 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 and as EVA chair, I wanna welcome everyone to this meeting. Pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021, this meeting will be conducted via remote means. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via Zoom or by telephone. No 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 can be viewed via the town of Amherst YouTube channel and ZVA webpage. In accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 48, and article 10, special permit granting authority of the Amherst Zoning By-law, this public meeting has been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted and mailed to parties at interest. We'll begin with a roll call of the members of the ZVA and panel for tonight's meeting. Mr. Judge, I'm here. Ms. Parks. Here. Mr. Maxfield. Here. Mr. Gilbert. Here. Mr. Coffrey. Here. Also in attendance is Marine Pollock, Planner, Dave Washevitz, building inspector, and Rob Mora, building commissioner is expected to join us. The zoning board of appeals is a quasi-traditional body that operates under the authority of chapter 48 for the general laws of the Commonwealth, for the purpose of promoting the health, safety and convenience and general welfare of the inhabitants of the town of Amherst. One of the most important elements of the Amherst Zoning By-law is section 10.38. Specific findings from this section must be made for 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 for questions and for clarifications or additional information. After the board has completed its questions, the board will seek public input. The public speaks with the permission of the chair. If a member of the public wishes to speak, they should so indicate by using the raise hand function on their screen. The chair with the assistance of the staff will call upon people wishing to speak. When you are recognized, provide your name and address to the board for the record. All questions and comments must be addressed to the board. The board will normally hold public hearings for the information about a project and the input from the public is gathered, followed by a public meeting for each. The public meeting portion is where the board deliberates and is generally not an opportunity for public comment. If the board feels it has enough information and time, it will decide upon the 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 hearing to file a decision. For a variance, the board has 100 days in the date of filing of the request for variance to file this decision. No decision is final until the written decision is signed by the sitting board members and is filed in the town clerk's office. Once the decision is filed with the town clerk, there is a 20 day appeal period from the Greek party to contest the decision with a relevant judicial body in the Superior Court. After the appeal period, the permit must be recorded at the registry of deeds to take effect. Tonight's agenda is a public hearing on ZBA FY2022-04. Greg Briggs and Howard R. Paul request a special permit to modify the previously approved special permit, ZBA FY2002-21, in order to remove condition seven, which states this permit shall expire upon change of ownership or management. Located at 19 Phillips Street, Map 11A, Parcel 34, General Residence, R.G. Zoning District. ZBA FY2022-05, Lane V. Floyd request a special permit to modify the previously approved special permit, ZBA FY2011-04, in order to remove condition 13, which states this permit shall expire upon change of ownership. Located at 204 and 206 Belcher Town Road, Map 15C, Parcel 32, Neighborhood Residence, R.M. Zoning District. And ZBA FY2022-06, Lane V. Floyd request a special permit to modify the previously approved special permit, ZBA FY2011-03, in order to remove condition 12, which states this permit shall expire upon change of ownership. Located at 192 and 194 Belcher Town Road, Map 15C, Parcel 64, Neighborhood Residence, R.M. Zoning District. Following considerations of those matters, there's an opportunity for general public comment on any matter not discussed before the board tonight, as well as a opportunity for other business not anticipated within the last 48 hours. The first item on the agenda is ZBA FY2022-04, Great Briggs and Howard R. Paul request a special permit to modify the previously approved special permit, ZBA 2002-21, in order to remove condition seven, which states this permits shall expire upon change of ownership or management. Located at 19 Phillips Street, Map 11A, Parcel 34, General Residence, R.G. Zoning Districts. Are there any disclosures? We had a site visit on last Tuesday. We met at the property, we walked around the property, we observed the parking area and the entrance in Egress to the building itself. We got into the back unit first, observed each of the rooms in the second unit. Walked through that unit, walked out the front, observed the side of the building, got into the main unit and prior to that, we observed the basement as well. We observed each of the living areas as well as the bedroom areas and bathrooms in the front unit. And we came back out and walked around the front of the house. I wanna say that I appreciate very much the cooperation of the owners and the property. I know we were trying to, we had a set, we scheduled this, we continued this from last time because we did not do a site visit. I think it was important that we do one and I appreciate their cooperation in the property owner and the tenants as well, who made themselves available for us to observe the unit, interior, next-chair. Is there anything else that people who were on that site visit want to add either members or staff that I missed? That's pretty much it, I think. The following submissions have been received by town staff. They are a memo from Attorney Tom Reed, dated September 2nd, a waiver request memo from Attorney Tom Reed dated September 2nd, ZBA special permit 2022-04, special permit application, prospective purchasers management plan, the additional information required for apartments, prospective purchasers lease plan, ZBA 2002-21 approved special permit, that's the existing special permit. An email from Attorney Reed, dated October 26th, a parking plan dated October 26th, 2022. I also think that we received a, I read a note from the prospective owner, Mr. Killian O'Connell, as well as we have a list of complaints filed with the town of property, but we'll go through that in a second. And town staff submissions of the project application report dated October 26th, we also had one early for the earlier meeting, a residential rental property permit, a landscape plan with lighting trash storage and parking dated 2003 approved 2003 condition, six under ZBA special permit, the zoning map, ZBA requested items for the ZBA application, 2020-04, a list of complaints filed on properties owned by Kelerin properties LLC, project application report dated October 26th. We also received waiver requests from the applicant for a building plan, a lighting plan, a sign plan, site plan, the lighting plan and a landscape plan. We got repeated there, but five waiver requests. Is there anything else that people want that was submitted? Maureen, I think we covered it all, Louie. Yes, you did. So who's here to present for the applicant? It is I, Chair. Mr. Riedi, and for the prospective owner. Alan, you're muted. You're muted, Alan. You're making a mistake. My apologies, Alan, St. Hilaire Valley Property Management in the capacity of management for the prospective purchaser. Got it. And just need the address to cut off, cut you off, Mr. Riedi, for your address. Go ahead, Tom Riedi, turn to Bacon Wilson here in Amherst, 6 Southeast Street. Mr. Hilaire, who are you affiliated with? Valley Property Management, 35 University Drive Amherst. Thank you very much. Mr. Riedi, do you want to proceed? Yeah, sure. Thanks very much, Mr. Chair, members of the board, Mr. Roscovich, Ms. Pollack, for the record Tom Riedi, attorney with Bacon Wilson and Amherst. I mean, I think the chair summed it up pretty well. And I think Ms. Pollack's project application report does a really good job of summarizing, I think, where we are. I know we were here October 14th, had some, I think, very good productive discussions. Subsequently, there was a site visit on, I think it was this past Tuesday. Hopefully everybody saw, you know, the ones that were able to make it out there. And if you weren't, hopefully you're able to drive by. Phillip Street's a tough street. I think the