 The appointed hour is six o'clock having been reached. I call this meeting of the Amherst Zoning Board of Appeals to order. My name is Steve Judge. As chair, I want to welcome everyone to this meeting. Pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 order, suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 30A, Section 18. And the Governor's March 15, 2020 order, imposing strict limitations on the number of people that may gather in one place. This meeting, this public hearing of the town of Amherst Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted via remote participation. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but the public can listen to the proceedings by clicking on a link on the town's webpage. In accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, and Article 10, Special Permit Granting Authority, of the Amherst Zoning Bylaw, this public meeting has been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted and mailed to parties at interest. We will begin with the roll call of the regular members of the ZBA. Steve Judge, chair is here. Mr. Langsdale, Ms. Parks. Here. Mr. Maxfield. Here. And associate members, Ms. Waldman, Mr. Barrick, Mr. Greeny, Mr. Meadows. Here. Also in attendance is Marine Pollock Planner and Rob Mora, the building commissioner. The Zoning Board of Appeals is a quasi-judicial body that operates under the authority of Chapter 40A of the General Laws of the Commonwealth for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the inhabitants of the town of Amherst. One of the most important elements of the Amherst Zoning Bylaw is Section 10.38. Specific findings from that 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 question, the board will seek 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 function on the screen. The chair with the assistance of the staff will call upon people wishing to speak. When you are recognized, present your name and address to the board for the record. All questions and comments must be addressed to the board. The board will normally hold public hearings for the information about the project input from the public is gathered, followed by the public meetings for each. The public meeting portion is generally when the board deliberates and is not generally not an opportunity for public comment. If the board feels it has enough information and time, it will decide upon the application tonight. Each petition is heard by the board is distinct and is evaluated on its own merit and the board is not ruled by precedent. Statutorily for the special permit, the board has 90 days from the close of the hearing to file a decision for a variance. The board has a hundred days from the date of filing the 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 process for a agreed party to contest the decision with the relevant judicial body of the Superior Court. After the appeal period, the permit must be recorded with the registry of deeds to take effect. Tonight's agenda, ZBA 2021-03, Pioneer Property Services, LLC, request a special permit to convert the existing detached garage to a residential unit, which will increase the number of residential units converted dwelling from one to two under section 3.3241, 9.22 and 10.38 of the zoning bylaw. Located at 275 Eastern Pleasant Street, map 11B, Parcel 63, neighborhood residents, RN zoning district. This hearing is continued from February 11th, 2021. We also have the general comment period to the public to comment on matters, not before the board tonight and other business not anticipated within 48 hours. The first order of business tonight is ZBA FY 2021-03, Pioneer Property Services. Before we begin, I wanna acknowledge that Mr. Langsdale is here. Yes, here. Yep, there he's here. I have one disclosure and one report. After our last meeting on this application, I received an email addressed to me and the town staff regarding this application. Email raised questions regarding the ZBA process on and the merits of the specific application. The email does not affect my ability to partially act on this matter and as part of the public record. Are there any other disclosures? I also have a report at the last meeting, the board authorized me to determine whether a peer review of the groundwater drainage plan was needed. I met with town staff to review the submitted plans, the town engineer reviewed the plans a second time and agreed to ask Mr. Sparkle for additional information regarding Mr. Sparkle's calculations. We determined that the information from Mr. Sparkle would probably obviate the need for a peer review. Subsequently, the applicant informed the town that they wished to withdraw the application. No peer review was contracted for this matter. The following submissions, is there any other disclosures or notices? If not, the following submissions have been received by town staff. The February 12th email from Mr. Steve Schreiber. The February 27th email from Neil and Jen Mendelsen asking to withdraw their application without precedent and a email from the butters asking for withdrawal with prejudice. Is there a representative of the applicant or the applicant who wishes to request this withdrawal? Yes. Neil Mendelsen, Pioneer Property Services. All right. Are there any comments or questions from the board members? If there are any, Mr. Maxfield. Yeah, Mr. Mendelsen, I wanted to ask can I ask why it is that you are requesting to withdraw without prejudice? Is this just become the process to become to cumbersome to much of a financial burden? Yeah, I think I went through this process feeling that I could adapt to the comments that were received and the board's concerns. I really tried and I still think that this project could be a compliment to the neighborhood but it's become obvious that the opposition is very great to it and the burden on my business it's I'm a small operation and I just can't afford to keep going. So I regret having to do it but I want to do it. I want to withdraw and I'm asking that