this all means um if there's two buildings um you know you know there are things that the overlay wouldn't uh maybe couldn't control but I think you know like I do you know if this were in place and there was more density there I do think then it becomes a conversation with pbta in terms of about bus stops or Inc you know increased frequency of of routs to serve University Drive and so um although outside the overlay I think it's an interesting idea um you know where are the bus stops and what happens if we start getting density here you know could there be another bus stop I think that's um you know something that staff you know discussed and it was discussed last night again not necessarily um regulated by the overlay but a consideration um um I think you know uh the West W there's the access drive on the west side of University Drive and we're having a wide setback with the intent of it becoming you know a 10 to 12 foot wide multi-use path and then we slowly abandon the sidewalk that's right along the road here and I actually don't think that's a very difficult thing to do um you know if the project on this corner happens you know then you know all of a sudden this sidewalk becomes um you know it's redundant but I think the town could get easements for public access and for maintenance along the private property because most of the access drive in this multiuse path would be outside the public RightWay um but the town has done that in other places and speaking with staff today we don't think that's an issue um but I do think you know like I said some of the setbacks the height uh you know are things to consider the town has pretty strong Wetland and storm water regulations in place and so the board has discussed whether or not we need to mention it in the overlay um but that was discussed last night um and yeah I think that you know that would be it I will I just want to annotate quickly on my screen and speaking with staff so you know say this property redeveloped and a building did this the way the bylaw would be written is that you know this right here and this is Street facing and it would be subject to the mixed use even if the step back was quite a bit the question is now what if there's a second building here you know does it still have a street facing facade that needs to have the mixed use component and you know the Building Commissioner was saying you know and other staff said well yes this right here is still Street facing even though it's not visible from the street and so I think you know it's it's an interesting question you know if if there is the possibility of having a second building on a property do we want it to you know it can be a building that complies with the base zoning so this could be a mix use building up front and then this is an office building out back or it could be an apartment building that's limited to number of units in our bylaw as a you know with the lot area and everything or would we allow a mixed use building in the back here that has some other kind of mix use um proportion or standard uh so you know I think you know there's a few things there to discuss uh I don't Doug if I've missed anything but well I think you covered most of what I had noted last night um and I guess uh I see I see two hands up already um and I will call on you in a moment but um Nate uh should we be uh or should you be working on a draft all with with some revisions you know we we know we were talking about changing the maximum height from 65 feet to 72 um obviously the topics that you brought up last night or that were brought up last night that you've just summarized could lead to some other revisions and um is that would that be a productive thing for us to do to say here's the revisions that based on what we've heard and we would recommend to Town Council is that a deliverable that we should be offering as a part of our you know our hearing process yeah yeah I think so so you know what's uh what we have is the proposal that's being reviewed you know and the planning board is making recommendations back to Town Council uh in terms of how they want to vote a possible zoning this zoning Amendment and so if the board thinks that some of those things that were discussed last night and that I mentioned could be incorporated into the bylaw I think it would be good to have a discussion tonight and then staff can you know add the add language to that effect that can be reviewed on the 18th and so if we think clarification about a second building or multiple buildings um the 100% you know Charles Lane setbacks whatever I think all that is um you know right is important and so what we would do is have a marked up version of the bylaw that would go back to council with a memo from the planning board saying you know that if we're to move forward you know here are the eight changes or whatever that we think is you know should be voted on by Council as part of this bylaw and it you know we could enumerate it in the memo and then have it as you know technical language as part of the draft bylaw okay all right so we may uh we may want to have kind of a sort of topic by Topic at least a straw hole if not an actual vote about you know do we want Nate to think about adjusting the setbacks do we want to have some language that changes the percentage of required commercial space on the southern portion of the of the of the uh overlay area um do we want to make special Provisions when you're adjacent to residential a residential zone or residential property um how do we feel about a second building on the property back from or behind the front building uh is that could that be just a plain apartment building um would that be okay or you know what should it be um so those are three or four I probably missed one Nate but um you know let's see what what people think um I think it's worth thinking about most of those um Ken I just want to put in a plea also that we have a dedicated bicycle path along this if we start out without it you know it's so necessary we're trying to convert everyone to bicycling and walking and it's just not going to be that are are you talking about the existing path on the east side of uh University Drive just uh as we consider the setbacks and the side walks and things like that that that we consider how we're going to also allow for a dedicated path somewhere or professional that can figure that out okay I don't want to ignore that at this point so you don't consider the existing Swift way to be a dedicated path um does it go all the way yeah I we only need one do do we need one on both sides that's the question yeah okay all right um Lawrence yeah I was just gonna ask I I think um uh I I like the