Um, [clears throat] the chair notes the time is 6:00 p.m. I want to welcome everyone to the ZBA meeting for Thursday, July 9th. My name is Emerald Henry, current chair
of the Ammeris Zoning Board of Appeals. Um we'll begin with call of the roll. Mr. Sviner >> here. >> Mr. Afeld >> here. >> Mr. Meadows >> here.
>> Miss Morton >> here. >> And I do want to say welcome to our newest CBA member, Miss Sarah Morton. Um also attending tonight is Mr. Jeffrey Bragg, planning director from the town of Amherst. A quorum is present.
Pursuant to chapter 2 of the acts of 2025 extended through June 30th of 2027, the ability of public bodies to meet in a fully remote or hybrid manner, this meeting will be conducted via remote means. Members of the public who wish to
access the meeting may do so via Zoom or by telephone. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but all [clears throat] opportunities will be made to ensure public access. The zoning board of
appeals is a quasi judicial body that operates under the authority of chapter 48 of the general laws of the commonwealth for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, convenience, and general welfare of the inhabitants of the town of Amherst. One of the most important elements of
the Amher zoning bylaw is section 10.38. Specific findings from this section must be made for all of our decisions. Statutoily for a special permit, the board has 90 days from the close of the hearing to file a decision. No decision is final until the written decision is
signed by the city 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 agrieved party to contest the decision with the relevant judicial body in the Supreme Court. After the appeal
period, the permit must be recorded at the register of deeds to take effect. Tonight's agenda, we have public two public hearings scheduled ZBA FY2026-2065 High Street that requires that requests rather a special permit for a change in
use from a non-owner occupied duplex to an owneroccupied converted dwelling under section 3.3241 to structurally alter a preex pre-existing non-conforming structure to convert a porch to a bedroom under
section 9.2 22 an increased I I I I do know that the forgive me that the agenda talks about parking but I do believe that was removed from the application and we can get into that with the applicant. I thought the parking was
longer being requested my understanding. Um, and we also have public hearing ZBA FY2026-2112 to 1114 North Witness Street that request for a special permit for change of use from a 4-unit building to a
non-owner occupied duplex under section 3.3211 non-owner occupied duplex and expansion of pre-existing non-conforming structure by enclosing an existing front porch under section 9.22. said property is located on map parcel
11D-150 general residents zoning district. As always, we'll have any additional discussions, general public comment period, other business not anticipated within the last 48 hours and of course we will adjourn.
Um, with the board's permission, I do want to take this out of order. I'm not sure how many of us had opportunity to read the project application for 112 to 1140 North Whitney, but at the recommendation of town staff, they're asking that this be continued to a date
certain of July 23rd. Um I do not believe that they are fully prepared um with the project application report as there are still some outstanding items as well from the applicant. So I would suggest rather than having them sit through 65 High Street, we push them
ahead of the line and we move to a vote sir to continue to July 23rd. Is everyone okay with that? >> I see the nodding at the heads. So Mr. Bragg, if you would please invite the applicant for 112 North Witness Street
into the meeting, please. Good evening. My name is Paul Babowski, attorney for 992 East Pleasant. Um, >> welcome to Chamber Bowski. >> Thank you. >> Miss Goo, do you want to speak or is Mr. Babowski speaking on your behalf?
I hear no response. So, attorney Bowski, um, in reading the project application report, it is recommended that we continue this to a date certain, um, of July 23rd given that the project application is not fully ready and I believe there are some outstanding items
that goes into that. So, um, the panel for this, of course, is a panel that is here. So before we do a vote, um are all the members available on July 23rd? I see affirmative responses. So um to that extent, I will entertain a motion.
Um I'm sorry, I see Mr. B Mr. Bag's hand. >> Thanks. I I was just wondering if the board would consider establishing a time for the continuation. You know, there's another matter that's on the agenda for July 23rd, which we would presume to be
first. So, in the past, we've either done like 6:30 or potentially even seven. Um, just to give the clarity for that applicant. >> So, I I would rather not put a time because that means we don't know how
long the first one would be. Um, but we can say that there'll be second on the agenda. Is is the one you mentioned the only thing that's already scheduled for next week? >> Correct. >> Okay. So, yes, we would make um
this one number two on the agenda. >> Um the chair recognizes um Mr. Al. >> Yeah. I just note that in the P project application report that we did get, it
listed as board members um the four ongoing board members but did not list Miss Morton. So I wonder if Miss Morton will be added >> for reason. >> I know you just joined us. >> Yes, I I we are working to get um all
the names on the proper documents. Um Mr. Clerk, so we Yes, she will be added. I think I did send email notifying town staff of all the permanent members. Yeah, >> thank you. >> Attorney Bowski.