it be withdrawn without prejudice. Mr. Maxfield. I have one follow up question. If it were the case that the board were to say that we felt we had enough evidence as is without requesting any more from you or imposing any more costs on you, would you prefer that the board move forward and make a ruling one way or the other with the evidence that we have currently if we're not coming back asking for necessarily more information outside of what we've gathered over the past several months, would you want a decision if the board felt we had enough to make a decision one way or the other? Yeah, I would and as a matter of fact, I would be not opposed to any conditions that you would propose and including owner occupied. I really do have a vision for this building and I think it could be really nice and I, you know, it's kind of a, you know, a passion of mine and since I bought the building and since I bought the property it has been something that has, I wanted to do and you know, it's so yeah, I am, I am, I would totally work with the town, the board, neighbors, I, you know, to make this come to fruition that is my dream, yeah. Thank you, Mr. Alston. Any other comments, questions from board? If there are no other questions from board members I would entertain a motion to adjourn the public hearing on this matter and open a public meeting on the request to withdraw the application of the special permit. Is there a motion? So moved. Mr. Maxfield, is there a second? Second. Mr. Meadows seconds. A vote occurs on the motion. This vote requires the majority of the ZBA three members to pass. This will be a roll call vote. The chair votes aye. Mr. Langsdale. No. Mr. Ms. Parks. I need to ask what we're voting on now. Okay, we're voting to close the hearing and open a public meeting on this item and then we can have discussion amongst the board members on this item. Not to close, we're voting to adjourn. Adjourn. Adjourn, the person who always catches me with adjourn to adjourn the meeting and open a public meeting adjourn the hearing, open a public meeting on the application. Then the board members can discuss at that time the application request to withdraw. Yes, Ms. Pollock. I believe attorney Joel Bard has raised his hand. Okay. Hold on, we're in the middle of a vote. Let's vacate the vote and then we'll start again. We should not be having discussions except one clarification on the vote in the middle of a vote. So let's vacate the vote and we'll start it up again. Mr. Bard, you said has a... Yeah, Joel, can you speak? I did ask to unmute. So maybe his mute is not working, his unmute. All right, well, we'll never mind. Okay. I think in your motion, you may want to need to say that you will reopen the public hearing, that you're just adjourning for this next bit, but you will be reopening the public hearing. Well, we'll reopen the public hearing if the motion to accept the withdrawal is not approved. And we'll be back with them, we'll continue the public hearing. Yep. All right. End the discussion. We're voting to end the hearing where there's discussion and input from the applicant. We're voting and then we're voting to open the meeting where the board would discuss amongst themselves. And so if you may... So if the board has any sort of clarifying questions, I think now would be a good time to be had or is that correct before you close the public hearing? Or adjourn the public hearing? We can ask those clarifying questions during the meeting, but it's better to ask them during a public hearing if you have questions. Okay. So let's proceed to the vote on the previously stated motion, which was a motion to adjourn the public hearing on the request to withdraw without prejudice and open a public meeting on the same matter. It's a roll call vote. We've had a... Mr. Maxfield, do you make that motion again? So moved. Who seconds? Sir. Mr. Meadows? It's a roll call vote. Chair votes aye. Mr. Langsdale? Aye. Ms. Parks? Aye. Mr. Maxfield? Aye. Mr. Meadows? Aye. Motion passes. We're now in a public meeting to consider the request of the applicant to withdraw the application for a special permit without prejudice. Are there people have questions, discussions and comments? Mr. Maxfield? I think we should deny the request, I think over the past several months, we've gathered a lot of evidence. We have a solid proposal before us that I think we can vote with conditions one way or another. If we wanted to, we can deny it. If we don't want to pass it, but either way, I think we have materials needed to make a decision one way or the other. And I think that the board should move forward and we should come to a vote on this matter. So I think we should deny this request. Any other comments? Mr. Langsdale? I agree. Ms. Parks? Mr. Meadows? I don't know that I feel ready to vote on the project because I have some concerns about the project that I don't know if they were fully answered or they weren't fully answered for me. And so I'm not feeling as comfortable about voting on the project right now. Mr. Meadows, you were... My comment would be primarily about the last letter from Mr. Schreiber that in which he indicated that an architect would be necessary for this. I'm not suggesting that that's the best route but if it is left open as an open issue and we vote, we vote on this, it could end up causing problems after this vote if we don't ask for everything that is needed for the project. Mr. Langsdale? I would like to ask Ms. Parks, what are those concerns that haven't been answered for you? So one of them is about the management plan and about how that would work if it weren't owner occupied. So if it were for unrelated people and one of them were the property manager, how would that work? So I have concerns about that. I also have concerns about eight people on the property. I know that there was like a range of six to eight people but that feels like a lot of people on that property. I'm concerned about a non-permeable surface for the parking. I'm wondering if it's