 The appointed hour is six, the appointed hour is six having been reached. I call this meeting of the Amherst Zoning Board of Appeals to order. My name is Steve Judge. As ZBA 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 proceedings in real time via technological means. Additionally, the meetings is recorded and can be viewed on the town of Amherst YouTube channel and the ZBA webpage. In accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws chapter 40A and article 10 special permit granting authority of the Amherst Zoning By-law, this public meeting has been duly advertised and notice there has been posted and mailed to parties at interest. We will begin with a roll call of the members of the ZBA and paneled for this meeting tonight. The Steve Judge, I'm here. Ms. Parks. Here. Mr. Maxfield. Here. Mr. Meadows. Here. Mr. Barrett. Here. Also in attendance is Marine Pollock Planner and Dave Washevitz Senior Building Inspector. The Zoning Board of Appeals is a quasi-judicial body that operates under the authority of chapter 48 of the General Laws of the Commonwealth for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the inhabitants of the town of Amherst. One of the most important elements of the Amherst Zoning By-law is section 10.38. Specific findings from this section must be made for all of our decisions. All hearings and meetings are open to the public and are reported by town staff. The procedure is as follows. The petitioner presents the application to the board during the hearing, after which the board will ask questions for clarification or additional information. After the board has completed its questions, the board will seek 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 information about the project and input from the public is gathered, followed by public meetings for each. The public meeting portion is when the board deliberates and is generally not an opportunity for public comment. If the board feels it has enough information and time, it will decide upon the applications tonight. Each petition heard by the board is distinct and evaluated on its own merits and the board is not ruled by precedent. Statutorily, for a special permit, the board has 90 days from the close of the hearing to file a decision. For a variance, the board has 100 days from the date of filing to file its decision. No decision is final until the written decision signed by the sitting board members and is filed with the town clerk's office. Once the decision is filed with the town clerk, there is a 20 day appeal period for an agreed party to contest the decision with the relevant judicial body in Superior Court. After the appeal period, the permit must be recorded at the registry of deeds to take effect. Tonight's agenda, ZBA FY 2021-17, College Street 1957 LLC, request a special permit in order to allow a change of use from a one family detached dwelling to a non-owner occupied duplex dwelling, extension and alteration of the lot coverage and building area on a pre-existing non-conforming lot, modification of the required additional lot area and family under dimensional regulations, footnote A, sections 3.211, 9.22 and 10.38 of the zoning bylaw, located at 187 College Street, map 14B, partial 169, general residence RG zoning district. This matter is continued from July 8th, 2021. Following that matter, we'll have general public comment periods and other business that has not anticipated within the last 48 hours. So the first order of business tonight is a hearing on ZBA 2021-17, College Street 1957 LLC, requesting a special permit in order to allow a change of use from a one family detached dwelling to a non-owner occupied duplex dwelling, extension and alteration of the lot coverage and building area on a pre-existing non-conforming lot, modification of the required additional lot area and family under dimensional regulations, footnote A, section 3.211, 9.22 and 10.38 of the zoning bylaw, located at 187 College Street, map 14B, partial, parcel 169, general residence RG zoning district. Members sitting on this panel and myself, Ms. Parks, Mr. Maxfield, Mr. Meadow and Mr. Barrack. Are there any disclosures? The sites of business were conducted prior to our May meeting and the following submissions have been received by town staff. The ZBA application, management plan, supplemental information prepared by Valley Management, dated April 23rd. These include project descriptions, a lease of compliance, the complaint response form, reference photos for neighborhood compatibility, exterior lighting fixtures, detail and specifics. Includes a sample parking permit and additional reference photos. Plan sets, including plans from this five plan sets, demolition plan, proposed layout plan, a grading plan, a lighting plan the land located in Amherst. Building plans, elevations, floor plans and foundations, all dated April 23rd, 2020. Planning staff submissions include a zoning map, an aerial map, topography map, wetlands and an NHESP map, project application report, dated May 20th and one now dated, it's still dated May 20th, but it's been updated. Comments from the town engineer, dated May 19th. Comments from the fire prevention officer, Mike Roy dated May 19th, as well as comments received today or yesterday from Mr. Roy in addition to those. I, do you have the date on those Maureen? I printed them, here it is. Yep, I printed it, here we go. It came in at August 12th today, I guess, from Mr. Roy. Yes, and also Mike Roy sent a memo to the board, I believe on August the 10th, which I believe I forwarded as well. Yes, that as well. We also have a planning board comments dated 617, 2021. And we have submitted from the applicant a map of the rental property, map of the neighborhood, the block indicating which buildings are rental, are commercial for our school buildings. I think that's it for the submissions. And also, and