We're ready to go. All right. The appointed hour is 6.30. Having been reached, I welcome everybody 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 12, 2020 order, suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, general law is Chapter 30A, Section 18. And the governor's March 15, 2020 order, imposing strict limitations on the number of people that may gather in one place. This public hearing of 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 a link on the town's webpage. In accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A and Article 10, special permit granting authority of the Amherst Zoning Bylaw. This public meeting has been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted in mail to parties at interest. We'll begin with the roll call of the regular members of the ZBA who have been in panel for consideration of the items tonight and then of our associate members. I'm Steve Judge and I'm here. Mr. Langsdale. Here. Ms. O'Meara. Here. Ms. Parks. Here. Mr. Maxfield. Here. Ms. Waldman. Mr. Barrick. Mr. Greeny. Here. Mr. Meadows. Here. Also in attendance is Marine Pollock Planner and Dave Wasiewicz, Senior Building Inspector. Is there anybody else from the staff that I did not recognize, Maureen? I don't believe so, no. That's it, okay. 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 Amherst Zoning Bylaw is section 10.38. Specific findings from this section must be made for all of our decisions. All hearings and meetings are open to the public and are recorded by town staff. The procedure is as follows. The petitioner presents the application to the board during the hearing. After which the board will ask questions for clarification or additional information. After the board has completed its question, 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 raised hand function on their screen. The chair with the assistance of the staff will call upon people wishing to speak. When you are recognized, present your name and address to the board to the record. All questions and comments must be addressed to the board. The board will normally hold public hearings where information about the project and input of the public is gathered, followed by public meetings for each. 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 in time, it will decide upon the applications tonight. Each petition is heard by the board as distinct and evaluated on its own merit and the board is not ruled by precedent. Statutorily for a special permit, the board has 90 days from the close of the hearing to follow decision. For a variance, the board has 100 days from the date of the filing of the request for the variance to file the decision. No decision is final until the written decision is signed by the sitting board members and is filed in 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 in superior court. After the appeal period, the permit must be recorded at the registry of deeds to take effect. Amherst Media will not be broadcasting tonight's hearing live. However, check their website for information on when it will be rebroadcast, or you can view a recording of this meeting on the town's YouTube channel. Tonight we have the following agenda. Public meeting on ZBA 2021-08, Greg Stetsman for review and approval of the fence layout pursuant to condition two from the approved special permit ZBA FY 2021-04 at 1325 South East Street. Map 23D, parcel 12, outline residents RO zoning district. ZBA 2021-07, Greg Group Amherst, Massachusetts LP, Aspen Heights residential community for the review of the proposed design and location of the monument sign and proposed lease sign pursuant to conditions 37 and 80 of the approved special permit ZBA FY 2019-17. At 408 Northampton Road, map parcel 13D 51, professional and research park PRP zoning district. And ZBA FY 2021-09 Fort River Solar, two LLC for the review and approval of the new solar for photovoltaic installation, owner or operators management plan and operation and management plan pursuant to condition 14 from the approved special permit ZBA FY 2019-09. At 191 West Pomeroy Lane, map 19D parcel 10 flood prone conservancy, FPC, neighborhood residents, RN and outlying residents RO zoning districts. Public hearings on ZBA FY 2021-03, pioneer property services LLC, request a special permit to convert the existing detached garage to a residential unit, which will increase the number of residential units converted dwellings from one to two under sections 3.324, 9.22 and 10.38 of the zoning bylaw located at 275 East Pleasant Street, map 11B parcel 63, neighborhood residents RN zoning district. Continued from October 1st, 2020. ZBA FY 2020-42 Fay Crosby, request a special permit to allow a non-owner occupied duplex under sections 3.3211 and 10.38 of the zoning bylaw located at 65 High Street, map 14B parcel 90, general residents RG zoning district continued from September 3rd, 2020. And ZBA FY 2021-06, backyard ADUs request a special permit to allow a supplement detached dwelling, supplemental detached dwelling unit as an accessory to a one family detached dwelling under sections 5.0111 and 10.38 of the zoning bylaw located at 34 Baker Street, map 13D parcel 36, neighborhood residents RN zoning district. After that, we will have a general public comment period that we always have for the public to comment on matters that were not before the board tonight. So there are a couple of items on this agenda that I think we can dispose of quickly. And I'd like to do that by, and move some of them just to a later meeting as they've been requested.  For example, ZBA 2020-42, the Fay Crosby request at 65 High Street, she has requested that we move this, we continue this hearing until March. And it seems to me that she's not, for a host of reasons, she's not prepared to go forward at this point in time, but doesn't want to lose the opportunity to do that. So it seems to me that that would be one we could move quickly on and dispose of and move to March. Now we needed a date certain for that, don't we, Maureen? Yes, so let me, let me look that up. So it'd either be the second or fourth Tuesday, which would be the 11th or the 18th. So the second Thursday is the 11th. Correct. So let's move it to the, let's do the 11th. And the members that paneled the September 3rd public hearing for this application, what is Steve Judge, Keith Langsdale, Tammy Parks, Dylan Maxfield and Craig Meadows? Yes. So they would be, yeah. Yep, so we should have a roll call vote to do that, right? So I move we continue this until March 11th. Do I have a second? Second. Mr. Maxfield seconds it. Is there any discussion on the motion to move to continue the hearing? Yes. Yes, Mr. Langsdale. This is just procedural. By taking this on first, we're opening the public hearing. Do they then go back to open the public meeting? We have to close the public hearing and go back to the meeting or what? I don't, that is a public meeting item. I think we'd probably have to do that. We'd have to take, we would have to go and close this public hearing and then we'd have to open it up for the other matters, which seems to be just a form, that would close out the whole meeting, wouldn't it? I believe that you could open the public hearing now, close it and then re-open it. Can we suspend it? We can suspend it. Sure, or you could be conservative and start with the public meetings. With all due respect, I think it would be simple just to start with the public meeting and the next group. That's fine. But technically, I believe, Mr. Chair, we could suspend it. Or is, there is no wrong answer. Yeah, we could suspend it. So I'm, we'll put this in advance and move to the public meeting portion. The first item is FY 2021, Mr. Sussman's application at 1325 Southeast Street. This item has been, we have not completed the review of this item. The staff hasn't, or the members have not signed the decision yet. And the decision hasn't been filed. So it's not final until it's filed. And so I think for this item, it doesn't make sense that we try to hear about it. Take a position on an adjustment to a decision that hasn't been made yet. It hasn't been officially made. So I think we should move this one to our next meeting on December 10th. Have you talked to the applicant, Maureen? Yeah, well, I sent an email correspondence to the applicant, Greg Stutzman earlier today, apologizing that the decision hasn't been finalized in time of this meeting. So it would make sense for the board to just postpone the review of the fence elevation provided to when the decision will be signed and filed with the town clerk. So I would actually suggest to the ZBH chair to not continue this to a date certain. It's just a public meeting. And so when the decision is signed and filed with the town clerk. We can put it on the agenda. We can put it on the agenda. So we only need 48 hours of advance notice to add. Although we like to. Like to give as much as possible. Yeah, exactly. Okay. So I would move that we continue this until the first meeting after which the application has been signed and filed. Do I have a second? Thank you. To Maxfield. Do I have, is there any discussion? If not, call the roll. On this, it's Mr. Judge Langsdale, O'Meara Parks and Maxfield. So I vote aye. Mr. Langsdale? Aye. Ms. O'Meara? Aye. Ms. Parks? Aye. Mr. Maxfield? Aye. Great. Let's take care. Next item on the public meeting is the Breck Group Amherst LP, Aspen Heights residential community at 408 Northampton Road dealing with signs, a proposed a monument sign and as proposed lease sign. We have received from them an applicant submission, a memo from God Creative Group, a plan set for the monument sign dated November 4th, a plan set for the leasing center sign dated September 28th. Town staff submissions, a project application report dated November 6th, 2020, ZBA FY 2019-17 approved special permit decision, special permit decision from 2020-08, approved meeting summary, FY 2020-31, approved meeting summary this, and that's it in terms of submissions, I think. Is there anything else? Who is representing the applicant in this matter? Gary Robinson and Bob Cardwell, God Creative Group. Good. So repeat your names for the record again so that we can understand what the record is. Bob Cardwell. And where is God Creative Located? We're in Dallas, Texas. Okay. So please proceed with your narrative. All right, so we have a monument sign that was the first thing of, it was proposed originally and approved by the ZBA. There was some, I think measurement discrepancies in the original proposal and what we've sent back to get re-approved is the correct measurements. There was, in the beginning, I think the Brex Group just presented it as a rendering on their drawings that went through, sure of all the documents that they've provided, but it kind of came up at one point whenever we were discussing the location of the monument with the city. And they recommended that we go back through ZBA to make sure that it's approved. That's certainly the line-up plan, finding a sign. And please also discuss the re-sign. Okay, so on the lease sign, it's back at the leasing center, back towards the back of the property. That is a typical sign that we do for these apartment communities. We do a lot of work for Aspen Heights and their contractors. And the leasing sign is just, goes over the canopy that goes into the leasing center, just identifies the space. It's a non-illuminated sign. It doesn't face any major roads. Like I said, it's back to the back of the property. You can kind of see there's a little arrow there that draws down to it. You can see the main road. What is that? North Hampton out there to the right-hand sign. So whenever this originally went through the ZBA back in a couple of years back, with the Brexford, that sign was not included in what they proposed to the city. So we're trying to propose that now and see if we can get approval to move forward with permitting everything on that sign. Okay. Are you anything else to provide to us before we just open it up for questions from the board? No, I think we're good. The main monument's still in the same location that it originally was. We haven't moved it or anything. It's just there was some minor design changes over the time that just affected the measurements. It probably didn't change any of the square footage. It's just the drawing that was provided just that hadn't been updated to a more current design. So what I'm looking at on my screen is that the former in green is the former monument sign and it was in one place and you're proposing that it move to the former monument was green. You're proposing that it would be in blue. So it looks like the old plan was incorrect or whether it's incorrect or not, you'd like to have it in a different place than as it was approved in the plan as approved. Well, excuse me, the green former monument spot is on your mask box. Let's hear you a little bit better. If you could return to the monument papers that would be helpful. So can we go back a couple of pages? I need to stop. Thank you. Now that shows, I think I had said, I do believe that I had sent that dated a set of drawings that removed the green, blue and red indicators and simply isolated in the newer documents the green location as our current, as the current in the original location desired. So our second choice, we had removed second choice from that. So the blue one is no longer an option in our current designs, which I believe I hit uploaded or emailed and the first choice monument spot remains our first choice. Yeah, so to add on to what Bob's saying is that green location was the original spot for the monument, it's got a 20 foot set back. We, you know, there's a utility easement through there. So as a second option that was kind of talking with the client, if we couldn't go in that utility easement area, would that second location be okay? And the client, I think we had some prior meetings with the city and everything and we can be in that utility easement if we get approval from the utilities that are there, which we have. So the secondary location is not really shouldn't even be in this. That Bob said, we think we sent some additional paperwork that took that out and I just didn't get updated. If you can give me a minute, I can share what was emailed me earlier. Sorry for the confusion. Okay, so I'm opening up what was emailed to me on Tuesday of this week. So bear with me. Yes, that's the latest one. Thank you. Thank you, Maureen. So this is the original location that the monument was going to be at. Again, there was just, the placement wasn't ever in a question, you know, after we got approved to go on through the utility easements, that the question was that the design of the sign changed just a little bit and just within, what was originally submitted was an old design drawing for that sign, Aspen has kind of updated their design, has the same basic look, does some of the proportions changed a little bit in the structure? So you're asking us the question before the board then, I think Maureen is to approve the design of the monument sign. And then secondly, to approve the placement and the design of the leasing sign. So is that correct? That is correct. So if you refer, you could specifically refer to condition 37, which is computed in the project application report. Let's see here, I can pull that up myself. Okay, so I'll. There it is. So condition 37 states building design colors and architectural features shall match the approved elevation drawings and presentation slides dated April 18th, 2019 and prepared by Grant Architects in KSBA Architects LLC. And so, and then additionally, condition 80 states, the monument sign shall be constructed and installed meeting the design found on the approved site plan dated April 18th, 2019 and prepared by the Berkshire design group. The design shall be in compliance with article 8.2 of the zoning bylaw. The applicant shall return to the zoning board of appeals at a public meeting for review of the sign prior to the issuance of a building permit. All necessary building permits shall be required prior to the sign being installed. So after review of the zoning bylaw section 8.230.1, the monument sign as proposed, which is 60 square feet in area and six feet in height meets the zoning bylaw under section 8.230.1. And then the board needs to make the finding that this does match the design, the building design colors and architectural features. So I believe, hold on a second.  