idea of of being able to sort of review each of these things in the context of of what changes would look like um so so I I was going to propose maybe you know the the issues that that Nate just raised um if if we could just say all right take a crack at at making those adjustments and we'll come back and and talk about it on the 18th rather than than sort of diving into hypotheticals here I don't know I don't know how that strikes folks but um I know from my perspective it would be really helpful to to sort of see what Nate and staff's recommendations of of um uh what responding to some of those concerns could look like and and you know really discuss the specific uh once we're able to see them in context okay all right so a little less conversation tonight and more to look at next time um any other comments from board members at this point BR um I'm I'm interested in the uh [Music] in the affordable fraction and because I do remember that we discussed uh lifting it if we were going to raise the uh increase the the number of stories uh and I frankly can't remember um how that went but it seems that at the moment there's no reference to any particular affordable fraction in the Bible a fraction of we isn't our standard percentage applicable to this I think it is and the question is uh should we uh should we take uh should we should we regard the the offer of or the opportunity of Greater number of stories to be an offering that we might reasonably um get something for shall we say and then increase that percentage from I suppose it's 12% to something something more 15 18 20 uh maybe I wasn't it's it's quite likely that I wasn't uh in on that the meeting when that was discussed because I guess I have missed one meeting of this so uh is there a reason why we wouldn't or why we haven't uh decided to keep with that uh goal that we discussed months ago I mean that was generally when we began talking about this it was considered an opportunity that we should uh take advantage of and uh and at at the moment we are not taking advantage of that was there a reason why we decided not to pursue that well I don't know that there was a consensus of opinion about that you know it was discussed it was brought up but it never really uh it didn't make itself in make its way into the draft um no and you know nobody's particularly brought it up in a while yes well I then I feel like I've dropped the ball um because I think it seems that a reasonable ask in returned for uh the offer of um greater de greater density okay um are there others that feel like the 12% that we are already requiring should be raised Karen is Raising her hand um Johanna I feel like I would be interested in just I don't know like having more information about how like I don't quite know what the sweet spot is you know I don't want to put like I agree that um ammer likely needs more affordable housing I don't know enough about how we arrived at 12% for the inclusionary housing bylaw and like how did we determine that was the right number and what would the impact be I know some of the people who've written to the board are suggesting 25% [Music] um yeah I don't I don't know if Nate or others have insights into you know the potential consequences of nudging it up um Nate anything you want to offer I mean I guess the first thing that comes to mind for me is the higher the percentage of affordable housing the higher the rents are in all the other units so you know because they're subsidizing the below Market rates um and so you know everything else just it's that much more expensive and maybe that's maybe that's un you know that that could be uh enough of an impact that they developers don't want the higher the additional floor and then we've not gotten the units that we want um you know when I think about what do I want from this I want a lot of units uh I want a lot of people living there who don't choose to live in the neighborhoods um so i' I'd like to keep the barriers low to maxing out the buildout of this area Jesse Yeah I'm similarly torn about that to be honest um for reasons you mentioned also so Jenna raised the point in her comments that we're below other places neighboring towns other Massachusetts locations is that true I just don't have that information like is our current standard of 12% in the mix with other places or do we you it's basically what Johan is saying do we need to think about is it the right level um so I guess I'd like some more info about that um but then likewise Doug I think the real goal here is is Max student housing so it's a little bit odds with that even though that might be a shortsighted view because in 20 years they might have different purposes yeah so when the inclusionary zoning bylaw was written um amended um not the most recent time but a few years before that we hired a consultant to look at we had pvpc do it then we had a consultant look a little bit what you know what what is across the state in terms of percentage of inclusionary zoning or affordable units and really it's dependent on each market and so you know 12 effort it was you know some communities do 10 nine maybe more than 12 it's you know it's you know it's kind of like what is the right percentage that won't defer deter development but still allow you to get what you know get investment and building and still have affordable units um and so you know the 12% hasn't necessarily changed the you know how you know you know what's happening in Amis I feel like there's still development uh you know could it be higher in the overlay I think some people will say well we're losing out if we don't increase the percentage but I would say that if we have more units a percentage is a proportionality and so if we have more units because of a 64 we still get more affordable units um and we still get more market rate units and and then we also have the add added benefit of taxes and more residents and more mixed use buildings on University Drive to have a better streetcape so I don't see it as we're losing anything if we keep the 12% um the CRC did ask you know if there could be a way to have um affordable units that maybe aren't capital A affordable that could be higher than an 80% Ami and I explain that that would be a local um kind of restriction and a local responsibility to enforce and monitor that and so you know it's really difficult to say well let's have a graduated um housing with income above what is regulated by the subsidizing housing inventory and what you know is kind of by law affordable housing um I mean it could be possible I just think it would be more work for the town and something that we we haven't really done um you know I think increasing the percentage a