 The appointed hour is 6.30 having been reached. I want to welcome everyone to this meeting of the Amherst Zoning Board of Appeals. My name's Steve Judge. As chair of the Amherst Zoning Board of Appeals, I call this meeting to order. Pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12th, 2020 order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, general laws chapter 30A section 18 and the governor's March 15th, 2020 order imposing strict limitations on the number of people that may gather in one place. This hearing of the town of Amherst Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted via remote participation. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but the public can listen to the proceedings by clicking on the links on the town web page. In accordance with the provision of chapter, Massachusetts General Laws chapter 40A article 10, special permit granting authority of the Amherst Zoning By-law, this public meeting has been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted and mailed to parties at interest. We'll begin with a roll call vote of the regular members of the ZVA. On the chair, Steve Judge is here. Mr. Langsdale. Here. Ms. Omira. Here. Ms. Parks. Here. Mr. Maxfield. Here. And the associate members of the ZVA, Ms. Waldman. Mr. Barrick. Mr. Greeny. Mr. Meadows. Here. Also in attendance is Marine Pollock Planner. Rob Mora, Building Commissioner. Dave Washevitz, Senior Building Inspector. And I expect Christine Breslaup, the Planning Director will also be in attendance. The Zoning Board is a quasi-judicial body that operates under the authority of chapter 40A of the General Laws of the Commonwealth for the purpose of promoting the health, safety convenience and general welfare of the inhabitants of the town of Amherst. One of the most important elements of the Amherst Zoning By-law is section 10.38. Specific findings from this section must be made for most 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 and for additional information. After the board has completed its question, the board will seek public input. The public speaks with the permission of the chair. If a member of the public wishes to speak, they should so indicate by using the raised hand function on their screen. The chair with the assistance of the staff will call upon people wishing to speak when you are recognized to present your name and address to the board for the record. All questions and comments must be addressed to the board. The board will normally hold public hearings for information about the project and input from the public is gathered, followed by a public meeting for each. The public meetings portion of the board is where the board deliberates and is generally not an opportunity for public comment. If the board feels it has enough information and time, it will decide upon the application tonight. Each petition heard by the board is distinct and evaluated on its own merits and the board is not ruled by precedent. Amherst Media will not be broadcasting tonight hearing live. However, you can check their website for information on when it may be rebroadcast or you can view a recording of this meeting on the town's YouTube channel. Tonight we have the following agenda. I'd like to begin the meeting, spending a few minutes on administrative matter that was not on the agenda. We then will have a public meeting on ZBA FY 2021-08. Greg Stutzman for the review and approval of offense layout pursuant to condition two on the approved special permit ZBA FY 2021-04 at 135 East Street, map parcel 20, map 23D parcel 12, outlying residential zoning district. Public hearing on ZBA FY 2021-12, town of Amherst request a special permit to allow an offsite directional or identification sign to be erected and maintained by the town of Amherst under sections 8.41, 8.5 and 10.38 of the zoning bylaw located at 280 Main Street, map 14B parcel 27, general residence RG zoning district. ZBA FY 2021-11, Daniel Kramer and Deborah Timberlake request a special permit to modify the previously approved special permit ZBA FY 2008-29 in order to remove condition six that requires the single family house to be owner occupied located at 180 Summer Street, map 5B parcel 13, neighborhood residents RN zoning district. And ZBA FY 2021-03, pioneer property services LLC, request a special permit to convert the existing detached garage into a residential unit which will increase the number of residential units, converted dwellings from one to two under sections 3.3241, 9.22 and 10.38 of the zoning bylaw located at 275 East Pleasant Street, map 11B parcel 63, neighborhood residents RN zoning district. This matter is continued from our November 12th meeting. We'll also have a general public comment as we always do and any other business not anticipated prior within the last 48 hours. We'll begin with the public meeting but I have two administrative matters I want to bring to the board's attention. First, just before Christmas the town of Amherst community relations committee asked several board and committee chairs to participate in a meeting to discuss the new town housing policy. We were asked to react to a really initial draft of the new policy to give them some input and to see how we may be able to use our committee to provide input to the town on this new housing policy. I'm going to send you the newest draft that I received from the chairman of the community relations or community resource committee. It's about 54 pages. It's not something that we're going to discuss today but it involves setting new policy for housing in the town. At a later point we can discuss whether this is something we want to comment on do we have special expertise that can bring value to the discussion to the town or not. I think it probably is something we can do and we'll talk about that on administrative at a later date after you've looked at it and we get a sense of what the board wants to do. So that's the first thing. So this was just to give you a notice of why you're going to get a long piece of a long document from me that you may want to look at. The second is that Marine sent you a description of a resolution approved by the town council on Monday that lays out a timeline for the council to begin considering changes to zoning bylaws. This may also be the subject that the board may wish to provide input on at some point. I watched the meeting on the Emmer's media and it seems like there is a whole process that the town is going through and perhaps Ms. Brescht, the planning director would speak about the process and what the town council is considering not in great detail but what we may be able to do to have input in this process. So Chris, do you want to discuss that or lay it out for us? Sure, I'll just give a brief description of what's going on. There are really kind of three things that are happening. One is that the building commissioner and I are doing an overhaul of the zoning bylaw, a complete overhaul that includes reformatting it and it also includes making some changes to problems that we've noticed over the years that are really sticking points. So that's one. The second thing is there are also certain zoning bylaws that we know need to be changed in whole. Certain things like the signed bylaw, parking, inclusionary zoning and there's also a new flood map text that's going to accompany new flood maps that the town council will be needing to adopt in the next year. But the most recent thing is that the town council kind of encouraged by the community resources committee has given the planning department and the planning board or actually has given the town manager who was then supposed to pass down this request to the planning department and planning board a request to look at certain sections of the bylaw which really have to do with providing more housing for the town of Amherst. Where can we fit more housing? How can we change our zoning bylaw to allow more housing? And then as things to do with footnote B which you may or may not be familiar with but footnote B doesn't relate to the limited business zoning district and that's been kind of thawing people's sides for a while. So that's one of the things that we hope to address as requested by the CRC and the town council how to allow more housing in the limited business zoning district. And then there are other things related to footnotes footnote A that we would like to apply to more of the dimensional regulations to allow the zoning board of appeals and the planning board to have more leeway and granting modifications to those dimensional requirements specifically for lot coverage and building coverage. There's also footnote M which is kind of a I think of it as a little bit of a relic of a time when people were very nervous about a certain development being built and impose this requirement for 4000 square feet of additional lot area per dwelling unit in the RG zoning district for apartments and townhouses. So that's the kind of thing that makes it more difficult to develop housing. There are a number of other things listed and you believe that Mr. Judge said that you had received the list of these things the town council has asked us to look at the other day. So the planning department and the planning board is gonna be working with the CRC to develop wording for these zoning amendments and doing research and analysis to show why we should do this and we'll be bringing those to I will be bringing them to my staff and Maureen can then pass them along to you and if you have comments, it would be very helpful if you got back to us. But also as part of this whole effort to revamp our zoning bylaw, if you all if the zoning board of appeals has specific things that have been kind of gnawing away at you over the years or things that you just realize now that you find particularly difficult if you would funnel those through Maureen then she can let me know about them and we may possibly be able to address them in this whole revamping of the zoning bylaw that we're starting on. The first batch of things is supposed to be presented to the town council by March that may be ambitious but we're gonna try to meet their deadline and then there'll be another batch of things presented to them in early September and this will, as I said, go along with the things that the building commissioner and I are working on in addition to the things that the planning department is working on. So it's kind of a, it's a big effort. It's really got three tracks going and we would love to have your input on what we're going to be working on. So I'll be sending those things to Maureen and then she can give them to you and you can react to them. I think the point that Ms. Brescht that made is really good. We have to think about our role here. Our role is really as a sort of a quasi judicial body and it's not our role to set the town's zoning policy. We implement it but because of our role we see when zoning bylaws or policies make it difficult for us to make our decision. We also see things that don't seem to make sense and just as board members and as citizens we can identify those things, provide them if we can even discuss them if we need to provide them to the staff and that maybe might be able to be incorporated into the zoning bylaw changes. So we have to remember what our role is here which is not the planning board's role. It's the DBA but we do have a unique perspective that I think can be valuable and helpful to the town and to the extent that we want to be engaged with that I think we can be helpful. So that's really, I just wanted to put everybody on notice that these things are going on maybe something we can work on and we'll probably talk with Maureen at the time to try to set up a meeting to discuss as if that's what we would like to do. Thank you. Great, thank you Chris. Thank you. All right, we should proceed to the items on the agenda. The first order of business on tonight's agenda is meeting on a public meeting ZBA 2021-08 Greg Stutzman with a review and approval of the fence layout pursuant to condition two from the approved special permit ZBA FY 2020-104 at 1325 Southeast Street, map 23D parcel 12 outlying residents RO zoning district. The panel for this night will be the regular board members. Are there any disclosure from board members? Not. I want to review the submissions that we have seen. Submissions to the town have been an email from the applicant dated October 5th, 2020. Sheep DS 01 ZBA special permit fence study dated October 5th, 2020. Approved L1.1 proposed site plan from October 10th, 2020 ZBA 2020-104 special permit decision, which lists conditions including condition two that we're discussing tonight. ZBA 2024 approved L1 proposed site plan prepared again on October 1st. ZBA 2021 approved L1.1 proposed site plan to show up approved fence location and FY 2021 approved fence specification sheet. Mr. Stutzman, do you wish to present to the board? I believe Mr. Riedi is joining us and he'd be happy to handle that presentation. I just invited him up. Yep. Mr. Riedi. Hi everybody. You can present to the board. Good to see everybody. Happy new year. For the record, Tom Riedi, attorney with Bacon Wilson and Amherst here on behalf of Mr. Stutzman. As the chairman mentioned, I mean, it's pretty simple what we're here for this evening. We were here in, because October when Mr. Stutzman was approved for this supplemental dwelling, there was a question about the height of the fence. Maureen, I don't know if you've got some of those submissions ready. It was really just a question of, are we going from four feet up or are we going from six feet up? And I mean, that was, I think we were fine with the color. It was forest green and I think it was just a matter of making the determination of how high was it going to be along that property line. So just to refresh, it's on the westerly side of the property. Do you see the safe land? Yes. Okay, cool. Sorry, I just want to confirm. And then maybe if you flip through, you'll be able to see that, I think it might be the next one that has the, if you've got the two different heights. Yeah, there you go, perfect. And so the real decision is, are we going from six feet to eight feet or four feet to eight feet? I think our preference, Greg's preference would be six feet to eight feet just because it's less of an increase and maybe looks a little bit more natural as natural as it could be. But ultimately it's the board's decision, but I think the request was, show us what it's gonna look like with both of them. And so that's what we're doing. And we're really here at the board's win. Great. So really my question is just that it's between four and six feet for the first run of that fence. Your preference, the applicant's preference, Mr. Redie is six feet. Yeah. And we just, I remember from the October meeting, we wanted to see the two, we asked to see the two elevations so that we could make a judgment. And I just, and so this is what this is in response to. So this is required before you get a building permit, I think, is that right? That is correct. That's the condition. Are there any questions from the board? Any comments from the board? If there are no questions, no comments from board members. I move that we approve the request pursuant to condition two to approve the fence layout. