Introduction, one, two, five, got it. All right, the appointed hour, six o'clock, having been reached, I welcome everyone. This meeting of the Amherst Zoning Board of Appeals. My name is Dylan Maxfield. As vice chair of the Amherst Zoning Board of Appeals, I call this meeting to order in absence of chair Steve Judge. Pursuant to chapter 20 of the Acts of 2021 and extended by chapter 22 of the Acts of 2022 and extended again by state legislature on July 16th, 2022, this meeting will be conducted via remote means. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via Zoom or by telephone. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means. Additionally, the meeting recordings may be viewed via the town Amherst YouTube channel and ZVA webpage. For public comment, please indicate you wish to make a comment by clicking the raise hand button when public comment is solicited. If you have joined the Zoom meeting using a telephone, please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star nine on your telephone. When called on, please identify yourself by stating your full name and address and put yourself back into mute when finished speaking. Residents can express their views for up to three minutes or at the discretion of the chair. If the speaker does not comply with the guidelines or exceeds their allotted time, their participation will be disconnected from the meeting in accordance with provisions of mass general law, chapter 40A and article 10, special permit granting authority, the Amherst zoning bylaw. This public meeting has been duly advertised and noticed thereof has been posted and mailed to parties of interest. The zoning board of appeals is a quasi-judicial body that operates under the authority of chapter 40A 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 the 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 clarifications or additional information. After the board has completed its questions, the board will seek public input. The public speaks with the permission of the chair. If a member of the public wishes to speak, they should so indicate using the raise hand function on their screen or star nine if they're calling from a phone. The chair with the assistance of staff will call upon people wishing to speak. When you are recognized, present your full name and address to the board for the record. All questions and comments must be addressed to the board. The board will normally hold public hearings where information about the project and input from 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 and time, it will decide upon the application tonight. Each petition heard by the board is distinct and evaluated on its own merits and the board is not ruled by precedent. Statutorily for a special permit, the board has 90 days from the close of the hearings to file a decision. For a variance, the board has 100 days from the date of the filing to file its 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's a 20 day appeal period for an aggrieved 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. Tonight's agenda will be a roll call and then public hearing for ZBA FY 2018-3 and ZBA FY 2020-18, followed by a public meeting on ZBA FY 2018-03 and ZBA FY 2020-18, followed by a general discussion on the board as well as a business not anticipated within the last 48 hours. With that being said, we have in panel tonight, we have our regular members, myself, Dylan Maxfield, Tammy Parks and Craig Meadows and associate members, Sarah Marshall and Vince O'Connor. With that, we will begin with roll call vote. The chair, Dylan Maxfield is here. Tammy Parks. Here. Craig Meadows. Here. Sarah Marshall. Here. Vince O'Connor. Here. Excellent. So with that, we will move on to ZBA FY 2018-03 and ZBA FY 2020-18. So procedurally, we need to open up the public hearing. Do I have such a motion to do so? So moved. I'll second. And so O'Connor moves. Sarah Marshall seconds. We'll do a roll call vote. Chair votes aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. O'Connor. Aye. Ms. Marshall. Aye. And Mr. Meadows. Aye. All right. With that open, let's go ahead and get our panelists in here who will be presenting for the applicant tonight. We have Tom Reedy and also Pete Wilson who are in the attendees. Mr. Reedy actually suggested in a different meeting we were holding to promote those speakers to panelists so they can show their video. If that sounds good, I will do so. Sounds good. We can demote them afterwards. But there may be an interruption for them. Are you Mr. Reedy? Pretty well, Mr. Chair. How are you? Doing well. We got everyone in. Is it yourself and Pete Wilson? Pete Wilson, yeah. It'll be the two of us. All right, wonderful. Go ahead and state your name and address for the record. Sure, and I don't know if you want to read the public hearing notice before we get going. Do I have the public hearing notice? It's in the agenda. It's just what you said for the public hearing, but most oftentimes the chair will read it just into the record. Yeah, for the full, just the public hearing, got it. We can do that. So we have a public hearing for ZBA FY 2018-03 and ZBA FY 2020-18 Wilson Properties Group, LLC. Request for approval of submissions in fulfillment of condition nine, a special permit ZBA FY 2018-03 as extended by ZBA FY 2020-18 related to the creation of two flaglots, not part of a definitive subdivision, condition nine that requires new property owners come before the board at a public hearing to review the home location and propose screening plans along property lines at 43 and 45 Canton Avenue, Canton Avenue and 45 Canton Avenue, map 11D, parcels 281, 189 and 194. Perfect, thanks. Thanks, Mr. Chair. For the record, Tom Reedy, turned with Bacon Wilson here in Amherst here on behalf of the applicant Wilson Properties Group. And as the chair noted, really satisfaction of condition nine of an originally issued special permit from 2018, which was extended in 2020. With me this evening, the manager of Wilson Properties Group, Pete Wilson, who some of you probably had met on site at the site visit yesterday. I mean- Oh wait, I'm sorry, that does remind before you jump into it. Two points I need to make here. Number one, yes, we did have the site visit yesterday and I wanna bring up for everybody what was talked about at that site visit. We toured the property. We saw what the, we were shown locations of roughly where the house would be as well as the property line and the driveway. We had asked about plans for what the driveway would be constructed of. We were informed it was gonna be made of pavement. We asked whether or not the house is going to be built in line with some of the surrounding houses where there would be views from windows into the other houses. We were told that it would be staggered enough that that wouldn't be the case. I think those were the primary ones. I think we talked about again the driveway, how it was going to be constructed at an angle to prevent water runoff. Is there any other questions that we had that were asked at the time? Ms. Marshall? We observed the wetlands delineation, or at least the parts near the driveway. And I think also the rain garden area. Yep. Is there anything else that we missed from that? And then lastly, before we jump into this, disclosures, I wanna see does anybody else on the board have any disclosures on this matter? I have two disclosures to make. Number one, I serve on the Board of Licensing Commission with Mr. Gaston de los Reyes, who is on a butter to the property in question. And then secondly, I rent a property from Mr. Adrian Fabos, who was the previous owner of the property here in question as I do not have any financial ties to the current applicant, nor do I have any financial ties to Mr. de los Reyes. I do believe that I will be able to remain impartial for this hearing. With that being said, does anybody else have any disclosures? Anything else for missing procedurally before we jump into this, Chris or Steve? Mr. Chairman? Go ahead. Yeah, I did. I was unable to be at the site visit because of prior commitments, but I did visit the location. I didn't walk upon the property, but I observed the property. I'm familiar with that area. And so I wanted the applicant to know that I had familiarized myself with the area. Thank you, Mr. O'Connor. Yes, the site visit was attended by myself, Ms. Marshall, Ms. Parks and Ms. Brestra. Go ahead, Ms. Marshall. Yeah, I don't know if it's necessary to list the documents that were submitted for review. Do we have them all in record, Chris, or do I need to go one by one with all the documents? They are listed on page three, no, four of the opening statement. The one you sent me most recently, because I didn't keep them on. Well, it's right before it says public. There's a letter, do you want me to read them? Yeah, if you can go ahead, I don't think to see it on here. A letter dated January 3rd, 2023 from Attorney Thomas R. Reedy presenting the request. Management plan form undated. Plans prepared by Berkshire Design Group dated March 18th, 2022, revised as of 1130, 2022. She, well, I'll just say site plan, planting plan, rain garden details, site plan comparison, existing site plan. And there was also a special permit decision ZBA FY 2018-03 to Adrienne Fobots to create two flaglots, special permit decision ZBA FY 2020-18 to Wilson Properties to allow extension of time to commence construction. And there were a few other things that came in recently. One was images of the buildings, which I didn't list here because I created this statement before I got the images. So they are elevations of the buildings from three directions. And we also received an email from Mary Anderson, who is in a butter to the property and she was commenting essentially that she wasn't going to be in favor of changes to the plan unless they weren't negatively impacting certain things. And I think you all have that email. And I think that's it. I don't have that email. Mr. Chairman. Go ahead. Yes, I did not, I looked at all my emails. I did not see that email so that if I'm, if it's possible to get a copy, I would appreciate it. Yep, Steve, would you be able to help up Mr. O'Connor? Yeah, Chris, if you have that available to print, I can deliver that to him. I think I might have sent it to you. And also share it just on screen maybe. Yeah. Yeah. Could you restate which email that was, please? It's an email that I forwarded to the Zoning Board of Appeals members from Mary Anderson. I will provide that to Mr. O'Connor. Thank you. And then, all right, do we need anything else procedurally or are we able to get into it now? I'll forward this to Steve right now and he can put it on the screen if he is able to do that. Here it goes, Steve. Got it, thank you, Chris. Are you gonna share your screen, Steve? Yes, I'm just trying to bring that up. Do you want me to read this, Mr. Maxfield? Yeah, you can go for it. We might as well at this point. It's an email from Mary Anderson to Christine Brestra updated today. It says, hello, Christine. Thank you for the Zoom link. I would like to let the Zoning Board know that I am opposed to any changes in the current plan for building on the proposed lot at the end of Canton Ave. If the plans include expanding, relocating or otherwise creating further environmental damage to that area, Mary Anderson, 191 North Whitney Street. All right, thank you so much. All right, so with that all out of the way, I think I'm gonna go ahead and pass it over to you, Mr. Reedy, and let you go ahead and get started on the presentation. Perfect, show time. Okay, thanks a lot again for the record. Tom Reedy, Attorney of Bacon Wilson out of Amherst here on behalf of Wilson Properties Group in satisfaction of condition nine. And so I think that's important because it's a pretty discreet matter that's in front of the board tonight. It is just the responsibility of the property owner, Wilson Properties Group to come for the board at a public hearing to review the home location and proposed screening plans. So if it's okay, I'd like to share my screen and just I think I'll orient everybody to where we're talking about geographically and then show some plans and then hopefully have a productive discussion. All right, so just too, if everybody can see my screen just to orient everyone to where we are. This is, you know, Canton Ave runs north, south. This is the particular property that we're talking about right here. A little bit of background, the Fables family owned this property, this property and this property right here. In 2018, they got a special permit for two flaglots being these two properties. They subdivided the properties and then ultimately conveyed this one off to its current owner and conveyed these two off to Wilson Properties. Wilson Properties came in front of the board in 2020 to get an extension. Special permits can last up to three years and Amherst, I believe it's two years. And so they came before the board to get an extension and an extension was granted. That extension expires April 10th. So one of the things we may be doing this evening is requesting a further extension, I think, frankly, because of the hiccup with the posting, we're probably cutting it a little close for