okay Mr Marshall I have 702 we are recording you are the co-host of this meeting you have a quorum of the board uh you look good to go to me all right thank you Pam can I say something um Jesse is trying to log in he just sent an email yeah did you see that Pam I'm promoting him now Chris excellent okay thank you and I'm gonna stop and throw my phone in this room in another room so somehow I ended up as a uh on the other side but I'm here hi Jesse now you're here all right welcome Jesse all right now we will start welcome to the ammer planning board meeting of April 10th 2024 my name is name is Doug Marshall and as the chair of the emmer planning board I am calling this meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. this meeting is being recorded and is available live stream via ammer media minutes are being taken pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 20121 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 posted on the town website's calendar listing for this meeting or go to the planning board web page and click on the most recent agenda where the zoom link is listed at the top of the page no in-person attendance of the public is permitted however every effort will be made to ensure the public can adequately access the meeting in real time via technological means in the event we are unable to do so for reasons of economic hardship or despite best efforts we will post an audio or video recording transcript or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the town's website board members I will take a roll call when I call your name unmute yourself answer affirmatively and return to mute Bruce Cen I'm here uh Fred Hartwell I am here Jessie major present I Doug Marshall I'm present Janet m Goen I am here we believe that Johanna Newman will be absent this evening she is not here and carar and winter here thank you all 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 rais 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 to the general public the general public comment item is reserved for public comment regarding items not on tonight's agenda Please be aware the board will not respond to comments during general public comment period public comment may also be heard at other times during the meeting when deemed appropriate by the planning board chair please indicate you wish to make a comment by clicking the raise hand button when public comment is solicited if you have joined the zoom meeting using a 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 7:07 first item on our agenda for this evening is public comment and so at this time I typically read the names of the people I can see on as as public participants we have 11 names I see Barry Roberts Brad Hutchinson Gabrielle Gould Gail flood George Ryan J Jonathan salvan Kenneth Roberts Rob Roki zong Sharon panelli and Mary braw and Tom REI okay so members of the public are there any members who would like to make a comment during this public comment period at this time okay I am not seeing any hands from the public so I'm going to conclude that there is no desire for public comment this this evening and we will move on to the next item in our agenda let's see all right uh we'll go on time now is 7:08 and we'll go on to the the joint public hearing site plan review and special permit in accordance with the provisions of Mass General Law chapter 48 this joint 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 this public hearing is continued from March 6th and March 20th of 2024 site plan review 2024 05 and special permit 2024-the Street LLC 45 and 55 South Pleasant Street actually this is also continued from April 3D so uh continued from the 6th of March the 20th of March and the 3rd of April a joint public hearing to request site plan review approval under Section 3.32 5 of the zoning bylaw to redevelop a mixed use building including rehabilitating the existing mertile building also called the Hastings building removing a rear L of that building and the adjacent Brown building and constructing a new five-story residential building at the rear of the site the project to contain 22 dwelling units in combination with ground floor retail and commercial space and a connecting structure containing a Lobby an elevator and a stair and and to request a special permit in accordance with section 9.22 of the zoning bylaw to allow a reduction in non-conforming lot coverage from 100% to 97% and to relocate the non-conforming retaining wall and section 15171 of the zoning bylaw to allow payment in lie of affordable units property located at map 14a Parcels 250 and 281 in the BG TC /dr and MPD zoning districts board members are there any disclosures this evening all right I don't see anyone raising their hand and I see several heads shaking no all right uh welcome back Tom I'm glad you made it this evening do you want to say anything before we go directly into uh our findings and conditions discussion probably just thank you thanks for scheduling us special meeting for us to to try to move this along so um we're happy to hop in wherever you want us uh We've read the findings we've read the conditions you know frankly we're happy to have it onsite manager if you want to make that a condition just to kind of get ahead of that so uh we're here I've got the plans if you've got questions Etc we're happy to address them okay all right thanks Tom uh Chris is there anything you want to say as we get going um I have two additions to the conditions that I'd like to make one is well it's not really a an addition it's um Janet mcgallen reached out to me with a rewarding of one condition that she thought was kind of wordy and hard to understand and that was condition 50 so Janet and Rob Mora have reached an agreement on proposed language for that one which doesn't change the meaning it just changes the wording and then the other one is that I'd like to add a condition about requiring an anr plan um be submitted prior to uh a permit being issued a building permit being issued so those are the things that um you know I wanted to bring to your attention but otherwise we can uh start reading the conditions if you are so disposed to do that well I wanted to ask right before we do that you included a draft uh development application report in the uh packet this this time I did and I went through it and revised it to show things that had been accomplished um so if you wanted to review that you know that would be appropriate also all right um well I think it would probably be worthwhile for us just to skim through it and see if there's anything that you were flagging that we have not talked about would you like me to do that uh you're going to get to read a lot this later in the meeting so I'm going to let I'm going to actually start that okay all right so [Music] um Pam are you can you bring that development application report up can you see it yes we can okay beautiful all right thank you all right so the first page is basically a recapitulation of the request and some of the project data that uh pertaining to the project I don't think there's any questions on that turning to page two uh continuation of data um may I say something about page two yep on the top of the page under proposed existing um dimension um there was an error on my part the north side of the building where it says proposed existing it's say zero feet on the North side existing well that's true but um it's going to be 10 feet uh or more proposed so um that was something that I missed when I went back and revised this okay so the north side complies with zoning because it's going to be more than 10 feet um and then the other thing thing is that the applicant has submitted documentation that the building height is going to be no more than 55 feet and we had said that it would be 54 feet 6 in so that is a change as well so the 54 foot6 should simply say 54t 11 and 3/4 or what should it say the drawing that they submitted says 55 ft and we only need a permit uh permission to to exceed 55 fet is that correct y all right I guess uh I'll leave it to Rob whether he wants to go out there with a tape measure at some point uh Bruce I think this not be explained further down so I'm just making sure we don't skip over it but that sounds Chris as though that issue about the ground plane was resolved in conjunction with the data that you've just or the information you've just given us is that correct because there was a standing requirement to define the ground plane that is correct um there was a note what I did was when I revised this document I put the new material in bold italics so if Pam Scrolls down towards the bottom of the page um everyone will see that there's a note that says the applicant has provided a drawing that shows the height of the building measured from the average finished grade on the street side of the structure and um I think they submitted that uh I can't remember which date it was but um they have submitted that okay all right um I think that's it for page two we'll move on to page three uh recap of the site visit the waivers okay issues issues to consider mechanical screening and detail has been provided uh the labeling of the spaces has been taken care of and indicated on the plans moving to page four site improvements the design of the entry certainly we've talked about that a fair amount and you did substantially revise it benches changed concrete pavers installed plans have been coordinated have bike rack details bench Granite photos screening moving along to page five um landcape plan n details yep okay so not seeing anything outstanding on page five uh Janet I see your hand sorry if it's been up for a minute no I just I just jumped in thank you Doug um I thought that the lighting we talked about this a little bit before I thought the lighting was like some of the Looms lumens were like the brightest I'd ever seen and I understand there's an issue in terms of safety in that north side of the building and all the alleys but I wonder if it could just be brought down a little bit um to so it's safe lighting but it's not so bright that it might be keeping people awake or just be out of character and um you know the lighting at the South University Drive Building is surprisingly bright to me and I kind of have been noticing it um it's you know much more than enough that for safety and I just kept on looking at it thinking oh my God this is really not what you want next to Wetlands with animals and beasts and so I I think that if you know in this case let's just bring it down a little bit so it's know you can feel safe walking on it but it's not kind of you feel like you're at Port Authority in New York or you know about to play a soccer match or something so I wondered if if you know I'm not an expert on lumens but those numbers some of those numbers are really high and so I wondered if we can just bring them down a little bit I mean Bruce might have some ideas I know he wants to walk back there but I also just thought they were really bright all right thanks Janet Bruce I see your hand and then we'll let Tom and and Barry respond yes well well I agree to the extent that they are brighter than you might normally but I seem to remember that those Lumen levels around there were about 10 lumens in the vicinity of the lights and then they drop down uh to much lower single digits along that but it is a it is a narrow uh pass Alleyway so certainly from a Wetlands point of view and I know Jen's not I don't think she's concerned from in this particular location about animals and so forth but but it's it's a very this it's a it's a it's a narrow Corridor so I'm not concerned about the lighting levels I think they're higher than you'd normally expect but I uh I I I don't know whether I said that I appreciated that but but I uh I do so the only reason that I would uh um seek to lower them is if I were the owner and I was concerned about uh like getting and disturbing my tenants um so unless Barry hasn't thought of that and wants to reconsider uh then I would say yes let's give him the opportunity of doing so and lowering them a little bit because they're certainly generous but I from and i' I've studied quite a lot of of liking and so forth and uh and it doesn't surprise me or doesn't distress me I should say from the point of view of the public uh um from the from the public point of view I think it is uh it's it's it's it's more than quite acceptable that's my view thanks Bruce uh Janet before you go again I just want to ask Tom do you guys have any qualms about the lighting that levels that you're proposing or do you no qualms I mean so what what we do is we go out to a lighting vendor and give them the scenario and say Here's what we're we need to illuminate for and so you know I can share very quickly and well Pam you'll need to stop sharing I sto I stole it from her Doug I'm sorry all right if you look in this if you look in this area where we're talking about now remember the property line is about right here these are the lighting levels that you have at the property line and if you can see they're 04.5 one Etc yes underneath the lights you're at you're at 11 10 11 11 and then it drops down precipitously you move just 10 feet uh away and so you know not being lighting experts ourselves but being human beings we we do rely on certain experts to to uh identify what should go there and especially in this area you want to make sure it's uh adequately illuminated and if it gets to a place where it's overly illuminated and the tenants aren't able to sleep because of it we're going to change because that's not a headache uh that you want to deal with and it's probably pretty easily remedied and is it not true that this does not take into account light spilling from adjacent properties correct this is only what is being proposed new so it doesn't take into account what's around it right okay Janet so I I would defer to the wisdom of people more experienced with it but I did worry about the tenants and but I'm I'm wondering also where the lights are located are they below the the windows because they're not going to be any tenants on the first floor right right yeah these are just wall packs so they're all so it won't be such an impact up above okay I know downcast also right I mean it's putting the light where you