recorded there you go you see a red dot now now I see it y yes up here in the cloud a red dot in the cloud we do dot over there yeah okay oh my goodness we do have oops turn yourself off Bruce all right Bruce you're gonna need to mute yourself all right good okay um I guess we can start welcome to the ammer planning board meeting of July 31st 202 4 my name is Doug Marshall and as the chair of the ammer planning board I am calling this meeting to order at 6:38 p.m. this meeting is being recorded and is available live streamed via ammer media minutes are being taken pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended by chapter two of the acts of 2023 this planning board meeting including public hearings will be conducted via remote means using the zoom platform the zoom meeting link is accessible on the meeting agenda hosted on the town website's calendar listing for this meeting or go to the planning board web page and click on the most recent agenda where the zoom link is listed at the top of the page no in-person attendance of the public is permitted however every effort will be made to ensure the public can adequately access the meeting in real time via techn ological means in the event we are unable to do so for reasons of economic hardship or despite best efforts we will post an audio or video recording transcript or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the town's website board members I will take a roll call when I call your name unmute yourself answer affirmatively and return to mute Bruce Cen I'm here Jesse major I am present Karen winter here and I Doug Marshall I'm present members Janet Macwan Johanna Newman and Fred Hartwell are absent this evening we do have four members present which constitutes a quorum for this meeting board members if technical issues arise we may need to pause to fix the problem and then continue the meeting if the discussion needs to pause it will be noted in the minutes please use the raise hand function to ask a question or make a comment I will see your request and call on you to speak after speaking remember to remute yourself for the general public the general public comment item on the agenda is reserved for public comment regarding items not otherwise listed on tonight's agenda Please be aware the board will not respond to com comments during general public comment period public comment may also be heard at other times during the meeting when deemed appropriate by the planning board chair please indicate you wish to make a comment by clicking the raise hand button when public comment is solicited if you have joined the zoom meeting using a telephone please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star9 on your phone when called on please identify Yourself by stating your full name and address and put yourself back into mute when finish 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 so the time is now 6:42 and we will go right into uh the first item on the agenda which is approval of minutes of our past meetings I believe we have two sets of minutes uh ready for approval tonight uh both from the month of May um our meeting on May 1 and our meeting on May 15 we'll deal with the May 1 minutes first did anyone have any comments on the minutes uh or Corrections I'm seeing two out of three other members shake their heads no and I don't have any um I'll I'll Bruce go ahead I'll move the adoption of the minutes of the date nominated so as submitted okay thank you uh Jesse I'll second that all right thank you uh any further com conversation about the May 1 minutes before we vote I will assume Bruce and Jesse your hands are Legacy hands at this point all right in that case we'll go right into a roll call vote for the May 1 minutes to approve the minutes uh Bruce I I approve all right thank you Jesse I approve Karen I approve and I approve as well so that's four in favor three members absent the motion passes the May 1st minutes are approved all right we'll go right to the May 15th minutes any comments about those minutes all right oh I saw three out of three other members say shake their heads no Jesse we got there first I move to approve the May 15th minutes all right and Karen hi second thank you both any further comments all right we'll go right into that uh going in reverse order Karen I approve thank you Jesse I approve and Bruce I approve as well yes thank you and I approve also that's again four in favor three absences and the motion passes all right we will now go to the second item on our agenda which is public comment um at this time I customarily read the names of the public members who are on the zoom call and uh tonight there is a large number of viewers um so if you are a member of the public and you would like to make a comment on something not on later on the agenda tonight so this is not the time for public comment about the library project for instance so uh this is about something other than the library uh and we will come back for public comment when we get to that uh topic on the agenda all right so reading the 41 names that I see on Zoom uh Arley Austin Sarat Carol Pope Christopher benrey Deb ja Jacobson Eugene gofredo far Amin Jenny H Helena Donovan Hilda greenbond James with wamc Janet Keller Jeff Lee Jenny Kik Jess shandorf Josephine Penta Judy Bailey Ken Rosenthal Kent Farber Kitty Leticia La lafalot Laura drer Lee Edwards Lou Conover Maria Kopi Martha Hanner Mora Keane Miriam Sierra Neil immerman Pamela Rooney Rachel laugher Rebecca Nordstrom Richard Carpenter Robert bazooka Roman Handlin Shan Burke Shalini Bal Mill Sharon Sherry Steve Nelson Susan landow tamson elely Tony Cunningham and Tony sha and I apologize to anybody who uh whose name I uh mispronounced and I know that a number of those people were with the design team of the for the library project and uh we will hear hear from them later okay so as I said earlier this is the time for public comment about items not appearing later on the agenda uh and uh I saw a few hands before I said that and they disappeared uh at this time I don't see any other hands raised um so I'll uh give you a few more seconds to realize that your topic is not related to the library um and raise your hand before we move on okay there are no raised hands at this time so I will conclude that there is no public comment about items that are not appearing later on tonight's agenda so the time now is 6:48 we will go on to the third item on the agenda the one I guess you are all waiting for um the uh site plan review uh related to the resubmission of the site plan materials for the Jones Library so in accordance with the provisions of Mass General Law chapter 40a this public hearing has been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted it is being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity for interested citizens to be heard regarding SP PR 225-1368 North Pleasant Street request site plan review approval under Section 3.33 4 of the zoning bylaw regarding a not for-profit library or Museum to amend previously approved site plan review approval spr two by approving updated site and building plans based upon value engineering after initial bidding the parcel or the property is located at parcel 14 a-36 and 14 a-41 and 14 A- 94 in the BG zoning District any board member disclosure for tonight's topic okay I see no uh me hands raised for disclosure all right so at this time uh maybe it's you Nate that uh will bring in the presenters from the applicant um yeah if you're here to present on behalf of the library you can raise your hand all right you'll be asked to uh join as a a panelist and then I guess your screen will go blank for a second if you accept it but don't worry you'll reenter I think I saw seven hands raised I think I have I think everyone has been um I'm seeing still well I see Josephine Penta um is Susan landow part of the design team not anyone Austin or anyone wants to answer that or Sharon I they hand raised earlier and then raised it before we had asked for it so I think it might oh okay yeah yeah so members of the public we are going to get the presentation from the present from the applicant and we will have some board discussion before we get to to public comment uh rest assured we will have a time for public comment on this topic okay um so welcome uh again to the design team and uh the members of the library committee um maybe Austin I'll ask you uh thanks Doug who is going to lead off and uh welcome to you all thank you thank you Doug I'm gonna lead off um my name is Austin seret I serve among other things as chair of the Jones Library building committee uh we're joined by members of the design team people have worked on the landscape design and uh people have done the architectural work for the building I want to thank you for the opportunity to present again to the um planning board uh I want to be clear that I understand actually what it is that we are doing the notice for this uh meeting uh rightly referred to uh a revised or changed plan so what we intend to do tonight is to review the changes that have been made since the last time we were before you uh we're not going to go through the whole thing again from stem to stern we're going to focus on uh the changes there are two primary areas where we're going to talk about tonight we're going to talk about changes in the landscaping and changes uh largely a few changes to the exterior of the of the building uh if that is incorrect if that's not the focus of what it is it we are we are doing please correct me now because that's what our presentation has been based on uh Austin I think that is accurate um um you know the board I I I think uh we do want to focus on what the changes are right um I will say uh to the members of the public uh this is a site plan review and uh the planning board it typic is is typically not able to actually reject a plan um we make suggestions we can draw out the process um we can encourage things to be changed but we in the end we really can't reject it outright um we received a lot of letters about this project in the last few days U more than we typically receive uh although many were in favor of and very supportive of the project there were a number that were u in opposition to it and hoped we would not approve the project uh and so to those people I guess that's what uh I'm addressing these comments and that is we really can't say no um under state law so with that uh Austin why don't you tell us about the changes to the site plan and the building exterior since we last uh approved your plans great I'm just going to say a couple of U quick things um as as you all know the library has gone through uh what is called the value engineering uh process uh we've gone through the value Engineering Process to try to reduce uh what would be the bidding cost of the project in going through the value Engineering Process uh the building committee for the