I'm sure Alan can we'll go over what the updated submission. So the applicant has submitted updated site plan, building plans and application packet, which is relative to I believe the lease and the management plan before the applicant submitted their application, they had indicated they would have seven parking spots. And, but they are proposing eight parking spots. So like the management plan and the lease and so forth, those things just needed to be slightly updated to reflect that. So who wishes to present for the applicant? Alan? Oh, you're muted, Alan. You're muted. Yep, okay. Alan St. Hilaire Valley property management. Thank you. You may proceed. Mike Lou from Berkshire Design also hopes to join the meeting. I guess a thunderstorm knocked out his internet. So he's headed over to his office in North Hampton to try to catch up, but he did provide me with his materials to cover if he can't make it on here. So, okay. All right, so thank you to the board and all the members and Maureen and Dave, thanks for taking the time to revisit this with us. The project, as you know, was described in fairly good detail on the first meeting. And then we were referred to the planning board for their input. Their input, I think boils down to requesting that the back portion, the west portion of the yard space be flattened out so that it's more usable for recreation. And there was also a recommendation to cover the entrances with small roofs, gable roofs to keep weather off of the landings that serve the side and rear entrance to the structure. Both of those suggestions we have implemented into our plan. And so we have submitted updated architectural plans and an updated grading plan by Berkshire Design, which I will share the screen and review here shortly. Those were the, I believe the most salient recommendations by the planning board. And I'll just go through a quick review here of the neighborhood. And I believe, Mr. Judge, you had requested us to review the lot sizes as they compare to the uses and compare the proposed project to existing uses in the immediate vicinity. So I can start with that, which will also serve to kind of summarize the area. So let's jumping over to the GIS here. Again, the neighborhood, if you will, starts at Railroad Street. Anything to the west of Railroad Street is Amherst College property all the way up to the center of town, as I understand it. There's Leader Lumberyard, Amherst College physical plant, subject property in the middle of that block, and extends down to South Whitney Street. Beyond South Whitney Street over to Southeast Street are a number of commercial uses with a couple of rental properties across the street, all the way down to the corner where there is a two, I think it's 150 unit complex, Aspen Chase, Dunkin Donuts, the restaurants, furniture stores, liquor stores down to Southeast Street. So we focused on the residences between South Whitney and Railroad Street, these number of homes here, and did a bit of a review, which I'll bring up to the screen now to show you that use grid, which I believe was submitted. And this is the result of those uses. The rows in this table that are highlighted in the yellow color are non-owner occupied duplex rentals existing. So there's one, two, three, four of those on almost identically the same lot size as the proposed project. You'll note that at 174 college, there's a non-owner occupied four unit rental on a lot that's just about 5,500 or 6,000 square foot larger, and another non-owner occupied duplex on a lot that's slightly larger at 197 A and B College Street. You'll also notice that there isn't a single owner occupied property on the block. They are all rental properties. Kind of see at the bottom here, it shows with letters on the lots, R for residential, C for commercial, and S for school, which would be higher education Amherst College. So that is, in my opinion, kind of draws the picture that it is a very consistent use with what is presently in the neighborhood, both from a duplex standpoint and also from a lot size standpoint. The other that I wanted to share is the updated grading plan prepared by Berkshire Design. And Alan, I'll just interrupt you. Michael is now in attendance. Oh, great, okay. So then I will hold off on that. What I will do is before we switch over to Mike, I'll jump over to the updated architectural plans, which will show the differences from the last meeting requested by the planning board. The plans here, can everyone see my screen? Is it showing up okay? Yep. Yeah. Okay, great. So the plans here show the first floor on the left, the second floor on the right with the dividing line about where the cursor is here. Okay, everything above that being the existing structure. So the existing structure is a story and a half, four bedroom, one bathroom, wood frame building, and the proposed structure is a four bedroom, two bathroom, two story wood frame structure with complimentary architectural features. The only thing that was changed on these plans is you'll see in the elevations is there's some gable roof to protect the entrance on the front facade and also the east elevation and also the south elevation. Everything else is as was presented in the first meeting that was by recommendation of the planning board, which was a good recommendation. Other than that, there haven't been any changes since the last submission on the architectural plans. So unless there's any questions or clarification needed on the site, the neighborhood and the architectural aspects of the proposed structure, I'd like to turn it over to Mike from Berkshire Design to review the slight modifications to the site and grading plan. That makes sense. What's, if people have questions about what has been presented so far before we move to landscaping. Okay. All right. Mike, I'll turn it over to you to review the site and the changes that were