 The chair notes the time is 6.02. I call this meeting of the Amherst Zoning Board of Appeals to order. My name is Steve Judge and as ZBA chair, I want to welcome everyone to this meeting. The Zoning Board of Appeals is a quasi judicial body that operates under the authority of chapter 40A of the general laws of the Commonwealth for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the inhabitants of the town of Amherst. In accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts general law, chapter 40A and article 10, special permit granting authority of the Amherst Zoning By-law. This public meeting has been duly advertised and noticed thereof has been posted and mailed to parties at interest. Pursuant to chapter 20 of the Acts of 2021 and extended by chapter 22 of the Acts of 2022, 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 members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately view the proceedings in real time via technological means. All hearings and meetings are open to the public and are recorded by town staff and may be viewed via the town of Amherst YouTube channel and the ZBA webpage. We will begin with a roll call of ZBA members. Steve Judge is present, Ms. Tammy Parks. Here. Mr. Dillon-Maxfield. Here. Mr. Craig Meadows, I know he's trying to call in. We'll acknowledge that. Mr. Gilbert. Present. I also want to note the presence of our associate member, Sarah Marshall, who will be in panel for the next matter. Also in attendance tonight is Ms. Maureen Pollock, planner with the town of Amherst. And I think later of Rob Mora, the building commissioner will also be in attendance. Tonight's agenda, a public meeting on ZBA FY2023-11, North Square at Mill Districts. Request a review of the proposed alterations to the site and the building and to determine the changes to be considered insubstantial as they relate to the previously approved comprehensive permit decision, ZBA FY2017-07 for the site and building B in order to allow the commercial retail uses of proposed class one restaurant with seasonal outdoor dining and a proposed bakery located at 7585 Cowles Road, map 5A parcel 139, commercial COM zoning district. A public hearing on ZBA FY2023-04, Redwood Construction Inc. Request a special permit to modify the previously approved special permit ZBA FY2018-21 for proposed modifications to conditions 1, 6, 11, 12, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25, 28, among possible others as they relate to the proposed changes to the site plan, site amenities, building plans and management plan under section 10.33 and 10.38 of the zoning bylaw located at Renew Amherst 266 East Hadley Road, map 16D parcel 13, neighborhood residential RN zoning district. This is continued from our November 10th, 2022 meeting. After that general public comment period on matters not before the board tonight, other business and then other business not anticipated within 48 hours. First order of business tonight is ZBA. I wanna note the presence of Mr. Meadows for the roll call. So we have all members of the panel in attendance. The first order of business tonight is ZBA 2023-11, North Square at Mill District, request review of proposed alterations of the site and building and to determine changes to be considered insubstantial as they relate to the previously approved comprehensive permit decision, ZBA FY2017-07 for the site and building B in order that the commercial retail uses of the proposed class one restaurant was seasonal outdoor dining and proposed bakery located at 7585 Cowles Road, map 5A parcel 139 commercial COM zoning district. And panel for the consideration of ZBA 2023-11 is myself, Ms. Parks, Mr. Maxfield, Mr. Meadows and Mr. Gilbert. We had a site visit on Tuesday the 13th. At that site visit, we saw the two proposed business locations in the building. We observed the interior under construction and the plans. We talked with the architect and the manager regarding those plans. We saw the changes to the sidewalk in front and the front of the coffee shop signage change. We went out and observed the ADA compliant ramp for the back exit. We noted the slope of the front entrance ramp and we also noted that the floor at the front entrance, the floor on the bakery would be raised so that there would not be a step down, I think, into the bakery premises. Other than that, we walked around the premises, made observations, but our site visit was mostly to review. Oh, and we also looked at the trellis, the lighting and the changes that may have to be made to the trellis to accommodate the security camera. I think that's pretty much it for the site visit. If there's anything else that members on the site visit wish to note, this is the time to do so. All right, in terms of submissions, we have a submission, which is an email to me from WD Cowles, Inc. I'm signed by Arthur Haskins, Director of Real Estate and Community Development at the Cowles Company. This includes a request for the approval of insubstantial changes, a management plan, several drawings of both site plans interior as well as external drawings. It includes a management plan, includes, excuse me, a approval under Article 14, additional management plan from the bakery, some stock photos submitted of chairs. It includes the front of the building, which is the page A3, page A3.1 is a bird's eye view of the bakery, page A3.2, I know again a site plan as well as elevation, A3.3 includes more detailed drawings. Management plan for the restaurant. It's the draft Futura menu, but it's the draft of the coffee shop. It shows the trellis, the banquet seats, exterior chairs, an example of the lighting proposed for the signage and some tables as well as additional renderings A2 and A2.1, which are both elevations, as well as a bird's eye view of the proposed build out as well as A2 and A2.3, again, elevations and site plans of the build out. I think there's additional material that will be provided by the applicant tonight as well as shown on the screen. That is the extent of the submissions that I have. I don't think there's anything else. What I'd like to do is determine who is representing the applicant at this point and have them make a presentation. But whoever that is, please state your name and address for the record. Good evening. My name is Arthur Haskins. I work for WD Coles as the Director of Real Estate and Community Development. Thank you for your time this evening. I managed the residential Lisa of North Square from 2018 pre-construction to 2021 where residential occupancy reached our full capacity. And in November of 2021, I joined WD Coles as Director of Real Estate. Today as representative of the commercial units owners at North Square, WD Coles, we'd like to request the approval of the insubstantial changes you mentioned. Are looking as we mentioned for two tenants. We have two prospective tenants, future coffee makers cafe or generative agriculture cafe that is a barista style offering with a seating capacity of 49 people. And that would be at the address of 73 Coles Road unit. And directly next door is the carefree bakery, which is the bakery you've mentioned, which is a fair trade bakery specializing in celebration cakes to be located at 71. The exterior changes proposed as described in earlier as the exterior timber trellis, outdoor seating placement and the ADA access room to be installed at the second emergency egress at the back of the 75 Coles Road overall North Square building. If I may share my screen, I have a elevation depiction to help illustrate what I'm looking to describe. Yes. Please do Mr. Haskins. Kindly bear with me. Are you able to see my photograph of the 