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Maxfield seconds the motion. Is there any discussion on the motion to approve the fence, six foot fence? Yes. Yes. Mr. Langsdale. You said in your motion to approve the fence, but you didn't say which one. I should have said the six foot fence. So the motion should read to approve the six foot fence requested by the applicant. And I assume the second stands any further discussion on the motion? If not, the question occurs on the motion to approve the six foot fence. This has to be a roll call vote. The chair votes aye. Mr. Langsdale. Aye. Ms. O'Mara. Aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Motion carries. It's unanimous. Congratulations, Mr. Stetsman. Thank you all. Thanks very much, everybody. See you later. We'll now open a public hearing on ZBA FY 2021-12, town of Amherst, request a special permit to allow an offsite directional or identification sign to be erected and maintained by the town of Amherst under sections 8.1, 8.5 and 10.38 of the zoning bylaw, located at 280 Main Street, map parcel 14B, parcel 27, general residence, RG zoning district. Are there any disclosures? If not, I wanna read through the submissions that we've received. The applicant has submitted a special permit application, a site plan dated July 15th, sign design dated October 20th for other locations in town and a sign design related dated October, 2020, referred by Seth Gregory, a sign design to the corner of Triangle and Amity, another sign design with size, the layout was size shown. We've received project application reports, comments from the town engineer, Jason Schiehls, dated December 22nd, 2020. And those have been the submissions. The applicant is seeking waivers from the building plan or management plan, a landscaping plan and a lighting plan. There was not a site visit for this item. People that driven can drive were noticed that they could drive by to just view the site. So who's going to, who's presenting for the town? Ben? Yeah. Is one of our staff members here and he'll be presenting on behalf of the town of Amherst. Great, hi all, thank you for having me. My name is Ben Breger and I'm a planner with the town colleague of Maureen. So yeah, the town, we are undertaking a project to place wayfinding signs throughout the town. We have these four welcome signs. One of it, one of which is the sign in question here. And then in conjunction with these welcome signs, there's also gonna be directional post signs placed throughout the downtown, directing people to the various destinations. And they've all been designed together as part of one larger kind of wayfinding system. All of the signs are on, within the public right of way, except for this sign. So that's why it's coming before you guys. And also it is oversized for the RG district. And so the sign is at the intersection of Main Street and Triangle Street. It's gonna replace the sign for the Emily Dickinson Museum. We've been working with the property owners, Amherst College and the director of the Emily Dickinson Museum to kind of negotiate what they would like to see in the replacement sign. And that's how we kind of adjusted the welcome sign in this location that include a panel on the bottom for the Emily Dickinson Museum entrance. So that'll direct people. Thanks Maureen. So this is just the backup. This is the location. This is Main Street. This is Triangle Street. And this is where the sign would be located along the existing fence. And sorry, Ben, if you already said this, there is an existing sign. And the sign would be placed at the same location. Yeah, it would replace the existing sign. And that's kind of the schematic for the generic welcome sign. And then this one, yeah, that's the generic one. And then next we have the sign that would be placed at the Emily Dickinson Museum to replace that sign at the corner of Main Street and Triangle Street. And so these are the dimensions. When we added the Emily Dickinson Museum panel at the bottom, it pushed everything up because we still thought it was important to have maintained some clearance on the bottom for snow and to possibly have a little bit of landscaping on the bottom like planters, like the stone wall that's suggested here. So that pushes the total height up to a maximum of around six foot seven. The current sign is six feet tall and both signs, okay, I guess the welcome sign will be six feet wide. The Emily Dickinson Museum sign is six, maybe like seven feet wide with the two posts on the side. So, Maureen, can you remind me the specifics of the waivers we're looking for? It's the height and the square footage, correct? Yeah, so, sorry, let me, I can't multitask, so bear with me. Yeah, that's okay. So, I'm going to pull up the project application report for this, bear with me for one second. So it is oversized for what is allowed there, but first let's start at the beginning. So, the town is requesting to erect and maintain an offsite directional or identification sign on a private property. And so that would be a request to the board under section 8.41. Additionally, the town is asking relief under section 8.5 for the sign regulations, which will 8.5 allows is for request of modifications and waivers for the following sections including 8.101, which requires that the total area of the sign cannot exceed 12 square feet only if it's allowed under a special permit issued by the special permit granting authority. So, in essence, the applicant who is the town is requesting that the sign as proposed, which is 26.5 square feet be allowed. And then additionally under section 8.103, let's see here, the maximum sign height allowed for a sign in a residential zoning district is four feet in height above grade. This proposed sign would be six feet, seven inches in height above grade. And some of that has to do with providing enough clearance. Oh, I closed it. Clearance for between the ground and the bottom of the sign. Yeah, exactly. So, snow wouldn't sort of pile up right in front of the sign and the wording of the signage. And then the other section, 8.104. So, this just talks about, there shall be no front setback requirements for signs allowed on private property under the section except that no signs shall be set closer to any public sidewalk than 30 inches. Signs shall be set back from any side or rare property boundary, a distance equal to or greater than their height above ground. On Cornelots, no sign or portion thereof shall be located within the clear site triangle as defined in section 8, 6.27. So, according to the town's GIS, the proposed sign will be located about 15 feet from the adjacent public sidewalk. And the town engineer has reviewed this application and does not have any issues with the proposal as submitted. The proposed sign will replace the existing sign at the same location, which is in front of the existing fence. The new welcome sign will not obstruct the clear site triangle as defined in section 6.27. So, those are the three waivers under 8.5 that the applicant is missing. Thanks, Maureen. Ms. Brushla. Do you wanna talk a little about the fact that it is an offsite directional sign that it's pointing to the town's center and it's on the Emily Dickinson property? I know that Ben mentioned that in the beginning, but I think that's related to section 8.41, right? Is that right, Maureen? Sure, yes. So, to get back to the original section, which is section 8.41, the board, as it stated in the zoning by-law, the board does need to find that the such sign will serve the public convenience with no endanger the public safety and will be of such size, location, and design as will not be detrimental to the neighborhood, where an offsite directional or identification sign serves a geographic destination, but not a specific land use, the special permit from the ZBA shall be required. Yeah, so, you know, this is serving the public convenience. It's welcoming motorists in pedestrians to indicate that they're driving towards downtown, as well as providing secondarily as a directional sign for the Emily Dickinson Museum, but this is the primary use of this would be for the offsite directional or ID sign for the welcome to downtown. Yes. Mr. Berger, do you have anything else to add? Please. No, I'm all set. Thank you. All right, are there questions from the board member for the applicant? Ms. Parks. I guess I'm just wondering, are all the other similar signs the same size as this? Is this the largest one then? Yeah, yeah, this is the largest sign for the welcome signs of the four welcome signs. This one is the largest. The other three will be fairly uniform. This one's different because it has the extra panel on the bottom for the Emily Dickinson Museum. So I just, as a question, would it be possible to remove the spacing between the two, you know, the town center and Emily Dickinson? It looks like there's two to four inches between the panels. I mean, I don't know if it makes any difference. The only thing that's occurring to me right now is that if anything happens to those bushes behind that sign, I think you'll notice how large it is. So I guess I'm just making an observation. Yeah. It does seem a little large to me. That's my observation. I believe Ms. Brestrup is raising her hand. Brestrup. I wanted to note, I'm not muted, that I don't think that these two images are accurate in terms of their size differential. For instance, I think that the image on the left of the Emily Dickinson existing sign is really, look, appears to be a lot smaller than the proposed sign. If you consider that there's only six inches of difference in the height between one sign and the other, the one on the left, it's not, it's not visually, what am I trying to say? The scale is off. Yeah. Yeah, Ben, could you confirm the size of the existing sign to the proposed? Yeah, the existing sign is six feet tall. The square in the square footage. So the existing sign is about 20 square feet. The new proposed sign is 26.5 square feet. Let's see here, they're both six, the existing is six feet high. The proposed is six feet, seven inches. So it's a mere seven inches taller. If I could, the reason, the other, the first sign, the existing sign is six feet at the post and the new sign is six feet, seven inches at the top of the sign itself. That's the reason it appears to be bigger. But I do think, I take your point, Mr. Brest, if it looks like it's not in the same, this looks like a smaller version of it. That six feet ought to be larger on the left. It's not the right perspective. Also, I believe the photo, where the photos were taken, the existing photo was taken further back than where the proposed sign photo was taken. So that skews the proportion of the sign or scale. Is this part of a town initiative to brand and give direction and assistance to tourists and others in various places across the town. And this is the color scheme and the design that's gonna be used in other signs. So this is gonna be consistent through with other signs in the town. Correct, yeah, yeah, exactly. And in fact, if you've noticed the informational signs that have gone up downtown, the SUFA signs, there's like two of them, they also match this color scheme. Okay, okay. I believe Ms. Brestrup is raising her hand. Yeah, Ms. Brestrup. Is it of interest to the board to see the whole wayfinding sign system just to have a quick look at it, like where the other signs are going and the fact that there are these directional post signs that are gonna be scattered around downtown. Is that of interest to the board or not? Yeah, I think I'd like to see where they're gonna be. Yep, Ms. Parks too, all right. Do you have that Maureen? I don't, I believe Ben does. I do, yeah, yeah. So I can share my screen right here. So yeah, this is the, am I good on my zoom here? Can everyone see like, should I zoom in more? Okay, so yeah, so this is the Dickinson sign. We just saw that there's gonna be another welcome sign. This is the corner of University Drive, Amity Street. I guess this would be, yeah, and then this is like coming in from Hadley. So this is one sign and this sign is a little unique in that it's gonna be two-sided to direct, to catch traffic from either place, either direction. And then actually there's, we're considering adding this addition here to catch people coming from Rocky Hill Road to direct them up Amity Street, you know, because their impulse might be to turn to go to UMass or go down to Route 9, but this is just to let them know that you can keep going straight to the town center. I'm realizing right now, I actually don't have mock-ups or maps for the other two welcome signs just because those ones are gonna be standard, but the other two locations, one will be basically, you know, on Route 9 as you're coming up the hill. And I guess it's Northampton Road at that point. You're coming up Northampton Road. It'll be on your right. We're trying to figure out the exact location, but it'll be, you know, as after you go through the lights, it'll be on your right as you're coming up the hill. You know, same thing, welcome to Amherst. And then the fourth sign will be also on Route 9, closer to Amherst College, and it'll be on the corner of the Amherst Commons. So I guess that'll be the intersection of Boltwood Ave and I guess it's College Street at that point. And that'll be, you know, as you're going past Amherst College, you know, going up towards the lights, it'll be on your right on the Amherst Commons. So those are the four welcome signs. And then there's also these corresponding directional host signs and these, there's 12 of these we're proposing, and then these will be throughout the downtown. And this color scheme match it and font, you know, match the welcome signs. And, you know, so this one, this is kind of on the north part of downtown on the corner of Kendrick Park, directing people towards the town center parking. You know, we really focused on destinations that are downtown, and also what's the most important thing for people, parking, you know, the library and various cultural institutions. I think that, yeah, these are kind of the most common ones that show up town hall. And so, oh yeah, and also different like green spaces like Kendrick Park and the commons and Sweetser Park. And so, you know, also for, I guess we do have some destinations outside of downtown. So like, you know, this is the northbound side of the sign. So as people are driving northbound past the sign, they'll, you know, see a directional sign for North Amherst and Puffer's Pond. This is kind of on the east side of downtown at the entrance to the parking or boltwood garage. So I won't go through every single one, but, you know, we also point out the rail trail direct to people towards the town commons. And then, yeah, so for some South Amherst destinations, you know, as you're coming up Route 9 up the hill, you can be, you know, directed towards town center, but also, you know, if you take a right, you can get to Eric Carl Museum, Yiddish Book Center, or the rail trail. And these will be going into town over, when will these be going up? And then we don't need to, do we need to act on these as well at a later point? Or are these consistent with, there's no reason that we don't need a waiver or anything for these, okay. Good. And these will be going up when Mr. Berger. Do you know at all, Chris, or do you want to give a little brief overview of the history of the project? Oh, you're on mute. Sorry, Chris. Mr. Judge, will let me speak. There we go. So we've been working on this project for a number of years. We've worked with two different designers. We finally settled on Seth Gregory from Northampton, and he's been working with us since 2018. We did get an appropriation of money from town meeting into 2018. And we're hoping to put these signs in in 2021. So this spring or summer is when we're hoping that these finally get installed. And we're very excited about this project because it's been a long time coming. And sorry if I can add one more thing. I did fail to mention that all of, at least the Dickinson sign has been received approval from the local historic district and the design review board. And the design review board has also reviewed and approved all of the Wayfinding system at this point. Are there other questions from any board member? I'm gonna stop my share. So what I would like to do is continue the public hearing on this and move to a public meeting to consider this special permit request. So go ahead, Maureen. Not continue to continue the public hearing, go ahead. This is a public hearing. So you will need to solicit public comment if there is. Oh, that's, I'm sorry. You're right. Thank you. Is there a public comment? And Maureen, would you check and see if anybody from the public wishes to speak to this? So if you are calling in, you would need to press star nine. If you are present the screen, you would just need to press the raise your hand feature. I'm not seeing any. Not seeing any raised hands. Right. Oops. Okay. There being no public comment, we'll continue the public hearing because we need to, we'll have other public matters to discuss where in this meeting, we need to open a public meeting now on to consider the disposition of this matter. I want to put a motion for members that we, well, first of all, is there any discussion from board members about the science before we move to consider a motion? If not, I'll put a motion before the motion, the board that we approve special permit application. ZBA 2021-12. Is there a second? I second it. We have any discussion? I need to make certain findings before we go into the final approval. The first is on article eight, section 8.41, which generally deals with offsite directional and signs. And we have to find that this would provide, serves the public convenience, does not endanger public safety and will be of such size, location and design if it did not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Section 8.5 requires us to find, we do find in section 8.5 requires us to find to allow for variations from size restrictions. Section 8.1.0 to allow a larger sign, 8.103, which allows a greater height and sign 8.1.4, which would provide for 8.1.4 requires that this not, that the distance from the sidewalk, but it also have not imposed the site triangle, which it does not. We can make, I would make those find, or we make those findings. In addition, we have to make 10.38 findings, specifically 10.380 and 381, that this is suitably located and it's compatible with existing sign use. 10.382, 383, 385 and 387, these basically deal with nuisance, it's all sorts, dust, odor, vibration, lights, et cetera. I think we should find that, I think we find that the proposal does not constitute the nuisance to the air and water pollution or other ways. The proposal does not affect vehicular or pedestrian movement. The applicant does not propose any lighting associated with the welcome sign. 10.384 dealing with appropriate facilities and 10.386 parking and sign regulations is not applicable to this project. 10.387 provides for safe vehicular traffic. I think we find that this does not impact vehicular and pedestrian movement and it's within the site, 15 feet from the public sidewalk and will not obstruct clear sight of a triangle. 10.388 is not applicable, it deals with off street loading, 10.389 deals with disposal of goods, that's not applicable, 10.390, deals with flood hazards, that's not applicable, 10.391. There's also not a couple of deals with unique or natural historic scenic figures. 10.392 is not applicable, that deals with adequate landscaping, trees, et cetera. 10.393 is not applicable, it deals with protections of adjacent properties and neither is 10.394 dealing with impact on slopes. 10.395 deals with historic commissions, creates disharmony and generally into the potential, we have to find that it does not create disharmony with respect to terrain and use and evaluate the design and whose architecture of the landscape alterations. This proposal has been reviewed by the design review board and the local historic commission. 