 to start your opening statement. Okay. The appointed hour of six o'clock having been reached, I call this meeting of the Amherst zoning Board of Appeals to order. My name is Steve Judge. As ZBA chair, I want to welcome everyone to this meeting. Pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021, 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 of Amherst YouTube channel, as well as the ZBA webpage. In accordance with provisions of Massachusetts general laws, chapter 40A and article 10, special permit granting authority of the Amherst zoning bylaw. This public meeting has been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted and mailed to parties at interest. We will begin with a roll call of the members of the ZBA and paneled for this meeting tonight. Steve Judge, I'm here. Ms. Parks. Here. Mr. Maxfield. Here. Mr. Meadows. Here. Mr. Barrick. Here. Also in attendance tonight is Marine Pollock Planner and Dave Washevitz, Senior Building Inspector. The Zoning Board of Appeals is a quasi-judicial body that operates under the authority of chapter 48 of the general laws of the Commonwealth for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the inhabitants of the town of Amherst. One of the most important elements of the Amherst zoning bylaw is section 10.38. Specific findings from this section must be made for all of our decisions. All hearings and meetings are open to the public and are recorded by town staff. The procedure is as follows. The petitioner presents the application to the board during the hearing, after which the board will ask questions for clarification or to gather additional information. After the board has completed its questions, the board will seek public input. The public speaks with the permission of the chair. If a member of the public wishes to speak, they should so indicate by using the raised hand function on their screen. The chair with the assistance of the staff will call upon people wishing to speak. When you are recognized, provide your name and address to the board for the record. All questions and comments must be addressed to the board. The board will normally hold public hearings 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 in time, it will decide upon the applications tonight. Each petition is heard by the board is distinct and evaluated on its own merit and the board is not ruled by precedent. Statutorily for a special permit, the board has 90 days from the close of the hearing to file a decision. For a variance, the board has 100 days from the date of filing to file its decision. No decision is final until the written decision is signed by the sitting board members and is filed in the town clerk's office. Once the decision is filed with the town clerk, there's a 20 day appeal period for an agreed party to contest the decision with the relevant judicial body in superior court. After the appeal period, the permit must be recorded at the registry of deed to take effect. Tonight's agenda, ZBA FY 2021-21, Narayan-Sampath requests a special permit in order to allow a non-owner occupied two family dwelling on a preexisting, non-conforming lot under sections 3.3211, 9.2 and 10.38 of the zoning bylaw, located at 2123 Kendrick Place, map 14A parcel 2241, general residence, RZG zone. ZBA FY 2021-17, College Street 1957, LLC, requesting a special permit in order to allow a change of views from a one family detached dwelling to a non-owner occupied duplex dwelling, extension and alteration of the lot coverage and building area on a preexisting, non-conforming lot, modification of the required additional lot area and slash family under dimensional regulations. Footnote A, section 3.211, 9.22 and 10.38 of the zoning bylaw, located at 187 College Street, map 14B parcel 169, general residence, RZG zoning district. This has continued from our meeting on May 27, 2021. After that, we have public comment period, other business not anticipated within the last 48 hours and adjournment. The first order of business on the agenda is ZBA 2021-21, but I would like to move quickly to dispose of FY 2021-17, College Street 1957, LLC. The applicant has requested a continuation until August, until our August meeting on the grounds that they are gone from or they could not attend. This seems to be normally something we do ministerially at a meeting, just the chair acknowledges it, but since we have a full panel here, that is something I would entertain a motion that we continue this to a date certain. Our meeting is August, is it 12th, Maureen? August 12th, I would entertain a motion to move, to continue this matter until August 12th. At six o'clock. Yes, at six o'clock. Mr. Maxfield. Is there a second? Second. Roll call vote on this would be, I vote aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. There were only four members for this panel. Mr. Barrack, excuse me, you're here for this. Precisely, that's why I want this. And it's not clear to me that I can be here August 12th. I'm not sure. So we'll talk about that right after we finish this vote. Well, actually, so if he's not available, this would be a good opportunity to talk about what date would be available, you would be available. Oh, let me check my calendar for August 12th. And so it would be virtual via Zoom. Okay, hold on, take me a minute. I'll take the prerogative to suspend the vote while we figure out exactly what date we're continuing this to. I believe I could do an August 12th meeting. Okay. And does that work with other members? Mr. Meadows, does that work for you? As far as I know it does, as long as we're Zoom, then that's functional for me. Okay, all right, and we will be Zoom. Okay, so we'll resume the vote and the vote is with you, Mr. Barrick. And my vote is aye. All right, the motion carries. The motion, the application has continued till August 12th at six o'clock. Thank you. Great. And just to say, so Peter, if you're welcome to stay in the meeting tonight, but since you're not on the panel for the next case, you can leave the meeting if you have. I will leave the meeting. Okay. And wish the best to all of you. Thank you, Peter. Bye. So the first order of business tonight is a public hearing on ZBA 2021-21, Narayan-Sampath requesting a special permit in order to allow a non-owner occupied two family dwelling on a pre-existing non-conforming lot under sections 3.3211, 3.22, and 10.38 of the zoning bylaw