possible to do a permeable parking surface. I'm concerned because the original house isn't finished and I would feel more comfortable with the project if the main house were completely finished. I guess I just had a lot of experience with people not finishing things. And so it concerns me that the main house isn't finished yet. I did have a concern about having the architectural, I guess it's a licensed architect designing the project. I don't know, I just haven't looked into it. So those are some of the concerns I have. I just, I wasn't 100% comfortable with those things. Mr. Langsdale, before I recognize you, I just wanna express my concerns about the application. Generally too, I am concerned about the number of people residents on that small piece of property. And I'm concerned about the effects upon the neighborhood whether we were detrimental or not. I'm also not sure that the, as Ms. Parks was, I'm not sure about the drawings and if we would need additional information, additional drawings and a more complete set of drawings, I think before we go or a waiver from request for a waiver, if we want to approve that with the drawings. The permeability, I originally had a real problem with the groundwater. The water. Oh, is it? Can you talk a little bit about the water? I had a real concern about the groundwater runoff. But I think that the study done in the discussion with Mr. Steele's, I am less concerned about that than I was. Generally, I think that the applicant has to be, if we do not allow him to withdraw this, and it continues to be an open issue, the applicant has to be prepared to, could be asked to provide more information. It might require more expense on his part or their part. And I'm not sure that it's up to the applicant to decide that if they want it or not. But I don't think that in my opinion, I'm not sure that I don't think that this would proceed without additional time, effort, and perhaps cost to the applicant. And lastly, allowing the applicant to withdraw without denial means that he can go back, work on this and present it again at another time. If we keep it open, if he wants to, he can go back, reassesses his designs and come back before the board at a later point in time. And I don't think that would be deemed to be frivolous or it wouldn't be inappropriate to come back with a more complete and better application if he so chooses. And so for that reason, I'd like to give the applicant the opportunity to withdraw it as a request and do it without denial or without prejudice. I know the neighbors are expressing a concern about that, they would like to have this denied with prejudice which would preclude a similar proposal from the applicant for the next two years. And I do not feel that that's appropriate or needed. I think you tend to have that only when you have frivolous or sort of malicious applications that tend to take up the time with the board. And I don't think this is the case at all. I think this is an honest attempt to do something with this property. It's done with all the good intentions. The board just may have a different feeling about whether it's appropriate or not. But for those reasons, I would support the motion to allow the withdrawal without prejudice. Mr. Langsdale, you had your hand up. Yeah, a couple of things. First of all, the main house, as Ms. Park said, isn't finished. I don't know what that means. The outside needs to be repaired, but the applicant has already said that that's part of the process and certainly would be a condition. The photographs that we've had of the inside, they have made a lot of additions and everything. The other thing is, we keep talking about the runoff from this parking lot. And the town engineer has looked at it and okayed it with the plan. One of the things that we've heard constantly at the beginning of this was that the property to the south of this property, 275, has had a lot of problems with water in their basement, which is a runoff from 275. So if nothing is done, that will continue. So if there's a parking lot with permeable concrete, which as we have dealt with before, plus the plans for the runoff that the applicant has presented, it's only gonna be a lot better. And if the town engineer has already said it's adequate, why are we still talking about this runoff? It doesn't make sense to me. The runoff is being taken care of. Mr. Maxwell. One of my concerns here to really about withdrawing this, without prejudice here is, I think we've spent a lot of time here in the public hearing, and we haven't really had a lot of time to discuss amongst the board here about some issues that may be insurmountable, such as this being an undersized lot for even one building out, it's two buildings on their show, there's two structures, but we here on the board have been really gotten into that issue if let's say all other concerns are addressed, how does the board feel about that? There's nothing Mr. Mendelssohn can do to change the size of the lot. Would that be something that ultimately the board would deny this project for? And Mr. Mendelssohn withdraws, spends more time and money, comes back to the board, ultimately just to have it get denied because of the lot size, why didn't we just do that now in this meeting? Why did we send it back? There's one concern that I have of that going backwards or withdrawal. And two, I think we've been working on this for since October, five, six months now that we're at. And I know prior to coming on to the ZBA, I would hear stories of people who come before the Amherst ZBA. And then it's just roadblock after roadblock after roadblock never gets anywhere. And then they withdraw their application without ever getting a decision. And I frankly don't want us to operate in that way. I think we've heard more than enough evidence to make a ruling one way or the other. I certainly think if we want to move forward in this, we will need to spend a lot of time working on conditions to address the concerns that we have here on the