73 and 71 Coles Road units? Yes. This is where the first proposed changes would occur. Today, are you able to see my mouse cursor? Yep. We are proposing a timber trellis to be located over the primary egress of this unit, which is 33 Coles Road. With this timber trellis underneath would be bank had seating, a table and chairs as depicted in this image. Are you able to see the artist's computer rendering of the same location with those items placed? Yes, we are. If I may note, I did not have this in time for the meeting today, but there is a camera that is located at the corner of this unit. And there is a note to design the timber trellis in a way that will not impede the view of the camera angles. So these tails, this trellis would be brought in just enough not to impede the view. And to illustrate, I'll just show you what that corner camera is typically looking at. This is just a capture on a random day of what camera angles are viewed from that location. And again, this is the camera that I'm talking about here. So back to the rendering. This is the depiction of the trellis. The coloring is depicted as accurate as possible for the material being a cedar or natural material. And as noted in your earlier description, I also do have renderings of the banquet seating proposed, the proposed chairs and tables designs as well. May I answer your question so far? Are there any questions from members of the board? Okay, I guess, oh, Ms. Parks. Where will the sign go, the signage go? Is it above or below the trellis? It is to be located below the trellis so that it is best viewed from high level, typical high level standing at the ground. And they bear with me while I zoom in to the Coon Riddle Architect elevation rendering depicting the Futura coffee roasters signage. Okay, I see. Yes. Thank you. To further illustrate, if I may, I just have one other photo that I had prepared available to show depicting present day North Square 75 Coles Road. And today, out of frame is our mill district general store and local art gallery that were our first businesses, our North Square property management office. This entire development continues to be maintained by beak and residential management or maintenance. We have today a charcuterie business, the North Amherst Public Library's temporary location, a clothing retailer, the closet, a Pilates instructor, Balanced Birch. And then this is the location of the Futura coffee roasters and then carefree cakeery that we're discussing. Mr. Haskins, can you give us also a view of the, or a rendering of what the sign would look like for the coffee roasters? I think it's a loom. I have this artistic elevation of, as depicted on the architectural plans. And the idea is we've approached a sign company that would have a soft backlighting in light emitting diode, backlighting low voltage would be behind the signage. And I have an example of what that typically looks like if you can see my screen. And that would be tied into our higher efficiency lighting systems to control illumination and to control evening hours, automatic schedules for on and off as well. Thank you. It looks like there's no further questions about the coffee roaster. Do you wanna move on to the cakeery? So the cakeery was approved via Article 14 previously. And it is located right next door to the 73 Quills Road Unit at Unit 71. This is a fair trade bakery that specializes in celebration cakes with a front customer facing area, total capacity of just 10. So this unit does not require the ADA egress. This one only requires, I'm sorry, this unit does not require the second egress as the ADA ramp. However, we can go back to the Futura floor plan that depicts the path out to the second emergency egress ADA ramp. That would be the third change that we are proposing as well. So we finally take note first of the Cairpree cakeery floor plan. This is something that is not easily seen on these drawings, but as you saw in person the other day when viewing and touring the location where these are proposed, elevation height, top of the difference between the Cairpree and the cafe where the cafe is approximately three to four feet higher than the cakeery. And so to negate some of that height difference, as you noted as well, the front egress door is a step down. However, we are raising the floor using web trusses to get a level surface during the egress from the street level, in level within the cakeery once built. In that ramp, there's less of a drop to have to address with the ADA ramp for Futura as it proceeds next to this unit to restrooms that actually are drawn into the cakeery depiction. So you can actually see how that coincides with the bakery. So these are separate spaces. However, we do have a door allowing access. It only made sense to allow in design a second access at the back of the cakeery kitchen to the hallway, which would allow the business owner use of this back entrance as well for emergencies or perhaps for occasional deliveries that may require going through this path, but I don't perceive much use other than typically for perhaps emergencies. I may switch back to the Futura cafe floor plan depiction. That way I can show you in more detail the ADA ramp that's proposed. Bear with me as I zoom. So if I can walk you through this plan just so that it makes sense. What I had shown you previously with the elevations is the endless area with the seating here where my cursor is if you can see it. This would be the primary entrance where cafe patrons would be entering. There is a ability to go down this ramp to two ADA bathrooms that would be located at the back of the space as part of this now part of the 73 use it for the ADA bathrooms and a break room storage room area. With this 49 seating capacity, we needed to maximize the capacity so that it made sense for the tenants. And previous designs we had played with the idea of placing both of the required ADA bathrooms on the space above. However, in order to increase capacity, this turned out to be a great solution suggested by the tenants and drawn by the architects. And this also allows us to reach this required second form of egress. Today, the second egress area has a set of stickers but no ramp and were it to be compliant, we do need to include an ADA ramp which is designed compliant with the Mass Architectural Access Board of 112th slope or 8.3%. It indicates the 19 foot distance of a ramp that does not exist today that we're... Hope you're breaking up, Mr. Haskins. I was just noting the ramp area again. And you said that that's, excuse me, I don't mean to interrupt you, but I just want to make, you said that's a 8.8 and a half degree slope to that ramp. 8.3. 