 and we are all set. The chair knows the time is 6.01. I call the meeting of the Amherstoting Board of Appeals to order. My name is Steve Judge, a ZBA chair. I wanna welcome everyone to this meeting. We'll begin with a roll call of the ZBA members in panel for this night. Steve Judge is present. Mr. Craig Meadows. Here. Mr. Phillip White. Present. Ms. Sarah Marshall. Present. Mr. David Sloveter. Here. The quorum is present. Also attending the public hearing tonight is Mr. Rob Wachilla, planner for the town, and later we'll be joined by Rob Mora, the building commissioner. Pursuant to chapter 20 of the Acts of 2021, extended by chapter two of the Acts of 2023, this meeting will be conducted via remote meetings. Members of the public who wish to observe the meeting may do so via Zoom or by telephone. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted. Every effort we made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means. The Zoning Board of Appeals is a quasi-judicial body that operates under the authority of chapter 48 of the general laws of the Commonwealth for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, convenience, and general welfare of the inhabitants of the town of Amherst. In accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts general laws, chapter 48, and article 10, special permit granting authority for the Amherst Zoning By-law, this public meeting has been duly advertised and noticed thereof has been posted and mailed to parties at interest. All hearings and meetings are open to the public and are recorded by town staff. They may be viewed via the town of Amherst's YouTube channel and the ZVA webpage. The procedure is as follows. The petitioner presents the application to the board during the hearing, after which the board will ask questions for clarification or to gain additional information. After the board has completed its questions, the board will seek public input. The public speaks with the permission of the chair. If a member of the public wishes to speak, they should so indicate by using the raise hand and function on their screen or reversing nine on their phone. The chair with the assistance of the staff will call upon people wishing to speak. When you are recognized, provide your name and address to the board for the record. All questions and comments must be addressed to the board. The board will normally hold public hearings for the information about the project and the input from the public is gathered, followed by public meetings for each. The public meeting portion is when the board deliberates and is generally not an opportunity for public comment. If the board feels it has enough information and time, it will decide upon the applications tonight. Each petition heard by the board is distinct and evaluated on its own merits and the board is not ruled by precedent. Statutorily for a special permit, the board has 90 days from the close of the hearing to file a decision. For a variance, the board has 100 days from the date of filing to file the decision. No decision is final until the written decision is signed by the sitting board members and filed with the town clerk's office. Once the decision is filed with the town clerk, there is a 20 day appeal period for an agreed party to contest the decision with a relevant judicial body in Superior Court. After the appeal period, the permit must be recorded at the registry of deeds to take effect. Tonight's agenda, a public hearing on ZBA FY 2024-01, Amherst Office Park, LLC, request for a special permit under section 5.015 of the zoning bylaw to expand an existing caretaker apartment at an office park from 660 square feet to 1,106 square feet with the requested waivers from the management, landscape, lighting and sign plans at 19 Research Drive, MAP-21B, Parcel 82, PRP, Professional Research Park, Zoning District. ZBA FY 2024-02, Josie DeAngeles and Magnus Wynne-Weier request a special permit under section 3.3241 and 9.22 of the zoning bylaw to change the use and expand a non-conforming structure from a two-family residence into a converted dwelling with three units at 65 Taylor Street, MAP-14B, Parcel 80, RG, General Residence, Zoning District. A public meeting on ZBA FY 2023-15, Cathy Song, 485 Pine Street to review the following documents with the ZBA regarding a recently awarded special permit, ZBA FY 2023-15. Those include an updated lease agreement, a management plan, site plan and a resident manager addendum as well as this landscaping schedule. Following those items, there'll be a period of public, general public comment on matters not before the board tonight. Other business not anticipated within the last 48 hours and adjournment. Tonight, there are no minutes to approve. And so the first question I have is are there any disclosures from the members for the matters before us tonight? All right, the first order of business is ZBA FY 2024-01, Amherst Offer, Amherst Office Park, LLC. Request for a special permit under section 5.015 of the Zoning Biology Expand and Existing Caretaker Apartment and Office Park from 660 square feet to 1,106 square feet with requested waivers from management, landscape, lighting and sign plans at 19 Research Strive, MAP-21B, Parcel 82, PRP Professional Research Parks Zoning District. There's a site visit held yesterday, Wednesday, September 13th. I could not attend that site visit, but I did visit the site today and observed it. But I know other members of the board did attend the site visit. And so would somebody like to summarize the site visit for us, either Rob or one of the board members who attended the site? Ms. Marshall. Sure. Mr. Sof, three I and Mr. White and Mr. Sloveter and Mr. Wachilla and the owner, Mr. Lovardier, were there. And the owner took us into the main building, which is Office Suites, and took us to the end where a break room, a kitchen exists now and explained how he wishes to wall that off and knock the door so that it is part of the unit at the end, the residence at the end. And we asked a few questions just to clarify that there were going to be no external changes at all. At least that's what we understood. No additions to the building. It's simply reconfiguring the internal space to permit a somewhat larger apartment. And it seems to be that the reason to do it is that the tenants, that is the office tenants don't need that much space. So it can be given, in that case, it can be given to the rental unit. Great. Good summary. Any other points to make that were mentioned at the site visit? I should say we also briefly went into the apartment. Got it. At the moment, there's no internal communication, so we have to go. You have to go outside and get back in. Yeah. I would add one of the things we asked about was parking. The current caretakers unit has two designated parking spaces allotted to it. And that will not change. So the end result, as Ms. Marshall described, was is really just reassigning the space that up till now has been used as a break room by the tenants in the office part. It will be added to expand the residents, but no other factor. So they will not be assigned more parking. It won't affect it at all. There's actually a sizable parking lot. So if they already, if they have visitors, it's not a problem, but they're not asking for more designated parking spaces or anything like that. No exterior changes at all. Great. All right. The following submissions have been received. ZBA FY 2024-01 application and floor plans designed by Carol Vince, dated 7-1-2023 and revised August 7th, 2023. And there were staff submissions, the site plan review from FY 2022-12, a decision document, site plan review 2020-002-01, a decision document and site plan review 2020-12, 2012-12 floor plans designed by the same Carol Vince, dated 2-22-2022 and revised in March of 29th of 2022. I don't think there's, are there any public comments, Rob, or any additional submissions? So I didn't receive any public comments that were submitted before this hearing. I didn't receive any comments from other departments. Yeah, other than that, I mean, no comments, just procedural type of change. Nope. Is the, who's representing the applicant and does the applicant wish to speak to this? So we do have a Mr. Ron Lavertier who gave us the site visit tour yesterday. For some reason there's two accounts that say Ron Lavertier and the attendance. So I don't know if, Ron, if you can hear me, could you raise the hand of the account that you would like me to promote? Oh, nevermind. The other one has been taken off and I will promote him to a panelist. Ron, you just have to accept the invitation that I sent to you. He's gone totally. Oh, yeah. Is he a panelist? He's not a panelist now, no? He may have to check in again. Oh, there he is. There we go. Ron, you're muted. There we go. Mr. Lavertier. Yep, I'm here. Can you give us your name and address for the record, please? Ron Lavertier, 433 West Street, Amherst, Mass. Great, thank you. Give us your summary of the projects you wish to pursue and we can ask some questions after that. Okay, it's a pretty simple process just putting a door in between the apartment and the office-based kitchenette. It actually started when Hart and Patterson asked if they were signing a new lease and they said, jeez, Ron, we really don't need the kitchen anymore. Is there any way we could take it out of our lease? And there really was no way to turn that kitchen into any kind of rentable space other than attaching it to the apartment. And so one of the nice things was I was able to check with my maintenance person out there, Mack Rogers. And I said, Mack, jeez, would you mind a little extra space? And at first, the funny thing was he first said, no, I don't really need it, Ron. Don't worry about it. But then he mentioned it to his girlfriend and within a day and a half that answer was now changed and they would love to have this. So that was kind of the story behind it. You know, Hart and Patterson, you know, recognize that paying rent on a kitchen that they use perhaps once a year was kind of silly. And, you know, your general rent out there is running around $20 a square foot fully serviced. And so there was 340 feet that they were paying on that they really didn't see the benefit in. So we're actually helping out two people at the same time. I'm helping out the Hart and Patterson business and Mack Rogers and his girlfriend that presently live there and maintain, you know, the outdoor and indoor quality of the building. Great. Mr. Liberty, Ivan, I believe that the reason you need a special permit is because you're increasing the square footage of the caretaker apartment from under 10% of the total square footage to over 10%. Is that right? So there's no other changes that you're requesting. No. Yep. All right. I have no further questions. Does anybody have questions? Mr. Wachilla. So actually, you can get Phillip's question first. I'm actually just going to remind you of the waivers you have to request afterwards. We've got several waivers. Mr. White. Hello, I just wanted to confirm, I know we touched on it a little bit yesterday, but just confirm that that rear deck will continue to be used by both the caretaker unit as well as the commercial property. Yeah, the commercial, and it's only used by the commercial heart and Patterson that they're for room commercial space because they're the only ones with a door that actually accesses the deck. But yes, it's to be shared by both parties. So that it's not, you know, it's a pretty good size deck when you get on it. And there's almost two sections to it, you know. Great. All right. And then in 48, you're asking for waivers from, let me get this straight, management plan, a new management plan, a landscape plan, a lighting plan and a sign plan. The reason you're asking for these is that there are no changes to those. Is that correct? That is correct. All right. So the normal, any other questions from board members? This would be a time for any public comment. If people have, if anybody member of the public wish just to speak to this issue, either please indicate by raising the hand function on your Zoom client or pressing nine if you're on the phone. I don't see any round to you. No, and just a reminder, it's actually star nine for the phone. So folks who are calling in, press star nine. Give them a minute to do that. Looks like there are no requests for public comment. If there are no further questions from the board or statements from the applicant, I will move from the public hearing process to the public meeting process while keeping the public hearing open in case we need to gather additional information. This time is generally not a time for public discussion. And it's a time when the board deliberates. My impression of this is that it seems to make a lot of sense. There's no harm in increasing, it seems to me in increasing our own public interest in limiting the increase in square footage from 660 to 1100 square feet. They need to do that, they need a special permit and there's no changes to the management landscape lighting or sand plan. So I don't need to see why we need to have, why we can't give a waiver for creation of new site plans, et cetera. Other people have any other comments, concerns? Mr. Slaughter. My only comment is that from visiting the site yesterday and listening now, this seems like a very reasonable request, a good use of the space, no point in leaving valuable space empty. It has no effect on anything outside of the building. I think this is very straightforward and entirely reasonable. Ms. Marshall. And I would add that the applicant said that enlarging the apartment, which will permit a larger kitchen than exists currently for the custodians use, makes the job more attractive because the living space is larger and he would like to keep his caretaker. All right. Mr. White, what we normally do, since this is the first time I'm around a meeting with, and you've been part of this, is what we typically do is go through the conditions first so that we can make the findings we have to make. A lot of times the conditions are what allow us to make the required findings. The staff has suggested several conditions. All of those possible on the project application report, the five possible conditions make sense to me. Let me run through them quickly. And if people have an objection or change to any of them, please indicate after I've run through them all. The first one is the project that we built and maintained according to the approved plans and application package. This is a standard condition that we have on almost every special permit. Said changes shall be reviewed or approved by the zoning board of appeals at a public hearing or if the change is significant enough, said changes shall require a formal modification of the permit or the condition. The approved plans included the floor plans created by Carol Vince. She A-1.1, it's untitled but dated July 1st, 2023 and revised August 7th, 2023. Management plan approved under site plan review 2022-12 shall remain in full effect and shall govern the excesses. Accessory chair, excuse me, caretaker apartment, that's hard to say. The conditions from site plan review 2002-001 and site plan review 2022-12 shall remain in full effect. The number of bedrooms shall not exceed one for the accessory apartment. The accessory apartment shall only accommodate a manager, a custodian, a security guard or other