 The appointed hour of six o'clock having been reached, I call this meeting of the Amherst Zoning Board of Appeals to order. My name is Steve Judge and as ZBA chair, I want to welcome everyone to this meeting. Pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021, this meeting will be conducted via remote means. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via Zoom or by telephone. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means. Additionally, the meeting is recorded and may be viewed on the town of Amherst's YouTube channel and the ZBA web page. In accordance with provisions of Massachusetts General Laws chapter 40 in Article 10, special permit granting authority of the Amherst Zoning By-law, this public meeting has been duly advertised and notice there has been posted and mailed to parties at interest. We will begin with the roll call of the ZBA members and panel for tonight's meeting. Steve Judge, present. Ms. Parks. Here. Mr. Maxfield. Here. Mr. Meadows. Here. Mr. Cochran. Here. 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 health, safety, convenience, and general welfare of the inhabitants of the town of Amherst. One of the most important elements of the Amherst Zoning By-law is Section 10.38. Specific findings from this section must be made for all of our decisions. All hearings and meetings are open to the public and are recorded by town staff. The procedure is as follows. The petitioner presents the application to the board during the hearing after which the board will ask questions for clarification or additional information. After the board has completed its questions, the board will seek input. The public speaks with the permission of the chair. If a member of the public wishes to speak, they do so by to indicate by using the raised hand function on their screen. The chair with the assistance of the staff will call upon people wishing to speak. When you are recognized to provide your name and address to the board for the record, all questions and comments must be addressed to the board. The board will normally hold public hearings where information about the project and input from the public is gathered. This is followed by a 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 its decision. No decision is final until the written decision is signed by the sitting board members and is 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 the relevant judicial body in Supreme Superior Court. After the appeal period, the permit must be recorded at the registry of deeds to take effect. Tonight's agenda, public hearing, ZBA FY 2022-09. Steve and Deborah Gold request a variance to modify the previously approved variance, ZBA FY 1995-39 in order to remove condition two, which states the petitioner shall use the shed slash garage for non-residential use only. Pursuant to section 10 of the zoning bylaw and 40A of the Massachusetts general laws located at 272 Amity Street, map 14A parcel 161, general residence RG, and neighborhood residents RN zoning districts. This is continued from January 27th, or January 27th meeting. ZBA FY 2022-10, artist Stanini and Shorhei Shafri trustees request a special permit to allow an increase in the number of residential units converted dwelling from one to two under sections 3.324, 9.22, and 10.38 of the zoning bylaw, located at 47 Valley Lane, map 8A parcel 77, neighborhood residents RN zoning district. After these, we'll have general public comment and we'll also have a period where we can consider business not anticipated within the last 48 hours, if any. The first order of business is ZBA FY 2022-09, Steve and Deborah Gold requested variants to modify the previously approved variants ZBA FY 1995-39 in order to remove condition two, which states the petitioner shall use the shed garage for non-residential use only. Pursuant to section 10 of the zoning bylaw and 40A of the Massachusetts general law located at 272 Amity Street, map 14A, parcel 161, general residents RG and neighborhood residential district RN. So are there any disclosures? First, I wanna go through the applicant submissions. These are listed in the project application report, but we've received a variance application, a management plan, an approved first and second floor plans dated March 30th, 1995. Existing condition photographs of the structure taken in 2021. Email correspondence dated January 25th, 2022 from the applicants to request a hearing continuous. We have plans from 272 Amity Street, current and possible future plans dated February 8th. Those are first floor, second floor, current, first, second floor, possible future plans. North, North and South facades, South facade, proposed door stair material colors, possible future plans. West view photos, interior photos on a site plan. Staff submissions include a zoning map of 272 Amity Street, previously approved ZBA FY 1995 variance, comments from the town engineer dated January 5th, 2020, project application report and dated January 20th and the amended project application report are updated project application report dated February 14th, 2022. We have plan waiver requests were submitted. Our rules require that a licensed architect for professional engineer do building plans and they have been, they're asking that we waive this provision. We had a site visit on January 25th. During that site visit, we walked around the existing property, the existing garage. We observed the distance between the structure and the property line, which was reason for the original variance. We looked at the interior downstairs, we went upstairs to look at the property and the upstairs of the garage. There was a general discussion with the applicants of their immediate plans for the garage and there was a discussion and again, a general discussion for the process of obtaining an accessory dwelling unit if they choose to do so in the future. Craig, you were there, was there anything? Maureen, you were there, was there anything else from that site visit that would be important to disclose at this time? I think that's pretty much it, okay? If there's no additional comments on the site visit, then the applicant can present it's your request and then we'll have questions from the board and from the public if applicable. So go ahead, Mr. and Mrs. I've forgotten your last name, I'm sorry. Hi, nice to meet you. Mr. and Mrs. Gold, go ahead. Yeah, first of all, I'm sorry. Not at all. So just wanted to thank everyone, Maureen and the board just for your patience and guidance through this process. We really appreciate it. And so, yeah, I mean, I think as stated in the application I don't have that part of it right in front of me. Essentially, we wanted to be opportunity to remove that restriction and to be able to use the property for things that are other than non-residentially used. We expressed, and this is our sincere plan intention is that we don't have any plans at this time for any construction or to use it as an aid to you. We really just wanted to move forward with this first part of the process. And that's also, I guess, the reason that we delayed this hearing because we were working with Maureen and a couple of other members of the town that guided me through the, or just helped with the process of providing these drawings. So we hope they meet with the boards approval. Great. I have one question, Mr. Gold, Mr, or either Stephen or Deborah. When you purchased the property, was the upstairs used as you are using it now? Was it used for a studio type use? Or how? Yeah, so we purchased the property for three and a half years ago. And yes, they had an extended family and it was in a, we actually, and just so you're aware, like we use it for storage, essentially, but it's a semi-finished space as the photos show. They used it as storage too. They didn't use it as a dwelling. And as you can see from the photos, our daughter stuck a drum kit up there and sometimes goes up there and has played. But aside from that, there's no good heating or cooling in there right now. There's a small propane heater that the tanks on the side near the type property line. But yeah, all of that is as is from when we purchased the property three and a half years ago. So we have not painted it, done anything except stick a bunch of stuff up there. So plus a drum kit. Maureen. Mr. Deborah and Stephen, did you want to show the board the updates to your plan set you wanted to, since you're going through the board now, you figured to amend your variance, you wanted to capture the modification or extension of that garage, of that non-performing structure. So you're including as part of your proposal, staircase and door on the north side of the building. And perhaps a new window on the self facade if memory serves me, is that it? Yeah, and we might at the north and south might be the, yeah, the flipped around. So yes, Maureen, thank you for helping us through the process. So yes, we are interested in that. We are doing this with the understanding that we will have formal plans drawn up and obviously construction and building permits and go through that process in the future. But we're hopeful that we can just get sort of this, this general plan approved by the board at the current time. And so yes, this seems like the most logical approach to build out just to extend the window down to create a door in the rear of the garage, right? Exactly, as shown here. And then to have an exterior platform, obviously everything conforming to code at the time that we move forward with this, which we have again, no current plans to do, which is why we're trying to avoid the expense of hiring an architect and doing these drawings and things by ourselves. But yeah, essentially that would be the only change, the exterior footprint. And then on the positive side too, you can see so on the left-hand photo to the right where the white garage door is. If you go to the right of the right-hand window, there's a fence there, exactly. That's where the propane tank is located and is part of any future plan and maybe even sooner, we would actually be removing that tank and probably that fence and putting in like a split- Mini-split. Mini-split type unit. So in essence, we would actually be freeing up space on the side of the structure where the property line is tight and on. Yeah, and then the only other change. So that would subtract from the footprint or at least from the sort of functional space being used on the property and clear more room near the property line. And then exactly