Having been reached, I welcome everyone to this meeting of the Amherst Zoning Board of Appeals. My name is Steve Judge. As chair of the Amherst Zoning Board of Appeals, I call this meeting to order. Pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12th, 2020 order, suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, general laws chapter 30A, section 18, and the governor's March 15th, 2020 order, imposing strict limitations on the number of people that may gather them one place. This public hearing with the town of Amherst Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted via remote participation. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but the public can listen to the proceedings by clicking on a link in the town's webpage. In accordance with provisions of Massachusetts General Laws chapter 48 and article 10, special permit granting authority of the Amherst Zoning Bylaws, this public meeting has been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted and mailed to parties at interest. We will begin with a roll call of the regular members of the ZBA who have been impaneled for the considerations of items on tonight's agenda. I'm Steve Judge, I'm here. Mr. Langsdale. Here. Ms. O'Meara. Here. Ms. Parks. Here. Mr. Maxfield. Here. And the associate members, Ms. Waldman, Mr. Barrick. Here. Mr. Greeny. Mr. Meadows. Also in attendance is Maureen Pollock. And we expect that Rob Moroff Building Commissioner will be participating as well.  The zoning board is a quasi-judicial body that operates under the authority of chapter 48 of the General Laws of the Commonwealth for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the inhabitants of the town of Amherst. One of the most important elements of the zoning bylaws is section 10.38. Specific findings from this section must be made for all our decisions. All hearings and meetings are open to the public and are recorded by town staff. Each petition is heard by the board is distinct and evaluated on its own merits and the board is not ruled by precedent. The procedure is as follows. The petitioner presents the application to the board during the hearing, after which the board will be, will ask questions for clarification or for additional information. After the board has completed its questions, the board will seek public input. The public speaks with the permission of the chair. If a member of the public wishes to speak, they should so indicate by using the raise hand function on their screen. The chair with the assistance of staff will call upon people wishing to speak. When you are recognized, present your name and address to the board for the record. All questions and comments must be addressed to the board. The board will normally hold public hearings or information about the project and input from the public is gathered, followed by public meetings for each application. The public meeting portion is when the board deliberates and is generally not an opportunity for public comment. If the board feels it has enough information and time, it will decide upon the applications tonight. By statute for a special permit, the board has 90 days from the close of the hearing to file the decision. For a variance, the board has 100 days from the date of filing to file its decision. No decision is final until the written decision is signed by the sitting board members and is filed with the town clerk's office. Once the decision is filed with the town clerk, there is a 20-day appeal period for an agreed party to contest the decision with the relevant judicial body and superior court. After the appeal period, the permit must be recorded at the registry of deeds to take effect. Tonight's agenda is as follows. A public hearing to consider ZBA 2020-40, Christine and William Labish request a special permit to allow an eight-foot fence to be located within the front, side, and rear setback lines under section 6.29 and 10.38 of the zoning bylaw. Located at 948 East Pleasant Street, Mach 5D, Parcel 283, Neighborhood Residents RN Zoning District. ZBA FY 2020-41, Donald Fisher and Susan Haas request a special permit in order to allow a preexisting, non-conforming single-family dwelling to be structurally altered and expanded into the rear yard setback on a non-conforming lot by approximately three feet, adding approximately 15 square feet to the garage under sections 9.22 and 10.38 of the zoning bylaw. Located at 117 Amity Street, Map 14A, Parcel 27, General Residents RG Zoning District. And ZBA FY 2020-38, RC Retail Amherst LLC request a special permit for use of a recreational marijuana retailer under section 3.36, 3.2 and 10.38 of the Amherst zoning bylaw. Located at 328 College Street, Map 14B, Parcel 222 and Map 15A, Parcel 97, Commercial COM Zoning District. This matter is continued from July 9th, 2020. The first order of business is ZBA FY 2020-40, Christine and William LeBiche at 948 East Pleasant Street. Are there any disclosures from members of the board? If not, on Tuesday, July 27th, 22nd, the board conducted a site visit of the property. Board members, Mr. Langsdale, Ms. O'Meara, Ms. Parks and Mr. Maxfield and Mr. Barrick and I, along with the Amherst planner Ms. Pollock viewed the property, the existing fence, the state's property lines and the state's proposed fence. We noted the height of the proposed fence with a tape measure. Questions were asked about who owns the existing fence, whether it was intended to be removed. We also asked about whether trees along the proposed fence would be removed and or trimmed. Were there any other additional questions that I did not note? The board has received the following documents regarding this application. Special permit application, a project summary, a fence plan prepared by Zengineer, dated June 2nd, 2020 and four photographs. We've also received the town staff submission, the project application report dated July 22nd, 2020 and we received two letters from the public from Mr. Heiler and Mr. Smith. The applicant is seeking waivers in the building plan, in the management plan, landscaping plan, lighting plan and sign plan. Does the applicant wish to speak regarding the application? And if so, please state your name and address for the record. Hi, I'm Christine Labek. I live at 948 East Closent Street. My husband is also on this call, but he's just watching. Okay. This is your opportunity to present to the board what you'd like to be able to do. So Christine, Ms. Labek, please let us go ahead and proceed. Okay, I'll start with the survey that was prepared by Zengineer and Holmberg and how marking the location of the fence. Can people see that? Okay. So this is overlaid with the satellite image of our property showing our driveway and what is now a gravel parking area. And so the proposal would be an eight foot fence along the sidelot line here within the setback. These sections that I'm outlining with my cursor now, these two longer sections we've requested would be eight feet high. And this shorter section that cuts down the hill as you saw when you visited would be six feet high. There were some questions by the board when you visited about this six foot section as there's some elevation changes here at the corner. And I did check with the fence company and the idea would be to keep the top of the fence level through that area, cutting out the bottom or leaving a gap at the bottom. Also, there'd be the height of the fence changes here at this section. So there'd be some leeway about how to install that. The idea would be to, this is really our priority sections here right now. A lot of the behavior that's been the reason for requesting the special permit has occurred along this line and at this corner and in this area here. So we're actually hoping not to have to install this line, but given that there's been a threat to poison or remove these shrubs which are on our property, we'd like to have the option of installing an eight foot fence here in the future if that happens. Are there any other questions or things in particular you'd like me to go over? No, I think you laid it out pretty clearly. Are there questions from members of the board? Yes, I have a question. The six foot fence that's there now along the property line that exists, the fence that exists. The eight foot fence that you're proposing is it exactly the same look? Yeah, I can show you a picture. Okay. So it'd be the same style as the fence that's there now. You can you see that? Okay. Not yet. Oh, I can't, anyone. I don't see it yet. Oh, okay. Hang on a second. Yeah, here we go. And that's your existing fence, correct? This is a stock photo from the company that would install the fence. Okay. And just showing the style. All right, thank you. Are there any other questions? I had my husband just said he lost internet, so I'm not sure what's going on in our house, but if something happens, that's what it is. Okay. I just have one question. Mr. Maxwell. So where the six foot fence meets the eight foot fence at that corner there, it's then six feet. So it would be, you'd have the eight foot post and two feet down would be where you would measure that six foot height line from. Am I correct about that? That's the thinking about the design here? Yes. Okay. And then, is it specified and I just missed it? Is it going down at a specific angle or is it staying kind of level with the other fence? No. So the idea was I didn't really want to have eight feet. It's really out of necessity. So I'd rather have a six foot where we can get away with it. So it's not, there's no real like aesthetic or building reason for changing the height of the fence. It's just, I don't feel like eight foot fence is necessary here. So we would just try to change this elevation in the most attractive way possible and then have this extension be six feet from the ground along the length of it. Does that answer your question? Sorry. No, not quite. So I assume that right from that corner you just have the eight foot post with the fence going out and then drop down two feet. That would be the start of the six foot fence. And then from there, cause I know that's a hill right there. Does that, is that included in the plan that it goes down at a specific angle? Is that? Well, I think the idea would be that the sections are six feet high. So they would be six feet from the ground, but they would cut the fence company would aesthetically install it so that it looks relatively like it's sloping down. There's some unevenness right at this corner right here, but then that this is pretty much of an even slope. So it would just be six feet from the ground through that slope area. I know the, I take the assumption that you want the top to be, you know, look the same aesthetically, but then I know that the ground kind of right varies. So I imagine that that fence height from any given point of the top to the ground would vary from at some points, it would be six feet at others. It might be longer or shorter, depending on the ground there. I guess even one of my questions might even be to the board of how specific do we need to be on that six foot fence when we're going to have if that those variations might be in there. Do we want to make sure that's included? Is that really relevant to us? That's a good thing for us to, we can discuss that when we're in discussion on conditions, Mr. Maxfield. But my notion is that if we have a line that generally follows the slope of the, of the hill and it is keeps approximately six feet from that slope above the slope of the hill, that's good enough. But I'll leave that to the, and we can discuss that during the discussion on the conditions. Okay, that answers my question. Yep. Are there any other questions? The one thing I would inquire about is you wanted to get permission, you wanted to get approval for the additional run of the fence towards the back. And you intend just to have the first, the short section of the hill and then that long section along the driveway install. And then if you needed to, you wanted to be able to have from an approval for that third section of fence. Typically what we do is approve something and then have construction that has to be done within two, have to be substantially completed within two years. So I think you're kind of faced with an option that would be, you could ask for the whole thing to, ask for just the two sections running up the hill in the section along the driveway to be approved and then come back for the second section or get approval for all three sections. And if you decide not to build the second or third, in the third section, come back and just tell the board or at a public, probably a public meeting, not a public hearing that you've decided to not build the second section. So that's typically what we do. And so I'd ask you to think about what your preference would be. Would it be to approve everything and come back if you don't do it or approve just two and come back if you want to do the third? Yeah, my preference would be to approve everything. Okay, so that's good. All right, any other questions? Any other comments from that? From, I apologize for mispronouncing your name to begin with Ms. LeBach, any other questions? It's fine, it happens all the time. All right. Is there no further, is there any public comments? Maureen, do we have anybody on the? If anyone has a public comment, you have to click the button to raise your hand to indicate that you would like to say something. I see no public comments. Okay. Mr. Chair, we have received two public comments, written comments. Yes. No, no, no. Two letters. Yep. Both, we received two letters, both of which were in support of the application. All right, if there's no questions from the public and no further questions from the board, I move that we close the public hearing on this matter and open a public meeting. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion of that? If not, roll call vote is off, is ordered. I vote aye. Mr. Langsdale? Aye. Ms. O'Mara? Aye. Ms. Parks? Aye. Mr. Maxfield? Aye. The public hearing is closed. Now we start the public meeting. The public meeting, the board generally discusses the application for any special permit in any conditions that may be imposed by the board. Any public hearing is at the discretion of the chair, any public comment is at the discretion of the chair. Do any members have a general comment they'd like to make about the application for the special permit? And I would like to hear those first and then I would like to discuss conditions. So is there any general discussion? Yeah, I mean, I would say that... Mr. Maxfield? Yeah, I would say I'm definitely in favor of this. I take it the neighbor was notified, is required to notify any abutters, they haven't given any comment on it and they didn't come to this meeting to oppose it. So in that case, I think this is a good application with possibly some conditions. I am definitely willing to support this. Any other general comments? All right, let's explore conditions suggested. Two conditions proposed by the staff. The first is that the project shall be built according to the approved plans and maintained as needed. Any deviations from the approved plan shall come back before the zoning board of appeals. At a public meeting, the approved plans include the project summary, fence plan prepared by the engineer dated June 2nd, 2020. And the fence shall be maintained in good condition. We also typically require that it be completed within two years or substantially completed within two years. Are there any other, is there any discussion about conditions? I have one. Yes, Mr. Langsdale. The application says they request a special permit to allow an eight foot high fence to be located within the front, side, and rear setback lines. But what they're asking for now is a six foot fence in the front. I think that we should make note of that in the condition that there is a change, that the front section will be six foot high and not the eight foot high. All right, we can do that. Okay. I agree. Any other discussion? All right. We have some findings we have to make in both section 6.2 and section 10.38. Section 6.2 deals with fences generally. Most of 6.2 is not going to be applicable. There are two sections that are section 6.24.  