employees essential to the operation of the office part. The employees immediate family or household could be accommodated as well, but only if in agreement with the property owner. Those are suggested by staff, Ms. Marshall. Yes, I don't think that condition number four is needed. There'll be room for a second bedroom if there's a child, a family once needs a second bedroom. I think that is fine. I don't know if the original permit specifies the bedroom and we have to explicitly change it, but if not, I would just remove this condition. Rob, is the site plan review limit the bedrooms? It didn't know, but I figured if the board wanted to cap I guess the growth because it's always been a one bedroom, I kind of suggested it, but if the board doesn't feel it's necessary to include it and is okay with a second bedroom possibly add in the future, we can easily remove that condition. I have no objection to dividing up the bedroom in case there's a child that would need for two bedrooms. Anybody having any concern about that? All right, then mine. And then, so I think we have consensus to remove number four. We'll get back to that in a second. And then we had a couple of conditions that the board might want to discuss dealing with visitors and parking spaces. Have you had any problems? I guess I'm not known of any problems with the number of visitors or parking spaces. There seems to be a lot of parking spaces. I'm not sure either of these two conditions need to be imposed on the property. I'm wondering if anybody else has an opposite opinion. All right, so what I would move- Sorry, Mr. Chair. Excuse me, I don't object to them, but I wonder if we can ask the applicant if he would like them to remain? Are they... Have they been needed? He can control both via the lease if he needs to, I guess. Oh, okay, okay. Yeah, yeah. Mr. Laverdier, do you have a given opinion about either of those conditions? Can you hear? Yep, we can hear you. No, we can't. Now I can't. Yeah, right there. There we go. We good? Yep, we're good now. Okay, well, we have 21 spaces out there, presently, I believe, and we've never been full from the parking standpoint of the needs for the building. But it's a very quiet office building and most of the time there's five or six or seven open spaces, even on the busiest of days. So, I mean, the visitors come and go and nobody's ever had a problem, so I don't anticipate ever seeing one. Well, that's kind of my, on the parking issue. Right. I mean, it's just, you know, I guess if it was a highly active building downtown, it might be a very different thing. But it's kind of a, it's sort of tucked out in the quiet area with, you know, with very, you know, with people that, you know, we have engineers in there and we have, you know, people that work in the computer field and they don't have a lot of visitors. So it's been, it's always been very, very lightly used at parking. All right. And if you have a desire to either limit guests or to impose limits on parking in the future, you can do so via your lease if you need be, right? Of course I could. Yes. So my thinking, and we would open to the decision of the board but my thinking is that we don't need to impose the possible conditions one and two. And so what I guess I would like to do is entertain a motion to approve conditions under possible conditions of approval, one, two, three and five, leaving out number four, which limits the number of bedrooms. Do I have such a motion? So moved. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? If not, the vote occurs on the motion to approve those four conditions. Chair votes aye. Mr. Meadows? Aye. Mr. White? Aye. Ms. Marshall? Aye. Ms. Loveter? Aye. Aye. Motion carries. We now need to make some findings and approve waivers. So let's first approve the waivers, the waivers for the management plan, landscape plan, lighting plan and sign plan. Do I have a motion to approve waivers for those four items? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Moved and seconded. Is there further discussion? If not, the vote occurs on the motion to approve waivers for management, landscape, lighting and sign plan. Chair votes aye. Mr. Meadows? Aye. Mr. White? Aye. Ms. Marshall? Aye. Mr. Loveter? Aye. Motion carries, you know, honestly. Next we have to make certain findings in order to permit the, in order to issue a special permit. These findings are under section 10.38. The first ones are 10 and Mr. White, for your information, what we do is we go through these findings. If one wants to pull, we try to approve them in block. If one wants, if somebody wants to pull out a finding or amend it, we take it out of the end block and we deal with it separately, but hopefully we don't have to have 20 different votes. So we're trying to do this as quickly as we possibly can. The first one is 10.38 and 10.381. That this proposal is suitably located in the neighborhood in which it is proposed in order to the total town is deemed appropriate by the special permit granting authority. You know, this is proposed accessory use comports with section 5.015 and allows for the ZBA to grant a special permit to increase the caretaker apartment. 10.382, 383, 385 and 387 generally deal with various nuisances and inconveniences caused by the project to the neighbors or the neighborhood. Noise, flood, odor, dust, vibration, lights, vigilio, offensive structures or site fences. The proposal does not make any outward, it doesn't produce any nuisances, it doesn't create any outside changes at all. 10.384, adequate and appropriate facilities provided for the proper operation to produce and caretaker property already exists, adding 400 square feet does not create a problem for the adequate and appropriate facilities. 10.386, proposal ensures that it can perform us with parking and sign regulations. The management plan will remain in effect and parking and sign plans. 10.387 deals with safe and convenient vehicular traffic. Again, this really doesn't apply to this special permit. 10.388, dealing with adequate space for all street loading, 10.389, dealing with methods of disposal of sewage waste for refuge 390, dealing with flood hazards 391, dealing with landscaping, et cetera. 393, dealing with protection of adjacent properties by minimizing intrusion of light and other things to the neighboring properties, 10.394, impact on slopes in 395, creating disharmony with the architectural structure 96, dealing with screening 97, dealing with recreational facilities. None of these are applicable to this special permit because we have no, for the most part, because we have no exterior changes. Lastly, 10.398, the proposal is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this by-law and the goals of the master plan. This creates a better workforce and more attractive workforce housing and is aligned with the goals of the master plan. So unless there's a miss Marshall. Not an objection, but I just want to note something with regard to 10.387. I agree that the section doesn't apply, but I want to note in the comment, the staff review comment, I think it would be more accurate to say the number of units, of residential units. In fact, the bedrooms might change. That's a good catch. Okay. That's a good catch. Actually, I took note while you're going through that and I wrote to get rid of increase in bedrooms, but thank you for saying that because it's actually a good way to reward it. So I will definitely do that. Great. Good catch. Thank you. If there are no other comments regarding the conditions, I would entertain a motion to approve the conditions on them as stated. So moved. And I, Mr. Slavitor, is that a second? It can be a second. Sure. All right, we got it. I don't know if it was a first. It can be either one you want. However you want to use me. It's a convenient second. Thank you. Is there any further discussion? If not, the vote occurs on imposing those conditions. Chair votes aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. Ms. Marshall. Aye. Mr. Slavitor. Aye. All right. Conditions are approved. The findings. The findings. You said conditions. Do you mean? Yes, excuse me. The findings are approved. Yes, the findings. The findings in 10.38 are approved. So that means we can prove the findings, we can prove conditions that we've made the waivers. The next order of business is to approve the special permit and to close a motion to approve the special permit and to close the hearing and public hearing and public meeting. Do I have such a motion? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. Mr. Meadows. The motion has been made and seconded. Is there any discussion? If not, the vote occurs on the motion to approve the special permit as with conditions, with findings and with waivers and to close the public meeting and public hearing. This requires four positive votes. Chair votes aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. Ms. Marshall. Aye. Mr. Slovitor. Aye. Motion carries unanimously. Mr. Laverdea, congratulations. You've got your special permit. Mr. Wachille, you have something to say. I was gonna ask for the permission of the chair if you want me to go over the next steps with the applicant. Sure. Yeah, okay. So Ron, basically what's gonna happen next is that early next week, I'm gonna start working on your record decision. So basically it's a fiscal document. I'm gonna type up that records the vote taken today. And then afterwards, I'm gonna reach out to each of the board members and they're gonna sign it. And then once they sign it, I submit it with the town clerk's office and that starts a 20 day appeal period. So basically what that means is any member from the public can appeal the decision of the zoning board on the special permit to a court, hire a court, usually superior court or land court. Don't think it's gonna happen for this particular permit, but that's what I wanted to tell you, that's what usually would happen. And after that 20 day appeal period ends, you would have to get a certificate of no appeal from the town clerk. And then once you get that, you take it to the Hampshire County Registry Deeds, have it filed, and then the special permit becomes effective. Do you have any questions for us? Nope, that's pretty much what I thought would happen. All right, awesome. Thank you very much. Everybody have a great day. You bet. Congratulations. All right, the next order of business had been to take up the ZVA 2024-02. But in anticipation of that, I know we're supposed to have Rob Mora on to help explain some of the more complicated parts of converted dwelling. I know he's going to be joining us, but he is a little bit later than we thought. And I would like to have him as part of that hearing just because converted dwellings can be technical. And so what I would like to do is move to the public meeting, temporarily move into the public meeting on 485 Pine Street. I think we can dispose of that quickly. And then we can go back to the Taylor Street application. Yep. So let's do that. Let's move, unless there's an objection, let's do that. So the next order of business is ZVA FY 2023-15. We're in a public meeting now. 2023-15, Kathy Song, 485 Pine Street to review the following documents with the ZVA regarding a recently awarded special permit, ZVA FY 2023-15. Those documents include an updated lease agreement, updated management plan, updated site plan, and a resident manager addendum, as well as a landscaping schedule. All these come from condition 19 of the special permit. To me, this seems to be pretty straightforward. Generally, what I have seen, it seems to be in compliance with the condition 19. Does the applicant feel a need to speak to this? So we have an attendance, Kathy Song, and if you'd like, Mr. Chairman, I could promote her to be a painless, so she could answer that question for you if you like. Okay, and then also, Mr. Chairman, I have a list of the required updates to each of those documents. So if you want me to go through them before Ms. Song gives her a presentation, I'd be more happy to do so. Well, yeah, that'd probably be helpful, Rob. Yeah, sure. So I guess I'll go and summarize that real quick. So what was required of the applicant, Kathy Song, for 45 Pine Street, as a reminder, this was an improved special permit, but there were five revisions that had to be done in order for the applicant to get her final building permit to construct the three units. So the first requirement was a landscaping schedule that includes contact information for the landscaping company and maintenance schedule. The applicant has since provided all the information to us. The second item was an updated lease agreement that includes a language of parking space number to six, three spots per unit. The lease agreement has been updated and was submitted to town staff with the correct number of parking spaces to match what's on the plans. The third item was an on-site manager addendum document for the lease. So basically this use requires to have an on-site manager or a manager who would live in the building, like a resident manager. They have since submitted a documentation to us as well. The fourth item is updated site plans showing the parking shifting westward and additional plantings along the parking area and hitching post road as well as parking signage detail. They did update the plans to include the signage detail. They did shift the parking more westward away from the property line. And I believe that was the suggestion of Mr. Meadows during that public hearing to do so. And they propose additional plantings along the eastern portion of the parking area to block headlights from hitting Atkins Farm, which is on the eastern border of that property. They have since submitted those site plans to us and then also is included in the board's packet. Then the last item they had to submit was updating the management plan, which includes resident manager, language on resident manager, and then updating any landscaping information. The applicant has done both of those and submitted the updated management plan as such. All five of those revisions, the documents pertaining to them were included in the board's packets. And Mr. Chairman, that's pretty much all that was required. And the applicant did submit all the information to us. They also submitted a change in the lease regarding a number of guests at any time. 10 per unit. So that's highlighted in the list as well. Okay. Ms. Song, do you feel you wish to discuss this? Is there anything you need to first identify yourself and give your address and let us know if you need to speak to this? Oh, I mean, what should I say? Well, it seems pretty straightforward, but if you feel a need to speak to it at all, you may. But I mean, I think it's pretty straightforward what you've submitted and comports with what we asked for in the special permit process. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, every progress was not easy on me, but here we are. You guys actually helped me really a lot of idea that I supposed to follow. And then I hope that Ben, I thought that he's gonna join us, but if these are all the file edited file, actually help my plan. So, yeah. And then the other thing I wanna edit that you guys was actually asking about, you know, bees and birds or butterfly, those kind of a nature thing. But I don't know you guys already went there or not, but it has a lot of like, you know, for Cecilia and then Lilac and already Perennial there. But right now it's been on a pretty long time. It doesn't show beautyness, but I will actually keep it as my house, you know, the other actually project that I actually finished it with a, you know, 52-stage coach and then maybe, you know, all neighbor is actually really glad that I am doing it. So maybe this property will be the same. So I'm not just, you know, try to finish it off and then gone. I will be, I actually live in Emmer's. I, you know, before actually I told you I'm the resident here, I do care about Emmer's. So that property, you will see that I am gonna do, which is it's gonna be really nice looking. Thank you, Ms. Hong. Would you just give us your address for the record? Say it again? Just give us your address for the record. Oh yeah, yeah. So 485 Pine Street, Emmer's message to Cecilia, 1002. Well, you don't live there right now. You live on Cecilia. Yeah, yeah, I live in 52-stage coach road, Emmer's message to Cecilia, 1002. Thank you. All right. I have no further questions of the applicant. Does anybody else have anything? I think, yeah, Ms. Marshall. Just a question. And I'm new to this project. I wasn't done there earlier. So I just don't know whether an onsite manager, I'm looking at the addendum and the responsibilities for this person. Is this person responsible for enforcing the noise, like if people are making noise that it's too loud, to ask them to turn it down so the neighbors aren't calling? Yeah, sure. Sure, okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And then, I actually have the onsite manager, plus I live in, I live myself in Emmer's, it's only 10 minutes away. So all other property is trying to be under control whenever I had a complaint. I'm actually really actively involved there. Okay, thank you. Sure. All right. Mr. Wachila? So I don't tend to ask a lot of questions, but mostly just bring up statements of facts. So I just want to remind the board that for this specific action, the only thing you really have to do is just take a vote. And it's a simple majority. So that means at least the three out of five members have to vote yes to approve these update documents. And then Ms. Song can go ahead and pursue a building permit to start construction on the units. I did entertain a motion to approve the documents. So moved. Is there a second? Second. All right, it's moved and seconded any further discussion. If not, the vote occurs as Mr. Wachila said, it only requires three positive votes. Chair votes aye. Mr. Meadows? Aye. Mr. White? Aye. Ms. Marshall? Aye. Mr. Sloveter? Aye. Unanimous, motion carries. Ms. Song, you have your documents approved. You can get your building permit. Thank you so much. Good luck to you. Thank you. Thank you. Great. Now I'd like to return to our last item for the evening. I know Mr. Moore, the building commissioner has been able to join us. And I'm glad because sometimes dealing with covert dwellings becomes complicated and between our two robs, we'll have all the information we need and all the help we need to make a decision on this. The next order of business is ZBA FY2024-02, Josie DeAngelis and Magnus Wenmeier requests for a special permit under section 3.3241 and 9.22 of the zoning bylaw to change the use and expand a non-conforming structure with two family residents into a converted dwelling unit with three units into a converted dwelling with three units at 65 Taylor Street, Matt 14B, parcel 80, RG, general residents, zoning districts. There was a site visit on Monday at which we walked the property from the exterior. We looked at the building itself, the two front units. We looked at the exterior of that. We observed the connector, which is between the house and the garage and the barn and observed the roof that had collapsed on the connector. We observed the barn and we looked at the condition of the exterior, I think they're called kingboards and looked at the condition generally of the roof in that as well. We walked around the property to see how close it was to the neighbors and the reason for its non-conformity, pre-existing non-conformity to the zoning bylaws and the requirements. And lastly, we also observed where there was concern at one point about drainage, where the pipe was and how there's going to be a rain garden in its place at per suggestion of the public works of Jason Schiel of the Public Works Department. We asked a lot of questions about parking. We observed where the parking was and where there was gonna be parking in the barn and parking along the property. And I think there was some questions about clarifying what the number of cars and where those cars would be parked. That seems to be what I remember from that site visit. Is there anything that other people wish to mention in terms of the site visit? Rob, you had some questions that you shared with all of us. And I think I covered them. Maybe I missed one. Let me just take a quick look, Mr. Chairman. I don't think there's anything you missed, but I am just gonna double-check on that just to be safe. Okay, so it looks like in terms of the questions, you hit the number of cars parked in the driveway. I believe there was a question about the height of the first floor for the connector because Mr. Slovidar noticed that it was about five feet off the ground when we went to go see it. He just wanted clarification on how high that first floor is gonna be from the grounds. I believe the applicant mentioned there was gonna be a crawl space underneath of the first floor, which is supposed to be turned into a kitchen. And then lastly, there was a question about inviting their builder architect to be present during the public hearing, which I believe their builder is gonna be on their contractor. So that's pretty much all the questions I had written down during the site visit. And I think you hit them all, Mr. Chairman. All right, there's no other questions to be raised. I wanna note the submissions. From the Z, we have ZBA FY 2024-01, an application form, an application packet, Project Summary Lighting Plan, Garbage and Recycling Plan, Landscape Plan, Storm, Water Drainage, Sign Plan, and Parking Plan. Bicycle Storage, Management Complaint Response, Form, Sample Lease, Rental Application Form, quote from the fire service group for the sprinkler system, a map showing the three family homes within 1 1 1⁄16 of a mile, and map showing all three family homes in Amherst. For ZBA FY 2024-02, we have Plans, Sheets 0.02 C-2, which include a title page, existing site, site plan, lighting, setbacks, converted dwelling calculations, footwork calculations, basement, first floor, second floor, loft and roof plan, north and east elevations, south and west elevations, sections A3 and A3.0 and A3.1 sections, dated 410-23, wall sections, existing basement plan, first floor, second floor, existing north and east elevations, existing south and west elevations, existing sections, a drainage plan designed by Berkshire Group, revised 828-2023, and a drainage plan designed by Berkshire Design Group, dated 621-2023, and revised 828-2023. Have there been any other submissions or any public comments I've picked and seen on the website? So I didn't get any public comments sent to me about this, and then the comments received from town staff was only from Jason Skeels, which was included in the project application report. Other than that, I do not have any other comments or submissions are given to me prior to this project application report being created. Great. I think that summarizes all the material that we've received, and I guess it provides us now the opportunity to listen to the applicant to see if they wanna how they wish to present this special permit application. So can you put them, I guess it would be Mr. Wenmeier and the builder, who is that? So I do not know the name of the builder, but I'll promote Mr. Wenmeier to be a panelist. They have to accept that invitation, and then they can tell us who their builder is if they're on the call. Please give us your names and address, please. We are Joe D'Angeles Wenamir and Magnus Wenmeier, 47 Gray Street, Amherst, Mass. Great, thank you. And did you bring your, did you folks also have your builder? Just give me a call. Mike Stoltz should be there. I see, do not see a Mike Stoltz. I see Michael Pinsky, Kathleen Bridgewater. I don't see him on the call. I don't know if you wanted to contact him or quick, just in case, or if you wanted to move forward that I'm just totally up to you. Well, we can proceed without him, but he wasn't supposed to be here. I'll just, I'll text him real quick and see. Okay. We have a Kathleen Bridgewater and a Simskaya Dami and then Michael Pinsky. No, his sons are Tyler and Cody. We'll give him a note and then you can start with a description of the project and what you intend to do. Okay. And just a heads up, Josie and Magnus, you do have screen sharing capability. So if you guys had any documents or plans you wanted to show on your screen, you definitely could. Or during your presentation, if you wanted me to pull up anything like from your plans, just let me know and I can do that for you. Oh, that would be super. Thank you. I'll ask you to do as well as you manage. So I'm Josie of the Magnus and Josie. And so it's about the 65 Taylor Street and to do something with that barn that is in very poor condition. And so we have the architectural plans and I know there was a question about parking and I don't know where to go with this. We'd like to build a third unit there that will be owner occupied. We're gonna abide by all building codes and everything including with getting the whole thing sprinkled with water sprinklers that will be retrofitted throughout the house, including the existing two family home that's there now. What else? I'm sorry. I guess it would be helpful, Mr. Angeles and Mr. Wenmeier. Just your goal is to increase the number of units, dwelling units you have by one. Yes. So that's where you wanna do that and how do you wanna do that? And then we'll talk about the parking after you go through briefly what you wish to do with the barn and the converter. Okay, great, yes. So we'd like to add a third dwelling unit in place of where the barn and connector are. So actually in the footprint of those structures and retain the structure that's there, the framing and things like that. But of course reinforce it so that way it's engineered properly so that way it can support the structure. And it'll be three bedrooms, one and a half baths and... Okay, and from your view, are you expanding the footprint of the building of the new, not the new, but of the barn or the connector? Yes, both the barn and connector will be brought out by about five feet from where the front of those units would be which would be the east facing wall of the structure. That is all. And then I guess, I don't wanna just disrupt your presentation but maybe this is helping you. And if it isn't, but I'm trying to facilitate this. The other thing that we have to know is how much, how many square feet you intend to add from the connector and the barn to what is the existing square footage. So how much new living space, square footage do you intend to add to your structure? Okay, I'll have to look at, I have our plans up here now. So I think right here, isn't that it? I believe that's on our plans on page seven. On page- We're sharing our screen right now. Oh, we are? Yep. Here we go. Yes. Actually on the plan it's 0.6, page 0.6. And it shows up here in the box at the top, the existing footprint and how that will change. And I think the key there is the habitable space resulting from new building footprint. That's what the, it all comes down to is my understanding and that's at 6%. So let's go through that. Can we go through that calculation of 6% again? Yes. So the gray area that's over here on the other side of the screen, I'm moving my mouse, I hope you can see that. That gray area represents the footprint being extended from where it exists right now. And that calculation of 6% is based on this footprint. It's scrolled down a little bit there. But I guess, so that's the new, and so that's the new. That's the only area of the footprint that's being extended for habitable space. Right, but what I was under the impression is that the current garage is two floors and you're going to have, and you're gonna have two floors in the connector and the garage is gonna have two floors plus a loft. So the square footage of the building is more than, would be more than 6%, is that right? The number of space that you have for livable space inside the building is gonna expand by more than 6%. Correct, yes. It's the new building footprint that's associated with habitable space increasing by 6%. But the existing building footprint and all the habitable space will also increase, of course, as well. That's in this box right here, sweetie. Can you read that for me? Because I'm, so the footprint expansion, that's the new footprint, habitable space resulting from, and that's habitable space resulting from the new building footprint. So I think we're on the wrong page, because we need to. I think this is right. I think this, so basically. But we need a number. Well, I guess, well, you know, we'll return to the, I don't want to bog us down here if you have other things you want to. Okay, so these areas here that I'm relighting right now. I don't know which one corresponds to which. There are three spaces here. This is the second floor of the, it is the loft of the barn. This is the first floor livable space of the barn. And this is the first floor of the connector. The second floor of the connector is not affected by the additional footprint. Because it's not affected by the footprint, but it's total square, it's increased total square footage there. Right, yeah, exactly. I know you're looking for the total square footage. I know we have it in our, in our architectural plan. Sorry, it's a lot to. Yeah, okay. So here, oh, yeah. Yeah, that's good. There's really two, there's two things to consider there's footprint and there's square footage. And that's, I guess what we're trying to, I'm trying to get a number for that. All right. And cause that does deal with how you, how you consider a converted dwelling. It's an important calculation for that as well. Miss, did I see a hand up from somebody, Mr. Mora? Yeah, I just, suggestion to Magnus and Josie, if you go back one page to sheet five on your plans, that's a good diagram to talk about total square footage. So that's the habitable space calculations. And it's broken down by the unit. And I think you can go through how the yellows, the new square footage and the numbers are right there on that table. That's the beginning of how you start to create the calculation that you need to, that's related to the footprint that you've already started talking about. Thank you so much. I get lost in these plans. I appreciate it. All right. So now are you still seeing our screen? Yep. We got it. There we go. So there we have, as Rob Mora very gracefully pointed out, the yellow on this page indicates new living space, new habitable space. And so on the first floor, we're gonna have a total of 292 square feet of the second floor, a total of 932 square feet. And the loft of 265. And so the total habitable space will be 1489 square feet. And that represents the yellow portion of what's on this page. And so the existing square footage of units