 The chair knows the time is 6 o'clock. I call this meeting of the Amherst Zoning Board of Appeals to order my name is Steve judge ZBA chair. I want to welcome everyone to this meeting. We'll begin with a roll call of ZBA members and panel for tonight's meeting. Steve judge is present. Mr Craig Meadows. Mr. ever old Henry. Can you anybody. Can you hear me? I can hear you ever. I think everyone froze. I'm sorry. President and Mr. Meadows. Are you present? I think I didn't hear you. Okay, but I can't hear you. That's funny. Yeah, your microphone. Craig is muted. Sorry. Continue. Miss Marshall. I'm here. And Mrs. Miss Greenbaum. I'm here. All right. The quorum is present also tonight attending tonight's public hearing is Mr. Rob Mora, building commissioner and Mr. Rob Wachilla, Climber for the town. Pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 extended by chapter two of the acts of 2023. This meeting will be conducted via remote means members of the public who wish to observe the meeting may do so via zoom or by telephone. No in person attendance of the 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. The board of appeals is the zoning board of appeals is a quasi judicial body that operates under the authority of chapter 48 of the general laws, the commonwealth for the purpose of promoting the health safety convenience and general welfare that inhabitants of the town of Amherst in accordance with the statute. My printer didn't print up my normal. Oh dear. That's okay. I've got it. Virtua memory here. Yeah, and I should have it by memory after all these years, but Yes, here we go. According to the provisions of chapters of provisions of Massachusetts general law chapter 40 a and article 10 special permit granting authority of the Amazon bylaw. This public meeting has been duly advertised and notice there are some posted mail to parties at interest. All hearings and meetings are open to the public and are open to and are recorded by town staff and maybe viewed via the town of Amherst YouTube channel and ZDA webpage. The procedure is as follows. The petitioner presents the application to the board during the hearing after which the board will ask questions for clarification or for additional information after the board has completed his 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 the screen or by private pressing pound nine on their phone. The chair with the assistance of the staff will call upon people wishing to speak when you're 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 where 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 where various of board has 100 days from the day of filing the file. 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 for an agreed party to contest the decision with the relevant judicial body and superior court. After the appeal period, the permit must be recorded at the registry of these to take effect tonight's agenda, the public hearing on ZBA FY 2023 dash 12 Thomas and David Casey request for a special permit under section 3.01 3.3211 and 10.38 of the zoning bylaw to construct a non-owner occupied duplex consisting of two units with each containing four bedrooms, eight total on the same parcel as an existing two story duplex with seven bedrooms at 798 800 North Pleasant Street map 8 a partial 66 are in neighborhood residence zoning district. This is continued from July 27th 2023. There'll be a general public comment period on matters not before the board tonight. Other business not anticipated within the last 40 hours, 48 hours and adjournment. First order of business is consideration of minutes from July 27th. I have looked over the minutes. I don't think there's any changes. Does anybody have any, any comments or change suggested changes? Yes, this green ball I believe that I wrote it down. I think it's on page five. That you misspelled Kathy's name. It's a C A T H Y or councillor chain. Yes. Okay. Got it. Good catch. Miss Marshall. Yes, page five. Yeah, I have, I have several, but before I go into them, I wonder if it's acceptable if we have, if we just see typos. Can we send them in advance directly to Rob or do we have to raise them here in the meeting where it's not changing the meaning or anything just a spelling. Well, I would I've done that in other committees. Other committees. We can just send, send. I would, you know, I, you can have a conversation with Rob. Almost as long as no other member, my understanding as long as no other members part of that conversation, you can have a conversation with the staff about substantive matters, not much less typographical matters. So I think that would be okay. But Rob is head. So I might be wrong. Was that, is that correct, Rob? No, I wasn't rubbing my head because of that. Okay. All right. All right. Well, I'll do that next time. So, so page two. The paragraph below the three bullets. The last sentence of that. It's a building commissioner to determine the extent, not extent. Yep. And the page for the fourth bullet. Only because this is clearly an important issue. The comment from josna, if that's correct. I think it's complimentary with an E, not an I. So just to match the it's in the bylaw. Yeah. Okay. And then page five item for the about an EV charging station. I think that applicant said they would they wouldn't, I think make it EV ready, but I'm not sure they said they would actually create that. So, so basically what my memory is wrong. So basically what they said during the hearing Sarah was that they're going to make it possible to convert those spots to EV spots. I think you're going to put the conduits in the ground. Right. Just beforehand, but they weren't going to actually make them like EV spots. That's right. That's the way I interpreted from the meeting transcript. Right. So does be for be correctly reflect that it says show the location of at least one EV charging station with the ability to expand. Right. So it's correct in that I put that in the lists or requirements in their plans. They didn't just show them anyways. Just to show where they would go. I think they want to install them in the future. I mean, do you want me to clarify that better. I just, I just wanted to be accurate. I'll defer. So, Miss Marshall. These are board reckons. These are the items that staff sent to the applicant saying, this is saying, here's what we need you to do. Okay. Those should probably be accurate. Actually, they're pretty actually sent. Okay. Okay. It's not memorializing our conversation about you. But I think you raise a good point that it should memorialize our conversation someplace in the minutes because that was said, the applicant did say that, but they would make ready the EV stations. So that should be someplace in the, in the discussion, I think Rob. Yep. I can include that. Okay. Can I go on or tell me when I, I think I only have, I think I only have one more. All right. We'll just hold on. Yeah. No, what is going to do. And then we'll get your next one. Okay. All right, Miss Marshall. So the U drive south. Design business. First bullet. I think it should, I suggested be clarified here that this is the town's way finding sign project because again, I was completely back. I was so confused what we were talking about because the permit was granted for the owner's son owner's sign. And this instead is now approving a town owned sign. So I just think that should be clear. Yeah. And that first bullet could be in the fourth bullet proposed town owned welcome side. I think just go right up front. Okay. Town on way finding sign project to be. Make it clear. That's it. All right. Any other. Suggested changes to the minutes. All right. I entertain a motion to approve the minutes. So moves. Is there a second? Right. Mr. Henry seconds. Any further discussion? If there's no further discussion, the vote occurs on the motion. The chair votes aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. Mr. Henry. Aye. Miss Marshall. Aye. Miss green mall. Aye. Motion is unanimous motions carried. Next order of business is. Are there any further disclosures from members on the panel? We had disclosures regarding this and July 27th. They don't have to be repeated, but if there's anything new. Why should I close that? I do business with the law firm from this. This lawyer is a partner. Okay. All right. Any other disclosures. Are not. If not. Next order of business is ZBA FY 2023 dash 12. Thomas and David Casey request for the special permit under section 3.013.211 and 10.38 of the zoning bylaw to construct a non owner occupied duplex consisting of two units with each unit containing four bedrooms. This is a total on the same parcel as the existing two story duplex with seven bedrooms at 798 800 North Pleasant street map eight a parcel 66 are in neighborhood residents zoning district. This has continued from 727. 2023 meeting. Let me read some submissions. Most of these are in the project application report, but they're also additional submissions since. July meeting days. They include a complaint from the applicant. A complaint response form staff submissions. 798 800 North Pleasant street police log through July 31st 2023. To order correct issued by John Thompson in July of 2020. And three rental permit issued July 12th 2023 expired. 