at the opposite side, the backside of the building is where we would build the platform and the stairway. And again, those are just our ideas that we're hoping to be considered for now. And of course, in the future, if an architect or the town recommended something different, we would certainly be open to that. Mr. Mrs. Gold, you are not claiming that this is a residential property right now. It's not habitable as a separate dwelling. You're not asking for it to be approved as an accessory dwelling or an ADU or anything else. So you're not looking to change, you're not seeking that. And you know that if you were to do that, that requires additional, first of all, you'd have to meet all the requirements of an ADU and you'd need to do substantial work to that structure in order to make it habitable. And you'd have to get a rental permit, which you're not asking for as well. Okay. That's correct. We confirm that. And so what I tend not to want to put issues before the board that aren't current, that are just kind of down the road, somehow we might want to do this. But in this case, you have, in this case, I don't think that's what you're doing here. I did before, but in looking at this closer, I think what you're doing is saying that we have a use of that area that is related to residential use. It's not a resident, it's not a dwelling unit, but it's connected to the house. And in order to continue to use it the way you have been using it, and perhaps people beforehand, that that condition in that waiver needs to be removed, otherwise you are in violation of the waiver. I think you're in violation of the variance at that point. So, and that's how I look at this. And I'm going to ask Rob if that is a correct way to look at this or if I have missed something in the definition of a residential use and what was meant by that condition in the variance. So Rob, could you either enlighten me or whatever's appropriate, tell me what's appropriate in this situation. No, I think you captured it really well. I think that's exactly the situation is we understand it and see this as a good improvement to the property and we'll work with the owners to get the right permits and the certificate of occupancy is in place to catch up with what had happened there under a prior ownership and hopefully even see some improvements. So, give us the opportunity to look for smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors and make sure the building is fitted properly for that use that you just described that isn't quite a full dwelling unit yet. Sure. Yeah, and I think that we're pleased to go through that process. I believe that, well, I don't know what the codes are precisely, but it seemed, I'm not sure how the former owners got the upstairs to the point where it is. I mean, it was clearly built out. It was two owners ago. Okay, but it was sort of sold to us as part of the residential space and they had used it, I guess as a recreation area. I think they had a ping-pong table or something up there for their grandkids, things like that. So yeah, anything that we can do, again, we're not interested in ATU at this time. We just wanna sort of bring it into conformity and be able to sit there and maybe use it as sort of a little separate off place where we can sit and just do some work for an hour or something. Again, it's not a comfortable space right now and there's no plans to do any major updates but it'd be great if we could bring it into conformity. Mr. Meadows. I just wanted to go farther on that same theme. I just wanted to understand that an office is a non-residential use. A play area or whatever is a non-residential use but those non-residential uses need to have smoke detectors, egress, et cetera, that are required, and that is the purpose of this request. Mr. Mora, I see your hand up. So I see this as residential use. So it's really an extension of the single family dwelling. It's additional space, bonus room, play room, whatever you wanna call it. So it is really residential space and the question is, is it habitable space? And we do define that in our various codes and in our by-law so that it can be used for that residential purpose. That doesn't make it its own standalone dwelling unit. It's own dwelling unit by definition that needs to have a bathroom, a full kitchen, a private bathroom or sleeping quarters. It doesn't have all of that. So it's still a residential space, no different than a basement being finished or a bonus room in the house being finished. It needs to meet minimum standards for being used in that way. So as such, can it simply be the building commissioner can come in and the fire department can come in and say, these are the things that you need without us making a judgment? In other words, do we really need to make a judgment on this, or can you just do it as the departments that need to make these requirements now that you know that those requirements need to be put in place? I don't understand why we need to make a judgment on this. Mr. Chair. It seems to me that they are in, if the space has a residential use, even though it's tenuous to the building, it is residential as opposed to commercial or some other, if it has residential use, then they are in violation of the variants because that structure from that 1995 variants said that they had to have only non-residential use in the variants, as a condition of the variant. So they would have to not use it even as they've been and other owners had previously been using that space, not as a dwelling unit, but as an extension of their own house. So I don't think that, I don't think a building commissioner can, on his own, change the conditions of that variance. The variance is what makes what they have, what other people have done prior to them, incompatible with the specifics of the variance. So I think that's the answer to your question. Okay, and as such, do we need, do a butters need to be contacted for this? They have been. They were. And so there are no comments. Correct, yes. Oh, sorry. Just like every other public hearing, there's a legal ad that's placed in the Daily Hampshire Gazette twice, leading up to the public hearing. And then a butters within 300 feet of this property are notified of this public hearing by regular mail. And I haven't received any comments from neighbors or from anyone in general about this application. Yeah. And just to show. And I failed and Mr. Meadows, I did fail to note that in the introduction to this, beginning that there is no comments, public comments. There might be, there might be yet, but there hasn't been any submitted. Yeah, we can add just a little bit of color to that. So we've spoken with our neighbors about it and there's no issues at all. I mean, the property on the side where the property line, it's a little close to the property line. That's a three unit residence that they have there. And so that has been issued. One other neighbor called us after receiving the notice just to ask us what our intentions were. So do we explain exactly as we would explain to you? Are there any other questions from board members? If not, Maureen, do we have anybody from the public who wishes to see, I'll look at this. You can see if the, any of the attendees or any of the public raised their hand. I don't see anybody. No, I don't see anyone. All right, unless there's questions from other board members for the applicants or comments, I would entertain a motion to open the public meeting on this matter while keeping the public hearing open in case we need to gather additional information. Do I have such a motion? And that looks like there were two. So I have a first and a second. Any discussion on the motion? If not, this requires a roll call vote. The chair votes aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. Mr. Cochran. Aye. Motion carries. It's unanimous. We are on public meeting now to discuss the application to amend the variance on this property. So I would suggest that the way we should go about this is we look at the three conditions contained in the application report, discuss those, see if we have any additional conditions and then we can make our findings based on assuming that those conditions, whatever we decide those conditions would be applied to the application. But before we, again, I want to on this, I do want to comment on what Mr. Meadows said and I want to share his feelings that I really don't want to be, I don't as rule like to be making taking up everybody's time and take considering applications that aren't really going to be acted on or aren't necessary for us to act on. Everybody's busy enough without having to do that. This is a case I think where they would be deprived of their what is reasonable to be thought would be the use of the property if we didn't act because of the wording of the prior variance. So I think you and I share the same concerns, Mr. Meadows and we'll work hard not to have us have to take up actions that don't make a lot of sense and don't make a big difference. The project application report has three conditions. The first is the standard condition that it's got to be, it's got to be built and maintained according to the drawings submitted by the applicants and that any, anything, they have to be reviewed by the building commissioner to determine if the submission is net to the Boarding of Appeals Board of Zoning Board of Appeals is necessary and changes may be reviewed and or approved by the ZBA at a public meeting or changes are significant enough to acquire a formal modification of the permit. So what that just generally means is what you submitted is if you could do what you submitted you're not going to have to come back before us change your mind, you're going to have to come back before us and what you have to do is do what you submitted. All right, that's pretty standard. Second all exterior lighting shall be designed and installed so as to be shielded or downcast and then to avoid light trespass on to adjacent properties. Lighting fixtures shall be selected according to the dark sky compliance recommendation of the ZBA rules and regulations. So we'd like you to put the existing lights as dark sky compliant lights. And when you do give a cut sheet or the, if this is a condition you have to give it the cut sheet or description of that to the building commissioner so they can approve it that it indeed does comply with dark sky compliant. Yes, Maureen. I believe the goals actually included a stock photo of what the lighting would be for the door on the self facade and then the photo show of light on the dark. So, and it appears to be all dark sky compliant. Well, there'll be cut sheets with it. So, you know, the staff can check make sure I'm not familiar with it. So just make sure that it is, you don't have any problem with that condition. Okay. And lastly, any dwelling unit on the property being rented shall be registered and permitted in accordance with the residential property bylaw. That's almost, it has to be anyway but you're not having a rental property at this point. Does anybody have comments on any of those conditions? Okay. Then the, I'd like to, what we need to do is consider whether to remove the second condition on the previous variance and remove that from the variance. We don't need to make any additional findings that I'm looking at. I think we can just move to, we can consider just whether to remove that condition and amend the variance by removing that condition. So is there any discussion regarding that for members of the board or from staff? If not, I would entertain a motion that we remove the condition two on the variance issued in 1995 with the three conditions listed in the project application report. Is there, I would entertain that motion. Is there such a motion? Mr. Mack, Mr. Mackfield, is there a second? Yes, I move. No, so moved. Yeah. Yep. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? If not, this requires a roll call for votes. I vote aye. Mr. Mackfield. Aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Cochran. Aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. All right, congratulations. Good luck. Much. Yeah, thank you very much. We really appreciate everybody's help. Yeah, and your time. Much appreciated. All right, good luck. Good luck to you. Good morning, we'll be in touch. It will be in touch, yep. Okay, bye-bye. Thank you, Rob. The next order of business is FY 2020-2010. Artist Anini and Shorhei Sarafi trustees requesting a special permit to allow an increase in the number of residential units, converted dwellings from one to two under sections 3.324, 9.22, and 10.38 of the zoning bylaw. Located at 47 Valley Lane, map 8A, parcel 77, neighborhood residents are in zoning district. Are there any disclosures? If there are no disclosures, let's run through the submissions. And I will find them here in a second. Here we go. The applicant submissions are special permit application, a management plan, additional information required for apartments, a complaint response plan, property map, parking map for four spaces, building plans prepared by DWS of New England, home design. There are four of those. There's existing lighting photographs, a lease agreement, email correspondence and a Hadley planning board, dated October 21st, 2021. There are also waiver requests for a site plan. I request the site plan not to be prepared by a registered engineer, survey or landscape architect, section 3.113 of ZVA rules, a sign plan and a waiver requested for a landscape plan. Staff submissions are a project application report. There are no public comments either, Maureen, there's been none since this was prepared, is there? I have not received any. We conducted a site visit on February 17th. We walked the property, identified the area of the lot which is in Hadley, there's a small part of the slot in Hadley. And we looked at the parking area, the one close to the house and the area where cars were parked while we were there. We toured the interior, both the first and the second floors. We observed how at present they are, it's one, there's no definition between the two, what will be two units. It's just one, it's an open space now. You can go from the upstairs, which will be the upstairs unit to the downstairs unit without going through doors. We observed how we looked at where the construction would take place of firewalls in the entryway. We looked at, and also that there's firewalls will be for the ceilings to create two separate dwelling units. We asked if it was gonna continue to be owner occupied and the response was that it would be occupied by a member of the family trust. And I think that pretty much sums up what we, we also observed that the land is close to UMass property. It looks to be a field. I don't know if it was a, it's next to a field and I don't think it was a cultivated field. I think it was wildlife and there's, it looks to be a some conservation land a little farther off that the property of butts. And I think that's pretty much it for our site visit. Ms. Parks, do you have anything else you wanna add in terms of the site visit or the questions asked? Great. So at this point in time, who is gonna, who represents the applicant and wishes to speak? Please identify yourself for the record. We can see you, Mr. Rice, there you are. My name is Christopher Rice. I live at 351 Federal Street in Montague, Massachusetts. The Shopees have asked me to present this. English is the second language for them and they have trouble communicating sometimes. So they asked me to help them out and here I am. We've, I assume, well, first of all, I do wanna thank Maureen as well for all the input and the help as well as all the other staff at the building commissioner's office for getting all these ducks in a row on this. Basically the Shopees purchased his property in 2020. It was a six bedroom property. It is designated as a single family unit. They purchased it to keep their son and grandson in and it turns out that they would like to have it separate so that they can have some privacy for the young child, not in the same household so to speak as the other units. They plan no major changes at this time other than the prescribed changes that will be necessary to meet or exceed all the building codes, which would be separate egress, entrance of fire suppression and fire proofing and also there'll have to be some changes made for access to the emergency egress windows of the bedrooms in the basement. We've asked for, as you stated, some, not having a professional architect, I mean, landscape architect to do the exterior because there's really no changes. The pictures of the property, it's actually a very attractive property. It's nice lawn and trees. The lighting all appears to be compliant. At the time of the work, we'll get the needed cut sheets on all the lights and find out if they are indeed dark skies compliant. Find out what they are and if the shappies agree that if they aren't, they'd be glad to put in the proper lighting. I hope that the board has had a chance to take a look at the submissions, I assume they have. We tried to be as complete as possible with our submissions and of course, Maureen was very helpful in that. We do like to sort of walk them through the floor plan. I just zoomed into the upper floor. So that's unit one, I guess. Did you want to plan the different rooms and then meet that egress? Yeah, it's just basically a race ranch type of building and the front door goes up into a split set of stairs. There's a side entry door that comes up and enters into the kitchen. There's a deck that was put on that goes into a door that enters into the living area. So in order to make this unit more separate, the wall, as I think it showed in a dotted line, would have to be, that's existing, but that's the area where we'd want to block off and that still leaves two areas of egress and we've gone back and forth, but I think they're actually going to have a door, a rated door at the top of the stairs too. So that'll actually give them three means of egress for the upper unit. And then it looks like you have three bedrooms and two bathrooms. Correct, correct. Three, again, all existing, the way it was, three bedrooms, a living area, two bathrooms and a dinette in a kitchen. Okay. Let's look at the existing conditions of the lower level. Okay, so the existing conditions have three bedrooms, bedroom number one, two and three. Currently the windows, the way that it was purchased, the windows are not accessible as an emergency egress because they're too tall to meet the minimum standards of the building code. So we're going to make some alterations to make those easily accessible for emergency egress and escape. Great, thanks, sorry. So that was existing, I can show the proposed. Yeah, let's go to the proposed, Maureen. Yep, let's go to the proposed, that'd be helpful. And again, everything that's there is there. There's no construction of anything at this point. There's a mechanical room, washer, dryer. There's a bathroom, bedroom one, bedroom two, bedroom three and a family room. They have an egress door up a few stairs out to the back of the structure. And then the other is through the half of the stairs and up through the front door. So all of these areas would have to be, would have to meet fire separation codes, which would be an additional permit that will have to be modified or another building permit from the building commissioner's office to meet or exceed all of the building codes on this part. That's it, on the plans. I had one quick question. Where in the plans does it indicate that you're replacing the emergency egress windows for the lower unit? Well, we can't replace them because if they'd be underground. So I've talked to the building commissioner's department and we're gonna make some platforms on the inside to make them compliant. They're large enough. They're egress windows, but they have to be, I believe the numbers 43 or 45 inches off the ground to make them easily to get easy to get to and they're currently not. So by building a platform on the inside by the windows, we spoke with, I believe it was Mr. Wiskevitz or as John Thompson, I don't remember, who said that that would be acceptable. So all that would need to be done prior to the residency or occupancy permit being given to the, Rob would, but that'd have to be done by, and you guys have to approve it before they get an occupancy. That's right, they would amend the building permit if they have one already or apply for another building permit to formally create the second unit and all this work that would be associated with it. So that particular issue and others that Mr. Rice had mentioned would be worked out with the building inspector during construction. And would that be done without a need for a condition from us or do we need to condition that so that it happens? Is that exact part of the building code or do we have to condition it? These are all building code items. So you don't necessarily have to condition specific code. Not that one, okay, good. Mr. Rice, go ahead. So I think that explains, there's a small kitchenette downstairs on the bath. Really boy, what are we doing here? We show our parking, there was the original, well, actually all of these parking spaces have been here. Excuse me. Well, since the first time I looked at it, which was only about four months ago, so I'm assuming they've been like this for the last couple of years. You know, there was really no change of parking. They have plenty of parking there. Are those on, Mr. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but are those five, six, seven and eight on improved surfaces? I know one through four next to the house are either it's gravel or it's, I forget if it's gravel, Marine, you may have pictures, either gravel or tar, what about? Yeah, I think it's GRG, it's gravel and TRG. I just didn't recall. Yeah, which will allow the water to penetrate through it. We don't like to really, although it's not a major issue over there, but it's water permeable. Okay, there we go. So we've got asphalt and then, yeah, all right. Yeah, so you can see this red line shows sort of the extent of the gravel parking area. And then there's four spaces to the west of the house. So on the side of the house, there's four spaces. And it looks like, you know, easily four spaces could be provided here. So it would be a total of eight spaces. And I believe there's going to be a maximum of seven tenants that will reside at this property. So all seven residents would have a parking space and there would be an extra dedicated spot for like a visitor or someone, you know, dropping off a delivery or something. Let's just be two units, it exceeds the minimum requirement of two spaces per unit. Yeah, which is, which is allowed under the bylaw. Yeah. Yep. I don't know if you want to see the, yeah, yeah. Do you want to, Mr. Rice, do you want to address the one issue that is here, which is that this proposal doesn't meet the dimensional regulations normally required under, that is required under a bylaw to have two, two dwelling converted unit, the converted dwelling. You know, you have to add an additional 6,000 square feet to the lot bringing in, that means you'd need 26,000 square feet for the lot. There's only 22,000. Can you, can you address that issue? Well, I think that the way that it's situated in the neighborhood with the open fields and the fact that they have the extra Hadley land there, I don't think the Hadley land is figured in that square footage. Although I'm not a hundred percent sure of that. And I apologize for not knowing that at this time. But we don't think that it will have an effect on the neighborhood. I'm not totally familiar with all your, the level of your zoning laws. They're extremely, they're pretty complex. You have very, you know, most towns have four or five zonings. You've taken the time to be a lot more concise on yours, but we don't think that this will take away from the neighborhood in any way. We haven't, you know, we haven't heard from anyone. So we would ask the board to consider this. All right. To clarify, board may, you know, allow that, you know, technically they have two dwellings in the, I believe this is the RN, yeah, the neighborhood residence zoning district. You would need, there were a few seconds. You would need 20,000 square feet for the, to serve as the basic minimum lot area for one dwelling and then 6,000 square feet additionally for a second unit. So that would equal 26,000 square feet on the property total, which is including a small amount in Hadley and in the nearest equals about 22,500 square feet. But under the converted dwelling section under standard eight, there's a provision that could allow the discretion for the board to allow a one-time only exemption from that dimensional regulation. I think the, Go ahead, Mr. Rice. Oh, the fact that it's on obviously that it's on water and sewer and so the lot size isn't as much impacted if we're in a more country setting with a septic tank and a well. Well, also the structure won't look any different. It won't really act any different. It's actually gonna have less people. It was used to, I think for totally for student houses and now it has two people living downstairs for the foreseeable future and then the folks upstairs. So, and with a resident in there, we're hoping for it to be very low impact on the neighborhood. The shappies are very serious about taking good care of their property. As you can see, it's a nice looking property and I don't think it will be detrimental to the neighborhood. Anyway. And Mr. Chair, I just wanted to point out, so in case there's any kind of confusion, the property that's outlined in yellow is within the town of Amherst. And then if you see this dotted line that's dotted in black with a gray highlight along here, that's the town line. So over on the left of that dotted line is the town of Hadley, but the property itself goes into Hadley. And then if you follow my cursor here, it shows the outline of the property. I just wanted to clarify that. Yep. Thank you. And as you noted, Hadley said they have no interest in this proceedings. Yeah, correct. Please send a comment. I did have one other question and then if we can open up questions from others. Our bylaws have various requirements depending on whether you are a owner occupied converted dwelling or not. And I know currently that property is owned and a resident is a member of the family trust that owns that. Does the family intend to, I guess the family intend to continue that number one. And if are they aware that if they have somebody outside that family trust who's not an owner occupant, it changes some of the requirements for the property. It's my assumption that they do plan on continuing this the way that it is. And if Shoray was not aware of the changes that could happen if they move out, I'm assuming since she's listening to us, she's aware of that now. So I don't, Shoray, if you're not aware of any of this and you'd like to speak up, please feel free. We're not in the same room. I'm in Arizona in the mountains and she's an emmer. So Shoray, hey, do you have anything to say on this? If so, you need to unmute yourself, Shoray. No, my son and my grandson are gonna leave there. Okay, thank you. Mr. Mora does, this is a new situation for me. A family, we have a trust that owns this. It's a family trust. Is that considered, how do you become an owner? What's considered an owner occupant of a property that's owned by a family trust? Is it anybody who's a beneficiary of the trust or is it a member of the family? How do we determine that? Or is this new, is this kind of, you know it when you see it? Yeah, it really is something that we have to look at case by case and we would typically ask for the trust documents, probably have a couple of questions for their attorney and make the determination. In many cases, it's found that they're not actually owner occupied. So, you know, that's why I would suggest that if the board were to grant this permit that they, you know, use the language that's in condition six of the bylaw that says that it shall either be owner occupied or there be a resident manager. And then we can, you know, we can sort that out during the permitting, the rental permitting stage and understand that better. And we have people in our office that are used to looking for those documents and working through that question. And we haven't looked at this particular trust to know one way or the other yet. Okay. All right. And lastly, Mr. Rice, when do the, when do you think this work will be completed? Many times when we do special permits that involve construction, we say it should be done in, you know, in a year or 18 months. How? We clearly want this done as soon as possible. The contractor, you know, it is ready. The materials have been bought, whatever had to be bought. So I would think, although the shortage of materials on some things has been really an issue, but I think that we'd be comfortable with six months or a year, whatever the board's comfortable with. That's fine. All right. We clearly plan on getting this done. So let's look to six months as a condition for completion, makes sense. And if you have, I mean, and then again, if you have trouble with building materials, you just, you can come to the building commissioner and take care of that. If need be, you can come to us again, but I doubt that needs to be done. All right. So let's have that added to the condition of Maureen. You would like the work to start or to finish within six months? Well, let's have it start within six months and be completed in a year. That gives them time to, there is some shortage. I mean, they have every incentive to do the sooner rather than later. So I'm not worried that they're gonna delay on it, I don't think the ones that get the materials. Are there any other questions from board members? I've asked many, I wanna make sure I give everybody an opportunity to ask questions. Okay. Is there any public comment? I see one hand up, Michelle Borkus, can you please identify yourself and give your address? Hello. Hello, hi. Hi there, can you say your name and your address? Yes, my name is Michelle Borkus and I'm a resident, a homeowner at 23 Valley Lane. Yes, please keep your comments to about three minutes but we'd love to hear your comments. Okay, this neighborhood is a neighborhood of single family homes that is a mix of homeowners and rentals at this point. We recognize our proximity to UMass campus makes it a place where people wanna live. This, our street is a dead end street. So to get to this house, all of the traffic has to pass people going in and out. So I think that I'm one of many in the neighborhood concerned with this house being split to a two apartment residents it increases the number of people that will be regularly driving past her house. And I think when the house first started having work done on it, there was a lot of people questioning if it was being turned into a dual occupancy house and the people who had purchased it were people in the neighborhood I've been asking John Thompson to tell us more about what was going on, what did he hear? Was it being turned into a rental? And he wasn't getting a lot of information or able to communicate very much information wise but ultimately found out that it was turning into an owner occupied rental. So I think my personal largest concern as this house gets split into a two apartment