located at 2123 Kendrick Place, map 14A, parcel 241, general residence, RG zone. The members sitting on this panel are myself, Ms. Parks, Mr. Maxfield, Mr. Meadows. And since this decision to approve a special permit requires four affirmative votes, we have only four members sitting on this panel. So this application will require unanimous vote of the ZBA in order to be approved. Are there any disclosures? If not, the site's visit was conducted on Monday, June 7th. We toured the property. We entered the house, saw the first floor, second floor, Mr. Sampath described as what he wishes to do with the house and why he bought the house. We walked through the back door out to the patio. Saw the patio and the walkway. We came around to the front of the, walked through the house again, came around to the front, viewed the front of the house, talked to him about parking, looked at the garage and looked at those areas. That's pretty much what we discussed at the site visit. I don't know if any other member has anything else that they wish to add for the site visit. Okay. The following submissions have been received by the town staff. The applicant has submitted a ZBA application, a management plan, additional information required for apartments, site plan prepared by Randall Eiser, dated September 12th, 2018, a floor plan prepared by the applicant dated May, 2021, a parking plan, a lease agreement, a complaints response plan and photographs of both the interior and exterior of the property. The staff has submissions of a zoning map, a property map, an aerial map, a topography map, project application report dated June 30th, 2020. The applicant is requesting waivers from section 3.166, building plans of the ZBA rules and regulations which require a Massachusetts licensed architect or professional designer to prepare the floor plan. We previously, he has submitted a floor plan that we previously approved in 2018 when we offered, when we approved special permit 2018-34 and there are no changes to that floor plan. A waiver for a landscape plan, dimensional plan for parking spaces and an assigned plan. We also have received one public comment from Ms. Joan Griswold, which was submitted via email on Monday, June, of July 5th. That's all the submissions. Mr. Sampath, do you wish to proceed? Yes, please. So please identify yourself for the record and let us know how much time you think you'll need for your presentation. Hi, my name is Narayan Sampath. I live at 23 Kendrick Place, Amherst, Massachusetts, and I'm guessing 30 minutes. I'm not sure. Do you want me to present my case for the house or run the slides through or what would you like me to do? Yeah, whatever you want to do. The key thing is for you to tell us what you wish to do. Sure. Have more discussion than we had at the site. Is it run through? I think it's important in this case for you to go through and talk about why you bought the house and why you're asking for the special permit for a non-owner occupied to family home and talk about what your goals are. I think there's not a lot. And then why you don't need any changes, why you're not requesting any changes to management or other plans. Sure, sure, thank you. So I'm guessing we would need at least 30 minutes, depending on how many questions we have. But before I start, I want to say thank you to Maureen for all the help that she's given me over the last, I guess month or so in getting all the paperwork together. So thank you, Maureen. Good. Okay, so I've been, I used to live in South Amherst at 46 Palmer Island since 2013, since the summer of 2013. And over the pandemic, like with all the other challenges that people faced, my wife and I went separate ways. So I signed a site unseen lease with Ian Walsh, the previous owner back in September. And because I couldn't even tour the place because of COVID and the tenants then were not comfortable of anybody visiting. So I signed the site unseen on a place just because it was close to my now ex-wife and I could stay close to my kids who are a mile and a half. And we didn't want to rock the boat and have a lot of changes for them because they still have their same friends who are actually one on Orchard Street, one on a wood side and one in the house behind. So it really helped with the transition in our kids. So we moved in in September. And then I wasn't ready to buy a place of my own in Amherst but looking at the property market, I was very afraid that I was gonna get priced out because of the way the market is today and how expensive buying a place at Amherst would be with the way the property market is. And I think it was a cold February morning when Ian Walsh, the previous owner, sent us a note saying that he was gonna sell the place and I was gonna, I had to think about what to do. And then I figured we did the math and I figured it makes sense for me to make an offer to purchase the place, which he agreed. And we finally closed on April 29th. The tenants at 21 Kendrick Place are a couple who one of them is a librarian of the Jones Library and we have a lease till the end of August and they intend to continue as well because of the location. I have no intention of moving anywhere in the near future because like I mentioned in my application, my kids are 11 and 14 at the Crocker Farm Elementary School and the high school. The place has been very helpful for us in our transition and the kids' lives has not changed a whole lot. But when we went through the paperwork for closing the house, I was notified by my lawyer saying that there's this zoning application which expires or is not in place when there's change of ownership. So which prompted me to apply for this permit just so that to have it in place because it was recently approved rather than go through let's say five, six, seven years. If and when I plan to move rather than go through the whole process I wanted to use the same application because nothing much is changing. I have no intention of moving in the near future. Like I mentioned in my application, I work at Holyoke Community College. I am the CFO and the Vice President for Administration and Finance. It's pretty close about 20 minutes from where I live and previously as to work at UMass Amher so I'm very vested in the area with all our friends and family here. So that's the reason for my application and I'm happy to answer any questions and also about the