one and two is 3672 minus 1489. Correct. Yes. All right. And so you increase by whatever that percentage is of gross habitable space. Okay. All right. I'm done interrupting your presentation. No, no. Interrupt more, interrupt more, because yeah, this is what we'd like to do. The building is deteriorating and we would really like to shore it up, get it all safe and well constructed and move forward as swiftly as we can. I've already asked a couple of questions. You want to stop? I'm assuming you're done with your presentation and we can ask questions from the board. So are there members of the board who have questions? Not, I think I don't about the living space. No, just about the application itself. About anything about it? Oh, okay. Well then just to go back to the parking for a moment, I think what was confusing to us when we visited was that we saw cars parallel park between the two trees at near the beginning of the driveway, but what the very first page of your plan shows, so 0.0 is the plan is to have one space that's a parallel parking space between the trees. It looks like four new spaces further along outside and then you have two in the garage. So that's the seven, yeah? Yes, and I got an answer from my architect about that. Okay. And the reason is that the way the cars are parked there now like when you were there, their headlights are facing the back of the house. Yeah. That's on the other side of the fence. And so given that we have so much room for parking, he said we should just have a parallel parking right there because then the headlights won't be shying into anybody's residence. And then since we have so much room at the back of the driveway add four additional parking spaces there on the diagonal. So they're all gonna face the existing plantings that we have there. And again, to avoid shining the headlights into anybody's house. Right, okay. That was his answer. Got it. Thank you. And is that protocol for parking contained in a document? Yeah. It should be in the plan that you have. So exactly as the submission is from the architect would be what we're gonna follow. So I'm seeing, all right, one, I've got five parking spaces. I'm looking at C1, is that correct? Is that what I should be looking at? 0.0, the very first front of the set. Yeah. Okay. 0.0. And then, yeah, if you... Yeah, we said... 0.2 actually. So you have one parallel parking space between the two trees. Yes. And then you have two, three, four and five angled at the back of the, I'm not in the middle of your property, not the back of your property. Right. And you have two in the barn. Yes. So you have a total of seven. Yes. Okay. So you have to amend your plan to have it. Because you said at some point you have eight and some point you say 10. So... No, this all has these fives. This, and when we were talking about it, I was just like, well, we have room for more, but this is what we're gonna follow what the architect recommends. So there's no amendment. That's... So you have to, all right, you'll have to live with that. If this is approved, that you have to live with those parking. And I think you can work with staff. I think there's some places where the parking numbers vary from that. It's just a matter of making that consistent throughout your presentation and your application. Yes. I agree. With Bochilla. One thing I would recommend to the board that you can always make a possible condition is that if you ever wanted to increase number of parking spaces on site, that they could submit updates set of plans and bring it back to the board at a public meeting. If that's something the board want to consider in case they might need more parking spaces and learn that redesign their parking layout might be beneficial to them. I don't know if the board wanted to entertain that as possible condition or if that's something that you want to keep in mind figure out to bring it up. You can, they can always do that. They don't need, we don't need a condition for that. They can come back to the board without having a condition. Ms. Marshall. I wonder if some of the confusion around the parking spaces is due to the fact that two of them are inside. So it may not always be clear if we're talking about exterior spaces or just the total number of cars that can be parked on the property. So. Yeah. So all I notice in the project application report page three or page five of 18, there'll be 18 parking spots with two spots inside and six running along the driveway. That's just a wrong number. And I guess it has to be, we have to, and then staff can confirm that. Yeah. So we have to just make sure that it's all consistent all the way through. Okay. That's all that's about. All right. And you need two spaces per unit and you have a sufficient number there. All right. Ms. Marshall. Yeah. I just speak to confirm something that I think you said, speaking to the applicants during our site visit is that this new unit will be on our occupied. Yes. Yeah. Mr. Wachila. I have two things. So the first thing is I wanted to say that the existing structure is considered a non-conforming structure because it encroaches on the side yard and front yard setback. So one thing the board has to do when it's making its findings is that it has to make a finding under 9.22. And Steve, I did include that in the project application report under findings, all the sections that the board has to go through because of the fact that they're doing any work to a non-conforming building. The board has to make the finding that it won't significantly disrupt the character of the neighborhood and you're essentially granting them permission to move forward with doing any reconstruction on a non-conforming structure. Nothing about the setbacks are really gonna be able to prevent it from going forward because they're not encroaching further into those setbacks. They're actually gonna be building more on the other side where they have more room to do so. But again, the bylaw kind of is worried in the way that you have to make that finding or for them to even do anything at all. And the other thing I wanted to ask is that going through the permitting history, there was a demo delay that the applicants filed for with the Historic Commission. I believe the applicant also has a demolition permit that was issued to them as well. So or at least you're in the process of doing so. So I was wondering if the applicant could speak to that and just talk about the status of that demo delay and what the situation is. Absolutely. That was years ago in 2016, I wanna say when we were working with Russ Wilson, a different builder and he had a bunch of ideas that he sold to us but ultimately we didn't find that we wanted to continue working with him and pursue that project whatsoever. I happen to really love Taylor Street, our property on Taylor Street. And so I didn't follow what he wanted. Didn't follow his recommendation and I'm really glad that I didn't. And now I have a builder, sorry that he's not here, he did text them, who is willing to work with me the way that I want to be worked with and I want our property to be worked with. Russ had a significant disregard for it. So I didn't pursue it. So one of the questions that we have to deal with in the converted dwelling is the increase in gross square footage. Generally for a converted dwelling, you have 20% increase in gross square footage. There's an exception, you can have up to 40% increase in gross square footage. So resulting in habitable space if you meet two or five different requirements and for your property, you're right about, you may even be a little bit over but my calculation is that you're at or just barely above the 40% number in gross new habitable space. But isn't it due to expanded footprint? Well, this is why I'm really glad we have our two Rob's here to try to explain this because this is confusing to me and I hope that maybe they can, maybe Rob Mora can you explain to us the 3.3241 converted dwelling and the increase in gross habitable space and the five different, two of the five different criteria which has to be met in order to approve a special permit. Yeah, and this is a tricky part of the bylaw this particular section, but I want to start with what the applicants proposing and because they're proposing a very modest increase in habitable footprint resulting in habitable space and that was in the sheet that they started talking to you about their page six of their plans. So the way that that works, how they're proposing it is that they calculate the total resulting habitable space after all the improvements are made and that deducts spaces that are not counted in that calculation, like common entrances or stairways, those are not included in that figure. And then they figure out how much new footprint is being proposed and that's their 222 square feet. So the resulting habitable space is that 3,600 square foot figure and they're adding 222 square feet of new footprint and that gets 6%. That's what they're proposing. I think where there's question is that there's a significant amount of structural work being done to a portion of the barn and connector that can only make you wonder, is this reconstruction or is it existing? And they're proposing that it's existing and they can get testimony to this, but how I understand what they've told me is that they're proposing that their builder is going to leave the structure mainly in place and improve it. We've been round and round about this over months with the applicant because it was hard, we wanted to understand it as well. So that's the proposal. If that isn't the case or if the board finds that the level of work being done is constitutes demolition and reconstruction, then you get into that 20% and possibly 40% with the additional criteria being met. So I don't know if you wanna say that until you decide if you actually need to have that conversation because the application is proposing a 6% increase, so much below the 20% threshold. And the 6% depends upon a judgment that this is not new construction that it's really shoring up the existing building and not having new constructions, is that right? We're close, the language in the by-law is demolition and reconstruction. That's how it's termed in the by-law. There's two instances where the square footage, the new square footage counts in that calculation. It's new building footprint, which is the 222 square feet and reconstruction after demolition occurs. Those, whatever that habitable space is of that reconstructed area, those are the two figures that would count in that calculation. If the board feels like this is too much work to not to, you know, and triggers the demolition reconstruction clause. Boy, that's, from my standpoint, that's a hard judgment for a layman to make. I mean, to look into the, and say, what's gonna happen? And it seems like that's more a question for, you know, builder and for you and the staff to look at this and say, this is more demolition reconstruction or it's kind of an addition. I see a lot of that. Yeah, I understand. Rob. You're not missing anything. You're hung up in the same place we were months ago. And, you know, we talked it through multiple times with the applicants here. And, you know, it's really, you know, we've agreed. I mean, the application moved ahead because we agreed that it could be done. And, you know, as long as we had that commitment and they brought in their builder who's, you know, up to the challenge, I suppose, to do it this way, you know, we certainly, like I think anyone else looked at inside, oh, it's gonna be easier to just tear it down, start over. But that's not what they wanna do. So, you know, we've been through that. The, you know, the permit is essentially conditioned on that process that really, you know, delicate alteration of that space, careful to not fall out of the bounds of what this by-law allows. And if they do that, we felt like they could move ahead under this provision and not have to get into the calculating the 20 and 40 figures. And I think mainly we also thought that it wouldn't, it might not even, you know, qualify if that was the case because of the area calculation. So it almost felt like they have to do it this way to stay within the converted dwelling requirements. Okay, got it. So I'm looking to see if people had questions, board members have questions. Ms. Marshall. Yeah, I'm also surprised that I gather there's no technical definition of demolition. To me, it means you knock the whole thing down, which is not the intention here, but I am wondering if there's a risk to the applicant if as their builder is carefully taking off what needs to be, if the whole thing just collapses, if it's not as sound as believed, are they just going to be stuck, unable to proceed or what they would have to redesign it and come back? I don't know, I just wonder. I can speak to that. Can you, yeah, go ahead, Ms. Daniels. That's exactly the conversation I had with Mike Stoltz, our contractor, how to do this. And he said, oh, what you do is you, he would have his sons, Tyler and Cody come and brace the entire structure, brace the walls and the framing of the structure. And at that point, with it all braced, he would start to excavate and adding for the concrete foundations and so on. And at that point, begin shoring up the walls, adding additional framing and structures, poles, they're not poles, they're posts. Posts, yeah, yeah. To make it all beautiful and strong and retain the beautiful posts that are already there as well. So it'll all be braced very carefully. So that way it can be retained. And then once the foundation is poured, at that point, he'll start shoring up the entire structure and adding new materials. So, go ahead, Mr. Sluiver. Okay, so now that we're talking about the difference between reconstruct the proposal that's being advanced and the idea of demolition and then rebuilding, I'm trying to understand more clearly of how it applies to this structure. The connector, having been to the site on Monday, that there doesn't seem to be much of the connector that can actually not be new construction. The headspace on the first floor is inadequate to be a kitchen facility. So there has to be a new floor and I can't, I, at least from my observation, can't see it being the existing floor. So it seems to me that the connector is going to be essentially completely removed. I recognize the intention to salvage original building materials and kingboards and refinish them and all that. But for the connector portion of this, it seems to me that it is demolition, it's a tear down with salvaging of building materials and then it would be reconstructed. And I'm not sure where the garage, the barn portion, which would become the garage and the upper floor and the loft storage space, how much of that will be quasi-original. The building, the connector and the barn are in such bad condition, especially the connector, that it doesn't seem to me that there's a lot of modification and reworking of an existing structure. It seems more like a tear down. So I guess I have to ask Mr. Mora in this case for his opinion on whether or not this plan that's being proposed is actually feasible in terms of bracing and essentially, I understand the footprint wouldn't change, but how much of the existing barn building will be there at the end? The whole thing seems to me like new construction with some wonderfully salvaged original materials. But Mr. Mora, how does it seem to you? So if I'm allowed to ask, am I allowed to speak to Mr. Mora? Yeah, absolutely, yes. Okay. Okay. You just did. Well, I didn't want to not go through the official channel and go through Mr. Chairman Judge. Okay. I'm referring your question to Mr. Mora. Thank you so much. My review and understanding of the project is solely based on the plans, not by any site visits. So you certainly have that advantage to this discussion. I believe that it could be done in theory, according to the plan, the way it's being proposed, talking with the owners, talking with the contractor and the architect, it could physically be done. Certainly, if you're what you just described with the connector, that could very well raise question to whether or not the connector square footage should be calculated differently and counted as reconstruction. I'd have to see it myself to have an opinion on that. But I do think it might be helpful the builder was able to explain to the board directly what it is that they're going to do. And I think that would probably be the most convincing information coming from the source of who's gonna do the work. Yeah. Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Slobber. Four of the five of the panelists who are on this call were at that site on Monday. And I'd like to know if anybody thinks that my view of the connector part of the building is off base. I didn't see much there that can be salvaged or won't be modified to the point where it would essentially be new construction. I'm not trying to split hairs on what is new and what is not new, but I didn't see much of the connector that's going to be there at the end. Yeah, it's hard to, I have the same impression but I don't have the expertise that a builder would have or, but I could not figure out how, Mr. White, do you have a impression? Yeah, I mean, I realize we're kind of getting into almost a philosophical argument of the thesis ship at this point. At what point does it consider, you know, stop being his ship? But from what I saw, once again, I would kind of repeat what you were saying, Chairman Judge, I don't have the specific expertise to speak to that. However, one thing that stands out to me was when we were on the site visit, the applicant kept speaking about how much pride they had in the American chestnut that's throughout the unit and how much of that they want to maintain, how much they want to utilize that. So, I mean, I, like I said, without any specific expertise would see that as still maintaining, you know, the current position or current bill. Mr. Angeles or Mr. White, Wenmeier, you had raised your hands and you wanted to respond, please do. Oh, thank you. Yeah, I see your point about the connector. It's in very bad shape. Largely the front portion of it is in bad shape but that's also part of the proposal is to build that out by another five feet. So that doesn't matter so much. As far as retaining it, it shares a wall with the barn and shares another wall with the house. So it can be retained, absolutely. And then the back wall is supported by a concrete foundation, which is also going to be retained. And to address the height issue of the building, how do you share? I'm gonna have my husband get to share a screen because I have a drawing here that, yeah, here it is. So on, I don't know, can you see our screen? Yes, can. So right now, if you see this line right here, it gets to, that's the height of the floor right now, the existing connector. Underneath the connector originally was like a larder. So it was a dirt floor and something very shallow. And this dotted line here represents the height of the floor. And so obviously with the construction, we're gonna have to raise the height to make it habitable. And so this drawing here gets to where the floor will be and the entrance and it addresses also the height and also the existing floor inside the connector that will have to come out and be raised, obviously, to meet code for building. But the three walls of the connector, the left, the right and the back of it are gonna be able to be retained, but you're exactly right. The front of it is already speaking to my builder saying, take me down. And the roof will have to be new. Yes, the roof will have to be new too. Yes, the roof line of the entire structure will have to be new. And on this page, page A-3.1, it shows the existing roof line that's there now and what the application is to change that. So we're keeping the same pitch and things like that. So other questions, Mr. Slocuter. Well, I certainly see your point that the common wall between the connector and the existing dwelling and the connector and the current barn. I'm looking at your diagram here. I take your point that those will remain. I mean, a question could be asked if it's a common wall, then the wall is as much part of the other two, the dwelling and the barn as it is of that. But within the space of the connector, you refer to raising the floor, but you're not raising the existing floor. You're going to put down a concrete base and then build a new floor and a new roof and new supports. So everything between the two common walls that you mentioned is going to be new construction. Is it not? No. It's not. No, the existing framing that there now is going to stay. The framing on the common walls. The framing on the common walls, yes, is going to stay and the framing at the back of the structure is going to stay and the concrete foundation wall at the back of the structure is going to stay. So that way three sides of it are going to stay. Will they be extended? Absolutely. Will they be reinforced? Yes, they will, but they're going to stay for the whole thing. But the front of it- I wasn't sure from our time at the site if the back wall was going to stay because the back wall of the barn is in has gaps and it's in bad shape also, that you were going to salvage. The back wall of the connector, you're not touching it? Well, we're going to be taking off the Kingboard that's there, but we're leaving the framing. I see. I'm putting the Kingboard back? Yes. I see. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Of course. Mr. Meadows. We don't have- Having built three houses myself by hand, no electricity, and having lived in another house that was the victim of a fire at one point, not in Wendell, that had nothing left of it, but a few framing members, part of the roof and plastic on the walls. It's a little uncomfortable during the winter. It's amazing what you can do with just a few existing pieces of structure. And it never turns out to looking exactly new or being feeling new, but it has a feeling of what it existed prior. And I think that as was indicated, this is a philosophical discussion, not really a practical discussion. I wonder, are we focused on something that can be resolved if we look at the 40% number and the meaning of the two of the five criteria? Now, we maybe don't have to be focused on how much of this is new and how much demolition. And if we look at 3.3241, where it says normally it's only 20% of habitable space, the result of demolition and subsequent reconstruction, but you can have up to 40% of gross square footage of resulting habitable space may be permitted and no more than 20% of new building footprint. And you haven't hit the new, that 20% number, new building footprint, remainder being the result of demolition and reconstruction. If you meet one of the two of five different criteria. And so I'm wondering if we can, that that is a way to permit this project rather than trying to figure out if this is a lot of demolition and less than 20% demolition. And Rob, I guess, and for Rob or Rob, is that something we should be looking at or the applicant should be looking at? Rob, more of your first. That's how you, I'm meeting yourself there. I guess I'd only suggest you look at that if you feel you have to because if you just very roughly take, or back to that, that colored floor plan and you took the square footage of the connector and barn unit three square footage, that's over 40% by itself. And I'm not sure if that captures everything because of the additional footprint on the lower level might add a little bit more to that number. And if I recall, that's probably where we got stuck way back when we were looking at this as well. So if you go that direction, it probably will require some redesign to make it fit to the maximum 40%. I see. Yeah, I did back to the envelope. I came up with 40.55% and that was just how the number is given there. Not, I mean, it was close, but it was over 40%. Mr. Wendmeyer, you had your hand raised. Did you wanna opon it? Well, we've gone around this a number of times. And so we feel that the presentation that we've made is according to the numerous discussions we've had about how to best proceed with this. I should add that until just a few years ago when we started this process, there was wall-to-wall carpeting in that connector and it was not super well-maintained, but it was certainly livable space and you walked around there inside safely. And I started gutting it when we started the process and it has, of course, deteriorated since and it's been a long road to get to where we are now. Well, it seems that if we just look at, if we don't use the exception, you have a difficult job and making sure that should some kind of catastrophe happen in the building, the remodeling process that you may end up with more new construction, more demolition than you anticipated. And you'd have to come back and that's a risk you're taking on, I think. I trust our contractor. Well, yeah, but true, and I can't substitute my judgment for yours or my trust for yours, but you should know that there's a risk that it might run a follow this and project, if we approve this and you're not living up to the constraints of the special project, special permit, you may run into trouble trying to complete this. You know, what would happen if they exceed that number, Rob? I mean, Rob or Rob, it would be, the construction would have to stop, I would guess, until another determination or a special permit is granted. Is that right? Well, there's no other path to do this. This is it. There isn't another use classification so they have to make it work. So, you know, I guess I'm going into this with their intention is to follow the by a lot and you know, the contractor is committed to it and that's, you know, that's how we go into this project. Yeah. I really wish the contractor was on to. Trust me. And I know, and I'm not, and I mean, I admire the, your desire to do this, but I would really like to have the builder speak to us. I think that would make a lot of, make us feel better and more confident in what he's doing. Ms. Marshall. I reached out to him. He said he would do this. He committed to it yesterday. I sent him a contact. I know. Ms. Marshall. Well, I just, yeah, during the site visit, Ms. DeAngelo has told us about the delays because of the pandemic because their architect died. I mean, and the longer the delay, and then you said a tree was like resting on top of the roof. I mean, the longer it takes to start renovating it, the harder it's going to be. I appreciate that. I don't know if you, Mr. Chair, you said by your calculation you got 40.55. Yeah. Is that a hard, is that something, because that's like so little kids, is that something we have the power to wait? It's, I would say. No, we can't wait. No, that's not. It's a 39.99. It wouldn't be a lot of redesign, but they would have to, if my number, and my number is the fact the envelope number, you know, you have to. Okay, but the principle, the, yeah, okay. So if the applicant proceeds and the barn collapses, and Mr. Morris said there's no, they can't build a new to this plan, then they're stuck with the house and the connector and barn have to be just removed, demolished the demolition and remove it, I assume, which would be very sad because they add so much, that design adds so much to the character of the neighborhood. And it's the kind of thing we would like to be able to preserve. So, yeah, I guess I'm just saying, I hope they can make it work because it would be too bad to have to remove those structures. Agreed. As people who love Amherst and we see a lot of buildings go up that on our street, even that frankly, don't fit any kind of, you know, historic character, not that, you know, we would like to, it seems from our perspective, like a no-brainer, we have a garage, we would like to retain it and make something useful with it and make it look like it was a barn in the past and people can look at it and see, hey, this was part of the neighborhood and the history maybe of it, then, yeah. You know, I think we've talked this particular issue, partial issue through quite a bit, I'd like to open it up to other, if there are other concerns, questions board members have of the applicant and then we can come back and we'll come back and go over everything again, but is there other issues or questions that board members have? I'm just looking through my notes here. Oh, I had one question. So the screening of, you have a challenge fence that borders on your property and that you have vegetation in that screen, that chain-linked fence that would serve as a screen for the lights, for headlamps, is that correct? And I didn't focus on that during the site visit, but is that, what happens in the winter with that foliage? Does it disappear and the screening goes away or what is it, is it Ivy in the, the running along with chain-linked fence? How does that provide screening when it's winter? Great question. So it's dense with concord grape vines and they're 100-year-old vines. They're gnarly and wonderful and they produce wonderful grapes. So if you want grapes, come to my house. So that's really dense there. And in the winter, they do, you know, the leaves fall off and things like that. So there was two things that we, that our architect told us about. One is angling the cars at the back of the driveway to kind of case more foliage that's there. There's, you know, some small shrubs and things like that. And there's a tree there too. And the other is with the direction of the cars, they actually face the back of somebody's garage, not a resident, not a house or anything like that, no windows. And the other thing is that we can get those slats that go through the chain-linked fence that, you know, they're, you can't see through them. They're plastic slats. You just leave them through and that also would help. So in the winter, the slats would keep down on the light and we'll leave them there. And then in the spring, summer and fall, the vines are dense there. Okay. All right. Other questions, comments, thoughts from board members about this application? If not, let's turn to public comments and see if there's any, I don't think there's any public comment, any members of the public who are, and we've had no public comment registered. Have we robbed? Whatchilla? No public comment. Okay. And the only person we had in attendance decided to leave. So we have nobody in attendance anymore. All right. Well, it's back to us guys. I think our philosophical conversation drove them off. Yeah. Zoning 101 will put most people, most people want to go to another room. Ms. Marshall. So it's unclear to me whether, if we all believe this is, it's not demolition, it's repair and improvement or renovation, whatever. And