want to put it instead of letting it bleed out everywhere okay I'll defer to others but I just thought it would they looked really bright thank you okay all right uh so I think we're at the top of page six we were talking about the lighting um then the erosion control measures the utilities the electric meters and and The Limited workout in the sidewalk on South Pleasant Street drainage um trench drain was added I think we all thought that was a good idea and you've addressed where the drainage from the canopy is going moving on to parking we talked a fair amount about those two parking spaces in the EV charge ing see moving on to page eight anr plan so that that's the condition that that Chris wants to add that that be submitted special permit for inclusionary zoning that should be one of the conditions uh I think I suspect the board is on board with that based on last conversation [Music] and nothing else I see on page [Music] nine per [Music] um 40% more than 40% of the first floor will be non-residential top of page 10 no more than 50% of the units have the same bedroom count drb review for the Amis College Store that looks fine and that goes takes us to town page 11 uh where we do have the comments from the town engineer so Janet um Doug yes Janet so I don't know if it's I may be lost in the this process here but I thought that if we were going to reference the town Engineers conditions the letter we I think in the um I think we should attach it to the conditions so like when we're saying applicant will follow all the you know issue the solutions by the town engineer I thought we should say had that attached so someone in 20 five years from now or five months isn't running around looking for that just sort of a so that's you know just to um have some mercy on people in the future right Chris is that a problem is that not out of the ordinary it's not normally done and we do make a direct um you know a reference to it in um condition 51 so it's it's not normally done all of these things get signed and then they get filed at the registry and you don't usually find letters from town Engineers as part of the decisions in the registry um so they would look back into our files and we keep paper files and we keep electronic files so I think that's the way we normally do it okay okay all right uh Fred I see your hands uh yeah uh the topic is is uh covered in uh those uh documents and when we get to the uh uh conditions I have I'm going to suggest uh some small uh wording changes that basically say that that uh uh the the condition has been agreed to uh and that then I think covers it uh without needing to file the actual letters and everything okay Fred we'll wait to hear from you when we get to that point in the conversation all right so why don't uh unless anybody has any comments why don't we go ahead and go to the um findings first I think findings yep okay so we'll be doing the findings for the site plan review first um yes do you want me to go ahead and read them sure okay so the board found under section 11.24 of the zoning bylaw site plan review as follows 11.24 the project is in conformance with all appropriate provisions of the zoning by and the goals of the master plan the applicant has applied for a special permit under Section 9.22 to allow a reduction in non-conforming lot coverage and has applied for a special permit under Section 15171 to allow payment in lie of building affordable units on site the applicant has also requested a waiver from the requirement for a traffic impact statement so I'll just keep reading them and Doug can notice if anyone has a raised hand and um 11.24 Town amenities and abing properties will be protected through minimizing detrimental or offensive actions a mixed use building in the downtown area is not expected to create detrimental or offensive actions the applicant has provided a management plan and a sample lease to describe how the property will be managed exterior lighting will be downcast and will not shine onto adjacent Properties or streets 11.2 402 abing properties will be protected from detrimental sight characteristics resulting from the proposed use including but not limited to air and water pollution flood noise odor dust vibration lights or visually offensive structures or site features the proposed use of mix juice building will not produce detrimental site characteristics exterior lighting will be downcast will not shine onto adjacent Properties or streets storm water management is being handled with roof drainage being tied into existing drainage infrastructure the town engineer recommends that the existing catch basins be replaced with a deep sump hooded catch Basin to pick up surface sight drainage 11.24 Mr chairman hold on hold on yeah I see Bruce um this is a formatting suggestion that I have based on just listening to the reading and so forth but of course what we're having here is the first part of these uh statements that are verbatim require from the bylaw right that say that this we should find as follows and then the second part is what we actually find in relation to the specific project and Chris I'm wondering whether now and perhaps in future it would seem to me that having the material that's lifted from the bylaw in italics followed by the our findings in relation to the the required finding uh be in normal text and that would help us quickly distinguish between what we're actually finding and what we're required to find does that make do you is there a reason why we wouldn't do that it would seem to be a graphic uh formatting Improvement for clarity I think that would be fine I would support that yeah uh Fred your your hand is up yeah this is be an example of um and that that the last sentence where it says the town engineer recommends I would add there and the applicant has agreed uhuh and then you know so that it then becomes a finding right so that's my suggestion Chris any objections to that no that makes sense seems like a good idea yep all right so that was 11.24 to should we move on um yes 11.24 3 provision of adequate recreational facilities open space and amenities will be provided because the project provides indoor amenities space on first floor on the first floor should be the word the in there the first floor for tenants to gather for meetings and social events and an outdoor garden and plantings with seeding all right 11.2 410 unique or important natural historic or Scenic features will be protected the project will preserve and maintain the existing historic mertile building AKA Hastings building Fred uh yeah Mr chairman I would like to add at the end of the Hastings building a comma and the following phrase to be prominently identified accordingly I think that's a key feature uh that uh the applicant has agreed to uh build into this and I think we should recognize it all right okay um let's see where are we we're um 11.2 411 the project provides adequate methods of refuse disposal as described in the management plan 112412 the project will be connected to town sewer and water the town engineer has reviewed the proposed project and submitted a a letter of comment dated March 15 2024 he has not raised concerns about the sewer and water connections other than to note that the existing connections should be located in the field and properly abandoned at the main so this is another instance where we probably want to say that the applicant has agreed to that condition or that request by the town engineer Fred uh yeah that one um Chris could you ex explain the word abandoned there I I I'm missing something yeah an abandonment is um is an action that um someone takes when he caps off um a a pipe or a utility and um doesn't use it anymore so that's all it means is just cap it off don't use it anymore presumably they would note where the location of that is um I think they would probably have the town engineer come out and and note that or it would be noted in the um what do you call it as built plans um but anyway that's all it means it's just to properly cap it off so it's not used anymore okay I that's I I was not clear about that I take it part of what is being substituted is the uh uh 2413 which is the uh the storm water drainage system and so forth which yeah okay I don't want to take any more time okay um 11.24 13 the proposed drainage system within an adjacent to the site will be adequate to handle the storm water the town engineer has reviewed the storm water drainage system and has found that it will reduce storm water runoff over the existing condition due to the reduction in impervious surface on the site the town engineer recommends that the existing catch Basin be replaced with a deep sump catch Basin so would you like to have that same phrase here that the applicate has agreed yeah yeah yes that's uh which the the applicant has agreed to provide or something that y to that effect I agree yep all righty um 11.24 one4 provision Pam can you scroll yeah back thanks um provision of adequate Landscaping has been addressed the project includes new plantings on site in the Plaza area on the south side of the existing Hastings building 11.24 one5 the soil erosion control methods are considered adequate to control soil erosion both during and after construction the town engineer has reviewed the proposed project drawings and has not raised concerns about the erosion control methods that are proposed and they did you know beef it up a bit after we um made that comment in the development application report so you want me to say they made improvements after comments were received um had they Incorporated the comments I mean basically yeah they they put they submitted drawings that showed more erosion control yeah I think that would be useful okay and I guess I was going to comment on the first sentence which is a passive voice I think we're better off saying you know the board considers the soil erosion control methods to be adequate okay you know we could say based on the you know review of the Town engineers even if we wanted it's more like a negative in terms of the Town engineer I think he didn't comment on soil erosion control which he would normally comment on if he thought there were there was a problem so okay um okay moving along to 2416 11.2 416 Bon properties will be protected from the intrusion of air and water pollution flood noise odor dust and vibration through appropriate site and structure design and the use of appropriate design and materials for contain containment ventilation filtering screen sound proofing sound dampening and other similar Solutions I did not elaborate on this one okay 11.24 one7 adjacent properties will be protected by minimizing the intrusion intrusion of lighting through the use of cut off luminares light Shields screening or other similar solution all exterior lighting will be downcast and will not shine onto adjacent Properties or streets yeah is that okay yep 11.24 one8 is not applicable the property is not located in a flood prone Conservancy District 112419 is not applicable there are no Wetlands on or within 100 ft of the property 11.24 to0 the planning board did not choose to refer to the design principles and standards set forth in sections 3.34 and 32041 of the zoning bylaw because the project is within the jurisdiction of the design review board and the drb has reviewed the project and has issued comments and recommendations which have been provided to the planning board the applicant has made changes to the proposal based on the recommendations of the drb and I wanted to comment here that I think the numbering of that first section it should be section 3.24 rather than section yeah so as I recall there were some comments from the drb that were not Incorporated they did not incorporate all they did not you know accept all of them and we have not insisted on all of them has made some changes I guess I mean that seems kind of waffly some of the recommendations based on some of the recommendations yeah so has to the B on some of the recommendations based on some of the recommendations okay that makes sense 11.24 21 the development is Mr chairman yes Fred sorry um I wonder if we would need to add a word there then um the applicant has made uh sufficient changes to the proposal okay okay and we'll still say based on some of the recommendations uh well I think so but Bruce has his hand up too I don't agree thre I think uh theyve made changes based on some of the recommendations I think it gets a little um picity fussy or borderline meaningless to say sign sufficient changes based on some of the I think some covers it they made changes based on some of the recommendations all right Bruce I me that's my view anyway so I I don't agree with Fred's suggestion okay Fred well it's not a big deal but um if if if if oh yeah they they uh agreed with some but I didn't hear anyone on the planning board suggest that uh we should uh insist that they uh do X Y or Z that they elected not to do and I was just trying to incorporate into our findings here that we yeah we we looked at the drb report and we're satisfied with the way that they responded to it I think that's and just using the word some sounds like we you know to me it implies we disagree with what they did and I don't think that's what we're doing here okay I I'll I'll concede so we'll keep Bruce I was just ready to support you um that's fine let's life is short let's go ahead 11.24 21 the development is reasonably consistent with respect to setbacks placement of parking landscaping and entrances and exits with surrounding buildings and development there's really nothing to say there do you use that word reasonably very often like is that I mean that to me is kind of a squishy word I I might say adequately or is that in the bylaw some of these things are taken right from the okay Fred what have you got on your mind oh uh I forgot to uh lower my okay yes reasonably is one of the words in the bylaw all right well then then let's leave it that's fine when we get around to revising the the bylaw maybe I'll make the same comment some of these are very redundant so we probably do want to revise them um okay 11.2 422 building sites shall avoid to the extent feasible impact on steep slopes flood planes Scenic views grade changes and wetlands there are no steep slopes or flood planes on the site