30th 2023. In addition, there are other. Submissions which include. Inspection services. Date of July 20. Those are met. Those were here from. Staff. Then we have a letter from. Josna reggae of July 27th. We have a letter from members of the from. Counselor Shane from July 27th. We have a memo from counselor Shane from November 4th. We have a list of co-related issues from inspection services. Data 919 2023. There is included some included in the record where some of the reference zoning board. Zoning bylaw. Sections that we had discussed and had been referenced in the discussion by the board. There was a September 20th memo. From. From. Josna reggae and Rebecca Miller. There is a. September 21st. Email and letter from Mr. Tom Reedy Esquire. Asking for a hearing to be continued. To October 26th. There's a September 23rd meeting from our September 23rd memo. I think there is a. Alternative map. Showing which. Properties in the neighborhood are owner occupied and non-occupied. There's a. And those are rental. Identified as rental properties. There's a trash picker of trash. Been as of September 2023. There is a September 24th. And there's a letter from Denise Barberette. There is a September 26th letter from. Becky Miller and. I think. Josna reggae again. Follow up on the zoning board of appeals meeting. Then there's a meeting. A letter from Ira Brick. On September 27th. There's a letter from Mr. Tom Reedy Esquire of Bacon Wilson. Requesting the permission to withdraw. Without president press prejudice. This application for a special permit. Rob, if I. If I missed any submissions, is there anything else we need to. Reference. No, you, you pretty much hit everything, Mr. Chairman. I can't think of anything else that wasn't left out of the list. You just described. Okay. All right. So. Given that that's the submissions. Who's going to be representing the applicant tonight? Mr. Reedy. I believe so. And I can promote him to. So he can give us. Please. Yep. All right. You should be joined us shortly. Mr. Are you representing the applicant? I am. All right. Would you just state your name and address for the record? I'd be happy to. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board for the record. Tom Reedy attorney with Bacon Wilson out of Amherst. Here on behalf of the applicant. Great. So just as a notice for the board. We have two requests from the applicant. The first was for further continuance. And the second was for withdrawal without prejudice. So I assume that the applicant would like us to consider. The request to withdraw without precedent first. And then if that is not approved. Consider the request to continue the public hearing until October 26. Is that correct? Yeah. I think that's fair to say the obvious hope is that you'll accept that withdrawal without prejudice. And then this will be kind of taken off your docket. And then the continuance is moved. Precisely. Yes. And if we have to technically withdraw it, whatever you need for that, that's, you know, we're happy to do that. But the hope is to withdraw essentially based upon. All the information that we've got. So the procedure we're going to follow tonight is, is this, we're going to have the applicant present why they wish to withdraw the application. Then the board and the staff will discuss their quest to withdraw. We'll permit public comment on the motion to withdraw, but not on the merits of the application itself. And after the subsequent questions from the board, we'll move to a public meeting while keeping the public hearing open for consideration of the motion to permit the withdrawal of the application. So it is, does everybody understand the process tonight? All right. Mr. Riedi, do you wish to speak to the request to withdraw the application without prejudice? Yeah. I mean, I think it's, it's pretty simple. I got involved with these folks subsequent to their July. I think it was 27th hearing. I happened to be on that hearing earlier in the evening. Subsequently, I, maybe a couple of weeks ago I started working with them. Got my feet under me a bit with some of the material had a subsequent conversation with the town. Thought it would be best to continue to give us some more time to really process. And all of the comments saw some additional comments had an additional conversation with the town. And thought that it would be in our best interest just to withdraw and frankly go back to the drawing board, understanding that there were comments about management, et cetera. You know, when we think about, when I, when I approach these, I think of it in the context of 10.38. And, you know, that was something that I think we have to consider a little bit more strongly. So we had that, we had to talk about complimentary use. Is it allowed? Is it not allowed? And so we thought, listen, at this point, well, let's withdraw. Let's go back to the drawing board. And then let's get our feet under us with the management of the property. And then let's figure out what ultimately, you know, we, you know, they want to do with the property. So it was really just kind of based on the totality of circumstances we thought at this point it was best to request that withdrawal without prejudice. I'd like to ask Rob more to frame this issue for us a bit because it's been, there's been a lot of conversations about, and a lot of confusion I think about numerous provisions of the zoning bylaw complimentary requirements under 10.38, et cetera, et cetera. Rob, would you just kind of discuss some of the issues that have been raised by this application and how the town is viewing them and how you were viewing them? May I just ask one question. Yes, Mr. Henry. Absolutely. Yes, go ahead. Tom, if we'll be different, if we grant your motion to withdraw when you come back, what will be different? First of all, will we come back? Second of all, would we come back with what would it look like? Like I don't, I mean, really at this point, I have, I have no idea, right? I don't even know if they would come back and if so, I don't know if they would come back with some different, you know, is it, is it, I don't even know, right? So I think it's just the problem with not granting with the withdrawal and I guess what would it be forcing us to go forward? If you force us to go forward, then I think at the least we should be granted a continuation so that we can look to address all the comments made by the public. The problem with that is then we were just prolonging this when we frankly don't want to go forward on this because, you know, we just think that there's probably, if there is a better way to do it, we'd like to approach that better way to do it. So I can't tell you at this point, like we haven't done plans. This isn't something where we withdraw, redo the plans and then say, okay, here's what we're doing, right? We withdraw, get our feet under us. They're listening. Like I'm talking to them and, you know, I think we haven't seen each other much in this forum. You know, I do this quite often. We listen to what the neighbors are saying. Like you take that to heart. They're looking at the site. And so I think they're really figuring out, okay, you know, two units in a different building on the same site. Is that the best? First, let's get our house in order, right? They, I think they've been in the past couple of years better than they've been in the past, but there's probably still room for improvement. Yeah. I think that's where we're at. So I can't tell you, oh, we're going to come back with a, I just don't know. Thank you. Miss Marshall. Yeah. So could you just clarify? I think I understand, but I would like it to be explicit what you mean by without prejudice. Yeah. So if you, the, if you. Allow us to withdraw. I don't know. If you allow us to withdraw, then, you know, we include without prejudice, because essentially if you don't, it's tantamount to a deny. If you deny us, we're prohibited from bringing back the exact same application for a period of two years. Now, can they get things together in a period of two years so that maybe it makes sense. Maybe. Yeah. Yeah. I think that would, you know, when we've had conversations with the zoning enforcement officer about what complimentary uses mean, does in the interim, some, the, the bylaw change, does a case come out that says, Oh, hey, look, this is how it shouldn't be interpreted. And then we'd be prohibited from coming back. So it really just. Kind of takes it out of your hands says, listen, we hear you. We're not going to go forward here. And then kind of frankly offline, it's not because it's not, we're here because we thought it could be brought if his determination is so by pulling it out, we're not fighting that fight right now. If they determine, if he determines, oh, it can't be brought because they're not complimentary uses. Then we're not back in front of you on the same thing because we're prohibited from coming back before you on the same thing. So this is, it's really just to allow us to exit and then still preserve opportunities if something else material really changes. Yeah. And in short, this Marshall, it means they can't bring back the exact same thing. They can bring back something different on that property. Right. Is that correct? Tom, I said, you could