8.3 and that does meet with ADA requirements. Yes, I actually confirmed that with our architect at Coon Riddle. That's a one slope or 8.3%. Okay. And the front door is level, right? For ADA. That's correct, yes. That one already is at the block level. Yeah, okay. I just have one question, Mr. Haskins. And that was for the, just reconfirm to me that the entrance to the front of the bakery is at level. Is that correct? It is. It will be. That's correct. It will be. Yeah, it will be by raising the floor. Yes. Today it's a 16 inch difference in height, which we are going to be raising the floor trusses. And then the other thing is that, I know it's not required, or you said it's not required to have a second entrance when the occupancy is, so low, but in order, if disabled person or wheelchair bound person had to use the back entrance, they would proceed through the kitchen, out through that towards the public restrooms and out towards the ramp. Is that right? It is correct, the- And it's wide enough to do that. There's enough clearance for a wheelchair. All right. Okay. Are there other questions? Mr. Haskins, do you have anything else you want to present? I do know. Members of the board, do you have any questions? I guess not. This is a public meeting, and our task here is really to decide if make a determination that the requested changes from the applicant are insubstantial and can be approved by the building commissioner. And there's no need for a public hearing on these changes. So we're just reviewing the outdoor changes, the trellis, the outdoor seating, the ADA ramp and the commercial signage. Are there any questions from members of the board or any discussion regarding that before we have a vote to approve the applicant's request for insubstantial changes? To determine these changes as insubstantial. There's no, Mr. Maxfield. I was just gonna say, as long as we're just doing discussion before a vote. Yep. I mean, yeah, I certainly think this needs to threshold seems relatively insubstantial to the comprehensive permit that this board has already issued. So I'm in favor of voting for this. So I'd entertain a motion that to approve the request of changes to the comprehensive permit as insubstantial changes. And since this is not we're not making a decision on a special permit itself, this just requires three votes, a simple majority. So do I have such a motion? So moved. Is there a second? Second. We've got two seconds. Mr. Meadows and Ms. Parks on a tie. If any further discussion, if there's no further discussion, this is a roll call vote. The chair votes aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Mr. Meadows. Aye. Mr. Gilbert. Aye. Motion carries by unanimous vote. Mr. Haskins, congratulations. You have your insubstantial, you have your insubstantial changes. Much appreciated. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. You bet. The next order of business is the continued public hearing on ZBA FY 2023-11. North Square at, excuse me. I'm sorry. That's the wrong one. ZBA FY 2020-03-04. Redwood Construction Inc. Requests a special permit to modify the previously approved special permit. ZBA FY 2018-21. For the proposed modifications to conditions 1, 6, 11, 12, 19, condition 4, 21, 22, 23, 25, 28, among possible others, as they relate to the proposed changes to the site plan, site amenities, building plans and management plan under section 10.33 and 10.38 of the zoning bylaw, located at Renew Amherst, 266 East Hadley Road, Map 16D, Parcel 13, neighborhood residents are in zoning district. This is continued from November 10th, 2022 meeting. We had, we've already done the, we've had a site visit and we've already reported on that. For this matter, Mrs. Marshall will be impaneled and Mr. Meadows was not on this panel. On submission since our last meetings, we have Mr. White has an email of 12-1, which we put during, is in your packet, an email from the police chief, Livingston on 12-5 and 12-17. We have a project application report submitted by staff. And today we received a letter assigned by numerous tenants in the project that has also been submitted. We've, this is a, I think our fourth hearing on this matter, we have just a few matters left to consider on this application. They are designating parking, they are the conditions that we haven't determined. Designating parking spaces, lock coverage number, length of visit of overnight visitors, a length and number of visit of overnight visitors, security, community gardens, tenant access to the new community rooms and a few other more technical conditions that are on our plate tonight. So I'd like to proceed with these remaining conditions after we can consider the conditions and decide whether to apply them. We will then proceed to consider the findings under 9.22 and 10.38 of the bylaw and then make a decision as to whether to approve this amendment to the special permit. So the first, I'm gonna run through those conditions and I'd like to use the undetermined conditions or open conditions as sort of an agenda for us tonight. The first one is designating parking spaces, I think that's condition 47, yeah, condition 47. At our last meeting, I think this condition, the applicant was just gonna make sure that they were okay with it and they were gonna get back to us. I think we didn't make a decision on the parking, but this seems to me this is all consistent with what we had been discussing before, the five ADA compliant parking stalls are marked on the ground with signage and there's one EV station that shall be designated and clearly marked in the ground with signage. I think that is, I don't remember an objection from the applicant on that. Am I correct, Mr. Reading? And Mr. White? Go ahead Tyler. Good with that. No objection there. Yep. So what I'd like to do is unless there's objection from any member on the board, consider this condition adopted, we're gonna adopt all the conditions in a single vote later on, but we'll move forward with considering this one is adopted. The next condition I think deals with lot coverage. And that's where you wanted to go from 35.1 or 2% to 35.3%, which is I think exactly what you need under current lot coverage, under current drawing submitted. But the question was whether the bike racks caused you to have to go a little bit higher. And so I wondered if the applicant had any more thoughts on whether 33.3, the 35.3 is sufficient, is you sufficient room to complete all your business as planned? Maureen, is Carlos on that you can promote him? I don't think there's gonna be any issues with this one, but if he should be on, he could speak to any kind of, he told me he would be available. But from my understanding, Carlos can speak to more technical aspect when he hops on, but you're correct in that the additional lot coverage or the increased proposed lot coverage is because of the pads for the bike racks and some of the other minor changes that we made. And I don't remember the exact number, but I know that there's just a minor increase to what was approved before, I think 0.2 or 0.3. Yes, it was 0.2, I think before, and this went to 0.3. And this is Carlos's number, so we took it from him if I have it correct. Okay, if there's no objection from other board members, I'd like to have this one considered approved and we'll go around as part of the whole package at the end, all right? The next one is the maximum number of overnight visitors per unit currently reads 10 people with a maximum stay of five consecutive nights. This is typically what we do is leave this up to the, the land owner or the management company to decide where it is unless it's outrageous, unless it's an outrageously high number and let them decide how they wish to manage it. Is this is the number in your lease and is this the number that you're comfortable with continuing having? Yes, yes to both of those. Our lease has been updated to include that language. And so we're comfortable with that number. And 10 could be a large number of people. My view is a 10 is large number of people on a day-to-day basis, but if you have family coming in for holidays, is that why the number is 10? In case you have a two bedroom apartment, you have family coming in. Is that what you're looking at there? Is this larger than you normally see, yeah. Correct, I mean, I think that's, that's certainly a good example when that number could reach that, or when the visitors could reach that number. Those numbers did originally come from the currently approved special permit, which requires us to update the lease agreement. So that number was generated mainly from the special permit, but