bit could be possible I think once you go to 20% to me that's a comprehensive permit and you might as well be doing a 40R District a smart growth district and having something completely different um you know if we're at 20 or 25% I would just say we might as well just you know um just you know to me that's like that is you know a comprehensive permit for every project and really restrictive and I I think that's that's a lot um you know if the goal was say that proportionality of affordable housing like I said I think there are other mechanisms we could be using than what we've been working on um and maybe it's appropriate in some other places um you know in town like a 40R 40s smart growth District um so yeah I mean the council asked the CRC asked and it had been discussed I think Bruce previously with the planning board I I I don't think it ever like um Doug said I don't think it ever got to the point where there's a strong enough opinion to have a change in the inclusionary zoning it had been discussed about whether or not we could have increased percentage or an increased you know above 12% say up to a certain percent could be a different Ami that would be a local piece uh you know HUD does publish 150% of Ami uh so you know again we don't want the town to be trying to calculate median income um so there is a metric for that but then we would have to enforce it locally and it wouldn't you know it wouldn't be on the um the developer necessarily to do some of those things or the state um so I guess it's really what the you know what the board thinks is worthwhile okay thanks Nate Bruce um I suppose if I think about it a little bit uh we could say that 10% typically Statewide has been a magic number because if the town has more if a town has more than 10% they're not enthralled to uh uh the 40b process uh and so we could say well where're and and this town is I think the whole of the time that I've lived in town 40 years or so we've been at or above 10% so I guess we could think that 12% was a pretty laudable thing it's uh it's higher than the the the the the goal of the state so far as what I just said was concerned but uh dug to your qu to to your question about whether the uh taking uh whe whether the uh the loss of rent from an afford from a higher fraction of affordable units would lift the rent in the uh market rate units to cover it my sense which may be wrong is that the uh the land cost and some of the development cost of that land and for um uh for X units if it was only four stories has now become um you know something more than x and so you're building more houses uh on that land so the fraction of land cost for per unit drops and that's where that's where the the the difference is made up theoretically one shouldn't necessarily have to raise the the market rents but that of course is speculative on my part I mean there seems to be a conceptual basis for it but uh that's about as far as it can go so I think uh uh I'm glad to have the conversation I'm not as uh I'm not a strong advocate for pushing Beyond uh 12 but I think we should if we feel we can and I think I would uh perhaps ask uh staff to think about whether lifting it to 15% um uh I think we should deliberate on that because it does seem that the the offer of additional stories is something of a gift uh it's a gift if you like that we will benefit from by having more units I agree with the rest of you that that is the goal and I'm I'm very ke you usually on not taking my eyes off the ball so that's the ball uh to the extent that we can uh have the additional units and a few more affordability units I'd like to I'd like it I'm not a strong advocate for that but my curiosity still exists to some degree okay all right Fred uh I don't agree Bruce that that's the wall uh I've strongly supported this all along because if we create uh places that uh uh will be presumably primarily occupied by students that shifts the market uh in a beneficial way in neighborhoods and that to my way of thinking is that's why this has a major public benefit and uh it's been the always been the reason I've supported it and I think probably leaving leaving at 12% is appropriate I think uh Nate made the appropriate argument and uh uh yeah I I think that is the ball well said Fred thank you Jesse just a quick comment possible data point uh Doug you might know differently than I've heard but I think Fieldstone the new complex is not fully subscribed at all partly because the rents are so high so to your point Bruce about rents getting pushed up by other mechanisms I think there's clearly a upper limit to what the even the student Market will tolerate was my interpretation from the current events there I actually don't have any information on the current occupancy I know that it initially the first year it didn't have full occupancy but since then I don't know Nate yeah I was just gonna say you know I just ran some numbers quickly and so if we change it from 12 to 15% for affordable units you know at a development of 80 to 100 units the net gain is three units when you get to about you know 110 Beyond you know up to like you know a bit beyond that you know the net gain is four units and so there is you know there is a gain um you know if you if you if we think most developments are going to be under 150 units you know your gain is three to four units of development if you increase the percentage and so I just wanted to say that you know so an 80 unit development 100 unit development would you know yield the same you know three unit difference in affordability if we change it from 12 to 15% so you know 422 Amity uh is you know say roughly 90 units with the six floor they were going to add um I think it was 20 units 22 units and so you know we would gain four additional um you know instead of we' gain four you know three additional units uh if it was you know 15% instead of 12% um you know so there is you know there's a gain it's not you know it's it's not to me it's not um too large but there's a gain I I will say we do require the sixth floor to be Ste back a distance we don't prescribe it but you know it's not as if the whole building will cover the you know the footprint will be all the way up you know through the sixth floor and so um you know I think that step back does decrease the potential for additional units on that addition on that Upper Floor and it's the permit granting Authority that would kind of see what is an appropriate step back there so it could be different depending on the building design um we did hear and mention last night that The Amity Street project may or may not be adding a six floor you know they had there was potential that they were talking about it and