April 10th. The building permit application has been submitted, but I don't know if it will be reviewed, but it certainly won't be issued prior to the special permit conditions being satisfied. So again, just backing up, this is the property that we're talking about and it was previously approved in 2018. So then we'll go to another screen. Okay. And so now what I've got up is the plan. And so if you recall, you've got Canton Ave on the right side of the sheet running north-south. This is that parcel that we had talked about. So this is what the proposed plan looks like. You've got a driveway and maybe one of the things I can do is I'll start with the overlay. So the red is the proposed plan, the underlying black with the crosshatches is the approved plan. And so one of the things for several different reasons, but one of the things that the landowner wanted to do was straighten out the driveway, add additional shoulders, add a fire truck turnaround, and then have an attached garage versus what was previously shown as a detached garage. This plan has already been approved by the conservation commission. So the property owner went through a notice of intent, received an order of conditions for the plan that's currently in front of you. I will note that one of those special conditions, special condition number nine, is that if runoff is documented coming off of this property during or after construction, the site will be considered out of compliance with the order of conditions. So if drainage would be a concern to the zoning board, that is already addressed in the order of condition. So going back to the plan, you've got the underlayed what was approved, a meandering road coming into a garage, a walkway, a turnaround within wetlands, and then the principal structure. What's being proposed is that straight driveway, turnaround here, driveway, garage, and structure. And so, and this will deal a little bit with the public meeting that's on for a little bit later, as far as a deviation from the plans and requiring the board's approval at a public meeting, but that's really the whole picture. So then we'll go to the proposed plan for the house location. That house is proposed to be located in this area here, and I'll show some renderings of the exterior. I believe it's 28.4 feet from the property line, based on my calculation on GIS, I believe the closest adjacent property house is at least 60 feet into that property. So you've got at least 100 feet between the properties and between the structures on the properties. And then we've got 33 arborvites to be planted along that westerly property line. Five feet on center, I think three to four feet at planting, and those will reach 12 to 14 or 15 feet high when matured. We would expect a condition that if any of those plantings failed that they would have to be replaced within one growing season. And so this has been pretty well vetted by the conservation commission, as far as the wetlands, the rain garden, the drainage, not being more detrimental to the wetlands than what was previously approved, et cetera. And so we think, somewhat discreetly in front of you, the location of the house, as compared to what was approved, is or should be acceptable. And then you've got those plantings, particularly around the westerly side, and then some plantings on the southerly side. But if you recall the houses off Harvard Street, which is the closest cross street, are further towards the south. So I don't wanna cut it too short, but if we're just talking about house location and screening, it's somewhat self-explanatory. Maybe I will one more thing, if I could. Let me show just a couple of the exterior rendering so you get a flavor of what the house will look like. Traditional New England gabled roof with dormers, windows over a porch. So that's the front side, that's the east side. This is the back or the west side of the property. And then you've got coming up from the south from the driveway. You'll be coming around and then coming into this southerly exterior. Got it. Thank you, Mr. Reedy. All right, so go to questions for the board. First question I actually have. I'm sorry, you mentioned Mr. Reedy, the condition about runoff that was in here. Where is that condition? Yeah, so that's in the order of conditions. So as I said, Wilson Properties went through the conservation commission, they filed a notice of intent because they're gonna do work within jurisdictional area. Conservation Commission issues an order of conditions saying that's fine, you can do the work if in the jurisdictional area, but here's how you're gonna do it. And so they have a whole list of conditions, special conditions, general conditions for the work to be done on the site. And my point was that one of those conditions is if runoff is documented coming off of the property during or after construction, the site will be considered out of compliance with the order of conditions. So just in case there's any, because here, and this is probably more germane for the public meeting, but we're changing the driveway, we aren't changing the topography of the driveway, we're just changing the width of it. And instead of meandering, we're just coming straight. But again, this plan was approved by the commission and they have that condition. And then as I think you've mentioned in your sidewalk, the driveway is going to be sloped appropriately so that runoff does not occur into Canton Ave. Thank you. And then another question I have, it's just a little bit, if you know the history of this property to what degree you might know that, this is improved in 2018. What's been the cause for the delay for construction on this? And then what was ultimately, if you know, the reason to sell this property to Wilson Properties, if you have any insight into that. Yeah. So the Wilson Properties bought it in 2019. So it was approved, I could tell you exactly when it was approved. January of 2018 and it wasn't transacted until 2019. I can't tell you why, frankly, Adrian was running the show for his folks, so I don't know why they didn't transact until, well, there was lack of buyers, well, there was other things in the market and then subsequently, you know, Wilson Properties bought it. I think they had some other things going on. So they got the extension in 2020 and then I think we all know what happened shortly thereafter and so, you know, world turned upside down. And so that's why we're here and then obviously, Wilson Properties had to go through the conservation commission. They wanted to get those approvals set before they came back before the board because the uses, you know, the special permit issued for the flaglots, but if the design was gonna change based upon conservation saying, oh, well, you can't do it there, you have to move it here, it didn't make much sense to waste the zoning board of appeals time or anybody else's time. So they wanted to get the concom set. They got that set. And then we had worked with Maureen end of last year and then Maureen had left and then ended December beginning of January.  So I don't think anything, but maybe some bad luck, bad timing. But I think, you know, with this plan, and Pete can tell us when he'll be ready to go, but they filed for the building permit. So I would suspect that if this is approved, then they would be looking to start, you know, as soon as possible. Got it. And then this might be, might be a question for town staff on this one just because, so what we've got before us, it's just to review condition nine, but we're being presented with kind of a different property layout than what had initially been approved. But I don't see any condition in the special permit that I think we usually see and the way we typically approve special permits now, saying that it must be built according to what was proposed. I'm seeing number four, final building plan shall be reviewed by the town engineer prior to receiving a building permit to ensure compliance of town engineering standards are still being satisfied. Would we have to make specific finding rulings on the changes to the design of this or?  I think I know the typical conditions at this point, you know, to be constructed substantially in accordance with the plans dated whatever they are here. We've got 12, which says the project shall be built to the approved plan data, November 7th, 2017. Any substantial deviation from this approved plan shall return to the ZBA for review at a public meeting. And so if you look at the agenda, the second agenda item here this evening is the public meeting, which is just a horse of a different color to a certain extent. Thank you, Mr. Chair, excellent. All right, so those are most of my questions right now. Other board members, do you have questions about this right now? If you do, please go ahead and raise your hand because the share screen here is preventing me from seeing if you're doing a feed camera. I can stop sharing if you want. I just don't know if people wanna talk about it. No, I think it'll be useful. This is Sarah, I have my hand up. Go ahead, Ms. Marshall. Okay, thank you. I think this may be of interest to the public. Could you talk, Mr. Wilson told us about this yesterday, but you could say for the record, the fire department's input on this driveway plan and the turnaround. And so that and then just how this rain garden is going to help with runoff. We don't see the rain garden here, but... So you should be able to see it on the plan that I have up currently. So what you have here, so what was, and I'll go back to the overlay. So what was approved, I believe, was 10-foot wide pavement with two-foot shoulders. What's proposed and what was approved by the Conservation Commission is 12-foot pavement with four-foot shoulders on either side. So that gives better ability for emergency vehicles to access the property. The initial design, as you see under here, did not have a turnaround for a fire truck. This has that, I mean, it's got a hammerhead where you'd come up, fire truck could pull in here, back up here, and then do that three-point turn and exit the site. And then to get to the rain garden. Wait, can I just say something before you move on? So the shoulders and this turnaround, as I understand it, are gravel. So that's not all pavement. Correct. They do count towards lot coverage because that's the way the by-law is written, but for practical purposes, rain falls, it's gonna find its way through the gravel versus something that's truly impervious. Right, and you said the driveway will be sloped to the north toward the wetland, yes? Correct, slightly, I would say. So it doesn't have to be much for the water to run. But that's the way that, yeah, the water is not, it's again, towards that condition number, it might be nine of the order of conditions, not to run off-site. And that means also, not just traveling east along the road, it also means traveling in any other direction. So southerly is one of those other directions. So we would slope, we'll slope slightly the driveway to the north. Thank you. Questions from other board members? Mr. Meadows. I have two things. One is that the turnaround, the condition, be that the turnaround in the fire truck, we not used at all for parking. And the second is that the RVVITI are not pollinators. I'm wondering if we can get those changed to something that are pollinators. Like Holly, if I could guess. Can you guess that? So surprised. Yeah, Pete, if you're on, I don't know if, you know, what you think about changing those RVVITIs to Hollies. I mean, it provides arguably the same amount of screening. They'll, I think they're native to the area and obviously your pollinators as well. They are slower growing now on. They are slower growing. Yeah. Hi, good evening to everyone. Yeah, we'd be open to meeting the screening conditions. And if I could just back up on the driveway. So I don't know what particular fire department standard was for the driveway in 17, but here in 22, that's why the driveway has been modified as well. And we also modified it for any ambulance need because they're typically a larger vehicle. Not as heavy, but, and maybe not, and not as long, but, and the last thing is, yeah, the turnaround would be designated for just that, the turnaround. There's parking up there at the house and in the garage. So I think Mr. Meadows, the answer is yes, if the board would prefer Holly, then Holly would be planted. Thank you. Ms. Brestrup. Yeah, I just had a couple of things. One is I don't think, and I would defer to Mr. Mara or Mr. Riedi on this, but I don't think, because this isn't a new special permit, I don't think we can impose conditions on it. So that's one thing. The second thing is I wonder Arbor Vitey, whether you like them or not, are very good screening plants. And I wonder if Mr. Meadows would accept, in addition to Arbor Vitey, putting some pollinator plants here on the property, rather than taking away the Arbor Vitey, which are screening plants that grow very quickly. So I guess that's my suggestion, is to add some pollinator plants here, rather than taking the Arbor Vitey away, because I think that that would really change the screening to the West. I think it's a good idea. I'm not certain Arbor Vitey over time, start dying off and don't look good and don't provide screening. Holly over time will go grow much slower, but retain their foliage a lot longer than the Arbor Vitey will. So it's a matter of thinking short-term or long-term. Then to believe in these cases that we've done in the past, if there's a question of whether or not the board can impose conditions, I believe it has been if the applicant is open to new conditions being imposed, then that's certainly, we're certainly able to do it. So what I'm hearing so far is the applicant is amenable to some of the conditions that we're talking about. And if we come to one that the applicant is not all right with, we can deal with it then. But I think we might be able to do something with Holly versus Arbor Vitey is on that one. Questions for other members? Ms. Marshall? Yeah, is this the first time a screening plan has been presented? I believe so. I did not represent FABOS when they went through this process initially, but I don't believe a landscape plan or planting plan necessarily was presented. Yeah, I'm just concerned that there's, I don't know if there had been the previous plan and a butters were okay with it and now something different is proposed that, so. Yeah, and I don't know if there's a way to split the baby, but if Arbor Vitey here, Holly down here or something like that, the lower, the southerly half, we do Holly from here to let's say mid driveway or something like that. And then Arbor Vitey for the other piece, just understanding that this, this is where the windows are, the life, the more activity and then down here, the Holly. And so maybe it's a way to get a little bit of both, but we're amenable. Mr. Chairman? Go ahead. Mr. O'Connor? Mr. O'Connor, go ahead. Yeah, so I have a question about, is this the proposed residential unit B is going to be marketed for single family home use or as a rental?  