there are no severe grade changes proposed there are no Wetlands on or near the property there are no Scenic views within the property other than the existing Hastings building Mercantile building which will be preserved and the last thing is the scenic view of the historic town common will be maintained well can't argue with any of that okay 11.2 423 is not applicable there's only one building proposed for the site 11.24 24 screening has been provide provided as appropriate trash will be stored inside the building an outdoor HVAC system will have appropriate screening on the north side of the building the electrical Transformer on the south side of the building will be screened with landscaping and roof-mounted mechanical equipment will also be screened 11.2 430 the site has been designed to provide for the convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement both within the site and in relation to adjoining ways and properties the driveway will provide access for two parking spaces pedestrians will be able to access the site via Two Steps from the public sidewalk and Via an ADA ramp along the south side of the building 11.24 31 the location and number of curb Cuts will be such as to minimize turning movements and hazardous exits and entrances there will be only one curb cut giving access to the building and parking area BR uh yeah I had a question about this one uh that it Am I Wrong is is that reference pointing to the curb cut that already exists yeah because um I I I I'm wondering if we should add um after curb cut which already exists just to make clear that no we're not asking them to go find another curb cut there will be only one curb cut which already exists yeah oh one existing cve cut that's that's fine I'm good with that either way well okay so the one existing curb cut shall remain which yeah which will remain how's that there'll be one only one curb cut which will remain or which I already exists maybe I'll go back to what I first suggested I don't know put existing in parenthesis well Chris why don't you just note the conversation and I'll come up with some what you think is will end up being the most reasonable okay 11.2 432 the location and design of parking spaces bicycle racks Drive aisles loading areas and sidewalks will be provided in a safe and convenient manner there will be one only one parking area with two spaces one Ada accessible and the other to be used as a drop off space bicycle racks will be provided outside on the south side of the building and inside on the ground floor of the addition sidewalks are located so as not to conflict with the parking area and the drive a I guess my only comment is the little bit where you say there will be two spaces one Ada and the other used as drop off seems like a duplication of what you had before uh on the you know two two conditions earlier so it might might be you might be able to edit that out but it's not wrong yeah these things are are all quite repetitive yeah okay after another 11.24 33 is not applicable provision for access to adjoining properties will be maintained um there is access to adjoining properties on the west side of this property that goes around the Brody building which is to the South um 11.24 34 is not applicable there is no new driveway proposed for this project MH 11.24 35 joint access driveways between adjoining properties shall be encouraged that's in the bylaw and then the response is there is a joint access driveway with the buildings to the with the building to the South the Brody block which will be maintained I'll use Bruce's idea of putting the first part of this in um italics okay um 11.2 436 the requirement for submitt of a traffic impact statement is requested to be waved there's a negligible amount of traffic expected to enter the site uh I think I would take out requested to be I would just say the requirement is waved waved okay yeah that's exactly what I was going to suggest is W is to be waved is to be W is W yep um and then the last one is 11.24 37 not applicable there's no traffic impact report will be required okay so those are the findings for the S planine review and now we can read the findings for the um special permit there were two special uh two parts to the special permit okay um so the first part has to do with the um change to a non-conforming lot coverage um section 9.22 of the zoning bylaw States the following the special permit granting Authority authorized to act under the provisions of section 3.3 of this bylaw May under a special permit allow a non-conforming use of a building structure or land to be changed to a specific use not substantially different in character or in its effect on the neighborhood or on property in the vicinity said said Authority may also authorize under a special permit a non-conforming use of a building structure or land to be extended or a non-conforming building to be structurally altered enlarged or reconstructed provided that the authority finds that such alteration enlargement or reconstruction shall not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming use or non-conforming building so um the finding ings for this reduction in lot coverage the board finds under section 9.22 of the zoning bylaw that the reduction in non-conforming lock coverage for the property at 54 and 55 South Pleasant Street is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming condition a reduction in lock coverage from 100% to 97% will reduce the amount of storm water runoff from the property because a portion of the property will now be Landscaping instead of imper surfaces this change would be beneficial rather than detrimental to the neighborhood uh this change will be de beneficial will be will be okay is that otherwise okay beautiful okay um the next one um this is the special permit finding and you may you know have some discussion about this one um so uh section 15171 of the zoning byw States the following payment of fees in lie of affordable units may be allowed payable prior to the granting of a certificate of occupancy for any dwelling units associated with the development to the town of amers Municipal affordable housing trust the fee and L value for each affordable unit not provided shall be four times the current median family family income for amorist as determined by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development HUD or a successor agency so the findings would be um the board finds under Section 15171 as follows one 22 new dwelling units are proposed at 45 and 55 South Pleasant Street two Article 15 of the zoning bylaw requires that three affordable units be provided as part of this project three the applicant has applied for a special permit to allow payment of fees in inl in place of providing three affordable units on site uh Chris by Tom you raised your hand should yeah just just one quick clarification it it probably Bears putting in here there's 22 new dwelling units but a net increase of 21 dwelling units because there's one existing there's one ex thing and then they're adding 21 new so just because I know that the bylaw differentiates between the two y thank you all right um so we've read three and now um number four the emmer municipal Housing Trust heard a presentation from the applicant and from staff of the planning department with regard to this request on March 14th 2024 five five after discussion the trust members voted 7 to Z to recommend to the planning board to accept the payment of fees in L with the Proviso that the amount stated in the bylaw of four times the current median family income for ammer as determined by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development or successor agency is too low for the value of the project given its location and size of units and should be determined by the planning board further the trust recommended that the payment to the trust be unencumbered by the planning board with any requirements or conditions related to expenditures number six the median family income for amorist is $93,700 and therefore a payment for one unit would be $374,800 or three times 93700 and a payment for three units would be 1,124 $4,000 which is what the applicant has proposed to pay as a fee in Li the planning Department's seven the planning department staff recommends a payment of a fee in Li in the amount of 1.8 million for three units given the fact that a dwelling unit in ammer now costs approximately $600,000 to build number eight Pam can you scroll up a bit yes sorry thanks therefore the planning board finds me that four times the median family income for ammer $374,800 is no longer represents the construction cost for a unit the planning board finds that $600,000 now represents the construction cost for a unit and therefore that a payment of 1.8 million or three times 600,000 or three units will satisfy the intent and purpose of Article 15 of the zoning bylaw all right so before we get to the numbers there um I just wanted to ask uh these projects take couple of years so is it appropriate that we're use or what what uh years average medium income or whatever is are is used is it the Ami at the time of the permit that we're granting now or is it the Ami in a year when the project gets a builing permit or uh how does that work Chris well we have to use the current Ami it's not really the Ami it's something different Ami is the average median income but this is the median income so that is the number that is current for I think it's 2024 has found we use the current number it's not I think we have to use the current number because we can't predict what a future number would be all right all right so Janet I see your hand and then I'll go to Tom uh about how you feel about the number um well this might be altered by what Tom says but I think we should add a sentence that says at the end that says the applicant has agreed to pay this sum of you know $1.8 million okay but that depends on what Tom and Barry are about to say yeah okay so Tom I assume this number's been discussed with you before yeah I mean we've seen the um conditions uh and the finding obviously so we knew this number was out there uh I mean frankly it's a little high um you know we read the bylaw we see what it says there I think we'll say if it's the only way we're going to get this special permit approved then we're going to accept it um but you know it it does seem a little bit High okay uh board members so how do you feel about this I guess one thing that occurs to me is the higher we make the development costs the higher the rent is going to probably be so in essence we're bumping up the rents in this complex a little bit [Music] don't all speak at once Bruce in the in the spirit of I probably should say something U since no one else is um uh I confess I didn't see this coming um uh maybe I should have read this uh I thought I had read this but I I guess I hadn't [Music] um uh could uh my I guess my reason for raising my hand is um if the vi um help me out if the bylaw says that this is the basis on which it shall be done where in the bylaw does it say that we can as a board [Music] um abgate the guidance and just decide ER number based on whatever the hell we like Chris the alternative is that you can deny the um the special permit and and uh ask the applicant to build the three units in the building um but I think the question is where do we do we in fact have the authority to set the number at whatever it whatever we want that's my question and uh but it could be that the other way of the question is is that uh is the other question is um are we horse trading here you might want to bring Nate Malloy in because he has been discussing this with the Housing Trust and others and he's more um what should I say conversant on the topic of these numbers yeah I'd like to know that we're not horse trading or if we are everybody's agreed that it's a horse that should be traded yeah um I'm I'm not seeing Nate is Nate at the meeting he is he's a panelist I believe oh there he is okay yep where is he yeah y he's in he's in the attendees he's in the attendees I I thought I just tried to bring him over oh there he is promot to panelist I I have certainly seen that the Housing Trust had recommended a higher amount but I hadn't seen I hadn't uh see I don't remember seeing the number before getting this packet doesn't really matter yeah it doesn't look oh there it is hi for those who don't know me the um yeah the Building Commissioner I spoken about this so you know he thinks that we could go higher as part of the findings for the special permit right that's so the bylaw can be seen as a minimum and the special permit findings could be that a payment more than what the bylaw States is is justifiable and so you know what we've discussed and what's in the findings is that you know essentially the the numbers that were in the bylaw are a few years old now and you know essentially we'd have to periodically update them which we haven't done to keep up with inflation and it's almost impossible then to say annually update the bylaw so when it was first introduced as that formula you know we thought okay maybe that's roughly the cost of constructing a new unit and the idea is that it's actually meant to discourage it's not meant to be used right it actually is meant to be um somewhat you know a high price to pay because you're foregoing providing unit and so if we were to go out and have to build three new units what is the cost of building those and today's market you know we think 600,000 is Justified uh especially in downtown for this location for new construction uh for all those amenities you know it's it could be different if it were in on Bay Road right but for downtown properties there's a premium for construction so the Building Commissioner is confident that you know through the special permit findings uh this you know a higher amount than the BW is allowed you know the Housing Trust didn't want to get into the details but they did ask this right and they're not worried about having the unit costs increase because the cost of construction is what it is so all those units are going to get built it's really what is then the you know what the Housing Trust asks is like what is the formula a developer uses by which they wouldn't make a payment so what's like the you know