current owners have done a good job of maintaining that property. You know, there's a three bedroom, which under the permit can't exceed four folks in it. And then there's a two bedroom, which under the permit can't exceed three folks in it. I think you heard at the site visit that there are less than those numbers in there now. We're not looking to change any of that. We are just looking to eliminate or as it were modify the condition that would cause this to expire upon change of ownership. And so, you know, I saw the language in the project application report and I had gone back to Ms. Pollack a little earlier today with some suggested language based upon really what we had talked about last time relative to a mortgagee and a lender and what they would be looking for to, you know, effectively loan on this property as a two-family property for lack of a better phrase instead of a single family. And so I think as far as like the instant owner is concerned and you walk through, you saw the type of ship that they run and we have asked and I think the town had asked Alan to be here. And I know that you probably have some questions for him. I'm happy to answer anything else, but to a certain extent, it feels like there's a little bit of a transition happening. So I'm happy to, like I said, answer any questions, but if you want to talk to Alan, I can be quiet. Thank you, Mr. Sanderler. One of the things we're looking at, as you know, is conditions, having, first of all, having a conversation with the new owner or his agent and management. So if you could speak to the way in which you will manage this property going forward and it changes and there might be some questions from the board if they're about your management of the property going forward. Sure, I'd be happy to do that. Just to give you a little background on our company, we've been in business in Amherst since 2013 and I've been in management in Amherst since 2006. So we've got a broad experience base and I feel a good working relationship with everybody in town, including town officials and for the relevance to this particular property, we do manage three, two, three unit buildings at the other end of Phillips Street at the intersection of Nuttingrad and Phillips Street to great success, very, very few complaints on that property over the years. Occasionally, you know, noise complaints for voices on a porch and things of that nature, but nothing of any severity. Along with multiple other properties, we've got a few properties along Lincoln Ave and some other areas of town where, you know, the neighborhoods are sensitive and the folks are watching and we're watching. So, you know, we do weekly checkups on the properties. One of the questions that came up, Ms. Paula, unfortunately, I didn't get a chance to get back to you because it came to me so late in the day, but it was about parking and managing the parking on the property. We check up on our properties at least by drive-by and if something looks off, you know, I walk around the actual property every week. And so if there is an issue with parking, if there is a historical issue with parking, I'm unaware of that. But if that was just a general inquiry, we do check up on properties. I'm not aware of a parking issue with this property. We don't manage it now, but we do provide services to the current landlords in the capacity of finding, screening and placing tenants. So we are familiar with the property, we're familiar with the neighborhood, we're familiar with the owners and some of the issues that have kind of come up in that neighborhood with other owners that will remain unnamed that have kind of caused problems for a lot of landlords in town, but anyhow, we do try to keep things upbeat on track on the straight and narrow. And I don't see that being any different here at this property. And we're always available if there are need for correction, corrective actions, complaint responses, we're here, so. So, just so we understand the current status, the, your client, Mr. St. O'Lare, is in the process of purchasing this property. Is this transaction completed or has it, what's the current status of the transaction? It is not completed. The transaction is pending on the outcome of tonight's meeting and the recording of the decision there to, I made reference to the current owners who are also clients of mine, but in a smaller capacity where we find and place tenants for them, we don't provide full service management. Got it. I had a couple of questions regarding the, your client, Mr. St. O'Lare, who got a letter from him which expresses frustration he has had over some of the properties that he's owned over 25 years, adding complaints and even some fairly serious complaints about, I don't know what the technical term is, but the condition of the house, there was numerous noise complaints as well. I went through those complaints and looked at complaints that came from property that is owned by that company. And we've got 10 complaints in 2019, I think seven complaints in 2018, no complaints in 2020 because I think there weren't as many students around, there's also the town wasn't, it just wasn't as, there aren't very many complaints in 2020 because of the pandemic. But he did say that since you became manager of many of his properties, that those conditions, that those complaints have been reduced. When did you start managing a lot of their properties? On November of 2019. 2019, so perhaps, so right now we don't have any complaints in 2020 that I see on the list. Since you began managing, is that correct? That's correct, yep. The other thing I want to establish that, number two, Phillips Street can be a challenge for a landlord and management company. It's right next to the college, there's a dearth of parking, but there's lots of people there. And I think now there's an awful lot of cars associated with students, probably more so than certainly when I went to school, much more likely for kids to have the cars. One of the things that I have noticed, I drove past the property several times and I know you don't manage it currently, but the current zone permit, special permit provides for four parking spaces. I went by there twice, once there was six and once there were seven cars parked in a lot behind along the side and a lot behind the area. So it seems to me that there is potential there for, because it's an adequate parking space for maybe more than four cars. But right now I think that there's a challenge in trying, seems to me that there's a challenge in trying to limit the cars to those for the parking plan. So I'd be interested in, I read your perspective parking plan that you submitted to the board and you don't have any way of, you don't put stickers on the car, but you say that the cars have to be registered with your management company. Is there a way to, would you consider having some kind of a sticker program so that if there is excess cars there, it's, and that are not allowed to be there, it can easily be identified and removed if that's a problem. Right now it seems to me it'd be difficult to know which ones are your tenants and which ones are the right cars to, which ones have a right to be there. I agree, Mr. Chair. I think that I'm at a bit of a disadvantage because I don't have the current leases presently to reference and see well how many cars they're allowed and any other measures that are in those leases to control them. We do have a sticker program available. We don't put it in place unless it's necessary, but we have hang tags that we can tie back to individual vehicle registrations and residents so that we can allow four stickers out there and we work closely with Ernie Stowling if necessary. Other vehicles can be removed. I think another thing that could be communicated to those residents is if they have guests, they'll need to park legally on street as opposed to on the property. I think there's a number of side streets where street parking is permitted in that neighborhood and they could park their vehicles there as opposed to congesting the property. So yes, the answer is we could certainly accommodate that. One of the things I noticed is that the special permit provides for four parking spaces. The lease provides for five parking spaces. This is a 20-some-year-old permit. Things have just changed or people have just modified their lease. So you'd want to take a look at that when you have your new lease for your tenants. And I would think you might want to have, I think there is more than enough