library was very concerned that we make no changes that would affect the essential Integrity of the project and we believe that we have done that uh some changes have had to be made uh to things that we might have thought was desirable but things that are needed remain and the Integrity of the project has been preserved as I think you will see tonight so I'm going to actually now turn it over to Tony from FAA uh who will begin the process of uh leading us through the changes that we uh we want to show you thank thanks again Tony thanks Austin and this will be a shared presentation with Rachel from the landscape Architecture Firm so I'm going to attempt to share a screen and tell me if you can see it can everyone see this yes we can Tony thank you very much so I'm going to go through in response to what we are charged with presenting tonight what the ve items are so I actually going to have Rachel begin in terms of the site overview and then the next series of image will go into both the architecture impact and the landscape impact at sort of the high level so Rachel um if you want to start at this slide please do so thanks Tony and thanks Austin um yeah we're pleased to share with you um the changes that we've made as part of the value Engineering Process um as we think about value engineering on this project we were trying to identify areas that could be sort of removed and deferred to later as funds allow for the landscape um so that our decisions would not prohibit those being added in the future and then the second category of things that we are looking at are things with big ticket items things that could have really getting into those big numbers and seeing if there's something that we could simplify or redesign um to achieve a lower cost so what Tony and I are going to walk you through are the views um and how they're affected this is a map showing from the site point of view what's changed um we're deferring The Children's Courtyard uh we've been able to redesign the storm water system to eliminate the subsurface system in the front um which then has uh implications in the back which I'll talk you through later when we get into those slides um and we've um made some slight modifications to the Rain Garden area above grade and below grade um and we also um were able to simplify some of the utilities in the fire department the parking lot Tony ready for the slides so I'm going to start first with what the architecture issues and then Rachel can comment on the site so in the way that we've shown this the lower right here was the original design and then the upper left is the revised design and I will make one very quick caveat the tree that's actually existing here is really this it is not lmed up like this we did this for the purpose of the rendering but this is the reality what you see so the main things I'm going to point out are as follows with respect to the roof we have consideration for a potential alternate to the synthetic slate that was proposed to replace with asphalt shingles on the existing building which you can see I'm sort of highlighting here that's number one this is an alternate change that is being explored number two is an alternate to also omit the replacement sashes on the existing windows and therefore leave the windows intact as opposed to the original design was to replace the windows with new windows in here and then the third element which is though not visible in the view we're going to talk briefly about is the removal of a skylight clear story element which we're going to see in another view momentarily here that has been taken out those are the major elements on the architecture side and then Rachel if there's anything here you want to talk about on the landscape from this view please do so sure yeah I I think one of the things that this view helps illustrate is that though we are removing The Children's Courtyard area and um making some other changes to the landscape the overall aesthetic and um feeling of the front of the landscape is intact um so in The Children's Courtyard area uh we removed the the patio area and and furnishings and fencing um and we're replacing that with grass and we still have an accessible we still have an emergency eress out the children's door um we've also deferred or eliminated the um Goan Stone benches that are flanking um the main facade of the building here um and those could be added at a later date um and then as I mentioned before there used in original design we had um split the storm water storage with the front and the back and we had a subsurface system which is just a giant pipe underground in that front on area we've been able to eliminate that and I'll talk through what we did in the back to accommodate that those are the site those are the landscape changes that happen at the front and I will say that um with the removal of the benches in the front uh we we are making some slight tweaks to the lighting which is still in process um to adjust to those changes to Mo back to the architecture side um what uh we're looking at here is you can now just barely see in this view right here this is where the original light clear story monitor was located and that has now been removed which you can see no longer here the only other thing commentary on the exterior which is not really impactful is that there was some trim detail around these upper window areas here part of the ve those trim elements have been removed so the essentially the upper lower windows are detailed in the same way Rael yeah um so in the back Garden um again this View kind of helps illustrate that the overall design intent and feel is preserved with the value engineering items um what we've done was we we have from a you know before we had one large Basin that uh two walkways crossed with a bridge and what we've been able to do in the back is to turn those into three separate smaller basins with at grade walkways passing by so that simplification uh saved money with the bridges the butts um and then in addition we have been able to expand the subsurface storm water structure to accommodate the um removal of the subsurface storm water structure in the back so these these adjustments in grading and structure allocation um help simplify the storm water design and and help provide cost savings um additionally in this area you can see we've removed the Goan Stone bench from the edge of the patio area something that could be added later um and we've removed some of the patio Furnishings as well as a veneer on on the wall of the retaining wall that's it for that for that area and then on this other View at the angle again from an architecture standpoint we're showing here that this clear story element here previously has now been removed and again the window detail around these openings on the upper level have been simplified to allow these windows and these windows to be detailed the same um and Tony I I I forgot to mention in the previous side if you slide if you could go back to to that um we did make some modifications to the planting in the in the rain Garden at the back so we're preserving the shade trees um as before that but what we've been able to do is um we had a mix of sedums and fenals and low vegetation that flowered um and provided pollinator habitat what um but what we've done is we replaced it with a Nomo grass mix um and that that's something that could remain it could mowed or it could be replaced with future planting in the future and on the next side there there you know there aren't any additional landscape items to talk about summation as a repeat what we just presented on the architecture of V items being looked at the alternate is to change the synthetic slate shingles to asphalt shingles on the existing library to an alternative to emit the replacement stashes of the existing Windows as opposed to replacing those windows and then we are removing the roof monitor from the new construction again Rachel if you want to restate these six for some public points again on the landscape side sure yeah um so we are deferring the Goan Stone benches at both the front and the rear of the library um we're deferring The Children's Courtyard area um we're deferring the storm water garden planting but we are using a Nomo seed mix to keep it stable and functional we've reconfigured the rain garden bridge Crossings um eliminating them and and having solid sidewalks instead we've reduced the paving extent and utility work within the fire department parking area so this is an area um where we will be providing new sewer lines and new drainage lines to support the library and caving that area of trenching above um we've eliminated the front subsurface storm water system um and we are there's also some pipen and structures that are eliminated with that as well and then um we are eliminating the granite cladding that's at the retaining wall of the Historical Society boundary and we're replacing with a color adx or it's an area that could um be painted as a mural um by someone in the community so I think that brings up uh essentially the presentation for tonight we do have supplemental detailed materials behind all of this but we really wanted to get at the heart of the matter and these are the items that are affected by the ve um proposal so now we just open up to questions all right uh thank you Tony and thank you Rachel I see that Chris has her hand up maybe she wants to make uh some comments before we get into the discussion yeah I wanted to note that the design review board did review this a couple of weeks ago and um they made recommendations I think we emailed them to you but I'm not sure that they got into the packet um and the recommendations were written up by Pat o who's a member of the design review board and their recommendations were to keep the synthetic slate shingles on the existing building to replace the existing windows on the existing building because they felt that those were more um energy efficient and would require less maintenance in the long run and they were willing to um go along with the changes that were made to the Landscaping so the change that required the removal of the children's patio and the changes that were made to the um rear planting area uh they were okay with those they realized that those were necessary for the cost savings so I just wanted to report that to you thank you and the other thing is that the historical commission will be looking at this I think on August 22nd but Nate might be able to tell you more about that thank you all right thanks Chris okay um Tony I guess I a first question in response to what Chris said said uh is the reason that you are uh characterizing the synthetic slate and asphalt shingle alternate or change and the uh sash replacement change as alternates uh in part to respond to the historical or to the design review commission we have a you know as you know Doug we're going through a value