landscaping and taking care of things around the house since I don't intend to move anytime in the near future. I will be responsible for snow removal and making sure that the yard is taking care of. Fortunately we have neighbors who are very interested I take care of like the snow and the mowing all the part that is not pretty, that needs to be pretty whereas our neighbors really like taking care of the dandelions and the flowers so they're helpful as well. But as I mentioned in my application, if and when I do move, I have the contacts of all the individuals who worked with the previous landlord Ian Walsh that I'm more than happy to engage if I have to but I don't foresee that happening in the near future. So Mr. Pat, Sam path, you realize that if you do move out and it becomes a non-owner occupied, you no longer can be the responsible person for taking care of this and you have to come before notify us if we should approve this application. Notify the town and you may have to come before the ZBA for a hearing to approve a new management plan to approve perhaps a landscape plan, parking, other things could happen if we approve this. You have to and you become a non-owner occupied structure. There'll be additional, there might be some changes to them. There will be changes to the management plan which need to be approved. Okay. Got it. Do you understand that? Okay. I do. I though if there are any changes then I would come in front of the board and provide the new management plan and the landscaping plan. Okay. Another thing. Yep. Mr. Sam path you're proposing no changes to the property, no changes to parking. You have four spaces for parking and two in the garage and two on the driveways. Is that correct? Yes, sir. Does anybody have any questions of Mr. Sam path? Ms. Parks. It actually might be for you. And that is at this time, the house would be considered owner occupied. And so the point that you're making is that if Mr. Sam path moves out then it's no longer owner occupied and that he would then need to come before the board. Well, it would substantially change. The house right now is non-owner. He's asking for it to be continued to be considered non-owner occupied even though he is there. And so if he moves out and has a tenant and this becomes non-owner occupied then other things have to happen. The management plan must change because as he's no longer there to do that he's got and he's represented to us that he would hire additional people to take care of the landscaping, take care of the snow, do other things that a non-owner that a non-residential manager would normally do. And so he'd have to come to the board and have that approved either by the board or by the building commissioner if it seemed to just seem to be insignificant. But those kinds of things are what it's have to come to the board for. So he's asking for, it's, I mean, this is unusual in that we're having an owner occupant ask for his property to be considered non-owner occupant because he may want to move out sometime in the future but it's undetermined. Yeah. Go ahead, Mr. Sandpath. Yeah, Ms. Parks. I also wanted to apply for this because I know like for example, Ian, Ian Walsh the previous landlord engaged professional surveyors to come up with documents which is an expensive exercise as well. And since I was not proposing any changes at all and it was since there was a relatively new application so I wanted to put forth my application this time around. Okay. It seems, I mean, the point you're making I don't want to make your case for you, Mr. Sandpath. I mean, that's the job for you to do and for us to ask questions. But what you're, I think what you're saying is that you, since there are no changes to the land to the building, to the landscape, to anything that you don't want to pay the, you don't think you need to pay the extra expense to do this. And you just would like to renew the existing special permit. The weird thing is, is that for a special permit of a non-owner occupied in the RG is one case where it voids upon transfer of ownership and you have to come back. It's unusual. This isn't, we don't do this with other areas, other zoning districts and with very many other types of ownership. But in this case, in the RG district, you have to come back and get the renew the special permit for change of ownership if you have a non-owner occupied duplex. And that's what he is, that that's the situation that he's facing. So we have a choice. Anyway, that's, that's what's unique about this kind of this case. Thank you. All right. So just to clarify, his status is not, the status is not changing, but by us, if we were to approve this, it's still with the caveat that he would have to come back if he were to move out. Yes. And it's also a condition that we're willing to, I think it's a condition that we're going to impose upon the special permit. Right. If I may, Mr. Parks and Mr. George, I guess. So, well, I love to go through the whole application if there are any changes, of course, like the landscape and the management plan, for example, and a few other items in the list would need to be updated when I come to, if and when I come to the board again. Mr. Meadows. I guess I'm just confused as to why there has to be an application at all. The only, because we have an owner occupied dwelling. I mean, why is there a need for a request for exemption? Maureen. Maureen. So, in the, this property, 21 to 23 Kendrick Place is located in the General Resonance Zoning District. And for owner occupied duplexes, it's allowed permitted by site plan review. And it's, if it's non-owner occupied, it's allowed by special permit. And upon the town council some years ago, I'm not exactly sure when in the last, you know, 10 years plus or minus there was a zoning amendment change to require that upon change of ownership, a duplex within the General Resonance would lapse and a new special permit would be required for a non-owner occupied duplex. And that's only in the General Resonance Zoning Districts. You know, the previous chair, Mark Parent, when dealing with these applications would repeatedly say, I don't like this, how it's written in the bylaw, but it is what it is. And it is something perhaps maybe the town would like to revisit to see if that really, you know, makes sense opposed to then requiring, in this scenario, requiring the applicant to resubmit a