bring back the same. Yes. You wish to not that they couldn't, but if they do that, we would have, we'd be in the exact same position. Yeah. But, but with prejudice means don't come back. Don't come back for two years. Yeah. Right. Yes. Okay. Mr. Thank you. So I thought I'd just make some comments about a couple of sections of the bylaw. It's been commented on discussed at length by, you know, much of the public responses. And I'm sure the board's been looking at, at these provisions as well. And starting with section 3.01. And that's kind of the main focus of, you know, the public responses. And I think that's something that's been concerned with this application as, as has been written so far. In multiple. Examples. And that, that language says that the development. On a single lot. Of more than one dwelling or more than one principle use is expressly prohibited. Except where those principle uses are clearly complimentary to each other. So that's the unclear language that we're all kind of talking about. And I'm reminded of a conversation I had with our town attorney where he told me that every time he reads it, he thinks something else afterwards. So I think we're all probably feeling a little bit of that. But I do want to talk about, you know, how we've looked at this in the past up to this point. And maybe a week ago, I started looking at it a little bit differently. I've been asked over the years. I've been asked a lot of times, you know, many times can I put two single family houses on a lot? I have. In every instance said no. I'd say I've said that, you know, my read of this is that, you know, the dwelling that it's referring to is a single family dwelling. We don't define it. And I'm not willing to, you know, permit that type of development. Without. The, the, the, the, the, the the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the conditions and criteria to deal with that if the town ever chose to do something like that. So that's been a hard no over, over, and over again a year after a year. Now, every other combination of uses. One. Or two different types of principal uses or of the same type of to the board of appeals for consideration in the past and in some cases the planning board if they're non-residential uses typically. And that you know that has been viewed as well you know under the special permit granting authority if the board you know found it appropriate to allow more than one building more than one use made the connection and finding that they're complementary to each other perhaps it has the possibility to move forward. So that's you know that's where we are today the board has granted permits for two duplexes more than one duplex on a property the board is granted permits for a duplex in a single family so more than one dwelling on a property. So we've done that there's not many of them there's a small number of them maybe three or four in the the 12 years that I've been working here that I can recall. But this application really caused me to look closely at this language and I have questions I have concerns about how we've interpreted the bylaw or how the bylaw maybe hasn't been interpreted yet and just been you know used and I want to look at that and so that I guess what I'm here to tell the board is that if this application is withdrawn and I would suggest that it is probably a good thing to let this application be withdrawn the applicant has no involvement with this conversation other than my few conversations with Mr. Reedy over the last couple of days the applicant had no idea that this was a question or concern of mine and I would like to have my questions answered talk a little bit more with the town attorney and be able to come up with a clear interpretation of this section so that no other application gets in front of the board unless it's something that can move forward and has a path so that the board can do their work and judge it on its merits. So that's where I am with this you know I I feel like this application being withdrawn is the right move and not moving forward under the expectation that it originally was filed under as you know two complementary uses in the same use classification and I can you know I'd be happy to answer any more questions that I can. I think I had some conversations with Rod and I'm in agreement that I think the right this is the best path for us at this time and I think it for a whole lot of reasons it takes this issue it was not clear on both the complementary uses as well as I think on 10.38 it seems clear to me that there needs to be more clarity on the complementary uses issue as well as I think other provisions on this from this application and I'm in favor of withdrawing this and letting the applicant come back and rework this if they're going to come up with something at all. Miss Marshall. Yeah I'd like to my notes to be accurate so if Mr. Moore can just correct me this is what I think I heard you say that allowing two single family homes on one lot has been a hard no but that it has been allowed at least for applications to move forward if it's two different kinds of residential structures like a single family home and a duplex is that or two you said two duplexes so not two single family homes but two duplexes which is seems to be what we're talking about this application was the path so right so two single family houses has always been a no no the bylaw doesn't have a permitting path through a land use permit so it's not it's not done by the planning board or the zoning board it's simply yes they just move right into building permits so when I've been asked can I put two dwellings on a lot the answer has been no because there isn't any mechanism to approve that I read that language very plainly and said not more than one dwelling and I referred to the dwelling that states in that section 3.01 as a single family dwelling that's how I read and applied that we don't have much guidance you know from that point on so when we think about two duplexes and you know I had this conversation with the town attorney the town attorney said well the board's not prohibited from granting a special permit for two duplexes but it really would be nice if the bylaw somewhere else said go ahead and do it if the board allows it and that's where we are we don't have that language I've searched for it it doesn't it doesn't suggest that that more than one duplex could be permitted and then I think you get into a similar conversation when you look at a duplex and a single family dwelling and maybe that even gets trickier when we move on to the bigger residential developments apartments and townhouses it all the sudden gets clearer because the bylaw in other sections very clearly says one or more buildings three or more units right so it changed and we don't you know we don't define dwelling in the bylaw so it starts to really clearly open up the opportunity for say three apartment buildings on a property as long as all the other dimensional requirements are met uh so we've had you know we've had the duplex and the single family permitted we've had more than one duplex when it's combined with an apartment project so again it's a different situation it's a you know it was that particular case was a property very large that could be divided up into multiple parcels if it wanted to just not the same situation we haven't permitted a case just like this two duplexes on a lot that cannot fit anything else you know that that um in the duplex category um so we haven't done one we haven't permitted something just like this one that's in front of you mr henry you have your hand up i i think miss green bomb was first okay miss green bomb he wants to go first you can that's not um i just keep track of order correctly sorry i've been troubled by this application when i first read the legal ad before i was even put on this panel and i know that there are other situations pending that are similar the difference between this one and some of the others that have been granted except for the i think he's talking about the two single family homes in the duplex maybe north amazon i'm not sure whether that's village center or neighborhood but the ones that have been granted and the one that i know about that may be pending down the line are in general residents and this is neighborhood residents and i think that we need to have some clarity on the issue because there's also neighborhood neighborhood um discussion put it that way to what what may happen i think mr reedy knows what i'm talking about um i think you can make a case for the duplexes and the triplexes because they are different uses than it is a different zoning area all you have to do is add an efficiency apartment to each one and you've got three units in each building or the buildings could have been by you can make a case for that i think um i'm elizabeth has ended here because i remember of my family has a similar thing going on i believe but i'm not sure on on north whitney street but that again is a single and a duplex which i know i can see news on the table i was so concerned by this issues and the precedents that might be setting i started my research red bull broth speak couldn't find anything about complementary uses and apparently from everything i