Fences and walls shall not exceed six feet in height along that portion of the side lot lines between the minimum front and back. Staff response, the proposed fence is the closest to the front property, is six foot and it's high. This fence is located within a 20 foot yard setback. Additionally, the applicant is proposing an eight foot high fence within the side yard setback. The applicant is requesting a waiver from this requirement under section 6.29 of the zoning bylaw. Mr. Chair. Yes. There's a slight typo. So the eight foot fence is within the rear and side yard setback. Oh, yes. That's right. Rear and side. All right. We'll make note of that. Thank you, Ms. Pollock. And also they were requesting a waiver from 6.25. Fences located within the side of your yard exceeding six feet in height shall be set back a distance that is equal to their height. Again, the applicant is asking to be within about 1.5 feet from the rear yard line and 1.4 feet from the side yard line. And therefore cannot meet the requirement. And if this would wave that requirement for the, in 6.24 and 6.25. And then I think in 6.29, we don't need to do anything with that. I think those are the two waivers we need to approve. Is that correct? Ms. Pollock, there's no other way that we need to approve. Well, so they're requesting the, they're requesting the waiver under 6.29 from the requirements of section 6.24 and 6.25. So you might want to just... I'll reference 6.29 then. Yes. To allow that. And it provides for our authority to grant the waiver is what that does. Yeah, exactly. So we need to do that in order to grant waivers of 6.24 and 2.5. Okay. Gotcha. And then we have to make the findings under 10.38. So in this case, I think we can just have one vote both on the waivers and on the conditions. I'll run through the conditions quickly. 10.380 and 10.3. Are there any discussion on the condition on the waivers? Okay. 10.380 and 10.381. The proposal is suitably located in the neighborhood. We find that this, it is an accessory structure that is suitably located in the neighborhood and it's compatible. These conditions can be found on page five of the project report. 10.382, 10.383, 10.385 and 10.387 generally deal with not const, that the proposal would not constitute a nuisance. The proposal would not be substantially inconvenient or hazardous to a butters. The proposal protects the adjoining premises that can set tremendous or offensive uses. And the proposal provides convenient and safe vehicular pedestrian movement. We find that the proposal does not constitute a nuisance due to air and water pollution, flood, noise, odor, dust, vibration, lights, or visibly offensive structures or site features. The proposal will reasonably protect the property from adjoining premises, from adjoining premises against the detrimental or offensive uses. The proposal will not affect the vehicular or pedestrian movement within the site or Jason streets. 10.384 dealing with appropriate facilities is not applicable. 10.386 dealing with parking sign regulations is not applicable. 10.387 dealing with traffic, our ability to require a traffic impact report is not applicable. 10.388, off street loading and parking requirements are not applicable. 10.389, again, a storage of refuge and recyclable is not applicable. 10.390, flood hazard protection from flood hazards, this finding is not applicable. 10.389 to protect the extent feasible, unique or natural historic and scenic features. We find that this is not applicable. 10.392, regarding landscaping, screening of adjacent residential uses, use of street trees, landscaping. This is mostly for commercial projects. This is not applicable. 10.393 provides the adjacent properties, protection of adjacent properties by minimizing the intrusion of lighting. In this case, it's not applicable. There's no lighting changes. 10.394 avoids the greatest extent feasible impact on steep slopes. This is not applicable. 10.395 is not applicable. It deals with disharmony with respect to the terrain. 10.396, the proposal provides your screenage of loading docks and dumpsters is not applicable. 10.397, recreational facilities, we find that there's adequate open space on the property. 10.398, the goals and harmony with the general purpose of the bylaws and the goals of the master plan. Then we find that the proposal is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the bylaws and the goals of the master plan. Is there any discussion on those findings? If not, I would move that we approve this application with the four conditions that we spoke of it during the discussion and provide the waivers with the conditions that we mentioned. So all those, is there any discussion? Is there a second and then is there any discussion? Second. Any discussion? All in favor. We'll do a roll call vote. Aye. Mr. Linesville. Aye. Ms. Amira. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. All right, motion carries five out of five. Congratulations and good luck. Thank you. The second item on the agenda is ZBA 2020-41, Donna Fisher and Susan Haas, 117 Amity Street. I'm in a bother with this property and will recuse myself in consideration of this matter. Vice Chair Langsdale will serve as acting chair and associate member, Mr. Barrick, will serve on this panel for this application. Mr. Linesville. Yes, good evening. We had a site visit to the property on Tuesday the 21st at 6 p.m. We were met there by Ms. Tierney from Coon Riddle Architects. We observed the outside of the garage, we were not able to go in and the yard around the garage and the proposed rebuild. And we noted also the hedges at the back of the property line next to the garage as it currently exists. The questions that were asked included the pitch of the roof, was it the same as the, would it be the same as the house, the height of the ceiling in the garage, which was to be changed, the landscaping at the garage, what's to remain and what's to be taken away, the floor plan for the second floor of the garage and a question regarding a second egress from the top floor. There's one from the master bedroom in and out, but the question was raised about the second egress and then the question is about the driveway plans and if there were any and what those might be. Let's see, what we have from the applicant is the, wait a minute, wait a minute, I'll get there. We have the management plan, we have the special permit application, description of the proposed work, surveyed site plan of 117 Amity Street, prepared by Randall Isar, or Isar, excuse me, dated June 30th, 2020, a plan set prepared by Coon Riddle Architects dated June 11th, 2020, covering all aspects of demolition, new work, and some photographs of the garage, the inside, the upstairs and the downstairs of the garage as it currently exists. We also have an email from Ms. Tierney dated July 20th, 2020 regarding the lighting. So at this point, oh, is there, are there any questions that I didn't cover that were asked? Any other board members have anything to add? Yes, Ms. Parks. I was just gonna say that we did talk about that the flooring in the garage would be removed and a new slab would be put in. All right, anyone else? Okay, so now it's time for the presentation by the applicant, and who do we have representing the applicant tonight? Hi again, it's Alon Tierney from Coon Riddle, and I can present the project on behalf of the clients or the owners, Don Fisher and Susan Haas. Would you like me to go through the letter about what we're requesting and then run through the drawings? Yeah, that would be fine. Okay, so as you know from your site visit, the Fisher Haas residence says at 117 Amity Street, it's actually located off of Amity Street behind the other homes. It shares a driveway with two other residences. It can be seen from Amity Street, but it's much further back than all of the homes that are directly on Amity Street. It's a Cape Cod style cottage that was constructed, we believe, around 1927, and it's on an existing non-conforming lot. The building footprint extends past the 10 foot rear setback by about five feet. It's not exactly parallel to the property line, but the closest the building gets is five feet and the extension would be five feet or more from the property line. And as you said, the proposal is to take down the existing garage with some single car garage that doesn't actually fit a current modern car. So they're requesting to make it three feet larger to give them more room and also raise the ceiling, as you said, in the garage so that they can put a proper garage door in. Right now, the garage doors are out-swing, manually operated doors as opposed to an automatic roll-top door. Let's see. So that extension of three feet, as you said, would extend the non-conformance by about 15 square feet. And as you know, you have the authority to under the special permit, authorize a non-conforming building to be extended as long as you find that this alteration is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing condition. Let's see, what else can I tell you? There is an existing fence which you saw and that fence is shared by the neighbors and provides the buffering between the two properties visually and they will continue to do that. As you also saw, there is some bushes that will need to be removed to make the three-foot extension. And the last thing I will say about this before I share the drawings is that this was reviewed by the Amherst Commission for demolition and that was approved. And then it was also reviewed by the Lincoln Sunset Historic District. And they also approved the addition as meeting the requirements for meeting the historic requirements of the neighborhood. So at this point, I'm gonna share my screen and hopefully you can see the drawings. Yes, no, I can, thank you. Okay, this is the cover page. As you can see, we're showing the one-car garage. I know one of the questions that was asked is if the pitch of the roof will remain the same and the answer is yes. It will, the pitch will remain exactly the same. It doesn't move forward or backwards. It just extends three feet to the right, I guess, if you're looking at this drawing or towards you. Okay, so here's the, this is our site plan. We also gave you a survey which shows the same information. We use that survey to develop this plan. Currently, this is the existing driveway that comes in here. This is the existing garage that's going to be removed. You can see the rear setback line cuts through the back of the building. So all of that hatch pattern at the back is over the setback line. And if we add the three feet, that red box is continuing that non-conformance. This is showing the existing first floor plan. So you can drive into the garage here. You can enter into the house here. This is the main entry door into the first floor. This hatch pattern is showing where the extension is going to be. This is showing the second floor area right now. There are two closets. This is the master bedroom. I'm assuming you can see my cursor. Is that true? Yes, we can. Thank you. Okay. This is the master bedroom. These are the closets for the master bedroom, which are at the same level as the second floor. The existing unfinished storage space above is about nine inches lower than the second floor. And they would like in this project to bring that level up. So it's all at the same level. This is showing the existing elevations. This is the front elevation. This is the garage that's going away. Currently there's a transom, which is in the second floor level. And this is what the side looks like with the double hung window. And then the back has a small awning window. I know there was a question about the height of the ceiling in the garage. The current height of the ceiling in the garage is about seven foot, one and a half inches. Just a few inches above the actual garage door opening, which is not quite seven feet. And then this is the site plan showing the extension. You'll notice in the roof plan that there are now dormers on top of the garage, which you'll see in further drawings. And again, that 15 feet that are extending into the setback. This is the first floor plan, showing the new garage with that extended three feet. We are adding a pedestrian door. And we are also adding a window over here as opposed to at the back. As you recall, that fence is very close here and they wanted to get a little more light in here. And if they were working in the garage, they would be able to look out at the side yard rather than the fence. And then I know there was a question about what does the second floor, new second floor looks like. So again, this is the master bedroom. We're rebuilding the closets pretty much exactly as they were. And then we're calling this the bonus room. It's a pretty small room. These little bays are only about six foot, almost seven feet wide. So it's about maybe about 10 feet total wide here. And from end to end, it's about 19 feet. It'd be nice space for either a small office or just an extension of their master bedroom. There was a question about a second means out of the second floor, but this is a single family home. There isn't any requirement for a second means of egress from the second floor in a single family home. I don't know if that's exactly what the question was about. But the way that you get down, you go down the stairs. This is the common stairway. There's a couple of other bedrooms and a bathroom up there. These are the proposed elevation. So the front elevation, showing a door that looks very similar to the door that they have. However, it's a door that rolls up as opposed to opening out as two leaves. And then you can see we've added those dormers to provide additional headroom in that bonus space. And then the side elevation, that pedestrian door, and we're adding two windows, two casement windows that are very similar to other casement windows that are on the house. And then the rear, there will be that dormer again. And all of the siding will be shake siding like the rest of the house. Currently, the existing garage for some reason on this side has clapboard siding, but they want all of the siding to look the same. We are adding two light fixtures, lamp turn style light fixtures on either side of the garage door. I know there's a question about that. And I'll show you what they would like. And we also have some alternates if the board would prefer different lights. And then this is just a section. I know there was a question about the head height in the new garage. It'll be seven foot 10 inches. So gaining that nine inch step, basically, from bringing that floor level up, but it's enough space for us to be able to put in an overhead door. And then this is the second floor space. It is a pretty small little space on only seven feet up to the rafter. It's a good place for desks on either side. This is an elevation of the door detail, information on the windows. And then this is the rendered 3D plan showing lamp turn light fixtures and the addition. This is the proposed light fixture. It matches some light fixtures that are on the existing property. It shines light down, however the bulb is in the middle of the fixture. And then these are some photos of the existing elevations. These are some photos of what it looks like inside the garage. And there was a question about the floor of the garage. Like the rest of the garage, this area is in pretty rough shape.  