board. But I think we have the information we need to start working on that. And then if it turns out that we don't or we run into issues that can't be rectified, then we can deny the project. But I think we really should move forward on this way. And we should rule either up or down on this project. And we should not have this project withdrawn. Mr. Maxwell, I'm not sure that I agree. I don't agree with your characterization here. The ability of the applicant to withdraw this is in the applicant's interest, if you want. It's very possible that if we continue on with this, we would deny that the application. The application would then, the Mr. Mendelssohn then could not reapply for the next two years. It was essentially the same application. He couldn't even go back and try to modify it a bit, but the sense, it'd be up to us to judge whether this would be a new, substantially changed application or not. Secondly, I think that you're right that the board has not had time, there's not an opportunity to address, to talk among themselves, to address the concerns. And that's the process, that's the effect of the hearing process. We've been in a public hearing, we haven't been in the public meeting yet where we typically do the conversations. And from that public hearing, arguably the applicant has heard that there's concerns that he may or may not be able to overcome. And it's the applicant's desire to withdraw that. Our desire, I think as a public body, our desire to come to a decision should not be paramount to the applicant's desire to continue the fight or not, or to continue the application and continue on with additional information. I think that if we do go ahead and deny the motion to withdraw and continue with the application, continue it, I think there'll be additional information needed from the board. It seems obvious from the discussion so far tonight. And I'm just not sure that Mr. Mendelson wants, and it's up to him. I'm not sure that Mr. Mendelson wants to continue to engage in that and spend the money on it. So this is at his request, at the applicant's request. And I feel that allowing them to go back and reapply if they wish at a later point in time is probably the best for Kim, as well as for the board not having an open item on our agenda for a period of time. Mr. Langsdale. Yeah, you just stated that we as the board over this period of time, these months have not had a chance to discuss this because everything has been about presentation in a public hearing. So now we're sitting in a public meeting, finally. So now we're beginning to talk about what we think this project is about, what it can do, how it can be done. So we have to finally ask the applicant what he wants to do. However, he deserves to hear the board discuss this entire matter before we ask him, do you wanna go ahead with this? He has already said he wishes that he did not have to withdraw. So I think it's incumbent upon us to have a real discussion among the five board members about what this project is, what, if we're looking for anything else and I think it's, and then it's up to us to present all of that to him and say, do you wanna go ahead with this or not? Rather than us deciding whether he should go ahead with this or not. Mr. Langsdale, it is up to him. We're not deciding whether he should go ahead or not. But we're not deciding whether. But he deserves our input, which he hasn't had up to this point. But that's what we're doing right now. I talked about her, I talked about my concerns, Mr. Meadows talked about his, you had an opportunity and so did Mr. Matchfield. And so we're continuing that process right now, but in the end, it's up to Mr. Mendelsen whether he wants to continue to push for, continue to have this before us or if he wants to withdraw without prejudice. I will say that I think that I would be in, I would be more, I would be of the opinion that we need to have more exact drawings, something either from a licensed designer, things that are to scale. I think that's gonna require some effort and expense on his part at the very least. I know Mrs. Parks has questions about the drainage. I've had those somewhat ameliorated for me and the town engineer has spoken about that. I think the hardest thing is the number of people on the, I think the hardest thing is the number of residents on the property. When you'd have eight residents on the property and in that neighborhood, I'm worried about the effect on the neighborhood. And we have to find that that it does not have a more detrimental effect than the existing structure to be able to make the 9.22 determination and then to go through 3.3241 and then go to 10.38. I think there's a, in my opinion, there's a huge hurdle and there's more information needed and there's more questions to be asked that I think then I'm prepared to vote for this application at this point. Then excuse me, we have been through five months of this. Why haven't these things been addressed? Why haven't these been addressed? I'm really frustrated by this. I mean, this whole thing about the drainage, what are you looking for? The drainage would be far better than it is now. Mr. Langsdale, we did address it. The parking far better than it is now. Mr. Langsdale, at the last meeting, we even thought about having a peer review. We talked with Jason Steele. He said the peer review would not give us any additional information. He reviewed the matter again and he said that he thought it was adequate. I think the difference between a permeable driveway and a flat driveway, a pure asphalt driveway is little. There's very little difference in the permeability of the water with these permeable pavers and just asphalt. And so I think even if we require that, it might be marginally different and marginally beneficial to the abutter, but I'm just not sure that it would make much difference. And why are there questions still about the drainage? Ms. Parks raised the question about the drainage and I had the questions beforehand, but she... But