was reading online and cases there are no cases except for a couple where they're business use with a residential use or judy's downtown which is the addition is a mixed use building with a restaurant which are clearly not in conflict with each other except maybe parking knows but um i've done the research independently and i am concerned about the issue of without prejudice because i really don't want this to come back i don't want to set the precedent of people dividing up their property and putting more units on it especially when the neighbor next door doesn't want to sell the extra land um i i can say that's one positive thing Todd one positive thing came out of this i'm used to driving by that house every single day i go anywhere because the shortest distance between north amrist and downtown is north pleasant street all of a sudden i'm driving and i didn't recognize the house it happened to be a monday morning and the cba site was it was going to be on tuesday so for that we can be thankful that that whole yard got cleaned up and the brush cleaned away and it it really didn't look out bad when we got there so maybe it's for a while at least for the picture we got of the garbage it wasn't that the application was an improvement for the neighborhood and so i i'm hesitant about the wood prejudice part without prejudice part but if i won't know that sort of leaves us in a very bad situation of what does that mean so i will i'll pass the baton to the next speaker mr henry so i have a few comments and then some questions um my my first comment is that if you look at the word complimentary i i get that that has been the struggle with um a lot of people um it means complete or to supply mutual needs that's my interpretation of that and based on what we've heard that is the intent of this new building it's mutual need there's a building there that's performing one function and adding another one will do just that um the other question um so and if i understood rob more correctly um if the bylaw doesn't say we can't grant this permit doesn't stand to reason that we can if there's no definition of complimentary doesn't doesn't allow us to interpret that definition and make a find in that where it is vague we can you know we have discussion and then we say and then we make a decision based on that and if we're not and if we grant this request to withdraw this petition are we saying that then we're going to go back to the attorneys or um rewrite the bylaws to give a definitive definition of complimentary therefore it is no longer um unambiguous and what is a process that surrounds that and if we do go in and define complimentary um doesn't mean that whenever anyone comes back to us for a special permit it doesn't require as much because then there's a definition we can simply look and says no yes without even having discussion because it is right there in black and white and now my question is given the size of this lot um an option would arguably be to divide the slot if it was divided wouldn't then this petition be allowed to build this building on the divided lot mr morrow so this particular lot does not have the minimum frontage and area to be separated into two parcels so that is not that is not an option if it had if it had additional area and at least 20 000 square feet for each lot then it could happen if that was the scenario but that isn't the case here and I just I just want to just back up on something on your comment just to make sure um the issue about the complimentary uses the question about it is understood because you know one of the questions here is do we even have the ability to consider if two duplexes are complement complementary to each other or as we read 3.01 where the language says you know not to develop on a single lot more than one dwelling or more than one principal use described in 3.3 the quote one of the questions here is if you're using two of one type of principal use is that more than one principal use or does it have to be two different types of principal uses and I hope this is somewhat clear you know making some sense but it's you know that's part of what makes it unclear and you know one one read of it initially was that yeah two of anything is more than one but I think that needs to be looked at closer uh you know into another one of your comments uh my goal is to uh is to kind of work through this get whatever legal advice that's needed to both make sure we have a clear interpretation of this bylaw and to be quite honest there's more than one other pending application of this type or uh design teams working on applications of this type that I know about so I need to get an answer to this and if the answer is supported legally that an application can come to the board then the board will have to you know deal with that and and go through the process but if it is different than what we thought it might have been originally or if there's a recommendation to amend the bylaw you know we'll work on that and the planning staff will be advised of that decision you know as soon as we make it which will be soon it'll have to be any further questions Mr. Henry no Mr. Chair thank you um I think Mr. Meadows was up next uh I I agree with everything that Mr. Moore is saying I think he needs to be given clarity not only in this instance but for all of the instances that may be coming up that are similar there is another issue within this and that is um can you or should we allow an instance where there's a special permit given for a building and then allow an additional building with an additional special permit on the same property which seems to complicate this issue but it but it's not an issue alone it seems to me that it's it's a creep issue in some regards I don't know what other word to use in which um we're adding special permits on special permits which I I cannot imagine that was the intention of the bylaws and Mr. Moore should be given clarity on how to make a judgment on that thank you Craig Ms. Marshall you have your hand up yes but but I think I'll take it down because uh I'll reserve it for our public meeting the deliberation part all right any other comments questions from the board or from staff we will have public comment and during public hearing so Rob um Rob whatchilla is it you for a phone do you push for uh push pound and nine or push pound and four push pound and nine so I believe you press uh star nine on the phone yep and for those who are in attendance can use the raise hand function right so we'll allow for public hearing on this matter um if you wish to speak please use the raise hand function on the zoom or if we're on your phone press star nine to indicate you wish to speak when you when called upon please give your name and add for and address for the record and please keep your comments to about three minutes most importantly please remember that the issue before the board is whether to grant the applicants to request to withdraw the application without prejudice we are not considering the merits of the application at this time and if the board grants the request the application is no longer before the board if the board does not grant the request then it may consider the request to continue consideration until October 26th if that second request is approved and the substance of the application will be and then the substance of the application will be considered by the board and public comment will be received at the October 26th hearing so try to keep the public comment to the topic before us I will help to remind speakers who wander into topics not before the board tonight so if anybody wishes to comment please raise your hand or push star nine on your phone Rob and I will work to provide the ability for you to speak so I did see a hand go up but it immediately went down um I guess we can give oh there's the hand so we have jazza reg and I'm going to give speaking commissions hello hello please give your name and address for the record hello my name is josna reggae and I live on 96 farview way um I just have a very short comment um with regard to this request to see the application withdrawn without prejudice along with the more than 45 other residents who signed our neighborhood letter asking you to reject this special permit application I would be glad to see the application withdrawn I would have thought though that the board had enough information before you by now to reject it all together rather than leaving all of us hanging in limbo for the next two years while uh while laws are changed and to to allow this to go forward so thank you for your service on the board that's my only comment thank you are there other public comments not see any more public comments uh all right so if there are no other public comments um we have an opportunity to um the board can ask last questions for the of the applicant that can respond to the the comments from this the public um are there any other board members comments before we move to a public meeting all right if not if I know further questions we'll move to public meeting while keeping the public hearing open in case you need to gather additional information the public meeting is where we board members deliberate and is generally not uh time for public comment