made there. All right. Can you guys all hear me? Maybe we can. Okay, guess how? I have to apologize. I might need your help, Alan, because I was at home and we lost everything. I lost internet and stuff. I just ran to the office and I'm trying to log on to this new system that we have in the office. But I can't seem to access my work station to get the drawing. So I might just, Alan, if you have that drawing, can you just put it on your screen and I'll talk about it. It's pretty simple. The only revision that we had was... Mike, before you continue to give us your name and over the record and your address, please. Michael Lou at the Berkshire Design Group for Allen Place, Northampton. Thank you. And yeah, we're the site designer. So, yeah, so getting back to the site plan, we have a couple of comments from the planning board that were received. And their comment was to make the backyard either usable from like a wildlife or an environmental point of view or make it more usable to the inhabitants of this project. So what we did was we just flattened out the grades in the back. If you'll see from the bottom of the steps back there, that's a 205 contour. And the next contour out to the left or the south is 204. So we created a flatter backyard, if you will, whereas before the contours were more evenly distributed. And what this does is it basically raises that grade a little bit. So it's higher than that planted swale along the south property line. But yeah, in essence, it gives the residents a little bit more usable or flatter usable lawn space. And that's basically the only change we had other than kind of re-striping or showing the parking spaces redistributed so we could get like a three foot wide walking lane between some of the parking spaces that pretty much lines up very well with that walk that goes up to the deck of the existing house. So that seems to work out pretty well. And that's basically it. We are in receipt. I don't know if you already talked about the comments from Mike Roy at the fire department. Not yet. OK. I don't know if you want to brief the board members, Maureen, or anything on that. Yeah, sure. So just to recap, Mike Roy sent a memo to the board, I believe, on August 10th. And then an email today, August 12th, indicating that the width of the driveway, which I think is 12 feet wide, EMT is ambulances nine feet wide. And so they would have no issue entering and exiting the property. And he also said that the aisle that Michael Lou showed on the site plan and the walkway are wide enough for EMT to go in and out of the house with a stretcher in case of emergency. Yeah, so I thought his comments were good. We don't have any objection to any of them. It seems like that they would be able to, as we presume, that they would essentially fight a fire from College Street. It would be very, very, very difficult for them, obviously, to turn into the site. That's the same situation with all the houses. And for most single-family residences throughout Amherst, where they have a smaller or narrower driveway that fire trucks typically don't enter the property. They'd probably stay out on the street. And in this case, we're pretty close to the street where they would be staging a pumper or a ladder truck or what have you. So anyway, I guess that's basically all we had. I think that it seemed like the last time or the initial hearing we had, the ZBA members seemed to be pretty much ready to vote on the project, except for the fact that we were asked to go before the planning board. It gets comments from their point of view. So that happened. They basically had the two comments about the backyard space and providing some kind of shelter at the entry points to the addition which Alan showed you. So I think we've covered everything. And I guess, unless there's anything else, Alan, you want to say we can entertain any comments or questions from the board. You're muted. You're muted, Alan. Yeah, sorry. I think you did a good job of summarizing everything, Mike. I believe that there were just those two small changes and everybody seems to be in agreement with the site configuration as it is presently proposed. So I have a question. You guys have, I thought you had bushes around the trash. You now have a fence. You didn't submit a detail for the fence. I mean, we could have, normally we see a deep, we normally see a detail. I think it's something that we could make a condition to require you to submit a detail to the building commissioner and he could approve it unless if he finds it without having to submit a detail. Is that an earlier? Yeah. Is that an earlier? I can comment about that. Alan, do you want to say something about that or do you want me to comment? I was just going to follow up to that observation that we had substituted the fence for concern that the trash receptacles be fully screened. I had thought, Mike, correct me if I long, but I thought that you had shown the detail for both the six foot and the four foot on the package that was resubmitted, but it is going to be the very same look as the six foot stockade that's already been proposed and detailed just four feet tall. Right. I think we didn't. Where is that? Is that in the earlier one? This is in the original. Oh, okay. This wasn't the one that we got. Got it. Okay. That's great. Thank you. Thanks, Maureen. So the board can make a condition about the height that along the side setback, property line, the fence, you can make a condition that the fence shall be six feet, but you can make another condition that the enclosure around the trash if you want to make a condition, you could say that it needs to be four feet high. Sure. Okay. But we've got the detail and the detail is for a six foot fence, we just need to have a condition for the four foot, that it's four feet. Both sides, yep. We can work that out. Yep. It'll comply with the