it can be done. Is there still a question though, about meeting the square footage? Because, I don't think so. I think, correct me if I'm wrong, my two wrongs, but I think we don't think this is demolition and reconstruction. They fit within the 20% number and because it's only 6% footprint. I think that's correct. That's correct. Basically, this is new habitable square footage that didn't exist previously, but increased. So I guess it's the difference between the new square footage and the existing square footage. That's the number that's calculated in that percentage. So the difference is 6%, which is well below the 20. So in terms of just sheer square footage, it's not an issue. It's more about the percentage of the building that's gonna be demoed entirely and rebuilt from scratch is the way that at least I interpreted that section. Right, but my question is if we are satisfied that this is not a demo project, then it complies with the- That's right. That's correct. Thank you. It's really a, yeah, that's the issue. Do we, does the board need or can ask Mr. Moore to go visit it and give his opinion? Is that- We can ask that, but I'm not sure that that's the right role for Mr. Mora. Okay, that's- I'm not, I think his expertise would be welcome, but I think what is his job is to take what the builder says can be done and then make sure that it is, as long as it's not outrageously inaccurate or hyperbole, that he can complete that with the applicant and the builder's assurance. And if he doesn't, then I think it's Mr. Moore's responsibility to tell them to stop, I think. So it's not his job. You tell me. I don't wanna impose a restriction on your role, but that seems to me to be what's the correct approach. Yeah, I agree. That sounds fine. I think what we've heard enough here about is that there's a portion of the structure that will remain. And this board that has to make whatever interpretation they have to at the moment about demolition just needs to be satisfied that the amount of structure that you understand that's remaining and being built upon does not constitute demolition. And I think that's reasonable. I think you can be what Ms. Marshall had said, the complete removal to 50% and it's not defined. Our demo delay bylaw that we use for historic review calls that at 25% of any facade. So if you look at the entire facade of one wall of this building, you take the entire square footage, even that whole connector wouldn't equal 25%. So, but again, that's not the rule, but that's just a guy. So depending on what you're comfortable with, and like I said, we were comfortable to have the application move forward based on what the contractor's intentions are. Mr. Wachila. And also just to touch base on what was discussed earlier, if they get the special permit granted to them and their builder is confident that they can salvage the existing posts and not have to rebuild those from scratch and then make a good final product. If at any point during the process, for some reason the concrete footings decided to deteriorate or something just crumbles and it doesn't end up working after all, they have no choice but to demo the rest of the building or maybe even keep the barn as an accessory structure. I mean, that's just the reality of it. I mean, this permit is gonna be their only way forward to make this work, but also they have to make it work this way or else they can't really do it. And they have to salvage the barn as something else. I think they probably wouldn't be able to connect it's the main structure at all. Yeah, but that's a risk that they have. My question is that's a risk that they have to be willing to take. And I just wanna mention with the nodding I see from Mr. Angelo and I think from Mr. Weimar, I think you understand that, that you're taking that risk. I think it's important that you do know that if this should go forward. I wonder if does anybody on the board have further questions for the applicant? If not, I'd like to move into public meeting portion where we deliberate this and can talk a bit about it. But if we need additional information from the applicant, it's the time to get it before we move into public meeting. Okay. All right, so we're gonna move into the public meeting while keeping the public hearing open just in case we need to get more information. My opinion is I think this is a heroic undertaking on your part. And I also, and I think it's somewhat, I think it's admirable too. Trying to say that old building is wonderful. And it's clearly a boom to the neighborhood to get rid of what is a decrepit structure. My words, right now. And replace it with something that a owner-occupant will live in the neighborhood. It's three units, which is not, which is only permitted if you're owner-occupant. So I admire that as well. So I have a lot of admiration for what you're trying to do. I don't know that I would undertake it. I really wish your builder was here to make us more comfortable with what was going on. And I don't know if other members, and I hate to impose additional delays. And if I'm the only one that wishes the builder was here, then we'll just continue to proceed. But that would be helpful to us to know and it could give us some reassurance. But I don't wanna add to additional delays. You've had enough with builders dying and trees falling. And it's been going on for two years already. And I don't wanna overly delay this. But I'm inclined to wanna approve this, but I have this uncertainty that I think can only be answered. Maybe it won't be answered, but I think it could be answered if the builder was here. So that's where I'm coming from generally, is I'm supportive of this. I think it's heroic and admirable. And I'd like to be confident that you could do this as you said, Mr. Meadows. If you wanna compare it to something our previous applicant, if you recall the site visit there and a lot of our judgment that that house might have been better off torn down than it would be to cover it. And I think this is just as admirable and just as viable, maybe much more viable than that was. And we approve that one on the basis that that's, it's good for the community. It's good for the neighborhood. It's good for the town. And I think that's very similar here. It is good for the community. It is good for the neighborhood. And it's certainly good for the town to have this in place. I think that's a very good point. Well taken Mr. Meadows, Mr. Slaveter. Well, I suppose I would like to hear from the builder, but I don't consider it all that necessary. If we're considering going forward based on what the applicant is conveying that the builder has said would be done and that it is credible, I'm not 100% convinced that there is not an element of demolition here. But I was sort of struck when Mr. Wenemeyer said that the design of the building was to restore this sense, the historic sense of it, that it would be a barn-like building and that it would fit in well in the community. If we would approve this, which I'm also inclined to do, and it would go ahead under the definition not of demolition and rebuilding, but of modification or whatever the other category was, it seems to me that essentially 100% of the risk is on the applicants. And if they, with their vision of what they wanna do, which I also feel is good for the town and a positive development for the neighborhood, if they are confident enough to take the word and the plans of the builder and they're willing to go ahead with our approval and they assume 100% of the risk, if it goes wrong and it has to be completely torn down, then they will have two units that exist today and a place to plant a really large vegetable garden behind it. And I would certainly hope that is not what comes to pass, but they are the ones who are taking the risk. And that's a level of optimism that I probably don't share except for probably, but I mean, I share it on their behalf. If it was my property, I'm not sure it would be a project I wanna take, but I admire their tenacity and I think that their willingness to assume the risk on this project with the vision that they have for it is credible. I don't really need the builder. We've been told what the builder is representing. So yeah, it would be nice to hear from them, but I'm certainly willing to go ahead without him being present. Not just positive in your view. The builder's president isn't just positive to your decision is what you're saying, yeah. I don't need the builder here to make a decision. Especially because we're not really, as Mr. Morris said, there's only one way forward with this application. So we are faced with accepting the definition of this project as not being demolition and rebuilding. And if we're going to go ahead and the applicant's willing to go ahead with that at their risk, I give them credit for it. I don't need the builder to be present. It would have been interesting, but not essential. Thank you. You had your hand up. Yes. Yeah, so I as well am inclined to kind of move forward with this, I think today I agree with I think everyone that it would have been very nice to have had the builder on the call. Mr. Chair, would it be okay if I asked the applicant a question? Okay. So at the site visit, you pointed out the carrier pigeon holes with the redesign, or not redesigned, but with the build, will that be something that will be included? Because, and I'll tell you why I'm thinking of this. You were talking about maintaining the historic nature of the build and of the property. Just something that I thought of. Yes, I'm gonna be retaining those boards with the cutouts. And when I put back the King's board and the other vertical boards back to the finished structure, I'll be putting those back too. I think they're lovely. And Ms. Marshall. So what everyone else has said, I think it's wonderful that the applicants are willing to take this on and the sooner they get started the better. So I just want to prove this with all deliberate speed. I mean, if the builder were here, I mean, it wouldn't make me any more of an expert in judging this. So Mr. Morris put in a lot of time I gather and that's good enough for me. Okay. Other comments, deliberations, discussions? I guess the one thing I would say, I agree. And I hope this, I would like to see this go forward. And it's the reason that we, the judgment that we're called on to make, and it's hard is that based on our observation, do we think this is demolition and reconstruction or do we think it's building upon the existing structure? And we have to use that, we have that kind of judgment. That's what the zoning bylaw is asking us, the judgment they're asking us to make. And our job is to kind of protect the zoning bylaw in that we don't want to have somebody just assert, I'm going to be able to do this and not going to demolish very much. And they go in and demolish a whole lot and we just didn't know it. So we're trying to avoid that. I mean, that's the notion. I don't think that's what they intend or anything, but that's the role we have to play. And that's why our judgment as to whether this is realistically demolition and new construction or not is what the bylaw asks us to do. And I think looking at it, that it's reasonable for us to believe that this is not total demolition and total reconstruction, that it's reasonable for us to believe that this can be done with modern construction techniques. And we don't have to, and we can fulfill our responsibilities under the zoning bylaw by doing and making that determination. So that's how I come to my decision about this. And the reason that I'd like more confidence in that is because I don't really know what I'm, I don't really know it's my, just my judgment, but that's all the zoning bylaw really asks us to do is to use our best judgment. We have people that have rebuilt fire ravaged houses telling me that indeed this is not impossible to do. And that helps me as well. Mr. Meadows expertise helps me as well to get to that point. So I'm prepared to think that this is something that we should approve and go forward with. And I'd like to start that process that I'd like to hear from anybody else as anything else before we start the process of looking at conditions and looking at making findings and then deciding whether this should special, this application should be approved. Ms. Marshall. So I just, you raise the interesting, in my mind the interesting question of, well, so what happens during construction does anyone visit to make sure, in fact, it is being modified or renovated and not? You know, Ms. Marshall, there's going to be a number of visits by building inspectors and other kinds of inspectors, but their job is not to, I don't think their job is to look and say, how much is this reconstruction and not, I think they're looking and saying is the plumbing right, is the electrical right, is the insulation right, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So I don't know that there are people who are going to, whose responsibility it is to say, oh, is this going beyond, Mr. Mora, you tell me, maybe I'm wrong. Yeah, they will. You know, there will be concrete work right from the very beginning, you know, based on what we understand, there'll be structure still there. There'll be, you know, be supported, suspended so that work can occur underneath it. So I think it'll be very obvious to an inspector that, you know, that the efforts being made to retain the structure and build upon it, it is the building inspector's responsibility to see through any conditions that you put on this permit and the general provisions of the bylaws. So that is absolutely something that we're looking at when we're doing our inspections. I think there's going to be probably many opportunities to see it when you go into a project like this, that's usually not done, each of the steps are not done all at one time. Like if you're building a new building, maybe there's one foundation inspection for the entire foundation. This is probably going to be done in pieces and they'll be calling for us to look at portions so that they can bury, support, move ahead and so on. So I think there's going to be plenty of opportunity for the inspector to see that it's following through. And you certainly, the board can certainly put whatever conditions relative to that that they like, just reinforcing the provisions of the converted dwellings section. That's good to know. Thank you for the clarification. All right, I would like to then move to consideration of conditions as we always do, let's do consideration of conditions, then we can make our findings that we have to make based on the conditions and proceed that way. So looking at the project application report, the draft project application report, the first condition is standard, things have to be built as it was proposed to be built. And I think that's pretty straightforward. The second is that this remains, the second really says this has to remain in their ownership, if it does, if a new owner, they have to meet with the building commissioner to determine a further review whether the ZBA is needed. If it's needed, it comes before the ZBA at a public meeting. This is, in essence, the same provision that we've used and other, we're using now commonly in our residential permits. Third is the standard again that they have to be built to the, the room has to be labeled and used as labeled. The fourth