engineering exercise there are certain costs associated with the roof and the windows so the library is very carefully considering those alternates to replace the synthetic slate originally proposed and to keep the windows essentially that are there intact is part of a cost-saving measure so that is that is what's driving that discussion with respect to the building I I guess maybe um maybe I'm a little bit confused are those two items expected to be bid alternates deduct alternates yes okay so the base the base bids will include the synthetic slate they will include the replacement sashes correct and then the there will be a separate number of the credit available if the library decides to downgrade the project correct okay all right so board members we'll have some discussion first and then we will open up to the public and then we will come back to the board so any initial comments or questions that the board members are burning to ask this is the time to get them out uh early in the process Bruce you you're up first uh yes I've got four questions I guess the first is it's a little esoteric but I'm curious uh have you decided the alternate the order of the alternate of those two alternates yet would the roof slate be the first or the second or have you not yet decided Tony I I think we have not but I think we're looking at both um simultaneously so as part of the Hing exercise both are going to be considered but with respect to one over the other I think it will come down to what we're seeing the value proposition is but don't you have to take them in order listed you want or you in a different bid uh uh climate than public bidding you want to respond to that that's correct um we do they do have to take them in order um and we haven't decided yet what the order will be okay um second question uh I too have uh followed this project particularly the synthetic slate or the the Slate substitution discussion and uh it wasn't exactly sure where the uh the substitutions were where the synthetic slates were being proposed and I uh but I do think it's on the it would include the top uh plane of the south facing roof of the library is that correct between the two big chimneys there is correct yes um um my deep concern about this is that um any surface that is likely uh or intelligently a recipient of solar panels um it's really quite imperative that the uh the life of the substrate the life of the roofing material that's under the solar panels be have at least the life of the panels themselves and this synthetic slate material I think does I have this stuff on my house it's been on there for over 20 years and it shows no sign of change from the day I know a number of other projects of mine and others over 30-year period that have used this stuff and it does seem to have the promised 50-year plus life so it seems to be a good candidate for roofing material under PV panels which also have a you know say about a 50-year cycle so putting um uh asphalt shingles on that roof if you were ever intended to put PV panels on it or if you Deni the opportunity of putting PV panels on it because you put uh a short life material like asphalt shingles would seem to be a mistake so I'm strongly uh uh inclined to support the design review boards uh recommendation that uh that the library do all it can to preserve the synthetic the the superior uh durability of the proposed synthetic slate on that roof um I don't need an answer to that um I just want to make that clear yet again I've made it clear in letters to various people um and I have the opportunity to do it again publicly I commend that to you uh second and third questions um the um it seems that you've been very thoughtful about the drainage system and how you can uh uh redesign that in a way that saves uh considerable uh uh amount of money and uh when I read through the the documentation in prior to this meeting I thought well why wasn't this done that way originally was it that it was just thought of or was it that it wasn't quite as good as the system that was originally designed or is there another reason I just want to be sure or as sure as we can and and have you explain uh to us publicly that the the system the the the the the change in the in the uh drainage system that you've uh are now intending to implement is certain is is is certainly adequate and and and uh has it is it the less adequate system for the uh less amount of dollars spent on it um than what you initially designed I I I I think we should be sure that what you're doing here is uh is fully prudent and if you could respond to that I'd appreciate it then I've got one more question Doug would you may defer or let me proceed depending on how you like but I I would like to talk about I'd like you to tell me about the drainage system Rachel sure um Bruce yeah thanks for your question um I would I guess I'll start with um we were looking at a increase in perious surface on on the Jones Library property site um and we try oh you do you need me to speak up um you're good I think we can hear you okay um we are we are looking at an increase of impervious surface on the Jones library site both through Paving and through additional roof area um so when we looked at the site we thought it would be better to split the drainage so roof leaders on the front of the library to collect those in a system immediately out front and then roof leaders um and surface flow out back into the rain Garden um that was a common sense approach um there is a complicating factor in the front that we have an electrical line duct Bank pretty sizable that we have to drop under with the subsurface um storage system outfall to get um out to the outlet so that created a bit of challenge with our flows um Greg and our office has prepared a storm water model and report for both scenarios the original submission and the survived submission um and he actually spent quite a bit of time tweaking things changing the grading slightly changing the structures changing um pipe sizes and things to get things to balance but um to let you know we are balanced for um po pre and post flows to give you numbers uh in the existing site releases 7.19 CFS in a 100-year storm and we've actually reduced that outflow with this revised system down to 6.37 CFS so it's an improvement over an existing condition um and it's purely in the regrading we have larger basins we have three B Basin that are slightly larger in footprint than that original one and it's adding a row of subsurface system to that to to that exist to that big big Lego block system in the back and then it's the fact that we're not having to jump over hurdles to avoid the really deep line with the to miss the electric duct bank so I hope I hope that answers your question it it does thank you go ahead Bruce brce one other other clarification for you there was actually never intention to do PVS on the historic building roof it would it was going to go on the new part just point of clarification yes so that may be the answer for now but I can see that it might not apply for the next 50 years so it's such a perfect roof up there that uh it's it's I understand your answer attorney I just want to be clear that it's uh uh we typically don't uh I mean I would like to see that durable material on that roof uh for that reason but also for others um none nonetheless uh Doug should I proceed with my number next question go ahead Bruce and then we'll go to Karen um I think this is for Rachel Rachel the first uh iteration of this um I was really kind of Enchanted by the uh landscape uh plantings that you had proposed um and particularly because there used to be quite a nice Garden around the back of this library and and that won't uh that that is gone and I thought well the plantings that you were proposing seem to be quite Rich um I mean flowers and so forth I mean you had a whole sheet of drawings showing all of the different types of plants and and it was intricate and wonderful and and and it felt like it would be very nice back there at various times of the year uh can you tell me whether what you had proposed uh a couple of months ago in the way of plantings is uh is being retained or is that uh should that also be listed as a change the to clarify the um I just want to clarify planting as a hole in the front is um the same as what was prepared before and this rain Garden area where you're talking um the the aesthetic like the loose quality of it is similar we retain the Stepping Stones the Goan Stone Stepping Stones through the basin we retain The Boulders and the reclaimed Granite seat walls um the Nomo mix is about 18 Ines tall and it flops over so it looks like little waves in the landscape um it's something that can be mowed it just seems to be mowed at a little bit of a higher height no less than 4 inches um and it's something that can be supplemented over time so we've seen um some places uh plant minor bulbs like crocus um and fertility into the into the Matrix um it's something too that over time as interest and funds allow we could start to add in that original design palette um and add to it over time the Nomo mix is not like a traditional lawn um it's something that you can really work with so it's something that we were looking at that could stabilize the the rain Garden area and but also kind of have that quality to it thank you thank you Rael all right thank you Bruce all right Karen um yeah thank you I since I'm on the design review uh board you know that we all unanimously uh said that we would not approve the the asphalt chingles uh for for many reasons durability but also Aesthetics it's such a histo I mean it's the front it's it's a roof that's very visible but I don't want to go into that I'm wondering since you know we keep hearing that this is going to be a net zero building and uh one reason to build is just because the future demands that we save energy what the windows that that now are not going to be replaced are you still going to be a able to achieve this kind of um Net Zero and and uh Energy savings if if you use these old windows that are just repaired as needed I'm I'm open to hearing I mean I've heard I I was very strongly against uh not changing the windows but then i' I've heard from Neighbors that in some cases the old windows seem with storm windows are sometimes better than some of the new replacement windows and if you don't have the money for good replacement windows then maybe it's okay but how have you examined this I mean this is a cost-saving measure but what does this do to the overall energy picture of this building all right Tony can Josephine respond to this um okay sure yeah I can respond um so we um this is an they're ready building on that zero building Jo Josephine you are difficult to hear oh this happens a lot can you hear me can you hear me better now a little bit um so I'll try and speak a little bit louder so everybody can hear me um this is