the net Val you know current value to future value right and if and in my back of the napkin calculations after that everything's already built given the market rate rans for those size units you know in 10 to 12 years the developer is made whole at 1.1 million yet you'd have affordable units in perpetuity and so really what is kind of like that that difference in value so it might seem like a high price tag now but what the developer has then is market rate units per in perpetuity rather than affordable units in perpetuity and so the Housing Trust you know asked kind of some of these questions and they didn't really they couldn't really get to a number but they did recommend a higher amount and they thought that the conversation was could be had here because you're in this case the permit gring Authority that would have the ability to do that and so um that's where staff had that recommendation okay um looks like we got some oh just about everybody has their hand up uh Karen I guess I'll see if you want to add in at the end here uh Janet so the way I read the bylaw um is that we can require four times the amount of the median family income um of the developer if they want to choose this route and then if um the developer wants to pay us more we can eagerly accept that I don't think we can require 600,000 per unit um based on this language but if he's willing to pay more I'm sure we'll gladly accept it all right Jesse and then I'm not sure about the horse trading comment I'm well you know I mean I'm kind of well what about 1.5 million you know I mean I don't have any basis for this and and but the B seems pretty clear but like what are we trading a horse for do you know I mean that I didn't understand well we're trading for the loss of affordable units in perpetuity on this property so so you're sort of saying well we don't have to Grant this but if you really want it maybe you'll pay more that's okay understand I just don't think we can require it if I may since I introduced the horse trading thing let me explain what I meant by it and that is uh as as Tom said that they want this uh permit and uh and if we think that we can push them higher in in return for granting it that's horse trading in my book and uh and if uh you know they don't if we think they won't uh take us to lanc court or wherever one goes these days with a disputed thing which of course wouldn't be a good idea for anybody because it costs money and so forth and I remember when Bob Mitchell was uh directed last time I was on the planning board 25 years ago Bob was very uh diligent in trying to make sure we didn't make decisions that uh got us into court it's not clear that this will be one of them but this is the kind of uh behavior that risk r s that kind of thing so I I'm mindful of that and I don't think that we should uh arbitrarily engage in what I just characterize as horse trading because we're brinksmanship the applicant as to whether they will uh uh do something that we want them to do which is perhaps outside the byw as we've noted or maybe it's a maybe it's a good solid argument uh why the bylaw should be changed as Nate was putting down but that's just an argument that says the byaw at the moment is it's written is uh it needs refining it's more of argument for that than it is that the applicant should be uh um uh shaken down on this particular item nonetheless I I agree with what you say and that it does seem that uh the applicant is getting a very generous deal given the fact that we haven't been diligent with our bylaw so if uh uh the applicant is willing uh to do some go somewhere along the The Way Beyond the bylaw then I as Janet said I'd be willing to uh accept that but but I'm it's it's this is a this I I feel bit blindsided here that's all I I guess I've gone out of turn now because I yeah Bruce you're going to have to go to the end of the line can I just could I just respond you're gonna need to be patient here so we don't have to Grant a special permit it's a May it's an ask I'm so so the board doesn't have to agree to this they can just require the three affordable units I don't think we can um ask for more than what's written in the bylaw and then we can eagerly accept more so those are my three statements okay Jesse thanks um I was thinking similar thoughts to what Nate was just talking about um if we can't require more maybe it's moot but as I was thinking about it like the goal is to help get those units somewhere else and if the payment is nowhere close to that as a possibility not sure that makes sense to me um I was going to ask about that number 600,000 and where that actually came from because I need an expert to tell me yes that's the right amount um but but again if we can't require that and we're going back to what is in the bylaw that to me seems like pretty low and not realistic that the town could replace three un three affordable units with that kind of money that's sort of where I'm sitting all right Fred um I'd like to ask uh Tom or Barry what uh what are you expecting the uh um I guess the let's go to the four bedroom unit what what would you be planning on renting that for um or maybe the most the the the uh bedroom style in the unit that has the highest sensus um and uh I go back way back into the 1970s when I met with Scott Harvey in this ammer Savings Bank and you know he gave me some very interesting ideas about he said uh one easy way to uh evaluate something like this is 100 times the month ly rent so I'm curious what the what the rent would be and where what 100 times that would be Tom do you wanna yeah that I'll answer but I'll have uh Fred do the math uh that's not not my strong suit what I'll say first is at at the original um bylaw amount it would take 22 years to recover that money Nate might have mentioned a different number but based on the difference between um what you will get for affordable and what you would get at market rate it would take 22 years to make up that difference of that one we'll Round Up to 1.2 right so that's that's the number that you're looking at at that 1.2 obviously you go up to5 it's a different number you go up to one eight it's an even different number um I think you know Market rents Fred for a one bedroom you're probably at 2250 uh two bedroom maybe 3,000 and uh three-bedroom 4100 we don't see a lot of four bedroom affordables it's usually uh one twos or threes and that's what just based on market experience for what we what we deal with that's what we see and so then so you know the uh one-bedroom affordable rent is like $1,255 two-bedroom is $1,565 and a bedroom is $1,940 so we take those we we say what's the Delta between the two and how long is it going to make to you know you take the 1.2 divided by this how many years is it going to take and so that's where we get to the 22 there's some math involved to get to that point okay um I guess I I guess I'm I'm inclined not to horse trade on this I think uh you know we have a published bylaw and that sort of uh is the instruction to developers on what the options are in terms of putting together a project in terms of their budget um I guess that's one comment and and a second comment was how I had the the feeling that the Housing Trust was highly enthusiastic about getting a payment like this uh rather than the the three units and so uh I felt like by accepting the the amount specified in the bylaw we were in fact making kind of both parties happy um so I'm I'm not I'm not inclined to try to ring more out of the applicant on this project and if we need to change our bylaw let's change our bylaw I I think the other thing that the other number that's in my head I think was at last week when we had wayfinders uh I forget how many project how many number of units there were but it was a total $42 million total project cost and I did some math and I think it came out to like $550,000 a unit or something like that um the other another uh thought I mean the way our bylaw reads is is by unit whereas you know we have ones twos threes and four bedroom units and there's a huge disparity across those so that you know getting for for the amount in the bylaw maybe you can get three one-bedroom units but you can't get three four bedroom units and I don't know what that real number or what what the real the reality is but um you know maybe we need to have the bylaw read by bedroom room or something instead all right so um I guess we we're gonna need to probably take a a a vote on this so um I'm not seeing any hands at the moment so I'm I think I'm inclined to try to make a motion um uh and maybe Nate's going to say something that'll change my motion go ahead sure I was going to say that the trust was um you know thought that this was a project to help capitalize them and get a payment in loop with a recommendation that it' be more than the minimum you know stated in the bylaw so you know some of the trust members you know they coales around the payment but there was some discussion about you know what does it take to actually create a unit and so the concern being that to get three units downtown you know for the amount of money we're getting you know may not be possible if it was you know to get new construction and so you know at the trust meeting it was like oh buy a property and convert some units to Affordable units downtown it's like you know I'm not sure 1.124 million is going to be able to do that and so to get affordable units in this location uh is tricky and so you know in the recommendation they voted unanimously for a payment you know with a recommendation that also be a higher amount and so like I said the Building Commissioner is comfortable that the bylaw through the special permit findings allows a higher amount I understand that there's some uncomfortability there but The Building Commissioner is comfortable that through a special permit finding that can be allowed all right thanks Nate Janet so knowing what we know or think we know do people do board members feel like they would rather just see the three units downtown because we know they're going to be very valuable expensive to build and useful in the future or are we happy you know we can only I think we can only require what the thing is but we can also as you know that the applicant is willing to pay more we can you know cheerfully take that it's kind I'm I'm kind of coming back and forth myself but I just wonder what other people were thinking about whether say no to the special permit just see three affordable units downtown which I think would be a mix of bedroom counts when I remember something in the head about that so I wonder what people are thinking all right well the motion I'm hoping to make would would help us determine what people think but yeah maybe by the before I get there I'll have heard from everybody Fred all the there we go um I think it's a little bit intellectually dishonest to uh take a look at what it costs you know uh downtown to replace these units at uh $600,000 a unit uh when uh the actual location of affordable units that would be actually provided would would not be in the center of downtown I don't think that's where that market would tend to be it would be uh it would be somewhere else where the development costs would be somewhat less and um I I'm inclined to say that uh you know I I I I've got a real problem going beyond the bylaw here uh I I agree with you Doug on this uh uh I we should probably look at at how we make that calculation in the bylaw but uh I I think you know we have a zoning bylaw and I think if you you know if you read it you should conclude that that is what you're obliged to uh provide all right thank you for that Fred Jesse thanks um apiz if I missed it are there are there minutes from the Housing Trust conversation somewhere because I was not I missed that whole conversation um and I guess the real question is what did they think about the number in the bylaw Nate you said most of the sounds like they thought it was it was low Nate is that yeah there's a um the there's a memo and there's a memo from staff to them and then a memo from the trust to the planning board it was in an earlier packet of the planning board um but yeah no they they they they kind of had the same conversation about whether they could require more than the bylaw you know what is the right amount um but like I said they they agreed uh you know unanimously that they would accept a payment and so you know under their considerations um you know most of the funding for the trust is through CPA or if it's from other sources it may have you know requirements in terms of income limits whereas this money could be more flexible and offer opportunities for different types of units and you know to speak to Fred's Point actually downtown is like a great place for affordable units and so you know it's walkable it's near employment it's near transportation and so the idea actually at the trust meeting was you know could we get more units downtown even affordable you know home ownership units whether it be townhouse or condo style so you know the goal would be to try to have affordable units throughout Town not just you know say where it's cheaper in the Hinterlands or different village centers and so they actually like the idea of having units downtown um but I think the uh yeah I mean so the trust really Coes around the payment pretty quickly it was then kind of this discussion we're having now about you know what's the right amount you know right it's is it by you know as Doug mentioned what is the payment calculation accurate in terms of unit location unit size um but they kind of you know put that toward the planning board you know they didn't they didn't really have an answer for that but they seem they you've said a couple times the trust thought this amount was too low they did in the recommendation that's what they had said yes thanks all right um a motion Doug all right so let's see [Music] um all right I guess I'll start with a motion for the what's the amount that's in the bylaw and we'll see if that passes or not and if that well maybe I mean might be better to start with the higher number and see if people prefer that um okay so uh a motion that we approve the payment in lie of providing the units for uh actually I'm going to back I'm gonna I'm going to reverse I'm going