This is what it looks like in that storage space. As you can see, it's unfinished, just raw framing and not insulated. So that is, that's the presentation. And I guess I open it up for questions. All right, so let me start off with a couple of questions. Right now, in the garage as it is, the trash and recycling containers are stored in there. They're just behind the door that exists there now. Will they remain in the garage? I understand that that is the intent. They'd stay in the garage and then they'd be pulled out. I believe we noted in the application, I think it's weekly pick up happens. So they pulled them out for weekly pick up and then pull them back in. And the garage is deep enough to allow for that. But you're adding width to it. So is it going to be wide enough to have the car which it currently can't have as well as the containers? I think I'll just feed back up to the first floor level. Right here, we're showing the car in quite deep but I believe that there will be space back here and that they should be able to pull recycling bins in the garbage bin out through the garage door or out through the pedestrian door and around. Right, right. Okay, my question was just because that's where they're stored now and if you're widening it to put a car in there will there be enough room for those bins? If there's not, then we need to address what kind of structure on the outside could be made to shield them from the neighbors. So that's something we need to know the size of those containers. And if there in fact will be room for them in the garage with their car, what kind of car do they have? Ho-ho, I absolutely, I actually do not know. It's a sedan style. Sorry, I haven't paid attention to that. I think the issue is more about being able to drive into the garage and open the doors and get out on either side, especially in inclement weather. Sure, I understand. But so my question then is, is there room for the containers to remain in the garage? Yes, I think they can, yes, there is room for them to remain in the garage and I believe that they could store them along this back wall and pull them out and it's ready for pickup. Okay, well, there's more room. For me, I think that we'll make that a condition of the permit that they remain in the garage because there is room for them. Okay. Okay. In the, I have a question. In the plan, in your plans that you submitted, G1, which is the front one, showing the picture of the existing house and garage. Yeah, there. It has, in front of the garage, it has the two windows and the lamp up under the eaves of the house roof. Then on A71 showing, it says the existing garage, it does not have the windows and the lamp placement is different. A71, hold on, I'm getting there, okay. A71, so you can see that light fixture right here, right there. See, there's no, but there's no windows there. And this says, this thing garage. So, which is the correct? Sorry, so the windows, yeah, these are older photos. The windows were put in. So that's not the existing, that's not the existing building as it stands now. You are correct. I did not realize we had older photos in here. They just added the windows. They added this window. I believe it was this spring. Okay, well, I just wanted to note that so that we're clear what is the existing structure of the building at this point. And then an A51, we're almost there. Sorry. There we go. An A51, it shows the new garage with the window, which is there, and there's no lamp. So is that fixture to be removed? Well, so I believe what happened is the light fixture used to be where the new window is currently, and they... Well, no, there's a... In the present day picture of the building and garage as it is, there is a fixture that's up near the eaves of the roof line. This shows no fixture. So will it be removed? I believe our intent is to provide the light source here rather than up there. So I would say yes, I need to confirm that with the client. I believe that they left that light fixture there because it's the only light in that area so they could have light around the garage doors. So now your plans show that that light fixture will be removed? Yes. Okay, so that also will be a condition. Now the lighting of these two lamps, what you submitted is not dark sky compliant, and Ms. Pollock sent you some examples of dark sky compliant lighting and the difference. I thought you said you had pictures of variations to what you originally submitted for the lamp. Correct. Is that, could we see those please? Yeah, so as I said, the fixtures that we submitted, the client would like to use them, but we understand because there are fixtures along their fence posts that are down very low that look the same as that. The closest fixture that we could find, let me see if I can make this any bigger for you. So I'm sure it's tiny. It was bigger. So this is a dark sky compliant fixture. It's LEDs that are up in that location. And then alternatively, there's this fixture which is a little more contemporary. And again, LEDs are up inside the head of the fixture. They are, there are different opinions of which one they like, but I guess I would ask the board that if they feel that the fixture that was submitted or their first choice is not acceptable, that either of these options would be acceptable. All right, yes, as long as they're dark sky compliant, that's the most important thing. That's what's changed over the last several years is that we're trying to make sure that all new installations and retrofits are in fact, dark sky compliant. So either one of these, as far as I'm concerned, we can discuss it with the other board members would be acceptable as long as whichever style they like, as long as it starts sky compliant, yeah. Okay. Okay. And the reason I ask about the fixture that's there right now and whether it's to be removed or not is because if it's not to be removed, it would need to be dark sky compliant as well. Okay, well, that's another reason to remove it. Yeah. They won't need it once these other light fixtures are in stock. I just wanted to ask and make sure that that's what we were talking about. So, oh, and then in terms of the lighting, in the back of the house, you have two flood lights. Those, in terms of dark sky compliant, those don't need to be removed, but they can be shielded so that the light shines directly down on the fence in the backyard area rather than over the fence into the neighbors. Okay. So I think that they can be adjusted. Yeah, yeah, it's the shields you can get and you just matter of fitting them onto what's already there. Okay. So that it's downcast and shielded. So we would make that part of the condition as well. Then I have one other question on your drawing or submissions, A31, which is the proposed garage. Yeah, A31, this does not show dormers. This is the dormer. It is the dormer? Yep. This is cut right through the dormer and then you can see the line of the steeper roof here. You can see it sticking out here, but these are the dormer windows in section. Okay. Can you go back to the, I guess it's A51, which is the plan for the new garage. So that section is, Okay, so what? Can you see the drawing? The section is drawn is right through here. Yeah, so what I wasn't seeing in the other one was that the width of the dormer is much less than the width of the roof line. It looked in the other one as though the dormer was the predominant roof line. Do you understand what I'm saying? The dormer, you're correct. It is offset and part of the reason is I'll go back to the floor plan is these closets that exist through the master bedroom closets. Okay. So it's offset. But there's a lot of asymmetry in the building. And as I said, the both historic commissions felt that it was in keeping with the style of the house. Yeah. Okay, that's good. It's just, I didn't quite understand the one drawing. That's all. Okay, that's the questions I have for the moment. Are there any other board members who have questions? Okay, no one. Joan, no. Peter, no. Okay. So now we go to public comment. Maureen, do we have anyone from the public? Again, if anyone from the public has a comment, please use the raise your hand button to indicate so. I'm not seeing anyone raise their hand. All right. Okay, then I've moved that we close the hearing and go to the public meeting. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Let's do the roll call. Any discussion? I'm sorry. Okay. Roll call. I vote yes. Mr. Barrett? Yes. Let's see. I forget who also, Ms. Amira? Yes. And Ms. Parks? Yes. Is that five? Is that all five of us? No. Most. I can only see those, who else is here? Dylan, can you indicate? Yeah. And I vote aye. Okay. So now we go to the public meeting where public comment is not really sought and we will discuss any questions that the board has regarding this proposition, this application. We can have discussions now, then we can talk about conditions and go to 10.38. So is there any discussion from any of the board members? No one? Okay. So let us look at the possible conditions. Number one is the project shall be built according to the approved plans and maintained as needed. Any deviation from the approved plan shall come back before the zoning board of appeals at a public meeting. The approved plans include the management plan, description of proposed work, survey site plan 117 Amity Street prepared by Randall Iser dated June 30th, 2020 and the plan set prepared by Coon Riddle Architects dated June 11th, 2020. Two, the garage shall be maintained in good condition. Three, all exterior lighting shall be designed and installed so as to be shielded or downcast and to avoid light trespass onto adjacent properties, excuse me. Lighting fixtures shall be selected according to the dark sky compliance recommendations of ZBA rules and regulations. And that within that, that the floodlights in the rear of the building will be shielded and that the lights on, the fixtures on the garage will be dark sky compliant with the understanding that the fixture on the east side of the house now will be removed. And then for the trash and recycling containers will be kept in the garage during the week before they're emptied.  Ms. Tierney, we talked about, there was some mention at the site visit about the driveway and changes to the driveway. Have those... So they haven't made a decision about whether they would change the driveway or not. You know, currently it's a gravel driveway. They've talked about potentially putting in a stone stripe driveway. And actually, I do have an image that they sent me that they're considering. And they understand that they can't increase the impervious surface, but it's a very grainy picture, but I'll share it real quickly. Thank you. Can you see that? Not yet. There we go. So just having, they'd like to have more grass than gravel. And so just proposing to have lines along of stone, where the tires would run. So I guess what I would say is they're either going to maintain the gravel driveway that they have. It would not get any larger, or they're going to provide a driveway like this that is less impervious than what they currently have. Okay. So I think we need to address that. Maureen, would we put in a condition that were they to make a change in the driveway that either, well, I guess they would have to come back to us before a public meeting to determine whether it was, the change was de minimis or not. Is that correct? You could do it that way. You know, if they are decreasing the lock coverage, you could make a condition that they show their proposed changes to inspection services. And if they feel that, if the building commissioner feels that is de minimis, then he could go ahead and improve that. But if he feels that it is substantial, then they could return back to the board at a public meeting. Yeah, okay, good. So can we make that a condition? Condition five, about the driveway? Yeah. I think there should also be one that the garage, the style of the garage build and the color shall remain as per the house color and style. Are you saying they can't paint it a different color? Or are you just saying that the garage has to be the same color as the house? Well, my understanding is that's the intention. I'm just- That is the intention. I'm just saying, are you saying they have to keep it the same color as it is currently? Okay, then what, I'm not quite sure what you're saying. Is it a different color than the house? No, no, no, what I'm saying is are you saying, so the current color of the house is sort of a gray color as is the garage and the intent is that the house and the garage will always be the same color, but I don't want to lock them into it always having to be a gray color. No, no, if they wanna change the color completely, that's fine. It just should match the color of the house itself. Okay, I just wanted that clarification. Yeah, fine, fine. Okay, so that's number six. And I think that's all for me. Anyone else? Comments? Okay. I actually do have a comment. Yes, Ms. Park. I do have a little bit of concern about the color of the garage because I do know that for some people they like the garage to be a different color for whatever reason. And so is there a way to state that so that, I mean, I guess it's really about maintaining the garage, but I don't have an objection if they wanted to paint it white or black or a matching color, but not necessarily the color of the body of the house. Well, I think that the application as it is, is centered around the garage being the same color as the house. And I think we just wanna make sure that when they build it and paint it, it is the same color as the house. If they wanna change the color of the house and everything, that that's fine. They can do that when you're on. And I guess if I could just clarify, I think what my comment was about was just saying that the siding material would be the same as the house. I don't think I ever said anything about the color. Maybe I did, but what my intention was to say that they would continue the shingle style siding as opposed to the clappered siding that's currently on the garage. So as the material would be consistent, but I don't think that they'll be opposed if you, I hope, I don't know. We never talked about the actual colors of the garage. Let's look at it. Mr. Barak. I wonder whether it's a good idea to, when someone is asking to expand the size of the garage by three feet to get into setting conditions about the color of the house. That's not the issue that they're raising. Maureen, I would defer to you on this or to Rob Mora, but it's not my impression that the ZBA has authority over the color of people paint the house. And I just think we should leave the issue alone. Well, except it's not an issue about the color of the house. It's an issue about the color of the garage, the painting of the garage, because in their existing photos, it is the same color as the house. What we're saying is that it as built, as newly built, that it should as well maintain the color of the house. I defer to people who have more experience than I do about the ZBA's usual practice, but it seems to me we should keep to whatever that usual practice is. Mr. Sheriff, I may? Yes, of course. I think my understanding, which again, I'm not entirely sure about what the rules are when it comes to how people paint their houses and their garages, but if we didn't put that condition on there, I imagine they would paint the house the same, or the garage the same color as the house. And if they didn't want to do that, is there anything stopping them from currently painting the garage a different color tomorrow if they wanted to, if they weren't doing this renovation? And if it is the case that they could decide to paint that garage red and leave the rest of the house, whatever color they want it to be, why would we want to put a condition on there that would prevent them from doing that? I gotta agree with, I think, Member Parks and Member Barrick here. I don't think we should put that condition on there about painting the house any conditions about how they want to paint that garage. All the other conditions I'm in favor of, but I don't particularly support the one of putting any conditions about painting. Okay, well, this application is being presented as, and it was approved already, I think by the other organizations as an extension of the house, the architecture, and the, which includes the color of the house. So if we don't put this condition on and they want to paint it purple, then that's fine if they want to do that and paint the whole house purple. But what we're dealing with is not the general thing of, we can't tell anybody what to paint their garage. Of course we can't, but we're dealing with this application, which is they're asking for a waiver to build on a non-conforming lot and to build it in the style of the house. That's the way it's being presented. So the style of the house is if the garage, style of the garage is to match the style of the house, it should match it color-wise. Yes, Maureen. I may, perhaps I could suggest to the board if Alon is agreeable that if there could be a condition, say, you know, if the property owners want to color the garage a different color, perhaps Alon could come back at a public meeting and offer maybe like a palette, a couple of choices and suggest that to the board and have that approved at a public meeting, which wouldn't require like a legal ad or a butter notices. It'd be a very quick review in approval, I would suspect. I don't know if that would satisfy certain people's concerns. Yes, Ms. Park. I just don't see a need for the condition.  