not a net zero building but we um are looking at all sustainability measures that we can um at the time um we are doing that this whole summer you know analyzing um all sorts of different sustainability um approaches to um to to everything um the historic portion is exempt from the new energy codes um but that doesn't mean that we won't be looking at um how we can you know make this building better um as far as um the eui that will that is considered the existing building is considered in part of that calculation and we will be running those reports um this summer as well so we will be doing all of our typical um studies that we do as we make these changes so right now you you have no idea what the what difference the windows replacing windows will do energy wise to the cost of maintaining the library no not to the cost of maintaining the library we do not because drafty Windows means a lot more energy is used um are you still including the storm windows on the windows in in which approach Doug sorry about that in the uh value engineered approach so in the value engine approach it would just remain as it is as is without any any new layer of of thermal separation okay all right um I guess I don't see other board member uh hands raised uh Jesse let me know if you have some questions I guess my my main question for the team is uh in the uh local news uh we heard that the project came in roughly $7 million over over the budget when the bids when it was bid earlier this year and that you were embarking on a significant value engineering effort um is are you hoping that these changes as described will total 7 million in uh in value that I guess when I hear what you've done I'm not sure I think you're even going to be close to 7 million so I just Doug thank you for that question uh the value engineering uh issue is a is a budget issue uh I'm not sure that it's a planning board board issue so whether or not we have $7 million worth of changes or not I'm just I'm happy to talk about it but I'm not sure how it's relevant to the site plan um review process I would say the following if you if you followed what we said at the in the building committee we're trying to reduce the costs uh of the original bid in a couple of ways value engineering was only one part of that plan okay all right um Austin I don't disagree with you that it is not uh part of the site plan review uh however I I suspect that it is a topic that is on people's minds so and I respect that that's why that's why we've discussed it publicly in the Jones Library building committee several times uh okay so this is not it's not hidden it's been out there in the it's not out there in the public uh we're we're really happy to answer questions the Our Hope tonight was to keep us focused on what what you all need to you all need to determine so I don't I don't I don't want to say you know uh uh if we're going to talk about things like price and costs and how much we savings that that's what the building committee has been has been doing okay all right I will uh have to look up those recordings of those meetings and find out what you said all right uh Nate sure I mean Doug I don't think it's completely irrelevant because you know if the planning board finds that the loss of some of these features whether it's the Children's Courtyard or some of the plantings you know detracts from the site plan and they say and you say no you know how does the product move forward and so I think it's a question you know I think it should be guided first you know are these changes um you know appropriate or you know adequate for the planning board and if not why not and then that becomes part of the conversation I don't I wouldn't be let it be you know I wouldn't have the monetary discussion or Energy Efficiency be the leading reason why there's decisions being made but I think you know if the planning board starts to have a discussion then I think it can be relevant um but not you know the major reason why you're talking about something so yeah yeah okay thank you um okay so why don't we turn to public comment at this time um and Josephine I'll let you speak while members of the public if you want to make a comment about this project uh please start raising your hand go ahead jine sure thanks Doug I just wanted I wasn't sure in the beginning of my comments that any everybody heard me because um because of what you had said um but I just wanted to make a point that this is not a net zero building um I don't know if everybody heard that previously so just wanted to to sure say that again yeah okay thank you all right um so I see so far eight hands raised uh from public members why don't we start with Pam Ro Nate can if you can bring her over sure IA do you want me to have a timer dug on my phone I don't have the screen that Pam usually had uh sure that would be helpful I'll I'll keep sort of informal time on my watch as well and do we bring them over as panelists or just allow them to talk I forget what's how do you want to proceed uh well they customarily show up in the uh panelist [Music] screen sure uh Pam I'll promote you to panelist and then you can speak and Jose are um Tony maybe you could stop sharing so that we can see each other better I don't see Pam I um all right Pam you can unmute yourself you should be able to speak yeah Pam you are muted Pam you are still muted there you go thank you I think you don't want to bring people in as panelists because it takes 20 seconds to to to load up um I had a question about the curtain wall there was a good image of it as we were leaving that the image that was on the screen when um you called on me and I have never been clear if the curtain wall is still in the project or if that will be replaced with storefront windows on that North facade if wonder if somebody could uh address that please oh Pam Ro 42 Cottage Street and did you have additional comments you wanted to make no that was that was the question that I wanted to ask okay all right I think because that is within the perview of the planning board I think it's a physical attribute of the building thank you yes yes all right Tony uh you able to answer that uh Doug I just have a procedural question I I wanted to make sure I understood I thought at the beginning you said we were not going to be answering these questions uh we're not going to be going back and forth um no my my earlier comment regarded comments made during the general public comment thank you thank you not during this specific topic Tony question about the curtain wall we are replacing I'm gonna have Josephine again respond in detail sure so the the curtain wall will be at the um rare entry um that that vertical piece at the RAR entry um that remains curtain wall um and all of the other windows are punched traditional windows that was changed and that was changed since the original submission yes that was part of the ve process [Music] okay all right so I hope Pam that that was an adequate response it's answered your question all right if I could follow up I um I thought that was one of the cost-saving measures was to change from curtain wall to storefront so it sounds as though it has been determined that is it is not a cost-saving measure no we did change the it was all curtain wall previously and now all the punched openings are uh traditional windows and the curtain wall only remains at the North entry um vertical piece yeah so sounds like there were significant uh reduction in the amount of curtain wall uh and it's only remaining at the North entry that's correct okay all right Nate uh why don't we move Pam back and um if there's a more efficient way to let people go through this uh I'll leave it to you to implement that yeah we'll leave everyone as attendees and then you'll just be asked to unmute yourself or you'll have that ability and so that'll yeah all right it looks like Neil immerman is next hello Neil so hello can you hear me yes we can okay I'm I'm Neil emman I live at 37 Hill Crest Place and I just wanted to make a a brief comment I I know everyone's been a little frustrated that the the one bid that came in was much too high and we have to go back and look at this again I appreciate I appreciate what you're doing and I I don't have a strong feeling for the for the details of of the new plan I just I just hope it can can all come together and everyone can agree and you can go out for a bid and and do this project you know it's just something I just want to just reate my strong belief that that we need this project to happen and I hope I appreciate you all working together on the details and I hope we can get it all done so that was all thank you very much for your work all right thank you Neil all right uh next we have Jeff Lee hello Jeff hi thank you Jeff Lee from South amers um yeah I'm I'm troubled by the loss of sustainability features uh with the value engineering changes um ammer commitment to sustainability is demonstrated by the fact that we have a net zero bylaw for public buildings yet the library project is going in the opposite direction um we're losing uh multiple p uh double pane glass on the Windows we're losing U flate roof replacing it with asphalt we're losing the light monitor which lets in natural light much like the uh Atrium today lets in uh natural light we're losing all that um and we're losing uh cross- laminated Timber which was an important uh sustainability feature um to win funding from the Town Council the uh Library project people made all kinds of claims about how sustainable this project would be yet um we've lost all those features Austin SED himself once said this is uh one of the most sustainable if not the most Sustainable Building in ammer that's no longer the case and I think we need to know what the measurements are what's the energy use in intensity what are the teddy numbers what's the life cycle assessment measurement you know regarding uh with regard to embodied carbon that we've lost by eliminating the cross- laminated Timber so I think we're ahead of the game in trying to permit this project without knowing knowing those things thank you all right excuse me um thank you Jeff I just got a call from Pam Ro and she asks that you remove her from the panelist if you can do that thank you yeah I'm trying I've changed her twice now okay uh she disappeared and it's possible that she hung up and will come back nope she's still here all right and uh it sounded like Jeff Lee was finished so we can uh take him off and the next person is Susan landow I'm hi I'm can you hear me fine yes we can uh I'm Susan landow I live at Hillcrest Place in ammer um I want to say that I have been tremendously appreciated appreciative of the library in the 35 years I've lived in town it was great for our children the Children's Program it's great for me as an adult as I get towards retirement it's terrific there um I've been very disappointed by the delays that