what are those questions is what I'm asking. Now that we've been given all this information, what are the questions? Why are the questions still there about the drainage? Just a second, Ms. Paula. I just wanted to clarify something about the stormwater management discussion item. So the way the things that were left off with the town engineer was putting a pause on having a peer review for the stormwater, but to have the professional engineer, Bucky Sparkle, to submit his hydrological calculations for determining the proposed stormwater. And so it is my understanding that that information has not been provided to the town engineer as of yet. So that would still need to be provided if this project were to be... This application process were to be carried on. So I just wanted to clarify that. And then I also just wanted to say since attorney Bard, I believe had something that he wanted to contribute. He is calling from the airport. So I wanted... Was letting you get in. Yeah, so Joel, I believe... Let me press that. Let's see here if that'll work. You might need to press star six or star nine. I seem to forget. Okay, here we go. There we go. Hi, Joel. Hello, Mr. Chairman. Yes, hi, everyone. I apologize for the background noise. Actually, the comment I would have made, I think has been addressed, particularly by the chair, but I'll make it again. And that is simply to point out that if the board votes to allow this to be withdrawn without prejudice, the applicant can choose to proceed and try to address the issues as he thinks best and come back. So it doesn't cut it off entirely. The whole point of allowing it to be withdrawn without prejudice is to give the applicant more freedom, if you will, and obviously not have to wait for two years and come back if he so chooses. So the extent of the comment suggesting that a vote to allow this withdrawal essentially shuts off the project isn't accurate because it puts it fully in the applicant's hands to decide whether to pursue or not. He simply not face the penalty if he withdraws now. And that's my comment. Thank you. Thank you, Attorney Bard. Mr. Maxfield. I mean, the question really here for me is going to be, I feel that we have enough information that we could begin working on conditions and seeing if we can read the conclusion or not. But if enough of the board doesn't feel it's the case, if enough of the board feels that we would need to impose additional costs on the applicant, it sounds like this is something that the applicant does not want to do. In that case, I would support the withdrawal without prejudice, but I think we have enough information now if the applicant withdraws comes back to us and addresses all of the concerns that have been raised throughout the public hearing over these past five months and comes back to us at a later date, there will be a new set of concerns that are raised and a new set of why these can't be here. I know originally when this first came in, one of the public comments I believe we received from, I believe it was Mr. Rosnoy had said specifically that he could support this project if it was smaller in scale and it was done by a professional engineer. And I see his signature here now on the letter to us saying that we should withdraw this only with prejudice. So I'm not seeing, if they come back to us, it's gonna be a new set of concerns that are raised. It's not gonna be new information that we need that's going to help us. I think it's just going to be, we should use the information that we have now. And vote on the project one way or another. We might feel that we can't address these concerns. We might feel there's no conditions that we can put on this to make this a workable project. But I think that's something the CBA has enough information to do and I think we should do that. But if enough board members disagree, we think we can't go forward without imposing additional costs then. I would like to hear that. And if that's the case, then I will support this motion to withdraw. Ms. Pollock. Yeah, yeah. So in addition to what I had said about the applicant. Was asked by planning staff. And by the town engineer to submit hydrological calculations for the stormwater in order for the town engineer to provide a more comprehensive review of, of the stormwater for the, for this project. In addition, you know, based from the last ZBA meeting, which was on February 11th, the board members asked for the applicant to submit a photo image of the proposed parking barrier and provide more information regarding this along strong street and to include a valuation of its safety. Someone of the board also asked to, about provide a spec sheet for a bike rack and show its location on the updated site plan. The board also asked for provide a list of all proposed site and building, building improvements that the property owner is expected to conduct in 2021. The board, two meetings ago asked that the applicant review the management plan. And in the applicant did not provide that at the last meeting. The board asked at two meetings ago, two more items. And so I'm about to say which is have pioneer property services, LLC representative give testimony to the board about rules and responsibilities and have a, a pioneer property services LLC representative review business portfolio and explain staff levels for property management company. And that information still hasn't been presented to, to the, to the board. And then in, in, in this list that I provided the applicant in an email correspondence. After the February 11th meeting, which is listing all this was please confirm that the submitted building plans compile with the requirements of section 3.116 of the Amazon rules and regulations. If the submissions do not meet these standards, the applicant may request in the board may consider a waiver provided the board finds that there is sufficient detail provided on the building plans to render a decision. The board may also make additional conditions of the approval related