says it has to be registered and permitted under the residential rental property by-law. The fifth says the approved management plan shall be followed by the property owner and any changes to this plan shall be returned to the ZBA at a public meeting. Six is no more than four unrelated individuals shall occupy each dwelling unit. Seven is all exterior lighting shall be downcast, light fixtures and dark side compliance. Number eight street numbers for both dwelling units shall be clearly marked with reflective signage. Nine parking shall occur on improved services only. The parking shall be maintained as needed. I think we wanna specify the number of parking spaces just so that we got it down. And I think that number is nine for the whole property. Let's do it again. We got five outside and two inside. So we got seven, all right. We got seven parking spaces as laid out on page 02. Rob, Wachilla, you will just note the page that it's laid out on. So we have the parking determined. Ms. Marshall, I saw your hand up there when I was looking up. About the, sorry, where was it? Oh, number eight street numbers for both dwellings. I don't understand that. There are three units. So two dwellings. There's the front building and the back building. The existing building is one dwelling. Okay. All right. And then the back one is the second dwelling. Okay, I'm not sure how that's all defined. No, you tell me. I was actually gonna ask the board. That might have been an error on my part. So we can always work to reward that condition. So condition eight, you could reward it differently. Or you can ask the applicant really quick if they had any ideas for how they want to do numbering of the house or the three units. I don't know if they're gonna do like unit one, two, three, or unit A, B, C and just have it all under one. So keep it as 65 Taylor street. And then maybe do 65 A, 65 B or how you're currently doing it now with your two rentals. If you're gonna, maybe if it's A, B for the first two, make the third one C or what the situation is. But I guess that condition should be rewarded to say any sort of address marker signage for the building should be clearly visible from the street. And I guess each of the units, the main entrances for each of the units shall also contain reflective signage as well. So you know which unit is which. Yeah. So I think that's the spirit of what we want here. Just, you don't have to decide tonight how you're gonna number them. But have reflective and visible markings and delineations there, okay? And Rob, you'll restructure that. Yeah, and I'll just say that in terms of like the street address, I'm gonna write in there as well that the front entrance facing the street shall also have the street number on it. So it says 65 on the front part of the building from the street with reflective signage. But then each unit entrance, I guess on the door or next to the door shall have each unit number or letter or whatever they're gonna go with. So that's how I'll redo that one to make it sound better. All right, we talked about nine. I just need some clarification on the difference between number four and number 10. Any dwelling unit on the property shall be rented. And then we said the property shall register with the residential rental program. Are those two separate acts, two separate things or is that the same or is that duplicative? Could you elaborate which conditions you're referring to against, Steve? That's my bad, I must stress that. Number four, any dwelling unit on the property being rented shall be registered in permitted in accordance with the residential rental property bylaw. Number 10, the property shall register with the residential rental program. I could eliminate condition 10 because it sounds redundant. I did copy and paste a lot of these from a different permit, so that's hard. Yeah, no, that's fine. So condition four basically states that shall be registered in permitted in accordance. Yep, yep, that's correct. So I'll take out condition 10. Number 11 is standards, you got it. I'm sorry, I'm still confused about that because there will be three, I mean, maybe I don't know what a dwelling unit is, but only two will be rented and the third is gonna be owner occupied, so. Correct. Mm-hmm. Any property dwelling unit on the property being rented, it says shall be registered in permitted. Sorry, thank you, sorry, my bad. And also, Mr. Chairman, could I ask the board which sheets that we should note in condition nine that talks about the number of parking spaces? I don't know if it was sheets, I guess 0.2, their site plan that shows the parking spaces if the board's okay with that, I can write that in as the sheet that I think that's the one I was looking at. 0.2 has, it identifies the parking spaces. Okay, all right, I'll note that. And I'll also tell you, I will remove condition 10 from that list as well. Great, all right. 11, as you said, is sort of boilerplate or standard, we're using it all the time. A 12, at least one of the dwelling units shall be owner occupied at all times. 13, any proposed signs for parking shall be designed in performance article related to zoning by-law, that's the signage area and the parking, the signage provisions and trash receptacles shall be screened from the public right of way. Conditions that suggested we may want to discuss how many persons are allowed on the property at all times with the applicant. And typically what we do is we ask, we don't do this without consultation to the property owners. So I do not remember if you have a limitation on a number of persons allowed on the property at any time in your lease. So people tend to say no more than X number of people can be on the property at any one time, the number and the amount of time that people can have overnight guests and visitors. And I don't know if that's in your lease or not. So can you describe that to us? Yeah, the number of people there at one singular time is not defined, but it is in the lease about people staying overnight or any extended stay or anything like that and how that would be dealt with. So that part is in the lease, but not a total number of persons there at any given time. So how many people, what's the overnight guest policy? How many people can be there in the lease? It's expected that nobody, no overnight guests will really be there very much. And if they stay for three consecutive nights, one person, I need to be notified. And at that point, we'll begin negotiating what's happening with the overnight guests. So that's delineated in the lease about people staying for consecutive nights or anything like that. But I don't have anything in the lease about total number of persons at any one time on the property. One of the things is that in residential areas, people like to have a limit so that the party, so if there's not parties. Now you're gonna be eventually the owner occupants and be managing this, but until that time at least. And typically that number varies between 10, 15 per dwelling unit. So you're looking at 10 or 15 people for a party. And that's what you look to control. We like to see that suggestion come from you as opposed to us prescribing something. Do you have, what number would you come up with? 15 per dwelling unit because it's for the women's crew team. Yep. And they just had their welcome meeting where they just sat around in a circle on the front lawn and went around sharing like what they did in the summer and what they're looking forward to this year. I think the crew captains live in the apartment and they don't have parties really because they're up so early. They're fantastic. So I- You may not always have that great tennis. No sir, those are wonderful tennis. I call everybody's parents. Yeah, I know you do. That's pretty amazing. So what you're saying is that you're looking at 15 per floor, 30 in total. Because I think the women's crew team is over 20 people. And so I- So let's, if you'd be comfortable with that, let's put a condition that says there's 15 people from each dwelling unit is a maximum number of people at any one time. Okay, so that's about, so just counting I guess in the rental units in the situation there'll be about 30 people total on the property at all times. Okay. So that'll be a condition and you're okay with that, right? That sounds fine to me, I'm absolutely. And you've discussed the overnight stays in the lease. Yeah. So I guess it makes sense, Mr. Chairman, to leave that out as a condition for overnight stays and just allow for the lease to govern that? Lease to govern that. Okay. Yeah, to clarify how many spaces are proposing, of course. Okay, that's that one we've taken care of. All right, those are the conditions. Does anybody have any other additional conditions or are they concerned about any of these conditions? Mr. Slevener, you look like you're concerned about something. I'm not actually concerned. I would like to understand something better. I'm not concerned because the applicants look healthy. What, in this case where one of the units must be owner occupied, what happens if there is a change of circumstances and the owner simply cannot occupy a space? I'm not asking so much about this specific one. I'm only taking two minutes because this is going to come up again. If there is a health issue, a health concern, whatever, and the owners can no longer occupy the space, are they forced to sell the property? I mean, what do you do? Because are they then prohibited from renting the space? It would transform into three rental units at that point if they were allowed to. How does that work in this town? Mr. Mora. So there could be a few different kind of scenarios here on how that would work. Generally, if the owner still retains principal residence, even if they're not physically there due to health reasons, temporary or otherwise, that's not really going to cause anything to happen. We'll work with those situations until we understand longer term what's happening with the owner. But if the owner leaves, relocates, change of work, whatever might happen, establishes principal residence somewhere else, then yes, they have to either return to the board to remove the owner occupancy condition, if that's an option, if that's available, or they need to sell the property to somebody who will owner occupy one of the units or convert it back to something that doesn't require the owner occupancy. So we've often had two unit properties that had owner occupancy conditions that ultimately ended up just being turned back into a single family dwelling because of that situation, the owner wanted to keep it, but didn't want to, wasn't living there anymore. So this would be a little bit different now for converted dwelling, they could come back sometime if they were going to occupy it and propose a resident manager in place of the owner occupancy. So that would be an option for this type of permit. Okay, all right, thank you. Things happen. Yep, okay. So I think we have before us conditions to be approved that includes conditions elicit on the project application report minus condition 10. Number eight, Rob is going to rework. We're going to specify the sheet for this parking spaces and we're going to have 15, a limitation on the number of people allowed on any one time to 15 per rental unit, a total of 30. Do I have a motion to approve those conditions? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Is there any discussion? If not, the vote occurs on the conditions, chair votes aye, Mr. Meadows? Aye. Mr. White? Aye. Ms. Marshall? Aye. Mr. Sloveter? Aye. We've approved the conditions. So based on those conditions being approved, we have to go through and start making some findings. Now normally I would just follow the staff project application report, draft application report, but this one, we really have to make the first non-conforming uses the article nine 9.22 finding. I think that's important that we establish that. The special permit, so that's on page 14 of the project application report. The special permit granting authority is authorized to act under the provisions section 3.3, this bylaw under special permit allowed non-conforming use of building, structure, or land to be changed to specify if that's a different character or it's effect on the neighborhood and property and vicinity. So that's, this is not substantially, I think we can find that this is not substantially different in character or it's effect on the neighborhood or property and vicinity. Set authority may also authorize under special permit a non-conforming use of a building structure or land to be extended or non-conforming building to be structurally altered and large to reconstruct it, provided that the authority finds that such alteration, enlargement, or reconstruction shall not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming use or non-conforming building. That second sentence I think is really the applicant, applicable provision of this section. And I think that we can find that this will not, that the use and the plan the applicant proposes and the alteration will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming or non-conforming building. So that's the first finding I think we have to make. And if anybody objects to that, we can talk about it now, but I think we have to start there. And then we have to go to the converted dwelling section. So that's the section 3.3241. Existing structure is attached to the existing structure. I think we have to make a determination for that 3.3241 that met the requirements of that. And we find that this meant the requirements of that. The property does not exceed the number of dwelling units that's permitted. There's no significant change in the exterior. The building is at the special permit granting authority may authorize modifications. The building won't be significantly changed. So that's the staff review. And I think that's correct. The proposed conversion shall be suitably located in the neighborhood which is proposed and deemed appropriate by the special granting authority. That conversion, if in residential, it shall either be located in an area that's close to heavily traveled streets, close to businesses, commercial and educational districts. And indeed, I think it is. It's close and it required resident manager or the owner occupied and that is indeed the case. And we've conditioned that the dwelling that the project has at least one owner occupied unit. We don't need exemptions from the dimensional requirements because it's a preexisting non-conforming building and lot. So I think we have met the needs to make the findings under 3.3241 under table three, article six, the dimensional requirements, parking regulations. The board needs to ask that we've done that. We have the correct number of spaces and it comports with the number required under the bylaw. We can make the other findings under safety and for the parking, it will provide safe transport and safe passage of people and cars. Design standards and landscape standards. Okay, they've already proposed that the parking area shall be paid in accordance with the zoning bylaw. The slope is okay. The setback is, let's see, expect when construction of a parking lot with eight feet of buildings not, it means 7.103, 7.104 shall be painted or otherwise delineated. That's in the site plan that you have to have, you have to delineate the parking spaces in some way. And then you're gonna