PLANNING BOARD CONTINUES DISCUSSION ON AMHERST MEDIA BUILDING

PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF 7/15/20

Present: Planning Board members: Michael Birtwistle, Maria Chao, Christine Gray-Mullen (Chair), Jack Jemsek, David Levenstein, Doug Marshall, and Janet McGowan.  Staff: Planning Director: Chris Brestrup, Assistant Pamela Field Sadler

Amherst Media Building
The Planning Board reopened its site plan review, begun on 7/1/20, about the proposed Amherst Media building for the corner of Main and Gray Streets. There were no disclosures of conflicts of interest from the Planning Board.

The plans were presented by Physical Engineer Bucky Sparkle. At the July 1 Planning Board meeting,  board members asked for more information on the location of trash and recycling bins and further detail on the retaining wall on the north side of the property and on the storm water management. In response, Sparkle showed the location of the trash and recycling bins at the northwest corner of the building near the HVAC compressors. There will be a fence surrounding these elements.

The proposed retaining wall has been lowered to a maximum height of 3 feet 9 inches by adjusting the grade to the north. It will be a gravity wall, which stands on its own and does not need support, but as a precaution, it will also have stone “deadmen” and a steel plate shoring the ground to the north.  In response to a suggestion by Town engineer Jason Skeels, another drain is planned between the curb and sidewalk on Main Street to prevent flooding and freezing of storm water on the sidewalk.

Additional improvements to the plans involve a pollinator garden on the slope near the Gray Street entrance and a grass strip between the parallel parking spaces and the retaining wall to make it easier for passengers to exit cars. Sparkle requested several waivers for reducing required parking spaces from 15 to 8, allowing parking within 8 feet of the building, and to be exempt from a traffic study. The rationale for these waiver requests was discussed at the July 1 meeting.

One of the major disputes at the July 1 meeting was regarding the front setback, which is required to be 20 feet (twice normal) for educational buildings. Town Building Commissioner Rob Morra approved the 10 foot setback proposed for the Main Street entrance, but, rather than argue the point, Amherst Media has applied for a Special Permit to waive the 20 foot requirement. This will need to be posted as a public hearing and discussed at a later meeting.

Although Sparkle had included a parking management plan in his original packet, Gray-Mullen suggested it be presented separately and that it recommend that staff use the inner spaces of the lot and that a couple of spaces near the sidewalk be marked as reserved for visitors. Jemsek asked about the possibility of dewatering the site with a trench near the wall, but Sparkle said that this is not advisable, because the water can back up during large storms.

Sparkle reported that an email letter he received at 5 PM on the day of the meeting from Matt Massengill, attorney for the neighbors, contained many errors and “propaganda.” The project received unanimous approval from the Local Historic District Commission and the easement granted to the town to maintain the sidewalk on Main Street had been agreed upon in 2019.  This letter was not made available in the packet for the meeting because of its late arrival.

In public comment, Felicity Hardee Barry of Station Road reiterated her comments from July 1 that she felt the site was too small for the building. Daniel J. Finnegan, Attorney at Bulkley Richardson, representing Harmsway (the abutters) agreed with Barry and also suggested that a structural engineer review the plans for the retaining wall. Gray-Mullen pointed out that Sparkle is a civil engineer with training in structural engineering. 

Jemsek said he had visited the site and felt the size was adequate. Marshall pointed out that the tightness of the parking is a result of Amherst Media not wanting to build on the western half of their land which would obscure the view of the Henry Hills house. Rather than make a spacious parking lot on that land, they have condensed their plans to use only the eastern side of the land along Gray Street. 

Eric Wilkerson of Gray Street wondered if this would be a net zero building. Gray-Mullen pointed out that the net zero bylaw only applies to public buildings at this time. Jemsek questioned whether solar panels would be permitted in the local historic district. Marshall asked if the roof would be solar ready, meaning it would support solar panels.  Sparkle did not know, but said he would find out.

Birtwistle wanted to know what the Planning Board thought it should do about the Massengill letter, which he found inflammatory. Brestrup offered to show it to the Town Attorney and to write a memo in response to the points raised. Levenstein and Marshall saw the letter as a piece of advocacy for the clients and did not have much to do with the obligations of the Planning Board. Jemsek also objected to third parties sending letters an hour before a meeting, when the topic had been discussed several weeks previously. Birtwistle then agreed that the Planning Board did not need to respond to this letter. Brestrup reminded the Board that it should not concern itself with any lawsuits pending about the project. The Board’s obligation was to evaluate the project on its merits for the site. 

The Board voted unanimously to continue the Site Plan Review until August 5, when the Special Permit request will also be discussed.

Apple Brook /Hartswell Farm Subdivision

The rest of the meeting was devoted to the request by Attorney Tom Reidy of Bacon Wilson, Inc. to exchange the restricted Lot 4 in the Apple Brook/Hartswell Farm Cluster subdivision in South Amherst for Lot 2, because there is a buyer for Lot 4. The lot was being held until the developer, Paul Cole of Applebrook West, finishes the roads. The Planning Board expressed concern that this could be similar to the situation in the Amherst Hills subdivision where the developer did not finish the roads and they deteriorated to the point where fire trucks and snow plows could not navigate them. 

McGowan said she visited the site and found that, to her surprise, there was a house on Lot 4, even though it was supposed to be held from development. She also felt that Lot 2 was much less desirable. Brestrup explained that there was a miscommunication. The Building Commissioner did not realize Lot 4 was restricted when he issued the building permit. Levenstein felt it would be a cleaner arrangement to have a bond to cover the $35,000 to $50,000 necessary to pay for the completion of the roads, but Reidy said that would involve extra costs and that Lot 2 was probably worth close to $150,000. He said the developer needed the money from the Lot 4 sale to complete the rest of the work on the subdivision.

Brestrup said that the Town would never accept the road, because it was not built to town specification. It is too narrow.  The developer never intended it to be a Town road. However, Gray-Mullen stated that the Planning Board had a duty to the residents who purchased houses to see that the road was completed as was originally agreed upon. The developer also had an agreement with the Town to construct a sidewalk and parking lot at the trailhead between Lots 6 and 8. McGowan suggested that Lot 4 be released for sale and Lot 7 be held in its place. Negotiations are underway for the sale of Lot 7, but there is no agreement as yet. Reidy agreed to this exchange and the Planning Board voted unanimously to accept it. A new Certificate of Performance will be signed. Reidy said the developer plans to complete the roadwork this fall., but he will discuss purchasing a bond with the developer. The matter will be discussed again at the August 19 Planning Board meeting.

Resignation From The Board
Brestrup then announced that Levenstein had submitted his resignation from the Board, effective July 30.

The meeting adjourned at 9:50 PM