applying for a variance uh for the zoning board and amended variants and some other things but you know given the construction cost and nature of everything that could be changing um the project is still under review by the planning board for site plan review so we won't get you know we can't get into it too much but um you know it's not it's not a simple answer that a few percentage points is good or bad I think you know it'll get us some more units is it going to deter development I don't I don't necessarily think so I think anything beyond 15% though does get pretty steep in terms of kind of the offsets and what we're asking for um because you know the there are wetlands there most of it is Redevelopment and infill and so you know more units does require parking and different things and so someone could opt not to do a sixth floor right so all these are just opportunities and so a developer still could come in and use the overlay and only do four floors because what they think is appropriate and what they can offer on that site and so um you know I guess if we wanted to change the inclusionary zoning it maybe is only applicable if there is a six floor that's part of the project I wouldn't want to change it and say you know some increased percentage just because they're using the overlay I would have it only apply if they do use a six floor and so to me that's how I would I would write it if we wanted to do it that way okay all right uh time is 9:4 three um so having had this conversation is there is there you know are there additional people than the two people who initially said they were interested in in raising this other than Bruce and Karin um I think are others would others like Nate to think about raising the percentage if it's if it's just two I think maybe we pass on that at least for tonight I mean we will we will be continuing to talk about this at the next meeting but I'm not seeing any hands for the for adding to that discussion all right [Music] um I'm I'm mindful of the time it's quarter of 10 and um Nate do you feel like we need to give you more Direction right now or or you know you kind of heard what we heard at CRC and I mean you could draft language responding to each of those things uh you know just because you might need it um if not for us you may need it for CRC yeah I think if you know you know it sounded like the there's interest from the board to capture you know those six or eight uh comments and considerations that's that's fine if there's other things the board you know thought of since we last discussed this sh I think some of it was the height and the 100% ground floor retail um so you know I I think that's fine you know if if there's other things too we we had asked the CRC members to send comments through the chair to staff so if board members have any thoughts they can send it through Doug to staff and we can or to me directly and we can you know inate those or look at those um you know I think that's all fine okay uh M Jesse thanks I did want to raise the communication question again has come up a few times uh I think in plbg about just making sure all the current residents and are commercial residents and owners are aware of the conversations as we heard from the K representative he just happened to find out about it sounds like we reached out to Big Y right Nate so I don't know what what can planning board or what can we do to make sure all the current occupants are aware and can contribute yeah so typically in a zoning amendment process we don't notify Property Owners um can yeah we did when we sent the um for the first hearing when we mailed the butter notifications we email we mailed all the property owners we sent them the legal notice the memo that went to town Council and I think the overlay map and so every owner was mailed yeah and so um you know that's why Coy Dickinson came to the first hearing and another property owner reached out by phone had some questions didn't really State an approval one way or the other but um and so you know that's you know that's how we end up contacting Big Y they had questions and so you know we did do that Outreach um because you know it was say like 20 property owners and so you know do business owners get notification or only the property owners only the property owners I know the I know that uh the Roberts group and others have reached out to some of the store owners um and so I know you know Big Y is interested and thinks it's a great opportunity I don't know what other of some of the other operators or stores think but seems like those would be valuable opinions also but okay um all right um I guess I'll is there other discussion that people want to have tonight um and I'm gonna make a why don't we go to public comment are there public are there members of the public who'd like to comment on this uh overlay proposal at this point we will be continuing this hearing to our next meeting and uh CRC is also having their hearings uh through this month as well okay I don't see any any uh hands from the public I don't see any hands from the board maybe it's just the hour um so I will make a motion that we continue this public hearing to December 18th uh Pam what time should we be setting is it do we have other hearings already committed for this evening for that evening Nate when is the site plan review for 422 Amity Street coming back is that 1218 it is is it at 6:50 p.m. is that correct 10 minutes to oh boy um I think we should do 6:35 then yeah okay so I'll Mo move that we continue this hearing to 6:35 on December 18th okay would anybody like to second that second all right Lawrence um can I have just one second the um [Music] okay thank you so much okay um any [Music] discussion all right then we'll vote go through the roll call to continue Bruce I uh Fred I Lawrence I Jesse hi Johanna hi Karen hi I'm an i as well that's unanimous all right motion passes we will continue time is 9:50 and uh let's see what's left um I'm G to suggest that uh under under uh General housing discussion we had listed as the second item discussion of a potential overlay for existing apartment complexes that we not discuss that tonight but we wait for that at another time um then we went through everything else including report of chair I don't haven't got anything I want to say now that we've had the full meeting Nate anything else you want to report as staff I don't think so okay all right so uh does anybody el else have anything they want to say before we adjourn doesn't look like it I have a the time is 9:51 and we are adjourned thank you all see you in two weeks good night Pam good night good night can never find the recording button here we go PA recording stop