drawings. And lastly, remind me, did you have a conservation commission review that took place and did they sign off on it? Is that correct? Yes, that is correct. We had submitted a request for determination and gotten a negative determination. That must have what, 2019, I guess in the winter of 2019, and then COVID came in the spring, et cetera. But yes, we did get open conservation. One last question, and then I'll open it up for questions from other board members. In your lease, do you limit the number of residents to four in each of the units? Yes, we do. And you limit the number you have in your lease, a limit on guests, overnight guests, and you have in your lease, a limit on total guests at the time, at one time in the property, right? Yes, we do. Okay. All right, are there other questions from members of the board? Ms. Parks. I just can't remember how the mail delivery was resolved. Remember we were talking about whether it's from the side of the front, I just can't remember where we were. Sorry to interrupt, I could respond to that. I did speak with the post office and they said that they are happy to have it either on the street side facade or the parking side facade because either affords foot access, and this is a foot route. It's not at the curb, it's on the structure. So you've left the front sidewalk in place, right? We have. It seems that that was viewed as a benefit by the board as opposed to removing it. Yep, and then you've created, one of the things we discussed was creating a space between the parking, someplace in the parking lot to allow access, either for the mailman or for emergency services or whatever reason, but to allow access. And I see you've created that extra space between parking spots three and four. Those will be delineated some way so that it'll be marked and easy for tenants to not encroach on that space. You'll have it demarcated some way. Yes, we will. Does that answer your question, Ms. Parks? I'm just wondering for the tenants in the rear building, they will need to go to the front of the house to collect their mail? Yes. Okay. I believe Craig Meadows has raised this hand. Yes, Mr. Meadows. There have been three different numbers given for that walkway between the cars. When Mr. Luja said it's going to be a three-foot walkway, the memo from the fire chief said it needed to be three and a half. And when I was in there for the, in the office the other day, the inspector who we were talking to said it needed to be four feet and it needs to be striped. What is it going to be? We, well, I just want to take a quick step back. My understanding from an email that I saw forwarded to me was that he was confirming that that aisle between the parking spaces was three feet and that the other walkway in front of the units was three and a half feet. That's what I thought he had said. Unless there's another memo that I haven't seen. There's another memo today. Do we have a copy of that Maury? Yeah, so let's see here. Mike Roy, in his email today said Maury and yes, three and a half feet is enough room for the stretcher to traverse. I have also communicated with Michael Lu from Berkshire Design on the driveway access. Okay. And you mentioned three feet and then the inspector who we talked to the other day said four feet because he wanted to have room for two people to walk along beside the stretcher. So my question is, what is it going to be? Alan, I guess you? Yeah, I can add to that. The demarcation of the parking places is nine feet wide. The typical vehicle is only six feet which affords some space to open doors and move between vehicles when drivers and passengers enter and exit. So the sides of the adjoining space three and space four will actually afford a much wider walkway than the three foot that is delineated as a walkway just because of the fact that you've got a nine foot wide parking place and a six foot wide vehicle. I don't know if that's adequate. You know, again, the inspector said it needed to be striped. And if it's going to be striped it should be striped at either three and a half or four feet, I'm not certain which, but allowing the cars to park adjacent to it and you're talking about students. And if they park close up to it then you've got no room. If you're trying to get a stretcher in there you're not gonna make it. I think that, you know, in the case of an emergency if there wasn't enough room to go between the cars they would certainly exit out towards the front lawn where the emergency vehicle would be located serving the dwelling. I don't think that they're going to. How is that adequate? I think that they're gonna respond in a way that's necessary given the situation at hand. If there was some requirement of striping this is the first that we've been made aware of that. It certainly could be striped but this is the first that certainly I've heard of it. Right now it's, go ahead Ms. Mardos. And he said four feet and striped. So I will say that although, you know the building inspector David Cody did say that, you know I think that the person of importance would be the fire prevention officer who is satisfied with the proposal, you know if the board would wishes to make a condition that says that, you know the applicant needs to stripe that aisle. I mean, Alan are you striping the parking spaces themselves? We did not plan to stripe the parking places themselves because it is a gravel surface. Got it, got it. The parking spaces would be delineated by the concrete wheel stops at the head of each parking place. So how do you keep that space open? In your mind, how do you propose that that space be kept open, Mr. Stahler? It could certainly be striped. We could have signage to keep it open. There could be, you know there could be a couple of curb stops like we have at the head of each parking place as a physical barrier if necessary to maintain that aisle. So, yeah, we've