Yeah, and so your specific review is under, is regarding conditions 37 and 80. And it does appear that it meets the design and architectural feature of the overall project. And both signs as presented meet the dimensional requirements for signage under the zoning bylaw. And the monument sign was included in the, there was a monument sign included in the original decision releasing signage new. So I think people have any questions, comments about the monument sign? Any board member? Yes, Mr. Langeville. How is the sign to be illuminated? It's LED illuminated all the channel letters that are on there are halo lit. So not the direct face of the letter does not like, it has a light that kind of goes around the perimeter of the letters. Oh, I'm sorry, Bob just corrected me. These are face lit channel letters. Sorry, I was thinking of another Aston project that you're working on currently. It's going to be utilizing LED is how I would. Yeah, so LED illuminated the lighting comes through the face of the letters. The background doesn't illuminate just the letters themselves, Aston lights. Any other additional questions? And the leasing center ID sign is not illuminated. Is that correct? That's correct. It's not illuminated. And it's 21 inches. This is how the sign is 21 inches high. Is that correct? The letters. Yeah, the letters. The letters, yes, including the very top of the leaf. The letters are actually 18 inches. We add a little skim on the leaker, it goes to 21. 21. And then we have a mounting raceway. The letters are attached here. So it takes it to 25. The exact part of the sign is 21. Any additional questions or comments from board members? All right. We have to make a fine, we have to approve the, we don't have to. I mean, the question before the board is whether we approve the two signs, monument sign and the lease sign. I move that we approve the monument sign as proposed in the document submitted to us today and the lease sign as proposed. Do I have a second? Second. Mr. Maxfield, is there any discussion? No discussion. The vote occurs on the motion. And in this, it is the regular members. So I vote aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Ms. O'Mara. Aye. Mr. Langsdale. Aye. Motion carries five, nothing to be honest. The signs are approved. Thank you. Thank you so much. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Appreciate it. No good idea. The next order of business is ZDA FY 2021, Fort River Solar 2, LLC, located at 191 Pomeroy Lane. What we've received on that has been, we've received an email from Mr. Reedy on November 6th detailing the plan, the operating and maintenance, as well as management plan. He would have it, it also describes some changes to the project, to the project. We've received a aerial mockup of the changes in equipment pad and existing, from the existing equipment pad and various assembly cut sheets from the applicant regarding the, I think it's a battery storage facility. And also a description of the difference in the chain from the solar panels. And we've received, and we have compiled special permits from the past in June, 19th, June of 2019, as well as we received today the management plan, the approved management plan and the approved operating and maintenance plan. The issue before us today, on this application, is that the building commissioner has looked at the changes to the site and deemed them as not substantial. And it's because it, I mean, there are things like, they're more efficient at solar collectors and there's a bigger battery storage area. But what is, I think significant is the change in ownership or operator of the solar farm. And so that's the issue before us today, if I understand it. So who's representing the applicant? Mr. Chairman, Tom Rede, Attorney with Bacon Wilson and Amherst. All right, please run us through what you're proposing. Sure, I'll take it away. First good evening, good to see everybody. I hope everybody's doing well. As I said for the record, Tom Rede, Attorney with Bacon Wilson and Amherst here on behalf of Fort River Solar II LLC. And so as you likely realized by now, 191 West Pomeroy Lane is the old Hickory Ridge golf course in town. It was approved, applied golf Hickory, brought it through the approval process and then effectively sold their assets to Fort River Solar II. So Fort River Solar II is going to be the project company. They're gonna be the company that is ultimately going to be building and operating this array. There was an agreement for that operating entity to be, they're called AMP Energy, AMP Development. They've got a portfolio in Massachusetts. I think they were actually proposing another array in Amherst. I personally have worked with them. I'm very impressed with them. They're incredibly responsive, very professional. They know their stuff. So as part of that transaction, we just have to clean up some things. You know, notably having the permit transferred, transferred from applied golf Hickory to Fort River Solar II LLC. There were a couple of things that the building commissioner deemed as not substantial. Everything staying within the fence line, the array is just changing a bit from a fixed tilt to a single access tracker system. We're adding battery storage, the DC, the nameplate capacity is increasing. The management plan was updated to effectively be the exact same thing that was approved, except it was updated to show Fort River Solar II as the owner. And then the operation and maintenance plan is substantively the same as it comes to electrical and technical maintenance and inspection schedule and the property maintenance and inspection schedule. So if you look at it, it was proposed by Direct Energy Solar. The first page of that approved operation and maintenance plan identifies who and the panels that's going to change. And we're happy to submit that one page of change to the building department prior to receipt of a building permit. But otherwise, like the inspection and the maintenance schedule, that's all going to be the same. So however the board wants to deal with it, you know, substantively, like I said, it's the same except for some of the panel information, the owner information, et cetera. Otherwise, I'm happy to answer any questions that you have about the project, the transfer or anything like that. So the one change in the operation and maintenance plan is direct solar is removed and Fort River is... There'll be Fort River Solar II, yeah. And then, you know, technically it goes to 6.212 megawatts. And then when you go to that first page, the photovoltaic system specification will change because they're just more efficient panels now. These are not to give it too much detail, but these are 345s. I think they're using like 440s. So that's the wattage that these modules can take, the panels can take. And they're just getting more efficient over time when this project was originally designed. Couple of years ago, this was the technology now, the technology has approved. So you'll see that this page changes, but then the balance of the pages for the actual inspection schedule, that won't change. And the last question I have, Mr. Rudy, is the... Was there a battery... Remind me, were there batteries on the site before? I don't believe so. And the batteries are new, right? The batteries are new. That's why the pads are there. Correct, there was an equipment pad before, I believe, for an inverter and now the pad is large enough for the battery storage in the inverter. Right, and the one question there is in the past when we've done this, the fire department has to be informed of the battery and you have to work with them and you can't build it without the fire department's approval, but at some point you have to reach out to them with either their approval or their comments. Yeah, that is correct. So the applicant would need, as part of the building permit process would need to go... You have it reviewed by the inspecting services and any other applicable departments such as the fire prevention officer, Mike Roy. Okay. Are there questions from the board regarding the application? All right, we're gonna need a vote on this. So on this item, we have the same panel. No, Mr. Meadows will be sitting in on this panel and Ms. O'Meara will not be sitting in. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, that's got the wrong one here. Thank you. Just a second. That was on that other application that was in the other agenda. The Fort River is, it's the regular members, right, Maureen? Yep. Yep. So the motion is to approve the change, listening to the change of ownership and of the project. Do I have a second? Second. Ms. O'Meara seconds. The roll call, is there a discussion on the motion? If not, we'll call the roll. I vote aye. Ms. O'Meara? Aye. Ms. Parks? Aye. Mr. Langsdale? Aye. Mr. Maxfield? Aye. Voters unanimous, the motion carries. All right. Thank you very much. Take care. See ya. The next order of business is to, is a public hearing. And what I'd like to do is to open the public hearing and dispose of ZBA 2020-42 at 65 Ply Street. As we said before, the applicant has written, we received an email from the applicant requesting that it be moved to a later date in March. We've also received, and I think that's, because she can't be here until then. And there's reasons stated in her email why she can't be here. So I have no problem with that. And we picked the date of March 11th to continue this until that time. And that gives her a chance to work with the city, the town folks to try to figure this out, as well as there's a potential maybe a sale or something else that she's working on. So I move that we continue this till March 11th. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. Is there a discussion? All right. If there's no discussion, this is the roll call vote. And on this, if I got it right, this was the one where Mr. Meadows is sitting in and Ms. O'Meara is not. So roll call vote is required. I vote aye. Mr. Langsdale. Aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. The vote's unanimous and the motion carries to move the item to March 11th, 2021. The next order of business is Pioneer Property Services, LLC. Right in the underwear. Requesting a special permit to convert an existing detached garage to a residential unit, which will increase the number of residential units from one to two under sections, 3.324, 9.22 and 10.38 of the zoning bylaw, located at 275 East Pleasant Street. This is continued from October 1st. And this is also Mr. Meadows is serving on this panel and Ms. O'Meara is not. So I'd like to go through what we have received regarding this application since our October 1st meeting. The applicant has submitted a request to continue the public hearing until a date's certain in January. The planning board report, we've received a planning board report to the town meeting, a warrant articles 57 and 58, dated May 1st, 1986, that deals specifically with, as we do in section 3.3241, public comments. We've received comments from Mr. submitted prior to the October 1st meeting. There were five comments, subsequent, which we mentioned at that time. Subsequent to that, we've received public comments from Susan Rosny, dated October 6th, comments from R.T. Rosnoy, dated October 14th, comments and photos from Taryn Leraja, dated October 21st, comments from R.T. Rosnoy, dated November 3rd, and comments from Steve Schreiber, dated November 3rd, 2020. I think that's every, is there, was there another one Maureen? Did we get another, the last minute? Yeah, two November 11th. Yep. Yep, November 11th from Susan Rosnoy. Correct. And email, and I think we received a, I've just got two from Susan Rosnoy. Is there another one? Bear with me for one second. There is one more. Susan Rosnoy submitted one on November 11th. And bear with me, sorry. And, oh, and Ray Leraja submitted public comment and photographs on November 12th today. Thank you. I didn't see that. Yep. So we have, on this item, there has been some public comments. Well, who's, first of all, who's representing the applicant? That would be me this evening, Bucky Sparkle. And you're with who, Mr. Sparkle? I'm with myself. I'm a civil engineer, but I am representing Pioneer Property Services tonight. I was just asking about your firm name. So, the Zenjaneer. Zenjaneer, okay. There's been a lot of public comment raised about the question as to if the ZBA can approve this application under section 3.3241. That's kind of a threshold question, I think, for the board. I would like to have public comment on that question rather than on the merits of the application tonight. If the board is unclear about its authority to act on this application, it seems to me it's unfair to ask the applicant to invest more time and money on this project until that is decided. So what I'd like to do is hear from Mr. Sparkle about what I think he's been recently retained on this project here from Mr. Sparkle and then have just public comment on the question of the ZBA's jurisdiction for lack of a better term under 3.3241 on this application. And then decide if we want to move forward with the continuation or if we want to get further clarification.   