house and then it gets resold or the people who say they're gonna be living there aren't actually the ones that are living there. And it's a, hopefully only four person per unit residence which would make eight people living in this house. So I think I'm happy to, I've never come to a board hearing, I don't know how this process works. We were encouraged by John Thompson and other people in our neighborhood to speak out and to share that we have concerns about this. This house has been used as a student rental over the years. It's had a really bad history. The current owners, we haven't had any issues in the last year. I would love to say that they're doing a great job but that doesn't mean that that's what's gonna continue moving forward. And I also recognize they own the house and they get to use it. So my concerns are just out of the changing dynamic and that if this is a residential neighborhood that it remains residential and not an apartment neighborhood. Thank you very much. Are there any other public comments? Mr. Rice, do you wish to respond to the public comment? And please direct your comments to the board. Obviously not to the, to Ms. Borpe. Yes, I understand Michelle's comments. And I think the fact that the shepherds have done a great job of keeping taking care of the house. I think with, there's two people living downstairs. I think it's probably gonna be a lot quieter having a young kid in the house than it might have been in the past. When you're there with your young child I think your tolerance for noise will be a lot lower than it would be if it were just the way it was a six bedroom house. So, and of course, we definitely would be, that's part of the complaint process I believe and the manager, the onsite manager which looks like we'd probably be heading that way to respond and be responsive to these issues and to be a good neighbor. Any other comments from members of the board? I guess the one comment I would make is the, and Mr. Rice, you can correct me if I'm wrong. If I look at the lease agreement, the lease agreement limits the number of people who shall be there at any time. Lee says that there should be no gatherings or events held at the premise. There are no more than four people present in the house in addition to the name tenants. So the lease itself has a limit on not only gatherings but the total number of deaths. So that is one thing that I think can respond to some of the concerns that Michelle had is that the, at least the current lease that the owners have would limit the party or the gatherings, which could be of concern. Also, I don't know if there's a history of complaint. We didn't, I didn't see a complaint history on this property and the question is also whether it was complaint history of current owners or complaint history with previous owners. Maybe you guys can find that out if there's anything recently, but I didn't see anything on the project application report. It looks like according to our records on GIS, the last complaint was filed in January 7th, 2019, about loose trash blowing in the neighborhood and cars parking on the lawn. Question about over occupancy since there are often too many vehicles parked on site. Registered vehicle has changed hands, no owner's contact information. And then that was closed out at the end of that month. And then there was one other complaint in May of 2018 regarding collection of garbage and trash. Mr. Rice, when was this property purchased by the Shafis? 2020. Okay. Any further questions, comments, or if not, I would entertain a motion that we move to a public meeting on this matter and then we keep the public hearing open in case we need to get additional information from the applicant or from staff. Do I, is there such a motion? Don't move. Is there a second? Is there any discussion? If not, this requires a roll call vote. Chair Boat's aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. Mr. Cochran. Aye. All right, we're in the public meeting phase. That's where we deliberate and we can talk about the generally, I'd like to first just generally talk about feeling from the board, how you feel about this application. And then I'd like to go through the conditions listed to see if we agree with the ones on the project application report, if there's any we wish to add. And then because that informs the findings we have to make, we can go and make the findings we have to make under the converted dwelling and the 10.38 to approve the special permit applications. So I'd like to hear what people think generally about the application or special permit and to create a converted dwelling. All right, if there's not strong feelings on that, let's go through conditions on the property, on the special permit. If you'll turn to the application report page 11 of 13, the conditions listed by in the draft or the project application report includes, number one, the standard project shall be built, maintained according to the approved plans, special permit application, they are listed. The second condition is converted dwelling shall be used as labeled in the following approved floor plans. Those are the ones that are submitted that we've viewed and they're in our packet. All exterior lighting shall be designed and sold so as to be shielded or downcast and to avoid light trespass. This is one that I, if you have any comments about any of these conditions, please raise your hand and let me know. But this is one that I feel strongly about, not only for light trespass on the existing properties, but we have a lot of wildlife in and you have, I think some conservation land nearby. And so there's wildlife around. I think it's important that we have light down cast and starts that compliant light. It says no more than four. The fourth one is no more than four unrelated individuals so it occupied the converted dwelling. And I think the converted dwelling is the basement. The upstairs is the existing portion right now. There's the son or there's one adult and a child living in the basement. That's correct. And this says that it should be no more than four unrelated adults would be a total. So it could be a total of eight in the building. Maureen. I could Chris or the homeowner clarify how many tenants will be residing in the lower level and in the lower unit in the upper unit. In the additional information in the under the management plan, I'm noticing that it says, if you turn to, I find it almost, I guess. Yeah. Oh, page three of 13 sort of towards the end of the page. It says additional information required for apartments, bullet two, the second bullet says previously there were six tenants that resided in the house. The applicant proposes to have a maximum of five tenants residing on the property. Correct. And two of them will be related. Okay. And so what unit will the two reside upstairs? Okay. So two tenants in the lower unit and then how many upstairs? Three upstairs. So that's a total of five on the property. Correct. Does the board wanna modify condition four to reflect that or? Mr. Rice, you're locking that in for the property. Let me communicate with the owner for one second. But typically you have four units. You have four individuals, unrelated individuals per unit, maximum of eight. But if property owners are willing to limit to less. Well, I was under the impression that they were taking the entire structure and not that we had to add up to five. So if we could, you know, it seems like, you know we could go with, you know, whatever it seems, you know, the three and three. There's three bedrooms in the lower level and then three bedrooms in the upper level. Correct. Yep. Ms. Parks. I thought there were four people on the upper level. Yeah. I think there's four people there now. There were three bedrooms and I think one bedroom was shared downstairs. There were three bedrooms and it looked like there was one person and maybe a child living downstairs. So I think that there is at least six people in that. And I think this number four was talking about the downstairs which is the converted dwelling, which would be a question of whether they, whether they have two or four. There's four up and two down. I apologize. Okay, four up and two down. So you're saying you want to limit the number four to two unrelated individuals, no more than two unrelated individuals shall occupy the converted dwelling. That's downstairs. I'd rather stay with whatever is allowed through the town bylaws. Zoning, please. And I apologize. Is there any, is there any thoughts by board members on that? That's the comments, typical and routine limitations is four per dwelling unit. Okay. Street number. Yes, Mr. Axial. I was going to say, I mean, do we think it would help alleviate any president concerns or neighborhood concerns if we were to put a limit on that? Because I know looking at that parking, I imagine if you were to have eight people in that house, some point down the line, I can see that parking situation in that neighborhood getting bad pretty quickly, assuming everyone had a car. I'm sure it would modify some of the concerns of neighbors. But the question is, the question is in this case, do we wish to reduce their ability that most other people have to have four individuals? Most times we provide four underrelated individuals in a rental unless there's reasons. So I would leave that up to the board and how they wish to think about that. Is there, how do people have comments from Mr. Maxfield's comments? I would agree with his comment. Yeah. And just further, I want to go, because it was three bedrooms upstairs and down to just correct about that, right? Three bedrooms, yeah. Typically I've found often is the case if you're limited to one person, one bedroom, if you're not limited to that, you'll often see a quick look on Facebook or something like that. Any housing group posted, people renting out a living room or something like that or doubling up on a bedroom that's typically just increases rent prices without actually providing actually better housing where if you put that limit on it, there's still only so much someone will pay for a room. So it typically keeps prices down as opposed to if you just let more people in, it ends up just being more higher rent at the same price per person. Typically it's what I've found. So I support, yeah, limiting it to one person, one bedroom in this case. Existing tenants, they have four existing tenants now. When we observed the largest bedroom upstairs has two beds and then you have single