 The appointed hour at six o'clock having been reached, I call this meeting of the Amherst appeal to order. My name is Steve Judge and as ZBA chair, I wanna 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 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 meetings are recorded and may be viewed via the town of Amherst YouTube channel and ZBA web page. In accordance with provisions of Massachusetts general laws, chapter 48 and article 10, special permit granting authority of the Amherst zoning bylaw. This public meeting has been duly advertised and noticed thereof has been posted and mailed to parties at interest. We will begin with a roll call of the ZBA members and panel for tonight's meeting. Steve Judge is present, Ms. Parks. Here. Mr. Maxfield. Here. Mr. Meadows. Here. Mr. Gilbert. Here. Ms. Winter. Here. Mr. Cochran. Here. Also attending tonight's public hearing is Marine Pollock and Dave Cody, building inspector with the town. 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 health, safety and 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 for additional information. After the board has completed its questions, the board will seek public input. The public speaks with the permission of the chair. If a member of the public wishes to speak, they should so indicate by using the raised hand function on their screen. The chair with the assistance of the staff will all 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 and time, it will decide upon the applications tonight. Each petition heard by the board is distinct and is evaluated on its own merits and the board is not ruled by precedent. Stats thoroughly 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 a hundred 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 was a 20-day appeal period for an aggrieved party to contest the decision with the relevant judicial body and superior court. After the appeal period, the permit must be recorded at the registry of deeds to take effect. Tonight's agenda, a public hearing. The first item is ZDA FY 2022-12. Pamela Thornton, representing by Thomas R. Reedy, Esquire, requests a variance to allow the subdivision of a parcel of land containing two dwellings so that each existing dwelling will exist on its own lot and two dimensional requirements of article six, table three, dimensional regulations, section 6.1, 6.4 of the zoning bylaw pursuant to section 10 of the zoning bylaw and 40A of the Massachusetts general laws located at 103 Pelham Road, map 15A, parcel 64, and property identified as Pelham Road, map 15A, parcel 92, neighborhood residents, RN zoning district. ZBA FY 2022-13, Nanatonis Family Trust requests a special permit in order to allow a flag lot under section 3.2832, 6.3, and 10.38 of the zoning bylaw located at 82 Pelham Road lane, map 20C, parcel 150, neighborhood residents, RN, and low density residents, RLD, slash farm land conservants, excuse me, conservation overlay, FC zoning districts. And ZBA FY 2022-14, Joel Greenberg requests a special permit to allow the construction of a non-owner occupied duplex as a complimentary principal use to the existing one family detached dwelling under section 3.01, 3.3211, and 10.38 of the zoning bylaw located at 77 North Whitney Street, map 14B, parcel 98, general residents, RG zoning districts. Following those matters, there'll be an opportunity for public comment on any matter not before the board tonight and any other business not anticipated within 48 hours. Tonight, the first application will be heard by a panel consisting of myself, Ms. Parks, Mr. Maxfield, Mr. Meadows, and Mr. Gilbert. The second application will be heard by a panel chaired by Mr. Maxfield and consisting of Ms. Parks, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Gilbert, and Ms. Winter. The third application will be heard by a panel chaired by Mr. Maxfield and consisting of Ms. Parks, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Gilbert, and Mr. Cocker. The first order of business tonight is ZBA FY 2022-12 panel of Florida represented by Thomas R. Reedy, S-Quire requests and variance to allow the subdivision of a parcel of land containing two dwellings so that each dwelling unit will exist on its own lot and to dimensional requirements of article six, table three, dimensional regulations. Section 6.1, 6.4 of the zoning bylaw pursuant to section 10 of the zoning bylaw and 40A of the Massachusetts general laws located at 103 Pelham Road, map 15A, parcel 64, and a property identified as Pelham Road, map 15A, parcel 92 neighborhood residents are in zoning districts. Are there any disclosures? If not, I'll summarize a site visit we had on June 7th. We arrived at the property. We walked the property lines. We observed both existing structures. We talked to the current residents and learned of their desire to split up the reasons they wish to split the property up to each have separate lots. We went to the back of the property and saw the property line, observed the parking arrangements in front of the garage and by the house in the back. And we also looked at the property, the setbacks and the distance from the property line to the structures. Does anybody else have anything that we also met with somebody from the law firm representing Mrs. Thornton? Is there any other observations or comments members would like to make about the board site visit? Okay, let me summarize this applicants, the submissions we've received so far. We ZBA application from the applicant. We've received an application, a variance narrative and a subdivision approval not required plan of land made by Kathleen Courtwright and prepared by Daniel Randall Eiser dated January 26th, 2022. The applicant has waiver requests from plan requirements for a building plan, a management plan, a landscape plan, lighting plan, sign plan and soil erosion and traffic statement. Planning staff submissions include an existing conditions map showing the existing parcel lines for both lots, project application report dated June 6th also when dated June 7th and comments from the town engineer in email dated June 1st, 2020. I think that's all the submissions. Is it not Maureen? I need to provide a minor update to the report and email the copy to the board. We can cover that later. It was just a couple of minor things. Dealing with the access and easements, yeah. Okay, Mr. Reedy, are you representing the applicant? I am, Mr. Chair. All right, it's good to see you. Introduce yourself for the record. Of course, Tom Reedy, attorney with Bacon Wilson here in Amherst, here on behalf of the applicant, essentially the Thornton family and their petition for a variance from certain dimensional requirements as the chairman had noted and is fully laid out in the application. And then I think Ms. Pollock's wonderfully written project application report. With that, hopefully this is a pretty simple one. So, you know, as everybody saw on the site, is that this is a property that's on Pelham Road. The front house was constructed in 1900. The rear house was constructed in 1950. It's been owned by the family. There is a provision under what's, Master Generalized Chapter 41, Section 81L that allows the division of the parcel because these houses predate the subdivision control law in the town of Amherst. But it doesn't rectify zoning issues. And so in talking with the family, because ultimately the idea is to sell off the rear structure and for one of the siblings to retain that front structure. In order to do that and to have compliant, even though we're gonna get a variance houses, we need a variance. And so, you know, maybe the best thing to do is I can share my screen just to show the survey plan. So if you can all see my screen, we've got, here we go, you've got the entirety of the lots. And so there is this second parcel that's part of the deed, but it's going to be combined with this lot two. And you've got lot one here with the existing house from 1900. You've got this lot two with the existing house from 1950. We've proposed the division line here and here. This is the singular driveway that will be used to access both of the properties. You've got paved driveway here and paved driveway here. This is where that access easement would be to allow the owner of lot one to enter over the lot two and then back onto their lot. We're also aware of the separate utilities that the town engineer is gonna require and that's fine as a condition. But as you'll see when we drew the lot lines, there are some non-compliant parts, building circle on both of them. And there's a host of others and I'm happy to go through them and that might be the best thing to do. So minimum lot area, 20,000 square feet is required in the zoning district. Neither of them, as you see, has 20,000 square feet of lot area. Lot frontage is 120 feet. As you'll see, neither of them, we have 60.73 and 16.07, neither of them comply with the lot frontage. Building area circle as I mentioned, so that's where you have to equal the lot frontage of 120 feet. Neither of them because of the width, in total it's about 76 feet in width. So neither of them comply. Front setback, we do comply. So there's a check in our favor. Side and rear yard setback, as you can see, that's 15 foot side and rear yard setback. And as far as the side setback goes, you've got 14 feet here for the shed, you've got nine feet here and you've got I think two feet here. So we're requesting a variance from those. Side setback for the accessory structures. And so this really is for the sheds. And so that's where we get the 9.5 and the 3.3 feet where those aren't compliant. Lot coverage, so we've got 30% lot coverage. And as you'll see on this side, the total lot coverage, they will both exceed what the requirements are, but for building coverage, we do comply. And so it's, I'd say they're all dimensional variance requests. It's more technical than anything else. It's to allow these structures to remain as they have been since at least 1950 and to allow the plan to be endorsed by the planning board. The applicants are aware that any subsequent changes would also require variances. So if they wanted to do something else to the houses, they would require variances. And one thing I'll note is if you look literally next door, you've got something very, a very similar setup, just two houses that I think had existed for quite some time. And I would imagine ours have existed for longer. So that's really the request. We think that the board has the authority to grant this. And so what we would ask is for that variance to be granted. Thank you, Mr. Reedy. Seems to me that this is really a case where we're allowing the splitting of a lot that contains some pre-existing, non-conforming structures, many of which are, one of which is 120 years old, one another one is 70 years old. And that is the reason, and they exist with, they were existing prior to the dimensional requirements being imposed. And this is really a case where we're trying to allow, the splitting of a large lot to allow two separate structures and sale of the house, each separate unit. Seems to me it's, this is appropriate, but I would like to open that up to questions from any board members if they have any. Ms. Parks. I guess I'm just curious about the line of the lot one, not including that shed. Where's there a reason for not wanting to pull it back to where the line of the shed is? Yeah, it was the family decision. Okay. So. Just how they want us, if I may continue your question Ms. Parks, it's just how they wanted to split up the land, the property. Okay. Any other questions? Not. I don't have a question. Yep. A little concerning to see a 5,000 some odd square foot lot. Yeah. And I'm just wondering if this has any indication of a precedent. Well, no, it shouldn't. The board doesn't hold on precedent, doesn't act on precedent, doesn't recognize it. And this doesn't, we don't set presidential decisions based on each separate decisions. So there shouldn't be a precedent set by this. I think this is really, I understand your concern. And I share it, it looks very small. And we hope there aren't a lot of 5,000 square foot lots in town, but this really is, I think, a reflection of the existing conditions that have existed in this case for a long time. But I don't think this is something that is a 5,000 square foot lots aren't something that I think the town would benefit from on a regular basis. And I would not be in favor of approving lots of 5,000 square foot lots. Is there a way that the family could perhaps enlarge that to include the shed that was indicated? I know it's, this is a family decision. And they're making a decision based upon how they feel now. But those lots are not always going to be in the family's possession. Yeah, I mean, I think from a practical concern, if you look at where the parking for that lot two would be, I'll pull it back up so you can see. You know, this is that larger area