new application, new fee, public hearing, we glad all that, or if it would make better sense just to have the new owner come back with an updated management plan and complaint response plan and any other substantial changes. But as the zoning bylaw to date, this is the requirement. And so when Mr. Sam Path reached out to the planning department, he had indicated that he, you know, is intending to buy the property with the intention of moving, relocating, you know, in six months to a year, because we did talk about, you know, if you want this to be an owner occupied duplex, he had the option of going through the planning board for a site plan review, but he had indicated that he does intend to move in sort of the near to, you know, near future if you were to think a year from now is in the near future. So we decided that it would make sense in the long run that he could just apply for a special permit for a non-owner occupied duplex since that is sort of the long-term goal. And so that's what is in front of you today. I'm sorry. Mr. Meadows. It still makes no sense. Yeah, well, we're just- I hear what you're saying, but it does not make any sense. He's not a non-owner occupied dwelling. He's an owner occupied dwelling. And as an owner occupied dwelling, he's entitled to justice site plan review. And then if he moves, it needs to come to the ZBA, but I don't see that it makes any sense for him to be here at the ZBA now. Mr. Wysewicz, did your hand raised? Yeah, I'm thinking the board shouldn't get hung up on whether or not he lives there. What he's asking for is the ability to be able to leave two months from now if he wanted to and be able to rent that space out. And what he's explained already is the fact that all of this information has been provided in the past about three years ago and it was granted to the previous owner to be a non-owner occupied dwelling or a duplex. So that's all he's asking is the ability to do that so that he doesn't have to do it, go through the process, should his plans change dramatically in a couple of days or weeks and he has to move and doesn't have an option. So this is just to pave the road for the future. It's a benefit that the fact that he actually lives there because you'll have a better eye on the property but don't get hung up on the fact that he does live there. But- But I do hear what you're saying, Craig. He does live there. Yeah. And if he moves out, then he's gonna have to come back to the ZBA anyway. And- But just for a public meet, but would probably just be for a public meeting to approve a new management plan. There wouldn't be the whole application. I think his point is that he's trying to, I think what he's trying to do is to minimize the amount of application cost and headache if he decides to move later on. And I understand your point. When I looked at this, I said, why are you doing that? Why is this happening? He's gonna live there. Why are we granting him a, why would we grant him a non-owner occupied building special permit? Yeah. It's only because he doesn't wanna go through the hassle of applying for a special permit in two months, six months, or a year from now. When the property was already that. Yeah. That's what that's the reason. Yeah. I can understand that. But let me make a different point. Sure. If I in my house decided to rent part of the house and say, and suggest that at some point I may wanna move, does that make sense for anyone who is in an owner occupied dwelling to come up and do preparatory work in order to avoid having to do it later? And it seems to me that it's essentially a waste of his time and our time to do this. If I may jump in Mr. Judge. Yes, Mr. Sampat. Yeah. So like you mentioned, when I looked at the application, when I got a copy of the permit and I looked at what Mr. Ian Walsh had been through and I looked at all the survey plans, for example, that would cost me a couple of thousand dollars to get this whole application together, which is relatively new. And there's no change in place at the moment. So that was one of the main reasons for me to apply because it's a relatively new plan, no changes, I'm not going anywhere and to have it in place. And I think the changes that would happen if and when I were to move, whether it's two months, two years, or four years, five years from now, I think there are just three or four documents that would need to be updated that I would have to present to the zoning board rather than go through the whole process of a parking plan and have a surveyor come in and go through all that paperwork again. And I would like to add that if the board, is inclined to hear more about this application, you could, and wants to entertain a decision regarding this, you could certainly put a condition on the special permit saying that the property owner needs to live elsewhere within six months or a year. If that is of importance that this, truly is a non-owner occupied residence because Mr. Sampath initially did indicate that this would be a temporary situation and he was just sort of preparing for the transition of purchasing the home and sort of figuring out where he would be living and that this would be sort of a temporary thing. It wasn't indicated that this would remain a owner occupied duplex on a permanent basis. It was indicated that this was a temporary thing. Also, Ms. Pollock, I did not know a year ago that I was gonna move out and have to find a separate place. We don't know what's gonna happen, right? I had no idea that I was gonna leave my house for eight years from South Amherst to move. So right now I have no plans to move, yeah, sorry. You have no plans, we understand that. So I think, look, we have a couple of options here that we should explore and talk about as the board. So let's, this is a good opportunity for you to summarize anything that you think you need to say to the board and then for the board to discuss amongst ourselves various options if we wanna come back to you and see, get your reaction to them. So I'd like to ask you, is there anything else you wanna present to the board? And then I would like to have a discussion amongst board members about this application. Sure, thank you, Mr. Judge. All I would like to just reiterate that we are very happy where we live. I don't foresee us moving anytime soon. The only reason I wanted to submit the application was because when I saw it in