beds in the other two rooms. So we currently have four people that they're renting out currently upstairs and two downstairs. So I don't know if I wanna take that away from the owners, it's an existing condition but I do understand the idea of having just two downstairs and that seems to make sense. So I think it's really good for the owners to have a room in this parks. I was just gonna add, there's also a bathroom in the larger bedroom with two people. So there's two bathrooms on the upper floor. So I also think that it would be better to allow for in that dwelling. I've seen a lot of, we've been to a lot of places where I think your concern is really good. Mr. Maxwell, where you just see really tiny rooms and they're doubling up and it just looks, it looks awful. It looked like it could hold four people comfortably without being a horrible situation or an unhealthy situation. Downstairs, they were a little bit smaller rooms. And if the board wishes to reduce that number to two, which is the current usage, we can do that through the conditions. Let's get from the board until we, and then we can come back to you, Mr. Rice, if there's something you need. Any other comments on that? Number four. All right, Mr. Rice, typically we don't get comments, but you have a comment on number four. I just thought that a compromise could be at least one person per bedroom. So in case the gentleman got married, he could be there with his child. There's three bedrooms, so at least three downstairs and then the four. So you'd be putting a limit on the number that the number, but not at least, pretty traditional have at least one person for each bedroom downstairs, you know? Rob, Mr. Morrow, if you have related adults, the zoning law by law doesn't preclude a married couple from being and their child from being in that downstairs, because they're related. People are normally restricted for unrelated adults and that's what that condition talks about, no more than four unrelated adults. So I'm not sure that even if we say no more than two unrelated adults shall occupy the converted dwelling, which is downstairs, that would preclude a married couple from being there with their child. Is that right? Yes, that's correct. So we define family a number of a few different ways and what you're talking about is the number of unrelated individuals, not family, which can be made up a number of different ways as well. But in the example, Mr. Rice mentioned that that third person that came into the family would not be counted to any limit. None of them would be, they're a family as one, they're a family and not limited on the number of people. So then this limitation of condition number four, if we limited it to two people as was suggested, that would only apply to unrelated adults and it wouldn't apply to the current ownership as they are using it presently. But if they're no longer known on our occupants, they're not living there and they'd be limited to be two unrelated adults downstairs. Is that the wishes of the board? If that's the case, we'll move ahead. Okay, Maureen, let's have that be the condition and that it's two unrelated adults down. Mr. Mora, when you raise your hand, I get worried. Yeah, well, I just wanna mention that it's creating a situation that we don't like to have happen. So we have a dwelling unit that has a lot of space, three bedrooms and a condition that would only allow two occupants. It's just asking for a problem. So when we deal with this situation through enforcement and we're actually trying to lower the occupancy, we try to have a physical space match what the use is. So, just to be aware of that, I wouldn't recommend that you have a limit of two, three to match the number of bedrooms would make sense to me. And I think would be a good way to manage this size house. But total up to you, I just wanna make you aware of it that it is something that we struggle with when there's larger spaces, multiple bedrooms and having to tell them that they can't use them because these individuals aren't on leases and it's really easy to have somebody come live there and fill that space that looks perfectly usable other than what this condition says. Mr. Maxfield or Mr. Meadows, are you persuaded by that or would you like, I think it looks to me like we had a majority of the board that was willing to do, that wanted to limit it to two, were you persuaded by Mr. Moore's argument or not? If you are, then we can go to a three. If not, it looks like we have a majority of two. You know, I'll start with... Yeah, I think what Ms. Moore says makes sense. I'm certainly much more in favor of bringing down the number to match residents to two bedrooms rather than lowering it, yeah, than having it less residents than there are available bedrooms. So if we wanted to get to six, I'd rather do it by limiting the upstairs than limiting the downstairs. But if we don't think either way works, I'm fine keeping it four and three as well. Mr. Meadows, I know you had some thoughts on this as well. My concern similarly was in response to the butters and the traffic. And on that basis, living in it to one person for a bedroom, upstairs and downstairs seems reasonable. So that would be three, you'll lower the upper level. Is that where you're proposing? That wasn't what was on the table. Well, it wasn't. You added something that was good, but that wasn't what was on the table. I thought we had, all right, what was on the table I thought was we're gonna go to total of seven as opposed to total of six. We had four, they currently have four upstairs and they're large and there's one room that has two beds and it looks to be pretty big. And it looks to be like you could easily have four people in that area. Downstairs, there's three bedrooms. Right now there's two people there. And the question is, do we want to limit it to just two people who want to limit downstairs? Because I do think it's unfair to the owners at this point to make them get rid of the upstairs tenants even though we haven't seen if they have any problem with the current ownership, reduce the number of upstairs tenants. Well then the original comment of two for downstairs, which is what they had in their application sounds large, I mean, the butters are suggesting that the traffic could be a problem. And I would like to help solve that problem for you. And I realized that it makes enforcement difficult, but not impossible because that's the intent right now of the owners. If it changes hands, we'll have a different owner come in front of us. Yes, if it does change hands, we'll be able to review it and put additional conditions on that's correct. Ms. Parks or Mr. Cochran, do either of you have an opinion on this? Ms. Parks. I was just gonna say, could you say six for the entire building? And that way, if it turned out to be one per bedroom, I don't know if that's too complicated because it's two units, but I'm fine with four and two and four and three. I'm fine either way. I'm always happy. I agree with Mr. Maxwell's points about rental, about rent cost. Yeah. I think we, it sounds like we have a consensus around four and two for sure. We may not have a majority of four and three. I'd like to, let's go with that. But I'll take a, I'd like to have a vote to make sure that I'm reading the room correctly. So we would amend condition four to say that there would be no more than four people living in the upstairs and two people in the downstairs, two unrelated adults, unrelated adults upstairs and downstairs, four and two. All in favor of that, please say aye. Before you do that, I think Mr. Mora had raised his hand perhaps. Oh, I missed it. Rob. Okay. I was going to let it pass, but since they called on me, I, you know, in response to Mr. Meadows's comments, I just wanted to throw out another suggestion because it actually is really difficult to enforce how the interior of these units are used. You know, we have to have a, we have to be provided access to the building and it's not easy to get it without that being given that permission. So if there's a concern about traffic, it is much easier and we have effective ways of enforcing what happens outside of the property, outside of the building. So irrespective of the number of residents or tenants in the building, you could limit the number of cars on site. Right. The number of parking. Yeah. We have to mark there regularly. You know, I think based on what I understand, you know, the Lord unit, at least for the near future, would only have one vehicle associated with that parent and child arrangement, four cars for the upper level, you know, a condition of five or six cars. There's certainly, we know there's plenty of interest in housing with or without cars associated with it. That's something that could be regulated and enforced by our department and solve or help support the 9.22 finding that you'll make to ensure that this doesn't detrimentally affect the neighborhood. And the neighbors would be able to also monitor that more easily than they could residents. They could monitor the number of cars and better parking there. Any thoughts on that? I like that idea. Yeah, I think that makes, I think that that's somebody who's dealt with this for years that came up with a really good idea because I think that balances out the concerns and the concerns of the owners and the concerns of the neighbors and the abutters in a way that's fair to both. All right, so let's, I would think that we should limit the cars to five. How does that go? That seems to me to be fair. You've got four tarred spaces and one improved space off to the side. Could I say, I would suggest simply because if the sun living downstairs ends up with a partner and that partner has a car, they wouldn't be able to be there. So I would say six. Go to six. I'm fine with that. Others, anybody oppose that? Okay, so let's have six cars as a limitation. Maureen is a condition. Going through additional conditions. We've got to be registered with the rental property bylaws. Street numbers have to be included. Parking shall be an improved services only. That's, you can put the limitation there. They don't have a property or a landscape plan, but they, but through the conditions and they've asked for a waiver of having a landscape plan, but through conditions, I think we can achieve what we want, keep litter and debris with the property free of litter and debris, make sure that grass is regularly maintained. We have our standard, which we have started to use standard