10.396 is not applicable, that deals with screening for storage areas, 3.10.397 deals with recreational facilities. Adequate open space is found on the property, but I'm not clear if that's even applicable. 10.398 in harmony with the general purpose of the bylaws. It's in harmony with the master plan, trying to make the town more attractive and more easy for people to get around and for tourists and others to avail themselves of commerce, of Amherst and improve commerce. Possible conditions which can be discussed and recommended by the staff. Should be built according to approved plans and maintained as needed by and any substantial deviation from the approved plan, shall come back to the zoning board of appeals at a public meeting. The approved plans include the site plan, the sign design by Gregory, the sign design, see mentioned here by Seth Gregory design of October 20th and the fourth sign design by Gregory of October 20th dealing with area. Also a condition that the sign shall be maintained in good condition. And three, the signs shall be constructed within two years of the issuance of the date of the building permit. Those are the proposed conditions that should be included with the special permit. Are there any questions about the conditions? 10.39 findings, 10.389 or eight, section eight findings. Any discussion on the motion to approve the special permit with conditions, as stated. I move that we approve it and approve the application as before us and with conditions as stated. Is there a second? Second. Is there any discussion on the motion? If there's no discussion, this requires a roll call vote. The chair votes aye. Mr. Langsdale? Aye. Ms. O'Mara? Aye. Ms. Parks? Aye. Mr. Maxwell? Aye. Motion carries special permit with conditions is approved. Thank you. The next matter. You're welcome. Congratulations to the town. Appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Berger. The next matter on the agenda is a public hearing for Daniel on ZBA FY 2021-11. Daniel Kramer and Deborah Timberlake requesting a special permit to modify a previously approved special permit, ZBA FY 2008-29, in order to remove a condition that requires the single family house to be owner occupied. It's located at 180 Summer Street, Map 5B, Parcel 13, Neighborhood Residence District, RN. Are there any disclosures from the board members? If not, I want to go through the submissions that we've received. Again, there was no site visit. Members were allowed to drive past it if they needed to. The applicant has submitted a special permit application. We have the copy of the 2008 special permit decision and a locust map. Those are submitted by the applicant. The town staff submitted a project application report dated December 23rd, 2020. The applicant is seeking waivers from the following plan requirements, site plan, building plan, management plan, landscaping plan, lighting plan, sign plan. Mr. Kramer and Ms. Timberlake, who do you want to speak to this before the board? Sure, thank you. Good evening, everyone. This... Mr. Kramer, just give us your name and state your name and address for the record, please. Sure. Daniel Kramer, 180 Summer Street, Amherst, Massachusetts, 01002. So this kind of came to light because we were selling in the process of trying to sell our house. And we found a buyer and the buyer didn't want to move in until the end of February. So the plan became that we were going to close on the house on December 4th and then rent back from the buyer until we were actually ready to move into a rental property that we do own right down the street at 125 Summer Street. So we're actually in the process of converting a rental property into a owner-occupied property. But so in the buyer's due diligence, they uncovered that there was this clause in our special permit that was written because we did construction on our house in 2008 slash nine and the ZBA at that time added the condition that the house had to be owner-occupying. So that kind of torpedoed that whole plan of us renting back from the buyer because the buyer, yeah, because it wasn't legal to do. And also the buyer felt like this lessened the value of the property and was asking us for a $10,000 concession. So that's when I contacted Maureen who was super helpful and able to help me navigate through the application process very easily. And so yeah, and that led us to be here before you tonight. Thank you. Questions from board members? So you, Mr. Kramer, you do not still have, oh, go ahead, Mr. Ms. Amira. Thank you. So what I'm understanding is that we are trying to approve getting rid of number six, which is owner-occupied requirement for a period of what time or do we stipulate a limited time? Meaning that can it be on owner-occupied for the duration until the sale takes place? We are requesting that you permanently remove this. So it's not just for this transaction, it's a permanent removal, so it's no longer attached to the property. Is that correct? Correct, because so what we arranged with the new buyer provided that you remove this condition tonight or in any timeframe that you see fit is that we changed the condition from renting back. The original deal was that we were gonna rent back from the buyer and give them two months notice as to when we were ready to move out and into the property down the street. So that's changed now to we're gonna close with two months notice when the existing tenants in the house down the street are able to move out and we're able to move in. So however, the buyer still contends that it is a detriment to the property and is requesting $10,000 off of the property. The sale price because of this condition. Other questions from board, Mr. Langsdale. So if we remove this, then is the new owner allowed to rent it as a single family home and or a multi-family home? My understanding is that there are three bedrooms in the main house and one bedroom that was added on the back with the addition. Would the new owner, if they were to rent it, to want to rent it, would they have to come before the board? I'm not sure why we would change this in perpetuity. Can I speak to that please? Yes. Yes, so thank you. Before we did the construction, there was an apartment, an accessory like in-law apartment. During our construction, we've removed that apartment and made it essentially a single family house. So it's all contiguous, there is no, it's in no way a two-family house. So without doing modifications, which I believe would cause a building permit, which would cause, because our house is non-conforming, would cause the owner to come back to you for approval. So in my opinion, it cannot be used as a two-family house. Ms. Parks. So maybe asking someone from the town, do you consider this a single family home or are you thinking this, was that condition put on there because this was thought of as a multi-family home? I guess I'm asking Maureen or Rob or Dave. So the reason why, let's see here, I believe the reason why they needed a special permit to begin with back in 2008, the 2008-29 special permit was regarding their non-conforming lot and setbacks, let's see here. And because it was to renovate and expand a non-conforming house and because of those renovations, the board at that time had that discretion to add the condition that you see today, which is condition six, the house shall be owner occupied. The decision doesn't get into the discussion regarding the reasons why that condition was included. Well, it looks like Ms. Ford asked if the back section of the house is going to be rented out. Right. And then in the next point, if the rooms are gonna be rented. And so I guess what I'm asking is, was this decision made because it was thinking that there was an additional rental property here and what the owners are saying right now is that this is a single family home and isn't going to get a separate section of it can't be rented out separately. I guess the reason the condition would be there is because you would want it to be owner occupied if you're going to rent out a portion of it. So it sounds like there's not a possibility at this point of renting out a portion of it. It sounds like it's a single family home. Am I, is that correct? Yes. It is a single family home. Okay, then my opinion is that that could be removed. Because- Go ahead, I'm sorry, Ms. Parks. I just wanna, I mean, I'm assuming that if I live in a single family home and I want to rent my house out, I can do that without a condition. Is that correct? Yep, it's a buy right use. Okay, zoning by-law. Okay. For a single, for a single, for a one dwelling unit, attached dwelling unit, you could, it could be owner occupied or you could rent that out. And you would need to go through the rental permit process, but you would need a approval by the planning board or the zoning board of appeals for that use. So would we need to just make clear to the purchasers of the house that if they intend to make it a multi-family house, they, I mean, anyway. It seems like it's a single house to me. In talking to the staff about this, what I learned is that this back in 2008 was prior to the rental registration system that we have in Amherst and prior to the more active inspection and work on the part of the building commissioner that we now have. And that they were, the ZBA had at times imposed this kind of owner occupancy on even some single family homes occasionally for a period of time. But with the initiation of the rental registration and more inspections through the commissioner's office, the building commissioner's office, that they haven't, it isn't common to do this at all anymore. So it's unusual that this, in fact, I don't think we, I don't remember seeing one like this in the time I've been on the board. So this would, this is probably something, I'm thinking that this looks to me to be, you can make the case that this is something from an earlier era before we had other kinds of protections for the neighborhood. Rob, is that correct? Is that, am I remembering our discussion correctly or? Yes, I believe you're correct. And just to follow up with Ms. Park's question, there really isn't any indication that this is anything other than a single family dwelling. We do have some floor plans on record. It looks like it's a single family house to us. So certainly anything in the future different from that would have a pretty thorough permitting and review process both with the building department and zoning board repeals. Other questions from the board for the applicant? Is there a public comment? Marine, do we have anybody who? So again, if you would like to make a public comment regarding this application, you would use the raise your hand feature on Zoom or if you're calling in from a telephone, you would press start nine. I'm not seeing any. Any interest as members? No. So if there's no public comment, there's no further questions from the board for the applicant. I'd like to continue the public hearing and move to a public meeting to consider the application. So we have before us a request to delete condition six requiring the house be owner occupied. It seems to me that this is a reasonable request on the part of the petitioners. It would be by right in most other, all of the circumstances, but for the special permit. And I think there's a number. It seems to me that this is a leftover requirement from an earlier time in Amherst before there were other kinds of considerations to protect neighborhoods. So this does not trouble me and I think we should be approved. Are the people have any other comments about this board members' comments for the board? I think we only have to make one finding for 10.33. Is that right, Maureen? Do we even have to make that finding in this case? So 10.33 is. Just allows us to do this, right? He allows you to do that. The previously approved special permit. And I don't know that there's any, I didn't hear any discussion of further conditions that we should place on the request. In fact, I don't think we can because all is before us is the elimination of number six. If there's no further discussions, is there a motion to approve this application, Mr. Maxfield? I just wanna ask, are we still in the public hearing? Do we have to take it? We're in the public meeting. I don't think we need it. We're continuing, we continue the public hearing. We're in the public meeting section now. So we're into a board discussion amongst ourselves. In that case, I will go ahead and make the motion to approve the application. Great. Is there a second? Ms. Park seconds it. Is there any discussion on the motion to approve the application? There being no further discussion, the vote occurs on the motion. So it would be a roll call vote. Chair votes aye. Mr. Langstahl? Aye. Ms. O'Mara? Aye. Ms. Parks? Aye. Mr. Maxfield? Aye. Congratulations, Mr. Kramer, Ms. Timberlake. Good luck. I hope you have. Thank you so much. Appreciate your time. Have a good move down the street. Thank you. Take care. You're welcome. That's as much work as moving across the country. I've done it. Just as much work. Yeah, we're looking for it. The next matter on the agenda is the public hearing on ZBA FY 2021. Oh, excuse me. I got to have the wrong one here. Is FY 2021-03, Pioneer Property Services LLC, requesting a special permit to convert the existing detached garage to a residential unit, which will increase the number of residential units converted dwellings from one to two under section 3.3241, 9.22, and 10.38 of the zoning bylaw. Located at 275 East Pleasant Street, map 11b, parcel 63, neighborhood residents are in zoning district. This is continued from November 12th, our hearing on November 12th. On this matter, Mr. Meadows will replace Ms. O'Meara on the panel. Are there any disclosures from the board members? If not, I'd like to run through our submissions that we've received. The applicant has submitted a transmittal of special permit materials prepared by Bucky Sparkle, PEN's engineer, dated December 23rd, a project narrative prepared by Mr. Sparkle, dated December 23rd, which includes a property management plan, a map of local properties, a full list of Amherst retail permits in the vicinity, photographs, letters and correspondence from Michael Rainville, structural support, plans entitled, dwelling conversions to special permit application, and sheets 1, 2, 3 and 4 containing title sheets, existing conditions and removal site plans and details. Also email correspondence from Mr. Sparkle, to Jason Skeels, dated January 6th, 2021. We've also received material for the October 1st hearing. I won't repeat that. Staff documents, project application report, dated January 7th, email correspondence from Planner Marine Pollock to applicant Neil Mendelson, dated October 5th, email correspondence from DPW Superintendent Guilford, comments from the town fire department, legal opinion from town attorney Joe Bard, statement from the town engineer, neighborhood analysis, land use, zoning districts and lot size by residential uses. In addition, we also had public comments, additional public comments from Susan Rosney, dated November 11th, comments and photos from Ray LaRaja, dated November 12th, comments from David Boss, dated December 17th, comments from Steve Schreiber, dated December 26th, comments from Steve Schreiber, dated December 29th. Before we begin, I want to draw your attention to the opinion from Mr. Bard, Attorney Bard, which is dealt with a question of whether condition eight, if I recall, condition eight was applicable in this case or if condition two overrode the ability for us to make a decision and to consider this application. If you've read through the opinion of the Attorney Bard, he makes clear that it is both, that this condition is applicable, the ZBA can consider this. It doesn't mean that it has to be approved. It means it's eligible to be considered and that it's a, we have standing in this issue to consider this application. I think board members have familiar with that document and so I intend to proceed based on the town council's opinion. As you recall, that was an issue which was discussed at the last meeting and we sought the council opinion in order to clarify the situation for us. So before we begin with the representation from the applicant, is there any questions about Attorney Bard's decision and opinion that he presented to the board? Mr. Chair, I wanted to let you know that Attorney Bard is in attendance. Hello, everyone. Hello, Mr. Bard. I've just probably fractured your opinion trying to summarize it, but if you could give us two minutes on it, basically on your opinion about the ability of the ZBA to act on this application, it would be appreciated. But give us a quick version of that, if you would, please. Yes, I'll be happy to do it. So as I read the various comments, the, of course, there were a number of comments that related to factual issues, if you will, not legal issues, but the central legal issue that I saw had to do with, I guess, an argument that you couldn't, you, the board, couldn't waive the strict requirements for compliance with the dimensional table. So that implicates standards two and standard eight. The standard two is the one that requires compliance with the dimensional table. Standard eight has the language allowing for a waiver from the dimensional requirements with the famous one time only language. And I don't know that it's famous, but it struck me as interesting and different, not something you