And I just don't, I mean, I see that the renderings show at the same color, but I don't think, for me it is not necessary to put that as condition, that the color of the garage match the house. Mr. Mora, I think it wants to talk. Yeah, I'll just add that it is, to respond to Mr. Barrick's question, it is somewhat unusual to be regulating colors on single family homes. It isn't something the board would typically do. It's not unusual for the board to get into colors for larger projects, commercial projects. But I think maybe I'd suggest the important thing here is that in this case, they're going to paint, use paint that the condition be that the surface be painted and maintained. And I think that's really what we're most concerned about is that it's kept in good repair. All right. So we'll make that condition what Mr. Mora suggested. All right. Thank you. Okay, so the first thing that we need to look at is the byline review, bylaw, excuse me, of 9.22, which is the special permit granting authority authorized to act under provisions of section 3.3 of this bylaw may under special permit allow a non-conforming use of a building structure or land to be changed to a specified use, not substantially different in character or in its effect on the neighborhood or the property and the vicinity. So we know that they're adding, they're seeking to add a three-foot addition to the side and not to the front or back, which is to add 15 square feet to the property, to the garage, to the non-conforming area, which will still allow the same setback of five feet or actually more as the angle of the garage goes out three more feet. So I guess we need to make a motion to accept this waiver of 9.22. Does anyone want to make a motion to that? So moved. Okay. Is this second? Seconded. Okay. So let's go through it. I keep lying still. I say aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Behr. Aye. Mr., no, wait a minute. Did I say 10? Oh, Ms. O'Mara, sorry. Aye. And Mr. Maxfield. Aye. All right. Okay. So then the next thing is we go to 10.38. 10.38, zero and eight one, suitably located the neighborhood in which it's proposed. The proposal is, we find that the proposal is suitably located in the neighborhood and it's compatible with the existing single family home located at this property in the surrounding residential neighborhood. An existing attached garage is currently located at this property. The applicant is proposing a selective demolition and new construction of the existing attached garage to allow for a vehicle. The new garage proposes to maintain the depth of existing garage while extending the width by three feet, which will provide necessary vehicular access. 10.382, 383, 85 and 87. Proposal would not constitute a nuisance due to air and water pollution, flood, noise, odor, dust and the et cetera. The garage design will maintain the existing rear yard setback of five feet or more as depicted in the attached drawings, which shows the extension of the non-conforming area with a solid red fill-in pattern. Also depicted on the site plan is a rear yard fence. This fence was co-purchased and is co-owned by the residents and the abutting neighbors. The fence layout encroaches on both properties and acts as a visual and physical delineation between the two parcels. 10.384, adequate and appropriate facilities would be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use. Not applicable, 10.386. Proposal ensures that it is in conformance with the parking and sign regulations. The parking is located off private driveway and provides space for three vehicles. 10.387, the proposal provides convenient and safe vehicular and pedestrian movement. It appears there is convenient, safe and vehicular and pedestrian movement without the site. 10.388, the proposal ensures adequate space for off-street loading. This is not applicable. 10.389, the proposal provides adequate methods of disposal and our storage for sewage, refuges and recyclables. Trash and recycling are maintained, managed by Amherst trucking with a scheduled pickup once a week. Blue bin storage containers are primarily stored in the garage and the season snow removal is performed by Taylor Davis as needed basis and that we've made a condition that the blue bin storage containers shall be continually stored in the garage. 10.390, the proposal ensures protection from flood hazards as stated. This is not applicable. 10.391, projects to the extent feasible, historic and scenic features. This finding is not applicable. The proposed demolition and construction has been reviewed and approved by the Amherst Historical Commission as well as the Lincoln Sunset Historic District. The proposed design of the new garage addition will respond architecturally to identifying character features of the existing residents as shown in the attached drawings. 10.392, the proposal provides adequate landscaping. The landscaping maintenance is performed by Summit Landscaping, which includes mowing once every two weeks and an annual fall cleanup. 10.393, the proposal provides protection of adjacent properties by minimizing the intrusion of lighting, intruding parking lot exterior lighting through use of cutoff luminaries, light shields, lowered height of flight poles, et cetera. The existing residents has several exterior light fixtures which are used periodically with no set schedule. The new design proposes installation of two additional 60 watt lantern fixtures, which we have said now must be made dark sky compliant. As well, the removal of the fixtures on the east side of the building, which is currently there, and the shielding of the floodlights in the rear of the building on the north side. 10.394, the proposal avoids the extent feasible impact of steep slope, not applicable. 3.95, the proposal does not create disharmony, not applicable. 10.396, the proposal provides screening for storage areas, loading docks, dumpsters, et cetera. We've already said that the trash and recycling receptacles, which are located in the garage will be, they will stay in the garage, screened from the public right of way and adjacent properties. 10.397, the proposal provides adequate recreational facilities, not adequate open spaces found on the property. 10.398, the proposal is in harmony with the general purposes and 10 of this bylaw and the goals of the master plan. The selective demolition and new construction of existing attached garage to allow for a vehicle located at 117 Amity Street is in harmony with the general purpose and 10 of this bylaws and the goals of the master plan. All right, so do we then have, is there any discussion? Do we have a proposal, does someone wanna make a proposal that we approve this plan? So moved. All right, there's a second. Second. All right, so we'll go with the roll call. Any discussion, sorry. Okay. Yes, Mr. Maxfield. Member Barrick's proposal, that includes the conditions that we wanted to put on. Am I correct about that? Yes. All right. Thank you. So I vote aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Ms. O'Meara. Aye. Mr. Oh, not Mr. Judge, sorry. Ms. Parks. I say aye. Yes. Yep. Okay. And Mr. Maxfield. Aye. All right, so that's five out of five. It passes. Oh, sorry. Yes. Ms. O'Meara. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't get it. Joan, I'm sorry. I thought I did. I think you got Joan. I think you didn't get me. I say aye. Okay. All right. So it passes five out of five. Thank you very much. And good luck. She's muted. Just saying thank you. And I'll see you in a minute. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Langsdale. The third item on the agenda is ZBA FY 2020 RC retail Amherst LLC requesting a special permit for the use of a marijuana, a recreational marijuana retailer under section 3.363.2 and 10.38 of the Amherst zoning bylaw located at 328 College Street, map 14, parcel 222 and map 15A parcel 97, commercial COM zoning district. This matter has continued since July 9th, 2020. Are there any new disclosures? If not, at the July 9th hearing, the board asked the applicant to respond to several questions. They did and I'll list the submissions received by the board, including those responses. Will the applicant submitted on July 20th for this meeting on July 23rd? A letter from the applicant dated July 16th which lists the six questions as well as the parking matter that we asked about. It modified several of the previously submitted drawings. So we have a cover sheet, property plan, site preparation and layout plan, site grading and wall detail, A1 floor plan, site photos, occupancy and queuing, a cover sheet, security systems, photometric lighting plan, light fixtures, there's a parking utilization summary memo and red cardinal bike rack submittal. In addition, the planning staff produced a project application report dated July 23rd, 2020. According to the applicant's letter dated July 17th, the applicant provided the enclosed documents and listed in response to the zoning boards, towns and zoning board and town staff questions. What I'd like to do tonight is to run through those six responses that the applicant gave to our questions first, then talk about parking, then work through other questions that the board may have. So if we constructed in such a way that we walk through each of those six responses, if you have questions about the response, let's deal with it while we have the response before us as opposed to putting them all in one group and try to work through them rather quickly. So the first one, so that's, and so who's gonna speak for the applicant tonight? Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Good evening. Tom Rede, attorney with Bacon Wilson here in Amherst. Great. Are you comfortable with working through it in that manner, going through the six questions and dealing with parking and then with other questions? Sure, however you wanna do it, we're fine with doing it. Great, let's do it that way. So the first one is the hand washing. Go ahead and speak to that. Sure, and Maureen, I don't know if you wanna pull it up on the screen. So on the floor plan, we have revised the floor plan so that in the interior of the marijuana space, we are proposing in the preparation area a hand washing station. So there's a provision of the cannabis control regulations that requires a hand washing station in preparation areas. And so originally we didn't believe that we would need to provide it. We thought it was for marijuana cultivation and processing facilities specifically, but I think out of an abundance of caution and through the discussions with the board, we thought it was better to actually provide and propose, perfect timing Maureen, a hand washing station. So that has been called out. Let's see if Maureen will know. Perfect, just a little bit. Well, there you are right there. So you can see that it exists outside of the buffer and within the marijuana space. I note that. Thank you, Mr. Reedy. Are there any questions regarding the placement of the hand washing station? Hearing none, let's go to number two, dealing with the awning. Perfect, so you've got shown on the screen. At the top of the screen, you have the existing conditions where you'll see there are no awnings existing at the building. And then the larger, at the bottom of the screen, the larger elevation rendering, showing an awning along that easterly side. So it's on the right side as you're looking at the building. And we had it on an original version and then removed it on a subsequent version because of some issues that we had not worked through completely with the fire department, but now those have been worked through. And so I think aesthetically, it really adds to the site and to the building itself. So we've re-incorporated that awning. Are there questions regarding the awning? If not, let's go to number three, the outdoor queuing and queuing management. Yeah, and what you've got in front of you here is really what we had represented last time, but I think this is a very good visual showing exactly how many folks you can fit in inside the retail space. And so as we've discussed last time, we were, what I'll say, self-limiting the occupancy to 15 customers and seven staff, seven employees for a total of 22 folks inside the marijuana space. And so you'll see on the interior how those folks break down. And then on the exterior, we had talked about queuing in front of the space and then through discussions with the town officials and town staff. I think it was resolved that that should occur along that easterly side as it's being proposed here. And so we've got six patrons that would be queuing along that easterly side of the building. And then you'll see that the queuing narrative that has been provided talks about six being the maximum for the exterior queue, additional customers beyond that would be given an electronic signaling device similar to if you walk into a 99 or a TGI Fridays and you've got one of those buzzers that says your table's ready, it would be a little bit different here, but folks would be able to go and sit in their vehicle. And I think the store manager and the security would manage those folks queuing outside. And then if you just scroll down a little bit Maureen, we also put together, we'll call it a social distancing queuing plan showing what it would look like if we needed to stay six feet apart or if the patrons needed to stay six feet apart. And so we just wanted to show you what that looked like. I think it's 10 folks inside and five outside in just obviously we'll pivot if and when regulations require or governmental restrictions require the spacing, but we just wanted to show you what it would look like in both circumstances. Ms. Parks, you have yourself muted. I know, I was trying to unmute it. It's on the side screen. So if you could just go back to the previous picture, you were saying that there will be seven employees. And I'm just wondering if you have five people at the registers and a manager and a security person who's outside, is that an additional person or is that security, it seems like security, you need one person security inside and maybe one outside. So would the manager be one of those people, maybe? Yeah, I think one of two things would happen. And I guess one of these questions may be for Mr. Mora, but if we were to have an eighth employee and they just stayed outside, I don't know that that would affect the