space for five parking places on that property. It looks to me like you can accommodate five cars easily without causing trouble there. And I would wonder if it would be an advantage to the landowner and to you to have additional parking. I think it would be a benefit to the neighborhood to take a car off the street and have it parked efficiently and safely back behind the property. I would agree. Okay. So it seems to me that on parking then, one of the things that it's not contained in your parking management plan, but it would seem to me that if you could come up with a sticker plan and we can amend the parking plan, the conditions to have five parking spaces that probably solves the part, I think it solves the parking problem. If we could do that, if we'd be able to do that or hang tag, if you could submit that post this meeting and just have it adopted by the review by the town staff. Sure. Would you be okay? That'd be great. I'd be happy to do that. In fact, I have and we've provided samples to other ZVA proceedings. You have one handy that I can kind of hold up to the camera to show everybody here. So we could submit a copy of that. And what we do is just right on the backside of them with a Sharpie marker, the vehicle description and plate number. And that gets tied back in our records to the vehicle owner. So it makes it very easy for our staff or for Ernie Stowling to come in and enforce any unauthorized vehicles. And the nice thing about the hang tags is if someone goes home and needs to get tires on their car and brings their mother's car back for the following week, they can transfer that tag and not get towed erroneously as opposed to a permanently affixed sticker. Sticker. Yep. And they always eventually numbered so that we know that there's not duplicates out there. I'm familiar with some of your other properties having that sticker or that tag program makes sense to me. So it seems to me that that's the condition we can just make that you get back to the town with that and amend the parking plan that's contained in the submissions to incorporate the hang tag. Okay. That sounds good. The last thing that I have, the last question I have is on lighting. This permit was back in 2002 or just 27 years ago before there was consideration of dark sky compliant lighting. I don't think that it's reasonable for the board to require replacement of existing lights, but to the extent whenever you are going to replace an existing light because it's malfunctioned, it's old or you're putting up new lighting, dark sky compliant lighting would make sense. And I think we do it consistently across the board at all of our special permits now. Would that be a problem for the owner, Mr. Stahler? No, that would not be a problem. Okay. And we have some experience, as you know, with the dark sky compliant lighting and properly lighting parking areas. So we're happy to include that and keep that in mind. Good. I have that concludes my initial questions, questions from members of the board. No further questions from members of the board. Let me just run through. I was hoping there would be because I would run through, I wanted to review the conditions again, but just give me a second. I wanna make sure that I have covered all the items. Oh, there's one other thing I did notice that when you review the lease, Mr. Stahler, make sure that the occupancy numbers are consistent. I noticed at some places that the occupancy numbers in the lease and are not consistent. And so just review that. And it's not a big deal, but it should be done if you do that. That's it. And I noticed you did have a complaint response form and that is for a nuisance, you call it a nuisance response form and that is that contact your business and your 24 seven operation. Okay, so I'm satisfied with that. One of the conditions that we are going to, that I think we should consider is and it's been modified since the project application report was presented to the board passed out to the board is, and we'll discuss this during the public meeting portion specifically, but I wanna get it on the record. This, basically the condition would say instead of the expiration upon transfer, the permit shall expire upon change of ownership. And less prior to the change of ownership, the prospective property owner shall apply before the, till appear before the zoning board of appeals at a public hearing for review and approval of the management plan, complaint response plan, parking plan and map lease agreement and to determine whether additional conditions are needed to meet section 10.38 findings under the zoning bylaw. Notice shall be made in accordance to the general laws chapter 40a section 11 and ZBA rules and regulations. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the foreclosure by a mortgagee on the property shall not cause the permit to expire provided that the mortgagee or purchaser under contract to purchase from the mortgagee follows the process of this condition within 60 days of its foreclosure. In other words, the bank has would have 60 days in which to comply with the coming to the board and reviewing the complaint response form and et cetera, the parking management point. And under that condition, seems to me that you have meant the requirements of that condition, but that's one of the conditions that I would wanna consider for this special permit application. Are there, if there's no comments from the board, we should open it up to comments from the public. Maureen, do we have anybody from the public that wishes to comment? If anyone from the public wishes to speak, they would press the button, raise your hand or if you're calling in, you would press star nine. I'm not seeing any raised hand. I don't see any either. So there's no need for you to respond to public comments. I think the next door would be to move to a public meeting while keeping the public hearing open in case we need to gather additional information. And I would entertain a motion that we move to a public meeting on this matter while keeping open the public hearing. Is there a motion to that effect? A move. I hear a motion. Is there a second? Second. Is there a second? Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, the vote occurs on the motion. This requires a majority vote. It's a roll call vote. The chair votes aye. Ms. Parks? Aye. Mr. Maxfield? Aye. Mr. Gilder? Aye. Mr. Cochran? Aye. So we're now in the public meeting. And that's time for the board to consider and discuss and vote on conditions, findings and the, and approve or reject the application for the special permit. But first I think I'd like to get a sense of where people are if there's anything that we did not cover over the, either in the project application report and the possible conditions or anything that is new to you today that would you want to discuss before we go through conditions and other things and findings. Mr. Maxfield? As you say, I like the wording of that new condition. I think it addresses a lot of the issues I had with it. I still think at some point we should probably have administrative meaning to try to just look at our own procedures, but I asked my question still here, especially looking at some of these complaints here is how, really how are we just enforcing any of this? Is this also a question really for administrative meetings to see how are we doing enforcement? How are we doing procedures? Cause I like that condition. I think it sounds good. I don't want to hold up this application because we need to get some of our own things together on this, but just in this case, really what is our plan or is this really not, not even the time, but that's something we should maybe do a couple of months from now, what are your thoughts on that, Mr. Chair? First of all, I think you've raised a really good point and it's one that I've discussed with the staff on several times. And I think we mentioned the last meeting. We should have, there's two things and we should be three things that we should be doing an administrative meeting. I think we'd all benefit from having somebody go through how to read a set plan that's still going to be valuable because they're not all going to be this easy. I still like that notion, but we're going to be coming up on this matter. We are going to be seeing lots of these special permits that have that specific provision that seven that it lapses on the time of transfer of ownership because they were done 10 to 20 years ago. It's just kind of a natural roll off of some of these