have been caused by people who opposed the extension and I think we need to move forward forth with I hear Jeff's comments about uh sustainability and so on but the delays that we had originally in in approving the plan uh caused the the project to be much more expensive and so I just want to urge us to move forward as quickly as we can because it's a uh the changes in the library are something we need for our community and for the children and adults of the future thank you thank you Susan uh next uh we will have Janet Keller hello Janet hi hello Doug you planning board members um uh and and our Consultants thank you all and um I have just a big sentence or two to me the lifetime monetary costs and environmental costs of of the decisions that are being made are critically important um to both the environment um impacts and the long-term impacts on um our Town's budgeting and um I'm thinking of things like the windows and the roofing and I hope the decisions will be made in um to effect um longtime environmental and um monetary uh results thank you okay thank you Janet all right next uh we have Ken Rosenthal thank you welcome Ken thank you Mr chair could I ask the uh Architects to bring up the South facade a drawing of the South facade I just want to make one small point about a value engineering item that I think was left off that could save a little bit of money um based upon uh something that should should be changed from the original drawings if that's not possible I'll just speak to it without it uh Tony is that a possibility let's see have we lost I'm noty seems to have this Tony seems to have disappeared Mr Marshall I'll I'll just speak to this because I think I can describe it the um just to the right of the front door on the front facade the South facade the original drawings called for a hole in the original wall to account for a book slot drop and that was because there was originally a plan for an automated book sorting machine that was going to be multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars that is no longer part of the plan it could come in later but the slot through the through the or original stone wall which will cost something to do and will deface the wall slightly that Still Remains I would like to say that that does not have to be done it will save a little bit of money and it can always be done later if that automated book sorting machine comes in meanwhile the plans the value engineered plans still contain the dropbox at the end of the driveway on the east side of the building and I I would further like to say that if there is to be a book sorting machine close to a window then the window can be adjusted so that a slot can be put through the bottom part of a window a window can be made a little smaller and the stone facade of the building does not have to be defaced thank you for I think so that I I think of the value engineering folks who put that in that would save a tiny bit of money and move us a little bit along the way thank you very much Mr chair and and and and boor for listening to me this evening all right thank you Ken Tony that's a suggestion in case you're looking for additional items to save a little money on uh Leticia lafalot is next can you hear me yes we can welcome Latisha lafallet um Dana Street in amorist thank you very much for um for this presentation this was really helpful um I appreciate the value engineering um that has gone into it um and I also appr appreciate some of the positive suggestions that have been made um I want to reiterate what Neil immerman and Susan Lando both said this project has been delayed delayed delayed and delayed it's really critical for the future of our town so I would urge the planning board to um to move ahead as expeditiously as possible um thank you very much thank you Laticia uh next we have Maria Kopi thank you hello Maria hi thanks thanks Doug Maria kapiki South amorist uh I want to Second uh several things that have already been said first for the sustainability Jeff is spoton um I do appreciate um Miss Penta pointing out uh very clearly that this is not a net zero building it's not even close um I do think it's um extremely troubling that there's not even reports about uh the impacts of these additional changes uh on the Energy Efficiency of the building and then to be going forward with that seems um not right uh the light monitor does help in uh in some ways the efficient Windows do help the cross laminated Timber much was made of this there a lot of hay made about that um about the embodied carbon that is completely gone so virtually all of the sustainability measures have been eliminated with these new plans I want to appreciate also Doug's comments that the whole point of this exercise of redesign and rebidding is to somehow Bridge a $7 million gap which is actually closer to 8 million by the time you add in escal since we've got another year uh another half year here so the changes that have been proposed are nowhere in the vicinity of that num number nowhere uh and I think that what is being attempted here is to make a cheaper building a that that really does a disservice to the unique and historical nature of this building that we have um the the change in shingles is unacceptable thank you design review board and thank you for comments along those ways along that those lines uh and I just want to also point out that the Massachusetts historic commission has twice rejected the historic tax credits for this because the designs that have already gone through and that would still be in place violate five of the 10 standards that they have for those tax credits so that's about $2 million that is gone uh and really troubling about that is that that wasn't pointed out we knew that in December we knew it again in April well we didn't know it the public didn't know it the Town Council didn't know it the building committee didn't know it the trustees probably didn't even know it but Sharon Sherry did get those reports and that was not made public this project is it this is an exercise in futility and we're wasting time money energy um on a project that should not move forward thank you thank you Maria all right [Music] um next we have Martha Hanner I'm Martha Hanner I live on alysum Drive in South amorist welcome so thank you unfortunately the current plan that's revised plan is no longer the project that ammer residents voted for as a resident and a voter I feel betrayed I do not agree that the essential Integrity of the design has been preserved in fact I would call this a value subtraction the costs of millions of dollars over the original budget even with the proposed revisions and the design is no longer the Green Building Sustainable Building that was sold to voters and uh it's concerning the statements that historic portions are exempt from new energy codes means we don't have to try to do our best here um and that um concerns me aspects of the historical building and woodwork are now proposed to be destroyed so I urge the planning board to make the following requirements to require the synthetic slate roof both for durability and for the appearance of a historic building in our downtown and that the original sustainable design including the heating and cooling control and the new thermal efficient Windows throughout the building both the Old and New sections be put part of the design uh this is very important I mean we are in a climate crisis if you look at the state of Massachusetts studies you see that the heating cooling and sustaining of buildings is the second highest source of carbon dioxide emissions in Massachusetts right following Transportation much higher than electricity generation and we need a commitment to do as much as possible uh and particularly in the case of the planning board here to commit to making every new building and modification as sustainable and as close to Net Zero as possible uh with no excuses and also then I would propose that um if solar panels are not being included on the roof now that the planning board require that the design of the roof the electrical systems and any other design aspects needed for solar should be installed as part of this design so that later solar panels could be added without major impacts time is almost up yes I almost I would just finally then urge the planning board to take a hard look again at the impacts on the Historical Museum next door the structural On's vibration everything else that's going on we need to treasure our Historical Library and carry urgent repairs so thank you all right thank you Martha all right um Shon mil B Mill you are next hello shy b m District 5 um welcome thank you I'm speaking as a former Town counselor and I know firsthand how hard everyone has worked for over a decade um on this the library trustees volunteers Town staff so I just want to take a moment to appreciate all of you the planning board the staff and you know so much of our focuses everything that's going wrong so I just want to take a moment to appreciate all the hard work and resilience of this group of people um because that is what we do need right now it is our responsibility to within the resources that we have with our commitment to the functions that this library is going to offer to the most vulnerable populations to our youth to the people who don't have Alternatives like many of us who are speaking today do have options and we don't I mean we are fine with the library but there are people who really are relying on this additional functionality so I hope we can all just stay focused on that and and really work to together uh in that spirit I really appreciate the questions that were asked by the planning board members today by the design board so I really do appreciate that all of us are working in that Spirit to make sure that we get the library we want uh there is I would like some clarification because I keep hearing that um you know some of the features have gone I understand with respect to sustainability but my understanding is that uh we're still eliminating the use of fossil fuels and becoming Net Zero ready am I right with that and then the related question is then if we stay with the existing building with just the repairs will that be more sustainable so where do we which building is going to be more sustainable given the changes that are being um offered all right thank you Shon Tony or Austin do you w to comment on that at all or not propos I see your hand maybe you want to jump in let let me just say the following Doug the value engineered building will be much more sustainable than the library that we currently have under any scenario uh it will be a tramatic a dramatic Improvement in terms of its energy effic efficiency under any scenario so uh that we that we that we know about the car building is very energy inefficient Sharon all right thank you yeah so I I just wanted to clarify some of the things that are