interior occupancy, but probably more practically, you would just instead of five point of sale systems going, you might have four point of sale systems going and then one of those employees outside along with the manager. So I think we've got enough flexibility in the staffing to ensure that somebody would be outside managing the patrons and whether it's a designated security person or a manager or an employee, I think that's how we would work it. Okay. Any other questions about the queuing? I have one. You intend to use a buzzer system, I'll call it a TGIS, Fridays at 90s buzzer system. And it makes sense to me that people wait in their cars, you buzz them in, buzz them to make them come up and get in the line and then enter your store. You are having people into, you're having five of the six people substantially in the buffer zone. And I'm wondering if there's any magic to the six, since you have the buzzer system, somebody could just come up from their car, get in line behind number two and move through quickly, they wouldn't have to stand that long. Your buzzers, I'm assuming you'd have more than six or seven buzzers. So I'm wondering why you chose six and it's how inconvenient it would be if that number was half that three. So you just barely were, you weren't spending a lot of time into the zone, into the buffer and people were moving through, it's a 10 minute transaction, typically. And so people are gonna be moving through pretty quickly. So I'm wondering if you could be just as efficient if you had three people in the line and you don't go quite as far into the buffer area with your customers. Sure, so I'll have Jeff answer that in a moment. If he's okay with having the three patrons in the queue, what I would say is the genesis of it was from how many folks we could fit in the front of the building. So in that little delivery area, we had fit six in a queue. And so I think just through those discussions with the town staff, we kept that same number and just looped it around the side of the building, understanding that it probably just makes for a better, more efficient operation. And so we thought having six in the front translated to having six on the side. And it was really just as simple as that. Thank you. Who's, does somebody else want to speak to that? Jeff, I don't know if you want to, if it's okay to go down to three, if you see a big detriment to going down to three or if there's some other reason to stay at six. Again, I'm mirror, excuse me, what Tom said, six will fit in the delivery area in front of the store. So we put six on the side. What we did not want to do was go past the door to the common entrance. So there would be no blockage there for whatever use that area gets. I don't see a problem with going to three because what we believe is that as the store operates for a few weeks, there won't be any outside queuing to begin with. So if you'd like three, we're happy to do three. Dear Gull, there's the answer. Thank you. Thanks, Jeff. Thank you. Any other comments on that? Yeah, I have one. Yes, Mr. Langfield. It seems that your concern is that if you have six, you go into that area, but if frankly, given what shows here is that if you have one, you go into the area. So I don't understand why limiting it to three, six seems to me to be quite reasonable. My thought was just that people will move. I'm trying to minimize the amount of time that there are people in the queue who are into the buffer. And I think that if you have people waiting in their cars, the buzzer system, you're not going to, you don't need as many people lining up outside. You don't have as many people into the buffer. They'd come pretty quickly to one, two, and three and move through. I'm trying to balance between a desire not to have a lot of activity, obvious activity from patients inside the buffer, but yet not trying to make it difficult for those patrons to get more for the store, to have those patrons go in early. So I'm trying to try and to thread the needle between being inconvenient and trying to respect the buffer as much as possible. I mean, putting the people on the east side of the building impacts the buffer, period. So I don't understand, I still don't understand why three is better than six. If they have that much traffic, that's good. If there's a buzzer system, maybe not all these people are sitting in their car. Maybe they've bicycled there. What do they do? Sit on a bicycle at the rack? I think six is quite adequate and I don't know, I just think it's fine. Well, we'll discuss, we can discuss that specifically during the discussion on the conditions, but I understand your point and let's go back and let the applicant run through the points and we can discuss it in detail later. Let's go to any other comments on number three. Number four, I think you went, I've gone through the, your fourth point, Mr. Reedy. Yeah, and I think probably the fifth point as well. Yeah, I think so. The bike rack is a new item. Yeah, and that was also through discussion with the town. So it would be cited in the southeasterly corner. And I think it's a five loop in Ms. Pollock should have and right on cue, she's gonna pull up that specification showing what that bike rack will look like. And so it's that five loop there at the end. We're happy to do whatever color that the board wants galvanized, green or black. Comments, questions? Okay. Then I think the next item that you, in your submittal, in your letter was parking. Do you want to run through the, I think the best way to do this is, you just review for us number one, what the town would require for parking spaces. What you are able to get in lot one, how much you can get from lot two and the amount of parking spaces you want to have reduced from the requirements that the town would have. So in fact, how much excess do you think, how much excess exists in the town's requirements for parking spaces for this. So, if you understand what I mean, trying to describe it in that way. Does that make sense? You have to give me a moment to go get all that together. Well, I mean, I can help you with it. I know the town requires 80 would require 82 for the existing parking, existing shopping center. I think that's correct. I knew it was above 80. So that sounds about right. And then I think the, I want to take a look for what lot two had required. 36. Yeah, it was 36 and that was with the waiver, I believe. And so what we have for actual parking spaces on lot one are 56 parking spaces. And what we have on lot two are 41 parking spaces. So we need 118 and we have 97 total between the two. So a delta of 21, more than that, maybe not. No, that's right. What happens when you second guess yourself? And so we're looking for, so while on lot two, there's sufficient parking on lot one, there's insufficient parking, but because these are both owned by the same individual, lot one and lot two have jointly been used, if you would. And so while there's a 21 parking space difference, when we look at the parking demands based on actual data that we've collected, there is sufficient parking. And I think you have in your packet an update to an update. So what we had McMahon do was really just simplify the parking into a chart. To say the total parking spaces on lot one or 56, perfect Maureen, thank you. The total parking spaces in lot two are 41. And then we broke it down to how many spaces are available, and so this is pre-RC retail. How many spaces are available in lot one during the weekday peak? There are 30, how many spaces are available in lot two during that weekday peak, 25. Let's take away the spaces that are being used by RC retail. How many spaces do we have left? And in lot one, we would have 18 spaces and in lot two, we would have 25 spaces. So there's obviously enough spaces in lot one and lot two to handle the demand for all of the uses, including RC retail during the weekday peak. And then we looked at Saturday peak and that's the only pinch point, if you will. So we looked at lot one and said, how many spaces are available on Saturday at the peak time, which I think is like 1130 to 1230, and there are no spaces available. We looked at lot two and there are 21 spaces available. So then we said, how many spaces is RC retail going to need between customers, employees, and it's 16. And then we said, how many spaces are available on lot one? There's zero, so we're negative 16, but how many spaces are available on lot two? And there are 21. So assuming that the 16 from lot one use, use lot twos use or parking spaces, there are still five parking spaces that are available between lot one and lot two during that peak hour, which is really just like I said, 1130 to 1230 on a Saturday. So that's really the only time we're anticipating this level of shared use. You can see from the data that otherwise, there should be sufficient parking on each of the sites respectively to handle all of the uses for that site. It's really just that Saturday that we're looking at. Thank you. Comments, questions from the board? I have a question. Yes, Ms. Amira. Thank you, everybody. Given the propensity of all these buildings being permitted right now, I don't think there's a high volume with COVID, et cetera, et cetera. I also want to consider the timeframe for the opening. I don't know if Fort River is going to be opening the school grounds. And you originally spoke about opening, I think at 830 a.m. or 8 a.m. I don't think we've granted that before. Can we postpone the opening of the morning timeframe? So if I could, Mr. Chair, I know you have permitted 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. before and I know it's for RISE up at North Amherst. I'm not sure what the other dispensaries have asked for, but I know that and I checked the permit after maybe our first meeting because this discussion came up and RISE is permitted 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. So I guess that's the first point. The second point of pushing it back, I guess I would ask Ms. Amira what you were thinking. 9 o'clock, is that what you would be suggesting? It, RISE is not in a school district right now, as far as... That's correct, it's not in a school district. So Fort River is within a school district whether potentially who knows when the students are going back. So if we can postpone the opening to a different hour, so there's no school buses going by, et cetera, et cetera. Sure, so my question is what time? Because if school starts at 8.30, is that what you said? School buses, yeah. So potentially 9.30 to open. If I may, if we're pushing or closing. Just a second, Mr. Maxfield, let's see if we can get a response from Mr. Reed. Do you want to think about that a bit, Mr. Reed? Yeah, if I could, I'm actually just going to look up when Fort River begins. Mr. Maxfield. I was just going to say if we're looking for a time that we're thinking about, I would say 9 a.m. is a possibility. I know that's when a spirit house next door opens and I imagine anyone who's looking to do morning shopping at that point, they're stopping over at the marijuana shop. Maybe they want to stop over at spirit house as well. You show up to spirit house, you buy alcohol for the weekend and you can't go over to RC retail because they're not till 9.30. I think that would be a little bit awkward. So if we were looking for a time after 8 a.m., if any of the board members have an issue with 8 a.m., I would propose 9 a.m. as the latest opening time in my opinion. Ms. Clark, she had your hand up. Yeah, I prefer a later opening as well. I do see that spirit house is open at 9. I prefer to see 10, but I just don't, it seems to me that that would not be a high volume time for that retail business, but it is a high volume time for that intersection with people coming and going to work with the school. So if 9 o'clock is, I'll just throw that out. Later is better too many. So 9 o'clock is. How about 9 a.m. weekdays only? I think by that point, the morning rush of school buses, I mean, so I don't know if everybody knows where my office is, but it's right literally next to Fort River School at the interstate, like where Southeast Street turns into Northeast Street. So I'm very familiar with the traffic over there. And so I think I would suggest the 9 o'clock during the week would be a nice compromise. I think we want to be careful as a town to not put businesses behind the eight ball. Not that there's gonna be a line out the door at 9 a.m., but there may be some sales. I think one of the board members said someone may go to Spirit House and then wanna go next door. And if next door isn't open, there's not a sale that happens. And I think, and Jason, I don't know if you're on, but the traffic at that time, I don't think we anticipate being too heavy, but just I think maybe 9 o'clock as a weekday opening would be a nice compromise for this business. Mr. Adams, would you identify yourself and give your address? Yes, Jason Adams with McMahon Associates, 120 Water Street in Boston. Right, and I know we had talked about the weekday morning peak hour, I believe at the first hearing. We wouldn't expect it to be a high number, but as Mr. Reedy said, certainly there could be some business on the order of magnitude of probably five to 10 trips in that weekday morning peak hour, should it be open? All right. So you were saying that- Who's looking for recognition? That's okay. Yeah, sorry about that. So you were saying for weekday, which and what you're implying is that for the weekend then for Saturday and Sunday it would be eight o'clock? Correct. Yeah. Just want to clarify. Yes, please. So we understand this concept here. Weekdays is different than eight o'clock on weekends. Mr. Maxfield. Something I just think the board might want to consider as well here. I think some of the traffic that might be going to Fort River might be parents driving their kids to school and then say on their way back, perhaps they might want to stop at RC retail to pick something up while they're already out of the house. And in the case of something like that, you wouldn't be creating more traffic, but you would be preventing sales of RC retail. And then someone would then have to make an additional trip to leave the house. So I'm not sure if, I personally don't think there would be any reason to push that eight a.m. time period backwards because I severely doubt you'd be having people waking up specifically to leave their house at eight a.m. To go to RC retail. We're the only people you would have stopping there in the morning where people who were going to be on the road anyways. And this is now simply a stop they can make on the way to their destination. I don't believe that pushing the time back would have any impact one way or another on traffic. And that's my personal opinion. So if people really want to push that start time back to later to nine a.m., something like that, it's not a major sticking point to me, but I don't believe it would create any increase in traffic. I don't think anyone's leaving their house at eight a.m. for the sole purpose of going to a dispensary. So we have two items that we will discuss under conditions, further discussion under conditions starting time and the number of people in a queue. This is, we've had some good comments here, but I'd like to keep moving on with the presentation and we can discuss the more specific, the specifics of starting time and number of people in the queue when we get to conditions. Great. So I think you've gone through the parking, the starting time. Are there further questions? Is there anything else, Mr. Reedy, that you submitted that you'd want to speak to before we go to questions generally from the board? No, I don't think so. I think that's pretty comprehensive. Thank you. Okay. This is a good time to raise other questions from the board on issues that they, either questions or issues that they have with the applicant. Does anybody seek recognition? Hearing none, I had a couple of questions. Number one, I understand that the fire department has responded to you and that you no longer need to, and they have determined that the modifications will not require sprinkling of the entire shopping center. Is that correct? That is correct. And so I believe Mr. Roy's comments were, so what we had done was we had, Q and Riddle have their code reviewer, Mr. Cutler put together an analysis based upon the code. We submitted that to the building department and the fire department. And Mr. Roy, Mike Roy, fire prevention officer with the fire department said we have read his comments and have accepted the outside wall explanation. And then please see my 61120 comments that are attached pertaining to the ZBA's encroachment rule. And so those were the only comments that the fire department had. So will you submit Mr. Roy's, or submit Coon Riddle's consultants letter to you for the record? I don't know that we have that, do we? I'm happy that it's an interesting part of the record. But let's have that for the record. And I think we shouldn't second judge the fire department chief's judgment on the professional judgment on that. Another question that I know we had in the past is the roll-up door. We had some discussion on the roll-up door and the style of the roll-up door. You gave us several different, six or eight different versions of the roll-up door.  