I don't know that Wilson properties knows what they're going to do. It probably is going to be market dependent. Right, if they can find a buyer who has head over heels for this site and then if that buyer buys it and wants to rent it, so it's, frankly, I don't know that that's within the purview of the board with all due respect. Yeah, it affects some of the concerns I have about conditions. So I just, and I also have a question about the screening in the previous plan, there was no screening or didn't appear to be any screening necessary to the south, but as the vehicles exit the driveway to the south, do you plan, I noticed that at the site visited a couple of trees were going to be removed, is there going to be some screening to the south with regard both to the lights that are motion activated that are on the garage that face south and also the issue of vehicles exiting the garage directly to the south toward the adjacent property to the south is, again, the previous iteration of the site plan because the garage was going to essentially be right at the end of the driveway, didn't need screening. Now, I think that issue is, what are your thoughts about the screening to the south and both screening the lights, the motion lights and the exiting vehicles? I think it's a great point, Mr. O'Connor. Yeah, I think that's one of the changes in the plan from what was approved to what is being proposed and there is screening proposed along that southerly end of the driveway where if vehicles as they exit, that's the way they'll be facing, they'll be facing south and then they'll be turning east and traveling east. So there's some dogwoods and some viburnum in this area at the southerly end of that driveway. Okay, yeah, then the plans that I have just don't show that area. That's why I asked the question. And with respect to the exterior lighting, I just would recommend that there be, that the actual, what would have been referred to in the past as a light bulb or the LED lights, that the actual device that lights that the cast light on the driveway and so forth and the surroundings not be visible from adjoining properties. I've seen a lot of cut off things that essentially cut at the horizontal level. And if a house is below that level, then essentially some of those lighting fixtures, which don't shield the LED or the bulb from adjoining properties, essentially those adjoining properties get to see the light bulbs in their second floor, in some cases in their second floor windows. And I am concerned that notwithstanding the general language of the condition that the devices, the lighting devices be cut off in such a way as that no one from the adjoining property can see the device that casts the light. So it's, I don't know how to make that specific, but I would definitely recommend it, especially, it won't make any difference whether this is a rental or a single family home used, but it would, I think, keep the peace with the neighbors if they don't have to look at these lights because I've seen a lot of so-called cut off lighting that is extremely visible to both the residents, in some cases, of multi-family housing and adjoining neighbors. And I don't think that's a neighborly thing to have happen. Thank you, Mr. O'Connor. And I just have one other question about, this is a slightly different world than existed in 2017. And I have two concerns with regard to that would have been, if this were initially presented now, would have been concerned. One is whether the garage area is going to be provided with an electric vehicle charging station, which I think if you consult 10.384, the life of this building is such that that that will come into play in terms of electrical vehicle charging. The other question I have for the applicants is whether they have any thought, given that the time to do things least expensively is during the initial construction, is whether they plan to install on the West facing roof or in some place around the building, either rooftop solar or heat pumps to essentially bring this building as close to zero carbon emissions operationally as the site will allow. Thank you, Mr. O'Connor. And just before we go ahead and answer those questions, I just wanna make sure that we are all on the same page here with this. It's just what's before us tonight is gonna be reviewing of condition nine about the screening. And then because there's been a pretty substantial change to the layout of the building here, it is gonna be conditioned 12. So any, I don't think we're gonna be necessarily imposing new conditions, but we can certainly have a threshold that we believe we need to have met by the applicant in order to satisfy conditions nine and conditions 12. So just wanna make sure as we continue on with this meeting tonight that we keep that in mind. So I certainly think it's a fair question to ask whether or not there has been any thought given to electric vehicle charging in that garage. Mr. Riedi. I don't know, I'll ask Pete. I mean, I don't think it would be required. I know some projects under code require, if not a full construction of the EV, but at least the designation of a space for the EV. Obviously with the gas moratorium, with other considerations, it's gonna be an all electric house. So I would assume heat pumps, air source heat pumps are gonna be used here to touch on the lighting just quickly. There is a condition, condition seven, lighting plans submitted with each building permit indicate that all lights are facing downward and dark sky compliant. And I would be a little hesitant to give a butters unilateral control over if there is anything visible then there would be a violation of the permit. So I think as written, I mean it was thoughtful and as written, I think they also wanna be good neighbors as well. So I think Mr. O'Connor's point is noted. So Pete, I don't know if you've got an idea on EV and or solar slash ground source or air source heat pumps. Yes, okay. So if we take the issue of the charging vehicle, it is now part of the code. So there will be a charging station there in one of the garage bays. There is something, and I haven't flushed this out with the building department. There is some solar prep that I think the town of Amherst is requiring. We would comply with that, but at this time we don't have any definitive plans regarding solar. The other thing to bring to mention is the lighting would be downcast. It would be on a timer. The timer minimum I think is a minute and then you can go in increments of three, five and up. But to keep in mind the closest house to this proposed house and garage, the closest house to the garage is gonna be a minimum of 200 feet, a minimum and directly south off the driveway that is Mrs. Hart's house. I believe she lives in it and she has some kind of evergreens up there already existing. And that southerly line, although we're going to infill, as Mr. Reedy mentioned, there is some natural screening there as soon as spring kind of, as soon as May gets around here. So I just wanted to point that out. We are not physically close to any house. And although this isn't maybe a big issue, the other thing to mention Mr. O'Connor raised is Mrs. Hart rents out that ranch house to the south of our driveway to the corner of the neighboring street and Gaston across the street, that's a two family. And I believe he lives in one side, rents the other. So just to give you a little more background to the neighborhood. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. I think I saw Ms. Marshall, your hand is up. If you're there, you're muted. Sorry, sorry. So regarding the relocated, somewhat relocated house, could the applicant tell us about the change in the footprint? I don't know if it's larger overall or smaller. Also, it looks to me like it may have moved a little bit away from the wetland buffer, is that the case? Yes, let me pull up the screen. So this is probably the best way to see it without having the footprint calculations, just by eye. When I look at the size of this right here, and I look at the size of this right here, they are larger than certainly these combined. And in fact, the new house plus the new garage may be able to fit into or very closely fit into what that house was. So I think as far as building coverage, I think we are down a couple of percentage points from what was there previously. And then when you look at, you've got the wetlands here, you see that there's that intrusion on the wetlands here. You see the proposed in the red, it's staying outside of that wetland edge right there. So there's not that fill of wetland as it was going to be before. But also the house, also the house is further. I thought there was... Oh yeah, yeah, absolutely. Yeah, practically speaking, you've got that distance and now you've got this distance. Other questions from board members or we get to open it up to the public? All right, in that case, we will go ahead and open up for public comment. For public comment, if you would like to, you can go ahead and use the raise hand function on Zoom. If you're calling in, go ahead and press star nine. We'll go ahead, I'll call on you. We'll go ahead and promote you so you'll be able to talk once we've done so. Please unmute yourself and then list your name and address for the record. Then you'll have three minutes to make your comment and please address your comments directly to the board and not to the applicant. With that in mind, we've got, I see Myra Ross with their hand up. You can go ahead and promote Myra Ross. Myra, you should be able to speak. All right, we can hear you. Ms. Ross, if you wanna go ahead, and state your name and address you correctly. Am I unmuted? Can you hear me? We can hear you. All right, now can you hear me? Yep, we can hear you. Okay, I'm sorry, okay. So I have a couple of questions. Myra Ross, I live at 34 Harvard Avenue. So I'm up the hill on the corner of North Whitney, corner of Harvard and North Whitney, on this side of North Whitney, on the project side of North Whitney. Next door to me is Carolyn Hart's house and then further down the hill is the ranch house that Mr. O'Connor referred to. I am very concerned and was for the original proposal about water. The water table is very high here. I fortunately am located uphill from this site. Our driveway, I mean, our property slopes down to Carolyn Hart's house. I believe they have a sump pump in their basement. One time when it was broken, and when I was walking down the street in April, they had a hose coming from the house out onto Harvard Avenue and the amount of water that was coming out of that basement for quite a few hours was really frightening. The water table is very, very high already. And it appears to me that you're going to take out some trees in order to move this driveway further to the south. The trees absorb water without them. I believe there will be much more serious water problems that are not taken care of by the driveway runoff to the north because we're talking about what's to the south of the driveway. And so I'm very, very concerned about the trees removal if I have that correct. And then I have a question which is the proposal is for two flaglots but there seems to only be one house. So if somebody could answer that and really I hope that the ZBA will really think very hard about the removal of those trees and asking