where I think function, there you go, hopefully you can see it now. This is that larger area where I think functionally the parking would exist. And I'll say we've had several conversations with the family. We've talked about a lot of different iterations here and there were four siblings and this is the plan that they've approved without going into too much. Any other thoughts, questions, comments? Make a quick comment. You know, I agree with the concern, you know, just on the basis of the lot square footage, but taking a look at the unique nature of the site, you know, I think the right move is what you're suggesting here. I think it is to basically provide the parking for the rear unit as is in front of the shed, which, you know, would complicate matters if you tried to incorporate that into the front parcel. Additionally, that dimension is so minimal. It's like 60 feet, I think by, you know, 20 or 30 feet, something like that. You're only gonna be grabbing a couple hundred square feet. You know, the 5,000 square foot issue still exists, but, you know, given the sort of circumstance of this site and the age of these buildings, I personally don't see this to be a problem. Mr. Maxfield, I saw your hand. Yeah, I was just gonna say, I think we all on the same page that we don't love the idea of 5,000 square foot lots, but for this really seems to me just kind of, I don't know, almost kind of bureaucratic wrangling there's no change on any of the buildings or the property. I'm inclined to approve this lot kind of as is. They've got the property, I'm sure, down the line when somebody wants to make any changes to it, they're gonna find that difficult, but you know what you're getting into. We're at this time, no changes are being made. So yeah, I'm in support of approving. Other comments before we go to public comment? Questions? All right, are there any other public comments? Maureen, do we have anybody from the public who wishes to speak to this matter? No, if any members of the public wish to speak, they need to press the raise your hand feature. I'm not seeing anyone raising their hand. All right. If there are no further questions, I would entertain a motion. I would ask if the board has any other questions and I don't think they do. If not, I would entertain a motion to open the public meeting on this application while keeping the public hearing open in case we have to solicit additional information. Do I have a moment? Mr. Maxfield, is there a second? Second. Ms. Parks, this requires, is there any discussion of the motion? If not, this requires a roll call vote. I vote aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. Mr. Gilbert. The motion passes five to nothing. I now open the public meeting on this application. This is the time when the board can discuss the matter, approve conditions, if any, and consider as part of the board should make the findings required under the bylaw and chapter 48 to approve a variance. As you know, this is an application for a variance, this variance is not something we see very often. I think I've seen four of them, three or four of them, in my time on the board, and in order to grant a variance, we essentially have to make three findings. We have to find that the structures, that there are circumstances specifically relating to soil shape in this case, or topography, number one, which would, and these conditions, if not dealt with, would create a hardship and fear substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner or the applicant, and the desirable relief does not work to the detriment of the public good. So essentially we have to find that this is unique, that this is, it would be harmful to the individual, to the applicant if this variance wasn't granted and that it doesn't provide for precedent or it doesn't provide for, it doesn't go against the zoning, the zoning bylaw or the town plan. Are there any comments? Beyond what we've already heard about the, and we can repeat those comments, but beyond what we've already heard from the, from the board. I think it's, there are conditions that have been suggested by the staff. I think those conditions are all reasonable and I think they're acceptable to the applicant. I'm going to read through those conditions and Maureen, if I get the easement condition wrong, will you correct me? All right. But we'll operate off the latest easement condition that you sent out, in case I misread it because I'm not at home. The first condition is the standard condition that the project shall be maintained in accordance with the approved plans and application packages. Any change will be reviewed by the building commissioner to determine if submission to the zoning board of appeals is necessary. Said changes may be reviewed and or approved by the zoning board of appeal at a public meeting or the change or changes are significant enough to require a formal modification of the permit and or condition. The approved plan, so the approved plan includes subdivision approval not required plan of land created by Kathleen court right and prepared by Randall Iser data January 26, 2020. That's the plans that need to be met. Two, all exterior lighting shall be designed and installed so as to be shielded or downcast and to avoid light trespass under adjacent properties. Lighting fixtures shall be selected according to dark sky compliance recommendations of the ZBA rules and regulations. Three, any dwelling unit on the premises being rented shall be registered and permitted in accordance with the residential rental bylaw. The street numbers for both existing dwellings shall be clearly marked with reflective signage and be visible from the public right away from both directions. That would be an improvement because I had a hard time finding I drove right past the property so I can see why that's needed. Five, parking shall occur on improved surfaces only. The parking area shall be maintained as needed. The parking drive area shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of article 7.1. There are two conditions based on comments received from the town engineer. There needs to be a completely separate water and sewer services connecting to each existing dwelling unit that shall be located on the premises. The said water and sewer services shall be shown on an undated plan, excuse me, updated, not undated, updated plan, the updated plan which will amend the plan of January 26th shall be submitted to the planning department within, we have an undetermined number of days and I've asked the petitioner how many days or how many months they have, it will take them to get that plan with the knowledge that the variance is only good for a year. So it has to be fairly quickly. Is there any thought on that? Yeah, I think I- I updated the report earlier today for the last two conditions that say that would change it, the last part would be upon transfer of one of the said lots. Well, upon transfer, okay. So it gives them time, but you know- That's acceptable, yeah. And an incentive. So you got it. So they can't transfer the lots until this is done. All right, that makes sense. On the seventh condition, utility easements shall be provided for the completely separate water and sewer services connecting to each existing dwelling unit located on the premises. Said utility easements shall be recorded with the Hampshire District Registry of Deeds. A copy of the said recorded utility assessment shall be provided to the planning department. And I expect we have the same language regarding upon, as you did in the previous, okay, in the previous condition. So upon transfer, all right. Are there any other conditions or- Yeah, I added- So today I updated the report to add one more condition and says unappeated access from lot two to lot one shall be provided across an easement at least 12 feet wide. The said easement shall be recorded with the Hampshire District Registry of Deeds and a copy shall be provided to the planning department upon transfer of one of the said lots. Okay, so that just simply allows the owner of the back lot to cross the property to get across the front lot to get back there. Is that correct? Reverse it, the front lot, because they're accessing over that. Over the, gotcha. Right, but yes, that's the idea. The pipe's down, through the pipe's down, okay. Are there any other conditions suggested by the board? All right, I would entertain a motion that we approve conditions as listed in the draft project application report as amended by our conversation tonight. Do I have a motion? This is just on the conditions. We have to yet find the, make the findings under the variance to approve the whole application, but this is just on the conditions. So moved. Is there a second? Second. Discussion? Not, it's a roll call vote. The chair votes aye. Ms. Parks? Aye. Maxfield? Aye. Comettos? Aye. Mr. Gilbert? Aye. Lastly, we have to make findings in order to approve a variance. We'll read the findings directly from the abridged version of chapter 48. I'm not gonna read all of that, but the permit granting authority shall have the power to grant upon appeal upon petition with respect to particular land or structures of variance from the terms of the applicable zoning ordinance or bylaw, where such permit granting authority specifically finds that owning to circumstances relating to the soil shape or topography of such land or structures and especially affecting such land or structures, but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or bylaw would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise to the petitioner or the appellant and that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purposes of such ordinance or bylaw. In this case, I think the controlling notion is that the shape of this property meets the first criteria. The second would be that it would be a financial hardship to require the change in the location of the buildings in order to split the lot. And the third is that this relief does not work to the detriment of the neighborhood or to the detriment or against the public or bylaws because it's in some cases 120-year-old structures or 70-year-old structures and it wouldn't change the existing conditions. So for those reasons, I would move, I would entertain a motion that we find the, we'll make those three findings consistent with section 10 of the Massachusetts chapter laws in order to approve a waiver. Do I have a motion to do so? I move. A second. Second. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, I would, we have a roll call vote. The chair votes aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Axfield. Aye. Comettos. Aye. Gillard. Aye. So we have approved the conditions. We've met the criteria of the variance. I do not think we have to vote again on granting the variance. We've done all that. So congratulations. You've been granted a waiver and you have dimensional, from the dimensional requirements and you've got to get that water and sewer stuff done and the easement done. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you. All right. I'm gonna turn the meeting over to Mr. Maxfield who's gonna chair the next two applications and I'm gonna be off for my trip. So good luck. See you all and I'll see you when I get back. Have fun. Enjoy. We're gonna start it. I'm Dylan Maxfield. I'm gonna go ahead and introduce this. Maureen, if I'm getting anything wrong procedurally just let me know to kind of walk through this here. The next we're gonna be moving onto it's ZBA FY2022-Mennartonnus Family Trust request a special permit in order to allow a flagwatt under sections 3.2832, 6.3 and 10.38 of the zoning bylaw located at 82 Pomeroy Lane, map 20C parcel, 150 neighborhood residents RN and low density residents, RLD farmland conservation overlay, FC zoning districts. Members sitting for this will be myself, Ms. Parks, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Gilbert and Ms. Winter. We've received the following submissions for this one. We've received the 2021 aerial imagery map, comments from the town engineer, the project application report and the special permit application packet. Is that everything we've received? Yes. Excellent. Who is going to be presenting for this application? Yours truly, Mr. Chair. All right, Mr. Riedi, if you can get us started if you wanna just introduce yourself one more time for this application. Of course, for the record Tom Riedi and alternative Bacon Wilson and Amherst here on behalf of the Nairnartonnus family in their application for a flagwatt special permit for 82 Pomeroy Lane in Amherst. I don't know if you wanna talk about the site visit and then I can hop into the presentation. Yes, that's right. We did do that site visit. At the site visit, we were unable to access the property itself due to the overgrown pathway leading to it. There was a large amount of poison ivy that we decided we best not go through. So we'd walked the dimensions of the property along the sidewalk to get a sense of how large the property would be. The only questions asked was, do we know the size of the house that was going to be built? We had that footprint was, that was I think really the only question we had at the time, were there any others that I'm missing? All right, that's sort of you, Mr. Riedi. Okay, thanks very much, Mr. Chair. So maybe what I'll do is just to orient everyone to where we're actually talking about, I'll share my screen so you can see the, property, it's this flag lot that's already been carved out through an ANR. And so I think, you know, actually drove by as some of you were there and I know you were standing here and this is that path that was overgrown with poison ivy and probably ticks. So you're probably pretty wise not to have gone back there. In this Amherst aerial imagery version, you will not see there is a house here, 90. I think if I go back to property map, you'll see that it shows up there. One of the things to note is the distance from the back of that house to the property line looks to be about 162 feet. And then on another plan that I'll show you, you'll see that the proposed footprint for the new house is 50 feet back. So we're talking about over 210 feet it looks like from the back of this existing house to where the new house behind it will be sited. One thing to note is this is about 125 feet. So just next door, there's a flag lot. There's a single family home along the road. It's 125 feet back there. And so this is Pomeroy Lane to your left is west to your east, sorry to your right is east, north and south. And so this is, as I'll show on the next plan, this is about the area that they're looking to put the house in. So I'll stop sharing that screen. And then I will pull up a site plan. And what you should see here is the site plan. So again, you'll see here's the outline of the lot. If you follow the cursor here down, down, and then down here is the area that was overgrown. So you couldn't get in. This is about the area where that new house is at 90. And you can see the house size, the approximate house size is tucked back about 1,780 square feet, square foot footprint. And this is a dimension of 50, five, zero. So that's where I say, from the back here, the property line is 160. And then from 160 further is about 210 feet from the back of the building back to here. So we've been through the conservation commission. We've got order of conditions. You'll see the wetlands have been delineated. You'll see the buffer zone, so the 50 foot buffer zone. So they're staying outside of that residential buffer zone. Again, you've got the wetlands over here, wetlands over here. So there's a lot of wetlands on this side. So that house is really tucked in here nicely. And one of the things, for you to know, even though these are all offsite, nothing's gonna happen in them, right? It's their wetlands, their wildlife habitat. They help ecologically. So where this house is sited is really where that house is going to be sited. And so then I'll stop sharing this screen and I'll share one more screen just because, part of the discussion we always have with flaglots is about the entrance driveway and making sure we comply with the entrance driveway. So I've got, hopefully you can see this last screen. So what we have here is really entrance about a hundred feet in, showing what we would have for drainage controls. And so this has been done by Protera and Stamp. You'll see, if you're out there, it's a relatively flat site. We don't have any huge grade changes. I think your slope is 2.14% of the drainage. And then if you look at what you're talking about for the roadway, you start up here at about 165 feet and then you travel quite a ways. You got 164 feet, 163, 162. So that's three feet over a hundred feet. So you've got a very slight grade heading towards the back. And in this one, you can see a little bit better. This is a blow up of what we have here. You can see how, you know, beyond this, because this is really what the town's concerned about. You know, the drive will extend back into this house area. Over here is the slope. So you can see from like a profile perspective of what that driveway does. It actually, you know, it drops off. So roadway here at 165, and then you head back. And so you're actually, you know, it's down 2%, it's down 4%, it's down 2.5% as you travel away from the public way. And you've also got the erosion control plan just to ensure that during construction, you know, you got your construction entrance here so that you're not tracking anything, you know, any mud, et cetera, onto the public way. So, you know, I'd like to say just like that last one, this hopefully is a pretty simple one as well. It's a flag lot that's allowed in the zoning district. It's for a single family home. There's sufficient lot area. I know Ms. Pollux, again, her wonderfully crafted project application report lays out all of that information, but that it is completely compliant. So with that, you know, we'd ask for special permit approval. Thank you, Mr. Lee. So one of the questions I wanted to ask, maybe it was in here, maybe I missed it. The driveway, that's going to be, I assume an asphalt driveway or it's a gravel driveway. I didn't see that anywhere in here. Do we know what they're planning on making that? Yeah, let me look a little closer to see if I can. It's a gravel drive, 12 foot wide gravel drive is what they're proposing. Okay. And then one other question was with that new house there on that other lot, was there any proposed screening of what was going to be to separate those two? Or is that going to be open? Yeah, I don't, I mean, that's a little down the road. I would imagine so when I drove by on my way today, there is some existing vegetation to the rear of 90 that would I think effective, that appears to be on 90s property that would effectively buffer it. And I would imagine, you know, frankly I look at the property just to the west of there and there's like right in each other's backyard, which I can't imagine being a very good condition or marketable or sellable condition. So I haven't seen plans showing retention but I think we would accept a condition that says, you know, retention of existing vegetation to the greatest extent possible to allow, screening between the rear of 90 and 82, I think that's fine. And then I just want to be a little bit more clear for the first 20 feet, you know, from the, and I'll probably, I'll share my screen so you can see it just with the driveway. If you can see this is paved up here. So it's the first 20 feet and it's the apron as is required. So we've got paved here and then this turns into gravel as we go further back. So paved where it needs to be and then gravel for the balance. Questions from other board members? Hearing none, I'm going to go ahead and open it up to public comment. I see a hand raised from a Jose Ramos. Jose, you should be, hello. If you could state your name and your address. Jose Ramos, Nadya Parmaroy Lane. I just got a quick question because I know that when I built my house, there is an easement that goes from my neighbor to my right, through my property and underneath that so-called driveway that's being built. I'm just curious about that. It's for drainage. So without, if I could, Mr. Chair, if you don't mind. So I haven't done the title exam on this but assuming what you're saying and I have no reason to doubt what you're saying exists, that would be maintained. So there's, if there's a drainage easement that burdens this property, then they would be considered the surveillance estate and so they would be required to maintain functional drainage across that property. All right, cool. That was my question. Thanks. Yep. Questions, comments, any other public comment on this matter? Great. Hearing none, I'm going to go ahead and I want to move that we open the public meeting portion, correct? Well- Mr. Chair, you can just keep the public hearing open and you don't need to make a motion to open the public meeting that's unnecessary. You can hold off closing the public hearing when you're making the motion to approve with conditions if that's what you're intending to do today. Yeah, does the board feel it has sufficient information here to move forward on this? I feel relatively comfortable on this one. It seems to be pretty straightforward. So we want to go ahead and open the public meeting portion about that. Am I correct about that Maureen? Again, you don't need to, you can just continue as you are. You don't need to make a motion. So the public hearing is open. So this gives you opportunity that when you're going through your findings and you realized, oh, you might have more questions for the applicant or you would like to hear from the public. It gives you opportunity to engage a bit more. So you may just hold off making a motion to close the public hearing when you're ready to make a motion to make your decision. All right then. So we want to go ahead and start making specific findings. Am I correct about that? Correct. Yeah, so you could start with section 6.3 for the flag lot. Hold that up here. Can I ask you a quick question? Absolutely. Did we hear, was there anything from any of Butters? There were no emails or phone calls taken regarding this application. Thanks. But I will note that, so there was a legal ad that was placed twice leading up to this meeting in the Daily Hampshire because that's the ninth. So let's see here. So there was a legal ad that was published in the paper on May 26th and on the second. And there was public hearing notices that were provided to the Butters that own properties within 300 feet of the property. And that went out a few weeks ago, mailed out. And that answers your question, Ms. Marks. All right. So I'm just going to go through here. So they just read through the zoning bylaw review here. So that's going to be for 6.32, the area of each flag lot exclusive of access trips shall be at least double the minimum lot area normally required for that district, except in a cluster subdivision, in which case it shall be at least double the minimum lot area required for a cluster lot in that district in the FC district area flag lots shall be as provided for in sections 3.2832, 4.3281 and 4.3282. So for 3.2832 for flag lots, the frontage located outside the FC district and a majority of lot area within the FC district. Lot area requirements for these are as follows, minimum lot area of 20,000 feet with a maximum lot area of 30,000 feet. We find that this lot has roughly about 30,000 square feet. So it meets the requirements for sections 6.32 and 3.2832 under the zoning bylaw. 6.33, let's see here. Shall I read through the whole? I don't think that's necessary. Find any of this here. And we just want to move to specific findings then and 10.38. Sure. And that the proposal is suitably located in the neighborhood in which it is proposed and or the total town is determined appropriate by the special permit granting authority. Proposal is compatible with existing uses and uses permitted by right in the same district. Use of the flag lock is allowed in the special permit with a special permit in the RN and RLD FC zoning districts with conditions placed under the approved ordered conditions made by the conservation commission and the approved special permit made by the zoning board of appeals. The flag lot will be compatible within its environment and neighborhood for 10.382, 10.383 and 10.385 and 10.387. The flag lot is flaglet and subsequent construction of a single family home will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the community. Adequate setting for the building has been identified. 10.384 adequate and appropriate facilities would be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use. Before any issues with building permits, the application shall obtain sewer, water, driveway and trench permits from the Amherst Department of Public Works proposal ensures that it is in conformance with the parking and sign regulations of this bylaw. You have not received a plan to relative to the construction of a single family home therefore 10.386. And it's respectable article seven is not applicable under this permit, 10.387. Proposal provides convenient and safe vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and in relation to adjacent streets, property or improvements, special permit granting authority deems the proposal likely to have significant burst impacts on traffic patterns which shall be vetted to require a traffic impact report. The use of this is we do not expect this to generate excessive amounts of traffic so that it's not applicable. 10.388, proposal ensures adequate space for off-street loading and unloading of vehicle goods, product, materials, equipment, incidental to normal operation of the establishment or use. It's not applicable to this project. 