do that with some cement markers or something, if I remember correctly. Your parking spaces are the right size and you have adequate downcast lighting for the parking area. Landscape standards. We talked about the chain-linked fence to mitigate light trespass to your neighbors and the use of slats, if need be, if the 100-year-old grapes don't do the job in the winter, I don't want you to damage 100-year-old grapes but I do want the light trespass to be minimal. So I think we've granted that. I mean, we made that finding that you've met with section seven. I don't think you need any waivers. Section eight, sign regulations. We've dealt with that in the conditions and section, I don't know, except fourth and yeah, we've dealt with that in conditions. Article three, use of converted dwelling. Mr. Chair? Yep. Can I just back up a second and ask about the sign regulations, article eight? Yes. It sounds like some more significant signage than just a, you know, apartment A. You know, I looked at that. Yeah, I don't think that... It's not a monument sign out front or something. Maybe Rob, you have a... Well, they might propose maybe signage for parking. So if they were to put like a sign on a tree or something or if they're gonna put a post that says park here, parking spot, that's totally fine. But then there's one thing I wanted to clarify with Mr. Mora, if you're still on the call, I can't really see everybody. So in terms of marking the parking areas, the way I interpreted 7.104 was that areas that had five or more parking spaces, I kind of pertain that as to physical areas on the property where there is less than five spaces as opposed to parking overall. So I was kind of confused by that language because I assumed that because they have four spaces grouped together on that back portion and then one kind of separate that they wouldn't have to technically mark those spots. But I just wanted to clarify that and make sure that's the case. If not, then I guess the applicant would have to mark those spots with like a boulder or parking stop or something like that or signage. Mr. Mora. Yeah, it's total parking spaces to create the five because typically in designs, their parking spaces can be separated by landscape islands. So we do look at it as a total. The wheel stop is one way to do it because you really can't paint on gravel. So it's either usually either signage or wheel stops unless the board, because it's so small, they also can waive any provision of article seven if they felt it was appropriate given the particular circumstance, that would be their choice. Wheel stops are pretty inexpensive and easy to view that as just a cement barrier. Would you folks be, I think the easiest way to deal with this is just to add a condition that says you'll put wheel stops in for those five spaces. And if you'll agree to that, we can just add that to the conditions and we'll vote on that right now if that's, would you folks be amenable to that? I would for the four that are together, the other ones that are on the brick pavers have big trees on either side that kind of stops are kind of there already. I don't know. That's my confusion with the numbers. The ones I'm talking about are the ones that are angled and they're naturally aligned. Yes, that was our plan, correct. Without objection, we're going to add a condition that the wheel stops be placed on for those four places. And unless somebody objects to that, we're going to go forward with that. That's the easiest way to solve this problem. Good. Now we're into the converted dwelling section. We spent a lot of time talking about this. So I'm going to jump to the quick here and that is that I think this project meets the criteria in condition eight of section 3.3241 that it is not contained. It is not demolition and rebuilding. We've done section 9.22 findings. Article 10, this is the 10.38 specific findings required. The first 10.380 and 381 is it's suitably located. I think we can find it's in the residential district and it's compatible with the neighborhood. 10.382, 383, 385, and 387 generally deal with nuisance by a host of things. I don't think this deals with, this project does not appear to me to be detrimental to the neighborhood. And in anything, I think it's going to help with the fix up of a really elaborate data structure. 10.384 appropriate facilities I think are on site. 10.386 deals with parking sign regulations. They'll be in conformance and we have conditions that will ensure that that's the case. 10.387 provides convenience safety or traffic. I think we've already discussed that. 10.388 does not apply. 10.389 disposal storage. You will have appropriate facilities available for trash and company pickup and that's in your management plan. 10.389, 10.390 and 10.391 dealing with flood hazards and historic natural scenic features do not apply. 10.392 that deals with light trespass. I think that's, we've dealt with that regarding the chain link fence and the 100 year old grapes. 10.393 is proposed to protect adjacent property for the intrusion of lighting. Again, that's dealt with through dark sky compliant and domcast lights. 10.394 deals with the proposal to avoid impact on steep slopes. It's flat. I don't think this one is applicable at current. And you've dealt with, and you have dealt with the concern about storm water drainage into neighboring properties. 10.395 that the proposal has not created is harmony with respect to terrain, user scale. And it's gonna mimic the current character of the building. 10.396 screening for storage areas. They will provide screening for the trash receptacles. Is that correct? You'll have that done, okay? 10.397 green space for tennis to enjoy. There's a large area in the back that could be used for that. And lastly, 10.398, the proposals in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the bylaws and the goal of master plan. I think if that's the case, it's bringing additional housing units into Amherst. I don't think it's a good use of the space. So I think we've made the findings needed for all of those sections. We've made the, and I would entertain a motion to approve the findings and make those findings in this application. Do I have such a motion to approve the findings? They're moved. Is there a second? Second. Is there any discussion about the findings? All right, if not, vote occurs on the findings. Chair votes aye. Mr. Meadows? Aye. Mr. White? Aye. Ms. Marshall? Aye. Mr. Sloveter? Aye. So we've approved, we've made conditions. We've made our findings based on the conditions that the application fits with these findings that we're required to make. The last thing that remains is a motion to approve the special permit application and to close the public hearing and public meeting on ZVA, ZVA 2024-01 and ZVA 2024-02. I think we've got two different numbers here. Do we not, Rob? We just have 20, 2024-01. Sorry, it's 2024-02. That's the one you're voting on right now. Yep. Yeah. Numbers are confusing. Numbers are confusing. All right, 2024-02. Do I have a motion? So moved. Do I have a second? Okay. Is there any discussion? If not, the vote occurs, this requires a super majority of four votes to approve. Do I have a vote occurs on the motion to approve the special permit application and to close the public meeting and public hearing on this matter? The chair votes aye. Mr. Meadows? Aye. Mr. White? Aye. Marshall? Aye. Mr. Sloveter? Aye. It's an unanimous vote. Congratulations, folks. You've got your special permit. You've got a lot of work ahead of you. I admire your tenacity and the project you're undertaking and I wish you the best of luck. I think we all did. Yes. Good luck. Yes. Thank you so much. And we need all the luck we can get on this. And the quicker we can get underway, the better. With Hurricane Lee or whatever, anything coming. I'm just, yes, holding my breath. Thank you. I do want to just go over next steps with you guys real quick just so you're aware. So after the vote today, I'm going to work on next week a official record of decision and then the board is going to sign that document once I create it. And once they sign it, I submit it with the town clerk's office which starts the clock for a 20 day appeal period. And usually during this appeal period, members of the public can appeal a decision of the board to a higher court, land court or spirit court. And after that 20 day appeal period ends, you have to get a certification from the town clerk that no appeal was filed with them for the special permit. And then once you get that, you have to file the special permit in its entirety at the Hampshire County Retreat Deeds. And then once you do that, that's when the permit becomes effective. So you won't be able to officially apply for your building permit yet until after that 20 day appeal period has passed and the special permit has been filed. So do you guys have any questions for us? Oh, sorry, you're muted. You're muted. Mr. Wienmeier, you're... Thank you. That's okay. Okay. All right. Good. All right. Well, thank you guys. Thank you. Congratulations. Good luck. All right. Best of luck to you. The next order of business for tonight's meeting is public comment on any matter, not before the board tonight. I see we have no attendees. We've managed to drive everybody across. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom. on the same site as an existing duplex and both units would be rentals. The applicants is working on getting some updated plans for that, but that is what's coming up next. And that's the only item. So that panel will be, hopefully they have it on their counters, but that panel will be reached out to for that hearing. And then on October 5th, we may or may not possibly have a 4DB project that would be opened for that night. It also might be on October 12th. It just really depends on what the applicant wants to do. So we did receive the materials and a check from Valley CDC for a 4DB project on Ball Lane, which is in North Amherst. I'm going to review that when I come in. I'll be out of the office tomorrow, but on Monday. And they are looking to either open it on the 5th or the 12th, like I had mentioned, but I did talk to Steve, the chair, and he was thinking of making a alternative schedule for this hearing. So that would be every other Thursday from the regular scheduled meeting. So what I'm going to do is once we get this application officially submitted, I'm going to reach out to members who are more available than others and are interested in serving on a 4DB panel to do so. And then there's going to be a schedule created for those specific hearing dates. In terms of October 12th and what we have scheduled, that's not 4DB. We are in the process of scheduling a few more permits that are not officially signed off yet, both of which deal with residential uses. And then that's pretty much it. I don't have anything else that's on the docket. Oh, my apologies. So that's right. Yes. So that one's on the 12th as well. And that one's going to pertain to discussing possibly if we're going to do peer review for that project. And we anticipate that one's not going to take too long of discussion because the applicant still has to go to the Conservation Commission for their wetland surveys and redilinations. So that could take them a little bit more time as well. I have not heard any updates from them on how that process is going. We still have to schedule a site visit for that as well. So I was going to reach out to the applicant within the next week or two and just see if a site visit is still possible before the 12th. And we'll go from there. And that panel also has been aware of that continuing state as well. So as of right now, there's nothing else on the schedule. That's second being October. There's nothing put in place yet. And that's all I have. So let me give you a little bit of my thinking behind the alternative schedule for the 40B. This isn't as complicated and a 40B application, I think, as the 32 Northampton or the Coles, what's the name of the development up by North Amherst, the Beacon property. That was those are really, really long process. But 40B is always long. And I think it made sense to me that we delineate a day in the alternate Thursdays that we normally wouldn't meet on. So we normally meet second and fourth, I think, and we'll be the first and third. We'll be alternate Thursdays. And we'll have very specific topics for the 40B discussion. So it won't just be long drawn out doing everything. We'll try to break it down on very specific topics for each of the meetings. I don't know if this is going to be six, five or six meetings, but I don't think it's going to be as long as 32 Northampton was. But I think it'd be much easier if we had the dates, the topics, we lay it out for the applicant easily enough. And we also make it easier for them to do the presentations. And we also know what to expect. So I think that makes sense. And then we have our ongoing work for the other Thursdays, as well as we have a really major solar project. And I want to thank Craig for chairing that meeting that I couldn't be at. But that's going to be a big project as well. It's going to take a lot of time. And with those two big major projects going on as well as the day-to-day special project applications we have, I just think that to get it all done, we're going to need to take some extra time and have some extra meetings. And that's going to impose on all of us. And it's not. So when you get back to Rob about your availability to be on a 40B panel, please note that that's going to hopefully be on with the alternate Thursdays than we normally have. So I think we're going to be taking a lot of time from people in this fall. Craig. Are we going to have a legal opinion for the 28th meeting? We don't have one planned, but I could get one if that's what the board wants me to look into. Craig. I believe we asked for it. Craig. Okay. That's my mistake. I will definitely look more into that. Well actually, since we have Mr. Moore here, I think we had talked about this after that meeting about whether or not to pursue that. I don't know if you want to give us some background on that. Craig. Not really. I don't think this is the appropriate time to discuss. Craig. Yeah, fair. So I will, I guess I will have to talk to the town manager and see if we can do that. But I'll definitely look more into that. Thank you for bringing it up. Okay. All right. So we're going to be seeing a lot of each other this fall. Any other questions for Rob on the schedule or for me or for your colleagues? Great. We're all done. We're going to be done before nine o'clock. I thought, and I'm glad to say that. And unless there's anything else, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second? Second. Oh, there's got to be a second to that. All right. It's been moved and seconded that we adjourn. This is not debatable. The vote occurs. The chair votes aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. Ms. Marshall. Aye. Mr. Sloveter. I suppose I'll vote aye. My cat has arrived. I mean, I don't want to disappoint everyone else, but I can't get enough. My cat is telling me it's time. It's time. Well, I will say that the motion passes unanimously. Thank you all for longer than anticipated night, and I appreciate your perseverance on this matter. So thank you. Have a good night. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good night. Good night all.