the last week of April, I figured rather than go through the whole process, I would like to piggyback on a relatively new application, a relatively new application which is about three years ago and submit it. So I have it in place. You have time to understand. So it seems to me that amongst board members and staff, we got a couple of options here to think about this. Number one, I'm not sure that we have the four votes for approving the application. That's the first thing. The second thing is the applicant does have the opportunity to go for a site plan review, which is my understanding is not very costly and it could be done through the planning, done through the planning board, is it not? Yep. That option exists. The other option exists is that if the application is approved, we could require as part of any re, excuse me, if the site plan review is approved, any wishes to change to a non-owner occupied rental property and it has to come back for a special permit. We could at that point, waive the requirements for a landscape plan, a management plan for a site review if you have a situation where nothing has changed, they're all as it looks like today. There would be an opportunity to, for him to request waivers of the things that are expensive and come back in a year or two when he decides he wants to move or unless it wouldn't necessarily be as costly as it would be starting from scratch for a special permit. So that is a possibility if you go to site plan review that I'm not saying that that is assured, but that is a possibility that could be done that way without having incurring a lot more costs than that would normally occur. Is that right Dave? Is that how that would work? Could the board could after it, he went to site plan review and he wants to, then he wants to become an on owner occupied property. We could waive some of the, he could ask for waivers of some of the requirements for a special permit. Well, that's certainly an option to go that route, but it is more steps for him to do in order to go back to the current status. Well, I shouldn't say current, but what the previous owner's status was, which was a non-owner occupied duplex. So I think that's the thing that he's trying to do now. And it seems it might be more efficient to do it this way now, because everything's in place. But that's certainly up to the board to decide. And I understand the metals point. Yep. Other discussion about where we wanna, where the board is headed on this application where the members have comments or thoughts. Mr. Maxfield. Yeah, I mean, what I think about this, it sounds like previous board had dealt with these questions about the marriage of just being, which is a good area to have a non-owner occupied duplex. And it looks like they had decided, yes, this was appropriate, it did meet the necessary findings that if we have somebody coming up to us saying, I'd like to keep this, I think any homeowner, if they can have that as an option, would definitely want that. And where, yeah, a board, this board had already decided that this was appropriate years ago. And it does just sound like a case of, if you want to move in the future and does wanna go with this route, I think anyone in this position would wanna keep that option open. So I definitely support, I support this plan. I trust the board's judgment from three years ago and I'm willing to extend that now, in this case is where I'm standing right now. Ms. Parks, do you have any comment? Yeah, I'm okay with this application as well. I guess what I was thinking is it's too bad we don't have that management plan so that we could approve this once and for all. But I understand if it's owner occupied, you're not going to have a management plan yet. No, I mean, I know there's a management plan. So Steve, I'm sorry, Ms. Judge, what do we need if this is approved and Mr. Stapath moves, then what does he need to come back with? He would need to come back with a new management plan that talks about everything from having a person to contact in case of a problem, having a management plan for the landscaping, for the snow removal, for trash, for the lawn landscaping, I said, lighting plan, those kinds of things, they may not change and he may ask for a waiver since it wouldn't change but he needed for the typical stuff that a non-owner occupied property has to provide as opposed to an owner occupied property. The irony of it is that all those things are included in the management plan that he's putting up as an owner occupied except that some of those functions that he wouldn't perform once he moves out of the property. All right, does that answer your question? Yes, and so if this were approved then there would be a condition that he would need to come back when he moves. Is that correct? Yes, yes, there would need to be a condition that says that and we can put a condition on, he'd have to do it anyway because the management plan substantially changes. So he'd have to come back no matter whether it's a condition or not but we should put a condition on it to make it clear. So Mr. Meadows, I can see you still think that this is crazy. I think it's crazy, I'm sorry but if this were a non-owner occupied I would feel comfortable with it but it is owner occupied. And just as though anyone else in town said, oh, maybe I'll come to the ZBA and see if I can get myself prepped for 20 years from now. I don't see any point to this. So I'm gonna vote no. Mr. Meadows, may I connect? No, Mr. Sandpath, just a second. Not right now, we're having a discussion above the board. And so one option, a good option may be for the applicant to ask for this to be withdrawn. We do need four votes for this and we, right now we don't, there are not four votes to approve this. That's one, and then to seek site plan review, he could and or he could withdraw and come back at a later point in time. But I, that would be the other option for the applicant is to ask for it to be withdrawn and then go for site plan review rather than risk a negative determination on a rejection of a special permit application which nobody wants to have the special permit application defeated. That it keeps you out for two years from applying again. Any other comments from the board or from staff before we open this up to one last comment from Mr. Sandpath? Mr. Westchewitz. Yeah, I just wanted to ask Mr. Meadows if he thought there