are being said the building is going to be Net Zero ready uh meaning um uh once we purchase off-site Renewables uh the build building will be Net Zero um and regarding the eui the we don't the reason we don't know it is because we can't run those reports until after the designs are done so once all of these permitting meetings are complete uh then the Architects will be able to finish uh what they started finish and and bring us to some construction documents and then they'll be able to run the the reports which will tell us what the eui is so thank you okay thank you Sharon all right um two more two more public comments uh one first from Tony Cunningham let's bring her over hi thank you Tony Cunningham North amorist I just wanted to hello your audio has cut out to an all electric system and uh fossil fuels could be removed are you able to hear me yes you cut out for a minute and you're now back oh sorry I just stepped out because there's dishes noise in the background um I just wanted to say that in a repair scenario Plan B the HVAC system could be converted to Electric there is no requirement to go with the expansion plan in order to get rid of fossil fuels for this project and in the estimates from 2020 um the hbac system and the roof could be done for around $2 million so I think with escalation and um some my SP usabat I could see a plan B achieving the high CR highest priority repairs for less than $5 million um thank you so much okay thank you Tony all right uh we will I believe Arley is next Arley you'll have to give us your first and last name and your address in amorist welcome hi can you hear me yes Arley Gould South ammer um this whole Net Zero and Net Zero ready and offshore off you know site purchases of um clean energy and stuff you know one of the things going on and this is a larger picture but the true Net Zero building is producing its own energy purchasing off you know not on your own building only came in because people couldn't afford to put solar panels on their roofs there's a lot of old buildings in Massachusetts so this community solar was developed for those reasons the problem is is like right now pure sky is trying to cut down 6,000 trees off scotsbury road to create these offsite you know things even though everybody has their separate domains and we're not supposed to talk about this or that at these different meetings we live in one world one town with interconnected issues so and the other thing is off you know getting things off sight the grid is a long time from being clean you know the the grid is largely fossil fuel driven still the only way to get real clean energy is to be putting solar panels or whatever heat pumps on your own building so you know just in terms of climate and and reducing impacts and stuff it's it all looks good on paper and we can say Net Zero ready and off site and all this but the reality of it is there's still a big difference between doing solar panels and versus purchasing off you know I I'm in community solar because I can't put things on my roof I would prefer to do that if I could um anyway thank you okay thank you Arley uh next is Roman [Music] Handlin hi can you hear me yes we can Roman welcome thank you uh yeah I'm Roman I live on Meadow Street in north ammer um I want to kind of echo something that was said by a different um Community member a few speakers ago about uh serving the most vulnerable populations I mean I think we all know that uh at at the end of the day the library is a community space that a lot of us rely on and I'm coming in speaking as someone who does rely on a lot of resources from the library um and who is very low income and needs a lot that this amazing institution has to offer um I really understand that this has been going on for a long time and that there's a lot of concerns about the changes in sustainability for cost purposes however I do want to say that if I was as a voter and amorist if you propos this current proposal to me right now I would still vote Yes on it um I'm really impressed by what the planning committee has been doing and all the hard work they've been doing to try to meet these updated costs and make changes that have to be made and while I understand that I think a lot of us would love a a true net zero right now I do have faith in the net zero ready plan and I also as someone who is deeply dependent on the library this has been going on for so long and I want to see the necessary changes happen now and I think what's being proposed right now is extremely reasonable and still extremely valuable and I think for me as a community member my focus is on making this the best it can be for my future for the for kids Futures so that we can have this Library uh be sustainable as an institution and continue to exist because a lot of these things need immediate renovation and repair and what is being proposed now I think should happen and should happen soon and there is opportunity for further work in the future but I just want to come out and say that I'm fully in favor of this um and thank you so much to the the planning committee and all the hard work you've been doing so that's all thank you okay thank you Roman all right I don't see any more hands raised uh Les's last call oh we got a couple more all right uh Tina Swift you you are next hello Tina we we don't hear you yet oh no uh just barely heard you there hi I'm Tina Swift I live in South amorist and I want to say I too would like to see this project go forward sooner rather than later I spoke with a friend today who who said well you know that library was just recently renovated and when I corrected her to say that that recent renovation was more than 30 years ago she was surprised let's not go another 30 years I also want to remind us all that if your car is broken you go to a mechanic you don't survey people around you who might drive a car but don't know how to fix it and this is what the trustees have done they have hired fold Alexander and their contractors who are qualified they do a good job they have a good reputation let's listen to them thank you all for your hard [Music] work okay thank you Tina all right uh Chris benrey looks like you are probably the last comment this evening oh hi I'm Mickey wathan I'm actually Chris is my husband and I'm using his computer okay welcome thank you I live at uh 666 Southeast Street in South ammer um I have a background in historic preservation and it matters a great deal to me I I believe that an important part of ammer uh core value is in its historic significance um and it's unfortunate that the planners have paid very little interest to Historic preservation uh regarding this Library uh the Jones library is his you know the centerpiece of the historic downtown uh of of amorist um I hope that everyone on this committee is familiar with the letters that have been sent by the uh executive director of the Massachusetts historical commission brona Simon um she expressed much concern about the adverse effects that this project is going to have on the building um I see absolutely no indication that any of of um Bron assignment's concerns are being addressed by the planning board even though I think that it's true that you know the planning board is obligated to uh you know give consideration to uh historic preservation um I think what is concerning to me at this point point and and evidence of how little uh this planning process has taken into account historic preservation is the fact that um a centerpiece of state and federal historic preservation legislation is uh review under something called section 106 This was meant to be a under the guidelines state and federal section 106 was meant to be commenced at the beginning of the planning process in order to get public input to bring in people that would consider the historic implications the adverse effects and come up with some you know compromised Way Forward um the town has done nothing about section 106 review we don't even know at this point who is going to be the point person uh it conducting the review um you're you're getting close to the end of your time I will finish thank you um this project is going to be set out for bids again in about six weeks we have no idea when the section 106 process is going to take place um the guidelin uh that I know have been sent to various Town officials make clear that this is a multi-step process it takes months to Nikki I think we need to wrap it up okay thank you for your attention but um I I do find the lack of of awareness of historic uh historic fabric of this town is is just shocking to me thank you okay thank you all right that was our last hand raised for public comment uh Sharon I see your hand raised yeah Doug thank thank you so much there's additional comments uh in response to some of these public comments whether it's Sharon or Austin you want to make now's the time to do that no actually um there's somebody uh in the audience that's interested but they're on their phone and they don't know how to raise their hand while on their phone and so if one of you could tell them is this uh the person at 41323 9482 I'm guessing can do you guys know how to that how that person raises their hand all right well Nate so Nate I'll just bring him over and see if they can unmute themselves and speak so if your number ends with 9482 uh and you can figure out how to re unmute yourself you you are in a position to speak to us uh if they if they unmute themselves they can't speak is that yeah I guess I guess uh I I wouldn't know how to unmute my myself on zoom on my phone I don't know if anybody else would is this one of these star N Things yeah well but all right well I guess uh I guess maybe we should ask that this person send in an email or a letter it says star six I don't know if that you know is that what does it have their hand raised now but I don't yeah got their hand up H now hi can you hear me yes we can sorry I'm having a lot of technical difficulties I kept getting no sound during the the zoom um Laura drer 57 Rosemary Lane thank you for accommodating me on the phone um I am a longtime supporter of the Library project and I'm also I also do not want to see the town put more money into this project because I know we have several other projects that we need to accomplish and so I really appreciate the willingness of the folks here to Value engineer to put this back out for bid to try our hardest to get this project to move forward because I do think this is the most cost-effective way for us to achieve all the goals of this project and the other projects that the town needs to complete within our fiscal availability um I so thank you um I'm a longtime member of the amorist energy and climate committee I'm have dedicated my career to climate activism and life cycle assessment I've been really disheartened throughout this debate if you want to call it that of the weaponizing of sustainability