included those, you know tire stops, you know, in the parking lot. At the front, yeah. Correct. I believe Dave Whiskevitz has raised his hand. Mr. Whiskevitz. Yes, I'm not aware of a requirement to stripe that aisle away. It is just a suggestion as a way to maintain it so that it will stay open because if people aren't aware they can't park there then it may get blocked. So, I was not part of that conversation. It was another inspector, but to my knowledge there's no requirement for it. So, Mr. Stahler, would you be willing to stripe it and can you stripe it so it's three and a half feet wide? You may need to extend the parking lot a half a foot more than your drawings right now. Would you be willing to, is that a problem for you to do that? Not at all, not at all. And another thing that I could add as a suggestion is that we could put a couple of signs much like you see on city streets that says no parking between signs to indicate the presence of the walkway. Yep. And just make sure that they're wide enough they don't encroach on that three and a half feet. So, you give those two signs are four and a half feet apart. All right. Sure. Thanks. That was gonna be my suggestion just to add six inches onto that, you know, the parking area to widen that walkway space. So, I think that's a good idea. Mr. Meadows, does that resolve some of your concern? Yes, it does. Good, great. All right, so Maureen you'll work on a condition that we'll put in for that. And normally we would need a sign approval. Can we waive the sign approval and have it approved by the building commissioner in the condition? Yep, yep, yep, yep, yes. They don't have to come back for that alone? Yes. Okay. Mr. Wasiewicz, do you have your hand up? Or is it just if you just fail to take it down? Okay. Are there any other questions from members of the board for the applicant for this project? Great. If not, what I'd like to do is get, see if there's any public comment before we move to the public meeting portion. I don't see anybody at all attending from the public. So there's no public comment. All right. So what I'd like to do is entertain a motion that we move to a public meeting while we keep the public hearing open in case we need additional information or public comment. Do I have a motion to that effect? Mr. Maxfield, is there a second? Second. Second. Ms. Parks, we'll need a roll call vote. I vote aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. Mr. Barak. Aye. Okay. In this portion of the meeting is where we can discuss the application in general. It is not normally a time for public comment. We also then want to review possible conditions. I like to do that first before we make all of our findings because I think it helps us make the findings if we know it, if we discuss some of the conditions then we have to make specific findings under section 3.3211, 9.22. I think there's a sign or parking section as well, seven I think, section seven as well as 10.38. So are there any comments from board members generally regarding the application before we talk about specific conditions? The staff identified several conditions in the project application report. I think they are all appropriate as identified by the staff. I had, the one question I have for the staff is the date on the revised site plans and building plans is still a May date. Is that normal or is it just? Yeah, so that just needs to be updated. The post grading and planting plan is dated July 1st and then the architectural plans. I'll update those, I'll... Get those updated so it's there. Yeah, yep. The most recent plans otherwise it's confusing. Yep. So the first condition is the standard boiler plate where it's gotta be built to plans including the modifications we made tonight and we'll have a condition about those that all rooms have to be labeled. The condition three, the special permit granted under 3.211 shall lapse upon change in ownership. I'm not a big fan of this but this is a zoning bylaw provision. And I think this quite frankly is a notice to remind the applicants that if they do change ownership the special permit is lapses and they have to come back and receive another special permit. Gotta have it, property has to be registered and permitted under the residential property bylaw. There's a management plan and complaint plan complaint response plan that shall be followed. Changes have to come back to the zoning board of appeal. No more than four individuals shall occupy each dwelling. That's part of the zoning bylaw. Dark sky compliant lighting, street numbers for both dwellings shall be clearly marked. Parking is on improved services only. Parking shall be clearly delineated. We also talked about striping and the walkway and signage individual, it's almost a duplication here but individual parking spaces shall be marked, painted. Maximum number of overnight guests. We need to fill this in from your lease. Maximum number of overnight visitors per unit shall be X people. I think your lease was two. Is that correct? Can you remind me? You're muted, Alan. You're muted. There we go. Nope, he's still muted. Nope. Okay, can you hear me all right? Yep. Sorry about that. I've got a bit of background noise so I keep muting so it's not the clutter of the meeting. So let me just find that section of the lease here. I think it's page 28. Well, of the original, yeah, that could be wrong. All right, so the guest policy, total number of persons per dwelling unit is limited to 10. That's residents and guests. Repeat visits by the same guest over consecutive periods not allowed. The X we have is for overnight visitors per unit. I seem to recall it being two, but I did not. Oh, overnight, got it, yep. Overnight, yeah. Got it, yeah. But I did not check the lease, I failed to do that today. Okay, you can look that up and get back to us if you would, all right? Yeah. We'll do that, get