>> Yes. Before um the motion or maybe after the motion with a discussion period, I was wondering if you could list some of the issues that are still outstanding. I was never sent the application report. Um applicant was prepared to go forward tonight.
So, attorney Bowski, because we are being asked by the town, that would be a conversation you need to have with town staff. Um, we are just going to vote to continue it. We're not going to go into the merits or any submissions or what's missing. Um, we're deferring to um the
town on what they need to provide us with what we need to do to have a proper vote on this. So, you can have that conversation with um Mr. Bag after the fact. Understood. >> Thank you. >> I hear a pop, but I do not see who has
their hand up. >> There there's a a attendee named Bob Nukem, which I don't know his affiliation to the application, but I could bring them in. >> Do you know of Bob Nukem? >> I do not.
>> So, he's not part of your team. >> Not to my knowledge. I was expect I was expecting uh Jeff Squire from Birkshire Design and Shenu who represents the uh 992 East Pleasant. >> So Mr. Bag not at this time. >> Okay. >> So I will entertain a motion to continue
this to a date certain of July 23rd for a full um public hearing and meeting. Is there such a motion? >> So moved. >> It has been moved. I do see a second from Mr. Meadows. Um the vote on the motion. Mr. Ser
>> I >> Mr. Meadows. I I do see an Im. M. Meadows, you're on mute. Um Mr. Offeld. >> Miss Morton. >> Yes. >> Um and the chair votes I. The [clears throat] vote is 50. Um ZBA
FY2026-20 or -21 I believe Mr. Bag that should read 112 to 114 North Witness Street has been continued um to July 23rd. Um, attorney Babowski, again, you will be second on the docket. Um, we do start at
6. Not sure how long that will go, but if you're not right here at 6, that is also okay. >> Thank you. Have a good evening. >> Okay. Thank you. You, too. >> Take care. [clears throat] >> Our next order of business is ZBA
FY2026-20 65 High Street. Um 65 High Street requests a special permit for a change in use from a non-owner occupied duplex to an owner occupied converted dwelling under section 3.321. The panel for this hearing of course is
myself um the vice chair the clerk Mr. Meadows and Miss Morren. Bear with me one second. Um, I will start by actually before we open the public hearing, does anyone on the panel have
anything to declare or disclose? I do not see any affirmative responses. Um, I will open the public hearing and I will do so by beginning reading into the record the applicant submission for consideration for tonight's application. Um, as of May 6, we do have the
application packet, the plan of land by Harold Len and Associates in dated 1014 2025, the eastern elevation document, southern elevation, first floor, second floor, and third floor plans, current and proposed, the garage light spec sheets, porch light spec sheets,
proposed parking signs. There is a rendering, there are three renderings, one, two, and three. On May 26, there was a sample lease agreement. The eastern elevation dated 5212026. Floor plans unit A dated 5212026.
Floor plans unit B1 dated 5212026. Floor plans unit B2. A management plan southern elevation dated 5212026. And there are applicant responses to ZBA application review notes.
There was a site visit scheduled on Tuesday and it was well attended. Um, everyone is available except for Mr. Alfield who could not be there. Um, so at this time um I would actually put Mr. Sader on the spot to give a brief
summary of the site visit. >> Um, okay. I'm on the spot. Um, we assembled in front of the property. We walked around Um the applicant's representative, Mr.
Buren, pointed out the uh what they wanted to enclose. A few of us had been there before, so this was familiar. This project has been before us for a while.
Um it was quite straightforward. Property is rather overgrown, I noticed. And um we saw only from the exterior, but we were able to get some information from Mr. Buren. And it was a pretty
straightforward visit. Nothing nothing new to the point where Mr. Meadows, who had been there a few times before and chose not to join us, turns out to be the smartest one of the group. So there
was really not much new information. Thank you, Mrs. Slow. Um, >> Miss Morton, um, do you have anything to add? >> No, I was glad that they had the site visit because I had not seen the site before.
>> Thank you. And Mr. Meadows, [laughter] >> I don't believe that I have anything to add. [clears throat and laughter] Nothing that we haven't gone over before. Thank you. And I will concur um with Vice Chair Sloven and Mr. Offa I
know that you were not there but we have been there historically in the past and again the big difference here is on the papers not on the site itself. Um so at this time I will now invite the applicant and or representative to
present to the board. Um this is an opportunity for you to provide any information you think is relevant for us to make a decision on your permit application. I would ask that before speaking, please identify your name and address for the record, please. >> Hi. Uh, good afternoon or good evening.