to go back to the the bylaw amount I think that's that's the lower let's see where's the amount so the one 1.1 124,000 okay um all right so I move that the board approve a payment in Li of providing three affordable units on the site and accept an amount as specified in the bylaw of $ 1.124 million as the payment in Li end of motion Bruce I would uh offer a friendly Amendment which would simply be an additional sentence which says however in L in in in light of the fact let's say that the uh calc the the value calculation formula as presented in the bylaw um would appear to be a low ball number we encourage the developer the applicant to consider um increasing that payment at their discretion uh to a number that more accurately reflects the uh cost of uh creating uh three units of affordable housing in or around the downtown and my question that's it and now the question is do you accept that friendly Amendment or would you prefer yeah I guess I guess I will accept it I guess it it does okay so say we passed that then the number or you know the number that the applicant is obliged to pay is set by the minimum amount and we will probably never know whether the payment that's received is higher that's possibly true so that seems that seems kind of inconclusive and indefinite to me in a way that I'm not really excited about well the the the definite way is the first paragraph of your motions uh I'm opening the I am I am having the planning board on record as recognizing that our bylaw um is not accurately reflective and that uh we are inviting the applicant parenthesis this is not in there because we know the reputation of this applicant and uh and a bunch of other things I mean there's many applicants that one wouldn't U waste one's time having this kind of emotion but this is not such an applicant and we give the opport we we we express our our our our U uh frustration with the fact that the bylaw doesn't accurately reflect but I think we recognize that the byw is what it says and that's what the applicant would go on and I think it's as Fred said and if you said yourself dou I think we ought to be constrained by the bylaw but we ought to also be on record as inviting the applicant to uh see as we do our bylaw is uh perhaps a little woefully inadequate here and invite them to come to a small party okay thank you thank you Bruce all right so I will accept that friendly Amendment Janet um I'm I'm kind of I'm just a little confused but I'm not even sure what the friendly amendment was at this point but so you know I feel sort of stuck because it's like $1.24 million which seems very large to me is really not enough to build three affordable units according to what we're hearing from our staff um and so you know it then I think well let's just build three affordable units and we have them and I also but I also had a talk with um the Housing Trust chair and they were the the Housing Trust was super excited because they could use this money in a lot of different ways and they sometimes they just pay an extra 25,000 in a deal so a homeowner can you know make their down payment and things like that so they thought it would lead to more units and so and then we also have um the generous applicant who's already agreed to make pay more if you know and so I wonder if we could do a motion to say the planning board agrees to let the applicant to make a payment in Le of taxes and we agree to accept 1.6 or 1.5 million and we don't have to say we're requiring it but we're accepting it so I wonder if we can just sort of you know do you know what I mean like we're we're granting the special permit and then we're cheerfully accepting more money knowing that the market has really radically changed since this bylaw came through um on the other hand I'm not in favor of saying we require you know 600,000 a year I don't see that we have the basis for that so but I don't you know I don't I know you get I don't you know it's I don't know if it's horse trading but you already have made this offer and we could accept it but I don't really want to be in a weird way of imposing it maybe this is why people smoke cigars and have back room deals you know but if that makes any sense so I mean I don't we we at this point do have a motion on the floor what is let it be clear that I in accepting that printly amendment I second the motion okay so what's the motion then because I I thought we could just well the the motion was that we Grant the permit require the a a payment in lie of the amount that's in the bylaw the 1.124 million and then Bruce's Amendment was uh something to the effect that in light of the board's recognition that construction costs are such that the actual cost of creating affordable units in downtown would exceed the amount that's required by the bylaw uh we was the word encourage uh Bruce uh the the applicant to consider a larger encourage invites either one invite okay so that's that's what stands at the moment again um if if you don't like that we can and you prefer we just require the the the units in this the affordable units in this project vote against the uh against the motion all right um all right so I don't see any hands why don't we just go through and have a have a roll call on that so if you vote Yes you're voting in favor of the payment and at least getting the minimum amount and having invited the applicant to make a larger donation so Bruce I all right um Fred I Jesse hi Janet hi Karen are you there I'm here and I can't start my video for some reason well that's okay can you you've been able to listen I hope I have when I try to start it it says the host won't allow it I've been trying to start the video and it always says you can't do it because the host won't allow it sorry K Karen there you go I I I asked you to start your video so there you go so assuming what's that I I okay thank you and I'm an i as well so that's six in favor no uh negatives and no extensions not sure why my camera is going fuzzy at the moment there we go um so does anybody want to you know have a superseding motion that we require a greater amount I mean it sounds like Nate thinks that the Building Commissioner would allow us to do that or you know interprets the statute that way um I think I was uncomfortable with taking that position and uh you know it sounded like at least one or more of you also agreed with that so if not why don't we can we can go ahead and move on uh I think that was it for the findings and um so Chris that would alter the uh finding the finding at least number eight there and and number [Music] seven that's right do you want to talk about the wording of that now well I guess I guess we ought to I mean it's only 8:30 so number six would stay the way it is um yes could say you know number seven planning department staff recommends a higher number but then is is that Germain do does that need to be recorded at the registry for posterity I mean I think you could go straight to the board agreed to require a payment of at least 1.124 Million by the applicant to the affordable housing trust in lie of providing three affordable units and then you could make a a a final finding that the board invited the applicant to consider making a larger payment to the trust uh in recognition of the fact that construction costs uh are such that the payment required by the bylaw is probably not sufficient to construct three affordable dwelling [Music] units uh in the downtown area does that seem coherent enough for the uh recording yeah yep and we have this recording of you so we can go back and listen to that all right yeah that's good and um I guess I'll maybe close by asking Tom uh I assume that's an acceptable condition for this project white yes so Mr Marshall you have now agreed to the findings having to do with the payment in Li right you need to agree to the findings having to do with the um change in the non-conforming what is it lot coverage right and then you also need to um approve the the other findings for the side plan review right and I assume you'd like to do that as separate votes one one for the site plan review and one for the other special permit I think so yeah all right Bruce which one are you going to make a motion for Bruce you are the uh we'll start with the site plan review yeah move the uh to that we adopt the uh findings blah blah blah as reviewed okay okay I I'll second that um where am I all right um is the blah blah blah referring to um 9.22 or 15 Point 171 like what permit are we talking about we're talking about this is about the site plan review findings oh okay oh it's it's the findings under Section 11.24 okay thank you okay all right any other comments from the board we'll go through and just vote again Bruce I Fred I Jesse hi Janet hi Karen hi I'm an i as well six in favor no objections no extensions all right and then we've got the third motion maybe I'll just make I'll make a motion that the board uh accept or uh adopt the findings as drafted for the uh permit uh for the reduction in non-conforming lot coverage under Section [Music] 9.22 Jesse a second that okay uh Fred Mr chairman um the uh reduction in lot coverage the last sentence um did we change would to will yes we did okay thank you yeah no problem so uh so my my uh motion should be that we adopt it as drafted and edited in the meeting which I I trust uh Jesse will find an acceptable change for his second all right uh we'll run through the roll call again I don't see any further hands for comments uh Bruce hi Fred I Jesse I Janet hi Ken hi I'm an i as well once again six in favor no objections no abstentions okay so that's findings Chris how's your voice holding up you ready to go through the conditions or do you want somebody else to read no can start the conditions and we'll see how I hold up I just had two cough drops so I might do quite well oh Chris I'm happy to take over whenever you like oh good okay so the conditions and um we're recognizing that we are going to change one condition and add another condition but this is the way they go um General the project shall be built substantially in accordance with the plan submitted to the planning board and approved on tonight's date the project two the project shall be managed substantially in accordance with the management plan submitted to the planning board and approved on tonight's date which is April 10th um number three substantial changes to the project Endor substantial changes to any approved site plans or to the exterior of the building shall be submitted to the planning board for its review and approval prior to the work taking place the purpose of the submittal shall shall be for the planning board to approve the change Andor to determine whether the changes are di Minimus or significant enough to require modification of the special permit or site plan review site plan review approval so we should strike the word special permit from that sentence because we're talking about site plan review here I think is that right yes these conditions relate to the site plan review that's right number four Landscaping shall be installed in in accordance with the landscape plan and once installed shall be continually maintained as needed all Disturbed areas shall be loed and seated unless otherwise specified number five 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 recorded at the registry of deeds and substantial construction or use has commenced within the 2-year time period uh Fred Fred you're muted I'm just uh wondering and and Janet please uh chime in here uh where in this laundry list should we put in the uh thing that you wanted to add about the on-site management uh well I I Fred I was gonna suggest that we go through all of this and then we uh talk about Janet's uh proposal okay and uh and where it should go Janet I thought we should talk about it at when we're talking about the management plan which is like at at number 27 or so so that's all right all right Chris you can go ahead hi let me just make a note gee wh sorry I just dropped my water bottle but it was closed the top was on it so that's good um all right now we finished no we didn't finish number six yet all work did we yes no we didn't all work associated with the project shall be completed within 24 months of 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 a review and approval of a construction and completion schedule for an extension of time can you scroll down thank you um and these conditions are related to building exterior and site improvements number seven the town engineer and Building Commissioner shall inspect the construction of the entry driveway and all on-site paved areas for conformance to town standards number eight all on-site utility utilities connections shall be underground number nine all exterior lighting shall be dark sky compliant and shall be downcast shielded and shall not shine onto adjacent Properties or streets number 10 except for what is shown on the approved plans any air conditioning units communication devices and other outside mechanical equipment whether located on the ground or on the roof shall be screened from View and noise muffled with fencing plantings or other suitable materials oh I forgot number 11 so these are going to have to be num renumbered reum I make a note to myself to do that let's just call them by the numbers that are written down here though for now um number 12 prior to the installation of exterior signs the applicant shall submit a sign plan including details to the planning board at a public meeting for review and approval 13 the applicant shall provide to the planning board at a public meeting specifications including material and color for any amenities such as bike racks site furniture and benches for review and approval prior to installation I think we we got some of that material yeah so maybe we could strike that um that condition what do you think um Bruce um I thought that this was in because what often happens you know we in the in the in the in the industry we have uh submittals and you have something that's specified uh but then you find out for various reasons that what specified is either not available is uh or is is not appropriate or there something better and so I thought this was a a thing that allowed for the applicant to submit uh once they've had a contractor and and