back to us before we vote on the conditions. The property shall be free of litter and debris. You don't have to submit the fence detail but we'll have a condition that we were talking about for a four foot fence. You will draft that up for us, Maureen. And then we'll have a condition on the walkway being 3.5 feet stripes and two signs. And that the signs just have to go to the building commissioner for approval. They don't need to come back to the board for a public meeting. Are there other conditions that the board would like to discuss? I don't want to cut off anybody if there are none. I would like to start making our determinations under the various sections of the zoning bylaw. And what I'm going to do is read the subject matter of the section that we have to make a determination under and a finding other under. And if you have any questions about this, just interrupt and raise your hand and seek recognition. The first is section 3.3211, non-owner occupied duplex. For a non-owner occupied duplex, one or both dwelling units are rented and neither unit serves as a principal residence of one or more of the owners of the property. No dwelling unit under this use category may be occupied by a total of more than four unrelated persons. The special permit granting authority shall require the ongoing services of a qualified professional management company, the presence of an on-site manager, or similar provisions for proper management of the rental use as a condition of approval. Also, it lists specific requirements that shall be imposed on them, name and contact information, management plans, and that the special permit way it lapses if you're in the RG or the RBC district. In this case, it is located in the RG district. The board, it does already have a limitation on the lease and the representation is only four individuals may reside if that's that property. We have a management plan. We have rental property management entity, valley property management, and applicant is provided the management plan and a complaint response plan. And this property is located in the general RG zoning district, so it will lapse upon change of ownership. So I find that, I think we can find that the requirements of section 3.3211 are met by this application. The next is article nine, section 9.2, 9.22. Special permit granting authority is authorized to act under provisions of section 3.3 of the spy law may under a special permit allow a non-conforming use for land to be changed to a specified use, not substantially different in character or in its effect on the neighborhood or on property in the vicinity. Set authority may also authorize under a special permit a non-conforming use of a building structure or land to be extended or a non-conforming building to be structurally altered, enlarged or reconstructed, provided that the authority finds such alterations enlargements, reconstructions shall not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming use or non-conforming building. This is a section 9.22 substantially not more detrimental finding that we have to make under several circumstances. I think because of the nature of the neighborhood, the fact that all abutting and property is not on our occupied rental property, there are several that are four and eight units and there's some in the same block that I don't think that there is, that it creates a, it does not create a more detrimental effect on the neighborhood than the existing building. The subject is a non-conforming lot. The lot coverage is reduced to some extent but it is still over the bylaw. The building frontage is non-conforming but it doesn't change. We have to make a finding to this effect that it's not more detrimental and we've already done a review. So in my opinion, and unless there's others, unless there's objection, I think we find that we've met the requirements of section 9.22 that it is not more detrimental than the existing non-conforming use, okay? Section 7 deals with parking spaces. There's more than adequate parking spaces so we've met the requirements of section 7. So article 6, dimensional regulations deals with fences. We're really looking at sections 6.24 through 6.29. I won't go through all of those but it is fencing complies with the zoning bylaw and we're gonna have more in the conditions to identify where the forefoot fence will be placed. So I think it meets the requirements. I think we can find that the application meets the requirements for the dimensional requirements for fencing. And now we have to move to section 10.38 and specific findings we must make under 10.38. The first is suitability of the location in a neighborhood. The proposed non-owner occupied duplexes allowed within RG zoning district by special permit. The subject property is located in a neighborhood along the highly traveled state highway, route nine, comprised of a broad range of architectural styles, single family, two family, multi-family buildings. There are also municipal, educational, retail, dining and commercial businesses in close proximity. The immediate block I find, the immediate block has all non-owner occupied rental units on that block on both sides of the street. So I think we find that meets the requirement of 10.38 and 10.381. 10.382, 383, 385 and 387, all talk about nuisance and air and water, flood, noise, odor, dust, vibration lights or other visual offensive structures or site features. The proposal should not have a substantial inconvenience or hazards to a butters. It would not increase air, water, pollution, noise, odor, dust, vibration lights or visual offensive structures or site features. The proposal provides privacy, fencing and planning to visually shield the proposed parking and trash and recycling containers from the adjacent properties to the east. The proposal provides dark sky, compliant lighting. The proposal provides convenient and safe vehicular pedestrian traffic within the site and in relation to adjacent streets, properties or improvements. 