was a benefit to the homeowner not living there and having somebody else come in. I mean, I'm trying to understand his point of view. My point of view is that we have a number of owner-occupied dwellings of this sort in towns. Am I correct? And as such, what this logically means to me is that if it is that anyone else who is an owner-occupied dwelling says, well, you know, I might move at some point. Why don't I do this now? And avoid what I'm in an attempt to avoid something in the future. This is a good case for a non-owner-occupied dwelling, particularly the fact that nothing is changing. However, it is an owner-occupied dwelling and he doesn't really need a special permit. All he needs is a site plan review. And so it makes no sense to me to be asking for special permits and waivers when you don't need them. I would rather see when he comes back if we wanna suggest that if he has site plan review that we would, and nothing at all is changing and it becomes non-owner-occupied, then we only review those documents that are additionally needed. But he's gonna have to do that anyway. So I just think that it's not his fault. He was, I believe he was led in the wrong direction and should have just gone to site plan review and been done with. So it might be to his advantage to withdraw without prejudice then. Yes. Because in the future, it's gonna be looked at as a denial otherwise. Right, absolutely, it should be. It would be to Mr. Sampas' advantage to ask for this to be withdrawn and to go for site plan review. And the one question I would have is site plan review is a less formal or less, there's less procedures and less bureaucratic for lack of a better term, processes you have to go through for a site plan review than for a special permit. Is that correct? I would say perhaps, perhaps they wouldn't ask for the lease in the complaint response plan. It's really up to the planning board themselves, but it would be in essence the same application and submissions, but there may be some subtle differences. It was to staff's understanding that it was the applicant's intention to live off site in the near future and that this wasn't gonna be a permanent owner-occupied duplex. And so that was why it was recommended to go through this path since if it was gonna just be sort of six months to up to a year while the applicant was trying to figure out where to relocate. But if it does sound like this could be, it sounds now that this is kind of up in the air that maybe you'll move, but maybe you won't, it does seem that it might be better suited to go through the site plan review if your intention is to make this a owner-occupied duplex on a permanent basis. But please correct us if that's incorrect, but that's what we're hearing. We're hearing that you are unsure of what you want to do that this may be permanently a owner-occupied duplex or maybe in the future you'll reconsider it. Mr. Samford. Sure, thank you, Mr. Judge. You know, it's hard to, I'm sorry to go back to the point that, I mean, nothing is permanent, right? I know I'm not going anywhere, right? If you had asked me a year ago, would I move from South Amherst? I would have said no way in hell, right? So there's nothing that we know for sure. I know that I'm not going anywhere. My kids are 11 and 14, right? So there's no question to me moving there. And I go back to the point. The only reason I did this is because I thought it was a good idea to have it in place. If and when in the future, because I do not want to spend $3,000 or $4,000 that Ian did and spent all that money getting this application together. So if we're going to go to a site plan review, and if that's what you recommend, I'm happy to do it. But if I'm going to have to spend a fortune, small fortune to get these things in place again, then that's unfortunate. No, you wouldn't. It's the same materials. Okay. Yeah, you would be, in essence, you may need to fill out a new form, a planning board form, but the same site plan, all those supporting materials would be the same exact information. It's just that you would specifically be asking for owner occupied duplex. And so what that means is as long as it's owner occupied duplex and the planning board approves that, you would be able to live there. But in the future, when you officially decide to move off site and make that a non-owner occupied duplex, then you would need to come before the zoning board of appeals and ask for approval of that special permit. Would I be able to use the same documents I had, Maureen? You know, we can't promise you that. To a large extent. No, wait, Mr. Sampath, we can't promise you that. But if that occurs in the near future, we do take, you could ask for a waiver for a new site, for a waiver for a new site plan. You could submit the same management plan. You could ask for a waiver from a landscape plan. Those, and given the history, those might be approved by the board. And given, you can make your case. We do grant waivers for these things. So here, not all the time. So we can't, I'm not gonna promise you that you don't have to do it. I think if the board members are sitting in the same time and you come by, I think there's an inclination to do that. But I can't promise that. And nobody could promise that. So it seems to me that if we look at this, the best thing I would recommend, and this is your decision, but it seems to me the best thing for you is to ask for this to be withdrawn without prejudice. That gives you the ability to come back and ask for a special permit if within, you know, anytime you want for a non-owner occupied, pursue a site review plan because you don't have the votes for it and you don't want, I don't think the votes are there and you don't want to denial. Denial means you can't come back to us for two years. Okay? For this specific plan. So you don't want to do that. So my suggestion is that you ask for it to be withdrawn without prejudice, you pursue a site plan review and should your circumstances change in the future, work with staff to make sure that it, the documents that haven't, that the situations that haven't changed are identified and can reduce the cost to you of an application for a special permit to allow a non-owner occupied property. That's what I would suggest is the best course for you. I appreciate it. No, I appreciate your, I mean, I'm looking for guidance or I'm not here to take