do any board members have general thoughts on this request to withdraw before we deal with the motion itself all right um miss marshal you are you had already foreshadowed the public meetings in europe up first for sure okay so I hope this is still not premature but I I want to respond to miss greenbaum's comment that if I heard it correctly that she'd prefer it was withdrawn with prejudice I think that is unfair at this time if if the how to interpret this 3.01 is really up in the air because if it comes back from the attorney or whoever if it is settled that it is a allowable use then we would have unfairly or I think unfairly restricted the potential applicant's ability to come back to us um it might fail for other reasons it might be unsatisfactory proposal but um because the interpretation of this section of the bylaw is is evidently quite uncertain um I don't I don't think we're in a position to deny it so it's my comment mr meadows I'm wondering what uh what the it seems a little bit the best thing if I'm correct is for the bylaw to be rewritten in a fashion which would give it clarity I'm wondering what the process is for rewriting a bylaw and what kind of time it takes to get that done nothing in ever stakes is quick and I'm ending bylaws is is a complicated and I think it requires time council action in two thirds vote but mr mora can you clarify that yes um so bylaw amendments happen a few different ways but typically you know they're either started by staff with you know a recommendation to the town manager to bring it to the council or uh some other committee or board such as the planning board that would typically uh do such a thing uh it's a lengthy process uh a lot of it dictated by state law on how how often and how hearings are held and you know uh in our experience um it's many many months to get even the simplest um bylaw amendment so I I think although it may go on the list and to be honest there's a lot of them there's a lot of pieces of this bylaw that have unclear provisions such as this that leave leave it up for interpretation sometimes more challengeable than others I think our goal in the short term is to get in the best legal position we can be with interpreting the bylaw so that our decision and the board's decision the guidance provided to the board is best supported and you know we just need a little bit of time to do that and and then I can have a um you know what how I will interpret the bylaw when an applicant comes in to see me sort it out um you know I'm not prepared to do this tonight at the in this moment you know I've already started thinking about this and just want to finish that and and be able to deal with that in the next application um which is why the you know the unknown is really why the withdrawal makes you know good sense good move um the applicant was willing to do it um if if the withdrawals denied and the board moves into making the decision about this particular subject now we're you know we're open to litigation not only from this applicant but maybe another developer that's watching that was thinking of doing the same thing saying oh I can argue that other point I can I can I can make a case which is what we heard from our time attorney yeah I can support this but I really wish it you know said something different so the bylaw amendments take time it'll likely go on a list I can see already we'd like to have this worded differently I think it'll go on a list with the planning department which is really long and I wouldn't even want to guess when I think that could come up uh in in future discussions uh but I think in the short term we have to make a decision and often these public hearings could be multiple especially it comes from a different board that proposes the amendment initially they sometimes could have two or three public hearings then town council might take a while with it too so it's a very lengthy process so this is a case it seems to me that we're going to have to deal with some a gray area for a while right now it's undefined and what we're looking for is using the best knowledge of town staff resources from outside resources and state laws and other kinds of resources that Mr. Moore can use to form a view as to what complementary means and in this in this instance and apply that and then then that's going to be up to us for a while to use that and um because we're not going to get clearance from clear we're not going to get clarity from the town for quite a while you know and it could be a it could be a long time but we can get a better sense of what we should do with this through a interpretation that Mr. Moore and the town attorney and others can come up with and that will help us and and it still means it's only one of the many factors we have to consider on an application that's just one and in this particular application I believe there's other things as well that argue either for or against it it gives it pretty strongly so I think that withdrawal at this point in time without prejudice because I think Ms. Marshall is correct that there could be a way to get back to come back before us if there's a different interpretation and also I don't know that it just seems too intuitive to me I think the applicant got caught and caught up in a something that they didn't understand and I don't think I didn't fully understand the implications and I think it seems punitive to me to not have to to and I don't know I don't know the way we can change the request from from with without prejudice to with prejudice except by denying it by going through the whole process and having and making decisions on the application I don't know if we can on our own start the force the applicant to withdraw with prejudice I'm just not sure we could do that so this seems to me to make the most sense as a as a path and I think it gives us the ability to make some decisions with greater information and greater clarity down the road so who was next Mr. Henry were you up next I was thank you Mr. Chair so I do agree with you Mr. Chair with Ms. Marshall that that prejudice is the most appropriate thing to do what I'm struggling with though is that the ZBA is a board of appeals that the bylaws doesn't have clarity that we're asking for and to everyone's earlier point we have pending applications that is similar the whole point is that the ZBA does their level best to make her an appropriate interpretation yes there's a possibility that we may get it wrong and somebody may challenge that and but that's the whole point of the board to delay this to say let's get some further clarity from the random bylaws I don't think it's realistic because you know if you think about when a law is written and it gets challenged and it goes to court the court doesn't delay making decisions so the laws can be changed and so that's the part I'm struggling with here is that we're kicking the can so to speak so we can get somebody else to tell us what to do now I appreciate that you know the town attorneys may give us more guidance and that is appropriate but to everyone's point they cannot change the bylaws and unless the bylaws are actually changed this is the document that we have to live with with everyone else that comes before us with a similar situation so are we saying then by not making a decision here when anyone else comes with something similar we're going to make the same ruling to say we have to wait for the bylaws to be changed so we can actually make a decision so while I think that the petitioner here is I withdraw and give us you know some coverage so to speak I I think we should have made a decision on this if we had if we had enough information about what they're building and if everything's up to code and things like that I think we should have made a decision rather than saying we need clarity on the bylaws I think the decision should be made with what we have understanding that this is the guidelines that we have now and the ZBA's role is to make the level best decision with what we have because to everyone's point change in something takes time I think it's going to take a long time when there's so many committees and boards involved so the petitioner gave us a way out but I think we need to work with what we have because this is going to come up again and while we want Mr. Moore to have everything that he needs to make an informed decision that's not what we are we have what we have and we think and I think we have to do a level bus to work within that Mr. Henry if I could just try to understand your your point you're saying that we your preference would have been to just to make a decision on this pending application and make a decision on complementary as well as the other findings we have to make and move forward and have that be what we have to operate on from the future yes but one of the problems I had with this application is I don't know if the bylaw allowed us to even consider this application yet and I need more clarity on that because one reading of that of that provision tells me there's no there's no role for the ZBA to approve a second dwelling identical dwelling unit on that on a piece of second duplex on that piece of property and that we really shouldn't have even been before us is one interpretation