10.389, proposal provides adequate methods of disposal and or storage for sewage, refuse for recyclables and other waste resulting from the uses permitted and permissible on the site methods of drainage for surface water. For the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall obtain sewer water driveway and trans permits from the Amherst Department of Public Works, 10.390. Proposal ensures protection from flood hazards as stated in sections 3.228 considering such factors as elevation, building, drainage, adequacy of sewer disposal, erosion, sedimental control, equipment location which refuse disposal, storage of buoyant materials, stent of paving, effect of the fill, roadways and other encroachments on flood runoff and flow, storage of chemicals and other hazardous substance. Property is not in the flood zone will not increase the potential for flooding since measures have been taken to decrease the amount of runoff onto adjacent properties. Proposal protects to the extent feasible, unique or important natural, historic or scenic features, finding it's not applicable to this project. 10.392, the proposal provides adequate landscaping including the screening of adjacent residential uses provision of street trees, landscaping islands, landscape islands in the parking lot and a landscape buffer along the street frontage with a non-residential use of joins. Let me skip the non-residential use part here, staff view you have in here. Property is well vegetated with conditions placed under the approved order of conditions made by the Conservation Commission and the approval of special permit made by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The flag lock will be compatible within its environment neighborhood 10.393. Proposal provides protection of adjacent properties by minimizing the intrusion of lighting including parking, exterior lighting, use of cut-offs, luminaries, light shields, lower screening, similar sources. Or are you going to read the full context of each of these or can I just go into it in our review here? We're gonna be here in a minute. No, yeah, you can just summarize the staff review. There's any key sentences that you want to capture from any of this section, so that's fine. But I don't feel like it's necessary that you need to read verbatim those sections. Yeah, yeah, just go right into it. Yeah, condition has been included to require that all exterior lighting be designed and installed so as to be shielded or downcast to avoid light trespass onto adjacent properties. 10.394, proposal avoids to the extent feasible impact on steep slopes, flood plains, scenic views, grade changes and wetlands. Town Engineer has reviewed the application and has no issues with proposal creating and range method proposal through 10.395. It's not applicable to the proposal, 10.396, not applicable to the project. 10.397, proposal provides adequate recreational facilities, open space amenities for the proposed use. Aerial mapping shows that the majority of the lot is found to be open space, which appears to be adequate for a residential lot. And lastly, 10.398, proposal isn't harmony with the general purpose and intent of this bylaw and the goals of the master plan. Flag law is compatible with the master plan as the property is located within the outlying areas of town where it needs to determine whether the proposal meets section 3.2832, 6.3 and 10.38 under the zoning bylaw. Now for this part here, we would take a vote on whether or not we can make these findings so with a meeting of conditions, am I correct? That's how we want to propose that. Sure, you could also, another way of going about it is you could actually just do one motion to approve the application under section 3.2832 and 6.3 and 10.38 under the zoning bylaw with conditions as stated in the project application report dated June 9th, 2022. And after that, we'd be all set, am I correct on that? Correct. All right, and that case and the last thing I want to do is just quickly go through these conditions so that way there are in the public record here. The project shall be built and maintained according to the approved plans and application package. Any changes to be reviewed by the building commissioner determining if submission zoning, so on and so forth in there. What these plans include is our special permit application or management plan, a project narrative prepared by Attorney Reedy, orders of conditions, subdivision, approval not required, our site plan, and we have our plan profile, details, sign and stamps, all in there. Number two, all exterior lighting shall be designed and installed so as to be shielded or downcasts to avoid light trespass onto adjacent properties, lighting fixtures shall be selected according to the dark site compliance recommendations of ZBA rules and regulations. The number three, the street number for both dwelling shall be clearly marked with reflective signage and be visible from the public right of way from both directions. Number four, unimpeded access shall be provided across either the access strip or the easement as at 50 feet wide. And number five, before the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall obtain sewer, water, driveway and trans permits from the Amherst Department of Public Works. Number six, the vegetated drainage swell shall be maintained and in good condition. Number seven, parking shall occur on improved surfaces only the parking area shall be maintained as needed and the parking in the drive area shall be constructed in accordance with requirements for article 7.1. Are there any other conditions that we would want to impose or does that all sound good? I would just say for us, condition number three, street numbers for the dwelling. The dwelling, yep, okay. Then I would entertain a motion that we approve or we make our findings and approve the application with the one amendment and condition number three for both dwellings to simply say the dwelling. That'll sound good. Do I have a motion? I would, do we want to say, did we say something in there about keeping as much vegetation for screening as possible? We talked about that being a condition. I don't necessarily feel we have to. Okay. We want to though. Oh, Ms. Parks, if I could just respond to that. So it looks like I just pulled up mass mapper and I don't know if Maureen, if you've got it, but it looks like I might be able to share my screen here to show you. If you see 82, so this is just a mass GIS system. It used to be called all over. Now it's called mass mapper. This is 82 Pomeroy. This is 90. This is an old shed that no longer exists there. You can see this is meadow really back here. And so existing vegetation is really on the 90 property. And so my opinion would be if they know what's going back here, if they take the vegetation down, they know what they're going to see. And there's not a ton of vegetation that exists on 82 because of its stature as a meadow. So what about the property on the other side? Let me see if I can over here. Yeah. It looks like there's vegetation here. And then I think these are all wetlands, if I could figure out how to get back to. So let me share my screen again. So you'll see over here, you've got mapped wetlands and then they stop about where the property line is. They don't go beyond, but my suspicion is that those wetlands probably extend beyond, but right in here. And I can zoom in a little bit. You'll see this is the wetland line. So there are wetlands all in this area over here. So they can't do anything in there. Okay. All right. So yeah, do we have any other conditions that we want to pose? Are we okay with the ones listed here? If so, yeah, again, I'd entertain a motion to make the findings, the necessary findings and approve the project with conditions stated in the project application report with the one amendment to condition three to change for both dwellings to for the dwelling. Do I have such a motion? So moved. Ms. Parks moves, do I have a second? Second. Mr. Meadows seconds. We have a motion. Is there any discussion of the motion? Hearing none, I'll move to a roll call vote. Chair votes aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. Mr. Gilbert. And Mr. Wenger. Excellent. The motion is approved five to zero. Yeah, congratulations. Thank you very much. As always, good seeing you. Thanks so much for your work tonight. See you soon. Have a good one. All right. Next on the agenda, we have ZBA FY 2022-14 Joel Greenbaum request a special permit to allow the construction of a non-owner occupied duplex as a complimentary principle used to the existing one family detached dwelling under sections 3.01, 3.3211 and 10.38 of the zoning bylaw located at 77 North Whitney Street, map 14B, parcel 98, general residence, RG zoning district. For this application, we've received the following submissions, the comments from our town engineer, GIS maps, the project application report and a special permit application packet. Are there any other submissions? Is that it, Maureen? I believe so, that's all. Fantastic. So on Tuesday, we had done a site visit of the property. When we were there, some of the questions asked were about the vegetation of what was going to stay and what was going to be removed. The question was asked of whether or not the house would be larger than the other house that is currently there. And would the footprint of the new building match the footprint of the current building? Question was asked about the rental property that is currently there. How many tenants are there? The answer that was four. Asked about the garage use. I was told that was going to be for, or that was being used for landscape equipment for the property. And then we told lighting where that would be and where that would extend out to and that would not trespass into the neighboring property. Was there anything else that we talked about on that site visit? All right, who's going to be presenting for the applicant? Who would like to start? I'd be happy to do that. My name is Chris Farley. I'm an architect with Cune Rental Architects at 28 Amity Street in Amherst. Joel Greenbaum, the owner and applicant is on this hearing tonight as well as is Bucky Sparkle, civil engineer. I think what I'd like to suggest is for Bucky to give a brief overview of the site and site design and then I will follow with a brief overview of the architectural building design. All right, go ahead. All right, thank you, Chris. For the record, I am Bucky Sparkle and the site designer for this particular project. And I'm going to do a little bit of screen sharing as I walk us through what's going on here. I think I'm going to start taking a page from Tom Reedy's book here with the Amherst property viewer just to give a sense of where we are in the world. North Whitney runs here. Clifton Avenue is here. The railroad track runs on the east, southeast side of the property. Nicarvaca apartments a butt to the north. Mr. Greenbaum also owns the property, the two properties to the south. But the highlighted one is the property in question. We just take a quick aerial imagery map and zoom in a little, maybe a little too much. You'll see that the entire front lawn is open and is quite flat and that was evident at the site visit. There are a couple of street trees which we're going to remain in place but the new construction is going to end up in this big open area. And the front of the new building is roughly parallel with the front of the adjacent building down here. So that gives you a sense of where we're coming from over here. And then to go over to the plans that were submitted. We'll start with the existing conditions plan. Same thing, north is now basically to the left with the railroad back here and North Whitney street down here. And the green shaded area is the tree line, big open front yard, a couple of bushes around, a hedge row. We have the main building on the site now is a one unit four bedroom. It has five parking spaces through here and sort of some extra space back here for parking. There's currently a five car garage on site as well. And, excuse me, that is not for tenant use that is just for the property owner, Mr. Greenbombs use. There used to be a swimming pool back here that was recently removed, partly in preparation for this project. And there's a little shed in the back. This is the property that's also owned by Mr. Greenbombs and here's Knickerbocker Apartments. There's one long driveway and not all that long but one driveway that runs along the Southern lot line accessing the parking area. Looking at the proposed conditions. So this is a slightly different scale. I'm gonna zoom in a little bit so we can make better use of the content that's here and see it hopefully a little bit better. You can see just the edge of the house next door. The front of that house comes all the way out down here. It's cut off just so we can focus on the main lot. But we are proposing the