them to relocate the driveway again because the trees have to stay there or the water in those houses on Harvard, not mine because I'm uphill from it but the water on those houses on Harvard will be extremely problematic. And this is David Meyers husband. We're on the same camera or microphone so I'll just throw in my thoughts now. And then they're very similar. I share the same concerns. It looks to me as if the original design of the driveway took into account leaving the trees because it was further from the border whereas I see that the new lines of the driveway bring it very close to the border and probably is what's requiring the removal of those trees. The other two thoughts were fairly minor but one has to do with the garage lights. I think Vince is absolutely right. We have garage lights and they go on all the time because there's so many animals in this area. They're constantly traipsing back and forth and turning on the lights. So for the neighbors consideration Vince's point is well taken. And the only other thing I wanted to add was my concern that the special permit conditions that you're considering use the word substantial as opposed to your traditional language. And I'm not sure why the board should move from its traditional requirements to do something different in this case. Thank you. Oh, and regarding the water, if they built in the fall they're not going to likely violate the water conditions but if they built in a rainier season they're more likely to. So I sort of have a little bit of issue with the question about during building or shortly after construction if there's a problem it will be in non-compliance. I think you need to anticipate that there are going to be serious water issues when there is water and that when they build it doesn't really matter. Thank you. Mr. Lee, you want to collect all public comment first or would you like to respond one by one? Probably one by one will be the simplest way to do it. So I think first, and as you had noted Mr. Chair for clarity the special permit was issued for essentially the creation of one main lot which is now owned which is across the street and I believe it's number 43-45 and two flag lots. And so what one of the conditions of that originally issued special permit as extended in 2020 was that the property owner had to come back to discuss screening and home location. And so that's what we're doing. We're not asking for a new special permit. We're not asking for any modification of an existing special permit. We're just asking, we're really just looking to satisfy that condition. And so that's why we're only dealing with this one flag lot out of all the three lots that were created is because this is the only one that we're dealing with at this point. So that's the first point, which I think is important. The second point, I think the comments are good. Pete's on, he's listening, it's at his risk, I'm sure. I mean, he's built houses before he understands the way water works, which is frankly relatively consistent. When I look at the, and I'll share my screen again with the property viewer with the topographical maps from the town. So you've got, this is that property at the corner, 40 Canton, and then this one's 46 Harvard. When you look, you've got elevation 290 right here, 295 right here. If we're looking at it, the house is probably gonna be somewhere in this area between 305 and 310 as top of foundation. If you've got an eight foot foundation, maybe footings underneath it you might be at, let's say 295, 300. And I don't know that you're, as far as the house goes, displacing like hydrogeologically a bit of water. The water's still gonna find its way. I don't think you're putting, you got a cop and you put a coin in there, you're not all of a sudden making that water overflow. And I think as far as, let me get the comparison plan back up, I'm sure there's a better way to do it besides switching off, but I'm not smart enough to know how to do it yet. In really either instance, these trees or whether it was the older version or this newer version, these trees are likely to come down because of the disruption from the gravel base and then the finishing of the driveway. And so I don't know between approved and proposed that there's much, if any, of a difference between maintaining trees. If anything, this jog asked to do with these wetlands over here, right? So you see the wetlands coming out here, the jog here, that's why we went through the conservation commission first to allow the existence of the driveway in this location here. Mr. Riedi, I see we have Mary Anderson. Go ahead, we can get them in. Hi, I have a couple of questions. Please go ahead, state your name and address for the record. Oh yeah, Mary Anderson, I own the property of 191 North Whitney Street that it butts the whole northern side of the big piece of property. Anyway, yeah, so my first question regards the screening plans. So how tall are these plants going to be when they're first put in, when they're first planted? How I need to know how tall they're going to be and how long it will take them to become tall enough to do what you want it to do? Ms. Anderson, please address the concerns to the board. I am. I don't have that answer. So Mr. Riedi, I suppose you could give that to me. I'd be happy to. Three to four feet at planting, I believe. And Arborvites are, as I think most folks know, pretty quick growers. I can't tell you how long it takes to get to 12 to 14 feet. And one of the other things, while I've got this, this is subject property, I believe this is Mrs. Anderson's property up here, right? And so then it's machine butts, really this bigger one, which isn't the subject of the hearing this evening. But I would expect, for those herbs on the side, they probably reach that, oh, I'm not even going to take a guess, but they're relatively quick growers. Okay. But if the point of these plants is to screen the view and protect from light and so on, then shouldn't they be larger to start with when they go in? I mean, four feet, that's not even halfway up the first floor. And you're anticipating a two-story building, which means the second story is going to be, what, 15 feet high? Do Arbivari even grow that high? That's one question. And then the second question would be, will they be planted before the construction begins so that at least there'll be some sound abatement and a little bit of vision abatement? Or will all of that work be done afterwards, which will, I mean, it makes it kind of useless for the first several years. Nice thought, but it isn't going to help the neighbors any for the first several years. So that's one point. The second thing was, is there going to be any restriction on future tree cutting in that lot? Because it's the lack of trees, as were alluded to by the previous speakers, that really exacerbate the whole water problem. And I don't know if the town can impose or at least request that before the landowner, whoever that may be cuts any trees, they come before the conservation, just to consider the impact cutting some of those trees might have on future water problems. That was the second thing. Shoot, I had a third one. Well, I can't remember it. So I guess that's my problem. Yeah, I'm also concerned about the water only on behalf of the people that are there. And I know water has been a problem for all the years. I'm 76 years old and I live there forever. And I know that piece of property quite well. And I know that water has been a continuing problem there. So I think it would be very good to have a lot of attention paid to that property, regardless of who owns it or when they own it. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Ms. Anderson. So yeah, go ahead, Mr. Riedi. Thanks a lot. So maybe the second one first, there is a condition in the order of conditions underlined condition number three of special conditions where no vegetation removal is permitted outside of the limit of work line. So they've put that. And then there's obviously jurisdictional issues as well. Anything within a hundred feet of a resource area is subject to conservation commission jurisdiction. So there's that condition in there. And Pete, I'm gonna turn to you on the ARB. So what I'll say is typically plantings are done subsequent to the construction. And it's kind of the final landscaping is kind of the final thing that is done. Pete, for this, I don't know if it makes sense or if the ARBs would be in danger if you were to plant them first or what you're thinking is, as far as the sequencing of construction with the Arborvides and potentially the Holley as well. Okay, I'm glad to answer those good questions. So let's start first. I know everyone and water came up. Mrs. Anderson mentioned water back through the conservation hearing. I don't know about the Roths. So basically we did a test hole out there last summer and we went down three feet deep in trying to ascertain what kind of subsoil we had. I mentioned this to the board members that were at the site visit. Yes, Wednesday morning. So we found no water at three feet, no sign of water, no modeling, no staining. We found about nine to 10 inches of topsoil and the rest was gravel. Water, as I said, came up to and it seems like a good question to thoroughly kind of answer. And maybe others will remember me sharing this information at the conservation hearing. So according to the neighbor Gaston, he's not had any water off of that lot affecting him, not ever since he's been there and he's been there since 20. I've talked to him at length last summer. I mentioned we had a little microburst last August where the area just was doused with water. I went up there physically, took some pictures, spent a couple hours just watching to see if there's any runoff, which there wasn't. So based on some actual digging, we find no water conditions there. The other problem is, as I mentioned to the board members yesterday, we have the properties from North Whitney, whose homes front on North Whitney, driveways come off of North Whitney. Their backyards, which is considerable length, flow towards us easterly. So we absorb water onto that parcel from them. It stays on the parcel as best I can see because the folks to the south, and this would affect Mrs. Hart's two properties, there's a natural little swale where the driveway is, where the south line where there is some trees and natural screening there, as I mentioned earlier, there's more of a little berm. So water from our property can't even get over that and into either of Mrs. Hart's properties. So I'm trying to say to you, we were very comfortable with the conservation putting in that requirement that all water stay on the parcel because water is for all intensive purposes, staying within that parcel now. The town of Amherst, I talked with the engineer and I talked with DPW folks. No one's had any complaint up there where the town has had to come out and say, hey, we need to put some kind of a drainage in here. We need to put a catch basin for a storm drain. None of that exists. So I've heard Mrs. Hart talk about that ranch and water coming into that cellar. But the other problem is that ranch house is at a much lower elevation. There could be groundwater to the south. There could be a natural spring in the vicinity of that house. There could be several other factors which don't transfer up to our property, but maybe conditions at that property. So hopefully I've addressed some general questions about the water. The next thing is back to the plantings. As I told the board members, our property to the west continues to go up in elevation. So I don't have in front of me the elevation where the row of arborvides or hollies would be planted, but that is gonna be probably maybe as much as a four and a half higher than the elevation at the driveway. So it will add a little bit of height to these initial bushes, as Mr. Reedy mentioned. And I think that's the questions that I can address. Maybe just the timing of planting those arborvides if you were gonna wait traditionally until after everything else is done, because it seems like, so I've got the grading plan up if you're looking at your screen and you've got elevation 112, probably 114 up here. So I don't know if you have to grade that out and then put the arborvides in, which I don't think is an issue, but just the coming full circle on that. Okay, so the procedure would be, we would not wanna start site construction if we had a very wet spring. It's just a waste of time because it's nothing but a headache to work in. So we would look for late spring, early summer. If the spring continues to be drier, we would as soon as we're through all the permitting process would try to get underway. We would wanna do all the site work that means get the foundation in and backfilled. And once it's backfilled, because our intent is to get the lawn area in as quick as we can and work around that, we could put the shrubbery in probably, again, depending on when the site works done, the foundations in backfill, all that grading work is done, which we wanna get done before we even put lumber to the foundation. Possibly if we start in June time period, we could be mid-summer, maybe end of summer. If we can start more towards middle of April, first part of May, depending on weather conditions, permitting, it could be a little earlier, but either way, we're looking at summer conditions and we would probably say maybe it's better to wait till fall, a little cooler to put those plants in. So that's the best kind of information to share. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. All right, I'm seeing Mr. Gaston de los Reyes' hand up. Let's get in here. Go ahead. Yes, thank you. So I wanna start actually with- Just please state your name. Oh yeah, Gaston de los Reyes. I live at 45 Canton Ave across the street from the Lawton question. I live in the Fabo's house. And I wanna start by addressing the water issue which just came up. It's correct that I discussed with Wilson Construction that in 2022, we didn't have any water issues, but I did tell Wilson Construction that we had water issues after they did all the cutting on the land that didn't follow the conservation conditions. And a side note here, I'm surprised, Mr. Chair, that in response to your question about why it took so long to get back here today that Mr. Reedy didn't mention the issue with the unauthorized cutting and movement of land that Wilson Construction did and the enforcement action that resulted. I had understood that that was part of the issue here. So this is all to say that one of my concern, my real concern is the reliability of Wilson Construction in adhering to the plans and to the commitments. And I have had a cordial and pleasant relationship with Pete and Harry Wilson and I look forward to doing so. But my training, my experience is as a business ethicist. And so I'm very familiar with the ways that businesses have a tendency to cut corners. And I'm afraid that some of that has occurred in connection with these lots. I am familiar with the lots because my family moved to Amherst in 2018 with the intention to buy the lot in question. It was shortly after we made the decision to move that the home came up for sale and we purchased that already excited to live at the end of Canton Avenue. And so we were very well informed about the conservation issues in question. And so I was surprised that Wilson Construction said that they didn't know about the details about which trees they couldn't cut. I was surprised at our last hearing together with the ZBA at the end of 19, that the reason why Wilson Construction moved to not have to do a public hearing tonight, to not have to notify a butters was that Wilson Construction said that it was a clerk in the town hall that suggested that that would be a way to avoid the couple of hundred bucks needed to spend on the newspaper ad. And so these are episodes that diminish rather than increase my confidence in the business. Again, I'm talking about the business. I'm not talking about Pete Wilson. I'm talking about Wilson Construction, a business that purchased the land to make money off of it. And businesses as you well know, often try to increase the money and increase their flexibility to achieve their business goals by avoiding regulation. And I'm concerned about those issues. And I also wanna highlight to the ZBA that one of the considerations that the Conservation Commission gave a lot of weight to had nothing to do with the expertise of the Conservation Commission. The Conservation Commission explicitly noted that they were very concerned about not approving the plan to move forward because of the threat of litigation against the town based on a claim of a constitutional taking. Now, I think that that notion of a threat of litigation on that grounds is misguided, but that's a legal question. And the point is that the Conservation Commission does not have expertise about litigation risk. And in my view was well outside of its can in giving weight to that as a reason why they agreed to make changes as they did. So I am all in favor of a home going up there, but I know nothing about what will lead this construction to cause water issues. I'm just ignorant about that. I will note, Mr. Riedi said earlier this evening that it's at Wilson construction's risk if water issues result. And I guess I'm interested in understanding better what that risk is. I understand that if there's some drainage issues during the course of construction, then they're out of compliance. I don't know who's enforcing that. I don't know what out of compliance means, but after the house is up, if there's further water issues once the Wilson construction doesn't own the property anymore, I guess I'm curious what it means to say that it's at their risk that water issues would result. And I finally wanna remind the ZBA that we're in the era of climate weirdness when water issues are not what we used to have and our existing regulations were drawn up for an era that we don't live in anymore. And so with that, I wanna conclude my remarks, but a key point to stress is that I told Wilson construction that we did have water issues after they did all of that cutting that they seem to have subsided in the year thereafter. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. DeLos Reyes. Go ahead, Mr. Redi. Yeah, that's a tough one to respond to. There wasn't, I mean, I respect Mr. DeLos Reyes and I didn't mean to freeze over the fact that, yes, there was cutting, there was an enforcement order. The Wilson's had to go in front of the Conservation Commission resulted in revised plans. Frankly, they handled most of that themselves. I suspect that getting through the Conservation Commission, which was my ultimate point was the reason why this was prolonged, but I don't wanna hide the ball here. I think as far as relative to the comment about at their risk, and I think Mr. DeLos Reyes brings up a good point, it would be at their risk during construction, obviously, and then for as long as they own the property, the condition is during or after construction. And so what I would see as the most like anything, right? And I'll be back in front of you in a certain number of weeks with another project and we'll have the same conversation. And it's construction logistics, right? It's how do you manage it when there's disturbance on the site? And that's the key, because once you get the site stabilized, that's where things should be predictable. And so when I mentioned at their risk, and Pete and Harry, their builders, they know how to control, I think they know how to control the water, especially with the right erosion and sediment control, understanding time of year, like Pete had said, doing it during a drier season. And so their risk would be if there is runoff and then any neighbor calls and Aaron Jock, the conservation agent, or Rob Moore or one of his inspectors comes out and finds it, all of that money and time they've put into the Wilson set, put into getting to that point could be gone because there would be an enforcement order to either come into compliance or to just pull the permit away. And I wasn't involved in any constitutional taking arguments, probably a tough argument to make for anybody. So I know there's a lot of talk about drainage and water, et cetera, but I think as far as the business ethics, representations and then just what we meant by risk, I think that would be our response. Yeah, if I could jump in and respond as well. Go ahead. So we have had a cordial relationship with Mr. I don't see his name up, but I'm gonna just use Gaston because I will butcher his last name. No, Gaston is fine, Pete, thank you. Okay, so we did have, and I apologize if I mischaracterized any of the water issue off of our property, but I did go over it with Gaston in 22. I was up there that afternoon. I think he may have come out. My memory is not that perfect. Again, speaking of August of 2022, now his driveway slopes downward off of Canton, the East side. He does have a little bit of berm built right up at the end of his driveway where it intersects with Canton Avenue. But that berm only extends so far. He never indicated to me, and Gaston, correct me where I go wrong, that the water ever went over the berm. It was more further south where the berm stops and then it could meander its way onto the sidewalk, south side sidewalk. But, you know, he's lived there and as he said, not putting words in his mouth, he hasn't had a constant water issue I would state because otherwise he might call the town out and the town would have a record of saying, hey, we have a chronic issue with water. So that's what I'd like to address because the site is good otherwise. I know there's always concern about water, but everything but the grading that exists there now and in the future will keep it on the property to the north side. That's part of what the rain garden does. Ask to kind of clear the air on a subject that isn't really the topic tonight, but to the cutting. We buy the property, we see kids out there. It was our mistake. We did not, from Mr. Fables, he told us there was no wetland on that smaller parcel where we were working and we mitigated some liability with these widow makers out there. It is unfortunate, you know, both my brother and I could save ourselves a lot of time and heartache over that. But the truth is based on what Mr. Fables told us because we didn't get plans, that again was on us. I actually called Erin and said, we wanted to look at the lot with the potential to renew the original permit.  If my brother and I had ever felt we were doing something we shouldn't have, I would never have asked her to come out. I certainly wouldn't have paid the $50 and say, let's come out and talk about this. So clearly, again, not pushing the blame anywhere, but to just air this out so it's in the open, you know, that was on us, we made that mistake. So back to Gaston's comment about the original extension. My brother and I requested the original extension. Maureen was the liaison to the ZBA. She is the one that told me that this was what I could do. And yes, there was a fee savings in it. I apologize if I cut coupons, but that was her advice to me. I went with it just like tonight, you know, we'll work with the board to make sure they're happy and satisfied. But I didn't do it of my own intention. She guided me that way, just again to clear the air. So there's no issue. If I may, I bought to the ZBA if I can address you. I feel good about Mr. Wilson's comments and I feel the air is cleared from my standpoint. Thank you. Okay, you're welcome. Thank you. Thank you both. All right. Do we have, I'm not seeing any new hands raised right now. Right now. So we've got, I guess we had a couple options ahead of us right now. If we think we have enough information to move forward, we could close the public hearing. Or I believe we also have the option to leave it open and open the public meeting. Am I correct about that, Chris? Procedurally we can do that. Mr. Chair, I'll leave a discretion whether or not to recognize any speakers, but I will say from a technical standpoint, I believe Ms. Anderson and Ms. Ross have been re-raised their hands after their comments. I don't think they were left up earlier. I see Ms. Ross is down if Ms. Anderson or Ms. Ross. I think we, yeah, we have time for some more public comments that you guys like to go. Again, I'll start with Ms. Ross. Just a minute. Hello, I just want to say two sentences. One, there was a drought in 2022 of some significance. So if they're basing water issues on 2022, that's a good time to base water issues on if you want to build in place where there's a water problem. And my other comment, and I guess it's a procedural comment for the town is this, we were never informed about conservation commission dealing with this topic at all. So I don't know how some people knew and some people didn't, but I wondered before Mr. Daelus-Raeus's comments, I wondered why they approved this with all of the water issues. And now it looks sort of clear that there is a reason that might not have to do with water. And so it's a little perturbing. And I just want to make sure that the water is central here because it is, it's nice to say there might be a spring under the heart's house and there might be, but then again, it might get a whole lot worse. So I just think it's important for you to think water, especially if the conservation commission didn't. That's it, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Reed. I think I'll simply respond that the conservation commission did consider the water. Thank you. All right, and then we'll go ahead to Mr. Anderson. Can I jump in a minute? Oh, yeah, sure, go ahead. I apologize, Mr. Reed too. So as I mentioned earlier, the general situation with soil is this, if you have a water table, there are several other methods to determine that you have an existing water table. If it is chronic as Ms. Ross mentioned, you end up with a modeling or staining of the soil. It kind of gives you a line where that soil continues to have water because year after year after year, there is some iron in the soil and that creates what we call modeling or staining. Because I install and do a lot of excavating work, these are tools we use, boards of health use it with septic systems when we deal with installing foundations and other structures underground, we read the soil. And so I had the engineer out there, we did sample that test hole. There was no modeling found, no staining, none of that. And it was dry. I would say 2022, maybe the summertime was a little bit dry, but I don't have the charts to tell you otherwise, but I would tell you that I have high confidence that there isn't a water table there that I'm gonna contend with when I dig that cellar hole. And if there is, we use stone and drainage pipe to direct that and that would be something that would go into the rain garden ultimately. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. And then let's go ahead and go back to Ms. Anderson. Ms. Anderson, you're muted. Sorry. My apologies. I remember my question. When you look at the map that has both the red and the black, I'm not a mathematician, but it looks to me as if the amount of red is double the amount of the original black. So, and if it's not double, it's certainly very close to double. And it seems to me that there is gonna be a lot more destruction of the environment than the original plans would have called for. And if there wasn't a water problem before, if more destruction of the environment occurs, there will be a water problem because where this house is going is up into an area that is much wetter than the lower southern end of that property. That top end of the property, behind the house that belongs to, I can't remember, it used to be genetics. Anyway, up there behind their house, there's nothing but swamp year round. And now this house is being proposed to be higher closer to that area. So I'm just concerned that an original plan was submitted. And I get that the conservation commission has approved this, which I find appalling. But I don't understand how you can submit a plan for exonantive square feet of intrusion into an area. And then later on, redraw the plans, almost double the amount of intrusion and have that be acceptable. So I guess my question is, what's the percentage of increase of impact? And was this the only way that whatever they needed to do that for could be done? I mean, it seems to me there would be a lot of different ways to draw in the garage, like for instance, where that rectangle is right below the new garage, that could become the garage. And this house could then be put over that. I don't understand. This is like a driveway in search of a house. And now it's even worse. So I'm just concerned that the amount of impact in that area has been doubled. And I think that's a mistake. So at least I'm on record with some of the other people. Thank you, Ms. Anderson. Mr. Riddie. Sure. Thanks a lot just for the topic of discussion. I think this is the map or plan, rather Ms. Anderson was commenting on. And so the building coverage actually goes down by 2.9%. So that's 1,260 feet, square feet rather. The approved plan for the building coverage was 3,140 square feet. Proposed is 1,880 square feet. So the building coverage goes down. The lot coverage does go up, but certainly not double. It goes up 4.9%. So 25%, so it's RG zoning district. Lot coverage can be 40%. Just to put it into perspective, 25% can be building coverage. The proposal is for 4.3% of building coverage, 17.7% of lot coverage. So that's going from 12.8% of lot coverage to 17.7% of lot coverage. 5,525 square feet of lot coverage is approved, 7,712 feet of lot coverage as proposed.  Okay, thank you. Sure. All right, let's take a look here. All right, I'm not seeing any other hands up right now. You can go ahead and stop sharing the screen for the moment now, Mr. Riedi. Mr. Chairman. Yeah, Mr. O'Connor, go ahead. Yeah, there was an issue that was raised earlier in the discussion, which was that. Mr. O'Connor, just before you jump into that, because we're about to potentially go into deliberation where we can address all these issues, I just want to gauge with the board what we would like to do in this case right now of, I think we want to move into deliberation and open up the public meeting portion of the meeting. My question to the board first is going to be, do we want to leave the public hearing open? I think if we believe that we're going to continue this to another meeting, it would be valuable to do so, so we can continue to solicit public input. I just want to quickly get a sense does the board think that's the good way to do this? Kind of a thumbs up, do we like that idea? Sorry, which way? Of keeping the public hearing open as we move into the public meeting, that way if we decide we would like to continue this, it will give us the opportunity to continue to seek public input between now and another meeting should we continue this. We all like that method. But I just don't understand, is it possible that after we have the public meeting that then we close the public hearing if we decided we didn't need any? Correct, so it's still just that option. It's just procedurally, I think that it's a good chance. I know I have some concerns that may, that I might want to continue this and I would like to keep it open so that the public can give input should this be continued to another meeting, unless anybody specifically wants to close off all public input, even if this gets continued. So if I could, Mr. Chair, for what it's worth, I don't think we, if you're talking about continuing, I would say please don't close the public hearing because then we're up the creek. Okay, thank you. So Mr. Chair, I just go ahead. I want us to not lose sight of the applicant's discussion earlier about the fact that it's not likely that they're going to be able to meet the deadline. And therefore, how do we bring the issue before the board of extending their deadline beyond April was a 10th. So, but I think we should be aware of that so that we can take care of that, make sure that we take care of that. And if we're going to give ourselves more time, one of the aspects of that is to extend their deadline. Thank you, I agree with that, Mr. O'Connor. We will have the ability to do so, to do exactly that. So I guess what I'm just going to do here is I'm going to move that we keep the public hearing open and that we will go ahead and we'll also open up the public meeting for ZBA FY 2018-03 and ZBA FY 2020-18, Wilson Properties Group, LLC request for approval of submissions and fulfillment of condition 10 of the special permit ZBA FY 2018-03 as extended by ZBA FY 2020-18, which requires acceptance or modification of the management plan at a ZBA public meeting and condition 12, which requires that the project shall be built according to the approved plan with any substantial deviation to return to the ZBA for review at a public meeting, map 11D parcels 281-189 and 194. So I'm making the motion to do so. Do I have a second? Yeah, second. Senator Marshall, seconds. So chair votes aye. Ms. Marshall. Aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. And Mr. O'Connor. Aye. Excellent. All right, so the public hearing, sorry, the public meeting is now open. Mr. O'Connor, I know you were trying to get in before I cut you off, so please go ahead. This is now the portion where the board can deliberate on what's been presented before us. Well, the first thing I'd like us to do is to entertain a motion to extend the deadline for the applicants, because obviously if we're going to keep the public hearing open, it's not likely that this matter is going to be resolved in time for them to meet the deadline, which was going to be difficult anyway. So if we could do that piece of business, then I think it would be easier to address other issues that we might consider at a public meeting. So if I could make a motion that we extend the deadline that was previously imposed by the zoning, the zoning board in, I think, 2020 of April 10th and extend that till June 10th, I don't, the applicant would obviously might want to have something to say about it, but I would like to give them and ourselves sufficient time to resolve this to as many people's satisfaction as is possible. Mr. Riedi is June 10th acceptable for just with what's currently in front of us extending that deadline to June 10th. And Ms. Prestor-Petterhand, I don't know if she wanted to speak before I spoke. Ms. Prestor. I would like to ask Mr. Mara if it's something that can be done, given the fact that this is not an application for a special permit. It is a submittal to meet conditions. So is it possible within this public hearing and public meeting to extend that deadline, Mr. Mara? So typically the extensions are treated as, you know, amendment applications to a prior special permit. The 2020 permit had a deadline of, you know, that was established by that. So it seems to me that this is not an application to do that. It's simply a review of condition nine. With the house layout and screening and nothing more than that. Go ahead, Ms. Marshall. Yeah, I'm unclear what the deadline that maybe Mr. Riedi or Mr. Wilson had mentioned earlier that what have, what explain that? Is this the permit expires at that point? What is that? Yes. Thank you. Yes. As my understanding is at April 9th, if construction has not begun on this permit, the permit expires and there is no longer a special condition for this property. It is my understanding of what's happening. Am I correct about that, Mr. Riedi? Is that what you understand? Yeah, let me, maybe I'll unpack it just a little bit. So there was that 2018 special permit that was extended in 2020. Your special permits last for two years unless it's exercised. And there's a few different ways to exercise those special permits. So when that 2021, 2020 special permit extension issued, then we hit COVID. And there's a calculation that you can do. It was from, I think, March 13th of that year. And I think if you had 185 days on the expiration, the removal of that state of emergency, which would bring us to the April 10th, 2023 day. And so the question is whether or not we have exercised that special permit. You know, and looking at the special permit this evening, the special permit is for three lots, right? It's for the two flag lots and the main lot, so-called. And so when I had previously thought about this, I was thinking of just those flag lots and whether or not the conveyance from the FABOS family to Wilson properties was sufficient to exercise. Because there's case law out there that conveying a lot that wouldn't otherwise be able to be conveyed but for here a special permit if that was in fact exercising. And when it was going just to Wilson properties, frankly, I thought probably not. But now thinking about it, and I would defer to Mr. Moore, who's ultimately the Zoning Enforcement Officer, given that one of the properties, the FABOS property, is part of the special permit technically because it was the main lot and the two flag lots. And that that property was conveyed to someone else who has actually appeared this evening. I would suggest that we have in fact, exercised that permit in the alternative, if Mr. Moore doesn't agree with that analysis, then I think what we would like to do is submit, maybe tomorrow, an application for an amendment just to have a belt and suspenders approach if that would be satisfactory. So I would suggest, you know, if Mr. Moore agrees with the exercise being that conveyance to Gaston and his family, then we don't need that extension and we're just dealing with this condition and then working through it with everybody here, or if it is needed, whether or not an application would be appropriate. So that's like always I turn to Rob for the answer. So I was comfortable with that. You know, I think I had mentioned this before that, but I think, you know, Mr. Reedy representing his applicant has to be comfortable with it as well in case there's a challenge, but I was comfortable with the project proceeding as being exercised upon the conveyance, you know, so that's where I would issue the building permit if it was in front of me to do so. I don't think there's time for an extension even if it was filed tomorrow. I think, you know, what we were up against is the board making a decision tonight. We have an application that's ready to move along so that work could proceed and that would be the sure way to make sure that something happens and the permit survives, you know, beyond the April 10th date. So if I'm understanding this correct, the only certain way to ensure that this permit doesn't expire is to make a decision on it tonight. Am I correct about that? Yeah, I guess I'll say maybe a little more confidently that I think the permit has been exercised and I'm not concerned about it expiring myself. But if that is a concern of anybody's, the reason to the only way to ensure that there isn't a question about that that goes on any longer than April 10th is for the board to make a decision tonight and for the applicant to move pretty aggressively with fulfilling the requirements of the building permit application process and starting work. And, you know, the discussion about how wet it may or may not be and whether or not they wanna start now or in June, you know, I have no idea what could happen in that case. All right, so I mean, as long as Mr. Moran and Mr. Reedy are both comfortable saying that this is being exercised and I'm not going to have that be too much of a concern for us then. So it