you're correct in that example is, in a case where family comes in for the holidays, in the stipulation that it's only five days maximum, kind of helps to mitigate any concerns with too many visitors. Is there any discussion from members of board regarding this condition? All right, if not, without objection, I'd like to have this one be considered as approved and we'll vote on it as part of the whole package. The next is condition 75 dealing with security. That's where most of our discussion last week was. The app, Mr. White and Mr. Reedy, you had sent a proposal to the staff on December 1st, which asked, which said the owners shall install one security camera at each door. Let's see, no, review the aforementioned blah, blah, blah, blah. Let me find your exact language to the, here we go. Here we go. Your proposal was to install one security camera per building within 90 days of the approved special permit modification to immediately after the board approval, the owner or its management will have regular check-ins with the police department to discuss property safety and security. Three onsite security were provided by on Thursday, Friday and Saturday from nine to three when the new 47 unit building achieves 80% occupancy. Four review the need for onsite security to occur six months after convention. I think that's yours. Yes. Yes, review the need for onsite security to occur six months after the commencement of onsite security. The ZVA will defer to the police department as to whether onsite security is necessarily going forward. That was your proposal. That was then the staff shared that with the chief of police and Captain Ting. The response from Captain Ting is security's camera should be installed at entrance and exits. And after the initial request for security Thursday through Saturday as per previous email, I'm good with revisiting the request after a six month timeframe in coordination with inspection services. So I guess there's a couple of issues that I see for the benefit of the board here. One is whether we have just one security camera per building or every entrance and exits has a security camera. And the second issue that I have is the wording of the last portion, number D, where we quote unquote defer our state of defer to the police department as to whether onsite security is necessary going forward. I would rather language say something to the effect that the police department will determine whether further measures for onsite security in the future and not have ZBA deferring to them but just flat out empower the police department to do this. Rob, is that, Maureen? Sorry, don't forget your question for Rob. But if you wouldn't mind referring to pages 44 and 45 of the project application report, that is the sort of suggested condition. So I just want you to be referring to the correct or updated. Yeah, the updated. Condition 75, page 44 and 45. The owner will install one secure. So what you're suggesting is in brief, it's having two, the board's approval, it's the same management will check in with the Amherst police department if we have regular check-ins and the purpose of discussing property and security, property safety and security. On-site security provided Thursday, Friday, Saturday, nine to three when the new 47 unit building achieves 80% occupancy and review of the need for onsite security shall occur every six months after the commencement of the provided onsite security. ZVA shall defer to the Amherst chief of police on whether onsite security is continued, suspended or reinstated at any time after the initial six month period, the applicant shall notify inspection services any time there was a change in onsite security. I would prefer that language to be something to the effect that the police chief or the Amherst chief of police, they want that or they want the police department, Maureen, do they care about who specifically is mentioned, chief of police or police department? We don't, it looked like the chief wanted the chief, but it's immaterial. Whatever the chief, whatever the chief wants to be referred. Yeah, so Rob, my question was, can we get language that says ZVA, that the Amherst chief of police shall determine whether onsite security is to be continued, suspended or reinstated at any time after the initial six month period, dot, dot, dot, dot, dot, as opposed to the ZVA shall defer to the Amherst chief of police. Let's just change that. I would like to move to change that condition to the Amherst chief of police shall determine whether onsite, does that work? It's okay. Yeah, it does. All right, we're gonna do that and insert shell. And delete ZVA shall defer to. All right, so we have the general outlines. Two questions exist from the last meeting. The first is whether you have more than one security camera and indeed one at every entrance and exit. And then we have to talk to about the number of days. So the first is, it seems to me that it doesn't make a lot of sense to have the security cameras not at every entrance and exit, especially if they're not being monitored all the time. The purpose of security cameras is to without people, without actual people there is to have a recordable and viewable record of going ins and outs and activities around the security's camera. So I think the police's request here is reasonable. So discussion from anybody else and then we'll ask for the comments from the applicant. Any other members have an alternate view? Mr. Radier, Mr. White, are you good with the police for determining on security? Are you good with the police determining on security cameras? Yeah, I mean, I think generally as you had said before, we had requested, but we had requested the police, including the chief reviewed it, came back with their suggestions. I think A through D of their suggestions are acceptable to us. I mean, the way that they presented it is these are acceptable conditions to the applicant. So that's the camera at each door. Just so I clarify, camera at each door. Camera at each door. Got it, okay. So that's what we're discussing right now. Is it Friday, Saturday? Yeah, the other parts aren't controversial at all. I think the immediate question before us is more than one camera per building at each entrance. I think that there's no discussion from members of the board on that. But Ms. Marshall, you would discuss this last time a little bit about the value of security cameras with the not being live monitored. Yeah, no, no, that's, I did, but that's not my concern. I just wonder if it's the case that whether it should be stated that these are at doors through which tenants and guests may enter or exit. I mean, in case there are some external doors that are just storage rooms or, I don't know, okay. I think the purpose when I read it. Or perhaps those should also be. No, maybe, but I think the purpose, the meaning of this when you look at it is each door entrance and door exit. And I don't, I think the purpose of this is tenant and management entrance not into storage. And we can make that clear in the notes to the, of the meeting and the minutes of the meeting. Okay. But I think you have a good point. There's no reason, I don't think there's reason to have a security camera over a storage closet for the most part. Other questions? All right. And the last one is the number of days. I was pretty hardcore on keeping seven days. I still think that makes sense. I think the commitment of time and money that it from the owners for three days is not a lot. I did a little bit of work on it. On the low end of the estimates that you provided to us, the $31 an hour for 18 hours, three days comes to a total of $558 a week that comes to a total of $29,000 a year. You have 209 total units, I think, is what the, when the building is built, you have 209 units. That comes to about $138 a unit a year or $11 a month. Average rent in that building is what Mr. White, $1,500 a month. 