new building which is the overall structure, everything that's shaded the main building and the porch area that's just over 2100 square feet. The main part of the building is almost 1700 square feet. And to compare that to the existing structure one of those questions that came up the existing structure is about 1800 square feet. So the main part of this house is actually a little smaller than the other, the existing structure. When you add on the porch, it adds on another 400 square feet in change. So overall it's about 2100 square feet. So it will seem footprint-wise it's a little bit bigger but the mass of the building is gonna feel a little smaller because it's not all a two-story structure. There is parking, six parking spaces that are going to come off of the existing driveway and a egress walk to the rear as well as a walk to the front porch entrance. We have landscaping along the side of the building and landscaping doubling as shielding for the parking area screening for the parking area that runs along the roadside edge there. We do have the content of that, the landscape plan detailed here if you wanna look at individual plants. We also do point out that the two maple trees are remaining in place. We're gonna bring utilities to the road right between the two trees. This plan was reviewed by Jason Skeels as I understand. He didn't have any comments. The electric and communication utilities are planned to be buried if they let us do that which is probably gonna be the case. And there's also a bioretention area or rain garden in the back. This also is an area for trash and recycling. It has a five foot screen fence around it so that the neighbors can't see it and it has some landscaping in front of it. So it's gonna be very difficult to get a good line of sight on that modern necessity. Let's see, oh, lighting. So we do have this L-shaped light area is the porch and we have four lights that are in the socket. So these are downcast built in overhead lights. At the rear egress, there is a farm style barn style light and we have photometric information and cut sheets for this we can look at if you like. So that's over the door. And then this light that's mounted at the corner of the building is gonna be 20 feet up. It's a dark sky compliant wall pack and its job is to illuminate the parking area and the walkways. And if we looked at the photometrics, what you would see is that it does a nice job illuminating this area, but the foot candles fall to zero before you get to the lot line to the butter here or over the lot line to the right away. So we're not transmitting any meaningful light from the building beyond just the area that needs to be illuminated. I'm gonna jump to the next page, which will have the contours and grading plan, as well as some other information. What I wanna point out here is that everything drains very gradually to the top of the page. It's sort of East, Northeast. And that's also where we're gonna be putting the snow storage area. So that's an easy place to drop that material. It also eventually lets it melt out and be filtered through a grass area before getting to the rain garden itself. This yellow-orange line that goes around the building that is to collect roof water. So the gutters are all gonna be piped. This is the only storm drain on the property or on the project is to take 100% of the roof water and bring it into the rain garden. Almost 100% of all the new and previous area goes into the rain garden. And it's a highly functional system. I will also, oh, we also have a temporary sediment area, sediment basin. So these are construction controls. That area there is designed to capture runoff in any sediment gets stuck there before moving downstream. And then we have a silt fence that's gonna go around the entire construction facility or a straw waddle. It's a very flat site. So you may not need more than that waddle. If I jump quickly just because we've got it to the photometric plan. Well, let me go back to the whole page. Excuse my misclicking. So we have the light fixtures shown here. Get a little closer. So this is the barn type light, this classic style that's gonna be downcast, dark sky compliant. This is the light pack, the wall pack that'll be mounted 20 feet on the wall of the building that has a confined beam downward. And what I was eventually trying to get to is the photometric plan itself where the number's a little hard to read. So what I hopefully, yep, it's there. So that sort of shaded area, that is everything of 0.1 foot candles or higher. Anything outside of that shaded area, that highlighted area, registers as 0.0 foot candles of light on the ground. So as you can see at the lot line, there's no light at the lot line, there's no light. And it does a really nice job covering the walkways. Then of course the building lamps will handle the staircases themselves. To briefly summarize, we did submit a stormwater management report. Of course, being just a two unit building, there aren't any state standards that apply. So what I've done is looked at, I don't have to go through the whole methodology, but when you were adding 3,836 square feet of impervious area with the parking and the walks in the building, we also removed a pool. So the balance is only 1,316 square feet of impervious area. However, I will say that when I did my hydro CAD modeling, the fancy number output stuff, I ignored that the pool situation. So this is a very conservative design. It accounts for all of the 3,836 square feet and pretends that the pool is still there effectively. So even with the numbers that come out pretty good, they're really gonna be better than that. We have for most storms a decrease in the flow rate. For all star storms, we have a decrease in the volume of water leaving the site because there are no current stormwater controls. The addition of the rain garden, catchers and infiltrates a fairly large volume of water. And it's less than existing, for example, 900 cubic feet come off at the current condition. It'll be 216 cubic feet will come off in the proposed condition. We're capturing 90% of the total suspended solids, 80% of requirement there. So we're exceeding that requirement. If those requirements were required from the state standards, I did go out there and perform soil testing to get a sense of what's out there where the groundwater was that provided some basis for designing recharge. And we only require 38 cubic feet of groundwater recharge. We are providing for any storm of modest size over 400 cubic feet. So this is more than 10 times that the state would normally require in terms of groundwater recharge. And the main reason why the volume of water being discharged is actually less after this project is installed. We're also providing a construction period solution prevention plan, as well as an operation maintenance plan. They're all part of the storm under management report. And with that, it might be best to see if the board has any questions or we can pass it back to Mr. Farley. Yeah, let's go ahead and just stop for one moment here. Does anybody have any questions about Mr. Sparkle has presented up to this moment or we like to just continue moving through the presentation. Ms. Parks. Do you have a picture that shows both houses like the relationship between the two houses? Like a front view, elevation view. Just with both houses in one picture. On the lot, this is probably the best I have right now. And you can see the front porch of the existing house. And I know that's not the whole thing. And the proposed conditions I did provide a more detail and zoomed in on the front of the property. But this front porch area, if we were to go back to the overall, this is the same front porch rate in this location. So I don't know if I can do an excellent job estimating this, working on a strange computer. Always a slight challenge. Let's see if I can try and draw in where this has a different setup. I'm so sorry. So I'm not sure I'm going to be able to do more than weave the cursor around. But the new structure, if you said the front of the new structure is very similar within two feet of the front of the abutting structure. So that structure is going to line up through here and it comes up through this area. It doesn't sit directly in front of this dwelling. You'll be able to see the original structure. This part of the site is entirely open. I guess I'm just wondering about the impact of the people who are living in dwelling unit one. Is there going to be any kind of vegetation between the two houses or not really? Beyond the, well, there'll be the rain garden, but that's not going to be direct line of sight between the two buildings. Obviously there's some amount of plantings and landscaping at this building. But presently there aren't any plans between the line of sight in this building and the proposed one. Of course they're both owned by Mr. Greenbaum. Okay. If I could just say a couple of things about the site design. So you can see in this plan, the Knickerbocker apartments, which is to the north or to the left on these drawings. What we did was we tried to keep the new building not too close to the Knickerbocker apartments because they have decks on the south side that look out onto the front lawn of this existing dwelling, number 77. And we also tried to place the new building as close as practical to the existing driveway so that the front of that number 77, the existing dwelling, can look out toward North Whitney Street kind of between the Knickerbocker apartments and the proposed duplex. So even though the proposed duplex, depending on where you are is, could be said to be in front of that existing dwelling, there's a fair amount of open space between the existing dwelling and the Knickerbocker apartments, which the existing building looks out upon toward North Whitney. So Bucky's just done an approximation here. So you can see that it is technically in front of that building, but there's a lot of open space just to the north or to the left in this drawing of the proposed building. Thank you. Does that answer your question, Ms. Parks? Yeah. Thank you. All right, any other questions at this time? If not, well, yeah, let's go ahead. I had one question. So I noticed that perhaps the site plan has been updated to show a snow storage area. Is that correct? Yeah, that's on the grading and drainage plan. Oh, it was on that plan. Okay, was that there? Yeah, it wasn't on the, yeah. The proposed conditions are over two different plans, depending on content. So that snow storage area is right here. Okay, sorry. Thank you. Yep, that's good. Any other questions? If not, we'll go ahead. Let's move on to Mr. Farley. If you'd like to go ahead and get started. Oh, you're muted. Thank you very much. I'm going to share my screen. Okay, so this is the drawing sheet that was part of the special permit submittal. Can everyone see this? Yep, looks good. Excellent, okay. So this is the floor plan of the proposed duplex. This is that wrap around porch that goes on, that is located on the west and the south side and building, the parking is here to the south of the proposed building. The walkway comes up to the front porch. There's a door on the front of the house, which is the door to the second floor apartment. When you go through that door, you go up a set of stairs and come out here on the second floor apartment. And the first floor apartment has a door off of the side porch. It goes into a small vestibule with a closet and then into the living space. Both apartments are virtually identical in terms of their layout. They're both three bedroom apartments. There's living space, living dining kitchen in the front. There are two bathrooms in the middle part of the building. And then in the back, there's the second means of egress stairway that then goes out of a back door to the walkway that Bucky showed on the plan. The exterior of the building, the style of the building is what I would call Greek revival. It's a fairly simple, typical of mini structures and Amherst. It's a gable roof, a main gable roof with a cross gable on the side. It is a wood-framed building with painted wood clavards. The proposed color is represented here in this drawing. It's kind of a warm neutral or a kind of a yellowy beige. The porch will have freestanding columns. There'll be fairly substantial cornerboards on the building painted. The windows will be double-hung windows with their aluminum-clad wood that they will be black. All the trim will be painted white. There'll be a gray asphalt shingle roof. And then the gable inside the closed pediment of the gable will be a tongue-in-groove, flat, board-siding painted white. This is the side of the building that is facing the parking, the south side. This is the cross gable where there are two bedrooms. This is the side porch. This is the front door to the ground floor apartment. This is the back door, egress door. This