10.384, there are, it requires utility services and they are found to be sufficient and adequate for operation. 10.386 provides for conformance as parking and sign regulations. We've already dealt with that issue, but we provide four parking spaces for each dwelling unit and it meets proposal requirements and we'll have a condition on the striping and of the walkway and signage. 10.387, the proposal provides convenient and safe vehicular traffic and movement within the site. We find that that's the case. 10.388, the proposal ensures adequate space for off-street loading and this is not and unloading of vehicles is not applicable to the project. 10.389, the proposal, we have to find that the proposal provides adequate methods of disposal or storage for sewage waste recyclables that's contained in the management plan for trash and recycling pickup, water and sewer connection, which is town sewer and methods of draining surface water. Town engineers reviewed this and the most recent plan provides for improvements in drainage off the back of the property. 10.390, the proposal ensures protection from flood hazards as stated in section 3.228, considering such factors and elevation of buildings, drainage, et cetera. The property is not within a designated flood zone as a condition of the conservation commission approval, erosion control shall be installed and inspected by the wetland administrator prior to start of work. 10.3, Maureen, do we need to put a condition in to make that effective or is that done by the conservation commission itself? Yeah, I don't think it's necessary for the board to include a condition because the approval through the ComCom made those conditions already. So that covers that. That's great. 10.391, natural structures is not applicable. 10.392 provides adequate landscaping, screening for residential uses, provision of street trees, parking islands and buffers along the street gruntage. It's not a non-residential use where natural exist, natural vegetation exists. Clearing the majority of that visitation may be retained. We have a landscaping plan to screen from adjacent residential properties uses and landscaping in the back of the property as well. 10.393, a proposal must provide protection of adjacent properties by minimizing intrusion of lighting, parking lots and interior lighting for use of cut-offs, luminaries, light shields, et cetera. All lighting shall include architectural sign and parking lot lighting shall be kept as extinguished outside of those business hours. That portion is not applicable. The applicant proposes three wall-mounted LED light fixtures to illuminate the parking areas and the walkways. The applicant proposes dark sky, compliant light fixtures. It's unclear which fixture type is installed at each proposed location shown in the plan. It is unclear if the existing light fixture located on the north-facing door. I guess we have a question here, which I did not review before the meeting. It's unclear if the existing light fixture located on the north-facing door enters to the existing house. Facing College Street is dark sky-compliant. Is that the light fixture that needed to be repaired? It's under the front of the front entrance. That is the light fixture that is beneath the porch roof overhang on the existing structure. I believe we touched on this briefly in the initial meeting and there was not a plan to change that fixture because it is shielded presently. By the roof. Yes. Okay. 10.394, the proposal avoids effect on street slopes. That's not applicable. 10.395 does not create disharmony with respect to the terrain and use scale and architectural structure of existing buildings in the vicinity, which have functional or visual relationships there too. We touched on this in other conditions and in other reviews. Staff, according to the applicant's project description, College Street neighborhood is located along a highly traveled state highway comprised of a broad range of architectural styles and uses. The proposed, the architectural styles vary in terms of size, shape and proportion, but the duplex at 187 College Street is compatible in that the heights are proposed are similar to those in the same neighborhood and in its surroundings. The proportions are similar to surrounding structures. Roof shapes are similar. Landscaping is consistent with landscaping throughout the neighborhood and the scale of the additional building is similar to other residential duplexes in the neighborhood. 10.396 provides screenings for storage areas. There's a six foot tall fence along the property line. The screen and trash containers will be, and we have to change this to surrounded by a fence, Maureen, to the north of property. Dave Westkevitz has raised his hand before we move on. Yep, Mr. Westkevitz. Yeah, Mr. Chair, did one of the plans shift the lighting? Was there, is it on the elevation or on the site plan? I don't seem to have it here. I just wonder which one it was. I think it, in the original, yep, in the original. We have the details in the original application. I'm not sure that, no. Nope. I think that Mr. St. Hillard has used the same fixture on a couple of other residential properties in town. It's a very small, like, I'm not sure what you kind of call it. It's a very small wall path type fixture. So, but you have submitted that in earlier drawings, is that right? Yeah. We have. I can pull it up if that's helpful. Right. And that has to be incorporated in the plan sets that we have, we're requiring you to build by. Correct. That was original. I want to know if it has not changed. Yep, that's, I think that I just want to make sure that you know what you're getting here, Mr. Westkevitz. So this is the spec sheet. I'm showing the lights. So this is what