provisions for the differentiation between owner occupied and non owner occupied for the number of people on the property. In the event the property becomes non owner occupied, the maximum number of people on the property at any time shall be, since we're going to have six total people on the property, I would say 12, eight people, six people and everybody can have a guest. All right, change of ownership shall be required to come back and submit a management plan. Upon being non owner occupied, they'd have to submit a management plan, additional information for residential leases, gotta go through a number of individuals. We can go back and look at the number of individuals and the number of overnight guests as well as the parking management plan, but that's in the case that it becomes a non owner occupied property on change of ownership. Are there any other conditions that people wish to consider or are there any conditions listed that they do not wish to impose on the property? Okay, then we have to make some findings because this is a converted dwelling. There's a whole series of findings we have to make and we have to go through those. And I would ask you to go through those considering making these findings, considering that we have these conditions that we put on the application. The first is, is it a converted dwelling? And as a project application report outlines, it is, it fits the definition of a converted, a one family detached dwelling built in 2000. The proposed converted dwelling will occupy the lower floor of the existing house. Therefore it meets the definition of a converted dwelling. There are section 3.3241, which is the converted dwelling section has eight specific standards that have to be mapped for a converted dwelling. And when you go through those, you find that the existing residents occurs in a property located at 47 Valley Lane. And they're proposing to the standard ones that existing residents that it's located that will be converted, it meets that standard two is that it may be involved in conversion of one or more structures and dwelling units that exceedingly would otherwise not be allowed under the table three, which is the dimensional tables. And this business, this is the question it does not meet the dimensional requirements. It is should be 26,000 feet for two units. It's only 225, but we are under section eight of their standard eight of section 3.324. We are given the permission and the possible authority to provide a one time exemption from the rules. It can't be done from this dimensional requirements. It can't be done again if we make a finding under 9.22, which is listed on page six, that's the bottom of page six. The finding of nine point, if you make a finding under 9.22 we can have a one time exemption to, we can permit a one time exemption to the dimensional requirements. So that means that we generally what we have to do is find that the non-conforming use of the building in this case, the dimensional side of the lot or a non-construct, that has been structurally altered or enlarged or reconstructed, which it hasn't been in this case, provided that the authority finds that such alteration enlargement of reconstruction is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming use or non-conforming building. So we'd have to find that 9.22 means that allowing this conversion would not be more detrimental to the neighborhood than what he currently exists at the time. And it's currently has been a large, it's been a so rental property before. And I don't think this makes it any worse as my view, but we'd have to make that finding. Is there any discussion about that from members of the board? Do we? Tammy, yes, Ms. Parks. A quick question. Did we count the Hadley property in the square footage that was part of the 22,000 square feet? Maureen? I did. I looked up the recorded plan for this property. And so there is 19,191 square feet in Amherst and there's 3,302 square feet that crosses into Hadley. So that's a total of 22,493 square feet. And what is that open field that's next to the house? Who owns that? That is a conservation property. I believe it's an agricultural field. All right. But it's not listed on any of the maps, right? It's in Hadley. We don't have it on our maps. Yeah. But the town of Hadley and the Butters were notified of this public hearing. So the question really comes down to whether we want to provide the one-time exception to the dimensional requirements. When I look at this, I do see it's a pretty, it's wide open space. And while normally I wouldn't be as sympathetic to 3,000 or half of the additional space requirement is gone here, is not included. There's over 3,000 feet square feet short. It's, there's a lot of open space. It's a large lot. And I don't think that the additional that the conversion is going to change anything in terms of the density of the housing and the density of the neighborhood. So I don't think, I'm not concerned in this case about approving the one-time dimensional waiver so that they can have a converted dwelling. That's the real, I think that's the real issue here. I don't know if people have a thought about that or not. In the site plan, when we go in the site visit, it looks pretty wide open. I don't think that it's gonna be increased crowding in the neighborhood, obviously. There's no difference in the footprint of the building and currently. All right, so we need to look at, so is there any, is there approval of a 9.22 waiver that this would not be detrimental to the neighborhood, more detrimental to the neighborhood than existing use if we allow the one-time variation from the dimensional requirements of the converted dwelling of 26,000 feet allowing 24,300. If there's no, I would entertain a most, I'd like to get a vote on this. I'd entertain a motion for a vote to approve a 9.22 waiver to have such a motion. So moved. And then a second. I hear Mr. Maxwell for a second. Is there any discussion about that? I think it's important that we make that decision. All right, let's have a roll call, though. The chair votes aye to approve the 9.22 waiver. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. Mr. Cochran. Aye. All right. So that means that we've met the requirements for standard two and it comes back again in standard eight. Standard three is not applicable. Standard four is not proposing any exterior changes to the structure. I guess other than the windows perhaps in the door. Yeah. There should be no significant changes except the first requirement may authorize modification of such modification. More alterations does not. It doesn't substantially change the building character it's effect on the neighborhood. So I think we can find that that's true. Standard five is not applicable to the project. Renewable standard six deals with where the, deals with where converted drawings can be located. In this case one of the requirements that be located near a road or near the educational district and it's across the street from the educational district and one of the units shall be remain owner occupied a requirement of which shall be made a condition of any special permit issued in such the instance. The University of Massachusetts across the street the educational zoning district is there and if the application submitted a family member their trust will reside in the dwelling unit. So I think we can find that we have, we meet standard six, standard seven it's already connected to public sewer standard eight the applicant is requesting the board to modify the dimensional requirements. And we made the 9.22 finding. And I, I'm assuming that that vote is that there's nobody that objects to the dimensional findings that we made through the 9.22 findings standard nine is not applicable standard eight, standard 10 they have submitted a management plan. They have not submitted a landscape plan but there are conditions regarding lawn will be conditions now regarding parking and about upkeep. So I think we can waive the requirement for a landscape plan for a, for a property. And lastly, number 12 is converted dwelling should provide a minimum of 2,000 square feet of usable space. There's more than adequate usable space on that property. Parking access and regulations. There's requirement of two for space. We're going to provide for six for the, that's met the dimensional requirements. We have the charts and now we have to and if anybody objects to any of these findings please speak up, but cause I don't want to have to have a vote on every single one except 9.22 which I think was key 10.380 and 10.381 with suitably located in the neighborhood. There are both single family and a limited number of two family homes. The residential use already exists on the property and according to the submittal of family member of the family trust will reside in this property with the owner occupied. 10.382, 383, 385 and 387 deals with nuisance, pollution, vibration, et cetera. We have staff has meant, suggested we consider exterior lighting. We have done that. I don't think that there's any reason to believe that the noise are, and nuisance will engend in danger or bother the neighbors. We've limited the number of people that are there. We're limited the number of parties and they can have a gatherings pretty severely. So I don't think, I think we can meet the requirements of 10.382, 35 and seven. 10.384 adequate and appropriate facilities provided for the operation. We've got the utilities. So the proposed use is met. 10.386, the proposal ensures that it's conformance with the parking sign regulations. We'll have to amend this more into the applicant provides six parking spaces in total. The applicant is not proposing signage but they are required to have signage for the house number and for each of the units, correct? Yeah, all right. We need that just for fire and safety. I don't think, yeah, safe vehicular traffic within the site. I think that's clear from the parking. Off street loading isn't applicable. Disposal, the building already exists on the site and trash is picked up and the bins are, I remember the bins were off to the side and so the screen from the neighborhood if they're kept off to the side and that's where they're on the drawings, are they not? Yeah, so they'd be required to be kept off to the side. Flood is not a flood zone. And lastly, there's no unique historical property. We've done 10.39, we've talked about the lighting, storage bins and the vegetation, 10.393 protects property. Again, that deals with lighting and noise and trespass. We've dealt with that, 10.394, steep slopes is not applicable, 10.395 does not create this harmony with respect to terrain and scale. There's no changes and no scale changes. 