My name is David Buren. I'm an attorney from Legacy Counselors. Here tonight on behalf of 65 High Street Rentals LLC. Uh, with me tonight are Alec Roitz, who is the uh, sole member and owner of uh, the property. Um, as well as Jeff Brooks from Solid State Construction, who is
the general contractor on the project. Um, I am a little sorry to hear that uh Mr. Slover did not have find my my site visit engaging. Um, but I I guess I I can understand why that might be the case. Uh, but we do appreciate uh you having us here tonight. We do appreciate
you coming back for the site visit. Um, that being said, I do want to make um a few quick if if I may a few quick comments before I kind of jump into the application. Uh, one is just that um the um I wanted to correct an error that I made on the site visit because the uh
even with the expanded um the expanded parking area that that has been installed um technically the spots are still compact being 1 ft narrower than the required um uh the required uh dimensional uh the required dimensions
under the zoning bylaws. um the spots are are 8 feet by 20 feet as opposed to the 9 by8 um that is um you know the standard size under the zoning bylaw. So we are still seeking a uh you know a modification
[clears throat] um of this uh from this board with respect to the compact parking spaces. So I just wanted to clarify that and apologize [clears throat] for misspeaking at the site visit. Um so uh very simply speaking um we are here tonight and is
it possible for me to share my screen. >> Yes we can I think but I first yeah I apologize because what I need to do is promote David and Alec as uh panelists to do that and so I
apologize for not getting that that earlier. What's going to happen is your screen's going to go blank for a second and then you're going to be asked to join as a panelist and that'll allow you to >> um share your screen. So, I'm going to promote you both. So, just uh hang tight for a second.
Great. So now you should be able to share screen and turn on your camera if you wish. >> Hi everyone. Thank you for being here. >> Great. Thank you very much. We appreciate that. Um I am going to try to
share my screen here. Okay. >> [clears throat] >> Um, wait. Okay, that did not work. Hold on one second. Okay, great. Um, so, uh, very very simply, um, we are
essentially seeking a special permit from this zoning board in accordance with special permits section 3.3241. uh to essentially have a um a duplex repered as a converted dwelling in order. >> Is it just me or did David lag?
>> No, I think I'm I'm hearing him fine. I'm seeing his 65 High Street screen. >> David, are you still there? We're seeking permission from the zoning board for a special permit under section 3.3241 um for a converted dwelling, an owner
occupied converted dwelling. Um more specifically, we are seeking permission from this board to increase the number of bedrooms in the um first floor unit. So um there is currently at 65 High Street an approximately 3,87
square foot duplex on the property. Um, the owner occupancy status of that duplex is is is long and convoluted, and I'm I'm not going to waste uh this board's time tonight getting getting into the details of that. Um, suffice it to say that there are previous permits on this property. Um, and the bedroom
count has been uh formalized in those previous prior special permits. Um, so there are three bedrooms currently located on the first floor unit and there are four bedrooms located between the second and third floor units. Um, so,
okay, great. >> I'm sorry. I just want to make sure. Okay. >> I just want to make sure that your screen was moving the way you wanted to because we were for the longest seen. >> It was it wasn't moving as I as I wanted it to. So, I do appreciate that. >> Um, so in front of you, you should be
able to see right now um the site plans for the property. Um, please let me know if that is not the case. Um but on these site plans um our proposal or what we've actually um done some of this work already uh we
actually expanded the drive aisle uh to allow for um five parking spots on the property. Um three are currently located adjacent to the structure located here and that is on the essentially the the north side of the property. Uh there's
one more parking space located uh at the rear of the property um adjacent to the parking garage and there's one more parking space located within one of the parking bays in the current parking garage. Um as I mentioned earlier, three of those spots are currently compact
spots. Um so we are seeking a modification um of the current zoning bylaws with respect to um the parking spaces since we are seeking more than 50% of the parking be compact. Although I would note that it's uh technically compact although they are larger than a
normal space and in length although they are a foot narrower. Um what we're looking to do essentially is enclose an existing um porch located on the exterior of the premises. So you can see from this picture here these are pictures of the porch as it currently
exists. Um the bottom and the second floor are both um open to the elements. Um there have been some some damage uh due to weather um for both of those structures um which partly led to the plan to enclose um this porch. So our
hope or our goal is to enclose the bottom and top of these uh both first and floor second floor porches. Um the bottom first floor porch would be converted into a new bedroom for the first floor dwelling unit and that would then increase that first floor dwelling