16? I don't know the exact number, but somewhere between 1,500, yeah. And up to 2,000, yeah, 15 to 1,700. So you're looking at less than 1% of your total costs for three days. So, and it'd be substantially more for seven days, I agree, double that. So it'd be almost a percent of your total rent in a month. I don't think that's outrageous to ask, but I also know that the, I think I heard from board members a pretty strong feeling that three days, Thursday, Friday, Saturday was sufficient. I heard that from several board members in the last meeting. I'm not going to force a vote on seven days that I think, even though I think it's a good idea, I'm not gonna force a vote on that unless other people view that as important. But right now, it seems to be a majority of three days at six hours a piece. Anybody else have comments on that, the number of days of coverage? Mr. Maxwell, I know you said you were at seven and then at five, are you comfortable with three days? I'm comfortable with three days. I'm comfortable with five or seven, I could, but I think my minimum there is definitely, my minimum is three on there. I know reading through some of this here, we've got the police on board, looks like I saw you got a letter from some residents there on board, but again, I don't really think that the security guard issue is as much about safety as I think it is noise and compliance, which again, the residents, I think some of the butters who've spoken in this meeting, I haven't seen the signed letter from them saying that they're no longer worried about noise issues from this place. So I'm still on board with the security guard, but yeah, I'm certainly flexible on days. Maureen, I would just add, I noticed that Mr. Nieto, Carlos Nieto is signed in as a panelist in case there's a chance you may need to refer to him. You may wanna bring him on as a, who's attendee, you may wanna bring him on as a panelist. The other thing for us to note as to your point is, just we'll go back to the chief of police after now, after today, after our dealing with this, and if he finds a need for a greater number of nights, it could be imposed by the chief of police. So I guess we will, I am comfortable leaving the discretion to the chief of police rather than to us or to the applicant on the number of days that the security guard is valuable to have on hand. Any other comments on that from Ms. Marshall, your hands up. Yes, but I wanna just mention something about the second bullet before we move away from this whole issue. Can I do that now or? Absolutely, you sure can. I'm wondering what the point of is of the phrase immediately after the board's approval, since, I mean, it's not literally like within hours. So, you know, it would just be deleted. Either clarify what it means or get rid of it, but it. How about it within two weeks? But of what, of our taking a vote or of the permit becoming effective for? As it reads, it's of the board's approval. So as opposed to having them go over there to the chief of police tonight, if it's approved, right? How about we say within two weeks? Does that work? Mr. Maura, does that work? You can just delete all of that and just say that the owner or its management should have regular check-ins. I mean, and then it starts as soon as the decision takes effect. All right, and regular, yeah. And if it doesn't happen, you'll hear about it. That's right. And then I just wanted to comment on the third bullet. We're setting the days and hours. So that is not something that the police chief would be modifying in the future or it would be set at those times and days. The police chief would have the discretion to decide if it stops after six months or continues or, you know, sometime in the future gets reinstated if it's necessary. But based on the previous criteria of the three days. Oh, so the police chief doesn't have the authority to review this and if there's a problem in his judgment to require more. Should it say initially? I'm comfortable with the language the way it is. I just wanted to make sure you understood that that I don't think- I didn't understand that. We'll give the chief the ability to add three more days if he wants to. I don't think we were trying to have that accomplish that option just to keep it going for the three days if the chief decides to do so. Are you- I wonder number one of the rest of the board members with three days being permanent without flexibility for the chief to impose more or less. I already state that. Are the other members of the board comfortable with having the police chief only be able to continue or reduce the number of days? Or do you think the police chief, if he can reduce the number of days should be able to increase them? And if so, we'd have to change bullet three some way to say that on slight security shall initially be Thursday, Friday, Saturday and then, but could be increased on a determination of the chief of police. Have to have some language to say that. So first question is to members of the board are you comfortable with the way it's or do you want more flexibility for more authority for the chief of police? Mr. Maxfield. Oh yeah, I like more flexibility on there. Ms. Marshall, you have your hand up. Yeah. I wonder if what is meant, although we may wish to change it is that for this initial six month period on site security will be these days and these times. And then after six months, should that be, should it be appropriate to modify that? It could go either, you know, any kind of modification might be. Needed and allowed because this fourth bullet then refers to after, you know, after six months of this onsite security. So the third bullet to specify that it's for the first six months. Yeah, I think I see the point you're making, Ms. Marshall. We could, I think that could be written in. It could be amended to clarify that. But I think the threshold question is, do we wanna have additional authority to the police chief to increase the number of days after the six months or to eliminate them after six months, Ms. Parks? Yeah, I think if we add onsite security, initially shall be provided. And then for review the need for increased or decreased onsite security. Well, you know, how about this? Instead of modifying that first section in the first sentence in section four, how about modifying the second section? Amherst chief of police shall determine whether onsite security is continued, increased, suspended or reinstated at any time after the initial six month period. So it could be putting the, giving the chief of police the ability to increase the number of days, number of cameras, whatever it is, rather than us. That will solve, I think that solves Ms. Marshall's problem. I think that solves my concern. That wasn't addressed initially. Mr. More, does that solve, does that work as a condition? Is there any reason that we can't do that? If we determine that's the policy we want? I think you can do that. You know, maybe we can finalize the language I don't know if we, if we want to try to do it right now I'm wondering if it should be that the, you know the I'm thinking more like the Amherst police chief shall determine whether onsite security is continued suspended or reinstated and at which hours and days at any time after, you know, try to make it a little simpler to understand what, you know what we're trying to have the police chief look