and that I think that was a legitimate interpretation and needs more clarity needs more flesh fleshing out and more investigation the other ones there are other interpretations that came before us as the applicant had there was a complementary use so I think there was I don't think that we had enough information right now to do what you want to do which would be ideal and not have to have spending an evening discussing whether we should decide if something or not it'd be great to have the the information for us but I thought there was too much my readings that there was too much ambiguity to even decide whether this could be legitimately before the ZBA and then if it could be I agree with you then that's our job our job is to make calls on sometimes on some some issues that aren't clear or they're or to make those findings with that which are just judgments on our part we have to make those but I don't I wasn't sure that this should even be before us at this time and that's why I needed some further that's why I like the idea of further clarification go ahead and I think I would have and I think I would have welcomed the conversation to say do we even have the authority to hear this petition and make a decision based on that well yeah that's I mean that's all part of the I think that's all part of what the town staff and uh attorney and other people need to help guide us on and give us more information then we can decide that but I just I don't know that we're ready to do that I'm not ready to do that yet and I'd like to have more information for the board but I sympathize with your desire I just don't have the I just don't feel like I have the information I need Mr. Moore you do you want to respond to what I said not necessarily to what you said but just that a reminder about the process here in Amherst the rules and regulations of the zoning board of appeals requires an applicant to come to me for authorization to to move the application to the town clerk and ultimately to schedule a hearing with the board general law the zoning bylaw authorizes the building commissioner to interpret the bylaw so you know what what will likely happen is that a decision will be made about this particular section and you will you may never see an application again like it come in front of the board because generally when I tell an applicant that they're they're the bylaw doesn't permit something from going forward they move on to something else and they look for another alternative and if they don't they appeal that decision and then the board gets to hear both sides of the case and make a decision about my interpretation of the bylaw so you know it's an intentional process to not put the board into this position that you're in of course you interpret every section of the bylaw when you're reviewing you know and you're reviewing an application whether it's a parking standard or a light fixture and and you'll continue to do that but this one I think would be you know best if I could get to that place and not only buys this this applicant here if they choose to come back and talk with us but others that are you know thinking of doing something similar and and make sure that they're that the application is going forward and we're reviewing it in in such a way that it's appropriate for the use that's being proposed you know if we're going to look at these applications differently this language differently it may result in a different review by staff and you know that's a distribution to multiple departments not just the conservation development department. Mr Henry we we've gone down the road on your first question do you have other comments or do you want to continue we can consider if Mr Greenbaum I'm sorry I will ask my follow-up I think Mr Greenbaum has her hand up all right Mr Greenbaum I've been through this several times with the bylaw over my years one case is a fraternity and a sorority the same thing is that the same use and that was with Bonnie Weeks and it ended up that the frat one on appeal but my my number one suggestion is we really need to go through that bylaw and start over and hopefully I didn't we'd get somebody like Dodson and Flinker over there who would come up with something like a they did for Northampton which is a hybrid bylaw a form-based code on top of an underlying code that looks at what's on the ground and they did such a good job in Northampton and I listened to some of those public comment hearings that they had I really wish we could go that route um the second comment that I wanted to make is that I went back to 1927 and all the town reports that are online looking at the the annual report from the zoning board of appeals and I'll tell you that through the 40s and 50s they they denied more permits than they allowed including for things like beauty shops and you would wonder why they would turn down a beauty shop but the information unfortunately isn't there I that was the first zoning bylaw in 2728 so there was another huge revision in 1964 and I think from what I can tell and I'm just sort of figuring this out I have no proof without the reports from the planning board but I believe that this whole issue of complementary use came in the 1964 revision because it seems to be in there since then and if anybody could find a report from the planning board somewhere in archives you might get some reason why they recommended that and what they had in mind when they recommended that complementary use be added to an existing zoning bylaw with that major revision and that was just when the university started growing very fast and then we had the the SCAR report in the 70s found 75 76 when I joined the town meeting but it might be good what were they thinking about the time because single use on a parcel seems so axiomatic that you can't find anything on online in terms of court cases against them and as I say the two complementary uses that we find were a business development across from a residential development or in the two businesses in the same level just those two cases and the last 50 years of my last comment is going through the 80s where the rapid everybody knew when they came in for Amity Place, Salem Place, they knew they all knew that they were going to get caught in half so came in with a maximum number of units they could possibly get and every single permit that came but I could have had 13 townhouses at 85 North Whitney Street and I got eight so I mean that's the way things were then the people just didn't want the town changing so fast so anyway if somebody can find those notes in some archives from 1964 might be a good idea to find out what people were thinking then it may be relevant who knows sure. Thank you Miss Greenbell. Mr. Henry I know you had some more questions. I think I don't think it's actually I can ask this so if the intent here is to get more clarity on what is complementary and mean what are we looking for in terms of a timeline and a process for cases coming before the ZBA future cases coming for the ZBA? Well I guess there's two questions one is how long does it take I guess right you have two questions one is how long is it going to take to come up with with something that we can consider and secondly is what are the applications that are pending out there is that correct? Yes and forgive me given that talking about this particular petition if there's a possibility to get clarity on the bylaw would we say to the petitioner we have more information and do we delay vote in on their continuance until we to say let's get more information that way because to the public comment earlier there was a concern that the neighbor is going to be waiting for two years do we say let's not vote on the continuance today let's push this back to October 26 see if we get the clarity that we need and then we can make a vote on the continuance or vote to deny if the bylaw says we can't grant what they're asking for. Okay well I I think there's a couple of questions there timing on clarity and timing of the other applications I'll leave to Mr. Moran to speak to and on your second question of whether it makes and second question second part of your question I think you're saying wouldn't it be better to just continue this and deal with it one way or the other rather than put this off and then deny it now let them withdraw it now rather than deny it let them withdraw it now and come back with something else is that correct? Yes so if yes so if if we have some inclination to say Mr. Moran has spoken to the attorneys or has a conference with the attorneys and we may get some clarity on that section of the bylaw wouldn't it make more sense rather than delaying a decision for this petitioner and the neighbors quite frankly to say let's not vote tonight on the continuance wait we're voting on withdrawal right I'm sorry on the withdrawal and say okay if we vote of an schedule hearing vote then or if we have a response by the next day then we can say we now have definitive answer to say we cannot grant this therefore it makes more sense to say no rather than to just vote on your withdrawal. You know I we did have one person who felt that they would like to have a decision made tonight and they're worried that they might have some period of