it would look like. And if you give me a minute. And so that light that you just saw, there would be one located here. Okay. I'll wait for that. I'll wait for that. Here, one located here. Yep, yep. So, yep. Thank you. And it's called out, yep. That was part of the original site plan package, Dave. All right, okay. I just don't have it with me right today. But that's sufficient for your purposes, right? Mr. Westkevitz. Yes. Yes. Okay. All right. We left at three point, a 10.396. We just have to change the wording there to reflect the changes in the, if there's going to be a fence around the trash and recycling, 10.397 adequate recreational facilities. There's open space on the site, 10.398 proposals in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this bylaw. Section four, the demographics and housing of the Amherst master plan states that a mix of housing provided to meet the needs of and is affordable to the broadest spectrum of the community. The application providing a supplementary dwelling as redevelopment on existing property. The proposal has met the intent of the master plan by providing a mix of housing within the neighborhood. The board needs to find whether the proposal meets the applicable zoning bylaw sections, which we have found, including footnotes, A of section 3.2119.22 and 10.38. So we, I think we've made all findings consistent with needed to approve the application should that be the desire of the board. We've also talked through the conditions and I think we've added some that Maureen is going to draft subsequent to the meeting if that meets with the approval of all the members and we're looking for discussion. I have one suggested condition, just if Michael Lu went when you make the revision to the site plan for the aisle and then extending the parking area by six inches, if you could just submit an updated site plan that shows that, including the law coverage, just so we have it for our records for future. Right, right. We'll prepare an updated set and what I'll do is do you want all the drawings with the revised revision dates so they're consistent? Yeah, they'd be helpful. Yeah, that's usually easier. Okay, yep. And you'll revise a lot coverage numbers to reflect the walkway and the larger walkway, right? Yes, I will. Yeah. Okay, good point Maureen. Thank you. Any comments from board members? Questions or concerns? Great. If not, I'd entertain a motion to approve the special permit with conditions that we made the findings we needed to make. Conditions will be the ones listed plus the conditions that Maureen and we discussed that will be drafted by staff subsequently. Do I have a motion for that effect? Mr. Meadows, I see you raise your hand. So a motion by hand. Yes. And it looked like Mr. Maxfield was doing the same thing so we could have it a second by hand, but we can't vote by hand. So we're gonna have to vote by voice. All those, so the chair votes aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. We're voting on the motion to approve the special permit. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. And Mr. Barrick in your last vote as a ZBA member. What do I hear? You hear aye. All right. Thank you very much. It passes. Good luck. Thank you very much. Continue to work with the building commissioner on those requirements that we talked about tonight. Thank you. Thank you very much. And I apologize for tuning in late. It all worked out. I think the storm can't control. Yeah. You can't control storms. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Have a good night. The next order of business is the open to the public to discuss anything that was not on the agenda tonight. We have no public attendees. I can't believe there's any public comment on things we haven't attended and we haven't had on the agenda tonight. I did want to add one thing before we leave. And that is, I think everybody, most people have already responded to the doodle poll that Maureen sent out. We want to try to have a administrative meeting prior to the next, if we can, prior to the next board meeting, which is in September. And to the extent that you are, you have issues that you want to bring up, questions that you want to raise. This is a great time to do that. It's also going to be to the benefit of new board members who can kind of provide some, an introduction, an orientation and review of some of the most important parts of that, of the responsibilities. But also if you have anything, let Maureen know if there's something that you wish specifically to discuss so we can put it on the agenda. Everything is on the table, of course. It'll be a public meeting, but it will be a time when we can ask, you can ask questions or raise issues. So I want to feel free to do that. And I want the, please fill out the doodle poll so we can schedule this as soon as possible. Members or the staff, if anything else, I'd like to bring up before we leave the meeting before we adjourn. Just to say thank you to Peter. You're very welcome. You've been a wonderful group to work with. And Peter, you know, we, particularly you are a patient and diligent chair. I appreciate that. We will certainly go in the background. Yes. I will miss not seeing either the old tree or the Mount Holyoke library. It's the best. You have the best backgrounds on the ZBA by far. And we will miss them, but thank you very much, Peter. We enjoyed your time here and we wish you wish you well. And if you want to come back, we'd love to have you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Very welcome. All right. Is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Motion's not debatable. Chair votes aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. And Mr. Barrack, let's hear a large vote on from you. Aye. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right, everybody. We'll see you at the administrative meeting.