see too often in zoning bylaws. And the really, the crux of my opinion is to say that both under rules of statutory interpretation, I gave you a few cases, but there are numerous, numerous cases on this. You have to give meaning to all parts of a zoning bylaw. And this is true for statutes as well. You can't render the language meaningless. So the, and there is, you know, arguably if you will, a conflict between the two, but our job is to resolve the conflict and the way to resolve the conflict is to say, yes, you do have to comply with all of the dimensional requirements. However, the board can give one time only a waiver from some or all of the dimensional requirements. So the nutshell, that's my opinion that this applicant has asked for a waiver. And of course, as you know, the lot's undersized to begin with, they're looking to add another unit so that makes it more undersized. And so the waiver they're asking for is from that those dimensional nonconformities. If you will increasing, there's an existing nonconformity and increasing it. And as I hope I make clear in the opinion, while it is my opinion that they are entitled to apply for this. So one of the arguments from some of the neighbors is that they're not even entitled to apply for this. So I'm saying, yes, they are entitled to apply for this special permit, but I'm not giving any opinion as to whether or not they're entitled to the special permit. And that is a discretionary decision for you board members to make based on the facts as they're presented to you and whether you find they are, the arguments are compelling enough and create grounds for denying it or whether you find that they the applicants have adequately addressed the issues that have been raised. So those are not legal issues, if you will. They're boards like yours, they're called quasi-judicial and so like judges, you weigh the facts, you combine it with the law which I've just briefly laid out and then you decide whether or not to grant the special permit. Thank you, Mr. Bard. Nope, go ahead, have you finished? Yeah, just happy to answer any questions. Any questions from the board? If not, we'll move on. Who's representing the applicant? That would be me, Bucky Sparkle from the Zengineer. All right. Mr. Sparkle, go ahead. Well, I'll let you know for the record, I think we'll have a number of public comments. So we will have those after you do your presentation. And all right. Absolutely, thank you. I'm gonna do the screen share trick. And because I am anticipating, and we have 39 pages of public comments and I think five different attorneys evolved in this at this point, I've prepared a reasonably thorough presentation that hopefully addresses almost everything that's come on to the table so far. So I'll just get into this and move quickly where I can and at any point, if there are questions, I'm happy to answer them. So first of all, I'm part of an application team, myself, Bucky Sparkle. We also have attorney Michael Pill here as a representative and sort of backup for me. So anytime I go off the rails, Michael is certainly welcome to jump in and straighten me out. And of course we have the Mendelssohn's, both Neil and Jen Mendelssohn from Pioneer Property Services as the applicants. As far as the project goal goes, we're seeking a special permit for the conversion of the existing garage to a two bedroom dwelling unit. Just briefly, we're gonna have an application request to do a little background, existing conditions plan. We'll look at the site plan. It's a little of the architecture. Most of this is really application content that I'll get to a little bit on the management plan, which has come up as a point and wrap it up as well. So formally, we are seeking approval of a special permit for converting the existing garage into a residential dwelling unit under sections 3.3241, 9.22 and 10.38 of the bylaw and requesting modification of dimensional requirements of table three per condition A of bylaw 3.3241. And that's the condition that Attorney Joel Bard just spoke about. I think most people are familiar, but Pioneer Property Services purchased the property in 2019. There are two buildings, number 275A, which is the house. It's about circa 1900 built. It's pre-existing, non-conforming. It's a three bedroom dwelling. There's also the garage 275B and pre-existing non-conforming as well, built before 1964, it's at least 1962 and it may be older than that. And we did have initial application. I say we, I wasn't even here at the time, but in September, originally it was a three bedroom application with six parking spaces. It is now a two bedroom application for the conversion with four parking spaces. To take a look at the existing conditions plan, let me zoom in a little bit. You can see it as a corner lot. And we have several, there's the existing house, the garage, a concrete area in blue, the parking that is jammed between the garage, the sidewalk and the public right away. There is also a existing gravel driveway and parking area that wraps around the building. Some, a couple of trees on site, one beautiful oak tree, a little bit of landscape wall and around the outside to the West, South and East is vegetative buffer, mostly of hemlocks of a variety of sizes. It's a pretty dense, pretty dense green. All right, now moving on to what had happened previously before I got involved. The ZBA requested that certain things be addressed, including drainage, landscaping, fencing, parking, lighting, talk about the resident manager and consider bedroom count. All of these things have been addressed. Additionally, at the time the ZBA requested input from Attorney Joel Vard, we're fortunate enough to have that for this meeting and hire an engineer. So you get to see me again tonight. This is all the dimensional regulations that apply. I'm only gonna point out two of these right now as it's been brought up the lot area. Normally required in our end zoning neighborhood residence, it's a 20,000 square foot lot plus 6,000 additional square feet per family, if you're gonna go out and make a new subdivision you would need at least 26,000 square feet to do what we are asking to do today. But we've only got 16,000 square feet. And of course, all of the lots in this area were built decades before the bylaws. So there's quite a few non-conforming properties including the abutting properties. Also, another non-conformance of the front setback. The lot line is a little weirdly way off the pavement at least on the East Pleasant Street side. So we only have a four and a half foot front setback for the old building. Everything else we come under the requirements so we fall within the normal dimensional regulations. So I'm gonna take a couple moments to talk specifically about the proposed work here. And zoom in a little bit again. And so things to point out is the, with this turning from a garage into a dwelling the parking area out front is no longer needed or appropriate, the parking is needed but where it is located is a terrible location and we'll get into that for a lot of reasons. There've been neighbor complaints about that is pretty reasonable complaints. So what we're looking to do is get rid of the parking that jams a few cars up front and create a bylaw compliant safe turnaround parking for four vehicles behind the house as well as there's our internal work that there'll be a new water service that goes into Strong Street and you sewer service to a new manhole that connects to East Pleasant Street and which is where the building service goes and we're also looking to add a rain garden in the low point of the site and a berm. So this sort of orangey pink line is a six inch high berm that is gonna direct sheet flow water. So any water that's coming off of the house and heading south, all of this impervious area and even the pervious area, all the yard will drain and get channeled into the rain garden before one drop of water leaves the site from the vast majority of the site. This is a major improvement and I'll go into those details a little bit more. We're also doing a little additional screening. So it's very small right now but the trash fence and recycle bins are up at this corner right now. It's a pretty good spot for them but they're open to the street. So we're gonna add privacy screen fence and I'll show you that detail in a moment. The same screen fence style, six foot fence is gonna be installed. We hope to install on the east side of the parking area because there is a residence on this side. And despite the thick vegetation, headlights can sometimes penetrate even thick evergreens. So if we install a 32 foot long privacy fence that's gonna prevent headlights from cars who are just sitting there and making turning motions from blaring. Well, they wouldn't be able to blare because of the vegetation but from getting across that lot line. Dragging down here a little bit. I'll zoom in just a little bit more firstly to the screening fence. So this is a picture of an existing fence and the existing trash and recycle bins that are right on the strong street side. And it's a six foot tall fence. Copper trim caps and a little bit of lattice work. I think it's a relatively attractive screen fence. I like these things much better than vinyl. I didn't mention before but we are looking to install downcast gooseneck fixtures on switches at all of the doors. So the ingress, egress points will all have a light that casts downward. The existing lights are our existing lights many of which that disperse outward. Those are gonna be removed and replaced with downlights. And we're looking for a shielded adjustable area light to illuminate the parking area. And this is an example of a product that is easy to control and has screen so you can have a discrete cutoff and make sure that the light is not going beyond the lot line. I will also show the floor plan which isn't extremely important as far as usually as far as the ZBA goes because it's internal but it is a two bedroom unit and they, you know, in the bathroom laundry kitchen all of that and there's also a deck being added and stairs. So I'm gonna drag over a little bit to point out some of these features. So the deck and stairs out the rear would be installed here, slightly different color. These little yellow dots A, A, A and A these are the proposed lights over the doorways and B, this yellow square would be the area light that we'd be able to control and illuminate provide safety illumination for the stairwell and the parking area itself. All right, so moving on just a little bit about the exterior elevations. This would be the front street, sorry, the front which is the strong street side. Right now it's a garage doors and so we're gonna install the applicant will be installing windows doors or making it look like a residence instead of looking like a garage. New roofs will be installed on both the existing of both buildings as far as the garage exterior they're on the process of repairing and replacing any clabber that's in bad shape. It's going to be entirely restained brownish color and white trim added so around the windows and doors and architectural details like that. So it's gonna look a lot nicer than it looks right now as a garage or functions as a garage but if it's a dwelling it ought to look we think more like a dwelling. I did look at the floor plan a little bit already so if we need to go back to that that information is available the basement is just going to be open the electrical access, water access, utilities and there will be for this site only storage for things like shovels, et cetera so it's gonna be really pretty empty right now proposed to be pretty empty so that's how the basement will work out. Talk briefly about stormwater. Currently we've got just over 4,000 square feet of impervious area on site with no stormwater controls, best management practices so almost all the water drains to the south a little bit goes into Strong Street to the north from the sidewalk but most of the impervious area does head south and I know some neighbors to the south had concerns about what's gonna be happening along those lines quite understandably. We are proposing a total of 4,546 square feet of impervious area so we're adding about 470 square feet it's about two parking spaces worth of impervious area and I talked a little bit about the interceptor berm which is going to collect and direct runoff to the rain garden and the rain garden's capacity is 162 cubic feet and to put that into perspective if this were say a full scale commercial development and we had to apply all 10 Massachusetts stormwater standards to this site the volume for the 100 year storm that we would need to manage and retain that volume is 149 cubic feet for the 100 year storm and we're providing 162 cubic feet so we're already providing more storage capacity than would be required if we needed to do a full size commercial stormwater management system so as far as this well I guess two single family residents go this is a fairly substantial amount of volume and there'll be a great deal less water heading off site and heading to the south once this proposal goes through so I already talked a little bit about the screening so we can just move on here I do wanna point out what we're looking at here so if you're in the backyard over here you can see the existing garage and this is looking east towards Seven Strong Street and I'll zoom in a little bit so we can maybe get a little better detail but believe it or not there is a house back here on the other side of that vegetation and the parking area is gonna be a little off to the right some of it I think some of the parking is gonna end up about here but I think the one car will be about here one car will be down a little further but this is the area where we're going to install the six foot privacy screen as well and it's mostly for blocking headlights obviously there's even with the leaves down in the fall there's quite a bit of screening available by the evergreens so you can get a sense of what the Seven Strong Street perspective is on the east and if you look to the south this is I think it's number 265 East Pleasant Street by the way both properties are owned by the same family the larages and so we're looking south into the backyard and they're actually out buildings on the other side of the vegetation but they're difficult to make out because of the density of the screening there is an ash tree here that would remain this this is the smallest tree on site that's not part of the hedgerow this tree would come out due to the installation of the parking the rain garden it would be off of this picture to the left so the property does go a little bit farther to the left I want to talk a little bit about the property management plan and eventually the property manager the man I guess the resident manager but the property manager is going to be of course the owner's PPS partner property services and they would be the ones responsible well for everything but particularly if there are any maintenance issues any non-compliance issues just like any other landlord and property owner they're going to be they're on the hook for that of course this application does require a resident manager and this has been written into the property management plan and the Mendelssohn's did submit that as a document it's a couple pages long so I'm not including all of the detail in there but I do want to point out that relative to the resident manager and this is a qualified person who's going to be specifically trained by pioneer property services about the units here so they'll become quite familiar with the ins and outs and quirks of a hundred year old building they will live on site they'll be the point of contact between the tenants and the property manager, the owner PPS and they're going to report maintenance issues not any non-compliance issues will be their responsibility as well of course anybody can report that to the owner the resident manager is not intended to be a contact person between the neighborhood and neighbors and pioneer property services they can contact PPS directly part of the site management and property management plan goes on to talk about site management so very quickly Trash and Recycling will be in rolling totes they'll be screened by the same fence that I've shown and it'll be on the weekly pickup schedule parking is a total of four spaces we are doing a turnaround so vehicles will no longer be backing out onto Strong Street which is a major safety improvement to the existing conditions and an additional screen fence is going to be added to the east side of the parking lot as I mentioned I did talk about the lighting downcast gooseneck fixtures on switches and the parking area on a motion detector so it's not on all night long it's only engaged when necessary no signage is planned for the property and landscape and snow is going to be handled by the owner PPS as well as maintaining the lawn we have received as mentioned input from the town in a variety of manners so when the town engineer did review this property and I was able to reply to him yesterday I addressed all of his points I have the plans that have been submitted for the application have been on my hard drive updated with a few small text notes to make sure that everything that Jason Skeels asked for is there so there would be a final plan set after this meeting that I would need to submit but it was all very easy and minor construction items we can certainly get into those details if anyone is interested I also want to mention that the town engineer did acknowledge that this site