So to a degree, I'm getting up to speed. Similarly, I know we have attorney Michael Pill on who is also working in tandem with me to support this application. And he's really a little more qualified to talk about any dwelling conversion and bylaw issues. So I will invite Michael to speak up at any point where he feels that's necessary or I'm just going right off the rails. I have just a little bit, I'm trying to get up to speed on this. And instead of going through the details of what we're hoping to do because this has already been presented already, I wanna ask directly about the dwelling conversion. It doesn't sound like Attorney Joel Bard has provided any kind of statement or commentary on the applicability of section 3.324 and the ZBA's ability to even make an approval for a pre-existing non-conforming situation as we are here now. Did Joel say anything? I have not discussed that with Joel yet. So the question for us, we'll have a discussion amongst board members about that and then we'll make a decision as to whether to talk to the town council or to proceed ourselves. So if you don't have a, Mr. Sparkle, I think if you don't have a lot of substantive proposals around about the project, just because you've only just been hired for 24 hours, totally understandable, I'm not gonna force you to... I do have a few other things to say that are slightly outside of the dwelling conversion. Let's deal with the zoning issues separately. So you deal with the... The tech stuff. You deal with the... All right. Sorry. Maureen, yes. I'm sorry, I don't know where to put my hand. So I believe the ZBA chair has been asked, is asking the applicant for an update on the project overall. And so I could speak to that a little bit is, so the board opened the public hearing, I believe on October 1st, 2020, and there were concerns raised by the board. And after that meeting, I provided a summary to the Neil Mendon's in the applicant. And I have now forwarded that email to Bucky Sparkle, I believe earlier today, highlighting the different topics. And I believe that's one of the intentions of Bucky Sparkle to be hired. For instance, there are items of concern regarding drainage, providing a landscape plan, concerns regarding parking, concerns regarding the fence, light fixtures, concerns surrounding the resident manager and concerns raised about the number of bedrooms. And I have also provided Bucky Sparkle a YouTube recording of the meeting. So here's that as leisure to get up. I haven't seen that yet. I do have a few more things to say. I will say, Maureen, thank you for the filler information there, the background. It is my understanding that Mr. Mendelsohn is looking to do a two bedroom dwelling conversion instead of a three bedroom, looking to do four parking spaces behind the building in a manner that would allow vehicles to turn around safely behind the building so they could pull out safely onto strong, strong street. And I will be taking a look at stormwater management for that property. We seem to have adequate space to do something pretty reasonable back there. I believe Mr. Mendelsohn is also looking at formulating a process to have a resident manager there. That is still in the works. So I don't have anything quite certain on that at this point, but he's considering it. And I understand we need to do a little bit more landscaping around there. There's a possibility for a fence, although I will say I was able to make a stop at the site today. And I presume other board members have perhaps had an opportunity to look there as a standard site visit. I do find that the property, the side and rear yard are fairly well buttressed by evergreens at this point, relatively mature. They are not an impenetrable wall, but they do offer quite a bit of screening to begin with something that could be supplemented, I'm sure, to make a very significant screen if that were important to the neighbors. And I think Pioneer Property Services is quite amenable to that. I've looked at some of the lighting issues and we'll be going over those in a little more detail to make sure that we've got downcast slides. We're not gonna be bothering any of the neighbors with those while providing safe navigation around the property. So that's kind of where I'm at. We are still waiting for a survey for the topographic so I can do the stormwater work. That is the thing that I need on a technical side for that. But while we're waiting, I think that gives us a little opportunity to address some of these other concerns and comments. And I do look forward to reviewing the October for ZBA Zoom video. But as far as the dwelling conversion goes, I think if I said any more, I would just be sticking my foot in my mouth at this point. It seems to me, despite saying that here I go anyway, it seems to me that there is standard number eight does allow the ZBA to have a fair amount of leeway in what it is able to approve for non-conforming situations. Obviously this is being contested by neighbors and usually boards don't take specific action until they get some backup from legal counsel. So I feel like personally, I'm a little stuck until we hear from Joel. Mr. Sparkle, we understand you just retained yesterday. So we don't expect much more. You've given us a good overview of what you're looking at and that's helpful. I don't think we should, I think we should open to the next, after that, unless anybody has questions specifically about the project and not the legal issues, we can entertain those now. And then I'd like to open up a public comment on the question of the board's authority under 3.3241. 3.3241 and specifically clause eight. And so first of all, if there's any questions for Mr. Sparkle regarding the actual project, landscaping, the building, anything else that he said tonight? Okay. If not, then the issue has been raised from neighbors that the questioning the ability of the ZBA to grant this app to consider this application. And so I'd like to get just a brief summary, perhaps Mr. Washevich, you could help us by just giving us a brief summary of the issue, I think it comes down to the fact that 3.3241 has seven or eight conditions that have to be met, 12 conditions that have to be met. The first condition is that it has to meet all the conditions. And condition eight is the conditions that allows the special permit granting authority to modify the dimensional requirements of table three to one time only for any parcel, allow a conversion from section 3.3241 that would add one additional unit, only if it finds an oddification would be in accordance with the provisions of section 9.22. In those zoning districts where two family detached duplex dwellings are not permitted, conversion of an on conforming single family dwelling unit may result in two or more dwelling units under the applicable permit. So there's been some questions raised by the public about whether clause eight or section eight applies in this instance, and I'd like to hear some comment about that before we as a board decide if we wanna get town council approval or if we feel we have sufficient authority to move on this and continue the hearing at a later date. So if there's questions from the board first, Mr. Meadows. Personally, I'd like to hear from town council before we go forward. Well, so you'd encourage us to get an opinion from town council on this is what you're saying. Most definitely. You're not asking to stop the discussion at this point. No, no, no, no, no, yeah. I think the opinion is necessary. Mr. Walsh, Mr. Chavich. Yeah, just you want a little clarification on item eight. So talking to the building commissioner, Rob Moore, he has indicated that number eight has been referred to many times on projects like this where there are non-conformances for some reason or other. And basically it looks like that item eight allows the board to make a decision on a one-time only in cases where you're only adding a single dwelling to the property. And it is something, a practice that the ZBA has done in the past. So in this particular case, we're talking about a property that appears to be or it is too small for current zoning. It is a pre-existing non-conforming property. But item eight was created over time and there's been reference to a planning board meeting that explained how this came about. But basically it was created to allow projects like this that in any other setting would not be able to happen. And you're gonna find many properties in Amherst that will have some non-conformance when worried the other, whether the setback or lock coverage or something that wouldn't allow a project like this to go forward. But Amherst has always been supportive of adding more housing to its stock. So this is a case where item eight would allow you to do that and it has been used. Further, your comment, I reviewed the 1986 proposal to town meeting that talked about adding what became eventually this article eight and it talks specifically as David said about the goal of that provision and the goal of that warrant was to allow to recognize that there's lots of homes that were built before these owning laws that we currently operate under and that they should not be, because they're pre-existing, they should not be prohibited from making changes such as adding supplemental dwellings and other kinds of converted dwellings to the property. And that there's, as he said, there's all sorts of buildings and homes in this town that existed prior to the zoning bylaws and the requirements and that this has been used often, frequently by the ZBA to approve projects. So what I'd like to get from, I'd like to hear from either the public or the applicant if they have other opinions regarding this so we can discuss it with that informing our debate. I believe we can turn a pill. The pill. Michael Pills, Green Miles Lipton, like Bucky, I was retained yesterday. And so I haven't had time to do the thorough research and preparation of a memorandum on what I can say based on a fair amount of experience and being specialized in this area. First, I haven't seen any legal authority. I haven't studied as thoroughly as I will. The comments from the public, I think at least one of whom is an attorney and says he's a specialized land use or land litigation attorney, but law is referenced to authority. Lawyers reasoned by analogy from court cases, legislation and exactly what the chair just did, for example, which is to go back and look at what amounts to an expression of legislative intent. And also, while you're certainly not bound by precedent, what Mr. Whiskevich did to go back and look at the history of how something has been applied. And so maybe there's some citation to court cases or other legal authority from the neighbors, especially the one who's an attorney. If there isn't, that would be very disappointing and I think would indicate a lack of any merit to their argument. Then there's at least three things that I wanna explore. And if necessary, do a memorandum. One is it is very, very well-established. And I think in a prior case to this board, not too long ago I pointed out for another section of the bylaw that it is very well-established for a zoning bylaw to authorize a board by special permit to vary dimensional requirements that would otherwise require a variance. And that's exactly what section eight does. And as Mr. Whiskevich and the chair who pointed out, it's for the reasons just stated. There are also two rules of statutory construction that the neighbors' comments have ignored. One of them is that if there are eight provisions, you try to give effect to everything that the legislative body, in this case, the former town meeting has enacted because they're the ones who set the policy to be implemented by the board with the special permit discretion. The other is that you do not simply read out of existence what the legislative body has enacted. And it seems like that's what the neighbors are asking this board to do. And I'm at a loss to understand what their basis is with any legal authority or legal argument to say, pick up and apply, I think it's section two that has the dimension requirements, but on the other hand, simply ignore, I believe it's section eight that authorizes the board to vary that. So in a nutshell, that's where I'm coming from. If town council, as I hope he will, supports the validity of that legislation, I'm not sure there's any need for me to do a whole lot more. I certainly wanna try to economize on my time and the applicant's money. If town council agrees with the neighbors, then I would wanna see what he writes. He is a first rate land lawyer. He and I have dealt with each other going back to the 1980s and I would wanna see what he thinks. And I would either, if it's persuasive, when the other lawyer's right, you have to acknowledge it. If I disagree, then I would do the research and write a formal memorandum. And if he agrees that the bylaw is valid, I guess the question would be if the board is inclined to accept that as sufficient, then I'm not sure there's a whole lot more for me to do. But I thank you for giving me a chance to at least make these preliminary comments on that issue. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Pill. I'd like to move it to public comment. So I remind people to public to address the board with your comments. I think about four, four and a half minutes of time for everybody. That's what Mr. Pill consumed. And I'd wanna make sure that you have as much time as Attorney Pill has. So who's first, I guess, Mr. Schreiber? Hi there, can you hear me? Yes. Yeah, so I'm Steve Schreiber. I live in the neighborhood. I'm not in a butter and I'm the author of one of those letters. So I'm an architect. I was on the planning board for 10 years and I'm currently on the town council, but I wanna make it clear that I'm not speaking as a town councilor. Councilor with a C, not with a S. I'm speaking as a private citizen and a friend of the butters. So I'm the one that pointed out that there's a list of 12 conditions that must be met. So Maureen Pollock said that and her letter to me when I was questioning this and Mr. Judge just said that also. There are 12 conditions that must be met. Condition two cannot be met. So really the game's over at condition two. There's an error message there. That's when the review should end. I fully understand that in 1986, the intent was to have condition two married to condition eight. That is not how it reads. It reads as a list. You can't get beyond condition two. So the other thing is that land use laws are meant to protect the property rights of the property owner, the developer, but they're also meant to protect the property rights of the butters. And of course in the larger community as well. So one cannot be expected. One cannot expect neighbors to troll through a 1986 document to try to figure out what the original intent of a bylaw is. The bylaw is what it is. The bylaw says what it says. And it says that the minimum lot area must be met. So the other thing is that the zoning board of appeals is not the legislative branch. So I'm actually kind of concerned to hear that the zoning board of appeals has basically interpreted this in a certain way. Basically acting as a legislative body. It's a very poorly written bylaw. The bylaw should be corrected. The zoning board of appeals should not be interpreted in a way that it's not written. So if they feel that it cannot, if they feel it should be written in a different way, it should be sent back through the process and be written so that it matches what the 1986 intent was. There was a major rewrite of this in 2012. I assume that the zoning board of appeals has looked at that also. Do you want to eat? This is going to be going on for a while. Eat on everyone. Okay, good. Yeah. So anyway, I'm finished. So that's what I have to say. Thank you, Mr. Schreiber. I think the next is Mr. Rosnoy. Okay, I'm unmuted now. Can you hear me now? Yes. Thank you. And I'd like to reinforce what Steven Schreiber just said, but also point out that I'm Richard Rosnoy first of all from 11 Strong Street and a butter to this parcel. I'd like to reinforce what Steven Schreiber was just saying, but also point out that he and I have requested that this board and the Planning Department contact town council for this opinion. So I'm encouraged that you're considering it, but I actually wish that maybe it might have already happened. Nevertheless, I do strongly support that that's the way this body should go because as you've noted, there are 12 standards conditions and the bylaw says that all 12 standards conditions must be met. Now granted, number eight is thrown in there in the middle of it. But even after number eight was thrown in, which you, some people have commented on provide some sort of an exception to some requirements. Even after number eight was there, the bylaw still said all 12 requirements must be met. That is not a discretionary interpretation that this board can apply to this application. That's a requirement. I'd also like to point out that Mr. Pill actually reinforced the concept that the entire list of 12 should be read in their entirety. And he actually said that in his statement and I would actually support that. If you read it all in their entirety, then you get to standard number two, which must be met. There's no question in that, it must be met because all 12 must be met, all 12 must be met. The fact that the 2012 amendments adopted by town meeting reinforced this should I think be further proof to you that it's not a discretionary interpretation that you're gonna apply, but a mandatory directive. I'd also, well, I guess I'll stop there. I mean, it's kind of obvious to me that if you ask town council for an official opinion that this question will be resolved and we can proceed one way or the other. I agree with Mr. Pill that if town council agrees that this issue is not discretionary and that you must comply with it, that's one thing. And if the town council says, well, you know, they're citing various legal sources that say that it's acceptable to proceed, then we'll have an argument at a further time and some other venue, but that's the case. Okay, one other minor comment I have which is that it was mentioned by Mr. Pill that you have authorization to grant a permit. This is the zoning board of appeals and this is an application for a special permit. There is no requirement for you to authorize a special permit. A special permit is not granted as of right, as you know. A special permit, this board has every opportunity to review an application for special permit with great discretion and determine on the totality of the facts and the law as to whether to grant it. This is not a site plan review as a right application by the applicant. This is an application for a special permit. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Rosnoy. I think the last person that I was asking to speak is Teran Leraja. I don't have the full name, I'm sorry. Teran Leraja, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay, all right, so I would like to just pick up right where my neighbor Richard left off and I want to thank Steve also for coming and joining. So they know a lot more about the laws which hopefully you do too, but I just want to pick up where Richard left off is even if somehow it's, you know, you're willing to make exceptions to these rules which don't seem like there should be exceptions made, you know, this is why we have this board. Like you don't have to approve this special permit just because someone's asking for it. And, you know, having read the letters, I mean, I've written one and read the letters from my husband and all the neighbors. And it's just like there's so many reasons which just show that this project really has, like I think against all the reasons that this was put together to even to make an exception. This isn't for the good of the town. This is for, you know, a tenement style, you know, living situation for students. And I think honestly, the photos that were spent that have been sent in, which in the past month have recorded so many cars parked at the site, not three cars, but most days, four cars, five cars. And this is before the extra unit is added. And also you would think perhaps, you know, as Mr. Mendelson suggested, being a neighbor nearby that he was gonna be so on top of this, that the fact that there are already all these cars, you know, parked this way and that way all over the property, it just suggests that even lowering the number of parking spaces. So, okay, so there are gonna be four parking spaces. My guess is there are gonna be eight cars crammed in there, like pretty much every Friday and Saturday night, which we've seen, you know, already before this is even getting approved. So I'm very concerned about the danger posed to children and neighbors who live nearby that all these extra cars are gonna cause. And I hope that everyone will really look to those letters and think, you know, is this really a good idea? Is this really what the town had in mind when there was even the suggestion that maybe there could be exceptions to these rules that probably, you know, at least for sure in this case, don't make any sense. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. LaRosha. I think we have one more member of the public that wishes to comment as Jonathan Holting Cohen. His hand has disappeared. His raised hand has disappeared. Now it's back. Now it's gone. Hello. Jonathan? There we go. Can you talk? Hold on a second. Okay, we're gonna press the button one more time. Okay. Hello. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes, we can. Thank you so much. I'm from 259 East Pleasant Street. And yeah, there's a lot of legal discussion and I lead that to legal experts and I would be interested to hear more about how this all shakes out. But yeah, I would like to reinforce that you please use your discretion when it comes to this project and try to get to the bottom of the spirit of it. And I understand that there's a spirit in this town of increasing housing. And I think that's really important. And I'm really curious about the modifications that are being made. And I just really hope that this is actually a responsible project. I think my neighbors and I have a lot of, I think pretty legitimate concerns. And we're a little bit downhill and I'm really curious about how the water runoff will be handled. We actually have a lot of basement issues that we've had to attend to already even before this project. So that's, I'd like to reinforce that. And I know this portion of the meeting is really about whether or not the zoning board can decide. And I'm not really sure. I've read the same things. I interpreted the 12 pieces of information as 12 pieces of information. But I just do hope that you all use your discretion in considering this. Thank you. Thank you. And it looks like Richard runs wrong. No, I would like to speak again. Hold on a second. Thank you. Do you have anything new to say? Yes, yes, thank you. I'll be brief here. And I just wanted to point out the reason this conflict between standard number two and standard number eight is so important here is because of the size of this particular parcel. Some precedent was mentioned by I believe one of your board members and others about how number eight can override number two. And of course, every land use issue is unique in its own way. That's why it's a part of equitable law. But the reason, condition number two is so important here is because of the specifics of this case and the limited space for this parcel, the size of the building that we're talking about and the application of the combination of how everything would fit together in this particular instance. The exceptions when condition number eight had been applied, I'm of course, I'm not familiar with every one of them, but I would imagine that none of them talks about such a confined lot as this with such small buildings as this trying to put so many people into such a confined area and so many parking areas, parking spaces into a confined area. So I just wanted to point out that it's not just a theoretical standard number two versus standard number eight. It's very practical in this particular application. Thank you. So what I'd like to do is keep everybody having just one comment unless there's something that you haven't said or it hasn't been said by anybody else and then go to discussion from the board. So if you've spoken already and you're saying something that somebody else already said, I would guess it's not adding much to our discussion, but if there's something that absolutely must be said, please make it fairly quickly and then make your point quickly and we can move on to discussion amongst the board. Ms. Leraja. But I actually clicked on. Okay. All right, Mr. Schreiber. Yep. I am sorry, I just wanted to add one more thing and that's dimensional table number, table three dimensional regulations. So that has not been discussed much but that too is extremely important because this outlines really every zoning district and every dimensional requirement. So you'll notice that under this particular zone, RN, there are no asterisks for the basic lot area or the additional lot area per family. In contrast, there are asterisks on RG, on BL, et cetera, et cetera, but RN has no exceptions. So you also have to take that into account in terms of what the intent of the writers of the bylaw was. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Schreiber. Ms. Leraja. Am I unmuted? Yes. Okay. No, I mean, and maybe this is completely unrelated but this is the first time we've been living in our house for 18 years and we have the town coming to like unclog sewage coming into our bathtub. And I don't know if it has anything to do with the students who are living in the property next door but all I'm saying is we've never had any problem with that before and it's getting me concerned like is this related already to students living on the corner and adding yet more with that add to the problems that we're having that we've never had. So maybe it's completely unrelated but it did strike me that maybe there's some connection. Okay, that we really want to keep it on the issue of 3.3241 at this point in time. So there's no other discussion from the public on 3.3241. I'd like to open it up to the board discussion but before we start, I was spending time in the last couple of days looking at this especially today and my initial impression was that there is no reason for section eight which gives the special permit granting authority us the ability to modify dimensional requirements of table three gives us gives the board the authority to modify the dimensional requirements of table three to two on a one time only for any parcel allow a conversion under sections 3.3241 that would add one additional unit. Only if it's only if it finds a modification would be in accordance with precision of section 9.22 and section 9.22 when I look at it, excuse me, 9.22 authorizes the ZBA to allow a non-conforming use for building structure lands to be changed, specify use not substantially different in character or in its effect on the neighborhood or on property in the vicinity. The set authority may also authorize under special permit a non-conforming use structure of land to be extended to it or a non-conforming building to be structurally altered in large to reconstruction but provided that the authority finds that such alteration enlargement or reconstruction shall not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than existing non-conforming use or non-conforming building. So when I look at the whole context of the zoning bylaws we have a section that says there are 12 conditions that must be made. One of those conditions is that you can wave some of the requirements contained in this section one of these 12 conditions, you can wave them on a one time basis if you do that under 9.22. And under 9.22, which we use all the time the value is or the judgment that we have to make is the finding we have to make I think is a better way to say that is that the alteration enlargement or reconstruction shall not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming use or non-conforming building. It seems to me that it begs the question for us is whether why condition eight would exist if it wasn't there to be used in those conditions in which you had non-conforming old buildings that just could not meet the dimensional requirements because they existed many of them before the bylaws were written. And so in trying to understand the legislative intent of the town meeting at that time and looking back to old documents, it seems to me it's there for a purpose. And the ZBA has used this time and time again in the past in order to accommodate requests that we judge that the ZBA has judged do not serve to the detriment, the detriment of the neighborhood. So that's how I look at it. And I'd like to hear from other members of the board or staff regarding what they think and their judgment.  I'm sorry, but I was on town meeting in 1986 in the way that this was presented to us was that if I recall correctly, it was presented as though we were attempting to allow what was presented that was mother-in-law apartments by the conversion of separate garages on conforming lots, such that it wouldn't deny people who had the need to bring alien parents or single parents into a position where they could care for them close by. There was, I don't recall anything at that time about non-conforming lots being allowed to use separate garages to be converted into mother-in-law apartments. I think it's been misconstrued over time to indicate that there was an attempt to increase the number of dwelling units in the center of town such that garages could be converted as into student departments, it's federal. That was not the original intent. It was not the original intent as far as the way it was presented to town meeting. It may have been have drifted into the consideration of the town of members of the planning board, particularly when Jonathan Tucker was chairing the planning department, but that was never the intent. As far as it was prevented, presented to town meeting. Thank you, Mr. Meadows. Any other comments from board members seated for this, Mr. Maxfield? I guess maybe I'm not quite as prepared for this one as I thought I was. I'm not entirely sure what it is that we're focusing on here at the moment. Is it, are we talking about our authority to make a decision on this? Are we talking about, is the plan just not able to move forward based on the the laws as they're written? So we shouldn't proceed. I'm not quite understanding what we're going for here at this point. So we're not talking about the project itself. We're not. We're just talking about whether or not the project can proceed. And it's my understanding that we do have the authority to proceed on this if we want and then make these findings, then we might say they don't meet the findings, but are we saying at this point we are saying outright they don't meet the findings or we're saying we don't have the authority to even get to that point? I don't think we're making any, I don't think anybody on the board is making a decision about or making a statement about whether we have, whether this project meets the findings or not. What they're saying is that number two has certain requirements that this project cannot meet. And if you don't use number eight, if you can't use number eight, then there's real question as to whether this project can go forward. That seems to me to be the issue there. And so the question is, does eight amend two? Is eight stand on its own just as every other provision in this section does and 3.3241 does they stand on their own or is eight not have the force and effect to allow the ZBA on a one-time basis to amend the dimensional requirements and the dimensional chart? And so what we're trying to do is get a feeling for that. And if the board feels that, no, we're confident with this, we don't need to go to the town council and get an opinion from him or her that that's the right, that that's our authority. We've been doing it before, we're gonna go ahead and we're confident with that. Then we can proceed and schedule this application for a hearing at a later date. If we want, we can say, we're not sure about that. We have some questions. So let's clear this up unless asked town council to write an opinion and then ask other attorneys to weigh in on that and then bring it to us, us to make a decision based on the legal opinions that they gather from them. That's what I think the, that's the process here that we're going through Mr. Maxwell, I think. Does that answer your question? I think so. I mean, I'm certainly not a lawyer. So I'm always open to, to get in council. But my opinion at this time, it seems like we could, we could move forward on this, but I guess I'd like to hear from the rest of the board what they think as well. Yeah. Mr. Langsdale, I was just gonna, hoping with you and your experience on the, your tenure on the board, maybe you've dealt with this difficult issue in the past and maybe you can give us your, the benefit of your experience. Excuse me. I would say that right now it seems as though what we're arguing, what we're discussing is sort of what the intent was in 1986 and what we're allowed to do with that now, how things have changed. It's