the submittal process has been gone underway is is that not what we normally do or do we imagine that uh because they could come in now and then they could perhaps have to come in again that's sure right uh Tom uh is there any objection to coming back and giving us this material I think only if it changes I I think to your point and when I look at the development application report and what we've submitted you've got it yeah there obviously we love seeing you so we'll come back as many times as you want well I mean the other the other thing to do would be to just ask you to to send the material to us and that you didn't have to come sure we can do that it says shall provide to the planning board well we could take out at a public meeting right I mean isn't that the part that's requiring them to show up um you but you want to review it at a public meeting shall provide to the planning board for review at a public meeting sure Janet what if we just say changes to the bike rack or the benches or something because we I don't think we had any objection to any ofu so I I don't want to have you know I don't want to look at it any more than they want to submit it if it's a that makes sense yep uh Fred uh yeah I was going to suggest uh something uh at the end of the sentence uh perhaps that differ from the uh development application report uhuh or that differ from the materials submitted for for this site plan review in this case I think we probably got it so and that would identify how we have it right so changes to these things that differ from the plans that you are approving tonight right well so on that subject um the previous condition for the sign plan you know I don't know Tom how fully baked were was the rent was was the plan to have those two big 55s and the you know the sign in front of Hastings are there other signs that may show up that you would need to come back for I don't think so I think they're pretty well baked um I mean one thing that whether it's dealt with with the building commissioner or you is we were going to change it from Hastings to you know Fred had mentioned Hastings building and I think that makes a ton of sense um you know whether the board wants to see it or not I don't know that that's a substantial change but as far as I'm looking through the site plan set now as I'm talking and you know I I don't know that we called out the materials of the sign um I'm going to look to see that right now [Music] now yeah we do bruss stain the steel sign and we've got the I should have known better sorry Jonathan I know you're here um we've got it it's all called out so yeah I don't think besides that hting turning into Hastings building I don't think we need to make any other changes so we could eliminate that um well either eliminate it or or likewise uh say if there are any changes to the sign the signs uh the project that they would come back and talk about the changes that's good by us thank you okay yep all righty um number what I have is number 14 which is really something else but anyway outdoor bicycle storage shall be incorporated into the site improvements that the applicant Pro poses on site I think they've already done that so we could eliminate this um condition and then the next one indoor bicycle storage shall be located inside the building in the room labeled Bic bike storage as shown in the submitted plan of the first floor you want to keep that in there it's it seems a little bit sort of Superfluous yeah I think it's borrowed from another um project so I think we can it's like it's like saying you know people will sleep in the rooms labeled bedrooms in the Suites and that's right and there's no suspicion that they won't provide bicycle storage because it's on the plan okay so the next one is building interior and use the building shall meet all local required Energy Efficiency codes and the regulations of the stretch energy code in addition lowf flow Plumbing fixtures shall be installed throughout the project number 17 the total number of dwelling units to be constructed at the project limited to a maximum of 22 units I don't know if you want to change that to say one existing and 21 um new maybe we want to say that instead of total well I mean this is getting at the breakdown of unit types and so I I don't think the existing unit really matters for that okay so leave that leave it yeah I think I would leave it okay um um I will say uh calling out that the fixtures have to be lowf flow isn't that just part of the plumbing code now so like if the if the project complies with the building or the plumbing code that's what that will happen so so we could eliminate that sentence I think you could okay yeah I agree and if you don't you should put the rate of flow because low flow is anybody okay um number what is on this sheet as 18 the building shall not exceed a maximum of five stories and a total of 55 feet measured from average finished grade on the street side of the building to the highest point of the flat roof excluding any parapet or other rooftop equipment as outlined in section 6.17 of the zoning bylaw number 19 the principle use shall remain mixed Ed building and include a combination of apartments and a non-residential use occupying at least 30% of the first floor number 20 apartments and public and all public spaces shall meet all applicable Massachusetts architectural access board maab requirements 21 the units at the project shall be registered and permitted in accordance with the ammer residential rental property bylaw loss or suspension suspension of a rental permit shall constitute a violation of of this condition the now we're going into commercial retail and non-residential tenant spaces number 22 any use authorized in the commercial retail non-residential tenant space at this project site shall be uses Allowed by right or permitted by site plan that should say site plan review or by special permit in the general business BG zoning District okay um marketing and lease agreement number 23 any substantial modifications to the lease agreement which may impact tenant oversight as determined by The Building Commissioner specifically exclud excluding minor updates such as pricing date modifications clerical errors or language updates required by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or other government entity shall require the applicant to return to the planning board at a public meeting work within the right of way 24 repairs and improvements to the right of way caused by disturbance during construction shall be completed by the applicant including all costs permits and approvals prior to the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy for the new building 25 all crosswalks sidewalks on street parking spaces pavement and amenities within the town ride of way that are Disturbed as part of this project shall be reconstructed to match existing unless changes are reviewed vied and approved by town by the Town Council 26 all utility work and work within the public right of way shall be conducted following the regulations and permits of the town of ammer okay this is um do does that sort of uh duplicate number 24 um it sort of does doesn't it me to think about how to how to either combine them or eliminate 26 um Doug yes Janet I think sometimes the Building Commissioner want like really obvious things said in the permit um I my fault to the category saying yes you have to follow the permit conditions or the bill you know that I guess why don't if why don't you just chop with Rob about that and just it looks to me like it's basically duplication but if he has some reason to keep it I guess you can keep it okay now we're going into management plan do you want to talk about Janet's proposal for um sure why don't we go ahead and manager I'm gonna so uh Janet um Chris forwarded an email from you that I think I also got um with uh Provisions [Music] for uh on-site residential manager if the tenants are 85% or more students um so do why don't we talk about that one first Sam do you have that that you could bring up so should I just go Doug so why don't you if you want to say something yeah the bylaw zoning bylaw does not allow dorms anywhere in ammer except for the um RF the um I don't know resident I don't know what it stand it's fraternity District which is by Olympia place and so um we it's just not allowed and you can you could see it in the use table the de and so I've been sort of thinking about like a lot of the buildings that have been built downtown seem to be skewing very heavily towards students and when we have explicit sort of student things um there's usually 24 in Olympia PL in is it Olympia place I I forgotten the name of the new building we just permitted we required on-site supervision 247 in both of those buildings and then also um in in um Aspen Heights which is is a totally student um student thing on Route n except for I think the people who are in the low-income units the affordable units also has 247 supervision and we had talked earlier about the need for someone to be there because of Stu for the safety of the students and so part of me sort of thinking about like what happens when all the so many of the buildings downtown are turning in just to be student housing you know which of course can shift and so I was thinking like let's make sure those people are safe let's do some on-site management especially at night when people are most unsafe or making poor decisions or just keeping tabs on people I also begin to wonder you know if if you have a building that you gave for a permit for another use but everybody knows it's going to be used for students are we actually kind of creating de facto private dorms or social dorms downtown and so I think this entire issue I think we need to talk about as a problem is sort of like are we allowing businesses are we allowing buildings that we know all know are going to be student housing in a place we're not allowing it so just I want to push that aside because we are here we are today I'm actually really happy to hear that Barry Roberts is happy to provide supervision 247 so maybe we just make that a condition acknowledging that you know that you know just make that a condition and push this issue aside or say let's say there's a Tipping Point where there's so many residents that it's actually it it's not safe for students to be unsupervised all right thanks Janet Bruce um Doug I really don't want to talk about this anymore we spent a lot of time last time talking about so I think we've heard the arguments Y and and I appreciate the janit has drafted the condition and I'd simply like to look at that and uh under under under from what uh Thomas reported uh the applicants willingness to do this I I would say we should uh um uh happily insert it uh we so I'm I'm really quite prepared just to uh look at the text here and make sure it's clear and and and and propose that it be inserted I would like to look at the rest of the management uh section yeah we're going to continue we're going to continue with the rest of the yeah okay I mean before we do this or as we do this because I don't know what's well I do but I don't I think we should know how this fits into the rest of the management section okay so you'd like to go through the rest of the section before we conclude the conversation about this I think so because then we know what's there we I mean we we we have refreshed with what's there and then we can confidently add this in at the right place okay uh Tom thanks and just uh as we're talking about this specific language I think what we're saying is and like we said last time uh forget about any Tipping Point Let's just provide on site management right I think that takes care of well what's the reporting requirements what if it's 85% what if it drops down what's the Frequency are we checking every six months is it every I mean you just as an applicant you start to say are any missteps that we could take to put this permit in Jeopardy um versus we'll have an on-site manager is that an on-site manager who lives there or is it a person who works there and um is just there how does how does that work yeah I would I mean I would think and Barry feel free to chime in typically you have a somebody who lives there double as a on-site manager right so they're like that first and he does this at 7 University Drive you drive South 180 fearing Street where you've got somebody who is that first line should something happen and then if if if it's a lockout if there's an issue police fire health safety Etc then they they give him a call and then he's able to then step in and do whatever is he has to do broken pipe Etc so I don't know that it's I would assume it's somebody uh on site that that lives there so how do we word this um condition um you could just well I mean you could just take away the the introductory clause and just say the owner shall have an on-site resident manager or 247 supervision yeah I agree okay um but I think we ought I mean I guess I'm gonna go on record that I don't support this and I may be the only one it sounds like I'm swimming against the tide here uh the applicants fine with it uh but I I I don't make any I don't think we can really uh assume that this is going to be entirely students um I think it's going to be a mix maybe the smaller units are uh market rate or or non- students and maybe some of those four bedrooms that where the bedrooms are all the same size sure those those are probably going to be student units um but uh I don't like doing this as a precedent because I I I want to leave the flexibility for the market to figure out who lives where and um so I may be the only one and uh but I have now said my pieace Nate sure I was going to say that the you know I spoke with the Building Commissioner and something like this is problematic uh kind of to the point Tom had brought up you know how often who defines students is it graduate students is it what percent and so you know if the if you want an on-site manager just make that the condition was you know what what staff had said right or not um okay you know the difference being that the ones that are permitted in the fraternity residence district is a specific use allowed in the bylaw for matriculated students and the idea is that it's marketed only to students of UMass