advantage of anything or I just want to follow the process, right? So I completely agree and I just want to clarify when you said, so is there anything I need to do now that I'm living there? So this current zoning application permit expires. So we just leave things as is. And in the future, if I want to change it to a non-owner occupied, I provide a site plan review assuming not a whole lot has changed. Is that correct? I'm not sure I followed that. What I tell you is that what you should do is apply for a site plan review as soon as possible because you want to have that done by the planning board. And then if you wish to change in the future, deal with, you can work with staff to try to minimize the documents that need to be created or contracted. Sure, and can you please tell me what a site plan review is for? And what does that entail? Like what does it give me with? Like what is a site plan review? I think Maureen's work is just more than I thought. So a site plan review is an application through the planning board. The use, which is a owner-occupied duplex, is a use by right. And so the planning board would be reviewing the site plan. And so they would be looking at the submittals that you've already given, looking at the parking and the landscaping and where the lights are, those sorts of things. Opposed to the planning board, which opposed to the ZBA, which is also looking at the site plan, but they're also looking at the use and the use is allowed by special permit. And so the zoning board of appeals has a discretionary power to see if that use is compatible with the neighborhood and if it's in harmony with the neighborhood and whether it would be more or less detrimental to the neighborhood. So the zoning board of appeals is really trying to see is the use is that compatible with the neighborhood and with the town, opposed to the planning board, which is looking at a by-right use and so they're just looking at the site plan and sort of the specifics of how everything's laid out. And that is more or less sort of the distinction between a site plan and a special permit application. And then just to add, so the planning board again would be looking at similar, if not all of the documents that you've provided to the zoning board of appeals. And in the future, if you decide that you do wanna move off site and seek a special permit for a non-owner occupied duplex, if those submissions that you've provided, if there are no changes to it, then it probably would be reasonable for you to resubmit the same information. So you wouldn't be starting from scratch unless you are, you know, have some sort of elaborate plans of, I don't know, doing something. Let's just significantly change the property or the building. Yeah, which I'm sure you're not, but just to say if you suddenly wanna, I couldn't really think of anything unless I wanted it to be goofy of, you know, adding, I don't know, like a 40-foot, you know, slide going down your backyard or something elaborate, unless there's something substantially very different to the makeup of your property. I'm sure that what you have submitted would be substantial, would be sufficient for either the boards to review. I thank you. So I'll work with you on the site plan review. Thank you. Yeah, so sorry, sorry for any potential confusion on our behalf about this. So Mr. Sampath, if I understand you correctly, you're asking for permission to withdraw this without prejudice, is that correct? Yes, that is Mr. Church. Okay. So we have before us, what I'd like to do is close the, close the meat, not close, I'd like just to keep the public hearing open and move to a public meeting to deal with the requests from Mr. Sampath, Maureen. Well, before you do that, I think you should see if there's any public comment. Oh, thank you for reminding me. Yes, good point. I appreciate that. So if anyone has a public comment, they could raise their virtual hand or press star nine, I think, if they're calling in. And I'm not seeing anyone raising their hand. So I'd entertain a motion to keep the public hearing open while we move to the public meeting to discuss and vote on the question of withdrawal of this without prejudice. Do I have such a motion? Mr. Maxfield, do I have a second? Second. Ms. Parks, it's roll call vote. I vote aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Ms. Max, Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. We're now in the public meeting portion where we can discuss this, but I would entertain a motion to accept the request of the applicant to withdraw this without frauds application without prejudice. Is there, do I have a motion? So moved. Is there a second? Second. All right, is there any discussion on the motion? There being none, the vote occurs on the motion. I vote aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. All right, the motion to permit the withdrawal without prejudice has been approved by a four vote unanimous, four votes. So good luck, Mr. Sampath. Please continue to work with the staff and I would encourage you to do the site plan review as soon as possible. So you can put that out of the way. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yvette, thank you. Thanks. Can I leave? There being. Okay, and we can be in touch tomorrow about setting you up with the planning board. And so you would be working. Chris Brestrup is the staff liaison to the planning board, but I can put you in touch with her tomorrow or on Monday to set you up with that. So luckily everything that you've done is good to go. So we would just need to set up the meeting. So I'm sorry for. Live and learn. Thanks a lot, Murray. Okay, we'll talk soon. Bye. Good luck, Mr. Sampath. Thank you. Bye. The next order of business on the is any public comment on matters not before the board tonight? Maureen, do we have anybody who wishes to speak on a subject that is not before the board tonight? No. There's no other item, but. And the other issue is any other business that's not anticipated within the last 48 hours? No, other than just to say, we, we are getting new additional members. Additional members. Yes. Full member. Gilbert is his last name. John Gilbert, maybe. Let me see here. John Gilbert. John Gilbert, yeah. And he'll be a full member. And then as Mr. Meadows will become a full member. Oh, yes. Thank you. Thank you, Greg, for stepping up to do that. And for associate