sort of like the originalists with the constitution. You know, does the constitution live or is it stuck in 1776 or 70, 70, 80, whatever. I don't know what the intent was in 1986. Mr. Meadows was there and that's terrific. It's good to hear from him. I would like to find out if there is a way to find out when this was voted on in 1986, what was specifically presented and what was specifically voted on. Then I would like to get the town council get their decision about this because I think what we're asking, what we're looking at is if two is an absolute, does that mean then that it trumps eight? But if eight is an absolute, neither can trump the other one. It seems to me that that's possible shaky ground for the board because we are dealing with a really undersized lot and I would hate to see us step in and say, well, section number eight and 9.22 says that we can go ahead and make a decision, whichever that may be when in fact there's maybe a legal standing why that's not a good idea. Thank you, Mr. Langsdale, Ms. Parks. I agree. I think I would be more comfortable with further advice. From my experience, we had looked at converting a garage and it was, if it were to rent it out, I mean, you have to be owner occupied in that the residential manager issue comes up and we were wanting to make an in-law apartment. I don't know, it was very unclear when I was looking into the possibility of doing this, but I also, I'm concerned about under 9.22 where it says it would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood because it feels from comments like it would be detrimental to the neighborhood. And so I don't know at what point 9.22 is at play within 8 and 2. So that's a good point, Ms. Parks. I think that, first of all, I hear that you'd like to get additional comfort on the legal standing of answering some questions on 8 and 2. And I understand that. But one of the things we do have to remember is that 9.22 says we have a discretion to make this decision. We have to, in fact, we have a fine, we have a responsibility to make a finding that it is not that. So if we are not comfortable with that this would, as a board, if we believe that it does serve to the detriment of the community, then we cannot, if we can't make the finding that it would be not harmful to the community, we can't approve it. We have to make the finding. So 9.22, it works with 3.241, works that way by saying that we have to make some findings that it's not detrimental to the, in effect, that it's not detrimental to the neighborhood of the community. And so does, and as well as 8 requires us to, that it be, 8 requires us to find it through provisions of 9.22. So they do work together. And again, finding that we have the authority to do this doesn't mean that we have, finding that we have the authority to grant a waiver from the dimensional requirements of 3.3241 does not mean we have to approve it. As we always had the discretion that it isn't, that is in our judgment as to whether it meets with the bylaws, it meets with the master plan, it meets with the benefits of the community. That's always there. Yes, Mr. Lansdale. And I think to what Ms. Parks was talking about, yes, what you said about 9.22 is exactly right. The problem is at the moment we don't have a proposal to judge, Mr. Judge. We don't have a proposal.  Well, that's a change. So we need, we need to, I think we need to say, okay, we're gonna talk to town council. We'll continue this till January, whatever date. We'll talk to town council when we get a decision from the town council, that can be then get into the applicant and Mr. Pill. And if they wanna work, if they need to work stuff out before January, fine. If at that point it looks like it's not gonna be able to go forward, then the applicant can back out if they want to, or we go ahead and deal with the provisions at that next meeting, along with then getting after Mr. Sparkle has done his work and others, then we will have a real plan in front of us to discuss. So at the moment I'm saying, we don't know if it's gonna be detrimental or not. Yeah, we don't know if it's gonna be here. So it's going to be, but we don't know yet. All right, well, it seems to me that there's a consensus among the board members for us to ask town council to opine, but before I move for that, I would wanna open it up to staff, either Dave or Maureen, do you have anything you wanna enlighten us with or ask or provide additional information? No, no, I think you guys, Henry. Yeah, another time. Okay, so I can add anything extra. The one thing I could add, it's more about scheduling. Planning department wouldn't want Bucky to start his professional work on this until he knows that there's a project to work on. So the applicant has requested a continuance until a date certain in January. However, perhaps if the applicant wants to get a response by attorney Joel Bard, our town attorney to respond sooner, would the board want to continue the public hearing until December to hear from Joel Bard, either by memo correspondence or in attendance to confirm one way or the other. And then the January public hearing would be, well, if this were to be continued with the application, just so Bucky has time to actually conduct his work.  The applicant said, give me till January, let's move it till January. The applicant shouldn't be, if we can get Bard to give us an opinion that should be before that, before January, that can be shared with the board, the neighbors and the applicant, I think. And they can make their own decision as to whether they're gonna be able to get a response or the applicant wants to engage further with either legal or design consultants and invest some money. But I don't want them to invest it, it's not a possibility, right? But I think we should keep, he wants to go to January, let's let him go to January, the applicant continue this to January, if we can get something from town council in the meantime, that can be distributed and we can move on in January. May I ask a question? Seems to be the best, seems to be the best way of dealing with it. Yes, Mr. Sparkle. Is it possible, just because, I think Maureen has an excellent point, that if we do find out something more definitive about requirement number eight, if that's possible in December, maybe we could show up at a public, is it possible to do as a public meeting for just that bit of information? We're doing a hearing no matter what, all right. That's fine. I really do like the idea of getting some definitive answer about this topic. So the professionals in the background can move forward for a January meeting. And I think when my client requests to January, I'm not sure that the question about number eight and the sort of rat's nest of information that we find ourselves tangled in now was in his awareness at the time. I appreciate what you're saying. Maureen, what do we have for the schedule on December? We already have. December 10th would be the next available. And we have things already on the agenda. Probably. Probably. Greg Stutman and his fence and, actually that and there is a special, there's two public meetings that I know of. Okay, so we do have items on the agenda. So listen. If we can find it just to number eight. Thank you, Mr. Sparkle. I think what we should be doing is getting, we don't know how long it's going to take Mr. Barr to do this. I don't want to, the December meeting is three, is three weeks away, right? Four. Four weeks away? December 11th. And then we'll want to have, if we get it out, then if he gives us an opinion, I'm sure we'll get opinions that people who have the other opposite view will want to also weigh in as well. So I'm inclined to go to, and so we won't have that. We won't have all the, a fulsome result before the board to make us comfortable one way or the other, I think in December. So let's move it all to January. If the result comes back from Mr. Barr, let's, we can distribute it broadly and we will be in January on this matter. Because I think that's the best way to go about it. Okay? But is there, so we should probably have a motion as to when we reconvene, when we continue this meeting until, and I would move that we continue this in January, the January 11th, what should be January 11th? No, hold on a second. Sorry. That was March. That was the March 11th. You had a lot of 11s. January 9th. Okay. I move that we continue this till January 9th. At what time? At what? It's six o'clock or six. Yeah, what is, what have we been doing? We've been moving back and forth. So I guess Dylan and Joan have time constraints, right? 630 is better for you Dylan. 630 is a lot better. And Joan is, Miss Amira is 630 better for you. I think it has been in the past. I will say that I spoke to the building commissioner regarding the board of licensing commission meetings and their meetings can start earlier and that, that should not dictate the zoning board of PAILs meeting. So if six o'clock is the preferred time, the board of licensing meetings, there is a member on that who had said that 630 is better, I think based on that meeting, on those meetings. So they can start earlier? The licensing can start earlier? It was at your issue Dylan? No, they can't start earlier because I work until five. So they start at five and then. Oh, interesting. Okay, the building commissioner had, I had spoken to him today and he said otherwise, but all right, we can continue with 630. So we'll do 630 on January. I've already forgotten the date. No, I haven't. Ninth, right? Ninth? Yeah, it's ninth. All right. Is there a second? Second. Is there a discussion? All right, it's an all, this is a roll call vote. So I vote aye. Ms. Parks? Aye. Mr. Meadows? Is that an aye? Mr. Meadows? I saw a nod, but we need to unmute. Can you unmute yourself? Aye. Mr. Langsdale? Aye. Mr. Maxfield? Aye. Great. All right. That motion, the application has continued until January. The next order of business is ZBA 2021-06, backyard AUD, ADUs, excuse me, requesting a special permit to allow a supplemental detached dwelling unit as an accessory to a one family detached dwelling located at 34 Baker Street. We had a site visit on this week and at that site visit, well, first off, before we go into that, for this matter, Mr. Langsdale is not sitting and Mr. Greeny is sitting on the panel. We had a site visit on, I think it was Tuesday at 34 Baker Street. We viewed the boundaries of the property. We looked at the location of both the barn and the house. We walked the property to get a sense of the size of the house and the size of the barn and the proposed dwelling. We asked questions about the height and the width. We asked questions about what trees would be removed. We asked questions about screening for the neighbors. And we asked questions about the number of stories of the proposed structures. There was some discussion about soil analysis. And we asked about plans to conduct soil analysis and at what time that soil analysis would be completed. Those are my memory of the issues raised in our site visit. Is there anything else that was raised in our site visit that I did not mention? Mr. Greeny? Maybe you mentioned, I didn't hear that we saw the rough location of the buildings. Did you mention that? I referred to walking the dimensions of the building. Yes. Yep. Yep, that's good. But it's good catch. All right. Anything else? Okay. What we have received as a submission, we received a special permit application, a management plan, an application narrative prepared by Backyard's ABU, a plan set including proposed accessories, dwellings, locus maps, detached supplemental apartment floor plan, supplemental apartment elevations, a plan for the writing studio floor plan, writing studio elevations. We received cut pages for exterior light fixtures. And we have a staff submissions of a project application report prepared by the planning staff, comments from the Amherst wetland administer, and comments from the fire department. That summarizes the documents we have before us. Who's here for the applicant? I'm here. Chris Lee. Mr. Lee, hold off just one second. I didn't ask about this before. Is there any, are there any declarations that anybody wants to make? I know Mr. Langsdale has recused himself from this, but anybody else have any declarations regarding this project? Okay. Or disclosures. All right. Mr. Lee, go ahead. Name and affiliation, please. My name is Chris Lee. I am head of design and development of backyard to use a company that is focused on helping homeowners build the supplemental apartments or accessory dwelling units, depending on what they're called per town, build them in their backyards. And it's usually being built for family members, which is also the case in this situation. I'm representing Kelly light and her mom, Bernice. They are requesting a special permit to build a 790 square foot detached supplemental apartment. Her mom has recently moved here from New Jersey in the wake of the pandemic to be closer to her daughter. She actually arrived here. I believe just last week. And is looking forward to seeing this go up. Also as part of the plan, we're not requesting a special permit for this. But as we're in the wetland buffer, we had to present this to the environmental commission. We're building a 700 square foot barn inspired writing studio. Kelly light is a children's book author. And she'll be moving from where she's renting space and East works in East Hampton into this space full time to write. She's, and this is under a section of the bylaw for home businesses. She doesn't propose to hire any employees and has no expectation of doing so. So we think that's right in line with, with what is allowed. I will share my screen and kind of walk through the site plan. I know we did some of this on site. Earlier this week. Green number two. Can everybody see my screen? All right. So I'm zoomed in here on the, on the site plan. Daniel solves a local surveyor, help us put together. And he did shoot. Actual contours on site with his equipment. We also had the wetlands flagged as per the requirements of the environment, the wetlands protection act in Amherst. By Ward Smith. And in doing this, have the, the necessary setbacks marked as well. And the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the space. So at the top of the property. Is the existing, is the existing home. There is an existing parking spot. It fits comfortably three cars. And there's a gentle slope going down towards. The street and some wooded area. That, that screens. The. The other thing of note. Looking at this site plan, and Aaron jocke pointed this out on her visit. Is the current driveway. Create say high point. Between the wet, the protected resource area, the wetlands. structures, which is one of the things we've been looking at as we have been evaluating what the needs are going to be to control stormwater and prevent any unwanted sediment and erosion from going into that wetlands, including the wildlife habitat and ending up downstream, as there is an intermittent stream in here. We do, we, in addition, we're proposing one additional parking spot that brings the proposal in line with what's required by the zoning bylaw, as it requires two parking spots per dwelling unit on the property. This additional spot will give the property a total of four. The parking spot per request of the Environmental Commission during that hearing will also be installing the honeycomb and pervious pavers in order to keep that spot impervious so or pervious. I'm sorry, Miss Speak. So we're not putting any risk of putting any water into the wetlands. They also brought up that we that on the northern property, which is out of their jurisdiction, that we should consider some form of erosion control, which we do intend to do. And I