10.396 screening. It isn't screened, there's not a fence around it but it's screened from the side of the house, screened from the, we'll screen the trash recycling bins from the neighbors and that they have to be done in the place as outlined on the site plan that we've seen. Recreational facilities are on the site and the proposed is harmony with the general purpose and intent of this bylaw and of the master plan. It's a two residential unit is in harmony with the master plan which encourages a greater mix of housing types to be found throughout the community. The board needs to determine where the proposal makes section 3.3211 and 10.38 of the bylaw. So I would move that we have made our findings required under the, I would entertain a motion that we make the findings required under both converted dwelling section as well as 10.38 and that we impose the conditions that we have discussed and with that finding and that condition we approve the special permit application for this property. Do I have such a motion? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. Do we have any discussion about that motion? If not, a vote occurs on the motion to approve the special application, special permit application with conditions and the findings required under that section are made. Chair votes aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. Mr. Cochran. Aye. Ms. Katt. Thank you. All right. We got six votes. All right. The motion passes. That's agenda business. Next order of business is the general comments from the public. Thank you, Mr. Rice. And you'll be working with the town and the owners will be working with the town to make sure they get the lights are provided and that the parking meets the requirements that are laid out for the parking requirements under section seven, okay? All right. This is a time when any member of the public can comment on anything not before the board tonight on any matter, not before the board tonight. Doesn't look like we have anybody Maureen, do we? That wants to talk on in the public. So they can state by raising your hand. I don't see any hands raised. I don't see any hand, I don't see any other participants. All right. Then the last thing is business to that occurred in the last 48 hours. And you got an email from Maureen today concerning a proposal before the town council. That proposal before the town council would be to have a moratorium on citing and special permit applications for large solar arrays. And that, but currently those come to the ZBA in fact, we've dealt with four of them in the past. They were complicated in that we didn't have very much in the way of guidance on how to deal with a large solar array with considerations we should give. There's a lot of technical issues there. And that's just a lot of, but frankly, subject that we don't have. I was asked by the subsequent to the introduction of that resolution. I was asked by the chair of the planning board who would, who also bent board also would have a role in citing a large solar arrays if they use a subdivision designation. I asked my opinion on whether there ought to be a moratorium or whether we ought to go ahead. My opinion, I wrote to the chair of the planning board chair and said that I thought we'd be better served if there was some kind of a bylaw for the, that we could use as a measure against which to judge these projects. And I've submitted and Maureen sent you a copy of that letter. The planning board does not feel that way. The planning board voted five to two to not recommend a moratorium. Subsequently, one of the town councilers wrote me and asked me if I thought it made sense to have, if a consultant would solve all of our problems. And I think I wrote back into the letter that you have, I wrote back and I said, I don't think it solved all of our problems either. I think we're better off with a bylaw. So that was my response to being asked as chairman of the ZBA what my opinion is, is the best way to go about this. This is something that I think the town is gonna have to deal with over the next couple of weeks. This has come up rather quickly in the most recent iteration of the moratorium. And I just wanted to make sure you knew what I was, how I was responding to these questions from town councils and from other town boards, chairman of other town boards. I didn't say that's the opinion of the ZBA. I didn't say that we had a vote on it. I was asked in my position what I thought and I told them what I thought. So you should take a look at that. And I wanna encourage you if you have a different view or belief the town council is gonna deal with this as soon, there's no sooner or no, as soon as Monday. I don't know if that's be the final time when they deal with it, but there is a meeting on Monday and it will at least be discussed on Monday, but I suspect this will go on for a while. If you wish to have an opinion, you can express it to them at any time. And we can certainly, I think we can certainly have a meeting where we explain all the, in case there isn't a moratorium and we do have LSAs that we have to deal with, we should probably have a meeting on our of our members where we go through and get educated about some of the considerations that need to be made when we consider solar arrays. Is there are lots of complications and I know some people have more knowledge about this than I do on this board and we can use their help. And I think, and that's basically what happened in that conversation in that correspondence. I just wanted to make you aware of it. I'm glad to take some questions now or talk about it, but I think it's probably something we should probably spend some time on later on. Mr. Meadows. I agree with you. I think this is not a short discussion at all. Even some of the factors that were brought up about a consultant and what they could do, that's not one consultant. One person can't answer all of the questions that are entailed there. And if, if those questions are part of any bylaw, they've got to be solved by a whole variety of consultants and I don't know that we have the capacity to bring all those people in. So it is a lengthy discussion. It is a lengthy discussion. Anyway, I would encourage you to go ahead, Ms. Parks. I was just gonna say, I would like to learn more about it because I don't know all the nuances of the frozen cons of the large solar rays. You know what I generally, what I think is a good thing to do. My bias is I think solar power is great. I think we got to have more of it. And I think that we got to be thinking about where we place it, where we cite it, that those are important considerations. And I think what's really important is that we have guidance that there is a consensus in town about where is the right place to put solar, large solar arrays, and that we have the right kind of dimension that there's town gives guidance to us because we're not, I think Mr. Meadows has more knowledge about this than I do, but we're not solar experts. And the benefit of this would be to have the town, say these are the values that we have, this is what we want to, this is how we want to cite these solar arrays and these are considerations that the board should make when it's making decisions whether to do that or not and whether they meet those factors that the town has decided are important to them. So Tammy, what I would suggest and what I found helpful is to take a look at the planning board's meeting of January, February 15th. There was a, and I'm not going to suggest that you spend three hours listening to another town board. I did, but I'm not going to ask you to do that. We all have lives to live, but to read the proposal, the handout that Chris brushed up and the staff gave to the board, it goes through some of the discussion of some of the factors that ought to be thought about about what other towns have done. It's a good first step and it gets you going on some of the issues that we undoubtedly will have to deal with in the future, but that's a good first step. So it's the planning board, material distributed to the planning board on the February 16th, I think, 16th meeting. And if we want to talk about it, let me or Maureen know and we'll schedule some time to talk about it in the near future. All right, just want to make sure you know what your chairman is doing, even if he's not doing it in your name, he's doing it on his own. All right, anything else that anybody wants to bring up? Maureen, do we have a meeting scheduled? We have items scheduled for the next meeting. When would, so, hmm, I am, we just, the ZBA just received an application for a townhouse development on at the corner of Fearing and Sunset Avenue. It hasn't been filed with the town clerk yet. So that's, I would say expect that if the application is complete and you file with the town clerk, I believe the next meeting would be scheduled for March 24th. Wait, time out, let me just make sure. Is that the one, two, three, four? Yeah, March 24th. And I believe we don't have any items scheduled for earlier dates. So, but I can clarify that tomorrow or early next week. But I believe, so the full members, oh, and it looks like, yeah, John Gilbert wasn't able to attend, he's a full member. I can reach out to him. So full members should expect to attend the March 24th meeting. March 24th, and I probably will not be able to attend the 10th meeting. So if there's something that does come up, we'll have to have another chair. All right. Okay. Well, thank you, Rob. Thank you, Maureen. I forgot to introduce both of you at the beginning of the meeting. I hope for many of you, friends. So I'm with you. I'm happy to introduce you to the public and I should have done that. But thanks again for all your work. And to my fellow board members, thank you for your time. I appreciate it. And you're doing a service to the town. So thank you very much. Thank you. We'll see you all in a month. See you in a right. Motion to adjourn. Maybe in person. Maybe in person. Motion to adjourn. Motion. Yeah, is there a motion to adjourn? To move. Mr. Is there a second? Second. We've got this gotta be a roll call. I'm sorry. Chair votes aye. Tammy. Aye. Dylan. Aye. Craig. Aye. Eric. Aye. All right. Thank you very much, all. Have a good night. Good night everybody. Have a snow.