special permits. And I think properties will sell for a good reason and we're likely to see some of that. So I think it'd be good to talk through the reason that we think this is a good, as a board, talk through this provision, which I think is a model at least a template for now and see if we're comfortable with it. And I think we should do that in an administrative meeting. And the other thing that I think you raise, which is really good is that we should understand better the capabilities of the town to do enforcement and when they can enforce and when they can't, what they need from the, in terms of a complaint, what their authority is to go into buildings and to do health and safety inspections or noise complaints or everything. It's just, it is something that I suspect we all are not familiar with. And so I think that would inform us as to why some of these conditions are either needed or are superfluous. If it's something that's being handled by the town, maybe a condition isn't needed, but if it's not typically handled by the town such as parking on the street, too many cars in the parking lot, then the condition is needed and get the help of the landlord to enforce that. So I think that's something we should do in November if we get a chance sooner rather than later and be a good time for administrative meeting. I know that's not what I'm pointing, but it's a good time to ask a question and we can proceed from now and look towards that. Good. Any other questions or comments about the conditions and the findings? Tammy or Ms. Parks? Hi, I just wondered, I wasn't able to make it to the site visit. And I'm just wondering some of, I'm just reading through the project application report. And it was, there's a lot of comments. The board may wish to observe the current conditions. And I'm just wondering if you would, if people who did go on the site visit would comment on the vehicles. I think, Mr. Judge, you were talking about the fact that there's room for five vehicles. Did anyone observe the trash storage bins? Did that- Yes, we did. To answer your question, we were along the side of the eastern side of the house and under the current ownership, it's the responsibility of the tenants to move those out to the street, I think on Wednesday or Tuesday, but there wasn't a, I don't think there was a, a fenced trash area, but just large trash cans that were, that are kept along the side of the house. Okay. Is that, does anybody else remember that, John? Mr. Gilbert and Mr. Cochran? I also provided photographs of the site visit. Everyone should have received that. And I can certainly pull that up if that's helpful. Could you do that? I'm sorry, I don't, I can't look at the split screen right now. Sorry. And I, the other thing I was just wondering, I was wondering about is the vegetation, if you felt that it was adequate and that a landscaping plan wasn't needed. You know, it was hard to judge, I would say Ms. Parks said it was hard to judge whether the landscaping was adequate right now because it's mostly grass around the front, a narrow strip in the back. The grass around the front, as you can see from these pictures, could use more tender loving care, but it was generally picked up. The grass on the side seemed to be in better shape, not this side, but the other side. And once you get in the back, it's all parking area. So the only place I would say that, and it wasn't unusual in the neighborhood, but the grass in front could have used more tender loving care, but it wasn't outrageous. And I've seen worse. You see on the back, it's the side, it's fine. And there is a fence and bushes that shield the parking lot and the neighbor from the next door neighbors. I'm both sides. Okay, thank you. Well, if there's no other questions, I'd like to start to proceed to consideration of conditions. What I'd like to do is run through the conditions that are proposed by staff, review those, and at the end, unless there's an objection to one of these conditions, incorporate vote on those conditions and then go back and do our findings. Cause I think it's, you can't do the findings unless you have the conditions approved. So the first condition is the language that was distributed, did everybody get this language on the expiration of the permit or can we put that up on the board? Yeah, let's put that up on the screen. And I'll ask Rob also to apply on this cause we worked, I know with Maureen and Rob and Dave on this language. But as you can see, as opposed to the permit expiring upon transfer of ownership, my concern with that is that we don't have the ability under the existing conditions, limitations on special permits to bring in the new management and talk to them. We don't have the ability to make changes on those conditions because the changes that might have occurred over the last 20 years, changes in the neighborhood. We don't have an ability to respond to neighbors who and then the neighborhood that may be affected by the existing use of the property. And this gives us the opportunity to correct anything. And also sometimes they help the landlord, quite frankly, in case of the parking. And it's a good process to have a discussion about that with about the property and the use at that point in time. So here's what this one says that it shall expire unless and then unless prior to the change of ownership the protected property owner appeared before the zoning board of appeals at a public hearing for review and approval of the management plan, the complaint response plan, the parking management plan and map. I think we're gonna change that language just a little bit Maureen, I think. We're gonna, yeah. Parking plan, parking map, yeah. And the lease agreement to determine whether additional conditions are needed to need section 10.38 findings under the zoning bylaw. And then we wanna make sure that this just says that notice has to be made as with any public hearing to the public and notwithstanding the foregoing, the foreclosure by a mortgagee on the property shall not cause the permit to expire provided that the mortgagee and the purchaser under contract to purchase from the mortgagee follows the process of this condition within 60 days of its foreclosure. I don't know that this property is under any threat or under imminent foreclosure. It was something that was brought to our attention from by Mr. Riedi as a possible something we should be thinking about. I know that Mr. Mora, Mr. Washeviks and Ms. Pollock and I all discussed this. And it seems that it's probably not a very likely occurrence but it isn't covered under the upper, the previous paragraph. And this one I think would provide us the ability to get the new, the mortgagee that is the bank if they own this to provide a complaint response plan and management plan or parking plan at least if they own it for more than 60 days. There any questions about that condition? This is new and I think it serves as a template but it's something of course we can change as we move through the other applications in the future. So I think as we review the possible conditions, first is that if you just go up morning the first one is conditions one, two, three, four, five and six stay in effect. The second is that we just talked about it. The third is the product, these are mostly standard things. The product shall be maintained as needed and any substantial changes will include financial comeback before the zoning board. And that include the things that we have talked to them about the approved management plan and complaint response plan shall be followed by the property owner. The exterior lighting shall be designed and stalls to be shielded or downcast to avoid light trespass and light fixtures shall be selected according to dark sky compliance and ZBA rules. No more than four and related individuals should occupy each unit. I guess is that supposed to be three for the second unit and four for the first? I think that's right. Mr. Sainter, Mr. Reedy, I think that's what the current situation is. Correct. Mr. Mora, Mr. Mora, Mr. St. Hilaire, is that comport with your understanding as well that it's four in the front and three in the back? That is in line with what I've heard to date and Mr. Reedy has reinforced this evening. Okay, Maureen, we should just change that to four and three. Any dwelling unit on the property being rented shall be registered and permitted in accordance with the residential mental bylaw. The street numbers and for both dwellings should be clearly marked. But it was