believe we'll dig into that more as the hearing progresses. In terms of what we are building, I'll move, I think we can skip through. I think people know generally where we are. This is the structure that we are proposing to build. We're building 790 square feet. It's going to be two bedrooms. Really, Bernice is probably going to use this extra space as a craft room or just an extra space to do things in it. She'll be the only one living in it. Shared kitchen living room area and a little mud room to come in and keep stuff out of the small living space. We do have lights at the exterior exits. These are downcasted and in terms of both of them not really in sight of any of the neighbors. Finally, this is a single floor supplemental apartment to keep it more accessible for Bernice as she ages. We have styled this to look traditional New England. So we've got gabled roofs, white trim, it's clapboard and window lights. And then in terms of the other structure, which again, we think this is in line with the, we're not applying for a special permit for this structure, but we did want to present it because it's part of what we'll be doing. We are building this barn inspired writing studio for Kelly to work out of and it will have basically a big open concept space downstairs. I think there'll be a fireplace added at some point and outside deck and because this has vaulted ceilings we had 12 or 12 pitch roof. We are putting a loft up here in order to get a little bit more floor space in here. We didn't need the entire space to be lofted. And by putting in this loft it created a nice cozy spot for Kelly to write out of in terms of use of this. We Kelly's probably going to use it as a reading room. Family guests may stay there on occasion during the holidays, but there is no intention right now of having it be rented or anything as this Kelly's going to be working in this in this full time. And I think with that I'll hand it back over and we can kind of go through some of the questions that were brought up in that report prepared by Maureen. Great. All right. Thank you, Mr. Lee. So the first question I have is you don't have any kind of landscaping plan. You guess for a wave of a landscaping plan, right? Yep. We were proposing landscape right now. You're what? We're not proposing a landscaping plan right now. There's nothing it's not visible from the street and most of the neighbors and the one neighbor that this is visible of it hasn't raised any objections or concerns. Kelly and her mom is are probably going to work on gardens as a project together sometime next year, but we didn't want to put that in here as it wasn't part of the project at this time. You do you need a waiver for that? Do I need a waiver for that?  Yes. Yes. So the yes. So the applicant has formally requested a waiver. There's really. Are you doing any screening for the northerly neighbors? We are not Stephen and Phoebe have not voiced any concerned about this. Kelly is friendly with them and they've been in conversations. So they did not they have they did not ask for any and the structures are modeled to look nice to not destroy the view. The barn is also similar to one that similar in size to one that's in their property as well. So it's somewhat even. So the answer is no, but there hasn't been any concerned raised and if there had been we would have proposed something. One of the things that was brought up at the at the meeting was you mentioned that you were not going to do a soil analysis. Is that correct? You want to wait doing your soil analysis until after construction. So we comment on that because that I'm you have to you you're going to have to explain why that should why that should be the case. Yeah, so when it comes to so when we look at this plan we're relatively flat. We're sloping away from the wetlands and erosion any any water runoff is going to go towards the trees. Now, I'm not an expert in I'm not a civil engineer. So I don't know to the extent that will be damaging the habitat in those trees or on the lawn. But as we were but under the advice of Maureen, we have tried to contact civil engineers to engage on this project. One of the things that the civil engineers wanted to do before making a formal proposal was to dig a test bit and do a soil analysis, which would have come at the expense of the homeowner before we knew whether or not we're even going to be allowed to do this. Now we have to do it also may it may influence and inform whether we could you can do it or not depending upon the soil analysis. So I'm not asking for a waiver on I'm I'm not trying to circumvent rules around it. I as we need to dig the foundations and we need to propose something what I was what I'm proposing to the board in terms of mitigation is to withhold any kind of the building commissioner withhold any kind of occupancy permit on these until the town engineer has reviewed plans submitted after they've been able to do their analysis when we broken ground. It seemed it seemed with this scenario as it's already been said that we're not going to be impacting the wetlands the runoff is going towards a grassy area and then going into a wooded area that it is a lower risk project. That this is a situation where we could do that soil analysis at time of excavation especially given the timing of this project if we were to dig and do this at this 10 foot hole to find the water the water table and to figure out the drainage points is a chance that the lawn would be ripped up and possibly cause more erosion into the area between now and when we can recede it in the spring. So we were kind of thinking about trying to figure out how can we do this all at once and prevent extra excavation extra construction sediment and so on. Yeah, I understand what you're asking but you're in effect. I don't want to be argument I'm just trying to stand. Yeah, you're asking to get a construction permit to build to start the building process before you do the soil analysis and then once that start once you start to actually put a shovel in the ground then you want to do the soil analysis. You want to prove it right? Okay. Yeah, if it's required by the board and the other the other piece in here the zoning bylaw does not have a bar like any specifics about what a adequate erosion control is. It does not discuss that in the bylaw as far as I could find there is there is lots as it relates to impacting wetlands. But as we know that this isn't going to impact the wetlands per Aaron Jock's comment about the driveway. We're not really sure what we're protecting what level we're protecting to. So that's that's another reason to hear directly from the board what we what we should be aiming for and how it should be judged whether it's a town engineer or if it's just a stamp of a civil engineer that would say we're not impacting any critical resources or the wildlife habit and potentially in those in the wooded area. Okay. All right, I did have another question on the other building the barn. You know I look at that and I think that's potential dwelling unit at some point in time is not designed right now. What is what's the what's underneath the loft in that in that proposed barn we see the from the birds I view you see the that one what's what's below the loft this area. Yeah, this is all open space down here. This is an open staircase and this is just where Kelly's going to set up her desk and and computers for writing and sketching. So I'm going to go ahead. Mr. Chair earlier this week I asked the applicant to resubmit the floor plans with labels. So in this presentation he just didn't use the sheets that have the labels. So in your updated floor plans which you may have you only have electronically that work office area underneath the loft as that is how it's labeled I believe hold on a second. Yeah, I believe that's what I called it work area underneath the loft where the there are no walls or doors in here. The only door in this is for the bathroom. There's no closets though. It's not it would be another building permit in order to convert this to any kind of living room and you'd have to add a kitchen. There's no kitchen in here. It's just the bathroom. So the best the best it could be used for as I mentioned it might be for a family guest to stay here over the holidays, but it's not really suitable for a dwelling in the definition. Not a chair. Dave was given his I can't see it. Okay. Mr. Let's get it. Yeah. Hi. How do you access the writing area? It looks it looks like you've got walls all around it. You go under the stairs under the landing. Yeah, could you zoom in and and exit of your page thumbnails to the left? Yeah. So it's an open staircase. This is eight. This is 78 feet ahead of room underneath here. Okay. You can walk right underneath them at that corner. Yes. I think the six foot headroom as I have marked here starts right there. Members of the board have questions of the of Mr. Lee. So you have a Mr. Green. I didn't see your hand raised. Go ahead. Oh, sorry. There you go. Nope. Now you've moved. There you go. All right. I forget about the hand raising. Sorry. So I don't know if this was in the information and I missed it, but is the intention to start this next spring or this fall? So what we really like to do is to receive an approval with some kind of contingency this evening. That way we can break ground on this in December and get Bernie's moved in by end of February, March. I do not receive an approval contingency on it. We will not be breaking ground on this until April when the bonds rethought because if we come back for a continuance in December, it will be very unlikely that we'll be able to break ground before things freeze up. And that's I just want to reiterate on the we're not trying to avoid any stormwater mitigation. We understand the issues surrounding erosion control and how it implodes our streams and our waters. We just do not want to pre dig a 10 foot test bit at cost of the homeowner right before we're going to be digging foundation holes. We would like to do that all at once and we'd like to have some contingent contingent approval where we submit something after we've done that. And the town engineer reviews it and provides his opinion is his engineering opinion on whether or not it's adequate for this project given the contours, the direction of the runoff, the permeability of the soil and so on. So you're I want to go back to parking for a second. Sure. So you would need two parking spaces for dwelling unit. Right now there's three for the existing the existing house. Yeah, it's going to provide one and where would that be? So we're adding one more near the new dwelling unit, which is where Bernice will be parking. So in total the property will have the required number of parking spaces and we're adding one and we don't want to add more than we need to down here because again, we're in the wetland buffer. There's no need to disturb more than his spot than is required and Bernice only needs the one spot. And the light fixtures are downcast. Yes. Dark sky compliant. Yep. Absolutely. Mr. Lee, you know, I'm having trouble with with getting any kind of contingents. I'm having trouble with giving approval or go ahead at this point. I think you need, I feel like I need a lot more information about this project than I have before me. I, you know, I feel like I need more about the the more about the out the exterior, what it looks like. I think I'm not comfortable in in holding off on the soil until a later point in time. I'm not comfortable that without having a landscape plan and other other normal, which is normally required by this board. And I'm so I'm having a hard time taking it. This is this is ready. I think we need to in my my initial feeling that this you need to work more with the town to try to get all the requirements that they normally have on two buildings in the on that lot and and get that back to us before we can comfortably vote to prove this. And I think it's a good idea. I'm not opposed to the notion. I just don't think it's I don't think it's it's ready yet. That's what I'm telling you. So can we can we go through those one by one in terms of what does the exterior look like beyond elevations or that are there questions about the elevations and the materials that you have because we do have all of that information. We're using vinyl siding. We're using clear clear trim, which is a high end PVC board. We're using double pane windows with window lights. We're going to be doing this as red. What other information about what what the exterior is going to look like on this would you need? What's the roof asphalt shingles asphalt shingles. Yep. Asphalt architectural shingles. We're going to be having polymer shape cedar shaped cedar impressions on the gable ends. It's a standard seven inch aluminum white fascia board. We've got three and a half inch clear trim around the outside also white. We've got five and a half inch cornerboards and I can I can do the same for the barn. The barn is going to be sided with LP smart sideboard and baton. It's a nice engineered product for it to look like a true wood finish. We're also going to have traditional window traditional windows are going to have the three transoms above. We're going to be using the clear trim work in order to give it a very nice finish. We're going to be doing asphalt shingles on the barn as well to match the house. Same seven and a half inch vinyl aluminum fascia on the on the ridges and this will be white. And that would be white. Yep. I also was one of the things that you're asking that you we wage the the sample lease a complaint response form landscape and sign plans in your quick enough for the current owner of that property. But this that makes sense. It's going to be a family member that's there. I understand it. But the application probably the application of the special permit would would survive for new into new ownership. And so I I don't think that we should be waiving those. You can you can certainly do a lease for $1 a year and you can have a complaint response. But you need something so that when this it's his property when it's this property transfers to somebody else there's a plan in place a lease in place that we can then review because when somebody would buy this they would have the ability to rent this out. So I so that's so that's I would we would need to to look at that. I guess that's a suggestion. I guess for clarification you're asking us to create a lease for use by a future owner. No, I'm you can use it by this owner but we need this can be used as in the future. This could be used as a rental property after we're rented out. There's it absolutely could be and I am the special permit flows with the property. So I'm not I don't think I'm not comfortable saying that we were going to waive all those requirements. You could you can have a lease that that is for one one dollar a year. You can have a complaint response that but you have some kind of a new owner comes back. They say we have to modify the management plan the lease plan for this but we don't have a proposal for contingency on that for change of ownership that she included in the project. All right. So if the board as a minimal to this you could make a condition of the special permit saying that if if the it is to be rented that the applicant shall submit a lease and complaint response plan. You also could have another condition saying on change of ownership of the property that it updated management plan. Be be submitted regardless of the properties to be rented or not. Mr. Chairman. Yes. I'm just looking at the suggested conditions and number 15 is on change of ownership. The new property owners would be required to return to the ZBA at a public meeting for review and approval of the