uncertainty that could that isn't is a legitimate concern but I think it also provides in some ways I think it provides more certainty to them if this is withdrawn it's going to take some time for the applicant to read to reconsider this they're part of the reason they're withdrawing I think is not just the complimentary use but the other issues that were raised in the application and I think this gives them time to reconsider and refocus or perhaps redo the application so it'll be different than we see it today and and I and I think we're sending a message that we hear that in from the neighbors already and this is one of the things that I one of the reasons I think this one of the reasons I think that voting to allow the withdrawal without prejudice makes sense is that I think a signal that the board hears concerns not only about complimentary and whether we can even hear this application but about other other aspects of the application so I'm and I would rather rather not uh bind up our schedule with uncertainty about whether we're going to have a new application or just consider the same thing again I'd like to give them time to come back rethink it and come come forward maybe talk with the neighbors maybe do some consultation things that could make it easier to come to come to a decision on a application that might work so all in all I would rather dispose of this now tell them to come back and do it um and then then we can come back with something else if they do want to do that and then we can move forward that would be my preference but but I caused a lot of hands to be raised on that response and so I want to give people a chance to to comment um one Mr. Mora and then Mr. Wachila please yeah I just wanted to mention to to Mr. Henry that you know it's it's not just the complimentary finding that I'm sure or complimentary what is complimentary that that I'm struggling with it's whether or not this type of application even gets that consideration because it might just be no that it's prohibited and stop there in the read of the language and and not even consider whether or not the two uses are complimentary that's the first decision that I have to make and then from that point forward then there might be a um a case in front of the board in front of the planning in front of the zoning board planning board myself where you have to make a decision if the two uses are complimentary or agree to that you know so I think this board will will have that question in front of them someday and you know until this language changes and that will be the time to really dig into what does complimentary need and how is it applied and in that particular case um there are no applications that have been submitted so the timing I would say there isn't one that's going to be in front of the board um if um if the decision after I look at this is that um if the two principle uses are not different classification types if the decision in that situation is that the complimentary finding isn't applicable they won't be coming to the board they're gonna be told that it's not permitted by this bylaw you know unless somewhere in the bylaw authorizes it so you know that's that's the decision that would be made that's a decision I'm gonna have to make for applications and and for uh applicants that are working on applications right now so this this discussion has forced that to happen whether or not you deny the application I still have to do that you know and and you would hope that the decisions would align but they don't have to I still have to go through that process and and make an interpretation of the bylaw and advise an applicant based on their their proposals so that I wouldn't expect anytime soon for the board to be seeing an application uh you know unless it's really clear to me that it's authorized by uh by the provisions of bylaw miss marshall I think it makes sense to allow the applicant to withdraw this they don't want to go forward I gather for any number of reasons not solely although it's a threshold question of whether it's um permitted um but I wonder when mr mora gets his um comes comes to an interpretation that he's comfortable with after consulting with with whoever he needs to talk to can he come back and tell us tell the public what that interpretation is because otherwise let's say no further projects come to us we don't know if it's because they've been told no because the interpretation is it's not allowed or the interpretation is it is allowed but no one's proposed that yet so I guess I'd like to know what the upshot of the um reconsideration of this 3.01 is mr mora absolutely I mean everybody here now has spent a tremendous amount of time thinking about this for this application and talking about this tonight will make certain to put on a agenda item um you know ideally you want to get this make sure this group is all aware of it um if if not I'll do something in writing or uh you know maybe we have a business meeting coming up soon that we can talk about it but absolutely uh everyone will know what's happening with this matter going forward including the public I mean because this would need to be widely understood or at least in available available to potential applicants right and I just just to remind you interpretations of the bylaw happen every single day you know so I know this one's getting a lot of discussion and and is confusing um at times but it happens every single day so you know we'll continue to to do our best to to make those available and and be consistent okay thank you mr whatchilla you hit your hand up thank you mr chairman um just kind of building off what rob said earlier about um the applicant withdrawing their um sorry the applicant withdrawing their their petition it gives them the ability to rethink the whole project and kind of shape it in a way that fits in better with the bylaw so say if they didn't want to pursue the current petition as is they could definitely reshape it to make it more acceptable to the zoning bylaw and there there are a number of issues that still have to be addressed to just from the last hearing alone like the biggest one from what I've seen in my zoning review is the lot coverage calculations I mean those have to be better explained and we need more detail on that I mean that's that's one factor that could prevent this whole thing from happening if it was presented as is and other things that might take even longer than a month to to address on the applicant's end so granting the withdrawal would give the applicant the ability to make a better proposal down the road because they'll take all these comments into consideration you also have the issue with the second curb cut going on Old Town Road you have the bus stop that's supposed to go right there in front of the house and blocking their existing curb cut that goes on North Pleasant Street so there's a lot of things that have to be rehashed on the applicant's end and then if they were to come back to us with a with a new permit you would think that it would be incorporating all those comments and feedbacks that are given to them okay thank you Mr. Archill all right are there other comments from members of the board or staff regarding the uh motion to withdraw or the request from the petitioner to withdraw without prejudice all right if there are no further comments or questions um I would entertain a motion that we approve the request of the petitioner to withdraw this application without prejudice so moved is there a second hi it's moved in second though now we have discussion on that motion um I think this is the right thing to do I don't know how we would get to um approving I don't know how we get to um making this with prejudice because I don't think we can do that on our own um the only way we can effectively do that is to go through the whole process and deny it but I think we by doing this we are sending a clear message to the applicant that there are that not only are there threshold questions of whether this can even be considered but there are other questions that forced us to really examine this application very closely and those are questions that were mostly raised from the neighbors also just I think public health and safety questions as well as management as well as those questions that Rob Achilla just raised about curb cuts and transportation and a host of other things but I think really are troublesome and so I think this gives this shows I think this demonstrates the applicant knows he's got they have a problem with this project and I would encourage them to spend the time if they want to do something in addition do additional work on this property that they spend time talking with the neighbors not only about how it's currently managed but about what they could do in the future and I think that would make a ton would bode well for this applicant and for the neighborhood and so on those grounds I think this makes sense um but I'd like to hear from other people before we go to a vote the screen bomb you have your hand up yeah I just want to say I very much agree with you um I will reluctantly vote I but I think that knocking heads together has worked very well in a couple of other projects beginning with the one on Pine Street and Sunset