plan does provide safety and drainage improvements over the existing conditions so we are looking to make a benefit in some cases a potentially large benefit and safety to the neighborhood fire department also weighed in I've addressed all of their points too mostly they just wanted to make sure a knocks box was going to be installed as well as ensuring that the proposed sidewalk is stretcher friendly it absolutely is it's a very level sidewalk along the front it is about twice as wide as a stretcher and has a very gentle cross slope to it about one and a half percent maximum so no problem with stretchers the fire department actually said that they support the conversion of the dwelling and they also acknowledge safety improvements I think they're pretty happy with the ability to pull off of the street and park the ambulance in a driveway should an emergency situation arise and also I think it was today we received a really lovely neighborhood analysis I haven't seen one of these before so it looked like a lot of work that went into this so I went through it and was able to glean some information that I want to bring up at the meeting tonight one of these points is that in this neighborhood which is a thousand foot radius from the property one third of the residential lots are rentals or two family and I think that's an important point because a good deal of this application isn't really about the technical stuff I think it really comes down to the question about what is the impact on the neighborhood what kind of changes or impacts are going to be experienced relative to what's there now and what's there now a third of those properties the residential units are what we're trying to do a two family rental also within the neighborhood other zoning districts and academics but the RG zoning district is considered in the neighborhood analysis so just to point out that in the neighborhood if you were going to do a two family building a couple hundred feet to the south you would only need 14 and a half thousand square feet which is less than our lot size presently so it's a different district so does that apply directly no but when you're considering the impact on the neighborhood we are still well within bounds for a property that would have two dwelling units on it and then one thing that also I came to realize after reviewing the neighborhood analysis is that there are in the RN district which is our district there are five two family homes total they have two families and three of those are under the 26,000 square feet that would be normally required for a two family home two up on Wildwood or 24,000 and 20,000 square feet and four doors up at 319 East Pleasant is a 15,000 square foot lot which is smaller than the lot that we're talking about here so again in terms of what are we doing relative to what's in the neighborhood this is not the smallest property that would have two families on it there are three other properties within four or five hundred feet that are less than 26,000 which is what the bylaw would require so we're not actually looking for anything that is particularly unusual in the neighborhood and just an illustrative view of what I just talked about this is an excerpt from the neighborhood analysis the star represents the 275 property that we're talking about the two family homes and the single family with the supplemental apartment so these are two family lots are the purple and orangey colors so one, two, three, four and way down here five this is about a three acre parcel so it's a bit of an outlier but this property and this property and this property are all less than 26,000 square feet and if you can see that this is I think it's 319 East Pleasant is quite a small lot it's smaller than the property that we're talking about and this is a two family home right there and separate from the analysis that the town provided the Mendelssohn's went and did a little bit of their own homework just to look at well how many properties around here are renting and so they went to the town's rental office I'm not sure the name of that office but what I learned is that of 14 consecutive properties on East Pleasant Street half of them, seven of them are already have rental permits so again, and there are many more as you go off of the screen here but it's a quite densely populated area for rental permits so again, we're really not looking to do anything particularly unusual so I'm gonna talk a little bit about the table three modification because I think this is gonna be the primary bone of contention by the neighborhood and others that are looking to oppose the application so yes, we've already said that 3.3241 condition eight does allow a second dwelling on existing lots, non-conforming lots non-conforming buildings provided that of course the ZBA decides that a modification to table three is appropriate in this case and it must be per bylaw 9.22 now we already had attorney Bard here who I think probably better than me talked about what is permissible and entitled but I just, this last quote I'll bother to read that the ZBA will apply customary standards of whether the proposed addition of the second dwelling unit would be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and I think to board members this phrase substantially more detrimental is gonna be very common phrase and that's really sort of the as far as I can see that the linchpin of this is what is proposed substantially more detrimental and as I may have hopefully demonstrated to a degree this is already happening in the neighborhood so it's part of the neighborhood and the culture of the area as in the current state additionally looking at bylaw 9.22 just a few points about it's a little more refined than just substantially more detrimental because it talks about so the proposal must not be substantially different in character or its effect on the neighborhood and as I've shown rentals and two family units are fairly common in this neighborhood the proposal must not be more substantially more detrimental than the existing use and really this proposal is not just not detrimental it's certainly not substantially more detrimental but I believe it to be an improvement to the existing conditions and a benefit to the neighborhood and here's why we have a major safety issue right now the cars with their bumpers backed up against a sidewalk with elementary school children that is relatively close to an intersection although farther than necessary by the bylaw for a street that has reasonable traffic and cars coming around the corner this is a terrible, terrible situation and I really hope that we can make this better and safer both the DPW and the fire department concur with this I think it's pretty obvious that cars backing out over a sidewalk is precarious at best and that giving a standard parking that lets people turn around safely and come back out to the road in a forward-facing position with lots of visibility around is a far better situation particularly with an elementary school just a few doors down the in front of the building you know the way I've read in some of those 39 pages of comments that there's and people are happy with the cars jammed in front their aesthetic issues it is relatively unsightly it does cause vehicles to do odd things and partially block sidewalks perhaps so we're improving that for the neighborhood by putting the parking behind also bylaws 7.0002 would say that you cannot have more than two park vehicles parked in a front yard setback which is currently the case and occurring so we're going to again come better into conformance with the bylaw even over the existing condition and of course we believe that what we're doing is also in line with the master plan and to talk about that just a little bit and I'm almost done here so there are zoning priorities and this actually came up at the beginning of the meeting that the town is moving towards things and I'm going to talk about those a little bit just because they are germane to this application of course bylaws 2B don't apply today but just to consider the context of what's happening in town priorities are included in more affordable housing and more diverse neighborhoods focusing on village centers and I have an excerpt on the right side of the screen from the master plan it's the land use policy map and the areas the hatched out areas are village centers and the yellow areas are residential districts that are relatively connected to these village centers and they're called center residence areas so the master plan is trying to encourage densification in these yellow zones in sight and this our site is within this area it extends a little bit north and includes Wildwood Lane and a little bit more north on East Pleasant Street without going through the entire master plan's objectives I did extract a few that line up with this proposal although there certainly are more and quickly so promoting sustainable green development and existing built up areas we're doing this denser residential occupancy dimensional flexibility we're doing this we're asking for it flexibility that's already occurring in the neighborhood in terms of lot size improve housing costs variety these are not high end rental units that are three three and a half thousand dollars much more reasonable so we're not pricing people out with this application we're looking the town is moving more toward two family just by right reducing lot size requirements for one and two family homes increasing infill development preserving green space reducing distances to services which would of course also reduce traffic and support taxable student housing if students were to inhabit this and the owner is actually prefers that students not be the tenants it's not to say that it wouldn't happen from time to time I understand as a friend of the family that is actually the case right now for the residents but they very much have no interest in renting to undergraduates and they would prefer not to rent to students at all they really wanna find professional or family tenants for these properties as much as that's viable in a rental market so to kind of wrap this up we are addressing all the bylaw requirements what we're hoping to do is very much in line with the goals of the master plan we are making improvements to the drainage situation and runoff from the state that are way above the normal requirements for a project of this size we are making a major safety improvement for the neighborhood and the children of the area and what we're doing is in line with the character of the neighborhood and with all the other rental units to family units undersized properties this can not be considered in my opinion substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than what's already commonplace for the neighborhood and with that I will close my hopefully not too long-winded presentation and open up of course to questions from the board and eventually of course public comment so thank you for your time. Thank you Mr. Sparkle just for everybody's information what we'll do now is have questions from the board for the applicant when we finish that we'll then open it up to the public for their comments and then the applicant will be able to respond to the public comments at that point so this is the time for questions from the board to the applicant I have a couple I'll start out with a couple and then I'll open it up to other members and I have some more after that so I was confused you explained the front set back that's only four feet or four or five feet is that on Pleasant Street is that on East Pleasant? Let me bring that picture back up maybe I went back to our and you said it was the old building and I don't know if you mean existing rental building or the garage. All right let's let me clear this up existing conditions plan I'll zoom in a little bit here I see where it is right so this is the existing house right four and a half feet it's eight and a half feet to East Pleasant Street side so that's the non-conformity the garage is also in the front setback and of course these properties were constructed long before the zoning bylaws and this is part of the neighborhood character you can see that the house to the south is also if you just extended this line it's many feet into the front setback not atypical for, well, a large part of New England but here we are again. Okay I understand that and what is the setback for the garage from the front right now? What's that I can't read it? Yeah I'm gonna have to make a little bit of a guess and I'll help you out here so the setback is 20 feet so I'm gonna say this is in the 15 to 16 foot. Yeah it's barely enough to get a car parked right up against the building. That was my question is to how how does it compare with the length of a car at that point? My Prius would fit great a pickup truck is gonna stick out into the sidewalk. Yeah, okay. On the site plan you pointed to a berm and then I think I noticed that the berm was it's like a sock. Is that right? Is this a permanent berm? Are you gonna cover that? It is a permanent berm and it is not like a sock and maybe there is soil erosion control that is proposed I didn't talk about that's more of a construction detail but I guess I don't have a cross section of this and I just have a description and it says install two foot wide six inch high berm. So this is a permanent pile of soil and as far as sheet flow water goes even in the most torrential of rains it's not six inches deep and with the contours we're able to have water coming from the north once it hits the berm there is a natural gradient that's going to bring it down into the rain garden in the corner. We're gonna extend so you can see the rain garden kind of dips out a little bit that's just because it does get a bit flat here and I wanted to make sure that the water really did get there and not pool in the backyard and was also careful to protect the root system of the pod ash I don't wanna dig into it around here there's a very small amount of grading that will occur a few inches but the vast majority of the root system for that ash tree is gonna be intact. So we have a permanent berm not just a construction berm. No, it's a permanent berm that the construction fence is this yellow line with circles. And that's temporary and that's just during construction to benefit the neighbors and runoff. That is, yeah. Making sure any sediment does not leave the site. If you go up a little bit higher on the site plan here just scroll down, right? So where we have this I always use my own pointer to think that you can see it, which you can't. But if you look at the stairs to the basement. Yes. Move in there a little bit. Is there a light? Is there those stairs? Is there a light on those stairs to the basement and shouldn't there be? I don't believe that there is an excellent question. This is more of a building code question than a site plan question for an engineer but in my opinion, I would love to see a light down there. I have no doubt that the Mendelssohn's with all of the work they're planning on doing and other electrical work, I'm sure they'd be totally open to installing another downlight that illuminated the very, it's an unusual stairwell if you've been to the site. Yeah, when we're on the site it was a potential fall hazard. So I think that might be something that as a condition we would be thinking about a light there would be beneficial, I think. I do agree with that. I will make a note. You also said you were going to stain the outside of the building from the current black color. Talk to me about that. Cause I don't think, talk to me to number one about the history of the stain of the current paint on the building. It seems to have been there for a long time. I don't know if that's historic and what it's going to look like and how it would be improved after you apply new stain or new paint to it. Well, as far as the history goes, I have to admit I only know so much about this property and the Mendelssohn's bought it in 2019. So the longevity and the familiarity is relatively new compared to how long the garage has been around. I do know that and we're not in a historic district but at the same time the color, I think it's called cord of a brown. I actually went and looked that up and it's basically a brown leather shoe brown. So if there's, if you're staining on top of stain you certainly get color mixing. It's a very dark background. It's going to continue to be a very dark background with brown tones and hues to it. So that's probably what I can tell you about the coloration there and the weight trim will certainly brighten up the facade but it shouldn't be quite as dark. And lastly, for the sidewalk in front where there was parking. I thought I saw on the plans some sidewalk improvement. Can you speak to that? Is that something that you're doing? Is it the applesauce doing or is that something that's gonna be done by the town? There is, oh, I think I understand. So in a little zoom in through here, we are preparing to install 75 feet of the two minutes walking curb. And the reason for that is right now this sidewalk does not have a curb because it's a driveway. So this entire section really needs to be redone to make sure that there's still a nice clear separation for the plows, for water to remain in the street, visual delineation for pedestrians. So the whole old paved area for the driveway and all the way up to the traveled way of Strong Street, the road itself, it's my recommendation that we remove all of that so we can have a nice consistent sidewalk grade all the way across. And we've got