at. So, but I think either way we get there and understand what the board is asking for and adding that initial onsite security in the third bullet. Yeah, so I think we can get to where we want to be. It may be a question of just massaging the language and I trust the staff to do that and we'll delegate the staff to do that. I'd like to get the comment. The board has talked about this, Maureen. And I just wanted to add a clarifying question for that bullet three and four that's for onsite security guard or an actual. Well, I think it, well, I think it's I don't know that that's right. I think it's for all onsite security including the cameras, right? Doesn't this include everything? Any, I don't know what else there would be. There's guards, there's cameras, there's. Well, bullet three says on, well onsite security shall be provided each Thursday, Friday and Saturday from 9 p.m. to 3 a.m. when the new 47 unit building achieves 80% occupancy. So is that, that implies the guard. I'm sure that the cameras wouldn't be only on for those hours and days. Yeah, so that is just the guard. And then the bullet four, the chief police may determine whether onsite security is continued to increase suspended or reinstated and then perhaps massage that a little bit to include adjustments of hours or something like that. At any time after the initial six month period the applicant shall notify inspection services at any time there is a change to the onsite security service. And so guard and cameras or is this just related to the onsite security guard? Or does it- Well, I think we have security cameras already. They could be increased. I see what the point you're making. I think one way to do that is onsite guards initially shall be provided. That says we have a security guard and the chief of police onsite security guard and then onsite security by itself in the second phrase, which is more encompassing. So the first place we're just in section three, we're just talking about the guards and a number of hours. Section three before is review of all onsite security. You may say, you know, we don't need, you don't need guards. If you put up four more security cameras, right? He may say that. And I think you would want, I think the applicant would want that flexibility. If there's ways that they can, he can address it. I think you'd want to give the chief of police the ability to have as much flexibility as possible. But I don't want to overly complicate this. We're looking, the real question is the security guards in three, we ought to make that clear. And what I think the last point is that you'd have the chief of police look at all of this. Is the security plan good? And if it's not, you figure it out with the chief of police. And I think that's where we're after. So I guess what I would suggest, Maureen, is in the first instance, make that specific to security guards. And so in the third bullet point, make that specific to security guards. And in the fourth bullet point, make that specific to all onsite security, which includes security guards, cameras, whatever, you know, door locks, whatever it is. But that's a more, you see what I mean? And I think that makes sense. That's the way to do it. I'd like to get reaction from the applicant to those proposed changes, the kind of amorphous idea that we thrust upon you here, but I think you kind of get where we're coming from. Yeah, I mean, I think from our perspective, as long as increases balanced by decrease and modified, you know, as long as there's a, not a suggestion that there's only one path for the police chief to take, right? I think, I think totally on the same page, right? So then it puts it in the applicant's court to make sure that it's a safe place. My only concern and this might just be kind of an intellectual exercise more than anything is, what's our right of redress? Is it coming back to the board, right? So if the police chief, it's not chief living stone, it's somebody else and they just come in and say, this is what you have to do. And we say, but why? You know, and it's just, it's a question maybe for Rob more than anybody. Is that just to, you know, modification to the special permit to eliminate or modify this condition saying X, Y, Z, here's why. So that's our right of redress, right? I think so, okay. Mr. Mora. Yeah, there's that in an unlikely case, it would be under appeal. So if, you know, if the police chief was asking for something, the applicant wasn't doing it as a conditional permit, I would order the owner to do so. Then the applicant would appeal to the ZBA and explain why they felt that wasn't proper or the amendment. Okay. Yeah. So I mean, like you said, no problem. We're on board, just massage that language. So like if it's increased, let's make sure decrease is in there or modify however you want to put it. Okay. So I think we have, I sense consensus around this amongst the board members. And just to restate it, bullet one remains the same, which is each door and entrance and exit. Number two, just flat outs as you gotta amend this, bullet two to amend this to say the owner shall have regular check-ins. Number three, on-site security, on-site, initially on-site security guard shall be provided. Bullet four, on-site security writ large and it's the chief of police shall. And then the language will be modified by staff to allow the chief to increase or decrease on-site security requirements. And unless there's any objection, I would like to have that be approved and we'll vote on it as part of the whole package. All right. But that's with direction to staff to address that language. Okay. All right. No objection. 76, deals with the community garden. You didn't come back, the applicant didn't come back with any changes suggested to this. So this seems to me that, and I think from the last meeting, they were comfortable with this. So I'd like to approve this unless there's any questions from members of the board. All right. Consider that approved without objection. 77 is all residents on the premises shall have access to the two community rooms. I think you gotta figure out how that's gonna work with door locks and access, but you didn't have any objection to that. I think we should consider that approval unless there's any objection. And the last is sort of technical, the last two are technical. Before the issuance of the building permit, applicants shall submit an updated LC-402 drainage and utilities plan. You're gonna have to do that, right? And 79 is the approved management plan shall be followed by the applicant. Any changes shall return to the zoning board. So I'd like to consider 78, 77, 78, 79 as all approved and we'll vote on them back. We have a couple other conditions that we have to vote on. I think condition two is the standard condition that says you gotta build it by the proposed, or by the submitted plans. And that has not been approved so far, but I don't think there's been an additional plan submitted last meetings. I think this list of plans is accurate. Is it not morning? This should work. Yes, this is what's listed there. Most recent. What most up to date submissions. All right, so in that case was additional plan that came up. I'd like to consider this approved unless there's any objection and again, all that will be voted on. And I think that's the last of them, isn't it? I think we should have all of that. I believe so. I believe you have reviewed all the conditions. All the conditions. All right, the last thing that, are there any other conditions board members wish to propose and discuss at this time? Okay, so what we have is, I would entertain a motion to add the conditions one