reflective signage, parking, current improved services, only the parking shall be maintained as needed. Parking and drive should be constructed in accordance with article 7.1. Maximum overnight visitors. This is in the lease. I'm sure that this is agreeable to the current and future owners, should be three people, maximum stay up for consecutive nights and the maximum number of people on the premises at any time should be 20 people. That's outlined in the guest, that's consistent with the guest policy outlined in the prospective owner's lease, if I'm not mistaken. And lastly, the property shall be free of litter and debris. We would leave this number eight would be deleted. Are there any questions about these conditions? Ms. Pollock. So earlier, you had asked Alan to submit a parking management plan and he had shown the board a picture of his standard parking decal. So should there be a condition stating that the prospective applicant will submit the parking management plan, which will outline how parking will be managed and enforced by Peele. Hang tag. So yeah, as per our discussion, he just has to submit it to the building department for approval. We doesn't have to come back to the board for that. Okay. And I just to clarify, I believe that you went through the condition that I've highlighted now about any dwelling unit on the property should be rented. And registered and permitted in accordance with the rent. Yeah, residential property by law. If I didn't, I should have, okay. So we have to make findings if there's no objections to those conditions, we have to make findings under 10.38 for, I guess I would just ask one other thing, Rob, Mr. Mora or Mr. Washevis, did you have any comment on the conditions and specifically the new condition on transfer? These work was for you and is there anything you'd like to say about it? I think it's a good condition. I do have questions about the second clause there with the foreclosure. I assume Mr. Riedi suggested it because he thinks that will work. I do have questions about the 60 days and actually dealing with a bank. I think if a mortgagee is an individual, I think that works a little smoother, but as a bank or the property that goes in the foreclosure with my experience, 60 days isn't really a lot of time to get much done. But I think it's a starting point for the board. I don't think we have to work out every detail tonight, but remember to let's revisit that and make sure that condition. I like the idea of what it's doing, but I think maybe it needs a little bit more adjustment. And if I could, Mr. Chair, maybe we put the word sale after foreclosure just so it's the foreclosure sale. I'm actually going through something similar in East Hampton and so it's East Hampton Savings Bank that's foreclosed on the two family. They've held the foreclosure sale and they're saying to the client, you have to buy it within 30 days of that day. And so that's why I thought 60 days was probably, from that sale, banks don't want to hold it any longer than they need to. So that was just the thinking that 60 days would be sufficient because it's more likely to be that prospective purchaser to get in there than it is really the bank. Only if the bank's buying it back at foreclosure, are they the ones that are gonna probably head in? You know, if that raises a question, it's a good suggestion. I understand what you're getting at but it raises a question for me as well. And that goes to Rob, to Mr. Mora's point. When it's 60 days of foreclosure sale, that means if that bank holds that property for a year or a long period of time, there is no review of their management plan or anything else in the time being. I'm not sure if that, I don't know the answer to this. But they wouldn't technically own the property during that time. Because the person who was the owner, as far as you're concerned, would still have what's called an equity of redemption so that they would have, they actually own the property until the bank actually forecloses, has that foreclosure sale. And the foreclosure sale is really like foreclosure by entry, they go in, they have POSNIC or somebody do the auction there. So stepping back and saying to your point, what happens if things go sideways with the person who's owning the property, they're just not keeping it up, then I think there's probably the ability, provided that there's sufficiency in the management plan, the lease, et cetera, if you're not seeing the properties being managed according to the management plan, inspection services can go in and issue a cease and desist and then you can get them back in front of the board a lot quicker if it's just a delinquent landlord. I guess it's the way to put it, but the bank wouldn't be that new owner. So it wouldn't trigger that change of ownership at that point. This is why it makes sense that this is a start on this provision for, and it's cause it gets complicated. And I think I always worry also. So anyway, for me that I think either way works, I think it's a start. And I think this is exactly what we need to cover in our administrative meeting and we can do more work on it then. But I'm fine with the word sale there because I don't think we can solve this problem tonight. Okay, we've got to make some findings under 10.38. So 10.38 and 10.38 one requires that we find the proposals suitably located in a neighborhood in which it's proposed and or the town and it's deemed appropriate by the special permit granting authority the proposals compatible with the existing uses and other uses by right in the same district. I think we satisfy that through the condition. Is it to Maureen on the change of ownership as well as lighting and the other conditions that we've placed on the property, 10.382, 383, 385 and 387 all deals with nuisance. I think by changing the dark side compliant upon change of light fixtures also on the reduction in or increase in the number of cars that can park there and reducing the parking on the street. We've reduced the nuisance. 10.384 requires that we find adequate and appropriate facilities provided for operation of the proposed use. That's already, they're already in existence and there's already appropriate facilities. The proposal ensures that it's in performance parking and sign regulations. I think pending the submission of the parking plan that will something that we will find and that with that pending submission we'll be able to find that for article seven and eight. Yeah, Mr. Chair, which just reminds me so to add as a additional condition. So the board, the board observed so the applicant submitted a parking plan that shows four parking spaces and on the site visit you observe that there was perhaps, there was a car utilizing perhaps a fifth parking space and it looked like that it was a safe and convenient location for parking space. And tonight you suggested that the applicant as a way to get people off the street from parking on the street to add another parking space on the property. So perhaps you should add a condition that the applicant submitted updated parking plan to show that fifth spot as shown, as observed at the site visit. That's good, that's a good point. Morning, Mr. Senator, that's not a problem, is it? That's not a problem for me. I made the assumption perhaps a faulty one that that would be included in the parking management plan that needs to be submitted to town officials. We'll make wording there so that there's no confusion. That's pretty sure, that's good. Thank you, Ms. Hall. I think by the proposal provides for convenient and safe way of traffic, I think by observing the parking and reducing them and having a parking plan with a tag on it will have less cars parked in the property back there. And that's why I first say for vehicular and pedestrian movement, adequate space for off-street loading is an applicable 10.389 message support waste, I think it's, we observed it, it is consistent with what is also in the neighborhood. 10.390, proposals ensure protection from flood hazards, this not in a flood zone. 391 deals with historic scenic features, it's not applicable 392 deals with landscaping, pursuant to the question that Ms. Park had, Parks had it, it is vegetated. I think it does a good job of shielding the neighbors. I think a good management plan would probably do a better job on some of the grass in the front, but you can take care of that, I think. 