easy transition in and out of the driveway apron, reducing the curb height and the transition from curb to driveway area. And we have a fairly gentle, excuse me, fairly gentle driveway at about 4.3% slope heading downhill all the way. But the sidewalk itself is going to be pretty level draining toward Strong Street. Are you worried about getting water from the street into the driveway and then down through the parking area and having to be, which it wouldn't now, I mean, it would run into the front of the house or front of the garage. It may or may not funnel onto the lawn, but would with this new cut, is it likely that that water from the street is going to come down the driveway and empty into your rain garden? And would, so was that included in your calculations? No, I did not include any road water because it's pretty standard practice and really important that the water from the sidewalk and the portion of the driveway that crosses the sidewalk moves back into the street, into the municipal drainage system. So I would never design a driveway that took water out of a gutter and drained it onto somebody's property that would be highly problematic overrun the rain garden and cause all sorts of issues. So there's a lip on the driveway where the driveway starts. It's raised or somebody prevents water from running down that. The driveway itself will be pitched toward the street as it crosses the sidewalk. And when it leaves the sidewalk and heads to the parking area, that's when it will descend the other direction. It's so flat out there that I can't show that with contours, unfortunately. Thank you. That's my questions for the time being. Other questions from members of the board for the applicant? Sure, Mr. Maxfield, yes. So my question here, maybe it's about the parking there. So let's say there's four cars parked in that lot there. Let's say somebody at the bottom left parking spot there, they want to back out to get into then pull forward out of the driveway. That's enough clearance that a car there would be able to do that. I don't know if I can quite see what the mentions are. Yes, although let me zoom in a little bit that once I add the color to make it pretty, you'll lose some acuity for the visuals. So it's eight foot deep, 16 feet wide. Normally I only make these about 10 feet, but I didn't want to go too far to the back. But the short answer is yes, there's plenty of room for cars parked in these spots to back out and then make a standard three point turn to exit the driveway. Fantastic. We've Mr. Meadows is raising his question. Mr. Meadows. I have two questions that are similar to those that have been asked already. And I'll start with the area that you were just discussing. It almost seems as though the parking area is perhaps larger than it need be, which would permit. I understand that that's a turnaround, but it's eight feet deep and 16 feet wide. The dimensions for the parking spaces look pretty big. It almost seems as though you could end up with additional cars down there, perhaps not intended, but certainly if those spaces were smaller, it might prevent having as many cars. Am I correct or? Well, the standard parking space in the town of Amherst is nine feet by 18 feet. And if I can remember how to zoom again, somehow I forgot how to do that, but I am proposing 10 feet by 18 feet. If I can give somebody a 10 foot parking space that really does provide a lot of wiggle room. But by adding two feet over the standard parking area, there's no way you can get another car in the extra two feet. So it's not possible on the paved area to do that. I mean, you can park a car anywhere on anybody's yard, anywhere in town, of course, if you can drive there, you can park there. But as far as the controlled parking, the parking for this special permit application, it is just for spaces. There is no room for a fifth vehicle. Well, if someone were to park, and I'm using my pointer, so that doesn't help you a great deal, that area that's eight by 16 feet. Yes, they'd be blocking in other vehicles. Exactly. I just wondering if it might be worthwhile to put some signs up there that indicate that there is no parking allowed in that area. I can understand the perspective. A turnaround like this is extremely common in parking areas. I think it's fairly intuitive. And of course, anybody who lives there will realize immediately that if there is a vehicle blocking that, you wouldn't be able to get into or out of half of the parking spaces. So it's... What's talking about students? Potentially we're talking about students. This is true. Although as I mentioned, I know that the owners are hoping to minimize that population and their tendency. But by that logic, if you say, well, people will park wherever they want, there's nothing to stop them from parking anywhere on this property, filling up the driveway, filling up the grass yard. I mean, people, like I said, if you can drive there, you can park there. We couldn't make this a little more narrow. I'm willing to make this down to 10 feet, but that's still wider than the standard parking space. You're saying that somebody, and you can't parallel park in this space. It's too short and you would have to drive over the grass. You'd have to drive into a space that's likely gonna be occupied for another vehicle. You can't parallel park here. So if somebody came in just straight down the driveway and stopped, I mean, they could stop anywhere in the driveway and block it. So this would just be one more location that they could block traffic. And I can't keep people from doing silly things like that. And a sign wouldn't necessarily stop that either. But a smaller area might. It might. I'd be inclined, if we were gonna make this more narrow, I would prefer that the eight foot become 10 foot just to give the cars a little extra room. And I was, what I was hoping to, that's not what I meant to do. Sorry about that. What I'm hoping to do with this slightly stubbier, slightly wider turnaround is provide a little more wiggle room for the rain garden, as well as stay a little farther from the tree. If we come farther to the south with pavement, the construction process cuts further than the page and the edge of the pavement. So we start to impinge upon that tree root system. So I was looking to protect the ash tree, give a little more space to the rain garden. There's flexibility in these turnarounds. I've played with a variety of configurations with chalk in my own car and trying to figure out in other situations, well, what's the smallest narrowest way to get a car to turn around viably? And you don't need quite this much space. So we can tighten it up a little bit, but regardless of the size, it has to be big enough to put a vehicle in or we can't use it as a turnaround, which means that regardless of the size, you can stuff a car there and block your tenant, your neighbors in. The other area is on the north side of the building, which I think is a vast improvement from what is there now, considering that my wife used to run by there. I used to run down there. There were always cars blocking. You had to run into the street to get around. But what is there to prevent cars from pulling in there now? But what will there be to prevent cars from pulling in there? Well, there will be a barrier curb. So this is one of the main reasons that I wish to reconstruct 75 feet, which is much wider than the driveway apron. So we can reinstall the curb through here, install the two minutes curb and walk all through here. So there will be a barrier curb here, just like every other portion of the sidewalk. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Other board members have questions. Mr. Chair. Yes, Mr. Maxfield. So a question about the drainage. So the rain garden there, is it my correct to say that the calculations of the improved drainage, is this for the entire site? We'll be receiving improved rainages, including everything off to the left there. That consideration is for the site writ large. We'll have better drainage, correct? Yes, I heard and read multiple comments from neighbors that they had concerns about drainage. That's a very, very common concern and there's so many water problems in the world. You're always living downhill as somebody. So it would not be difficult at all for me to manage. So if I were to, let me take a step back. I don't wanna make this too complicated, but the short answer is yes, I'm trying to capture as much runoff, whether it's impervious area or grass, into this rain garden, which also moves the runoff away from this house. So right now water sheet flows right up against the foundation of this building here. By the installation of the berm, I channel it and I move it into what is now an open portion of the yard, because of course there is going to be overflow. Every site discharges water. Even if you had a full commercial detention infiltration system, they discharge water and you're required to actually discharge in the same general direction as current conditions. And I'm doing that, but I'm moving it away from the house at 265 East Pleasant. And in terms of the volume for a project less than 10 residential units, there are no standards. And as much as an engineer, I wish that were not the case. I regularly rely upon what's called the first flush volume and that is the volume that tends to drag most of the pollutants off of the surface of roadways, et cetera. So I try when I can for residential projects to collect 100% of the first flush volume over impervious areas. And that's how I came to this volume. It's the, I've been able to, you know, have some successful permits through the ZBA for residences over the last few years. Each and every time I use the same standard of the first flush volume. Sometimes that's one inch of rain in critical areas. This is not a critical environmental area like a well head, for example. So it's a very standard volume. And if you did apply the full Massachusetts stormwater standards, that would apply to say a commercial development or a large residential subdivision, you would only have to detain for memory it was 140 sum, 140 sum cubic feet and we're providing 162 cubic feet. So even if we had to do that full blown system we're already bigger than we need to be. And then I guess that's my follow-up question there. It's a real concern is just with the impervious surface of the driveway. The water runs down there. Is that water runoff from the driveway? Is that going to be going into the rain garden as well? Or is there expect to be additional runoff going off into the southern property? I believe it is, is that west? Yeah, it's very much intended that all of the driveway water goes directly to the rain garden. Again, there's not a lot of contours on site so it's hard to see a big funneling of water but I do have a couple of my little drainage areas that direct minor grading into the rain garden. So we have this 95 contour. Water travels perpendicular to contours so it's going to move straight down and we're able to collect 100% of the water from this driveway. Thank you. You're welcome. While we're on drainage, I just had a question. How many inches of rain can you handle over a given amount of time? What's that? What are you used for a calculation for this? You said one inch of rain is what it is or is that I didn't calculate the volume. It's designed for collecting 100% of the volume for a half inch of rain over the impervious area. It's a little esoteric. So when you're doing hydrology calculations there's always water going off site and what you have to do is you have to match the existing conditions is the rule of thumb here and account for any other. So you can't send water off site any faster. Now I didn't do the full storm water management report. That's thousands of dollars worth of engineering analysis that is only applicable to commercial developments. So the technical answer of the question that you just asked, it really does allude me. And I did not do that level of analysis. We did not go out there and dig test pits because you have to evaluate soil conditions, come up with some soil parameters, run a bunch of infiltration calculations. The reality is that's way overkill for any residential project like this. But you can handle with the volume of your rain garden, the depth and the size of your rain garden. You're saying that you can handle a half inch of rain on the impervious surfaces. And I suspect that's over some number of hours is that's what you're designing this for. That is true. And that's what I wanted to hear for this. I don't know about, I can't tell you about percolability of the ground either. But I know volume and that's that I can understand. That's why I focus on the volume. And that's why I did bring up the number that the increase of impervious areas relatively small on this, say 400 and some square feet. If I were to do a full commercial system just for that, it would be ridiculously small. It would be smaller than what I'm offering now in the design. So like I said, this is an oversized system. But because I know that there are concerns from the neighbors and the applicant was totally open to the idea. I think they have a rain garden themselves. They're very fond of them. They're really attractive actually landscape features all year round that they were excited to install it and had no problem with the volumes that I was proposing. If you were to put a dry well into the ground here, it would have much less storage volume than what we're proposing now. So the first for any rain event, the first 162 cubic feet of water that's generated that is not leaving the site, I said except for the area that's along the north side of the property because that does drain to strong street. But everything else comes to the south and I'm capturing all of that except for a little bit of this green space up along the road that's gonna continue to go where it's going. It's off the property anyway. Thank you. Questions from other board members for the applicant? I can't see everybody's hand. Keith, Mr. Langsdale. Yeah, I've got several questions, Mr. Sparkle. The basement of the garage is I presume it's the same 916 square feet as the upper portion. And on the plan that you have, I believe there's nothing indicated. They're just then it's open space. Yes. Okay. That is the plan. It is going to generally be void space down there and just the mechanical support. Let me ask a question. When we went on the site visit, the applicant stated that he was going to use that as his shop. Is that still true? That is no longer the case. I think that probably would be his intention if that were permissible under the bylaw, but if I'm correct, that's not okay. It brought up questions about commercial use on a residential property. Right. Yeah, and so that's why he's abandoned that idea. Okay, but I think we need something to indicate the use of the basement. You understand what I'm saying? So it's right now, there's no indication of the use of that basement. There's 900 square feet of basement with nothing indicated about its use. You have the main floor is laid out, but the basement isn't. I think we need something that addresses how the basement is to be used. Okay. I think some of that was submitted if I recall from something that the applicant sent in separate from what I did and in my conversations with him, it's just mechanicals down there as well as site-specific storage for things like shovels and salt, other maintenance equipment adjust for this property. Then maybe we need to have a condition that that is the use of the basement and that any other use would have to come back before the board because as I said, when we did the site visit, we were told that it would be used as his workshop. Yeah, and that caused a problem. So he did abandon that plan, but a condition that states that in my conversations with the applicant, that is right in line with his intention at this point. And of course, if there's underutilized space and he wants to do something else, we can go through this process again someday. Well, it would just be a public meeting. It wouldn't be a public hearing. The floodlights over the stairs outside, are those dark sky compliant? They're shielded and pointing downward. So I believe that does make them dark sky compliant. Not necessarily. There are dark sky compliant floodlights that are specifically dark sky compliant. What height would they be mounted at? My anticipation is that it would be mounted on the first floor. So we're looking at probably about 12 feet above grade, something along that line. They don't have to be as high as the full building height to get light into the parking area. And I have no difficulty whatsoever with the condition that assures that the manufacturer states dark sky compliant on the product information. That's the intention here. Yeah, no, I understand. But I would think we would want a condition to that. The garage, as it is now, how is it used? Are there cars being parked in the garage? Actually, I don't know that. I don't believe so at this point. The concern about three to four cars being parked outside the garage, butting up against the sidewalk and that that creates, especially as close as it is to East Pleasant Street and with the school kids and everything, that that creates a danger. So I'm wondering why their cars are not put into the garage instead of just parked outside the garage. That's a question that perhaps the Mendelssohn's could answer accurately and maybe they have the ability to do so as part of the panel. My guess is that since this is not a concrete floor that you're parking