to the building plans. So I just wanted to point this out that there is some, at least in the previous meeting, meetings, the board did have more sort of questions and information needed by the applicant. I think what the delineation of points that Miss Pollack just made indicate that the applicant does have some specific things that they're supposed that things that the board requested. And it is in my judgment and we, if the applicant disagrees, he would allow him to state that in my judgment, he looked at those, the applicant looked at those additional requirements and decided that he would allow him to do that. And I think that's more than he wants to go through to get this thing approved. If that's the case, then that is, and I think we should honor his request for withdrawal without prejudice. I know that everybody wants their project to be approved. That's totally, that's very understandable. You think you have a good project. I think that is a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's something that we should recognize before we could approve that project. And it's up to the applicant, whether he wants to continue to engage with those. With those engaged to provide those requirements, whether it's additional costs, whether it's time and effort on his part or whatever, but that's up to him. And if he wants to withdraw it and come back and reset with additional. Then I think we should allow him to do that, to come back and to meet with those, to meet those requirements for the next time, or go ahead now and take the risk of the cost and the risk of whether the project will be approved or not. Mr. Mendelsohn, I did see your hand up. This is clarification. Just if you want to clarify something. We do not, we do not take public comment. In the public meeting, but since I attempted to characterize your position, I want to clarify what it actually is. Yeah, no, I just wanted to clarify some of the, the list that Maureen spoke about with the, the business overview, the management plan. Staffing levels. That was covered in Mr. Sparkle's presentation. If you go back and look at it because. I had a discussion with Bucky before that. That meeting and I said that I would prefer him to present information about our company and the management plan. So he did attempt to do that. And I feel like the management plan. You know, is somewhat detailed and. For me to, you know, explain it in detail would entail basically reading it. And I feel like that document. Should be more of like a collaborative type of thing, because I don't have, I mean, this type of management plan hasn't been done. That I know, you know, that I know of before. And so I was kind of just invent, you know, inventing it as I went along. But that's all I want to say. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Other comments from board members. Mr. Meadows. Simply say, Mr. Just that I agree with everything that you said. I understand. I think I understand where Mr. Maxwell is coming from. I think that there is one unfortunate insurmountable. Situation here and that is the size of the lot. I think that there's a number of people that would be living on there. And the. The fact that it, that the proposal does not really. Going coincide with the rest of the neighborhood. In my judgment. I. I'm not very good as a suit sayer. But my sense of what has been proposed and Mary Maureen could help us here for the town for the rezoning would allow this to be done by right. So it's a little bit of a quandary there. But to your point, Mr. Maxwell, I was just expressing myself so you'd understand. Other comments from board members. Ms. Parks. I guess I again, I would say, I mean, it's my issue is not with the runoff so much that more, it has to do with a large piece of asphalt in the backyard. And I. Fucking idiot. Keith, you're not muted. But I didn't, I had not heard that it was permeable. So I don't know if I missed that, that it was, that that was a discussion that was going to be permeable. So. Ms. Parks. I'll just clarify that while you still remain the issue. It isn't permeable at present. Your suggestion was that if we made it permeable, it'd be better. And my response to that was in talking to both Mr. Sparkle and Mr. Parkley, I think that if you have a semi permeable. Flow across. Gravel asphalt and grass. Regular grass isn't that different. And then it doesn't slow it down. So if you have a semi permeable. Materials such as pavers with holes in them. It will be somewhat better, but not very much better than I would be just with asphalt. So that I don't think I was very clear on that. And that may have led to the confusion. I guess for me, it's just a matter of how it looks as well. But I, it's again, it's the number of people for me. And so I don't feel comfortable with the project right now. And so, you know, I'm trying to think right now I'm thinking, what conditions in what way would this project make me feel comfortable is the way that I'm thinking about right now. And I don't know if I have the answer to that. I don't, I don't know what conditions would make me. Feel completely comfortable. And so I don't feel ready. And, and I don't want to, you know, You know, end up denying the project. When, you know, other things may change. So I just don't feel ready to do that. Got it. Okay. The last statement I made is I think we have a list of things that. The applicant would know would be need to be presented to the board, whether it's under a resubmission or whether we continue this process. So I don't think it's some amorphous ambiguous. Thing that he has to, that the applicant has to respond to Mr. Mendelson has a very specific request. I think some of those since February have been put on pause because we had the act, the request to withdraw. And so therefore a lot of that wasn't done since that period of time, such as Mr. Sparkle's. Resubmission of his hydrological calculations and other things. I think we, on that point, we did, in deference to the applicant, we