Consider everything from solid panels to glass panels, see-through panels to panels where air could flow freely through. Have you decided what you wish to use theirs? Jeff, I'll ask you, I don't know if you've decided. And if not, then we can just submit it to the building department or planning department once we choose if any of those are okay with the board. We have decided and we submitted photographs of basically chain link gates that air passes through. Maureen, do you happen to have the photos of those stock photos I sent? No solid, there's no solid roll-ups. There's no glass roll-ups. It's all basically one inch by two inch or two inch by three inch squares of aluminum that you can see through and air passes through that we discussed with the police chief and we submitted previously. So you have submitted, yeah, there's various panels there. The blue panels look to me like they're solid. We're not doing this, the panel on the left is that one. And then I sent a series of photos of that type of panel, that, that, and that, and that. So it's going to be one of those styles. And so I guess Mr. Judge, is your question, do we know which one of those styles? So the style is, so the one that you have in your plans is the one that's actually put up. Is that, and you're not ready to do that yet. And if you want to submit one to the building inspector, to the inspection services, excuse me, that is a airflow through type roll-up. That would be my preference, but I would like you to do that. And I'd like it to be, I would like it to be an air through the air. That is, that is opposed to a solid gate. Mr. Chairman, that is all. Mr. Robbier, go ahead. Mr. Chairman, that has always been the intent based on our initial discussions with the police chief. And so he can see in if something's going on. And so that air can go back and forth and we can relieve carbon monoxide from the vehicle and so on. We have not made a specific choice because we have to shop for this material. And this is one place we can buy it, but there may be more economic places we can buy it. So the specific manufacturer and product has not been determined, but we will do that as part of our submission to the building department. All right, that will be, we'll make that as a condition that the building department sees it before construction. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Very good. Steve? Yes, who's got a question? Ms. Parks. Yeah, I just want to make a quick comment that the doors you're showing, some of them seem to have plastic sheeting on one side or the other. And I guess that's what's confusing because if you're going to be in that small space with exhaust, then you want it to be open. And so as you're showing us these, every other door you're showing us seems to have like a solid plastic sheeting on it. So I'm assuming that that's, it's only the style of the door, but not that type of door. Yeah, we will. Mr. Robbier or Mr. Amidi. Yeah, we will make sure. Sorry, thank you, Mr. Chair. We will make sure that they are grilled doors with airflow. So it'll be one of those, maybe more towards that last one that was shown if you scroll all the way down here. Perfect. Yeah, like something, it'll be something like that. But we, that's so however you want to draft the condition, you know, to allow. Pre-circulation of air between the outside and the delivery area. That's fine. Unimpeded airflow. Perfect. And we'll submit like we've agreed to, we'll submit it to the building department prior to receipt of the building permit. Okay. All right. And the last, any other questions on the roll-up doors? And the last is, the last that I have is on control of the common space. So at the last meeting, I learned that you are not leasing the common space where the meeting place is, but that should things change, you might be able to use that common space should the zoning loss, zoning, the voting by-laws change, you have the ability to use that space for marijuana use purposes. Is that correct? What is your intention regarding that? Is that just having that in the lease? So, as you know, I do a substantial amount of work here in town and always hearing that there may be zoning changes coming down the pike. And if a zoning change was to materially alter where the buffer zone would be, so say it goes from 300 feet to 100 feet or 150 feet, this language would at that point, once it would be allowed, at least give RC retail the opportunity to utilize that common space. And why I say the opportunity is, first of all, there would have to be that zoning change and then second of all, they would have to come back before the zoning board of appeals for a modification of the special, assuming there's a special permit issued, a modification of that special permit to allow the expansion of the space. So, you know, looked at another way, it means that it cannot be used for marijuana purposes unless and until all of those things happen. So it was really just on my advice, some forward looking based upon what may or may not happen through town council with legislative changes to the zoning by-law. So if I just may understand, restate what you said in order to use or in order to conduct marijuana use in the common space, which you've done not currently lease, you would need and in the case of a change in the by-laws, you would come back to the, you see that you would come back to the zoning board of appeals for an amendment to the special permit, is that correct? Yes, absolutely. Yes, Ms. Parks. Is a change in that zoning buffer likely to be contemplated? I don't. Planning. You know, I haven't heard that, but has anybody else heard that there's been? Is anyone? I mean, from my perspective, I know there has been discussion just because you've had a, so I guess a couple of things. First, this zoning by-law came into the effect back in I think 2013 when Deval Patrick was governor and there were only going to be five medical marijuana establishments in each county. And so this by-law came from the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission model by-law to include 300 feet. What we've seen subsequently is Charlie Baker come into office and change it from five per county to let the market decide, if you will, but this by-law didn't change. And then we've seen other municipalities surrounding Amherst either without a buffer or a reduced buffer, because there's no state requirement that this 300 foot buffer exists. And so then you take that and you look at the number of applicants that you have had, you have eight retail marijuana licenses available in the town. You look at how many that you have had applied for and you've got RISE, you've got three on University Drive, which I don't know if it was intended or not, but that's where they ended up because of this buffer. And then you've got this one. So out of the eight, you have five. And I think Mr. Rosenberg can testify. You know, I think this is really helpful, but if we're gonna get done tonight, we gotta get going. I'll stop talking about it. So there is some market pressure to move it. They can't put one downtown. That's one of the concerns that I've heard, but I've not seen any proposal before the Planning Commission or anybody else yet to move it. That's the, I think that's the short answer, Ms. Parks. Does that answer your question? Okay. And Mr. Maxwell, were you raising your hand? Okay. Are there any other questions from the board for the applicant? Yes, Ms. Parks. I guess I'm just wondering about contingency plans. So if this business takes off and there's 50 customers per hour, what then, how do you manage that? I'm just concerned, you know, because we're talking about if there's very little business, five customers per hour. And I'm just wondering what will happen if there's 50 customers per hour? I mean, I don't, so 50 customers an hour at 10 minutes per is about five customers at a time, right? Cause everybody's gonna have a transaction of 10 minutes. So even if you have 50, you only have five people in there really at any one point. And so you're only taking up five parking spaces at any one point because folks would go in, transact and leave at that 10 minute cycle. So even if it's 50 per hour, which I think is aggressive, it's still not going to be an issue based on the transaction times that you see in these types of establishments. I guess I'm just wondering where the line of cars is. When you end up with a line of cars that you're turning away, or you have people that you don't want to be, you've got your three to six people in the queuing and there's people in their cars with their buzzers, where are the extra people? How are you managing the extra people? Sure, so again, I just want to contextualize it for reality. So in that situation, we would have at least 18 people looking to buy marijuana at one time, which again, I mean, then if you had those 18 people, you're doing more than 15 hour, which I just don't think the numbers are going to support. And I think as Ms. Omiro suggested, the shine has somewhat worn off. That being said, if it gets to that point, I think the first call is to the police department to say, we've got X amount of folks lining up, we need traffic control. And it's getting the police down there to manage it as we figure out what those next steps are. And if it gets to a point where it just keeps coming for whatever reason, then I think ultimately, if we get to a point where we can't manage the vehicles coming into the parking lot to use or to patronize this establishment, then I think we just have to switch to online order and appointment only. And I think that's always that safeguard is just to say, we are not allowing anybody just to come in and buy. If you want to buy, you have to order online, you're gonna give you a time slot to come and pick it up and that you manage it that way. And so I think that's like the release valve, if you will, to ensure that it doesn't get out of hand. There may be like a temporary blitz on it. And I think we will be able to handle that with the employees on site, the security staff on site, if it continues a little bit longer, we'll be able to work with the police department. And then if it looks like it's just gonna be all afternoon, I think then we just have to hit the red button and go to the appointment and online order only. All right. So you're not proposing a parking lot attendant to work through this, is that correct? I think as there would be one, if I think it, part of this, it depends on how sustained we expect that blitz to be. If we think it's going to be for an extended period of time, we talked to the police department, if we say, hey, we think a parking attendant is going to do it, we'll stick a parking attendant out there to direct people so that the parking lot is operating efficiently. So I think that that is on the table. And you would work with the police to determine that. Absolutely. Okay. Any other questions or comments from the board members? All right. I have no further questions, but this is a time for public comment. Maureen, would you put up the, to see if put up the attendees, to see if anybody wants to, anybody in the public wants to comment? Sure. So again, if anyone from the public has a comment, use the raise your hand feature. It looks like we have no public, nobody from the public seeking comments. So we were coming to the close of the public hearing portion of this applicants before we move to suspend the public meeting. Do any board members of the applicants have any further comments that they want to make? If I could, Mr. Chair, I would just ask that. Mr. Reddy. Sorry. This Zoom thing, I'm still getting used to it. I know, we've got it. It's hard, it's really tough, but we have to try to maintain that discipline and I have to do it myself. So I'm going to try to do that now more. Mr. Reddy, go ahead. As will I. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I was just going to request that I watch the previous two hearings and I know you close the public hearing and then move to public meeting. What I would request for this to allow some interaction if needed is just to keep the public hearing open through your discussion of conditions and findings and then vote. And then after the vote, close your public hearing and your public meeting. You must have read my mind or heard me, I was going to move to suspend the public meeting portion until later this evening. So I've been thinking of that already. I agree with you. Thank you very much. Any other comments, Maureen? I don't, out of all the people, I don't know where the button is to raise your hand, but I'll just raise my hand, my real hand. You're the host, you don't have one. Maybe that's it, maybe that's why. I do have, I did not share with everyone the memo from the fire department, but I have found it. So I can share my screen when you guys want to review those comments. Thank you. All right. If there are no further questions, I move we suspend the public hearing of this matter until called up by the chair later this evening. Do I have a second? Dagon is Parks. For Mr. Mattsville. Any discussion? Roll call vote. Chair Boat's aye. Mr. Langsdale. Aye. Ms. Omira. Aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Mattsfield. Aye. We'll now begin the public meeting on this application. This is where the board discusses the application, discusses conditions and makes findings. Before we discuss possible conditions and findings, do board members want to make any general statements regarding this application? This is maybe where, I know you had some comments, Mr. Mattsfield. General comments, it's a good place to do that. We wanted to talk about hours, Mr. Chair, just to give you a good time. We can start it now. Yes, it's a good time to do that. Excellent. So then I guess I'd like to say, they're giving it even a little bit more thought about wanting to put any restrictions on hours. Actually personally, I would be opposed to any restrictions on hours. I think trying to have them open up at 8 a.m., one we're not only doing not believe that it would create more traffic, as I don't think anyone would be leaving their home specifically at 7.55 just to go by marijuana. What I think you would have is, as I said before, traffic already on the road would want to stop there while they're already out, if they're driving their kids to school or if they're driving on their way to work, if somebody's trying to get to work by 9 a.m., they might be able to stop prior to work where this