at first it was not sustainable enough so we should not do it now it's not sustainable enough in a different way so we should not do it I think um the most important thing to address the climate crisis is to stop burning fossil fuels and we have an opportunity with this building to not only meet our community needs but to get a very large source of fossil fuel use in our town off fossil fuels um I also believe that this building is solar ready I think there's many federal and state incentives that is going are going to make that easy to do in the short term and that's going to help us save money and make this a net zero building so um just thank you for your work and thank you for figuring out how to let me talk okay all right thank you Laura all right so I don't see any more hands and unless somebody else has heard of someone else that is trying to raise their hand uh I guess we'll we'll move on all right um I guess uh panelists will come back to you guys to us and uh board members as are there any further questions or comments um I guess one comment that that came to mind while I heard about heard these comments um I would think that if we did want to put solar panels on this building on the uh upper portion of the Gamel uh Bruce um that at the time we were buying the panels we could replace the the asphalt shingles um so I don't you know I think this is an this is a revocable uh act uh it's not irrevocable um you know at at any point in the future somebody could come back and replace that Roofing with you know ribbed metal panels that can support solar panels or or the synthetic slate or real slate whatever um and I provoked Bruce enough to raise his hand go ahead dou I think you're not wrong about that it's just that uh it's probably then we're talking about whether we do the whole roof or not you're right but it's it often isn't done people just plunk them on and they don't think but hopefully we will be thoughtful enough and hopefully Chris riddle will keep telling his story around town and we'll realize that um the two systems have to have equivalent lifespan right do you want to do an 8:00 uh toilet prank oh sure this is that's a good suggestion thank you all right um why don't we take a f minute break and time looks like the the time is 812 we'll come back at 817 and continue with board discussion and uh maybe be able to wrap this up this evening uh when you come back turn on your video and unmute yourself e e e e e e e e e e all right time is 8:17 and looks like people are returning okay uh Chris I see your hand the time is 8:18 why don't we resume our meeting so I would like to ask Nate if there's anything about the um historic commission um review and recommendations that might have an influence on the planning board or should the planning board just go ahead and vote tonight based on what they have heard yeah sure thanks hone Nate Malloy the historical commission had scheduled the hearing for tomorrow night it wasn't posted correctly so it's postponed until the 22nd so you know we'll still get on Zoom tomorrow and let everyone know but um the historical commission is looking at the project from the demolition bylaw in the historic preservation restriction uh I think from the uh demolition bylaw you know it's because there's been some changes to what's being proposed I think it's pretty minor um in terms of the preservation restriction the commission can look at any changes um it's considered you know major alterations so the change in roof the changing in the landscape um the you know Courtyard um you know really it's again kind of changes from the propos you know from what were the um approved plans to now and so I I mean I don't I think the planning board can go ahead and make their their decision the historical commissions um will make theirs and so you know if at some point they need to be reconciled they can I don't you know for instance if the planning board said everything looks great and the commission says no Then well they have you know they have to do what the commission says because the preservation restriction is binding on the property if the planning board really likes something and the historical commission has an opinion then you know we can have that discussion but I I think the planning board can go ahead and you know with this review now they don't have to wait for the historical commission okay all right um so board members I guess I'm I guess I'd like to find out whether you're generally uh supportive of what we've seen tonight and and if so whether you would support us going through the whatever findings and conditions we need to modify to proceed with an approval of this site plan review so um uh Bruce you've got your hand up go ahead um I guess uh whereas as you said this is Cen review is not something that we would expect to deny or to uh it's a conditional approval that typically we uh proceed with and um I had uh my three questions had to do with areas where I thought I I might be interested in proposing uh conditions uh subject to approval um and only uh one of those now do I think I would uh wish to P pursue and that is the the uh the condition that the uh the roof uh retained its synthetic slate um I could be argued out of that I think Doug by the observation that you made and uh and and perhaps if that really is going to be a significant cost impediment um and I was in the minority of one um I probably would vote for unanimity but uh I would like us to consider that as a as a condition I think think we are uh maybe I should con uh confirm that uh I mean of course you never know what uh an applicant might not take to test out in in the Massachusetts court or something but short of that I think it's uh typical and reasonable for this board to impose conditions on its uh approval and uh um so I think I'm uh of a mind having thought about this a fair bit because we've already been through this once some a couple of months ago and then we had a fairly comprehensive set of documents that were submitted that uh that we were able to review and then we've discussed it and heard public comment and so forth and at this point I I think that um uh no matter what I may think about this project in relation to other Town building projects that are in the in the mix and whether it's in the right order or not this is the uh the one that is before us and uh I think I'm ready to uh to to to to propose a conditional approval um based on what I just said okay thank you Bruce Jesse Yeah just uh comment I guess I would also lean that way along with Bruce that the only thing I would think about suggesting would be staying with the the uh synthetic slate other other issues other changes I had no concern about short okay thanks Ken well um just like my decision with the design review board where we all felt that we would not approve the asphalt roof and I I think when we asked about cost the cost Savings of that was around $250,000 which in the scheme of all the these millions is a lot but it's not going to make or break the building and I think it is extremely important so I would agree I would keep that as a decision and I do think that we have what what Mickey rathord said about from the beginning we just didn't perhaps um make it clear to The Architects that the historic preservation was extremely important the fact that we have gotten turned down for these 2 million is it's it's a b it should have been something that was considered really strongly in the beginning and uh I feel badly about that but I do think that at least we can hang on to the roof because that is a big thing in the appearance and in just the Ambiance of what this Library presents as the centerpiece of our town all right uh well it sounds like I'm a minority of one uh in that you know I'm not excited about asphalt but I as I said earlier I don't think it's a irrevocable act and um you know I I guess the way they have the bid uh structured at the moment with the uh art the uh synthetic slate being the base bid means to me that the preference is that they do that and if there's money available they'll do it um and I'd rather you know have to backslide to the asphalt if there isn't money available and then see the project stop um so that's where I stand um so does anybody want to make a motion and um since we're going to need to vote one way or the other on this this evening I suppose we could uh continue the meeting if we wanted to hear from the historic commission but it sounds like from Nate's point of view um you know they can make their decision and we can make ours uh Bruce before I call on you I see your hand uh Christine has raised her hand Chris yeah I just wanted to mention something that we talked about before the meeting started and that is that um with a quorum of four members um you need a majority of the four members to vote one way or another so you don't need all four of you because it's a site plan review so um that was changed a few years ago in the zoning bylaw so I just wanted to make sure everybody knew that okay thank you Bruce I think I will make a motion to approve the applicant uh subject to the condition that I mentioned uh I would say that I agree with you well I agree with you as I said earlier it's also possible that in the in the event that uh that the synthetic state was a make or break that the applicant could come back and uh ask for U forgiveness and uh with that particular um notion on the table uh I think i' uh I'd change my mind but I'd like to go in with the requirement and see whether we can't make it happen rather than go in with the applicant having the the decision- making about this particular item so that would be my motion and and if I may I I should perhaps say that just from my experience professionally over the years with historic preservation and so forth I've noted in the papers and other in other articles that I've seen that the word violate has been used in relation to the secretary standards and I really don't think that's fair we I don't know I haven't sat in on these uh building committee deliberations but I do know from my own personal project experience with historic tax credits and dealings with the uh secretes and standards and so forth that uh it becomes a design uh development decision it may well be and I don't know it but it may well be that the cost of complying with the secretary standards to get that 2 million uh would cost the project more than 2 million in which case The Logical U perhaps not uh celebrated uh for historic preservation points of view but logical economic decision would be to proceed with not pursuing the historic tax credit so I don't think we can conclude that this is a violation of Standards or of Integrity or of Interest or any of that sort I don't know but I'm certainly not prepared to conclude that the uh committee has uh acted um in ignorance stupidity disregard or any of that sort of thing simply because the Massachusetts