did not push for Mr. Sparkle to engage in some, to build some time that he would have then, then send back and build back to the applicant. So, or did we go for peer review at that point? When it seemed like Mr. Mendelson was going to withdraw the application. I'd also say just one more time that I, in my, my peer, my time here on the board, when an applicant gets to the point where they wish to withdraw, and it's not, and we've had a few of those recently, for a host of good reasons, when the applicant wants to withdraw, we typically permit that to happen. And we only, we only deny that opportunity, or condition it with prejudice. If we think that it is a frivolous, malicious, some kind of, where it's going to take up, ridiculously take up time with the board or the public, in ways that are not beneficial. And so that is not what we, I don't think we have that here. And I think that to the extent that Mr. Mendelson has, has taken a look at what he's been requested by the board. As a list from the town staff, he's decided that he does not, if he's decided, he does not want to continue with this application. It is, in my opinion, we should allow him to withdraw it, to get back together again with his, his consultants, if he wishes, and come up with another application that he'd be resubmitted. And I think that's the best. It's clean slate. And we can, and that seems to me to be the best thing to do. I guess I'll just try to kind of wrap up everything I've been talking about this whole time. And then we can hopefully move forward here with this. But like I said, I think the same for what the, the evidence that we have for us, I certainly couldn't vote on this today. I definitely need to work amongst the board with what conditions we'd actually want to put on this project. And I think that would be definitely a process that we have to get through. But I believe that we would be able to get through that with the evidence that we have with the project that we have in front of us. And I personally believe we could get to a project that I would support voting for and approving. I don't know if the rest of the board feels that way. If, if, if people have concerns about, like I said, specifically the lot size, nothing Mr. Mendelson can do about that. I mean, the best time to raise that concern was four months ago, four months ago. And I think the second best time to raise that concern is now. Because if, if nothing can be done about that, no amount of, of engineering can, can overcome that. And we should accept the, the motion to withdraw. But I don't know. I feel like, I feel like we've got just, you know, small mom and pop property management, you know, we're trying to live the American dream of getting financially independent, you know, secure retirement and said they're, they're living the American reality, which has just been cumbersome bureaucracy and roadblock after roadblock. I think we have the information to move forward. And I think we should work on conditions. But like I said, I guess I just like here from the, from the rest of the board kind of one last time, do you think, do we not think that we have the information to begin working on conditions and seeing if we can come to a vote on this. If not, then yeah, I'm, I'm, I'm ready to, to support the motion. Mr. Meadows. I move the question. Previous question is moved. Is there a second? The vote is not, the motion is not debatable. I second the motion. Previous question is, is up for vote. Chair votes aye. Mr. Langsdale. What I'm sorry, what is the. The motion is on the previous question, the previous question motion. The motion is on the previous question motion. The motion is on the previous question motion. Would. Require would. Past would require that we go into a vote on the motion. Before us, which is to. Approve to end the discussion. And move to the motion to approve the request to withdraw without prejudice. So the previous question and the discussion. If passed. Okay. No. No. Ms. Parks. Hi. Mr. Meadows. Hi. The vote is three to two. The previous question is ordered. Discussion on. Application of the motion to withdraw is ended. There's a motion before us to. Permit the to approve the request to withdraw without prejudice. And. That's up for a vote now. So everybody understands the motion. This is on the question to withdraw. Please. Please. Restate it. Sure. You bet. The motion is to permit the, to approve the request from the applicant. To withdraw the application without prejudice. Any further questions on. Procedure. All right. The chair votes I. Mr. Langsdale. No. Ms. Parks. Hi. Mr. Maxfield. Hi. Mr. Meadows. Hi. The motion carries. It requires three votes. It's a majority vote from this. This motion. The motion carries. We will. So the application has been withdrawn. We have approved the application to be withdrawn without prejudice. We have two other items of business. And at the end of the meeting, we will. Adjourn the public meeting and close the public hearing on this matter. Our final motion. But I'd like to move on to. The two other items on the agenda. The first of which is public comments on matters that are not before the board tonight. So again, it's for items not. Not. Not beyond not on the agenda tonight. Okay. I think Mr. Ron. You're gonna hear from Paul. Ron, Ron, Ron, Ron Zoe. Mr. Rogers. Can you state your name and address? Richard. Richard Rosnoy. Can you hear me? Yes. So we were going back into public hearing before our vote was set was going to happen. Now we. Now the chair says you've already voted. And then you're going back into public hearing. or you decide, we decide the whether we vote on the motion or not during a public meeting. The public hearing is what we started with, presentation. The board then moves to a public meeting. That's where they make the decision on a motion and we have discussion. The only reason that we're going to go back to the public hearing is to close it out. And we'll do that all in one motion at the end of the meeting. So