is somebody who's going to be driving on that road anyways, it wouldn't be an increase in traffic. The only thing I think pushing back the time, their opening time would do, would one cause a loss in sales to the store of people who might otherwise would have stopped, won't stop there or might just go elsewhere. And then two, you would also just be inconveniencing people who might like to stop at the retail store on their way to work or on their way from dropping their kids off, but now they would no longer be able to because we set the restriction, which we're doing to try to limit traffic, which I don't believe it would be increasing traffic in any way. So personally, I think we should leave the timeframe as when they're allowed to open at 8 a.m. during the weekdays. Any other comments? You know, I do have a reaction to that, Mr. Maxfield. I normally would not want to disadvantage one entity over his competitors, over their competitors. And the other places I think all started at. What is different is that this is near a school. And also what is different is that they have to close down the shop at times when they're gonna get deliveries. And I think deliveries are most likely in the morning when the thing will come down. And I am inclined to move towards a nine o'clock starting time on the weekdays. And just because of the school consideration and because also I think they'll be, that'll be the most likely time we'll be getting there. And they've already talked about getting their shipments early in the morning to not impose upon their times when their shop is open. So normally I think that's the right call not to impose different standards on the same type of business. But this is within just a few, this is just barely outside the 500 foot school buffer. And I'm inclined in this case to have a weekday start at nine rather than eight o'clock. But everybody has their own views on that. And we'll have a vote on that condition when it comes up for sure. Mr. Chairman, if I could, well, I appreciate everything Mr. Maxfield says. And I am of the same mind. I think just for expediency, I think we'd be willing to accept that nine o'clock during the weekday. So while we appreciate his position and agree with it, I think reading the tea leaves here, it's probably going to be better for everybody if we just say, let's pick nine o'clock for the weekday and then move on to the next thing. Any other, I believe Ms. O'Mara raised her hand. Oh, go ahead. Thank you. I also agree with postponing the opening hours. I don't think we've given the privilege to other operations to eight a.m. I think that would be an anomaly. And I think given this is a school district with traffic, I don't know if you've driven on route nine with traffic, this is a pretty busy spot. And given the zoom and maybe we're not gonna be going back to school, but I still think we need to regard the students at that spot to postpone it till nine a.m. or even later. Thank you. Other comments? Mr. Maxwell. Yeah, I'll just send on this and then we can certainly move on if nobody else has any other comments. I will be voting no on the condition of making this later than eight a.m. Just again, for that reason of I don't deny that there is traffic on that road at that time. My only argument is there would be no increase in traffic on that road at that time because it would be people who are already driving there. Anyways, who would be stopping over there to stop at the retail marijuana shop? It wouldn't be an increase in traffic on the road. I hope that the rest of the board would agree because I think about this not even from the perspective of R.C. retail and their sales. I think about this from the perspective as a resident. I know I always am frustrated when I wanna stop at a business on my way to something and I see they're not open till nine. It's like, great, now I can't go there. Now it puts me out and I try to think about that as people driving through there, we're approving this, anything we're doing really is in the spirit of making Amherst a better place for our residents. And I think if the residents of Amherst have said that they wanna retail marijuana shop here and we put it in there and then we inconvenience residents by not being able to shop during those times when we already know they're on the road because it is heavily traffic. I think it personally is doing a minor disservice and I hope that we won't put that stipulation on it. But then again, if I'm outvoted on this one then then I'm certainly outvoted but that is my opinion on the matter. I hope the rest of the board will consider leaving that 8 a.m. opening. Any other comments on any general matters before we go into specific conditions? All right, now we'll consider the conditions of the application after that we'll make some findings. So I wanna know that the first 14 conditions if you look at the project report, project application report, the first 14 conditions are principally incorporating such in 3.363 of the bylaws governing marijuana establishments. And so those are just incorporated by almost by reference in some cases literally from there. So I think those first 14 are not, we can't do without them and they're not controversial. Mr. Chair, if you were to read condition three, I guess you guys should just make your motion. Right, we have to do it right. That's where we have to do it. Thank you, Maureen. I was gonna make that as another condition but it's right here. So we move, so we will make that motion when we do the, well, let's do it right now. The hours, I would move to amend the hours of operation from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. Monday through Friday and from 8 a.m. to not to 8 p.m. Saturday and from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Sunday. So it would be weekdays from nine to eight, Saturdays from eight to eight and Sundays from 10 to eight. Do I have a second? Discussion, I feel we've discussed this enough. This would be a roll call vote. Chair votes aye. Mr. Langsdale. Aye. Mr. O'Meara. Aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Motion passes four to one. After that, we have conditions. After number 14, we have conditions dealing with the site exterior improvements.  I'm not gonna walk through verbatim each one of these conditions. So let's just go run through them generally. If you have any questions, stop me as we get to that and we can discuss it. Any significant increase in vehicular traffic resulting in sufficient parking as determined by the building commissioner shall be addressed by the applicant with changes in the parking area and or the management plan after review and approval by the zoning board of appeals at a public hearing. So if a problem does develop with parking we have a mechanism in place for that to be reviewed by the building department as well as the zoning board of appeals. It has to be operated in conformance with the management plan and any change to the management plan has to come back to the zoning board of appeals at a public meeting. Maximum occupancy shall not exceed 15 customers, seven staff, 22 occupants. Prior to the building permit, the applicant, this is a new one that came later this afternoon or recommended by staff. Prior to the issuance of the building permit the applicant shall submit an updated A1 floor plan prepared by Coon Riddle to inspection services to indicate the approved occupancy calculations which includes five employees to the point of sale, one employee for securities and one store manager. So this is an update and also has a 15 square foot per customer limit. Number 20. All exterior elect, yes. Just on, it's Mr. Reddy. Mr. Reddy. On that one, I just, while I can appreciate that we have represented how we expect it to operate, I wonder if the board would be willing to allow us to be more flexible with who comprise those seven employees just so we need not have five at the point of sale station, one manager and one security. Maybe we have two security, four at the point of sale. If you understand what I'm saying, that the aggregate... I understand what you're saying. Kevin, but just to allow business flexibility. Maureen, is there some thought behind the specifics of working it out that way? Is it... It was just, this was listed in their floor plan. So this is just verbatim of what it should say. And they did that because that was the floor plan layout. Yes. And they had people there and that's how they were using the, to set up the spaces around this person to show how many was maximum. So I guess it seems to me there's no magic to the five employees at point of sale. What's important is that you got seven employees in the building, I think. And I'm comfortable with making that change and not prescribing that you have to have salespeople, five salespeople and one security person. Thank you. So let's change that to the less specific. All exterior lighting should be designated and so it's to be shielded or downcast, dark compliance, any aspect of new store opening plan is to be activated for the next six months. You'll have to get noticed to the building commissioner. Pre-opening meetings, this is standard what we've been doing with other marijuana establishments. There's meetings, so you have to have a meeting with the shopping center with the building commissioner, the police chief, the superintendent of public works, et cetera. The applicant shall be responsible for any costs associated with temporary parking signs, any police officers, vehicular traffic control. A detailed police officer shall be assigned if determined by the Amherst. I think it's supposed to be police department, not policy department, Maureen. Retail shall arrange for inspection and common areas by the Amherst police department at least one week prior to business opening, correct any deficiencies before the business opens. Oil or gas spillage is just as brought up by one of the members, oil or gas spillage in the loading areas and walkway surfaces as shown in submitted plans. She'll be soaked up with absorbent material. Lighting will operate from 11, from dusk to 11 PM, seven days a week. Lights shall be activated by a photovoltaic cell. The ownership of 314-328 College Street map parcel, 414 B Lecklin or 330 College Street are separated. They currently are the same owner. An executed parking license easement for lot one and lot two shall be provided to the ZBA at a public meeting with proof of marginal references on the deed of 330 College Street and at the Hampshire County Registry of Deeds. So that's if the ownership shall change. We have required, we normally require for the benefit of the board members, we normally require a lease parking agreement. Since they've said the same owners with both lot one and two, it seemed ridiculous to require that. But if that ownership changes, then we would need to do what we almost always do and that's having a lease parking agreement. 29 is no longer needed. 30 is the issuance of a building permit. Shall update the floor plan to include an awning. I think that's already been done but we can leave it in the conditions. They will return, this is the one year return to a public hearing for review, including not but not limited to parking pedestrian queuing and the review of the management plan and the use of the common space. 32, the maximum amount of customers in the store at a given time. So we've entered the 15 customers total. That's consistent all the way through. I think we've said that already. I don't know that we need to restate that at that point. Do we Maureen? We've included number 19. Yeah, you're right. We don't need to. Okay, so we can delete that one. Let's delete that one. The maximum loss of pedestrians queuing outside the east of the building shall be limited to six pedestrians. I'm gonna move to move that to three and I'd like to see if anybody else is there. I know that's gonna be controversial. Let's just give the discussion on that. I move we amend that to three pedestrians. Is there a second to my motion? If there's no second, there's no motion. All right, so it remains. Number 34, no vehicle queuing shall be permitted in the property. Number 35, the store manager shall notify the Amherst police department immediately if any customer is on cooperative interior or exterior queuing line. Amherst inspection services department shall determine the additional parking needed, or if they do the applicant shall propose parking adjustments to the Amherst inspection services department for review and approval. Mr. Chairman. Yes, Maureen first, Maureen first. I realized that there's a similar condition.  It's very similar. Will you combine the two of those, eliminate 36 and just combine it into 16? Okay, so let me just, I was just looking at 16. And now I'm trying to, so which one is, hold on a second. So if we were to look at the one in red it seems that the one in red, I've deleted a few so I don't know what number that you guys are looking at but the one in red indicates that the applicant can work with staff for review and approval compared to number 16 which is any significant increase in vehicular traffic resulting in significant parking as determined by the building commissioner shall be addressed by the applicant with changes to the parking area and management plan after review and approval by the ZBA at a public hearing. So would the board be, do you find it reasonable that the applicant can just work with the staff with inspection services, i.e. Rob Mora and deal with any? Yeah, unless they, unless Mr. Mora makes a decision and the applicant isn't happy, they have to become appeal that decision and then it comes to us, right? Correct, yes. So I'm comfortable with it going to Mr. Mora and the inspection services department and if it's, I'm fine with that. So Mr. Chair, if I could just buttress that, I don't have a hand razor either here. So that was gonna be my first point and the second point is if we're going to use number 36, if we could do maybe two things, one of them is the way it reads is parking needed for the recreational marijuana retailer. We could say maybe caused by the recreational marijuana retailer. I just wanna make sure that it's not a function of some other use or a change of use somewhere else, all of a sudden impacting this use with no fault of this use. So I just wanna have some nexus between this uses causing the additional need for parking because essentially we're saying to you, here's our parking, here's what we think we need based on everything we've done. If that's wrong, let's talk about it. And I think that's fine because that's what we've been saying the whole time. What we're not saying is if something else changes elsewhere and it impacts us, you're gonna hold us to change something that we had no control over. So I was just looking to have it caused by the recreational marijuana retailer. And then secondarily, if we could, when we do that year review, if it would be possible to revisit this condition and potentially extinguish it if everything's checked out okay, because that'll have a year under our belt by that time. We'll, the first request I understand. Okay. And I would be, I guess I can understand that. Okay. The second one, we can deal with that in a year. Perfect, happy to, that's good. But the first one, I think makes sense. Can you work with that? Does that work for you, Rob? That change? Yes. In fact, that's what we intended the condition to say. It's really based on the information that was provided to us on the anticipated demand. All right. So we can make that verbal change, minor change in the verbiage, but we'll deal with it one year and one year. We won't presume one way or the other at this point. 