members, we'll have a Eric. Crochran, maybe. Is his pronunciation. Ocarine, I don't know. Yeah. And then a Karen Winter will be another associate member. And so I don't have their, you know, phone numbers or email addresses, but once they're sworn in, I will like to suggest having a administrative meeting, really for them, but for everyone, just to kind of go over, you know, the roles and responsibilities of being on the board and kind of just, and then actually that might be a good opportunity to have a tutorial about going through like a site plan, looking at a site plan and understanding like a plan set, looking at the site plan and the landscape plan, like a stormwater plans, things of that nature. So we could deal with that. And then if folks have any sort of general questions, we could, that would be a good opportunity to have sort of a Q and A, but so stay tuned. So maybe that could be in, well, we're already in July. So maybe in the next month or two, we could hold an administrative meeting and I can certainly send out a doodle poll to figure out when that meeting could be had. And one other note, we don't have any applications that I know of that are scheduled for the July 22nd meeting. So with that, I'm gonna say that we're going to cancel that meeting. And then so the next meeting would be August 12th. And we know that the college street application would be continued until that date. And perhaps we'll have other applications that come in in time for that date as well. So I think that's... And that may be an opportunity if there's no other applications, that may be the opportunity for an administrative meeting to piggyback upon that. Yeah, exactly. We might be able to do that. Yep. And although I don't really have any more information about the whole virtual meetings versus in-person meetings, I do know that the town manager said that boards and committees will be meeting virtually until September. And then at that time, we'll reevaluate both like the state regulations on it, most importantly, and then see if we have any flexibility about continuing to hold virtual meetings or if they could be hybrid meetings or if they have to be in-person. So I'm sure as the weeks and months go on, we'll figure that out and I'll certainly let everyone know as that information comes available. Ms. Parks. If we'd like to give input about that, is there anyone specific to direct the comments to about continuing with Zoom? Yeah, that's a good question. You could certainly... I would say email the town manager. And I think that's like a generic town manager at AmherstMA.gov. And you can certainly copy me on the email if you want. Or you could certainly just email it to me and then I can forward it to the office. So whatever you feel comfortable about with, brother. Okay. Do you know, Maureen, would it be all or nothing? In other words... I don't know. Is it technically capable of being both? I think that the town would like that as an option. So for folks... So I think the town would like that. What does that actually mean? I don't know. But I think the town would love to have the flexibility both for board members but also for members of the public to choose whether they come in person or tune in virtually. So the most important thing is just we need to make sure that we meet the open meeting law and then that will help sort of dictate where the sort of flexibility can be held had. So, but I do know that the town manager would love to be as flexible as possible but we just need to make sure that we abide by the law. So, yeah. Hybrid would require lots of bandwidth. So that's the key thing I think just for the town who we have the bandwidth for. All right, I myself would much rather have the board in person more often than less. I think it would be great for us to actually be in a room to work with each other, see each other's body language actually have, I think that would be a much more we'd be a better board if that could happen. And we can still find a way to get public comment from perhaps Zoom or other not in person public comments to increase the transparency and accessibility of our meetings to the public. But I like the notion of us getting together as a board physically as often as we can. All right, any other comments or questions? I'm just gonna say, I agree with that sentiment. I look forward to when we can actually all finally get in the room again together. It'll be nice. Hopefully this new iteration of the board coming up will finally be able to have a chance to all meet. Yeah, we spent a year on virtual and some members have had like Mr. Meadows and Mr. Maxfield. Ms. Parks, you've been totally Zoom. We've not met in person, I don't think. You're Zoom babies. Yes, you have, I'm sorry, you have Ms. Parks prior to your first term, that's right. Okay, all right, everybody, unless there's anything else, I would entertain a motion to a... Marina, it looks like you're gonna suggest something that we're missing. Oh, just I will be working on the decisions from the last meeting, which was about the cemetery and two other applications perhaps. So I'm gonna type those up in the near future and we'll send out an email hopefully next week for you guys to review and to come in to sign. So just stay tuned for that. So, and for some of you that may be away, you know, we do allow, although I have asked multiple times to our town attorney about e-signatures, I will ask again about having an official comment about that. I might reach out to the Registry of Deeds to see if they have an answer, but in the interim, if you're ever away or just very busy for work and you can't sign a decision, it is legal for me to sign on your behalf and then I initial your name. So I just wanted to just mention that if there's ever a time that you think that you're gonna be away for extended time period, that is an option. Great. Okay, well Maureen, take care of your back, get better. Everybody's had back problems, who's had back problems knows that's awful. So take care of yourself. And I'd entertain a motion to adjourn. Do I have one? Don't move. I've got three of them. I've got three, do I have a second? Should we do it in unison? All right, there's no discussion on the motion to adjourn. I vote aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. We are adjourned. We will see you on August 12th. Thanks very much everybody. Have a great month.