is the enamel light that Bucky showed us. And this is the wall-pack light that lights the parking area on this side of the building. This is the north side of the building. It's essentially all in one plane. You can see the front porch here and the side of the gable. And then this is the back of the building. Again, the white-painted closed pediment, the off-white beige-yellow paint color. This is that enamel fixture for the rear door. Let's see, I think that's a pretty good overview of the building design. I'd be happy to go into more detail if anyone has any questions. I actually have one question about that. That rear door, if you actually zoom in on the interior of that actually, top right, so that's a shared area and there's a door in the hall that prevents access from the top to the bottom, correct? That's exactly right. This is a common stairway. It's a second means of egress, but this door here at the back of the hall is the security door for the first floor apartment. And then the second floor apartment has that same door to provide that security. And is the intention of that back door, is it just supposed to be used in an emergency only or that's just another means of egress for the tenants? I think it's a code requirement. We need to have two means of egress as remote from each other as possible. So we have this one in back and then the two in front. So the intention is that it's a code required egress. I'm guessing that depending on where a tenant may park, the tenant could possibly use this to get in and out of the building. If they, for instance, if they live in bedroom three or on the second floor, but I think the intention is that the two front doors off of that front porch, those are the main entries to both these apartments. Thank you. Any other questions about the architecture plans at this point, Ms. Parks? I don't know if this is an important question or not, but the existing house is blue, is that correct? That's a great question. Joel, I'm afraid I don't know that answer off the top of my head. Joel, do you possibly know? It is blue. I'm just wondering if there's going to be any attempt to match these properties. You've got, I'm just, I... Each one of these properties has its own distinctive architectural style, the blue one's federal, this one's Greek revival, the one at 67 is Victorian. They're all unique and personal in their own way. There's going to be no, I'm not looking to match them all like an apartment complex, no. Okay. The property right next door, that one's green. Am I correct about that one? You are correct. Okay. Any other questions? Mr. Meadows? I have a few problems here with this. One is that wall pack that you've got to light up the parking lot. It's going to cast an awful lot of light into the neighborhood. I don't think that's an appropriate place for it. I think I understand your concern, but I will say that the photometric plan that Bucky reviewed shows that the lighting cutoff for this LED fixture is inside the property line. I... I'm sure it's inside the property line, but somebody driving down the street, somebody farther down to the south on North Whitney is going to see quite a lot of light there. I don't see that as an appropriate place to put essentially your parking lot light that is going to cast a lot of light into the neighborhood. Bucky, could you maybe address that concern? I'm just double checking some of the notes here. Let me make sure I'm not muted, am I? No, I'm not. I'm just double checking some of my notes on the lighting because we do have it as a house side shield as an external glare shield specifically to help reduce the very thing that Mr. Meadows is speaking about of the light from the street, entering into the street. The lens shape is very, very focused. So that we are, you know, it is dark sky compliant. So we are definitely facing straight down and we're keeping the foot candles on the ground to zero at the property line out in the street is considerably farther than this light mechanism is designed to throw light. I'm not saying it's gonna throw light out into the street. I'm saying that it's going to be observed from quite a distance away, particularly since it's higher up than as you go south on North Whitney Street. How many foot candles is it? How many foot candles is it at the parking lot? At the parking lot, let me pull up those numbers so that I can read them. We are, the maximum in the parking lot reads as one and a half foot candles. Okay, can you get that down to what number location? Well, I know that you don't have to put any more than one foot candle in a parking lot. Sure, and we're also down to 0.4 foot candles at the edge and 0.2 foot candles at another edge. So we're trying to, you know, obviously eliminate all the necessary area without having a giant difference between the bright spots and the dark spots because one is going to glare out the other. You may need to look at relocating or putting them out in a different location. I'm gonna let Mr. Greenbaum, let's take his response. Go ahead Mr. Greenbaum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I might suggest maybe we could lower the light on the house down a little bit so it just illuminates the parking spaces and not much further, that might help. I think that's a good idea. The other thing that I ever since I read through the material is I don't understand the word complimentary in this. Yeah, would you like to respond? What do you mean by compliment? I think I understand it, but I'll let you go ahead and answer that one. This is a complimentary, the building is complimentary to the location. I mean, if it's my understanding is complimentary, it's a complimentary use as to what's already being used. In that location, am I correct about that understanding? Interesting question. I don't know if that's a possible answer. I don't know if it's the correct one. Maybe Maureen can explain how that could be in this location. Yes, so the applicant, part of the applicant's proposal or requested special permit and applicable sections includes section 3.01 under the zoning by-law, which states the development or operation on the single law more than one dwelling or more than one of the principal uses described in section 3.3, that's the use classification chart is expressly prohibited except where the principal uses are clearly complimentary to each other or where otherwise provided by this by-law. So the board needs to make a finding to determine whether these two proposed, these two uses are complimentary to one another. So there's an existing single family home and the applicant is proposing a duplex on the property. So there'd be a total of three dwelling units on the property. So, you know, I often when I meet with prospective applicants, one example of something that would be not, very obviously not complimentary to one another would be if you had a single family home and now you wanna propose like a gas station on the property, those seemingly are not compatible having two, you know, low density residential uses on a single property, on a very large property lot. Seems like it is complimentary but I'll let the applicant make their case. I believe that this property could provide several other dwelling units on this property and the applicant is keeping this at a low density amount of units on the property. All right, I know what low density means here. You know, I'm in well-fleet at the moment but what does low density mean in Amherst as far as the density of the number of units on a particular size of property? Well, you know, I guess, you know, low density it's not defined in the zoning bylaw. So it'd be up to, you know, our interpretation but, you know, multi-family or like apartment buildings in Amherst starts off at, you know, three units or more. You know, one could say that, you know, less than five units, for instance, is low density. And, you know, if you go, you know, five to 10 maybe that would five to 10 or five to 15 units maybe that's medium density and something beyond that would be high density. I mean, I think that is up to sort of interpretation of what density means to folks but I can let the applicant speak to that if they wish. Go ahead, Mr. Griemann. Thank you very much. I certainly don't know the definition between high and low density but the size of this lot allows me up to 14 units. So if you wanna put 14 units on that lot that might be considered high density. I'm trying to do something smaller and a little more tasteful and a little more befitting the neighborhood. And I think that this proposal accomplishes that. So that's my definition of density. Mr. Mattes, you had a follow up response or any other questions about the architecture? No, I like the architecture. I, that's, that was not the question. The question was I don't know what the definition of low and high density is. And so I was asking and also come, you know the definition of complimentary use. Does anybody else have any questions about the architectural plans? If not, is there anything else left in the presentation or does the architecture presentation kind of conclude that? Mr. Chairman, I would say that that concludes my presentation but I think Bucky and I and Mr. Riemann are all available to answer any questions that may come up. Any other questions in general about the application before I go to public comment from board members? If not, I'm going to go ahead and open up the public comment. If you have any others, you'll have a chance to ask them afterwards. So yeah, right now for public comment, if you'd like to make a public comment, go ahead and use the raise hand function and we will get you in. Looks like we have Bob Newcomb. Go ahead and let him speak. And Bob, once you get on, if you could just state your name and your address for the record. I can't hear you, Mori. Hi, Bob, I tried to unmute you. You may need to press a button. There we go. Can you hear me now? Yes. All right, thank you. My name is Bob Newcomb. I'm at 87 North Whitney Street. My question is not so much the very nice new addition to the neighborhood. It's street parking, adding in two more units in this particular area. And after this particular year with a couple more residents living at 67 North Whitney, people parking on the street, that's at the top of a hill. Coming up the street and going down the street, if there are cars parked right in front of those units, you cannot see anything around them until you are in the other lane and cars are right on top of you. The speed that some people tend to come up here, going to the schools and the university, it's a cut through, especially in the commuter times, it can be rather dicey at times if there are cars parked on the street. So just thinking about that particular addition to the neighborhood and if that can be addressed in some way. Thank you, Mr. Newcomb. Any other public comment? I've got one from Ellie who want to go ahead. And then I'm working and address for the record. You can hear me? Yep. OK, great. My name is Elena Davis. I live at 20 Clifton Amp. And I'm sorry, I'm driving in a car, so I'm just going to try to find a spot where I can pull over safely. I just wanted to express concerns about this. This is a lovely neighborhood. I just moved back to Amherst. I was there as a graduate student, I mean as an undergraduate student and came back and bought a house in a place where my kids could walk to school and enjoy town and have a sense of community. And I feel like the neighborhood has changed a lot just in the last two years as far as composition. So I have nothing against college students. I was one myself once. But college students don't always make the best neighbors. So in a short period of time, I've had things go missing from my porch and people walking on my lawn, waking me up at night and my kids. And I think I appreciate a sense of balance in our neighborhood, but I'm concerned that we're going to get close to a tipping point by adding more non-owner occupied homes. South Whitney Street is not that far away from us, but I would say for anyone who's traveled on it recently, it has gone past the tipping point, where it's now almost exclusively a student street. And I'm just concerned about preserving the kind of neighborhood that I moved back to Amherst to live in and having neighbors who I can trust. So I feel like Amherst has lost its way a little bit as far as the planning and building. And I'm a little discouraged because my sense of this project is probably going to go through regardless of what I say to you. But I'm just imploring you to remember that us town folk also like to live close to the town center and access all the wonderful things about Amherst. And if this neighborhood becomes too saturated, I'm not going to stay in my house. And I don't know, maybe it will be turned into student housing as well. I think that would be very sad. But I just really want you as the board to keep sight of that idea of balance and really thinking about having everyone being able to share the street. That's it. Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comment at this time? We'll give the applicant a chance to respond. Maybe I'll step in here. Just one more moment. Yeah, hearing none, I'm going to go ahead. Passed review folks, let you respond to the questions raised by the previous speakers. OK. And of course, we're all kind of a team here. We all have our degree of expertise. Well, there was a question about parking here and street parking. There are two units. There are four required parking spaces. There are six provided parking spaces. There are also strict controls in the lease that limit how many guests can be there. The guests can only stay two nights. So the propensity for all of these parking spaces to be filled and overfilled is really low. This is not a party house. And both Bob and Ellie, I will say that I've known Joel and he and his family have been managing properties very well and have an excellent track record in Amherst. They're a large percentage of students. As their clients, they do a great job screening. They do a great job managing their properties. There are virtually no complaints for any of the properties. So they do an excellent job of handling the social side, the impact on the community that a student population tends to bring along. So I have confidence that the Greenbaum family will continue with this property as well in terms of making sure that there's not a lot of loud noises, that the tenants are respectful and he's, like I said, got a lot of years under his spell of doing this and he's done a great job. One of my favorite clients and that's one of the reasons. So I think we'll have the parking covered and I don't believe this is gonna be a nuisance property because none of Joel's properties are nuisance properties. Mr. Sparkle. Yeah, I guess I'll even come in here. I forgot to do a disclosure at the start of this one. I have no financial disclosures to make anything with Mr. Greenbaum. But I can say that I live in downtown Amherst for about seven years and I've been adjacent to one of Mr. Greenbaum's property, which is rented to undergraduate students. And I believe in, say, the six years that I've been here, I haven't had any issues with any noise or anything from those properties. So I think a concern, very valid concern is that we're having family neighbors turn into less family neighborhoods and more, essentially, college dormitories off campus. That's a concern that I share as well. And I feel at least confident with Mr. Greenbaum as an applicant, as somebody who has a good track record of managing properties in Amherst. So with that in mind as an applicant, I feel confident. And for me, this is really more the issue of the application itself and whether or not that seems to fit within the downtown that at this time right now or where it's located. At this time, I feel relatively confident about it. I'd like to hear from other board members what they think and what their concerns. I know we have concerns of lighting. I think that's something that we should definitely address for approval or approving something with conditions. I'd like to hear from everybody else where they're feeling right now on the board. We'd like to start. Got a quick question. Take a look over at these plans. It appears to so that Rear Stairwell also carries down below the first floor. Are you guys going to be providing a basement there? And if so, is that what's the utility down there? Is that just mechanical equipment and storage space for what's that look like? Joel, do you want to address that? So yes, that stairwell does go to the basement. And once you get in the basement, there's a long hallway. And to the right, you have two locked storage areas, one for apartment one, one for apartment two, keyed to their apartment. And on the left is another locked space, which is all the mechanicals. That's our space. Okay, great, thank you. Thank you. Well, actually, it reminded me of the question as well. The window in the attic, I take it that's, is the attic going to be finished in any way or be accessible? That's just a decorative window there. That's a decorative window. The attic is made out of trusses. You can't get up there. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Any other questions from board members at this time? All right, hearing none. Want to move into findings and conditions. One of the things before we jump into that is do we think that we have enough information to make a decision on this today? I know with lighting, if we're going to be making changes to lighting, you may want to put the condition in that the applicant would come back to the board that we would approve the lighting plan specifically. But could approve everything else if we wanted to. Is that something that we would want to do? I'm going to ask you, Mr. Meadows, because I know lighting was the concern that you had brought up. Would that be something you might be amenable to? I would like to see a lighting plan, yes. Got it. All right then. If we're all okay with that, I'm going to go ahead and say that we move into making specific findings. Pull up the applicant board here. I actually asked one moment here while I pull this up to load it. And Maureen, again, procedurally, I can start for this one. I want to start with section seven. Am I correct about that? Or start with section three? You could start with, you know, yeah, let's see here. Yeah, you could start at seven and then proceed with 10.38. And, hold on a second, let me, I'm just, sorry, I'm scrolling up. Yeah, you could start. Well, you could, it all depends where you want to start. You could start with seven and then go to 10.38 and you could finish or start with 3.01. I'll go ahead and start with 3.01. It's at the top of the list here. So section 3.01, the development or operation is single a lot. When one dwelling unit could be used, section 3.3, expressly prohibited, except where the principal uses are clearly complementary to each other or where otherwise provided in spy law. Yeah, as we went over that, the applicant is proposing two principal uses, one non-owner occupied duplex maintaining the existing one family detached dwelling on the premises. Yeah, we need to make the finding on whether or not the principal uses are clearly complementary to each other. I believe that we do make this finding. And then for section seven for dwelling including apartments for parking access and regulations, two parking spaces for each dwelling unit shall be provided, so on and so forth for parking regulations here. The proposal meets the section seven, the breakdown existing parking for existing family homes, the existing five parking spaces, the tenants, the existing building plus one visitor space and the driveway access will remain. Proposed parking for the proposed duplex, the applicant wishes to utilize the existing driveway on the premise construct six, nine by 18 parking spaces for the use of tenants residing in the proposed duplex, proposed parking ratio is one parking space for each bedroom presided. 7.10 design standards, parking plan requirements the applicant provides a proposed parking plan which shows the proposed driveways grading slope drainage design setback layout, location on the site, circulation, lighting, landscaping and other pertinent features. 7.101 for paving, the applicant proposes to prepare the sub grade and compacted gravel base with 12-inch deep appropriate grading and drainage with two-inch bitimus concrete binder and surface with one-inch topcoat bitimus concrete. 7.102 slope, proposal meets this requirement, 7.013 setback from the building, proposal meets this requirement, 7.104 dimensions marketing and delineation. All proposed spaces are 9.10 feet in size. All individual parking spaces will be painted, marked or otherwise delineated as a standard condition of this permit. 7.106 entrance and exit driveways, the exit driveways along North Whitney Street is 17.7 feet wide at the property line. The existing driveway is located, give or take 125 feet from North Whitney Street, Clifton Ab at an intersection of 895 feet plus feet from North Whitney Street, Main Street intersection. The applicant provides 17.7 feet wide in order to accommodate a two-way entrance driveway per section 7.106. Minimum width of the entrance and exits shall be 18 feet wide for two-way use. We have the 7.11 landscape standards. The section is not applicable to the proposal, however, the applicant does provide. May I interrupt you? So the, what is it? The existing entrance and exit doesn't quite meet the requirement for a two-way drive the minimum standard is 18 feet and they're off by 0.3 feet. So it's 17.7 feet wide. So the board technically should make a finding under section 7.9 for waiving that minimal distance, minimal width difference, rather. And procedurally, we do that at the time of approval of conditions. Correct, yeah, when you make your final motion to decide on the permit and with conditions, yep. Thank you. So 7.11 landscape standards. The section is not applicable to the proposal. Again, they did provide us with landscaping along the South Building, equals to 522 square feet of dedicated landscaping along the parking area, 7.11 parking areas of 25 more spaces, not applicable to this proposal, 7.112 screening. The applicant provides vegetative screening to block views of the proposed parking places from the front property line to North Whitney Street and adjacent properties. Now we'll move into 10.38 specific findings required. So 10.380 and 10.381. The applicant is proposing construction of a non-owner occupied duplex as a complementary principle used for the existing one family detached dwelling. There's a mix of housing density in the surrounding neighborhood with single family homes, duplexes, three unit buildings among other density sizes. 10.382, 10.383 and 10.385 and 10.387. The proposal provides planting to visually shield proposed parking to the front property line along North Whitney Street and abutting properties of the West. The existing vegetation along the North property line provides screening to the abutting property to the North. Train tracks and existing vegetation run along the East property line. The applicant proposes dark sky compliant lighting which will not spill out over into any abutting properties. 10.384, utility services are found to be adequate for the operation of the existing proposed use. 10.386, the proposal meets the parking requirement. Signage is not proposed. 10.387, safe vehicular and pedestrian movement is found on the site. 10.388, that's finding is not applicable to the project. 10.389, before the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall obtain sewer, water, driveway and trench permits from the Amherst Department of Public Works. Two gallon poly garbage carts and two 96 gallon recycling carts are proposed to located at the Southwest rear corner of the building. Trash to be picked up every week and recycling to be picked up every two weeks by USA. Trash and recycling will be screened with a five foot high stockade fence on three sides. 10.390, all new produce area will be directed to a bioretention area, a rain garden where over 400 cubic feet of runoff will be recharged to the groundwater. There will be no outdoor HVAC equipment provided. New water and sewer connections will be made to the municipal services on North Whitney and power communication will be brought in from nearby utility poles. All utilities are scheduled to be underground. A bicycle rack and trash recycled facilities will be at the rear of the new building. 10.391, the architectural style of the post duplex keeps with the architectural style of the existing family home on the premises known as Greek Revival. 10.392. I'm sorry to interrupt, I made a slight mistake. So as the applicant said earlier, the proposed architectural style for the duplex is Greek Revival and the existing single family home is I forget what it is. It's not Victorian, that's the abutting house. I forget what you had said, but it's- Federal style. Federal style, yeah. There you go, sorry about that. 10.392, the proposal includes an array of landscaping provided on the premises in order to screen from the adjacent residential use, well as for visual interest to be enjoyed by the tenants and neighbors, see above for the plan submitted. 10.393, the applicant proposes dark sky compliant lighting which will not spill over into any abutting properties. 10.394, there are no wetland resources or associated buffers found within 200 feet of the premises. 10.395, the proposed duplex is located in the RG zoning district and is not within the boundaries of a national historic district or local historic districts. The board will need to make a finding on whether the proposal is in harmony with respect to the terrain and to the use, scale and architecture of existing buildings in the vicinity which have functional or visual relationship there too. 10.396, proposed location for trash and recycling will be screened from the adjacent properties. 