on, it's a raised structural floor. And though there was a structural evaluation that says that things are fine, I can see why you may be reluctant to pull into an old garage and have your car parked one story above the earth. I don't have a direct answer as to what's really happening inside that garage. I'm afraid. Mr. Mendelssohn is here. Can you answer that? Mr. Mendelssohn, just identify yourself first. Yep, Neil Mendelssohn. The garage has storage in it right now. There's no cars parked in it. So yeah, it's just maintenance items. But cars could be parked in it. They could. If you have storage, if you're intending to use the basement for storage, whatever's in the garage main floor right now could be stored in the basement and cars could be parked in the garage. That could, yeah. If the structural engineer agreed that that was a reasonable thing to do. Okay, well, we had a report that the structural engineer said that it was sound. So that's why I'm wondering why cars are not parked in there at this time, given that there is not only, there's concern about the cars being parked outside the garage because there are usually three, I believe, and we've seen pictures with more that park off the, off what is the parking area now. And there's nothing in the garage. So I'm, again, it's about the use of the garage. The resident manager that you're proposing, the manager have a separate apartment? The resident manager would be in the, in 275B. So the resident manager would be, if not in a relationship with someone with whom they share this building, they'd be living with an unrelated renter. Is that true? Well, I don't know that I could really speak to that until I, you know, my goal is to select a qualified individual and there's a lot of moving parts to this. So I don't know the particular living arrangement where that, you know, where the property may, if it's a husband or wife, they may, you know, occupy the one room and children in the other. I, you know, there's all kinds of different. Well, if it's one family that goes in there, that's, then they're related. But if it's two unrelated people, then you've, I think the concern has been stated that having a resident manager living with an unrelated person can diminish their ability to deal with the property and any problems that might arise beyond mechanical. Is there somewhere in the existing house that can be turned into a single apartment for the resident manager? Yeah, I mean, certainly things could be configured. I, you know, I, I mean, if the attention would be to have a resident manager would have their own room, if it's an unrelated, that, that would be something that we, you know, I would do. Okay. I don't know that a third dwelling unit is what you're talking about here, Mr. Langsdale, is it? Well, this can, as I said, there's concern that you're asking a resident manager who's to manage the, these two buildings on this property to be in an apartment with someone to whom they're not related. And you're asking them to regulate that person with whom they're sharing this apartment. I don't know. It's just, it's a question, it's been raised and I wanted to raise it again to see where it would go and what the considerations are. And then the last question right now is you're talking about staining this, the garage and doing any repairs that are necessary to the cheating, but the existing house, there's gonna be a new roof put on but is it to be repainted and what color would that be? I have done some painting to the farmhouse and I have another side to do on that. So yeah, I would, as part of this whole project, I would make sure that the paint is very, taken care of very well and the stain on both the structures. Okay. Thank you. Do other board members have questions? I can't, I can only see, on this view, I can only see some of the, who's got their hand up? Well, in the meantime, until somebody has their hand up, how many residents are going to live in 275, currently live in a plan to live in 275A and 275B? Is 275B two bedroom for two people or for four people? Can you clear that up for me? Cause that's one of the questions about neighborhood impact. And I might again have to ask Mr. Mendelsen to chime in on this. I can't quite speak to the potential applicants who might arrive. I mean, it is a two bedroom dwelling unit. There are requirements about how many parking spaces you need for that that does not speak to how many people are in each bed in the bedroom. So of course, head count matters, but it could be a single occupant in the entire building at the same time. So the density, I'm sure over time will vary depending on who the tenants are. Maybe Mr. Mendelsen can speak to his intention on the converted garage, how many people would be living in the unit? Well, our application says four unrelated. Our preference would be not to have a restriction. We would go with what's allowed, but our intention is to either have a family, a couple, maybe the second room is a child's room. So I mean, that's what our application is. And I can't really, other than to tell you that our goal is to rent this to professionals and not to students. And I would like to ask respectfully that we be able to go what's according to the regulator, the bylaw now, which is four unrelated for each. Look, I just look at it and I see very small bedrooms, very small units, 110 square foot bedrooms. And if there are four individuals two in each of those bedrooms, that feels pretty tight and pretty crowded. And it does mean that there's four more people living in the neighborhood with, there's only two more cars, two cars allotted to that unit. But it does seem like it could just be four unrelated students living in that new unit in a garage, converted garage. So is your desire not to limit the number of people? We would not like to see it. Our goal would be to have a family and to say what's the maximum occupancy of this, I would say four if, yeah, I mean, although we're open to having it be too unrelated, if that's- Mr. Chair, if your attorney, Pill, is wishing to speak. Mr. Pill. You need to unmute yourself. Mr. Pill, we can't hear you. My apologies, I'm still learning the technology. I am Michael Pill, I'm an attorney, a partner with Green Miles Lipton, and I'm here along with Bucky Sparkle on behalf of the applicant. I think Mr. Mendelsohn is getting a little tongue tied, certainly in communicating with me and Bucky, he doesn't have the nervousness of being in a public hearing. I think what he's very clear on, and I can speak to this from personal experience, having been a small-time landlord since 1984, is nobody grants to students unless they are prepared to rebuild the place every year. There's at least one property manager in Amherst who has pointed out to me that if you wanna rent to students, you can get very high rents, but you are going to rebuild the place every year. You're also going to deal with the issues. So what you want, and this is what I've found, again, as a landlord since 1984, and Mr. Mendelsohn, at least with me, has made it clear, this is what he's looking for as he described, professional people, families, people who are beyond the undergraduate student point in life and who have the steady income and the lifestyle that is conducive to protecting the property. I think he's certainly made it clear to me, this is not going to be like one of the apartment complexes in Amherst where they charge very high rents and jam four students into as many spaces as they can. And the zoning bylaw addresses that, but what I've also found is as a matter of the market, when people come to take a look at the place, as Mr. Judge noted, if those bedrooms are small, what you're going to get in that place is a couple, perhaps who wants to use the second bedroom as a home office, especially nowadays with increased and seemingly permanent remote work or perhaps somebody with a child. My experience is if you get more than one child with a two bedroom place, very quickly, they're going to go find a three bedroom place. And yeah, I think that may be what hopefully will address the concerns that the board has raised. And I thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Pill. Are there other, yes, Ms. Parks. Well, I was just going to say, I also do have that concern because I believe that there's three bedrooms in the main house and two in the garage, which would be five bedrooms, which is potentially 10 people. And if you've got parking for four cars, then you have six cars that don't have parking if everyone has a car. And so I guess the occupancy does matter to me. If the intention is to have two people in each bedroom or to hold on to that freedom, then it gives me concern. Whereas if it's one person per bedroom, I understand that. That's five people renting here and four spaces. I don't know where the fifth car will go either. And so I do have that concern as well. Is that the understanding is there five bedrooms here with the potential of 10 people? It looks like Mr. Pill is indicating that he would like to speak. Yes, Mr. Pill. Thank you very much. I think you certainly want to be careful. I don't see how you can exclude couples, for example. What you could do, for example, is perhaps say that the total number of occupants cannot have more than four cars. That would make sense. And I think would address directly address the concern you just heard, which is certainly reasonable about making sure that however it's divided up, that the tenants do not have more than four cars. I hope that would address the concern. Well, still, you say one person for bedroom, you can't have a married couple. So I hope the board, if a condition is needed, would simply say that in the two units, there cannot be tenants who have more than four cars. And that that would address the parking issue. And again, this is not intended to be, I've represented people who rent to students. And I have represented people who very quickly, when they see that car issue, which is certainly a car issue, basically they walk away from the students and they start renting to families precisely because they do not want cars all over their property. Thank you. Further questions, Ms. Parks? No, but I just will clarify that, when I'm talking a married couple and a child is one thing, but putting two people in each bedroom, I mean, it just does increase the potential for population for this property to 10. So that is concerning. And I know that some people don't prefer students, but I know that some people do prefer students and do prefer to put in as many as they can. So. Mr. Meadows, raise your hand. It sounds to me as though the discussion is leading towards no more than four unrelated people between the two houses. No more than four unrelated people between the two houses. Yes. There would be, there's five bedrooms, I think. Yes, but some of those could be, the bedrooms could be filled with related people, but not unrelated people. Trying to do that math in my head, maybe it's late, but can you explain what you mean, Mr. Meadows? How would that work? That there could be three unrelated people in the front house and three unrelated people in the front house are actually either way. And three related people in the back house, you still end up with only four cars. You could. Four. That sounded as though that's the direction that attorney pulled was going in. Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Langsdale. We in the past have talked about and put into conditions that the number of people allowed to rent for renting and it would come down to the related number is not really an issue as far as I know, like a couple, two couples, they'd be unrelated, but they'd be related to each other. But it's not, there are two parking spaces per unit. Each house is a unit. So there are two parking spaces for the garage and two parking spaces for the house. That's it. We can also and have in the past put a condition that there is no parking allowed on the grounds of the house on the lawn. So that those four parking spaces would need to be assigned and so that whenever someone moved in, if they know they're not gonna have a parking space, they won't move in. If they have a car and they can't park it there, that's their problem. So they wouldn't move in. So there are two parking spaces per unit and one unit has three bedrooms, one unit has two bedrooms. There could be two unrelated people in each bedroom. We're coming up on about nine, 10 and it's clear to me that we're not gonna finish tonight on this and I wanna give the public the chance to comment. And I know that the board will be able to ask questions again later after the public comments. And we're gonna have more public comments if everybody doesn't get a chance to speak. But I think it would make sense to have some public comment tonight. I just don't think there's any chance that we're gonna decide this evening and my preference would be to have some public comment unless any board member has an urgent question that they need asked immediately. I'd like to start the public comment period and we'll take notes and the applicant can respond to those questions. Perhaps when we continue this perhaps tonight, we're done with public comment quickly, but the applicant will have a chance to respond to those questions even tonight or the next time we meet. So unless there's an urgent question, I'd like to open it up for public comment. And I also know that we have Attorney Reedy is representing a number of people but I'd like to hear from some individuals as well as from Mr. Reedy and we have about 15, 20 minutes for public comment. So the first one up is a phone number, Maureen, the first hand up I saw was for 1-617-5700. Okay, I have just unmuted that person. So if you could state your name and your address, it might take a minute for you to be unmuted. I still see, there we go. Can you state your name and your address? Sure Maureen, thank you. This is my name is Jeff Cobb and I'm from Six Wild Wood Lane and I'm in a butter. So I won't take everybody. Before we begin, let's try to keep comments to between three and four minutes from the individuals and then we'll try to get through as many as possible. Thank you, go ahead. Sure, no problem. So just a couple of comments. The first thing is I did submit a letter I submitted comments in writing and when the chairman started the call he didn't acknowledge that letter. So I just wanna make sure that those comments are received. Oh, okay, I'll double check that. Thank you. Okay, so and so if that letter is received that will kind of set forth my views on this. And so I won't take everybody's time and repeat all of the arguments. As a resident and a bother with sight lines to that property but the two main comments I wanna make is I think one thing being in a medium residential, medium density residential area is we're trying to keep it that way. And so the fact that there are a number of multifamily units and growing in the neighborhood is troublesome to me anyway because it is changing the character of the neighborhood. I also wanna mention that some of the multifamilies that I think engineers Sparkle, if I have a name right mentioned our in-law apartments they're completely different scenarios here. They were designed, when the homes were designed they were designed with studios or designed with in-law apartments that are built in to the concept of the home that are very, very integrated and not intrusive. That's very different from taking a garage unit and turning it into a multifamily unit. So I think to say that there's a lot of multifamilies in the neighborhood it's not really not really accurately describing the character of neighborhood it's a mixed neighborhood but mostly single family. I think we wanna make sure that the density within the neighborhood stays in the medium. That's what we want. That's the first comment I want to make. The other is I wanna just, I think people it sounds to me like the board members have taken a lot of time to view the site and I appreciate that. And to me that corner really is the gateway what I would call a gateway to our neighborhood and the further neighborhoods around Wildwood Elementary School which are very nice and very desirable neighborhoods. They have wooded lots. They have mostly resident single family homes and it's very troublesome to see especially across the street which has also now turned into a non-owner archbishop rental and it's turned into such a troubled property with cars all over the place garbage everywhere all the best intentions by the owner of course but they don't reside there and they can't police it every day. That's a big fear that we have with the conversion of this very small home into a home that would have potentially many, many residents and also the creeping of the multifamily structures up the street, down the street and changing the whole character of the neighborhood. So I'm very concerned about that and I just wanted to alert the board. Thank you, Mr. Cobb. The next one is Mr. Strayer. Mr. Strayer. Mr. Strayer. Give me one second. Okay, Carrie, I'm going to let you talk. It'll take a minute for you to unmute, I think. How's that? Perfect. Great. Take your name and your address. Sure, Carrie Strayer. I'm a 226 East Pleasant Street. I'm not a direct abutter to the property but I live down the street on the western side of East Pleasant we have a number of single family, rental homes, student rental homes, they're all student rental homes. There's about eight of them, including this property on the corner. My fear is that if you grant this application, you're going to have under