Hampshire ammer right this is just a market rate development that may have some students and may have majority students but the idea that there's some threshold after which you have to report it or who reports it when frequency all that is just you know it's to me that becomes one of those unenforceable conditions and I think as Tom mentioned it becomes problematic probably for both the applicant and the town in the future so if we want an on-site manager the recommendation from The Building Commissioner and we were talking is like just make that the condition that there be a resident manager and that's what you know there is there's a rental Reg ation bylaw too that'll overlap with this that has certain Provisions as well and so um you know I think what you know Doug said if we just get rid of that clause and just have that the owner she'll have an onsite resident manager or some supervision that's that's sufficient it works okay do you w to vote on this yeah I do I do I do think we should vote um maybe only because I don't support it it sounds like everybody else does Bruce um I would uh suggest the amendment as uh suggested removing that first clause and start the owner shall have an Insight meas manager or uh 24/7 Supervision in in order to ensure the safety health and re of tenants so I delete students of tenants and then I think I don't think there's a reason to have the final sentence either so I think it can be just the uh basically the owner shall have all the way down to the tenants minus the Le student that would that would be what I would suggest we vote on and they delete the last sentence yeah uh Janet I I it'd be great to I would like to hone it down to what we can most of us or all of us can agree on so I agree I I support that change okay Fred yeah I uh I'm I'm also supporting that that change uh okay all right um so we've heard from everybody except Karen and what the change you support the change too so is there any point in in going through a motion here uh it sounds like we've got five in favor and one opposed so in that case We'll add the uh Janet I see your hand is it or Legacy okay all right so I guess we will add this condition um but let's kind of hold on that while we continue through the uh rest of the management consulting or the management plan section of the conditions and then we need to remember to come back and at least see the last two changes that Janet was requesting all right so Chris can you continue with number 27 number 27 significant accumulation of snow Plus within the project area shall be promptly removed from the site as part of the clearing process 28 drainage structures shall be kept clear of snow accumulation to allow proper storm water drainage 29 alt trash pickup deliveries op the operation of construction SL maintenance machinery and landscaping equipment shall be conducted during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday exemptions shall include emergency vehicles snow removal or other emergency situations as approved by the Building Commissioner uh Pam can you scroll up yeah number 30 the project shall comply with and be managed in accordance with all terms of the management plan any alterations to this plan shall be approved by the planning board at a public meeting Bruce uh this is just in case Chris doesn't notice but number 32 is the same as number number 30 okay yes 32 is the same as 30 yep number 33 upon no uh you skipped number 31 okay all movein or move outs shall occur during the hours of 8:00 a to 7: p.m. and shall be coordinated so as to lessen the impacts of multiple moving trucks blocking the street the driveway parking spaces or the fire line number 33 uh Janet I have a thing which my is there a difference between the driveway and the easement like is the easement bigger than the driveway because I wondered about that I mean is the driveway the easen or is something is there because there's a lot what do do you want to insert the word easement in here or something yeah because but I wasn't sure if the the driveway was the easement or if the easement was big I just don't remember I think they're essentially the same thing I think there's an 11 foot wide easement maybe Tom knows exactly he said they were the same okay forget it okay and and Chris I think the word lesson could really be minimize minimize yep okay all right so uh Fred uh yeah I'm just wondering um whether the beginning hour should also be 7 a.m. we move in and move out yes that's fine with me I won't be awakened when I trying to sleep late you're gonna wake up earlier okay those are the hours that people are allowed to make noise downtown so I guess that's okay um for construction and things like that all right are we ready to move on to 33 yes okay 33 upon a change of ownership or if the property is no longer managed by South Pleasant Street LLC the new owner and or manager shall submit a new management plan to the planning board at a public meeting for its review an approval the purpose of the meeting shall be for the board to determine whether conditions of the permit are being complied with and whether any modification to the site plan review approval or management plan is required all right construction we these are all the boilerplate things if you want to just skip through can can we skip those and maybe go back to Janet's uh email and just look at the last two that she was Janet's email has to do with another um with completion of work actually that was actually the second my second one about the time frame was actually covered already I didn't read it so number two forget because that's already I think I think what we have is we already have a timeline for starting work I thought there was a timeline to finish it on number six I didn't read that so number six in the beginning is saying you have to be done within 24 months or come talk to us and I I was I didn't I miss so so that's fine so we can skip that um Chris do you have the edit that um Rob Mora came up with yes Pam has that good language show it to you but we we haven't gotten to number 50 yet so do we want okay why don't we why don't we look at number 50 if that needs to be discussed so we're not we're going to skip all of the ones that have to do with um Construction Construction right because they're the boilerplate things that we say all the time yes and then 50 is a part of completion of work can you scroll up a little farther you want to look at 50 exactly okay okay here it is 50 the way it was drafted and then the Building Commissioner came up with wording based on um sort of a back and forth he had had with Janet um that's shorter than this and probably clearer okay and so I sent it to um Pam in an email yeah I just had that up hold on I'm sorry that you all are confusing me all right here we go okay the Building Commissioner May impose shity requirements to guarantee completion of any required work including for landscaping Paving or any other unfinished item before issuing a temporary occupancy permit the shity shall be provided by the owner and the value shall cover the costs required to complete the all work the applicant will provide the Building Commissioner with an estimate of cost to complete the work including the costs to the town to do the work project management fees prevailing wage and competitive bidding requirements and the impact of inflation so is that fine with everyone fine with me Tom yeah just a a question can I know says the Building Commissioner May impose can he determine what those requirements are so by way of example you know Barry provides all this information needs the TCO um but it's Barry it's a limited amount of work we don't have to go through the whole thing where Rob's hands are tied to say it must be in this amount right so I'm just looking for does Rob have discretion within the imposition of that shity requirement to modify that amount based upon his reasonable judgment I think so I think that's what he usually does okay great as long as that's and we've got this recording so that's fine by me Bruce um I just want to understand this the applicant shall provide the Building Commissioner so the applicant is doing this providing the Building Commissioner with a cost uh to complete the work including costs to the town to do the work and this is where we get into prevailing wage and so so it sounds like this number is going to be much larger than the applicant would uh need to complete the work I just want to be I just want to be clear that that's intended I think it is but the amount of work that the town would have to do presumably is not very great if it's in the town rway maybe this includes more than just the town R of way oh okay we yeah I mean this looks to me like a [Music] completion doesn't matter where it is I thought when I saw this I thought oh this is like what happened with Spring Street where the temporary permit was wanted but in order to get it uh there was a fairly large amount of money that was required to complete the work and that uh was um some shity payment was calculated in relate to that but there was a there was a it was all of almost all of landscaping around the building was involved s Cole and if it's done at prevailing wage uh then it's going to be even more so I just want to be sure that we you know the this is what we're talking about I think I think you I mean it also is not stated that the Building Commissioner has to set the value of the shity to whatever the applicant says the number should be I mean the applicant's going to provide them with an estimate but the Building Commissioner could reject that and say no I think it's going to be higher yes it says that the the value shall cover the costs required to complete all work in in whose [Music] opinion U is this better than what we already have as our boiler plate okay so Bruce are you done I've got Janet and Nate back the original language and look at that Janet so I think this is what the boiler plate is saying kind of broken out into more clear sentences okay and I remember this issue coming up when we were in the The amist Hills like completion of work for the roads and the estimates that came back were much higher than the actual cost because of the prevailing wage and competitive bidding and also they were like using bids that were really based on I don't know if it was Statewide but at that time it was much cheaper to do road work here and so you know and the shity isn't like you have to put you know 500,000 you're actually can be buying a little Bond you know a little you putting up you're buying the shy or or the guarantee a guarantor and things like that but I think the sentence is just saying what is the boiler plate but I just found it really hard to follow okay Nate yeah uh thanks dou now I was going to say that this summarizes what is there and that the idea is that the applicant does the work right and shows what the cost is to the town should the town have to complete it because the contractor doesn't and so that's why we factor in prevailing wage and everything else and yeah maybe there's a 40% cost increase right we say prevailing wage is probably a 20 or 25% increase uh and then if you had the other fees and so the idea would be right if they don't finish the Landscaping we have to hire someone what does that cost us to do and so um I think this makes sense and so really what we're trying to do is give a basis for the shy amount so the applicant is it's their due diligence to come up with it and say okay here's what it is and then the Building Commissioner uses that as a guide agreed they don't have to pinpoint it on that but at least we have you know um you know there's some some reason for it as opposed to just something that the Building Commissioner comes up with or has to research on their own it's we're asking the applicant to do that for us as the basis for assurity well but Nate when we had the issue with the roadway the subdivision that was not being completed the the town engineer was either came up with the estimate or was pretty involved in determining that number and it seems to me if you've got a contractor or an owner who's not performing how are you going to get him to do an estimate I mean he's already not [Music] performing the uh I think the subdivision Road it was a little different in terms of timing for this one what would happen here is there no TCO and no permits would be issued right so we would have the ability during construction to you know even put an enforcement order to stop construction on this and so the the this really is a a kind of a a last resort if something isn't happening yeah you know it's not something that we would seek out to do and if need be the applicant doesn't provide it then the Building Commissioner could determine their own value right but really the the the reason why this is in here is it's in the applicant best interest to do that to provide that estimate for the Building Commissioner all right all right Bruce I think I understand this to be that what the owners getting out of this what the applicant's getting out of this is the temporary uh occupancy permit so uh so now I think I understand uh if you don't if you don't want to get the temporary occupancy if you want to just wait out and do the work and then get the regular then no problem do it but I think I Now understand that the for the um benefit of being granted a temporary occupany permit the applicant uh is expected to do the following and now that makes sense okay all right uh do do any board members object to using this language and replacing the other language for item number 50 raise your hand if you object all right so I will take that as consensus uh Chris that we will adopt this language okay and this does come right after a statement any temporary certificates of occupancy shall be approved by the Building Commissioner so it's related to that yep okay all right um all right so was we kind of skipped the boiler plate uh now I guess we're down to the affordable units yes and I think um the first set of conditions related to Affordable units would not apply app because um we are not talking about made the payment we're not talking about units on site right so we would skip to what is in the draft as um number 55 yep okay if the planning board approves the project and grants the special permit to allow payment in Lee of providing affordable units on site in accordance with Section 15. 