10.393, the board wishes, I think deals with minimizing light, I think we've dealt with that in the dark hide. Compliance requirement for a placement of fixtures. It's not, there's no steep slopes, there are no, it's not in disharmony with respect to terrain, stories are deduct stumpsters, that's, it seems to me it's consistent with the neighborhood. The proposal provides adequate recreational facilities, that's not applicable to the project. Proposals in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the bylaw, I think that's the case. In terms of the, the last thing in terms of the trash, Mr. St. Euler, do you have any plans to have like a fence or any kind of screening for the trash can? Oops. To be honest, Mr. Chair, I hadn't given a lot of thought to that, I was focused on kind of complying with the existing permit with the exception of the condition that was requested to be removed, but we can certainly be mindful of that and find a location that would be out of public view. Does anybody on the board have a concern about the trash or the screening of the trash receptacles? Okay. Take a look at it and see what you can do to reduce the visibility from the street. Perhaps screening would be, would make a lot of sense. I move that we accept the conditions as stated and that we make those findings that I've run through on this application. All right, I would accept the motion that we adopt those conditions and that we make the findings as I stated. So I have such a motion. I'll move. Mr. Maxfield, do I have a second? Second. Ms. Parks, any discussion? We'll vote on most of the things before we vote on the application. If there's no discussion, just a roll call vote. Chair votes aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Oh, hold on. One question before you vote on this. So for this application specifically, are you all set? You've reviewed the conditions from the previously approved special permit. You've added new conditions and they've provided all the information needed for the new condition too. So in a way, if Kiligren does purchase this property, the new owner would not need to come back. Yes, that's my intent. And as long as the parking and other information we asked of the prospective owners submitted to the town, they would not need to come back. So would the board like to make a motion to transfer this special permit to Kiligren? Yes, but I think we should do that after we adopt the conditions. Oh, okay, okay. After we adopt the conditions and the findings. Yep. So back to the vote, I vote aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Mr. Gilbert. Aye. Mr. Cochran. Aye. So we've adopted the findings and we've made the findings and adopted the conditions. The vote, now the question before the board is, shall we approve the special permit application and transfer the special permit to the new owner, Ms. Kiligren properties? Is there any discussion on that motion? Mr. Maxfield. I'm sorry, do we have a motion for it or are we just discussing prospect of it? We haven't had a motion put before us yet, but that's what we should discuss that before we do it. Or we can discuss it once we make the motion too, either way. But I was just opening it up to see if anybody had comments or questions. Well, I'll just go with procedure and make the motion. All right. Mr. Chair, can I just say subject to the actual conveyance to Kiligren properties? I'm sorry, we did transfer this to Kiligren properties. Yeah, but just so you're saying that you're making a motion to transfer the permit to Kiligren properties, I'm just saying make that subject to them actually buying it. Purchasing the property. Yes. I don't want to, we're not transferring this without purchase of property. So they'd be the new owner of Kiligren properties, right? It would only be upon sale. Good clarification. Thank you. Good point. So we have a motion in front of us. We need a second. I'll second. Mr. Gilbert seconds. Now we can have discussion on the motion. Looks like we've got consensus or at least silence. So that's good. All right. Without objection, we'll move to a vote. The chair votes aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Mr. Gilbert. Aye. Mr. Cochran. Aye. All right. Congratulations, gentlemen. Thank you very much. Thank you. You bet. All right. The next order of business is ZDA 22-05, Lane v. Floyd requests a special permit to modify the previously approved special permit ZDA FY 2011-04 in order to remove condition 13, which states this permit shall expire upon change of ownership. Located at 204 206 Belcher Town Road, Matt 15C parcel 32 neighborhood residents district, RN zoning district. Are there any disclosures? We did have a site visit on Tuesday. We walked around the prop, we began in the parking lot, walked around the property, looked at the parking spaces available, entered the property and both two, both 204 and 206, we were escorted to the property by the property manager. We looked at each of the rooms, pictures were taken by staff of each of the rooms. House, the tenants were there, they were, they were, they shared their house easily and were not disturbed by our presence. We walked outside, went into the second unit, did the same thing, came back, observed the land and the, we did notice one light up front was not working, but it wasn't a door that was over a door that does not, doesn't seem to be used at all or for entrance or egress to the building. But other than that, it was pretty, it was just an observation of what the state of the property. I will say that it seemed that the property was well managed, the property, the grounds were well managed, it was clean and free of trash. The rooms themselves seem to be in good shape and I found that it was a very well, it looks to be a well managed property currently. I also wanna say, in this case, one more time, it's a imposition of, we understand it's an imposition on the tenants and on the property owner to go into the property, but they were, I appreciate their cooperation and allowing us to do that. It gives us a better sense of what we're looking at. And in this case, I wanna thank the property management firm and the tenants for being accommodating us in our visit. Any other thing you wanna add to the site visit? I wanna go through the submissions from town staff on this property, I'll go on just a second. So submissions are application for the special permit a management plan and application memo from attorney Tom Reedy dated August 26th, excuse me, yeah, August 26th waiver request from memo from Mr. Reedy, August 26th, previously approved ZBA special permit decisions from 2011. Applicants waiver request site plan, building plan, lighting plan, landscape plan, sign plan and management plan, zoning for just additional requirements for apartments. Planning staff submissions include a zoning map, a residential property permit and a project application report dated one day to October 8th. Also, we have site from the, focus from the site visit and existing leech for 204 Belcher Town Road and an existing leech lease for 206 Belcher Town Road. Is there anything else Maureen that we have? I believe there was an email correspondence from Mr. Reedy from October the 26th. Okay, I missed that. All right, who's here to represent the applicant? I am Mr. Chair, Tom Reedy, it can Wilson, yeah, out of Amherst, 6 Southeast Street. All right, you may proceed. Thanks. So I think you did a nice job recapping the site visit for those of you who are out there, I think you saw some pretty well maintained properties. Belcher Town Road is a little bit different animal or I should say a lot different animal than Phillips Street. You got farmland right behind it, preserved farmland, much more space. I had just, before this meeting sent over, I had found those rental permit parking plans and they each show eight spaces. So on, and I'm conflating a little bit because I'm also, we saw both 204, 206 and 192, 194. So just focusing on 204, 206, it showed eight spaces. As you all saw, there was sufficient parking off-street, sufficient maneuverability off-street and then overall just a pretty well maintained site. You know, I haven't seen a project, an updated project application report for this, but assuming based upon the last conversation from the last public hearing for 19 Phillips, if the board, I don't know if the board is thinking about imposing the same condition for here. I guess my only comment there for consideration is one Phillips, no, 90 Phillips Street, it was in the RG zoning district and this one is in the RN zoning district. As you probably all are aware, non-owner occupied duplexes in the RG zoning