historic commission denied the application but anyway my motion is made um and I don't know about how we want to go you're probably going to need to go through some of the findings and conditions I assume so I wasn't quite sure how that mechanism was going to work I thought I would start with the essence of the uh of the motion okay so why don't we hold on your motion let's not do a second until Chris uh Chris you are muted there you go I did look through the findings before and I don't particularly think that you need to go through that list of findings again I think that there's nothing in this list of findings that would be altered by what you're doing tonight I mean so the so I think as part of the motion we ought to be uh uh affirming the findings at has previously approved on whatever date it was and I would say specifically in relation to the drainage because that's the big uh change really from our point of view with regard to the drainage yeah yes I think it I think it would be appropriate for us to to ratify specifically the finding on the on the drainage sufficiency of the drainage solution so some water management solution I guess we should sayh okay um yeah so I didn't I didn't see in my run through of these findings that there was anything that would be violated if you go along with the changes that are being proposed tonight so I don't I don't think you need to go through the findings um so Doug said affirming the findings as previously approved and Bruce is saying um especially with regard to drainage that you find that the storm water management storm water management is uh satisfactory yes okay so that's findings and conditions um Bruce mentioned one condition Mr um Cen mentioned one condition having to do with the roof um there were two conditions that I thought you might want to reward or say something new about um and the first condition I'm referring to the site plan review document um that you uh approved last winter so the first condition is the project shall be built substantially in accordance with documents submitted submitted to the planning board and approved on December 6th 2023 um as as modified modified the document submitted to tonight's meeting yeah submitted and approved on what is tonight July 31st July 31st okay and then there's another one um condition four Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the landscape plan um so I would again say um as Modified by plans that are submitted yep and then it sounds like there's at least Bruce's motion is going to be to require the use of uh synthetic slate on the original building that would be a condition a new condition I believe so is that correct I might with it just to require the retention of the use of synthetic slate because it's already there in the design or on the building in the design for the new building or for the repair of the old building the existing building okay I think I've got that so that's part of the motion do you want me to read it again yeah um Bruce's motion is to approve um the project subject to the condition that um well now we're wording it to say uh that would require the retention of the use of synthetic slate for a repair of the existing building and then um that condition one of the site plan review from 20242 would be um the project shall be built substantially in accordance with documents submitted to the planning board and approved on December 6th as Modified by documents submitted and approved on July 31st 2024 and then condition four of that same uh decision Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the landscape plan as Modified by plans submitted and approved on July 31st and then there's some more wording after that but I think that can just stay as it is oh and also the the reference to the findings that should be folded in there too shouldn't and and you affirm the findings as previously approved especially with regard to storm waterer management and you find the storm water management to be satisfactory right correct so that's my new motion okay um I guess I'm gon to ask uh Austin and Sharon um do you have do you w to express any objections to this before we move forward um from my perspective it actually doesn't change your plan your plan is to proce have as part of the base bid the synthetic slate and um I would I hope you will keep the alternate uh the deduct alternate for the asphalt shingles in your uh project documents and uh if you need to make use of that alternate uh we're going to need you to come back I think I think I think that's fine dou okay great uh in case in that case Bruce I will second your motion all right um um Jesse Karen Bruce any further comments before we go ahead and vote on [Music] these okay all right so um do do we need Chris to re read the motion or shall we just uh vote if you say yes you are voting in favor of Bruce's motion as recorded by Chris if you say no you are opposing it all right uh starting with you Bruce I'm an i all right Jesse I Karen I all right and I will vote I as well so that's four in favor three members absent the vote is in favor of the motion um Austin Sharon and the design team um you have your site plan approval you may proceed to whatever the next step is it sounds like it's historical commission um we wish you the best and we hope you have the money to put on the synthetic slate thank you again thank you to the members of the planning board thank you for your care and going through the project and thank you for the approval we really appreciate the work that you do and the service that you provide to the town all right thank you and uh thank you all on the design team for giving up an evening thank you for your time as well appreciate it have a good evening okay the time is 8 37 we will move on to the next items on the agenda and let's see Chris old business topics not reasonably anticipated I don't have any old bus actually hold on a minute um we need to vote to close the hearing right that's right yep all right um so moved okay seconded to vote to close the hearing um going to any comments before we vote all right Bruce hi Jesse hi Karen I and I'm an i as well close the hearing is closed all right now we can move on Chris any other old business I don't have any old business how about unanticipated new business nope form a anr subdivision you have one that's coming up but it's not ready to bring to you yet okay none tonight none tonight how about upcoming zba applications we might want to know about um the wayfinders has submitted their application for beler toown Road and East Street School affordable housing development so we'll probably be bringing that back back to you they've made substantial changes in the architecture a lot of them based on comments that you um gave them so I think you'll be pleased with the um new proposal um and we have also received other applications but I don't think I need to list them tonight since you'll be meeting again next Wednesday right okay yeah quickly on the wayfinders it's a you know the hearing is an expedited process as a compreh a permit so we have to have the transmitt out within a week from uh today so you'll be getting that and then the hearing's opening on August 29th and the it's expected it'll take a few months to get through um so if the planning board doesn't have a chance to comment on it before the opening hearing um all the documents are are probably already online and available to see under the zba's web page and then we can schedule a time you know in September or October for the planning board to look at the project okay upcoming SBP spr Su applications yes we did get a preliminary subdivision plan application um for the shutesbury road property that is the subject of the solar um proposal so uh that is a an intention to freeze the zoning on that uh property so I think we'll be bringing that to you on September 4th um you need to make a decision um within 45 days um so we'll be bringing that to you okay all right committee committee and liaison reports Bruce pvpc anything we want to say tonight versus next week when there might be more people nothing to report uh and no anticipation of anything for next week either action okay CPAC uh we did have a meeting where the track and field project at the high school was brought back uh with a request for an additional $800,000 of CPAC funding for that project we did uh we did approve that amount as the it's a n to exceed um but we encouraged Town Council to look carefully at the scope uh it seemed like there were some things that could come out and be deferred um and that uh the regional school committee uh connect with the other towns and make sure that those the the asks of their Community preservation act committees also [Music] happens so that meeting was last night and I don't know I don't remember when the next meeting will be happening we will get into our regular annual cycle this fall um and Karin design review book Bo anything else other than the library project no it was the library project that we discussed and I think you're all familiar with uh what we decided and it was very much in the same way that the planning board we weren't we were also not very happy about the windows but um mainly we just said that we could not approv the roof and the rest the Landscaping none of it made us happy of course but uh we thought that that was something that could be changed in the future okay and Chris anything on CRC um the CRC continues to review the solar bylaw and their meeting on Tuesday of this coming week and they're going to be um making came coming up with a list of questions uh for bringing the solar bylaw to various boards and committees and town staff people um questions to ask you about what's in the bylaw right now and what you'd like to keep and how you might like to change it so that's what they're doing okay all right uh report of chair um I guess my only uh item to mention is that I will not be present at next week's meeting uh I might be able to call in from the road uh but uh we'll probably ask Johanna to at the meeting um and Chris we were going to try to well we still need to get a a new member right um when is Town Council scheduled to do that I think they're meeting on August 5th um and so Monday I believe that they're going to um attend to that uh question on Monday yep okay all right great all all right that's all I had um Bruce you raised your hand for a second there did you want to say something just wanted to ask the same question that you have okay all right um okay Chris report of staff I don't have any report right now I wanted to thank Nate for um taking over and running the meeting tonight and also to say how much I miss Pam when she's not here because it's hard to remember to do everything that she does so that's all okay all right uh time is 8:44 if no one objects we can adjourn thank you all and uh have a good meeting next week all right bye thank you