37, all essential activities that may occur. So I would like to just say all activities of the marijuana use essential, I don't know if it's essential qualifies marijuana use. So all the marijuana use shall occur outside the 300 foot buffer and the 500 foot buffer is defined. There's no reason to modify it further. That's the marijuana use is the term that's not defined, not essential one. So I would move to delete the essential activities of the, so just, it would read all marijuana use. Do I have a second to that? Thank you, Mr. Maxwell. Any discussion? It's a require a roll call vote. I vote aye. Mr. Lansdale. Aye. Ms. Parks. Ms. Parks, you vote no. Do you want to have, are you prepared? Can we discuss this for a second? Sure, I'm sorry, did I not give it? I may not have given an option to discuss it. I'm sorry. Go ahead. I moved to vacate. We'll vacate the vote right now and we'll go to discussion. Ms. Parks. So I am concerned, it does not feel like all of the marijuana use is occurring outside of the 300 buffer unless that queuing is considered not the purchasing, transporting, selling of marijuana. So, You know, but if I can't, I think that the problem is there isn't a definition of use and I think use will come, there will be a definition of use down the road. It's going to happen through a case law or through other ways, through the regulations. I, and I think that's what should govern that will in fact govern what the marijuana use is and what can occur in and outside of the buffer. So it's not clear and that was a debate about whether queuing up was the, was marijuana use or was it only in the store? Was the point of sale? Was it washing your hands? All those kinds of things. We came to this conclusion that that as a board, we're not worried about the queuing up outside but we were concerned about the washing your hands and doing that, which is required by the cannabis commission within the buffer period or buffer area. So my move here was just to say, let's just say the marijuana use occurs outside the 300 buffer. And if at some point the cannabis commission says queuing up the line is the marijuana use, then we can't do that there. If they say washing hands is not then they can move the sink back into the, they can come to us and have them move the sink back into the common area. So that's what this is here for. I think use is gonna be determined in the future. It's not a clear definition of the present time. That's what I was looking at, Ms. Parks. That's what I was trying to get at. Okay, I just, when you took out the essential activities I was wondering if that was a way to, I'm fine with taking it, I'm fine with it. Any other comments or discussion? All right, now we'll do the vote. Thank you. No, no, thank you. I probably didn't provide you the opportunity to discuss it, I'm sorry. So Mr. Langsdale, or Steve Judge votes no. The votes aye. Mr. Langsdale, it's getting late. Keith, how are you voting? Aye. All right, Ms. O'Meara. Aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. All right. Any changes, number 38, any changes to the footprint? Should we require to request a modification of the special permit with the zoning board of appeals at a public hearing? The rollup door, we wanted to have that. You're gonna provide that drawing to the building commissioner prior to any prior to any occupancy or any construction, I think. And I think that's everything that I had in conditions. Were there any other conditions that people wanted to add or that I forgotten, Ms. Pollock? This might be a good time for me to share the fire department's comments. I'm not sure if you guys need to make conditions of them, but hold on a second, let me zoom in here.  I will. Fire department review has been conducted and the retailers dispense for your fire department access will be from College Street. The proposed existing building is not protected from a fire sprinkler system. The space in question currently does not have an automatic fire alarm system in place. The product will be delivered in the front of the building through a service and delivery door. The vehicle will be in an eight foot encroachment zone between parking destruction under the structure's front overhang. The overhang should be constructed using FR treated lumber as both as fire resistant treated lumber with incandescent paint to reduce the spread of the potential fire. Carbon monoxide detection has indicated in the fire alarm plans were included in this of middle should be stalled and oriented to provide protection. My earphones have just run out of battery. You sound sort of distant. I can't, how do members feel?  All right, carbon monoxide detection. As an indicator, fire alarm plans will be included with the submittal and should be installed and oriented to provide protection from carbon monoxide during the delivery process. Design of that system shall be reviewed by a separate party. So I know it should be posted. So it seems to me that these are all things that the fire department of themselves can do without us having to include them.  I know that we need to do this as a condition. Do you know? I'll leave that up to Rob. Is it helpful, Rob, or is it duplicative to do this as a condition? There's no need to make conditions. Okay, let's not add other conditions that we don't need to. All right, good. So last call for other conditions or discussion on conditions. Great. So I move that we adopt the conditions as amended in the plot project application report. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? Roll call, vote. Chair votes aye. Mr. Langsdale? Aye. Ms. Amira? Ms. Amira? Aye. Ms. Parks? Aye. Mr. Maxfield? Aye. Findings. Beginning on page 18, of the project application report, there are several findings in addition to the findings from section 10.38 that we have to make. Most of these findings relate to matters that are subject to conditions we place in this application. And so I move that we concur with the findings beginning on page 18 and continuing through page 20. And if I can get a second, then we can discuss it if we need to. Is there a second to that? Second. Mr. Maxfield? All right. So if you go to your project application report, you look on page 18, there are, beginning there's findings, many of these findings are already incorporated. I don't think we have to run through each of them. And we just have to make sure that we, that we haven't made a change in the, Maureen, that we haven't made a change in the conditions that isn't reflected on this. And so I move, so that we'll authorize you to make technical conforming changes in that regard. But I don't think there's anything controversial in what we were doing here. It reflects everything that we talked about earlier. Any further discussion on these sets of findings? Okay. I'll call for a vote. Chair Boat's aye. Mr. Langsdale? Aye. Ms. O'Mearl? Aye. Ms. Parks? Aye. Mr. Maxfield? Aye. All right. Then there's 10.38 findings that we need to make. And I am going to run through the 10.38 findings as quickly as I can, but I am required to at least work through each one. And so we'll try to do this as fast as we can. And if you have questions on any of these findings, please speak up. I'll be reading. So Maureen, let me know that if somebody raises their hand to speak up. 10.380 and 10.381 really deals with the suitability and whether it's of the project. This project is located in a commercial and a zoning district in South Amherst, away from any other permitted recreational marijuana retailer on Route 9. Approximately to a well-traveled intersection and amongst myriad commercial uses is allowed in the district. I would amend the next underlined words with the conditions approved by the board, the applicant, the application complies with the Amherst zoning bylaws relative to its distance from identified prohibited uses. So the chain, remove, delete, the place of transaction and just begin that sentences with the conditions approved, it complies. However, some of the proposed activities associated with the proposed marijuana are located within 300 feet residential uses as defined by the zoning bylaws. And I do not think we need to, the red language needs to be taken out. However, some of the post. The second, 10.382, 10.383, 10.385 and 10.387 deal with constituting a nuisance. Substantial inconvenience are hazarded to butters. Protecting adjoining premises against detrimental or offensive uses and providing convenient and safe vehicular traffic and pedestrian traffic. The proposal has considered and implemented an overall site design and an operational plan such that its operational would not constitute a nuisance. Updates to the building exterior serve to improve exterior aesthetics and functionality. The photometric plan identifies lighting adequately to appropriately eliminate the use in site without light spillage. The packaging and interiors. On a marijuana-infused products and waste associated therewith along with prohibitions against onsite consumption provide appropriate safeguards against odor and pollution. No unruful noise or vibration is anticipated. Traffic impact statement has been reviewed. Hours of operation will change those to comp to reflect the earlier condition that was approved. Marine, the site surrounding areas will receive extra attention thereby limiting perceived or actual hazards to butters. 10.384 provides adequate and appropriate facilities for the preparation of use. The proposal provides both internal site design and infrastructure, Leonard access areas only by authorized registered agents. There's a dumpster for non-marijuana related waste and there will hand washing facilities not located within the lease premises. 10.386, the proposal ensures that it is in conformance with the parking and sign regulations with article seven and eight respectively of the bylaw. Off street parking spaces are available in lot one and two which is shared with all uses located in shopping center and the mixed use building. The applicant has requested a waiver for parking within eight feet of the building which allows for secure delivery of entrances as well as for the continuation of use of the existing parking along the eastern portion of the existing building. The applicant has requested a waiver for meeting requirements for shared leasing found under section 7.2 of the zoning bylaws they believe. And this is evidenced by the submitted parking utilization summary dated July 17th. There was excessive parking spaces and therefore they believe that it meets the parking demands located in lot one and lock two. 10.387, the proposal provides convenient safety for Hitler pedestrian movement within the site. This is already contemplated in the finding previously. So no changes, curb cuts are contemplated or proposed in the traffic impact statement. No has not concluded any significant impact on overall traffic operations. 10.388, the proposal ensures adequate space for off street loading and loading up vehicles, goods and products. Deliveries of marijuana within a as well as pick up of views and discarded return material and fuse products, educational and other ancillary wasting material will occur in a secure delivery enclosure pursuant to cannabis condition control 500.105, 13A12, a marijuana establishment or marijuana transporter transporting marijuana products shall be ensured that all transportation times and routes are randomized. 10.389, proposal provides adequate methods of disposal and or storage waste and other use of other presented from other uses. Separate receptacles and locations will exist for marijuana related and related non-marijuana related waste. Marijuana related waste will be stored within the interior of the building in an area only accessible to license agents. Agents such waste will be disposed of in accordance with the Canada's control commission requirements. The building shall be connected to the town water and sewer no gradient or drainage modifications are proposed. 10.390, proposal ensures protection from flood hazards that's not applicable. 10.391, protecting important natural historic scenic features that's not applicable. 10.392, adequate landscaping there's no landscaping that's not applicable. 10.393 provides for protection from the adjacent properties by minimizing intrusion of lights including parking lots and exterior lights. Site lighting has been decided to prevent unnecessary light trespass. Lighting shall be appropriately located to balance site security to ensure consumer safety and to allow clear and identifiable video capture of necessary objects, persons and information while preventing unnecessary light trespass onto street or budding property and to eliminate direct or reflected glare perceptible to persons on any street or budding the property. The photometric plan identifies the lighting its location and focused intensity. 10.394, impact on steep slopes, flood plains and scenic views, et cetera. There are wetlands located northern side of the property. The wetlands administrator has submitted a memo sitting in conservation commission review would not be required for the work. 10.395, it does not create, the project does not create disharmony with respect to the trains, the use scale and architecture existing buildings which have functioned or visually relationship there too. Minimal exterior building improvements are proposed. They are suitable for the location and they improve the aesthetics of the building. 10.396, provide screening for storage areas, loading docks, dumpsters, et cetera. Secure delivery from marijuana is provided and secure entry, enclosures and dumpsters are located at the property, at the rear of the property behind the building. 10.397, proposals provide adequate recreational facilities that's not applicable. 10.398, the proposal is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the bylaws and the goals of the master plan. It's bylaws enacted, the zoning bylaws enacted to pursue an under the authority of chapter 40a, excuse me. The zoning bylaw is enacted pursuant to and under the authority of chapter 48 of the general laws as amended the purpose of promoting the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the inhabitants of the town of Amherst and to encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout Amherst. The ZDA will determine whether the following matters keep in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this bylaw such as activities associated with marijuana establishment that are located within the 100 foot residential buffer. And I think we found that they are not, marijuana use is not within the 300 foot buffer at this time and that the parking spaces for all uses in one, the amount of parking spaces in the parking demand for all uses located in one and two including the marijuana establishment are sufficient. So in that regard, we find that the proposal is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the bylaws. Thank you. With that, those are the conditions and those are our findings in 10.38. Is there any discussion from board members first? Mr. Reedy, what would, you're muted. Look at that, it gave me a little warning. I'm sorry. I just wanted to make sure that the board does act on the waiver request. I know it was tucked into one of the conditions. So if you're gonna do that, I'll step back and let you do your time. I think the waiver request is included in one of the conditions, wasn't it? Yeah. It was tucked in. I just didn't know if sometimes you call out 7.9 and make a specific action. It's helpful. I was going to make sure that we got all the waivers one check at the end, but I thought that the one was already here and we'll see if there's other ones. Okay. So those are the findings. I move that we, I'll make a motion or we can have discussion. I move that we approve the findings and bomb in Blanc. Is there a second? Very good. Any discussion? Let's call the vote on the findings and all those in favor, vote aye. A roll call vote. I vote aye. Mr. Langsdale. Aye. Ms. O'Meara. Ms. O'Meara. Aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. All right. Lastly, I want to make sure that we approve