district have a mandatory expiration upon change of ownership. So that was different because what you were just dealing with with 19 Phillips was a converted dwelling which doesn't have that requirement. So that's how we were able to do what we were able to just do. But I just wanted to put that out there for consideration. I know in the October 6th project application report the board had mentioned that a future owner would come back at a public meeting which I know oftentimes in the RN zoning district, the board has done when they've eliminated this condition. So I just wanted to get that out, to have the conversation about given the somewhat apples and oranges nature of Belcher Town Road where these units are and 19 Phillips Street are that RG area closer to the university. So I mean, I'm happy to answer any questions but I hopefully the site visit satisfied the board with what's going on out there and how it's being managed. Is Rob or Dave or Maureen, can you clear up the point made by Mr. Reedy regarding the differences in RN and how that affects this application? It does not now require that the, are you saying Mr. Reedy that the zoning bylaw now requires the lease aspiration on change of ownership? In the RN zoning district for non-owner occupied duplexes, it requires the permit to expire upon change of ownership. So that is not a modifiable provision for non-owner. That's RG, that's not RN. Correct, correct, correct. So I was just drawing a comparison to say 19 Phillips converted dwelling, I can much more appreciate what we just did based upon the sensitivity of the area versus and distinguished from the RN which has no corollary for non-owner occupied duplex which these are under the use code. So that was just an observation. RN, RG is all confusing to me still and I just wanted to clarify that there is no mandatory expiration in this case upon change of ownership. That is correct. Other than the existing condition of the lease of the special permit. Correct. Great. One of the things that I found, I mean, it's not a question of the current management. It seems you're doing a really good job. That was a well run, I think it looked to me to be a well run apartment house for students or duplex for students. I was pleased with it and the property looks in good shape. The question is how do we make sure that that continues with the next owner? And it seems to me you can't do that unless you have the ability to have the new owner come the prospective owner come in and talk prior to the transfer of property just like we did in the last one. And it seems to me that that's the right way to do this. In this case, we don't have a prospective owner. We don't have a bona fide offer out there. And I think it's premature for us, my feeling is it's premature for us to grant the remove the existing condition that the lease expires without replacing it with something. And I think what we just replaced with a 19 is a good model for that. And it allows the owner when he has a new bona fide offer to come back in to know what to expect. He won't be facing the uncertainty that 19 Phillips Street did. We were trying to figure it out. He'll be out there, he'll be known to be expected. And I think that would make a lot of sense from my standpoint. But I would like to see what other people think if they think that this condition to be replicated at least for the time being, as we do until we can have more time to talk about it in a later point in time at post-administrative meeting. But I think it's a good way to proceed, but I'd like to get to the feeling with other members of the board. Mr. Maxwell. Yeah, I mean, I'm definitely sympathetic to that point of, you know, if we were doing this maybe three months from now, we might just be more in favor of removing that condition entirely, but much like anybody who was applying for an ADU before inclusionary zoning, just the timing is off. So I think until we can have more of a discussion of how we want to go forward this or go, handle these going forward, I think we should stick to the condition as it's written in the previous case. I'm getting some head shaking, which are yes, not so, and thumbs up. So I sense a consensus here. I guess I have no other comments just to read you major, you've done a good job representing your client. I think I want to give the public a chance to comment if they, if there is anybody that wishes to speak and then we can respond. You could respond to any public comment if need be. Not, Maureen, I don't see anybody wanting to speak. Okay, so I would entertain a motion that we move to a public meeting while keeping the public hearing open and that we move to the public meeting and keep the public meeting open so that we can take other information if need be. Do I have that motion? So moved. Do I have a second? Mr. Cochran, you put your hand up. You beat him, you beat Mr. Maxfield. All right, the vote occurs on the motion. Unless there's discussion, I can't imagine. I vote aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Mr. Gilbert. Aye. Mr. Cochran. Aye. All right, we're in the public meeting to discuss this application. It seems that I think that the condition that we should impose on this application is the same one that we applied on 19 Phillips Street. Remove the, what is it? Condition, is it seven in this case, Maureen? Yes, I believe so. I think it's seven. It's 13. Oh, it's 13. No, no, 13 is 206. We're on 206, 204, 206, Delta Town Road, right? Right. Yeah. Okay, so it's removed condition 13 and replace it with the condition that we just voted for 19 Phillips Street. I see no other conditions that we need to apply in this instance. It's prospective. And I think we have to make one finding on 10.38 and that is that this is to be consistent and with the neighborhood to avoid and be consistent with the town master plan and to avoid nuisance and ensure the quiet appreciation, the quiet appreciation of fellow property and neighbor owners, neighbors and fellow property owners in the area. So I think we meet 10.381 as a condition. So the condition is the same, 10.381 is the finding. Is there any objection to those? If not, I move that we, I would entertain a motion that we approve that the amendment to the existing special permit with conditions, which includes same as the Phillips Street conditions and the finding that we are consistent with 10.381 of the bylaws. Do I have such a motion? It just to clarify, so you reviewed from the Phillips Street application, you referenced, I'll call it condition two, which was like the permit will expire unless they come back. The prospective buyer comes back, dot, dot, dot, dot. Did you, did the board wanna go through the other conditions listed? They are pretty much the same, but from the other one, they are the same from the other ones from the other applications, but I just wanted to clarify whether folks wanted to go through that or not. But these are, well, these are all the, I'm sorry, Maureen, these are the standard. I don't, you know, I think some of these we should go through the standard ones, but we know we're not, we are granting them the ability to transfer the ownership under certain conditions, but we're not, we're not changing, we're not in the position, I think, to impose new, to impose too many new requirements upon the property owner, because I don't think we have, aside from, well, I'd have to look at the existing conditions, but I don't know that we wanna impose additional conditions beyond the project, beyond number two, which are pretty much standard. I'm guessing I'm wondering why we need to put additional conditions on it this time on this one, because they gotta come back if there, if and when there would be a sale for prospective owners, but at that point in time, we should put in additional property, additional conditions. Sure, that's fine. Anybody else have a different opinion on that? Mr. Moran, Mr. Westchurch-Evitz, am I missing something? Four members of the board? I just think we changed, I think we should just change the transfer condition and move forward. All right, so I have a motion to approve the special permit, the change of the special permit condition, number 13 to the Phillips language. And- Motion to move. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor, I vote aye. Ms. Parks? Aye. Mr. Maxfield? Aye. Mr. Gilbert? Aye. Mr. Cotten? Aye. We've decided on 192 and 194. These are confusing to me. We just did 192 and 194, we did 204 and 206, and now we're doing 192 and 194. I wanna speed up this process. I don't think we have to go through the whole thing again, except I have to say that we have before us an application to request a special permit to modify the previously approved special permit ZVA 2011-3 to move condition 12, which states its permit shall expire upon change of ownership, located on 192 and 194 Beltratown Road, map 15C, parcel 64 neighborhood, residents district, our end zoning district. Any disclosures? We have site visit, site visit was exactly the same as it was with the previous property, with all the existing, and I also wanna repeat the commendations to the property owner and the tenants for letting us impose in their life. But I don't think there's any reason to have a long discussion on this unless anybody on the board does. So I'd like to move, I would entertain a motion. I would like to see if there's public comment first. If there's any public comment, we do need to have that. And if not, I would entertain a motion to move to a public meeting while keeping the public hearing open in case there's additional information that we wish to hear. I think we'll meet this. Ms. Thuriver, Maxwell. So moved. Second. Second. Discussion. Vote occurs. I vote aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxwell. Aye. Mr. Gilbert. Aye. Mr. Cochran. Aye. Great. I think we just do the same thing we did with the last one folks. I think that we put in the 19th, the Phillips Street provision. We make the findings under 10.380 and 381 that these findings help to ensure that the neighborhood will not be disturbed or made worse by changing ownership. And that's the reason for the change in the condition 12. Is there any discussion to that? So I would entertain a motion to make the change to condition 12 Phillips Street to make the findings under 10.380 and 10.381 and to approve the special permit modification with conditions. Do I have, is there, Mr. Maxfield moves, is there a second? Second. We've got a tie, we've got two seconds. I deferred, Eric. Any discussion? If not, the motion occurs on the, vote occurs on the motion. I vote aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Mr. Gilbert. Aye. Mr. Cochran. Aye. Great. All right. Motion carries. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. Good seeing you. Next order of business is public comment on any matter not before the board tonight. I don't see any. Next order of business is anything not anticipated within the last 48 hours. I have nothing in that regard. Mr. Maxfield. I just want to say, if you want to start thinking about doing administrative meeting to try to make it productive, I know one of the things I'm thinking about that I would like to do, probably not going to, but they get the process moving. It won't be done by the time we have an administrative meeting in November. I'd like to start even going through just our own process of when you grab the form to apply for a special permit and go through it. I'd like to see really what that looks like, because I feel like we've been hearing from the past two people saying that it was a very difficult, confusing process. And we end up getting the end result, but I'm not really sure what goes into getting that final product that even comes to us. So I'd like to see that. I'm not even really sure how to go about that where I'm not actually applying for a real special permit, but that's something, I don't know, Maureen, if that's something I could work with you on at some point in the coming weeks or so to get that process going. I know that's one of the things I'd like to look at, to just get a better idea of when someone actually starts the process of coming to us, what does it really look like? Because it's one of those things I can't imagine even I sitting on the ZVA would be even able to really get through this application and bring something to this board without the assistance of probably somebody like Tom Reedy or some other person who has that specialty of dealing with local municipalities. So it's something I personally wanna look at. I don't know if any other board members wanna look at that as well, but just to have a better sense of what our actual process looks like for somebody going through it before it even comes to us. I think that's a good subject for an administrative meeting. I would encourage you to work with Maureen and find out on your own first because I think it's something to be instructive, but I do think it'd be something that everybody would benefit from Dylan. I think that would be a good idea. We have a lot on the agenda in many two administrative meetings. It's not the end of the world, but that would be, I think all of the process things are important, especially with the newer members of the board and our alternate members. We wanna have them fully as much as possible, fully informed on the process. I know there are one other matter. So we'll put that on the agenda and maybe for the first or the second administrative meeting. I also know that we have a vacancy on the board and the council will be considering that. I haven't heard it. They have appointed anybody yet, but we do have one vacancy and I hope that we'll have an alternate member in the near future appointed to our board. We lost, but the guy we served with all the time, his name, I know very well that I'm blank on it right now. Keith. Keith. Craig. No, Keith has been gone for a while. I thought he was replaced by him. Yeah, he hasn't been replaced, but Jack Peter Barrick, is that who you're thinking of? No. Military contractor, former military contractor, what was his name? I'm blanking on it. We serve with him all the time. He was on the four member panel with us not too long ago. Craig Meadows. Thank you. Oh, he didn't leave. He just has been unable to be at these meetings. I thought he was taking over as a full member. Did he not? He's still associate. He is a full member now, but he just wasn't able to be at these other meetings. Oh, we're filling an associate member position. Filling an associate member. Yeah. Okay, there we go. That's for my depth. Yep. Yep. All right. Any other? Maureen, what's our next meeting? So the next regularly scheduled meeting for November. So town offices are closed on, let me go to November calendar. November 11. The 11th, so November 11, town offices are closed because of Veterans Day and town offices are closed on November 25th because of Thanksgiving. So it looks like we're only gonna have one meeting in November, November the 18th, at least that's a regular scheduled meeting. I do have a potential public meeting to add to that agenda and perhaps we create bold and administrative meeting prior. So have it that evening, what if folks feel about that? One question would be if the subject matter is, involves a removal of the expiration, I'd rather have it after we have a discussion. If the subject matter is something else and we can run through it quickly, if it's not highly contentious, we can do the subject matter for the application first and then go into the administrative meeting. Yeah. It's a lot, if it deals with that same subject we're gonna be working on, I think I wanna talk about that first amongst the members before we act on another application. Sure, well, you and I can speak outside of this meeting to see which order would make sense. But are folks available for the November the 18th? And I guess I should ask the other ZBA members not present as well as well for the administrative portion. Send out a doodle, but I'm here. I'll be available then. As long as it's second and third Thursday, I've already got it marked in my calendar in perpetuity. Wait, so this scenario I think would be the third. Third. Third. Third to 18th. So does, yeah, the 18th work? I might have a conflict with the board of licensing if that's the case. But I'll find that out. I'll get back to you on that once I have an answer. Okay, well, luckily this, it would be a public meeting and then the administrative portions would be a public meeting. So I don't feel like we need to finalize the time and date at this moment. So yeah, we can sort it out by like a doodle bowl or just regular email. Okay folks, anything else? Yes, Mr. Maxwell. Just if nothing, I'm making the motion to adjourn. All right, is there a second? Mr. Gilbert, this motion is not debatable. I vote aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxwell. Aye. Mr. Gilbert. Aye. And Mr. Cochran. Aye. We are adjourned. Thank you, everybody. I appreciate your time on this. And I think we've come up with a