management plan and complaint response plan. Mr. Thank you. Yeah. I doesn't it's not the numbers and it's not I don't have a page number but it's number 15 of these suggested conditions. I thought it. Thank you. It's on page 15. Conveniently conveniently. But but there could be another condition saying that if the dwelling unit is to be rented. Well condition. Hold on a second. Condition eight says any dwelling unit on the property being rented shall be registered and permitted in accordance with the residential rental property bylaw. Perhaps the next condition could be any dwelling unit on this property. Shall be and in the lease and lease and complaint response plan shall be required to be submitted for the board for review and an approval for any dwelling unit on the property being rented. Something like that. Other questions for from the board members for Mr. Lee. Yes. Miss Amira. Thank you. Two questions. One is is the barn in. Never to be considered a residential unit because I think I saw a shower in there. It's not going to be considered a residential unit. It's lacking a kitchen and the three that doesn't have a sleeping area that's closed off. It doesn't have a closed closet. It doesn't have a kitchen. It will not be considered one. Sorry. It said so it will not be considered one. It would need to have another building permit pulled. And it would come back in front of the ZBA for permission to convert it. And I think I understand that the. Total units will never be sold individually that it's in pepper. Never can say the word right, but it can never be divided. I don't think that's part of the supplemental apartment zoning bylaw. However, that is not in the plans to do that. We are not going to be selling the ADU separately. But I think the ZBA can stipulate that it can't be sold separately. Is that correct, Maureen? As like a condo. I would need to speak with the building commissioner about that. I would need clarification on that as well. Thank you. And the heating source for the barn. So both the barn and the supplemental apartment are going to be heated with mini splits. So it's all electric. I didn't notice both of these. Where are they located on the drawings? I don't believe they you mean on the interior heads of the exterior compressor? Either. So they're not located on the drawings. Okay, but I don't. Is there a requirement for whether as we're nowhere near neighbors, I didn't anticipate there being a requirement for the location of these? Sorry. What was the question, Steve? I'm sorry. Well, we're look, there were going to be mini splits for both these. Wondering where the mechanical were there in the drawings. I don't see any indication of where the mini splits would be either on the in the wall or the mechanical devices on the ground. They're not, they're not in the plan because it's not required by the zoning by a lot for the site plan. If it was, they'd be here. Mr. Roskevic, do we have other things that we are looking for from the applicant before we can move forward? And number one, don't we need to have the heating and cooling mechanics for this HVAC mechanics for this for a property be shown on the drawings before we before it be approved. So Steve, if I could, in the past, we have had people indicate where it's located. More importantly, when you are adjacent to neighbors fairly closely, because sometimes that noise can be offensive, which we've found to be the case. So I guess it'd be up to the board if they would like to see that located. Other than that, smoke detection plans would be coming along with the building permit, but we don't need that at this point. Is the HVAC equipment inside or outside? There's a compressor outside, but the nearest house is at least 250 feet away. These are not going to be heard by adjacent neighbors, regardless of where they're placed. They'll also not be seen by the adjacent neighbors. Okay. So under the management plan for additional information, I'm sorry, I'm trying to find it. Let me let me just do a keyword search. So for additional information required for apartments, it does list noise management of tenants, parties, music, and any outdoor HVAC equipment, so material equipment and large household goods storage. So it'd be useful if you could include that in your management plan of describing the HVAC equipment and showing that on the site plan. We're not creating apartments. We're creating a supplemental accessory unit. Yeah, and so that requires a huge system, but these are small, low decibel unit site. Yeah. So could you show like a box and label it? Are we at a foregone conclusion that we're going to a continuance? I feel like we're kind of there. I just so a lot of this is not stipulated in the zoning bylaw, which is puts developers, construction people, architects in a very tough position. And it's this is a professionally preferred site plan. We've got professionally prepared, prepared drawings. There aren't any details. We haven't taught. We need to talk more about the landscaping plan. I as far as there are no rules in the zoning bylaw about what is the landscaping plan must contain. So if I come back and say the landscaping plan is to reseed the grass, we're not going to go further than that because we're not. We're not we're not ready to say what types of bushes we're going to be put in the homeowner does not want to spend additional $5,000 to hire a landscape architect architect to do that. And it's not required by the zoning bylaw is landscaping is required to give the development street appeal and to make sure that neighbors are not put off by it. In this case, neither of those are an issue. We have plenty of screening from the road and the neighbors Phoebe and Steven have raised no concerns about this project from an aesthetic standpoint or a screening standpoint. The only thing that a landscaping plan could be brought up for is the stormwater mitigation as it goes for or rain guard, which I in which which I as far as I can see is the only thing that this plan is lacking and we are not trying to avoid it. We are trying to put ourselves in a position where we are not digging twice at expense of the homeowner unnecessarily and we're not putting a position. We are going to disturb protected earth near a wetland and leave it open and dirt for the entire winter where it will impact the wetland. All right, Mr. Lee, I understand that there are ways you can put socks around. You can you can protect them cheaply and it's done every day. You can protect the land that the wetlands around the site that you have to dig for for a pit. It's yeah, they're doing it all the time here. So I I understand we're just I understand your frustration, but also and and this isn't a we're not going to have a to and fro here. What we're going to do is have the we've heard from you. We're going to have the board discuss this a little bit. If they have other questions, they can ask you, but one of the things that I am impressed with is that the zoning bylaw isn't always exact, but it leads up to the discretion of the zoning board of appeals to say we feel good. We feel comfortable. We're ready to act on this or we're not. And that's what we're going to discuss. That's what we'll discuss in a little bit. And if we are, we will act tonight. And if we are not, we'll wait till we will act to the later date. And if you don't, I just ask that we have very specific requirements because it's from what we've seen the first time going through Amherst, we understand your request. So and we've had a good back and forth. So I'd like to have a discussion with the board now. So I will open up discussion on this matter. The public hearing or discussion amongst board members as to if they have other questions for Mr. We, or if they have discussion about this project. So we're in the public hearing. If we don't have further discussions and there's, and we also need to see if there's any public comment as well, since we are in a public hearing. I don't think we have any attendees who are for public comment. Oh, we do. Hold on a second. We do have one. Hold on a second. Okay. Fran Van Tross. Hold on a second. I thought I hit it. Oh, here we go. I'm making my note. Hi, Fran. You can speak now. Can you say your name and your address? Fran Trace, 17 Moody Field Road. I'm in a butter to the east of the project. And this is the first time I've really seen this project. I have a lot more questions about the number of units here and the future of this thing. And I would request that you continue this hearing so that we have a time to look at this and comment on it. If you vote on it tonight, you will hang on. I really am very uncomfortable with that. So I just relax, Nina. Okay. Thank you. Wait, what? I'm sorry. What? Sorry. I'm sorry, Fran. You were rudely interrupted. Please continue. No, that's all. I just would request that you continue the hearing so that we have a time to take this in and comment on it. Okay. Thank you. Our other attendees, any other members of the public who wish to speak? Yes. Mr. Langsville. Well, it's actually not Mr. Langsville. It just says that I am Nina Wishinggrad. I lived at 43 Baker Street. I just want to say two things. One is that we had not seen these plans and neither. I just spoke with you keep saying that you have not heard anything from Phoebe Hazard and Steve Stroud. They've not seen these plans. We've not seen these plans. Excuse me. This is 1400 more square feet. The house itself is 1100. Our house is 13. So this is a lot of this is much bigger than we thought with three dwelling units. I'm extremely concerned about should this change hands as you've already talked about what will happen. Thank you. Mr. Langsdale. Keith Langsdale, 43 Baker Street. There are several issues that I would like to address. One. And Mr. Langsdale, can I just stop for a second? You're speaking as a member of the public matter, the member of the board, right? Correct. I'm in a bother. Yeah. It is typical when we when the board reviews plans that they have a light plot. The Mr. Lee has stated that the lighting is in fact dark sky compliant. However, what is shown on the drawings are not necessarily dark sky compliant. That needs to be addressed. But there needs to be. It is very normal for the board to have in front of them a some sort of rendition of what the lighting actually will be the outdoor lighting. The landscape plan is also typical and normal. And I would say, Mr. Lee keeps talking about how gradually this the the slope is from the the west to the east, which it is. But that's the way the water runs. It will run that way down toward the the road. What he calls a wooded area is a very small area of very few trees. It's not a woods. Lining the western edge of this property. So the addition of impervious buildings, two of them. Plus anything else, the porch. Each one has a deck and one as a deck, one as a porch. There's a question of how much the water is going to be affected, which is why there should be a soil analysis and that should be addressed by a civil engineer, which again is normal for the board to hear and to see the colors. So just say one's going to be red and one's going to be white. The board should have examples of that of the what what read what kind of red is it a fire engine red that needs to be specified. I think the the the question of can these parcel can these buildings be sold separately is a huge one for us as a butters. This is a major question. And it should be a condition that they cannot be sold as separate entities. There will be three buildings all of size, especially the proposed living house has two bedrooms, but there's one person going in there. There's also there's only one parking area being added for the two bedrooms. That's not normal. This thing about the many splits in the generator and they're not going to impinge on anyone. How do we know that there's no where is it indicated where they will be? And I think Mr. Lee said that the nearest house was like 230 feet away. I can measure I think mine's closer than that and there's one immediately across the street. Which is certainly closer and Stephen and Phoebe's house. I'm not sure, but I would think that theirs would be closer as well. The the the drawings should have everything on them and this thing about I think he said a generator outside the house. We don't know anything about that generator. It's positioning its size what make we know nothing about that we need to know about that. So I guess for right now those are my questions, but I would certainly have more questions. If this is continued and they come back with more detailed plans and I would also ask the board to really consider the act the fact that these are almost the house is at 790 square feet, which is just under what I think is the 800 square foot allowance and then the bar into 700 square feet for someone to write in. These are very large pieces to be put on this property as and so I have real concerns about it. Mr Lee also said earlier nobody has made any kind of questions about it. Well, we haven't been contacted. We didn't see plans. No one contacted us. No one asked us anything about this. So now you're getting some feedback on it and you'll get more. Thank you. Thank you. Mr Langsdale other members of the public wish to comment at this point. So yes, yes. Hold on. Do we have one? Yeah. Phoebe hazard. Oh dear God. Miss Hazard. Phoebe, can you hear us? Hi, can you hear me? Yeah, please state your name and add your address. Hi, this is Steven Stroud of 208 Snell Street and I'm here with Phoebe hazard. And also of 208 Snell Street and I just want to weigh in that the our lack of participation does not imply consent to any of this project. So I was informed that other people were speaking on my behalf on this meeting that by saying nothing that that implied consent and I just want to make it clear that that's not accurate. I was just listening to Keith and he voiced the concern about the having two new rentable units on this property and that it's doesn't appear to be zoned for that. That that's the biggest concern that Phoebe and I are having. The I mean it. Yeah, good. Go ahead. I think in looking at the plans I had anticipated the second house to be a tiny house which it does not appear to be by my estimation of a tiny house. So I think that was a surprise. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Thank you. I think that's it for people any other public comments. Kelly. Hold on. Where's this from that your name and your address Kelly like 34 Baker. You're the homeowner of this homeowner. Yes. I just I just want to voice that I did send out a letter to the residents of Baker Street as well as to Phoebe and Stephen. I'm saying that if they had any questions I explained the project and I said I am more than willing to communicate and answer any questions that they had. So I just want to correct the claim that I didn't provide any information. I have been in contact with people and I have offered to show anything and to answer any questions. So I just want to create correct that that that claim is not is not true. Talk about the arts doing we included a letter in our wetland notification as well as we were required to send them and it provided contact information to Austin. That was out there and I'm and I'm still willing to answer any questions that anybody has. All right. Thank you. So if there's no other public comments going once going twice and the other public comments. The tip of our process is to provide the applicant with the opportunity to respond to the specific comments of the public if they wish and I don't want to I don't want to let that hang out for a period of time. It's best for you I think for the applicant to be able to respond directly so that the board can hear your response to and to be some of the concerns to the extent you wish to respond to them. It's probably valuable to do it tonight as opposed to a later point in time here. I don't I don't think it I don't think we need to take the time for me to respond to all of them. No I just want you want to. Well I know even individually I think just an aggregate a lot of the things that have been brought up and I said this earlier it's not part of the zoning bylaw it's not part of the requirements for the site plan and it would be very helpful. For this to be I mean if we have to be at this level of detail to get approval in one hearing I think I think that that needs to be specified in the zoning bylaw when we were putting this application together our professional surveyor had to come back to the site on several different on several occasions to fulfill request by Maureen who was helping us prepare for this and even with her detailed preparation we are not meeting everything that's being required by the board which again is not specified in the zoning bylaw. So we're not going to get anywhere on this tonight so I'm not going to dig into that but I think and I want to I also want to just say this so we've been doing this in towns throughout Pioneer Valley we've been getting approvals throughout we're very conscious of the environmental impact on these our homes are net zero ready. We're very conscious of trying to keep the costs down so this is an affordable option for people's parents who can't afford anywhere else to live. We're doing this in multiple states and Mr. Lee this is an opportunity to respond to the comments. These are not nobody was talking about that so please keep this to response to the Republic comments. You had your chance to do your application to do your presentation and then the board will discuss and see what we want to do. So the response is the zoning bylaw does not require many of the things that have been brought up in public comment and I think the decision of the board should be based on what's specifically required in the zoning bylaw not some of the additional things that are being added to the zoning bylaw tonight. Okay. Thank you Mr. Lee. All right. Opportunity for the board to discuss in the public hearing as we're still in the public hearing opportunity board to discuss this amongst ourselves before we would we and we can choose to close the public hearing and move to the public meeting and make a decision. We could choose to continue the public hearing at a later point in time and that way we wouldn't go to a public meeting on this. So those are our two choices and I suggest that we have a conversation about this a dialogue about this amongst ourselves and not move to a public meeting unless we reach the conclusion we're ready to vote tonight. Miss O'Meara. It's it's feeling adversarial and I don't mean that for this to go that way and I want to feel like this project can go forward truthfully and all honest honesty. I want to look at the mechanicals. I think that's bare. Um, I think minimal landscaping design layout even if even if it's just like receding the grass that that works. Um, I want to support Kelly and her family in going forward truthfully. That's all I have to say. Mr. Rainey. I think, um, yeah, I kind of agree with Joan is it's gotten a little contentious. I feel kind of in the middle. I think Chris has some valid concerns. He's trying to help small homeowners have supplemental units and not have unreasonable costs and that's I want to honor that. So I don't have enough experience, but his request for combining the soil analysis with the original digging subject to town engineer approval. That seems reasonable. You know, some risks to him. If he if they dig and they say, oh, this isn't working, then then he's stuck. So it does have to be approved by the town engineer that that seems adequate unless I'm kind of new. So maybe I'm not understanding all this in terms of landscape design and screening and all that. I think I'm a small project like this. We've seen the site. It seems like it would create a lot of unnecessary expense. Um, the noise level of the compressors or whatever the heating units are that might be useful information to have, but it's would be kind of surprising if the noise level were so high that it would disturb the neighbors and wouldn't disturb the people living in the buildings. But maybe we should know the decibel level of the units. I don't know the thing that to me is the real concern and I don't see, you know, this is my first hearing. So I don't know that we might not be able to work this out tonight, but the conditions for resale. So just off the top of my head and this we need to discuss, it seems like there should be a requirement that the properties cannot be separated. And I think one of the most powerful assurances that the thing would not turn into an objectionable rental situation for the neighborhood would be to require owner occupancy because the research has shown that the requirement of owner occupancy almost always ensures that multiple unit dwellings remain civil and not not negative impact on the neighborhood. So I think that's the thing that I'm most concerned with and it seems like that's going to take us some time to work out. Thank you, Mr. Greeny. Miss, Mr. Maxfield and Miss Parks. Mr. Maxfield. I mean, I definitely hate to hold up a project that we could potentially move on tonight, but it's definitely not uncommon for the board to have questions that maybe isn't necessarily clear in the zoning bylaw with part of this meeting. I think the objective here is really to the public. And I even just think something like just the generators alone that is something we might specifically want to know about what is the decibel level of those. I think something like that is definitely going to be a concern to the neighbors that I think if we are going to hold this off, I mean, it's a shame with the time that the ground is about to freeze, but our priority here as the zoning order feels is to the public and the impact granting any special permanent waiver is going to have. So I think if we are going to take this back, we have to be really clear on what it is we're looking for. And one thing I'd like to know about if we do decide to go that route is what are those generators going to be? What are they going to sound like? What's the size? I think those are important to me at least. Thank you, Mr. Maxwell. Ms. Parks. All right. And I'm also, I don't feel bad about this project. I do think it's important for the butters to have a chance to absorb it. I do think that we can add a condition that it can't be sold separately or if it is, it has to go come back to the ZBA or, you know, add a condition that will work that way. I'm sure that the intention is not to create additional rental units on this property. So I feel the same way. I guess that everyone feels it's, you know, it would be nice to see this go through, but I guess we're feeling like it's, we're not exactly ready. Yeah. So I also feel the same. I'm not opposed to the concept here. I think it's, and I think that it's part of the master plan that we have in this town is to try to provide some infill housing and support people who want to, who want to have mother-in-law suites or in-law suites whatever that you want to call it or provide housing for families. That's something that is, I think important for the town's goals, but what this feels like if it's not ready yet, and we do have questions. And so I would encourage the applicant to work with the staff specifically to talk about what some of the things that we need, that we have discussed tonight that we need. So I think more information on the drawings, more information on the HVACs, come up with a landscape plan, even if it's what, you know, whatever it is, come up with a landscape plan for telling us what it is. I think you need to convince the town that the soil analysis can be done after we've approved the, after you've gotten the building permit or you started when you're digging. I think that's the wrong time for that. I don't think that's the right idea. So I think there's several things and I'm confident that if you work with Maureen and the building inspectors to be able to find out the kinds of things that we almost always ask for, amongst, for zoning, for applications such as this for special permits. And I think we, I don't think there's, I don't think you're hearing in opposition to the project. I think you're hearing that we need more information and we're not ready to make a decision at this time. Mr. Chair, Mr. Westkevitz has a comment. Yes, Mr. Westkevitz. Yeah, hi. Just a response to Mr. Lee, who was indicating that there's nothing in zoning requiring some of the things that we're asking about. If you look under a supplementary detached dwelling units, one of the requirements, number five, to be exact, refers to design review principles and standards. So if you go to that section of the zoning, it talks about different things that should be provided, including landscape, goes into a streetscape depography, all of that scale. It also talks about choice of materials, color, size. So a whole lot of the things that we talked about tonight. So if you want guidance, look through that. That might help. You have referred to screening being all over the neighborhood, but it doesn't show on your, the plan that I'm looking at right now. So it does exist. Do you have a plan that shows that? Um, and then my experience with one of your neighbors down the street. I don't remember the address as a number of years ago. I was working with the town starting out, but they built the garage out there and they ran into ledge probably two feet down where the water table was also coming out. So maybe a soil analysis where you think you're going to be digging, maybe a full foundation might be something you want to do a little sooner so that you're aware of what the conditions are actually like out there. And I would like to add that section 10.38 of the zoning bylaw additionally gets into the very topics and concerns expressed by the board such as drainage, screening, HVAC equipment, lighting and its impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Greening. So I don't want it to be lost that at least in my opinion. I do consider most of the things that were just mentioned as being of relatively minor importance compared to the issue of the future of this project. We met the people who live there. It's pretty clear that the impact on the neighborhood for the current situation is going to be benign. But this could easily be crowded rental units in the future. And I think the most important aspect of what we need to do is to ensure that it remain that kind of situation and not crowded packed rental units in the future. And I think that's those are the concerns of the neighbors that I heard most strongly. If there's no further discussion from the board, I move that we continue the public hearing on this matter until I guess I would like, would you be ready, Mr. Lee, would you be ready in December? December 11th. Is there a decision coming out of that? Are we requiring a 10-foot deep soil analysis and full engineered mitigate? Are we going with the suggestion of this degree that we may be able to get a contingency with the engineer? Because if we have to get an excavator out there and find a civil engineer that it's in their schedule, we're not going to be ready. No, I guess you have to, I don't know the answer to that. The question I had would you be ready to, are you, would you be prepared to come back in and have the amendments to the plan, to have a landscape plan ready, and other things ready to discuss it more? And then we can condition what we do based on the discussion of the board. I don't know if we... So all things besides the engineer drawings, I would say yes, but if it's likely that we're going to attend the December 10th or whatever date it is and be here, I think it's been about three and a half hours and have to go back and do that and come back in January, I would say no. So I would really ask some kind of determination on that piece tonight on what we're... You're not going to get... I don't want to make this content... I really don't want to make this contentious. I really want to keep the temperature down on this. So if you... I don't... I think that you can... If you want to come back in December, we can continue it to that point. You can discuss with the staff and others, the town, about what you need to do to provide the information that you heard us tonight, the information we need to make a decision. If you feel that you're not going to be ready or you don't want to... That the weather would prevent you from moving forward, you can ask that we can... At December, we can ask that you continue it until the spring. So you have a lot of options. I'm giving you the option to say, we'll have enough to make you comfortable in December. If that's not right, we can continue it until April. But you're hearing from people here that they want to try to be helpful. And so I'm trying to give you that opportunity to act as quickly as possible. So you can come back with drawings and you work with the town in terms of the soil analysis and what they need to get from you. If you want to come back in December. We do want to come back in December. But again, I'm hearing that it's up to the ZBA what we need for the soil analysis, not up to the town. So, or the staff or Maureen. And it sounds like the board may have some split opinions on that. So we're going to be making a decision, me and the homeowner, about whether or not we want to spend $5,000 up front before we know whether or not this is going to be able to get past the concerns raised by other neighbors, which at this point, I'm not so sure it is. So what you're asking us to do is, as I understand, is that we're going to need to go back, spend another $5,000 to $10,000 to do this with the risk of not getting an approval ever. I think that's an unacceptable place to end on for the homeowners. What's your, can I just ask a question? What is required for the soil analysis? What specifically is required? We normally require soil analysis to be done. Analyst analyze it. You tell us how the soil is going to percolate the water. And then from that, we can make a decision as to whether it's an appropriate place. If you have lead, if you have other kinds of things underneath there, you're going to want to know that. What do we typically? So typically when there is an increase of runoff or volume, the town requires that the applicant provide evidence by a professional engineer of how they will handle stormwater management. Additionally, as I referenced section 10.38 of the zoning bylaw, specifically section 10.389 and 10.390 are two sections that the board needs to make findings related to drainage. And as I've advised the applicant several times over the last month or month and a half, that it would be useful for the board to have this information as you make your findings for this decision. So I'm happy to schedule a time for him to meet with myself in the building commissioner to discuss how he can provide that information to the board. Would it be useful for the board to create a list of other items that should be submitted? I heard some comments about perhaps more information about the light fixtures. Yeah, we heard the HVAC, just at least a description of what it is and where it would be. We need to know, I think it's gravel for the parking. Is that, I'm not sure. I think it's gravel for the parking space, but we should know what the parking is. Color of the buildings. So perhaps the applicant could provide like a sample of what that color would actually look like for each of the b