10.397, sufficient open space is located on the site. 10.398, the proposal is in harmony with the master plan, section four, objective H, which encourages opportunities for proper infill development. The board needs to determine whether proposal meets the applicable zoning by law sections including 3.01, 7.9, 9.22 and 10.38 which I believe we have done. And also, sorry, I had forgot to type in section 3.3211 which is the non-owner occupied duplex. And if we read that one earlier in this proposal into the record. I believe so. Fantastic. Now with that in mind, I wanna move on to some proposed conditions here and then we can go ahead and add on any others that we might like to. So for possible conditions of approval, the project shall be built and maintained according to the approved plans and application package and change and shall be reviewed by the building commissioner to determine if the submission of the zoning order of appeals is necessary. Just moving on to what we have here. We have all the applications that we have submitted, everything that was approved, the application, the management plan, parking sticker, lease agreement, all the submissions here that we have received. That will be in accordance with that. Number two, all rooms to be used as labeled on the following approved four plans. A1, special permit for and special permit plan and elevations prepared by JRR of Cune Riddle Architects dated March 19, 2022. B, a floor plan, 77 North Whitney Street for existing one family detached dwelling prepared by Joel Greenbaum. Number three, this special permit shall expire upon the change of ownership. Number four, the maximum number of overnight visitors per unit shall be two people with a maximum stay of two consecutive nights. Number five, the maximum number of people on the premises at any time shall be eight people. Number six, the approved management plan and complaints response plan shall be followed by the property owner. Number seven, any changes to the management plan and complaint response plan shall return to the zoning board of appeals at a public meeting. Number eight, all exterior lighting shall be designed and installed so as to be shielded or downcast and to avoid light trespass onto adjacent properties, lighting fixtures shall be selected according to the dark sky compliance recommendations of the ZVA rules and regulations. Number nine, any dwelling unit on the property being rented shall be registered and permitted in accordance with the residential rental property bylaw. Number 10, the street numbers for both dwelling units shall be clearly marked with reflective signage and be visible from the public right of way from both directions. Number 11, parking shall occur on improved surfaces only. The parking area shall be maintained as needed. The parking and drive area shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of article 7.1. 12, the property shall be free of litter and debris. Number 13, before the issues of any building permits the applicant shall obtain sewer, water, driveway and trench permits from the Amherst Department of Public Works. With those conditions, does anyone have any objections to any of those conditions we have listed? Mr. Meadows, go ahead. Well, we've already expressed that we need a new lighting plan. Secondly, is there a technical reason why the driveway cannot be in compliance as far as this with is concerned? Joel, you're muted. Sorry about that. We can make it compliant. It's only four inches, right? I know. That's what I'm asking. Yeah. So whatever you wish me to do is fine. We can make it compliant. It's no problem. Why not? OK. Please. Of course. Go ahead and add a condition that the driveway will be in compliance with the zoning bylaw. Dylan, I'd also like to add that contingent on those plans as submitted being required to be held, also showcasing the basement just to make sure that that's encapsulated within the whole package as described. And if we're going to be reviewing the lighting plan, do we want to hold off on reviewing the basement plan as well in a condition that we put on here? Yeah. I mean, I assume that the basement is as described. But since we have to come back to take a peek at an updated light fixture based on Mr. Meadows' comments here, the basement can absolutely be included just so that way everything's matched in. All right. So we'll want to see before final approval, we will want to see a resubmission of the lighting plan for approval as well as the floor plan layout to include a basement for approval as well. Is that how we would want to word that? Does that make sense, Maureen? It depends on how the board wants to proceed with this. You could continue the public hearing until a day in time certain and have the applicant update the lighting plan. They reflect the changes to the light there. And including the updated site plan to show the driveway to be a minimum of 18 feet wide and to update the floor plan to show the basement to scale and labeled. Or so you could do that at a continued public hearing. Or if you feel comfortable with these seemingly minor updates, you could close the public hearing and decide tonight with conditions and have the applicant come back at a public meeting. Not a public hearing, but either way. Any review and approval of the lighting and the floor plan, correct? I mean, I'm more inclined for the latter. Is there any objections from anyone on the board to do this different procedurally? No, I'll second you on that. All right. Well, in that case, I would entertain a motion to approve this project with the conditions as stated, with the inclusion of Mission 14, that the driveway be in compliance with the zoning bylaws, with 18 feet, and then an additional condition that the applicant will need to return again for a public meeting with a new lighting plan and a floor building layout to include the basement as well for approval of ZBA at a public meeting. That all sounds good. Do I have such a motion? So moved. Do I have a second? Second, Jim. All right. There's going to be a roll or I'm sorry, is there any discussion of the motion? Hearing none, it's going to be roll call vote. Air votes aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. Mr. Gilbert. Aye. Mr. Cochran. Aye. All right, the motion is approved. Maureen, you'll be able to schedule that follow up for the lighting plan and everything. Yeah, we most likely, so unlike, so if this was a continued public hearing, we would have to specify the date and time before you can like made the motion to continue it. But we can now have a little leisure and base it upon when the applicant, you know, can submit this so you would, so the board meets on and upon their, you know, their availability. So the next time the ZBA's meeting is June, hold on a second, is June the 23rd. And we do have a couple of public hearings already scheduled for that evening, but if you can get that, get these updated in time for that meeting, we most likely could fit you in on that agenda. Ms. Grima. I have one question. The basement plan is easy. The lighting plan should be no problem. How, what do I do for the, to make the driveway compliant? What do I need to show you? Do I just need to show you a drawing of the driveway at the proper width or what do you require? Civil drawings indicating the 18-foot width. Okay, so a drawing of the existing and then some dotted lines of it showing the 18-foot. Correct. Yeah, just that main foreign tradition. Okay, thank you. Maureen, I'm sorry. What was the date in June that you mentioned? June 23rd. Thursday, June 23rd in the meeting would start at six. And we most likely could put you first because you'll hopefully be, yeah, relatively, relatively a quick review. Okay, and how, when do we need to get the plans in in order to be on that agenda for the 23rd? We would need everything by the 16th, so next Thursday. Okay. And if the 23rd doesn't work, we could fit you in for the following meeting, which would be July the 14th, Thursday, July 14th. So then you would have until July 7th. Or I would say a little earlier, by like, by the 4th of July, if possible. All right, I think that does it. Congratulations. We'll talk to you shortly, just about the lighting in the basement. Yeah, and so you could just email me or, you know, next week or tomorrow when you can sort of figure out which meeting date would be doable on your end. Well, yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, board members. Have a good evening. Do the same. Appreciate it. Good night. All right. With that, we'll move on to our final agenda item, which is public comment. Public comment for any matters, not before the board tonight. Go ahead and open that on up. Do we have anyone here for public comment? So if anyone has a public comment, they would have to press the raise your hand item. Raise your hand feature, rather. I'm not seeing that. All right, in that case, we'll go ahead and move on to items. Was it items not anticipated with the next or within the 48 hours? Is that what someone called? Yeah, and I actually do have an item that I wanted to bring to your attention. And I haven't had a chance to tell Steve yet. So you're the first ones. So regarding our application fees for the ZBA application, while the fees themselves for the use are relatively inexpensive, if you would say, they're maybe, they range between $50 for owner-occupied use applications, such as like ADU, and then for like a duplex, it's about 225, and then for commercial uses are about $500 or things of that nature. So it's kind of based on the intensity of the use, but the legal ad, historically, we've been, the fee is, the fee that the applicant pays is set at $75. Unfortunately, that does not come at all close to what the real fee is to the Gazette. It's often, it's often maybe like $400 per application. And so the planning department has been sort of subsidizing these legal fees and the planning department is sort of in the red right now because we've been doing that for quite a bit now. So the planning director would like to experiment with the legal fees and starting July 1st, she and the planning board will be having the applicant themselves pay the fee as, as invoiced by the Daily Hampshire Gazette. And she's asking that the planning board, the ZBA try out this new system. So the applicant would pay the true fee of the legal ad instead of just paying $75. And so we wanted to let you know that that's something that the planning department would like to pursue and see, you know, what, see how this could work. Is there any action that we need to take? No, I don't think so. She just wanted to make you aware of it. Like, so maybe the application form might change. Like, so the form says like, it's $75 for the legal ad. So I will have to tinker with what that would say, but I don't think you need to make a motion. But if you have any thoughts, you know, let us know. We set that fear as a planning department, set that fee. I'm not exactly sure. I might, I, I'll have to look into that. Okay. Yeah. Well, keep us posted. Anything else before we make a motion for adjournment? So the sunset application, which I think everyone here except for Eric is on that case. Panel. And so that's being continued until June to the next meeting, which is June the 23rd. And, and then we have one other public hearing. Let's see. I think I have it somewhere. I think I have it somewhere. Which is. For a. Non-owner occupied duplex to be located at 80 pine street. And just for the convenience of folks being there already for sunset ad, I'm going to ask that members that are there for sunset to stay on for the 80 pine street. And I can send that in email. If there's any other issues with availability or perhaps like a conflict of interest or something. Please let me know, but I'll send you, I'll send you all an email tomorrow indicating that. And then perhaps the. Tonight's item for 77 North Whitney street. If the applicant can produce those updated plans in time. We can add that to the agenda as well for June 23rd. Yeah. All right. Anything else? That's it. Great. Well, that being said, thank you all for bearing with me for a little bit of one winded chairing there. Eric, what do you got? Oh, no, I'm just, I was waiting. Goodbye. Yeah. We still got to move to adjourn. Do I have such. Oh, right. So move. I have a second. Second. Right. No discussion of the motion. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Eric. Aye. Aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Meadows. Aye. John. Right. We are adjourned at each 21. All right. Thanks for coming everybody. Well done. Well done. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.