171 of the zoning bylaw the following conditions shall apply a at least 12% of the new units or three units will be required as part of this project shall be provided for Via a payment in Le of providing on-site units the payment in lie shall be and we're going to say use the bylaw shall be at least the amount that's indicated in the bylaw the one point is that what we want to say or do we want to say the specific number one point 124 z z well yeah yeah shall be at least 1.124 million yeah okay which is three times something smaller and then C the payment shall be made to the town of ammer payable to the ammer municipal affordable housing trust prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy so we we might want to use the similar language in the motion for the findings where we say you know the is ENC invited to to pay more um in in number B here so you want to you want to add that language well it's not really I mean it's not really a condition but uh that's what I was thinking Doug it's not a condition I I put up my hand because I you said payment shall be at least and that was kind of gratuitous and I thought that was important but it I just wanted to make sure that the uh two words at least um are in are included in this then it's a condition okay that makes sense all right Tom sure uh I'm gonna go to 55A uh at least 12% of the net increase so same comment that I had last time just because of the way that the inclusionary zoning Works net increase you could say net increase in unit count 12% of the net increase count okay thanks okay okay so we're good with number 55 I think so and then 56 amenities the entire project site and building shall be smoke free non-smoking to the extent Allowed by law okay and then I have another uh condition that I'd like to add and this is taken from a previous um it was actually taken from a project down on Southeast Street um an anr parentheses approval not required Clos parentheses plan shall be submitted to the planning board for endorsement showing the two Parcels 45 and 55 South Pleasant Street combined into one parcel the anr plan shall be recorded at the registry of deeds prior to the issuance of a building permit okay okay all right and and you'll figure out which section that belongs in yeah it's probably not under amenities no okay so those conditions uh that's the result that's the result of reading the conditions uh do you want to vote on these conditions yes Bruce that's what I put my hand up for all right move that we approve uh uh conditions uh as uh reviewed and amended um one well I can't even do the numbers because they'll change I think that's enough move we approve the conditions as reviewed and amended all right during the meeting Karen second thank you Karen any uh conversation any comments from the board all right we'll go through another another vote Bruce I'm an i Fred I'm an i Jesse I Janet hi Karen I I'm and I as well let's six in favor no no opposition Janet um I think we need to close the hearing is that is that our next step yes indeed okay just I was worried we might forget well that that could easily happen could be a it could be a motion as well oh Janet are you making a motion to close the hearing I am making a motion to close all three hearings or the join hearing okay the why don't you take those one at a time take the site plan review by itself and take the special permit by itself that would make me feel good okay I just lost my the numbers I I am making a motion to close the site plan re review hearing all right uh I'll go ahead and second that anybody now do you want to combine that with approving the site plan review and with conditions and findings as discussed I thought we did that but we approved we approved the findings [Music] already but usually you make a motion to approve the site plan review application um with the conditions and findings as discussed and then close the public hearing the hearing okay I still move okay and I'll second that too Chris so Janet moved and Doug seconded okay correct right all right Bruce hi Fred hi Jesse hi Janet hi Karen hi I'm an i as well same six in favor all right and so I will will make a motion to adopt the findings and conditions for the special permits I think you already did that what you need to do is I'm sorry close the hearing for the special permit you need to make a motion to approve the special permit the two-part special permit with the findings and uh we didn't have any conditions with the findings as discussed and then to close the public hearing that's what I would suggest all right so moved I will second all right Janet although Jesse you raised your hand did you really want to second that all right all right Fred you can start hi all right Jesse hi Janet hi Ken hi and Bruce hi and I'm an i as well all right thank you Tom thank you very thank you did we do everything we're supposed to do good luck with your project thank you very much all right all right so we've been at this for almost two and a half hours and uh does anybody want to take a break or should we We TR didn't do it just head through the last the last item and and go home I would prefer that yes okay so fine I just thought I'd thought I'd ask and I'm glad we didn't try and do two and a half hours on top of uh 9:00 last week or we would have been midnight right so I'm chasen by my suggestion that we try to do okay so um time is 9:26 and we will move on to the next item on our agenda which was old business actually before I do that Jesse you have your hand up yeah just quickly I I agree with jenet I would love that for that conversation to come back at some point on agenda just about this condition we added and and how we're going to handle that in the future regarding the on-site uh supervision yes correct okay [Music] um Pam I'm not sure why you are showing up on the screen because I was about to put up the memo to the town manager but then Jesse said something that I needed to write down so I stopped Midstream okay so sorry so time is 9:27 and we'll go on to Old business and the first item under old business which we did add this afternoon is review of uh Chris's draft of of the letter to the town manager regarding the the comments we made on the wayfinders project and um that that letter is uh really just to express our general support for the project and to record some of the concerns that were noted in in the conversation last week so um did did everybody have a chance to at least skim through it uh this afternoon and before the meeting uh Jesse yep and I just wanted to say thought I captured all the essential parts of our conversation okay uh Bruce um I did look through I have a couple of comments uh would you like them now or I think we might as well yeah okay uh I'll skip to it yeah I'm assuming we're not going to read through this I hadn't intended uh but the uh um 2B um uh I thought that 2A captured the uh the spirit of uh our comments uh but quite nicely um two 2B though I I I would want to be sure that we did say that we think that it more in the style of New England architecture perhaps a barlik design I certainly well I I don't agree with that and I don't know that I heard it said but if it was said and we agree that it should be communicated uh then that's fine but I didn't hear it said and I don't agree that it could should be communicated all right well Bruce I I think it was said I don't think it I mean I personally don't agree with it either um but I think this letter was just trying to record some of the comments made um Without Really distinguishing between whether they had wide support or not I just wanted to be sure yeah if you have strong objections we could ask that it be removed um uh I don't think they well to me to me the the barn likee design is kind of uh misleading because the the way the applicant described the that building they thought they were doing that that's part of the reason why so I I would take off the last part myself I would too because it's basically encouraging them to do what they've done and we had pains to try them make them not do that right so just say design of the new building doesn't relate to nearby buildings is that sufficient I mean to me it's sufficient for me yes uh I don't know that they need to but it doesn't yeah we did say that um and then uh further down uh as far as height is concerned uh it says considering adding a story to the new addition to gain units I think it might be appropriate to add though we the board acknowledged that the impact Act of additional units on parking uh was unexplored so this was for the the unit on um Southeast that's correct yes not not the one we're looking at here we're talking about the Belchertown Road site right yes I'm I'm actually looking at on another screen I'm looking at my an my yeah the East Street School site that's where you're talking about the height yes yes where it said additional units so that's number four and then uh wait a minute number four I consider adding a story to the new building acknowledging to to where it says to to gain uh additional units I think we should say because you said it Chris uh the the board uh that the the board did not consider the uh the the the the how that did not consider how to handle the uh parking the possible additional parking requirements associated with additional units I mean we we just didn't talk about brce we could just say consider adding a story and the impacts of what those additional units would be yes okay that's consider consider all of that yeah consider in a story I suppose you're right in fact when you consider adding a story you consider not just the architectural implications but the other okay I'm good I can I can ignore what I said on that and my final comment is that I think it would be appropriate somewhere to commend I I put uh the board commends the aspiration of the uh project to achieve a passive house level of energy conserving performance oh yeah I think we should say that because under General because it both both buildings I think yes it was and I think uh I mean that's I mean just just aspiring to do that is a significant thing I mean if they achieve it it'll be borderline spectacular okay so the the board commends the aspiration of the project to achieve passive house certification yes yes okay yes and that would be be under General general which is where it well isn't that at the beginning the beginning yeah yeah but before you go to the specific site yes oh I see you don't you don't really have a general section but you could just you could just add that sentence to the first paragraph about passive house y or or make it its own second paragraph yep okay and passive house P for Passive and H for house should be uh capitalized and I guess we don't have to spell it the German Way yeah I think we I've seen it both ways yeah we can keep it good simple all right anything else Bruce no that's it for me thank you okay Janet I also support removing the barn the the barn thing because I think that was really the you know it's a really big building and you know the Colonial Village Apartments look like chicklets next to it when you look at the overhead and I do think we should stick with the New England architecture of style because I think the most successful buildings I've seen that are low-income housing are ones that really fit in and people you know I don't think we're going to get some outstanding modernistic building out of this it'd be nice to just get something that looks like it fits in New England um and not you know I mean not look like a Motel 6 or a giant barn you know with 50,000 cows in it or something so that's it so consider uh St well I mean I think Janet I mean I think well I mean it sounded like from the conversation Bruce and I had that we didn't feel it really had to be New England architecture so I'm not sure we all agree on that yeah yeah I just think I think it's the most successful lowi income housing projects around are the ones that really they look classical and they kind of fit into the neighborhood I would love some Innovative design I think we're just not going to ever get it you know from at that so anyway it's nothing to to no bridge to die on um good all right I cat is now eating my packet I think we well you won't need it again I hope hopefully um all right anybody anybody have anything else okay uh Fred uh just uh on the uh uh under parking on East Street um the res response from the town the town is studying providing formalized parallel parking um I would add there that part of that should be an extension of the permit parking system so those spaces are uh limited to uh that then will be usable by the people in the building well is that is that true in terms of Chris your understanding of what the town is looking at well they're considering some kind of formalized parking and so they don't want people just parking there and then taking the bus to UMass so I think it could be um the kind of parking system that we use Uptown which is resident parking or employee parking so that would that could be an a suggestion y all right yeah that's that's the permit parking system okay during my first service on the planning board I represented the planning board on the parking commission I was actually responsible for the creation of the permit parking system so that's something I know about all right well maybe we should call it the the heartnet system or Heartwell all right um so Chris you you got that otherwise this is good I think so I don't see any other hands okay great thank you all right um let's see Chris any other items not available 48 hours in advance no no sir all right time is 937 and unless other members have anything they want to say before we adjourn I think we can adjourn can we just um say that we are going to cancel the oh yeah oh yeah April 17th meeting all right so any objections from members to cancelling the next meeting next week not seeing any objections okay so our next meeting will then be May 1st is that right May 1 May 1 yep okay thank you all all right members thanks for sticking this out good night thank you we'll see you in May bye bye good night all right good night Fred good night Pam bye see you soon bye so much for