looks like kind of what we've got here. As we talked about before, it's condition nine. The owners will accept the modified condition nine, 10 and 12 is what's before us here. And given that it is a substantial deviation from the approved plan in terms of what's being put on the lot. I do think we have some, if I'm mistaken, Mr. Moran, Mr. Prestrup, but I think we have pretty broad authority in that approval process of that. I know something I know the applicant had mentioned. I think at our site visit was they were open to gravel as a material for the driveway to help address concerns on flooding. I think something like that. Do we have the ability to impose that? Am I correct about something like that? Or would that just be procedurally for something like this? Is that just something we would say? If that can be done, we would approve it. I guess I'm a little cautious about how the conservation commission would view that. My guess is the conservation commission would view it positively because it means that the site would be absorbing more water, but it is a change from the plan that they approved. So that would be a question I would have. And maybe Mr. Mora has some comments to make there too. I'll just add that I think, as mentioned earlier, this isn't resulting in a decision that will have a set of conditions or not amending any other conditions. So it almost becomes a negotiation with the applicant of what the changes would be and an understanding that that's the plan that is approved tonight. In fact, the condition only says that the board reviews it. It doesn't say that the board approves it, which might be the next step in the discussion if needed. So I would suggest that it's appropriate to ask for something that would help the board be supportive of the proposal that's in front of us in hope that the applicant is open to doing that. I think this hearing will end up with a written summary of what occurred, but not a specific set of conditions that would be enforceable. So it really has to result in a plan that is agreed upon. So it's just one more question and then I'll get to you, Ms. Marshall. And for this as well, do we need to make specific findings or we don't need to make specific findings for it because they've already been made for this project? Am I correct about that? You're correct. Yeah, there's no findings to be made tonight. It's just acknowledging the review of the proposed plan and screening that is different from the original application. Got it, Ms. Marshall. Yeah, I would be very wary of asking for any alteration in the driveway plan because the CONCOM has approved it. I certainly don't have the knowledge to second guess whether what they have decided is adequate. And while clearly some of butters are very concerned about water, that doesn't seem to be something that we get to review. So, I hear all that, but those concerns don't arise specifically because of the change in the building, its shape or its orientation, I think it's just a general concern with building on the site. So, I don't see why if there's anything we can really do about that. Mr. Meadows? Oh, I'm sorry. Did I cut you off, Ms. Marshall? I would agree with you that asking for a permeable surface on the driveway is a reasonable ask, similar to the ask for the holly trees rather than for pollinators rather than the evergreen. I think that if we can get a permeable surface, it will assist in the angst about water. And I can't imagine that the CONCOM would have any objections to say something like that. And my understanding too, it's a concern for flooding for residents is definitely in the purview of the ZVA in terms of its impact on flooding or not flooding, in terms of its impact on wetland is outside, certainly our expertise, but even that is a condition that we make and usually refer to the CONCOM in terms of whether or not that condition is met. So yeah, I think I'm getting the sense that this is really just a review. Are we approving? I guess I'm not understanding this then. Then are we just approving anything or we're just accepting that we've reviewed it? Procedurally here, kind of what do we do in here with a review? Well, jump in, I think it's a good question. I think the condition isn't written the way it typically would be written to say review and approved. I think the applicant might be looking for your approval tonight and would like to hear that. But I think if things want the other way, it will certainly generate a discussion to happen more seriously about that question that hopefully we don't have to address. I think he hit the nail on the head. I mean, as written, I don't know how much you can actually do, but I think we're here in good faith to figure out if there's a way to get to that, that yes answer. And I think before we get into maybe permerial versus impermeable or what that actually means, I'd like to hear kind of what else people have on the table and then maybe we can take it as a group. Got it, thank you. Questions from other board members or concerns? What's on anybody else's mind here on this one? Anything else anybody wants to get into or should we start addressing that? Mr. Meadows? If we're having an approval, then that's approval with conditions. If all we're doing is rubber stamping, then what are we doing here? Yeah, I think it is definitely we're in a very strange way where we are reviewing, but it does sound like, as Mr. Reedy said, they are amenable to this. So I guess what are our concerns? I think I said my concern here is I'd like to see a gravel driveway if that can be done. I know you've said that you'd like to see holly trees in there as well. So I guess, is there anything else that we'd like to see? I know Mr. O'Connor talked a little bit about lighting in there as well. So if we can just find common ground that us and the applicants all just agree on, that would make this really help us avoid the question of what the hell are we doing here tonight? Cause we've gotten approved. Cause yeah, I guess we could all walk away and say we did in fact review the plan. It was reviewed, none of us liked it, but we sure reviewed it. So it's a little hard to say. So yeah, I guess the idea here of a, let's find common ground first. And then maybe we can avoid having to deal with that question. So anything from anybody else here about concerns they might have, Ms. Marshall? I've never had a gravel driveway nor have I lived at the bottom of a gravel driveway. I really don't know whether, if in a heavy rainstorm or plows, it's just gonna end up depositing a lot of gravel in the street or on the property. I mean, I understand that it's more permeable but it can also move. So I just don't know that it would really be in some, it would be better. Sarah, come up to my house tomorrow.  But my driveway is slow. Well, I don't know the builders or Mr. Moore, anybody knows the grade is low enough that that's just not a concern or what? I just don't know. Well, I guess I guess we'll say this where I know looking at that slope, the two houses, when you're walking up the driveway, the one behind, I know Mr. De Los Reyes's house and the house just to your left, I think are probably the two that will be most impacted from concerns from flooding. So I guess if this is really just a review and we're not imposing conditions and just having a discussion of what we'd like to see. Honestly, I'd like to have that discussion done, see that perhaps maybe the applicant talking to a butters to see which would they prefer? Do they prefer a paved driveway versus a gravel driveway? Maybe have that discussion, but at the end of the day, it doesn't look like we're putting a condition on here. So it still opens it up for them to say, we'd like gravel. And then to turn around and say, well, we hear you and we're building pavement. So could happen, but it's something I'd like to see, just in terms of trying to be good neighbors here. I know if it can be done, I'd like to see it. Anything from anybody else in terms of that? We've got Holly, we've got that Mr. O'Connor. Yes, so my sense of things from listening to the discussion is the issue of the implementation of the permit is to my mind resolved. And it seemed clear from the applicant that they are not likely to begin work. I heard their timetable. I would be happy to allow what you just talked about to happen and also perhaps for the applicant to run by the Conservation Commission, some of the alternatives, the alternatives that have come up at this meeting to see what they say and make sure that we get a very cogent response from the Conservation Commission in terms of alternatives to what they've already approved. If the applicant doesn't need to go do something by April 10th, then I don't know I don't see any reason not to allow a little more interaction to happen and which may I think lead to greater satisfaction by a larger number of people. As I continue to read that, it does seem almost implicit that there is approval here because what is review anyways, if this kind of opens us up to submitting it review, could they come back with a multi-family home that is nothing like the original plan? We're just here to simply review that. I don't think so, but in terms of that, I think it seems like I'm getting a sense from the board that there is a general agreement in what direction we wanna go with in terms of this. And like getting that sense, Ms. Parks. I just wanna say that I'm okay with the plan as is. I think that the owner spent a lot of time with the Conservation Commission and looking at the wetlands and figuring out the best way to go. They made the driveway some part paved and some part gravel in order to handle the water situation. For me, if I imagine a fire truck driving up a gravel hill like that, I don't see that that is workable. And so it makes sense to me to do the paved portion and the gravel portion. They retained the rain garden. The building was moved to- Did we lose Ms. Parks? Does anybody else not seeing? What are your issues? Terrific points too. Well, and I lived in downtown Amherst and I had water in my basement and there are places in Amherst that are very moist. And for me, I don't see that the addition of this house that is really placed and the only place that can be placed if you're placing it around all of these wetland areas, I don't think it's gonna make the water problem worse. However, if it does, didn't they say that they would take care of that? And so it seems to me like they've thought of each side. I mean, if the concern is they're not gonna comply with that. Well, we have a concern in every house in Amherst and every building in Amherst because if people don't comply, they don't comply. But for me, looking at this, it seems to me very well thought out. And honestly, we've done some building. Sometimes you can only put it in one place. If you're trying to conserve, take care of the wetlands, then they are putting the building in the only place it can be put in. That's what I have to say about it. I'm okay with this as it is. I've reviewed it. I went there. I'm comfortable with this. I'm sorry that the neighbors have water problems. I don't believe that this will cause further water problems. It's possible. But again, to me that has been addressed. So I am not uncomfortable with this plan as far as, I don't know what we're doing. So any of those things. And also about the Arbivite and the Holley. If the Arbivite, you grow faster, then let's put them so that they are blocking the two houses where they might see each other and put Holley the other place. I mean, I think the builder is amenable to those changes. The only thing that I throw in is I certainly hope you sell it to a family. That would be a nice thing. We want some families in Amherst. We need more families in Amherst. Please build it so that a family can purchase this house. That's my two cents. I'm done. Thank you, Ms. Parks. Yeah, if board members do feel that we have enough to approve the review here tonight, I can certainly entertain a motion for that. If we have any other comments or concerns I'd like to hear it. Go ahead, Mr. O'Connor. No, just procedurally, if I think if we're going to take a vote on tonight, I think we have to close the public hearing. Yeah. Correct. Yes, procedurally we would need to. My mistake on that. Go ahead, Ms. Marshall. Yeah, I think you just said that maybe we are ready to approve it, but I thought we weren't approving. So what would we vote? We would say thank you very much for showing us your revised plan. Goodbye, you know, I'm just wondering we should be careful if we're making a motion that we don't even like it's not something we're doing in the first place. Go ahead, Ms. Brestrup. I would recommend approving it. I mean, if you think it's a good plan I would recommend approving it, not just acknowledging the review. I think it's important to make that statement. Thank you. I think we only are going to be coming into that issue of we're not all in agreement with the applicant of this or in trying to impose new conditions. So with that being said, do we think we're all comfortable moving on, closing the public hearing and moving to the next portion here? So I'd entertain a motion to close the public hearing as well