through 79 as contained in the project application December 12th, 2022 with modification discussed in the meeting and with the staff's ability to frame the language. Maureen. I suggest that you hold off making a motion to vote on these conditions until after you go through all your findings and are ready to make your final vote on this application. Just in case something pops up that perhaps one or all of us have forgotten about and you would want to add another condition to it or modify a condition. Yeah, in general, I like to have the conditions set to make my decisions. My determinations and findings I have to make. So I understand, Maureen, that's the case. But I think you have been in these more often than I have and I will defer to your suggestion, especially on this meeting. I'll defer to your suggestion that we hold off on the until later on in case it wants to be modified. Ms. Marshall. Yes, Mr. Chair, your sound is breaking up. At least for me, I don't know if there's anything you can do about it. It's getting more broken. Well, you know what I can do is try to take off these damn, I hope my family gets me some new headphones. That's what I hope. That's what I hope. That's part of the official meeting. All right, thank you. All right, can you hear me now? Good, all right. So the first condition, first determination we have to make, finding we have to make is 9.22. 9.22, I think we'll find that on page. Oh, let me just find it. It should be page 26 increase your volume. Now hold on. Here we go. Page 26, is that what you said, Maureen 9.22. The important part of 9.22 is that it gives us authority to authorize under special permit, a nonconforming use of a building structure or land to be extended on our nonconforming building to be structurally altered and large and reconstructed provided that the authority finds such alteration enlargement reconstruction shall not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming use or nonconforming building. In this case, that really deals with the lot coverage from 31% under the original to 32.35.2. And I think that should be 35.3 here. As it reads here, it should be 35.3. 35.3. And we have to make a finding that we do not find that that increase in lot coverage will be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming use or nonconforming building. And so I move that we make that finding. Is there any discussion? Is there a section to that motion? Mr. Maxfield seconds it. Is there any discussion regarding that motion to make that finding? I guess I would just make sure that's the finding we have to make and we don't have to make any findings for parking during the morning. No, you don't. Okay, cool. There's no discussion. The roll call vote on the finding of 9.22. Chair votes aye. Mr. Max, Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Gilbert. Aye. Ms. Marshall. Aye. Next we have to make a series of findings under 10.38. 10.380 and 10.38. I'm going to read through these all. We'll make a decision at the end on a vote on 10.38, total as opposed to voting on each one. 10.380 and 10.381 are not applicable. 10.382, 3, 5, and 7 deal with nuisance, vibration, water pollution, noise, odor, dust, vibration, lights. Generally it deals, all these deal with disturbance in the community, lights or visual structures that are objectionable and convenient and safe vehicular and pedestrian traffic through the property. I think that the, my view is that the applicant, that a lot of us was already taken care of in the first application, the changes that they make increase the likelihood that all this is being done, including the additional security, but also I think there's an argument to be made that the playground is more safer where it is and where it was going to be. I think there's other changes that are made as well as bike locks will, more bike racks will make the place less likely for theft in other areas. So I think that we can make the case that the applicant is and has indeed met the needs, the requirements of 10.382, 8385, and 87. 10.384 deals with appropriate facilities that are provided for the proper operation. Utilities are already there. So I think that finding can be made. 10.386 deals with parking signs. Maureen, I think we're in, they've done this, the board should make a finding that the applicant's proposal to substitute 20% of the standard parking spaces for the six proposed complex spaces in the 30 space parking lot. That's something we took care of in one of the conditions already, did we not? Yes, you have made a condition relative to this, yes. Yep. And so in that case, we have, I think we've met the requirements under 10.386. 10.387, I think safe vehicular pedestrian traffic is found on site. We didn't see anything that, and nothing, the new building makes that less likely. 10.388, 389, 389, 899, 3890, 91 are all not applicable. 10.393 lighting is not applicable, 394 deals with wetlands and steep slopes, excuse me, steep slopes is not applicable. 10.396 is not applicable. 10.397 deals with adequate recreational facilities. I think that the additional playground picnic tables, grill stations, and others that the conditions are part of conditions that we made and that they have proposed do provide adequate recreational open space and amenities for proposed use. Any discussion? And then 10.398 is the proposal as a master harmony with the general purpose and intent of the bylaw and the goal of the master plan. The use was previously approved by the board and needs to determine whether the board needs to determine whether the proposed modifications to condition one, six, 11, 12, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25, 28, among possible others as they relate to the proposed changes to the site plan and site amenities meet sections 9.22, they do, meet sections 10.33 and 10.38, we think they do and we think they meet the goals of the master plan. I think we can make those findings. So I'd like to have a vote on the 10.3 findings and that we make those, like Ms. Marshall. Did you mention 392? I just didn't hear it. I mean, I don't have any. Who's that? You know, you're right. I skipped 392, I didn't have a note on my good catch. 392 deals with landscaping and they're providing additional landscaping and indeed changing trees in order to accommodate the snow and the ice and the salt and everything else. So I think they meet the requirements of 10.392. So I would entertain a motion that the conditions under 10.38 and 10.39 have been met, that we have identified. So moved. Second. Second. So we have a second from Ms. Parks, Ms. Parks makes a motion, Ms. Marshall, seconds it, any discussion? Roll call, vote. All those in favor of it signify by saying aye. Chair votes aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Mr. Gilbert. Aye. Ms. Marshall. Aye. Aye. So we've made the findings on both 9.22 and 10.38 and 10.38 and 10.9. Now we have the conditions that we have to vote on to impose upon this application. Those conditions are one through 79. They include authorizing the changes that we discussed, authorizing the staff to make those changes in accordance with our discussion. And I would entertain a motion to approve those conditions. Mr. Maxfield. Is there a second? Second. Ms. Parks, seconds the motion. Any discussion from board members? All right. I think it's clear that we are giving the staff also authority to make technical and conforming changes if they find anything minor that they have to do to these to conform to our stated desires and the approved findings and conditions. If there's no further discussion, I'd like to, this is a roll call vote. The chair votes aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Mr. Gilbert. Aye. Ms. Marshall. Aye. That's a unanimous vote. The conditions are approved. The last vote occurs on the motion to, on a motion to approve the special permit application to modify the special permit. Requesting a special permit. I'm going to get this right because we've had a long time doing this though. I don't want to screw up the last motion. So the motion is to request a special permit to modify the previously approved special permit 2028, 2018-21 for proposed modifications to conditions one, six, 11, 12, 19, condition four, 21, 22, 23, 25, 28, among possible others as they relate to the proposed changes of the site plan, site amendment, these building plans, management plans under 10.33 and 10.38 of the zoning bylaw. Do I have a motion? So moved. Ms. Parks, first to the gate on this one. Do I have a second? Second. Mr. Maxfield comes in second. Any discussion? All right. Any discussion? The vote occurs on this. We require four votes for approval of this. The chair votes aye. Ms. Parks? Aye. Mr. Maxfield? Aye. Mr. Gilbert? Aye. Mr. Ms. Marshall? Aye. Motion is approved. Special permit is approved. Congratulations and thank you for your patience and for working with us on this over these last four months. Thank you. Well, thank you to you. I know there's been a lot of time and consideration for this project. And so thanks again for all your work and all your time and look forward to working with the town to build the project. Thanks and great job, Maureen. Well, we're going to miss you. Thank you. Thanks, Tom. It's been great working with you and with the ZBA, of course, and Rob and Maura through the year. So yeah, it's been fun. We'll see you around. I'm sure. The next order of business, thanks guys. Thank you, Tom. Thank you, Mr. White. Thank you. All right. The next order of business is public comment on, and Rob, stick around here, don't leave yet. Public comment on any matter, not before the board tonight. I see there's no attendees, no hands raised. The last order is any business, not anticipated within the last 48 hours. I'm going to say that Maureen Leading is the business that was not anticipated in the last 48 hours. Not anticipated, not welcome. But I would say that I am really, I am. Now look, I'm not happy that you're leaving Maureen. You know that, I really liked working with you. I think you did us a really good, you did a great job for us. You were a pleasure to work with. You worked really, really hard. You did a great job preparing us, me, and I know the rest of the members. I think you really, really contributed to this town over the last several years, and I liked working with you. I also know that you've given a great opportunity to go someplace and be in a leadership role. That's important as well. And so I'm really proud. I'm proud of you. I'm proud for you and I'm happy for you. And thank you all for what you've done over the last several years working with us. It really, we couldn't have done it without you. That's, and I really mean that. We couldn't have done it without you. So thank you. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, it's been my pleasure working with you guys. And I'm just a few towns away, so you can come find me or, you know, I'll be stopping in in Amherst. And there's, and not as a worker, but as a visitor. So I'm, I'm, I'm around. I hope we, I hope we see what Amherst caught you're out in front of a fresh side. Cause that is your, I don't know what happened to your background. It's gone. They took them down. So I took my screen down as well. Yeah. But those should be back up in the spring. I hope that. You and Chris are going to have big shoes to fill and a big job to try to find somebody to do this, to work this hard. I hope you, are you? Yeah, absolutely. I hope you're able to get, otherwise you and Chris are going to be spending a lot of time with us and I don't, you may not want that. No comment. All right. Again, Maureen, thank you very much. Good luck. Thank you. Yes. You're here. Yeah. Thank you Maureen. Thank you. If there's no other new business, I'd entertain Mr. Matziel. I just had a quick one here. I know when we did, it was now six months ago, when we did an election for chair, vice chair, clerk and all that. Wanted to put out that stipulation of, if I could perhaps step down early, if anybody else on the board would be looking for a chance to do that. Right about that. It didn't sound like there was a whole lot of enthusiasm. So I didn't think that in certainly three months, but John, what is your thought? I thought you might be another candidate who might want to get some time in as vice chairman. Where are you feeling on that right now? Dylan, I appreciate the offer. I will say that I am pretty tight on time with a full-time job and some teaching and consulting work on the side. So just for the sanctity of not having to continually pull someone else into that role, I'm going to actually defer that. But I appreciate it. If my schedule wasn't what it was right now, I think that would be a good fit. So thank you for the thought. Absolutely. Thanks Dylan. That's all I've got. Then I'll just say, yeah, just going to reiterate what I think we're all going to take a turn staying here at Maureen. Yeah, we're all really going to miss you. I'm going to give us lucky to get you, but ma'am, we are sad to lose you and, you know, we'll definitely, we'll definitely, once we get somebody permanent here, I promise to give them a good hazing. So that's for you. Good old DBA hazing. Hey, wow, when Maureen was here, yeah. Oh yeah, no, definitely. Yes, yes. Maureen, who will be filling your role? Who are we going to be working with from this point forward here on the ZBA? Ah, that's... Is that TBD? Yeah, I mean, short-term it's going to be Chris and I. Okay. You guys ready to fill those shoes? Couldn't even try. Maureen, you will certainly be missed. Your work, you know, the short-term that I've, you know, I've been here, of course, your work's been really helpful in getting, you know, myself set up, which therefore, you know, also means the rest of the board. You're extremely thorough. It's been really great having you, you know, prepare these reports, make them very clear and easy to understand, you know, hand them out to us if we're on site, visit, drop them off in the mailbox if we aren't. We've been doing, you know, some really helpful work and, you know, really appreciate, yeah, your assistance and your service so far. Wishing you the best in monitoring you. And, you know, I'll hopefully bump into you at the bookmill sometime. Great, yeah. Grabbing a glass of wine. Yeah. Yeah. Are you moving out there? I'll take you, you are? I get that question a lot. One step at a time. One step at a time. I haven't started yet. I haven't started yet. But maybe. You are in Amherst right now, right? No, I live over the river. I live in Northampton. Oh, I thought you were, okay. I thought you were more local here. Got it. You may take that at the bridge then. Right. Yeah. I would encourage you to go to Amherst. Yeah. Well, good luck to you in the transition. Thank you. All right, folks. And again, thanks, Maureen. Good luck. Thanks. Yes. If there's no other business, motion to adjourn is in order. So moved. Is there a second? Second. All right. No discussion on this motion. All in favor, say aye. And then I have to do my roll call. Bear votes aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Ms. Maxfield. Aye. Ms. Dr. Gilbert. Aye. Ms. Marshall. Aye. We are adjourned. Thank you all. Happy holidays. Thanks for being here. Bye. Good luck, Maureen. Bye-bye. Thank you.