we close out the public hearing on this matter and we close out the public meeting on for the two matters that we have on the agenda currently. So for all intents and purposes, the motion, the matter is withdrawn. Wow. Well, I had the microphone. I need to clarify the record and correct a misrepresentation about me by one of your members. Mr. Rosner. It has never been my position that I would approve this project with a properly certified engineer or architect certifying this, Mr. Maxfield. Mr. Rosner. We're at the point where we're discussing items not on the agenda tonight. Yeah. It doesn't matter. It's time for you. It doesn't matter. I have been misrepresented by your board, Mr. Judge. Then my reputation is on the line and I need to. Mr. Rosnoy, I think I didn't mean to do that. Excuse me. Mr. Rosnoy, I think we only wanna hear on matters not before the board tonight. I have been misrepresented by a member of your board, Mr. Judge, and we need to clarify the record. So you can do that at some other. We'll not have my professional judgment slandered. Mr. Rosnoy, we're done with this conversation right now. We can talk on other items. Well, this is another item. No, it's a matter of whether one of your, it's a matter of whether the board recognizes. The chair has the ability to try to restrict comments that are not germane to the topic before us, which is items not before the, not on the agenda tonight. We'll go ahead for the next, if there's anybody else that wants to comment, public comments on items not before, not about the items that we had on the agenda tonight. All right. I don't think there's any other. You're correct. I don't see any other. All right. I know the other item is that I noted that there's an interest in having an administrative meeting to consider ZDA comments on zoning bylaw changes. I think Ms. Parks, you had mentioned that you would be interested in having an administrative meeting to talk through some of that, perhaps having Tom staff go through some of the, be there to help us if we want to have a ZDA comment, either as a board or individually. And is that something that you would like to have done? Well, we could do that. I know that they were looking for comments or if there were things in the zoning bylaws that needed clarification. And I think that we've run into a couple of things that it would be nice to get more clarification on so that when we're making decisions, we're not trying to interpret what the zoning law is. So I don't know if other people are interested. I can also try to pursue this on my own. But- Ms. Parks, I think it's a good idea. I think it's a good idea for two reasons. Number one, although some of the things that are maybe unclear may not be what is currently being considered by the town in terms of zoning changes, it doesn't hurt for us to make a list of things that are confusing or in that or not clear and ambiguous to the board. But I think that would be helpful. And even if it's not considered by a town council for a period of time, it's still good to have our experience communicated to them. I also think that there are issues that we see as the zoning board of appeals that other individuals do not see, other boards and councils do not see. And to the extent that we find that there are zoning bylaws that create a housing problem or create work for us that make it difficult for us to do our work, I think it would be helpful to point those out as well. So I'd be happy to have a meeting, an administrative meeting on that. Maureen, what is the next, when is our next meeting? And do we have items on the agenda? So let's see here, the next meeting would be Thursday, April 8th. And as of yet, we don't have any items on the agenda. So if that works for folks, we could hold an administrative meeting. Does that provide enough time for you Tammy and Ms. Parks to go through some of this? Mr. Moore on this Pollock, can you be at the meeting for that? I also guess I'd like to ask you if staff, if there's still efforts to change the housing policy of the town and whether we should comment on that. I know that the CRC, the Community Resources Committee had transmitted an early draft. We've not gotten an updated draft. I don't know if that's something that with everything else going on just put on the wayside or if that's something that we ought to review again. Rob, do you know where that is at? Yeah, I think at the moment, the zoning bylaw amendments have taken priority. That's still something that you'll see back with the CRC, I think in the coming months for further discussion. So I would encourage you to look at the latest drafts and formulate any comments or questions that would be forwarded either through staff or to the CRC. But I think the next couple of meetings, you might see it focused on zoning bylaw amendments. Rather than housing policy. Right. All right. Are there any other comments or questions from board members? Okay, so Maureen, we can schedule the administrative meeting for April 8th. Correct. At the usual time at six o'clock. Six o'clock. So that's for everybody's information. That's a public meeting that we'll have. It's an administrative meeting to deal with this matter. And to the extent that you have questions, I'd encourage you to contact Maureen and raise those so that we can be prepared, so that the staff can be prepared to answer your questions. And so we can make this as productive as possible. That would be great. All right. If there are no other matters, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing and adjourn the public meeting on tonight. Do I have a, is there a motion? Mr. Maxiel? Is there a second? Second. And for clarification, we're closing the public hearing on ZVA 2021-03 Pioneer Services, LLC. It requires a roll call vote and no discussion on the motion to adjourn. Chair Boat's aye. Mr. Langsdale? Aye. Ms. Parks? Aye. Mr. Maxiel? Aye. Mr. Meadows? Aye. Motion carries. We are adjourned and we'll see you all on April 8th. Thank you all. Thank you.