various requirements of the zoning by-law, other property owners who have rental homes are going to come to the board and they're going to seek to create some additional housing units on their property. And what they're going to do is they're going to point to 275 East Pleasant and say you gave them the opportunity to have additional housing unit, why not me? Which is going to completely change the character of the neighborhood. But I'd also like to second when Mr. Cobb said when Mr. Sparkle was going through his presentation, I took a look through the map, the map, the GIS section of the emmerist.gov website. The three units that he is saying are two family units, all three of those are owner occupied units. And they're also contiguous units, they're not two separate units on the property. So those are much different than what's being considered here. Here you're essentially trying to put two homes on an undersized non-performing lot. And that would completely be out of character with an neighborhood and completely different than those specific houses that he had mentioned. Also want to mention sparse condition number six, requiring a resident manager under the zoning bylaw 12.41, you're looking for a qualified and responsible individual who implements the property management plan who manages, coordinates the maintenance, the housekeeping, the administrative duties for rental units. And in the lease that was a proposed lease that was submitted with his application, the onsite manager is essentially a person who serves as the point of contact for the landlord who brings the landlord's attention and he tenant conductor maintenance issues. I think that what the intent of the zoning law is that a resident manager is really a professional individual and not somebody who is merely a tenant. And clearly the tenant could be a student. Landlord is gonna rent to whoever is able to pay the rent. This property is located within a very short walk of the UMass campus. It's basically right across the street. It's gonna be attracted to students that are gonna have students in there. And nothing against students, but it's hard enough for them sometimes to walk in and drive away and bring their big blue garbage bucket back after trash day. And a couple of other things just about this property itself. I noted by looking at the GIS system that on December 21st of last year, a nuisance violation was issued for failure to clear the sidewalk. Secondly, under the rental permit plan, under the parking plan, the landlord is supposed to have the tenants park two cars in the garage and then two cars on the side of the garage. Now, I go past that property quite a bit. I'm also a runner. And I've seen three cars, four cars. I remember over Halloween weekend, there were six cars parked there in front of the property, but they never used the garage. And there's already been testimony from Mr. Mendelssohn that he uses a garage for storage and for maintenance items where the garage should be used for cars, which I think would help clear up some of the parking issues with the present property. So I would request the board to deny this variance. This is completely out of character with the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Strayer. What I'd like to do is give Mr. Lerajah a chance to talk. Mr. Strayer attached to talk and then since Mr. Reedy is representing, I think a number of people, I would also like to give him a chance. And then by that time, it'll be, you know, somewhat past 9.30, we will also have additional public comment at the next meeting, but I'd like to get the base of this out so that the applicant can be prepared to respond at our next meeting. So... I just made up, right? Okay, can you hear me? Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Ray Lerajah. I'm in a butter at 7 Strong Street. And I'd like to make three quick overarching points. First, this is a non-conforming projects and I have a major impact on the neighborhood, as was just said. The family neighborhood is at a tipping point. We moved to Strong Street because of its proximity to Wildwood School, to my place of work at UMass, and the ability to walk the town. In mornings, my day starts with seeing parents walk their kids to school, neighborhood residents walk to jobs at UMass or town. In the morning, yes, Strong Street is crowded with cars, buses, school buses, trucks, but then things calm down during the day and evenings. We talk to our neighbors, raking leaves, we meet as families for drinks or swim in a pool. We share landscaping tools, we help each other with projects. Along East Pleasant, however, as was just pointed out, single-family homes have been rented increasingly to multiple students. We can see and feel it by the significant increase in cars at night, the blurring of sound systems and beer bottles splayed across our lawns in the mornings. And now we're asked to have a non-conforming residential structure at right at the gateway of our neighborhood on Strong Street, which will surely be rented with the regardless of intentions, surely be rented to a large group of students adding car traffic just after the point where students have evaded busy traffic on East Pleasant. And then there's a new parking lot with an impervious surface that will push water onto adjacent properties. And by the way, there's no gravel driveway there which the applicant shows in the plants, it's all grass. And what about pileups of snow from clearing the lot? Where does that go? And what happens when it melts? I don't see any stormwater report that takes that into account. There will certainly be additional noise from a blurring car stereos and shouting students, coming and going, not to mention parking lights turning on and off throughout the night into our bedrooms and study where I write. So this new development is not only a radical departure from the tenor of the neighborhood, it's a transformative project to densify a small corner property and convert an old garage structure into something like a student tenement, which is surely, despite the best intentions of the applicant, gonna house more students than suggested, okay? And why not use the garage as a garage as Mr. Langsdale points out? Second point, my next points are very brief. We neighbors were extremely concerned about the management of this property and how it's gonna be used. My concern would be a laid if it was owner occupied, but that's not the case. And we've seen the surfeit of cars, five or six, stuffed on the short driveway. I've submitted photos about us over three period and the situation is gonna worsen with this large parking lot in the back where students are gonna squeeze as many cars as possible into those spaces, including the turnarounds or on the grass, as Mr. Meadows suggested. And it's, it could even become a lot where friends who commute to UMass use it. And so what we envision for these communities is overstuffed the overused parking lot and noisy cars, a large deck where voices and music carry all in proximity to UMass. It screams as like a major destination for fraternity-like parties just like several longies pleasant. So regardless of the goodwill of the applicant or the town staff, it is we the neighbors who are gonna end up being on duty, trying to hold tenants responsible for nuisance behavior that undermines this neighborhood. And then lastly, I just wanna say, I asked you to think about the original intent of these zoning waivers, okay? This is a major variance under the zoning rules. It's not a small change. It's not the spirit of the town planners. They were thinking of allowing waivers to increase opportunities for families to have affordable housing. The intent was not to stuff 20-year-old short-termers with the $1,000 tiny bedrooms per month. Allowing the garage to be converted to housing on a non-conforming property will invite, as the previous speaker said, a replication in the rest of our neighborhood nestware. Rental investors are gonna see the value of a property with a garage so they can stuff more tenants on the property. So it's kind of precedent setting. So it's understandable to grant exemption for a radical change when a project is going to provide an obvious benefit to a neighborhood. Or even a benign effect. But this project is detrimental to the neighborhood in substantial and negative ways. I'm not opposed to high density development and there are projects that merit waivers, but this is not one of them. And I hope you use your wisdom and discretion to reject a special permit. I wanna close and just thank you for your voluntary service to this board. Thank you, Mr. LaRogia. Mr. Schreiber. Hold on, I'm gonna press unmute. It should take a couple of seconds. Hi, can you hear me? Yes. So I'm Steve Schreiber, 100 High Street. I'm an elected official, I'm speaking as a private citizen. So I'm very concerned about neighborhood stability. So I think Mr. Sparkle gave a good reason why this project should actually be denied because neighborhood destabilization happens when neighborhoods move from somewhere 33%, 50% owner occupied to primarily rental. So if you want to see this neighborhood deteriorate, then this would be a very good project to continue that path towards destabilization. The other thing is that attorney Bard in his letter of opinion quoted the origins of this law from the 1980s town meeting planning board report. It's worth looking at that carefully. And I send you a letter that quoted other parts to it. The intention of this law was to approve projects that missed dimensional requirements by one or two feet. They actually say that twice in the planning board report that this is intended for large houses on large lots that missed dimensions by one or two feet. So this misses square footage by 10,000 feet. That's a lot. That's more than one or two feet. It misses the front setback by five feet. That's a lot also. So the other thing is Mr. Sparkle brought up of the an interesting concept which is zoning by proximity. So he mentioned that RG is not too far from here. So the RG standards maybe could apply to this particular parcel even though the RG is at least eight parcels away. That's spot zoning. So even though it's allowed in Amherst zoning under this one-time exception, that one-time exception also sounds a lot like spot zoning which is an exception within a zoning bylaw or within an otherwise planned area, a parcel that's treated differently than all other parcels. So my point is this, that if this parcel should be treated like an RG zone, then the applicant can go through the legislative process of asking that this parcel plus all other proximate parcels all the way to RG be changed from RN to RG. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Friber. Mr. Reedy, are you representing several clients in this case? I don't believe Mr. Reedy is still here. Oh. But we do have a- Well, I see- Oh, you do. Yeah, you're right. Sorry. There's just so many people here. Sorry. I'm just trying to be efficient and I'd like to get as many different opinions as possible before we close for the night. And so Mr. Reedy is representing several people we can get more bang for the buck in a short comment. And then we're gonna have more public comment in the next time we take this up. Yeah, so thanks, Mr. Chair. And I'll keep it brief. Ray already, so Ray's a client. Ray already spoke. I think he did a wonderful job. And I think to do it justice, given some of the inadequacies we see with this proposal, some of the mischaracterizations that we've heard this evening, I don't know that I can get into it to do it justice. So I think what I'll do is I'll just put it all in writing and submit it to the board and then we'll be prepared to discuss it at the next public hearing given the late hour. So if you wanna take other public comment, we're happy to do that. But I think that's probably, you know, in fairness to our side, the best way to do it. That's very helpful. All right. And then there is someone that is calling in with the 617 area code I'll unmute you. You can see your name in your address. He'll take a few seconds. Let me try it again. And maybe the same number of the same person that spoke earlier. I don't know. You should be able to speak now. So the person is unmuted. Maureen, this is Jeff Cobb. I think that's, I've already spoken. So I think if you're asking me, tell me what I've already spoken. Oh, okay. I'm gonna disable you. Okay, from talking. Okay. But we have Richard Rons-Zoy. Rons-Zoy. Rons-Zoy. One second. Let's see here. Allow to talk. Bear with us for a second. It takes a few seconds. Okay, Richard. You should be able to talk now. Okay. You can hear me? Yes. Okay. Tom Reedy also represents. Your name and address for the record, Mr. Rosmine, please. Sorry, Richard Rosnoy, 11 Strong Street. Tom Reedy represents me and I don't want to duplicate his comments nor what Ray and some others have said. But briefly, I just wanted to comment how timely it is that at the very beginning of your meeting tonight, you had Chris Brestrup talk about the impending work on redoing the zoning by-law because it is so awkward as it's written. And what you are dealing with with this application is exactly one of the problems that they are dealing with in redoing the zoning by-law. Unfortunately for you, all of you on the ZBA, you have to deal with the conflicts and the inconsistencies and the contradictions within the zoning by-law, especially in this particular application. Please keep that in mind because when, as Steve Schraber has said, when this tweak in the by-law was first entered in 1986, it was never intended to function to allow the sort of massive differentiation from the requirements of lot size and building size that you're dealing with in this application. But I wanted to get that comment in tonight because Chris Brestrup, and just sort of make that relationship for you. Okay, I think we're gonna end the public comment at that point, we're at 9.34. One of the good things about, one of the things that we expect is that the applicant will respond to the questions we kept notes. Mr. Sparkle, I'm sure you kept notes and Mr. Attorney Peale, you kept notes. And so when we meet again on this topic, the first order of business will be to complete the public comment and then have your response to those questions. But I don't wanna get start down that road now because we'll be here till 10 or 10.30. All right, understanding? Yes. Okay, Mr. Linesdale. Just quickly, we've heard now from several of the public, people of the public, about the 1986, I think it is, whatever. A town meeting. A town meeting. Can we get a copy of that exact, it's been characterized in several different ways up to this point. And I'd like to know exactly what it says. So that we can put that up against what we're dealing with now. Yeah, I think there are records to, we can get that distributed from the staff to all the members of the board. Thank you. If there was, excuse me. Yes, Mr. Meadows comment on that. If there was, I believe Peter Kitchell was the one who made the presentation from the planning board to the town meeting in his comments, if they're available would be most helpful. Mr. Kitchell, you said is the name? Peter Kitchell, he was an architect, lives here on Chestnut Street or off Chestnut. He was the chair of the planning board of the sign. All right. Thank you. Look at those taking care. All right. Maureen, when is the date? I want to continue this to a date certain. Certainly. Next available date. So the next, bear with me. So today is the seventh. So the next ZBA meeting would be, we could continue this until January 21st. It's at six o'clock if that works for folks. Is there other things on the agenda already for the 21st? Oddly, no. Okay. That I'm aware of. All right. So I move that we can, that we continue the public hearing on this matter until January 21st at six o'clock. Mr. Maxfield, is that work? I thought we were going to be doing the second and fourth Tuesday. The fourth and 14th. Oh, you're right. Thank you. Sorry. It would be the 28th. Thank you. Sorry. Sorry about that. So I will amend my motion to move to continue this until January 28th at six o'clock. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? We have to have a roll call vote. So the chair votes aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Limesdale. Aye. Great. All right. The next order of business is public comments on any matter not before the board tonight. So if you are a member of the public, it was to speak to something other than a matter before the board tonight. Please raise your hand. Use the raise hand function and we'll call on you. And don't see anybody raising their hand. I think there's no takers for public comment tonight. The last item on the agenda is anything that's not come up in the last 48 hours or came up in the last 48 hours. Without notice, I have nothing and I don't know of anything from any board members. So I think it's time for a motion to adjourn our meeting. Do I have one? Mr. Maxfield. Move to adjourn. Is there a second? Second. Motion is made and seconded. It's not a debatable motion. All in favor, please say aye. All right, roll call. All in favor. I say aye. Mr. Limesdale. Aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. There's just something about the motion to adjourn that I want to do it by roll call vote and get it done quickly. I just can't break myself for that habit. All right. Thank you very much, everybody. We'll see you. Our next meeting is on the 28th. Is that correct? Correct, correct. We'll see you all at six o'clock on the 28th. Thank you very much.