as a motion to close the public hearing and the public meeting. I believe we can do that as one motion. Am I correct about that? If I could, Mr. Chair, just before you get into that I wouldn't close the public meeting if I were you. But I think, you know, we've talked about a couple of different things I would agree with wholeheartedly with Ms. Parks about the gravel versus what goes to my mind is this is a plan that's been engineered. It's they understand how the water is gonna flow based on what was designed. If you start to change the medium then you're starting to change the water flow and then the whole plan ultimately changes. So I would respectfully suggest we take that off the table based on the amount of review that's happened. The Holly and the Arbor Vities, I think kind of like Ms. Parks again mentioned, you know, maybe Arbs behind and then Holly's for the rest maybe that's a good medium between the two. And then to Mr. O'Connor's point about the lighting, you know, we would rely on what the current condition says as far as downcast dark sky compliant lighting understanding, you know, what that actually means is, you know, that with the screening I think probably gets us there. So just from our perspective. Marshall? Yeah, just so I'm, so I understand the impact. If we close the public hearing, but then we don't a motion to approve this fails then what? Then we would have to reopen a public, I mean, just can you explain what happens once we've, or what are the risks perhaps of closing the public hearing? You can take the vote while the, Ms. Breastropper, Mr. Moore wants to correct me, but you can take the vote while the public hearing still open and then subsequent to that, then you can move to close the public hearing and close the public meeting. I don't know that it has to be deliberative session with a public meeting to actually take the vote. You can keep it all open, take that vote and then close the other two. So just in case there's not a consensus of it and we are continued because then the alternative is reconsideration of emotion by somebody who has in fact, so we can avoid that. But obviously defer to town staff. It's times like when we have to deal with procedure, do I really miss Steve Judge being here? But that being said, let's go ahead, Ms. Breastropper. Let's go ahead, Ms. Breastropper. So we did run into a problem recently and I spoke with Mr. Mora and he said that it is possible to reopen a public hearing within a public meeting. In other words, if you close the public hearing now and then you deliberated and you realized you wanted to open the public hearing, as long as it's within the same meeting, you can do that. It's not a preferred way to do things, but it is possible. All right, so procedurally, just so we can move forward, we can leave everything open and then make a motion right now to, even though it's technically not what's here, but we're gonna go ahead and make a motion to approve the plan as is written. Am I correct about that? Procedurally, that's how we've done it. Okay, all right, so in that case, as long as we can do that and everyone's all right with that, I would entertain such a motion. So moved. Ms. Parks moves, do we have a second? I'll second. Ms. Marshall seconds. Chair votes aye, Ms. Parks? Aye. Ms. Marshall? Aye. Mr. Meadows? Aye. Mr. O'Connor? Okay, so the motion that we're voting on now is? Is to approve the plan as is has been presented to us. This is specifically on related to with conditions nine, 10 and 12, am I correct? With what's before us in FY 2018-03 and FY 2020-18. So I just wanted to acknowledge the fact that part of this is a management plan that you're approving. So you're approving the plan that we've looked at, we're approving the fact that they builder is going to build it in accordance with that plan, which is condition nine. And then you're also approving condition 10, the submission with regard to commit, condition 10, which regard relates to the management plan. So it's really three things. Correct. So if you, so you still have to record my vote. Okay, I think the applicant has demonstrated openness to concerns about the screening and the timetable for the installation of the screen. I think they're covered by a number of other things. I haven't heard an alternative plan that I feel comfortable voting would persuade me to vote no. So I'm willing to approve this. I think the applicant though has a barrier if there are water problems, the applicant's going to hear about it in a way that might be much more uncomfortable than this discussion. And that's, is that a high or a name? Yes, I mean, I've said that I'll approve it because I haven't heard an alternative plan that I think has any, has behind it what the applicant has presented. On the other hand, I think we, all of our approvals are with the understanding that compliance is the order of the day. If compliance isn't achieved, then there's going to be a problem that's much bigger than tonight's problem. Thank you, Mr. O'Connor. So we record your vote as I, am I correct? Yes. Thank you. All right, that's five to zero. The plan is approved. Now I would, I guess, say up. Thank you for coming on in. Mr. Reedy and Mr. Wilson. Did you include closing the public hearing? We need a motion to close the public hearing. Yeah, so we keep them here for the closing then. We'll accept the, do we have a motion to close? Move. Excellent. Motion to close the public hearing in the public meeting. Do we have a second? Ms. Marshall seconds. Chair votes aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Ms. Marshall. Aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. Mr. O'Connor. Aye. All right, that's five to zero. The public meeting and the public hearing are closed. Thank you very much. With that in mind, thank you so much, Mr. Meedy. Thank you so much, Mr. Wilson, coming on in tonight. We'll see you. Thank you as well. Thank you. All right. So now we will move on to, we have discussion that's empty. So that's just, go ahead, Ms. Parks. I just wanted to say thank you to the neighbors and other people who came and shared it. It was part of the review. It's really important that you were here. Please continue to come to things and be heard. Thank you. Ms. Marshall. Yeah, I hope this is the right place to mention this. It's my understanding that our ability to meet virtually is going to expire at the end of the month. Is that correct, Ms. Brestor-Pazer? So the Senate and the House have both voted, both voted separately to allow the remote meetings to continue until the end of March of 2025. They need to reconcile their votes and they're working on that now. There is language that has been given to us by our town attorney that allows us to submit legal ads to the Gazette with language saying, if we are still able to hold meetings remotely, we're going to do it that way. But if not, then the meeting is going to be held in the town room of the town hall. And so if you want to see it in the flesh, you can look at it. I think there's an ad that appeared in the Gazette today for a meeting that's happening on the 6th of April. So you could check that out. But so we believe that we will be able to continue to hold meetings virtually. Mr. McCarthy. I would just like to inform you all, Mr. O'Connor had to leave. Got it. So thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. O'Connor. If there's still my opinion that independent of what the town may want to do, I think we should meet in public. Thank you, Mr. O'Connor. Go ahead, Ms. Marshall. Yeah, I was just going to say that just because we may be permitted to meet virtually, I hope that is something we would discuss. I'm sorry, go ahead. Oh, no, I was just going to say we actually did have a discussion about that. I think last meeting, I think the general consensus that stands right now is like it was me, Mr. O'Connor, and Mr. Judge are the feeling that we prefer in person if we could. I think Mr. Gilbert was the opinion of he's a no vote. And then Ms. Parks, you correct me if I'm wrong, but I was getting the sense of a no vote as well. So there's a little bit of a division here of what we'd like to see, but you can count me in on team. I'd like to meet in person if we could. I think there's a general consensus that we would all love to do a hybrid method. But it's, I think it's just gonna kind of wait and see kind of what happens, but if you're on team meeting in person, don't worry, I'm right there. I'm right there with you. How do you feel about it, Craig? Or go ahead, Sarah. If the next meeting is when, and I'm gonna be in Columbia the way I have taken other meetings. Got it. So that's, I cannot possibly do in person meetings. Is it safe to say that your team remote, if it comes down to it? Exactly. Well, if that's the price it takes to keep you on here, I don't know, I might be a little bit more in favor of remote, I guess. What were you gonna say, Ms. Marshall? Oh, it doesn't matter to me. It certainly can be, just to walk into the computer and sit down, but it's no hardship for me to get to Town Hall either, so. Got it. Ms. Parks. Can't hear you. Still muted. Muted. Oh, I got it. For me, it's all about access because wherever people are, if there's property owners who are not around, if there are people who are homebound for whatever reason, if there's any reason why it's difficult for someone to get into a car and go someplace and wait for three hours, or many people have to wait for a couple of hours before their turn comes up, then to me, this gives greater access. But I also, one of my other points is that it is intimidating, actually, for some people to come before a board that's kind of raised above them, looking down at them and go to a microphone and speak, and also have people behind them who may agree or disagree with them, but to feel that pressure. And so I think that this does relieve some of that pressure for people who would feel intimidated by that. So that's my reasons. I know I feel sometimes that it's hard, you can have a discussion on Zoom because when I'm just sitting in my room empty, talking at my iPad, I just, I don't know, I don't, I just hear my own voice, reading the preamble is so difficult, and you're like, wow, I'm still going, I'm still talking, it's just in my empty room, on and on that, I don't know, I like that feeling of being together. It facilitates for me just an easier time talking where I think it's a little bit of a trade-off. I think some people do find it difficult and intimidating, and I understand that, but in my case, I find it difficult to sit here in my room and talk and try to stay as engaged, you know, so that's me, but well, I like working with you folks, so, you know, it's tough, gotta go with what works. We'll have another chance to talk a little bit more, but I just wanna get to public comment for any issue that was not before the board tonight, so anything that was not related to the two agenda items we have, do we have anyone from the public who wishes to speak? All right, seeing no hands raised, we will go to other business, not anticipated within the next 48 hours, do we have any such business? No, we don't. Do we need to make, set up the next meeting time before we adjourn? The next meeting time is April 6th, I believe. It is currently April, March 23rd, so the next meeting is April 6th, then at that time you'll be talking about a proposal. Ms. Marshall has a question. We meet on the second and fourth Thursdays, that would be the 13th and the 20th, I mean. There was a two weeks away, but I thought we were asked to book and I have the second and fourth Thursdays. That's true, if I may, but at some point in the past, the board agreed to meet on April 6th, I can't remember exactly when that was, but there and I believe that you will not therefore be meeting on April 13th, that you'll meet on April 6th and April 27th, and there was a reason for that, and if I go back in my notes, I'll be able to reconstruct that, but we've already advertised a public hearing for April 6th, for a battery storage facility at 515 Sunderland Road, so I hope that you will be able to come on April 6th. I thought I had asked and people had said they could attend on April 6th, but that was the- Maybe I'm not needed, but I can't, I cannot attend. That's a holiday, so. Okay, so I know the 5th is the first night of Passover, and is the 6th also- It's Monday, it's Monday, Thursday. Monday, Thursday. Ah, that's- Before Good Friday. Yep, mm-hmm, it's okay. No, no, hopefully you didn't need me anyway. Easter. Yeah, do we have any other business not anticipated within 48 hours? Nope. All right, in that case, I would accept a motion to adjourn. Don't move. Give it to Mr. Meadows-Muz, Ms. Parks, with a second. We'll go ahead, take a roll call vote. Chair votes aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Ms. Marshall. Aye. And Mr. O'Connell is absent. That's four, zero to one. We are adjourned at 24. All right, well, thank you all. It was fun times. We got through it though. Thank you for chairing Mr. Maxfield. Yes, thank you. Thank you for chairing. What's that? I hope you enjoyed it. It was a blast. It was a blast. It was a blast. All right, well, hey, thank you all, and I'll see most of you.