Fearing and I think they ended up with a much better project and happier day versus at least on Pine Street I haven't heard any complaints lately and the project on in you know on Sunset Fearing is turning out to be a very attractive example for what can be done and so I will rely and and put in another plug please to spend some of that planning grant money that you've gotten the redo to buy law it's now more than 50 years old that needs to be updated and we didn't like the form-based code that came in from North Amherst it was too much like North Alston I said they took a shoebox off this show gave us North Alston but we really need something that looks like Amherst and can and meanwhile provide places for more housing for people middle-income housing families to Sunday kids to the school so anyway that's the end of my rant thank you Ms. Greenbaum any other comments questions on the motion if there are no further comments the vote occurs on the motion to approve the request of the applicant to approve the request to withdraw the application zva fy 2023-12 798 800 north pleasant street without prejudice this requires a roll call vote and requires three votes out of five a simple majority the chair votes I Mr. Meadows I Mr. Henry I Ms. Marshall I Ms. Greenbaum I the vote is 5-0 motion is approved the application is withdrawn without prejudice I think by by that fact the other request you head into us is moot and is off the table so your application is is out there and I do want to encourage the applicant the owners of that property if they indeed do want to pursue additional work on that site to work with the neighbors to try to get a better project and to be aware of what we decide on and the guidance we're given on the threshold issue of complementary and whether you can even have to even have to duplex us on the same piece of property there's some pretty big issues there all right thank you very much good luck thank you everyone we have no other applications or business before us except general comment period this is where the public can speak on any matter not before the board tonight so if anybody in the public wishes to speak on this on any issue other than the issue that we dealt with tonight this is the time to do that and Rob I don't see any hands up we have four people as attendees but no hands up no hands up mr chairman all right then lastly we have any new business any business that has not been anticipated in the last 48 hours I you know Rob I'd like you to discuss scheduling for the future and outreach to members to serve on on the several panels we have coming up if you could well luckily the panels are a little bit light in the coming months with the exception of the 40b project so um as of right now on October 12th which is our next meeting we have the continued public hearing for the streetsbury road solar project which a few of you are panelists on and we also have a new petition for a change of use from a owner-occupied duplex to a non-owner-occupied duplex on 62 Taylor street on October 19th we have our first hearing for valley cdc's 40b project um 20 to 40 ball lane see address it is a nine acre site they're going to construct 15 affordable duplexes essentially creating 30 affordable owner-occupied so they wouldn't be rentals they would be owner projects um sorry owner units and they uh are pretty much all set to go in the 19th the only thing that we have to discuss mr chairman is setting up a schedule for that so the way the 40b's work is that they require usually around five to six hearings and after discussing with with Steve judge chairman um he decided to do those hearings on off Thursdays as opposed to the normally scheduled sorry second and fourth Thursday of every month so basically what Steve wanted to talk about and i don't know if this is still true is i guess who here tonight would be interested in serving on such a panel and i guess just making you guys aware that this schedule will be developed and eventually shared with all the members so those of you who are interested in serving on this 40b panel can can indicate as such and i don't know if i'm missing anything steve is there anything else you want to touch upon besides that's really what i wanted to do is identify the things we have coming up and and let people know that we're going to because we have some i think really hearing intensive proposals before us that we're going to start doing this every week for a while because we just won't get it done otherwise so i would like to sorry let's take every piece over yeah yeah until the 40b's over and and it may not be very controversial but i'd like to get started on affordable i'd like to make affordable housing a priority and like to move quickly on it because i think that's really important especially with the home ownership uh twist to it i think it's really important to do so what i'd like you to do members of the board please let rob know if you will be available to serve on the um alternative alternate week panels for the 40b or if you if you can have the time for it if your schedule does not permit it you've already just baked in the normal times that you on thursday nights but if you're available please let me know my inclination is always i go with the permanent members the full members that's the first shot they're up full members will try to get them everyone on board but i think i think john gilbert cannot serve or may not be able to serve on the 40b panel so there is if there's a there might be a place for a an alternate to help um to serve on this panel mr. what's your level so the only person who's indicated that they would would would be willing to serve is actually hilda hilda emailed me earlier saying that she'd be willing to serve on such a panel um sarah marshall said that she would be unable to all right well my hesitation is only that i'm on the ballot in november and i don't know until that it's what the demands on my time might be exactly so we see these hearings going probably until like the end of the year if they're going to be on the first and third thursday um so i guess you know board members who are here and i can reach out to everybody tomorrow because that's when we start creating the schedule you know just let me know if you have the time on those off thursdays to contribute to this if you don't that's totally fine it's just i'm going to create the schedule just so everybody has it so they know what dates to section off for this 40b hearing um yeah and see if you can was going to ask can i was going to ask can you can you send the schedule so i can look and you know i could do that tomorrow and um just so everybody has it this tomorrow okay just want to mention that you know these 40b projects are really interesting in something different than what the board normally does uh and there's another one coming so right behind it so anyone who misses the opportunity uh you know there's a 70 unit project on the town owned properties on belcher town road in the east street school uh being proposed by wayfinders that you know looks like it's about a couple months behind the valley cdc project so there'll be there'll be more opportunities to review comp permits and when he means right after he means in sometime in the spring is when they had most likely come before the board because valley submitted their pl which is their general public comment period back in this past spring and now they're coming before us in uh october so generally there's like a big kind of time gap in this 40b process before they can actually get to the hearing but what it really means is that you have great opportunities to sit in more hearings and and this time i think you'll be doing some really good work because i think both of these as represented so far show great promise and um it's actually i think it's they're really show great promise to to provide housing in a town that we desperately need um yilda can i just speak bob i can just you can call me whatever you want um no i just wanted to say the reason i applied to be an associate member of the of the zoning board is because i knew all these hearings were coming up and i didn't have done that many times and so i thought you needed help like that's all i wanted to say well thank you we do all right rob you'll send out send out tomorrow the hearing schedule let people respond um then you and i will talk about how we set up panels going forward for the these this and the solar our solar is already set up but for this for the the alternate weeks okay sounds good do people have any other new business any questions anything else you wish to discuss at this time administrative matters or or anything okay well and if nothing else we can move to adjournment and it's only seven thirty so you have you have some time for yourself tonight on a thursday night um do i have a motion to adjourn so moved is there a second second all right it's moved and seconded that we adjourn this is not debatable but does require a roll call vote the chair votes aye mr meadows hi mr henry hi mrs marshal hi mrs greenbaum hi motion is carries the vote is unanimous we are adjourned thanks everybody uh thanks for your work tonight and and for all the consideration you gave to the issues we had to discuss