unit from a three-bedroom to a fourbedroom dwelling unit. Um on the second floor we are also enclosing that existing porch space but the plan is for that to be additional common space for the second floor uh units. um the real need for enclosing that space has more
to do with protecting and encapsulating the entirety of that structure and protecting that first floor bedroom uh more than anything else. Um ultimately the plan is to you can see here the first floor plan on the left hand side are the existing
conditions. I know it's hard to see the the dash lines where the existing porch currently is. However, the plan is to as you can see enclose that space fully. There are also some additional plans you can see uh to further separate out the
um the dwelling units. Uh we had some comments from the uh from this board as well as inspection services that one of the concerns with this as a you know converted dwelling or even as a duplex um is that there wasn't really significant separation between the first floor dwelling unit and the second and
third floor dwelling units. Um, so the goal here now or the plan is to essentially close off where the existing stairwell is, turn that into a wall, um, and then put a door at the bottom of the stairwell that would only be accessible to the second and third floor units. Uh,
creating some more, um, separation between those units so that we can't have people won't be flowing between the two. Um, there will be designated and very clearcut spaces between the first and second and third floor units. Additionally, these next floor plans
show the second and third floor. Um, you can see once again, I apologize for how hard it is to see the existing porch and the existing plans. Um, but there are some faint dotted lines showing the location of the existing second floor porch. Um, and as you can see on the proposed plan, we are enclosing that
space um to make it part of the unit. and we'd be removing um a portion of the existing wall between the kitchen and that porch um to further incorporate it into the space. Um here are the elevations or that we're
we've provided as part of this project. Um we are looking to match the existing siding so that the you know proposed enclosure of the porch will match seamlessly with the existing structure. And here is a rendering to kind of give you an idea as to what this will look
like once those structures are fully enclosed. Um so the plan at this point um is for this property to be fully owner occupied. Um Mr. Robitz will be living in the first floor unit. Um there were some previous
applications as this board is aware uh seeking non-owner occupancy status uh primarily due to the nature of Mr. Robitz's job. Um but he has uh fortunately been able to work out an arrangement with his job and they are they're not going to be requiring him to do the extended traveling um that he
previously was required to do for work. Uh additionally the uh the maintenance for the property both landscaping as well as snow removal will be handled by Four Seasons Property Maintenance. Um, so that would be beginning in April or May. The start of the mowing season would end around October. Um, bi-weekly
mowing or cutting depending upon need. And then the snow plowing services would be obviously during winter months only. U, the driveway plowing and snow pushed to the rear of the property beyond the parking space. Um, hand shoveling and removal around walkways will be done when needed and they will salt as needed
for all surfaces. Um that being said, um we think this is now hopefully a relatively straightforward application. Um previously we did have um you know some some other individuals who were potentially going to assist us resident manager as well as a property manager.
Um we don't feel that that is necessary anymore at this point with Mr. Roitz uh planning to reside in the property full-time. Um so I have uh if you have any additional questions, I'm more than happy to answer them. Um, but I believe that that is essentially what we are
looking to do. >> Attorney Benson, thank you for your presentation. Um, Mr. Roitz, is there anything that you want to add before I open it up for questions? >> No, I believe David um presented that very well.
>> Thank you. Um so at this point I will open the floor to questions from board members to the applicant and the chair recognizes um Mr. Sloder. >> Okay. Uh thank you Mr. Chair. Uh Mr. Buren, could you go back to
the floor plan the proposed floor plan for the first floor please? Okay. at the uh this is the proposed space. Uh
wait, let me lower my hand. Okay. Um the separation between the first and the second floor unit. So there's an there's an entrance at the front of the house, right? That that is access to the second floor.
There's also an exterior staircase on next to the parking lot, the next to the driveway, I'm sorry, that uh allows access to the second floor. It looks to me as though on the diagram
the at the end of that hallway is a door, not a wall. You're you're going to put in a solid wall to enclose the staircase, but why do you have a
door and not a wall at the end of that hall? Because that would still allow access from the first floor to the second floor without going through the front door.
>> I I appreciate the question. Um, and I can I mean I'm sure Alec or Jeff could answer this a little bit better than I could, but uh my understanding is that that is a one-way door um with a keypad lock on it. So, it's not actually accessible for the second floor units. You would you would need uh you know a
code to to make it through that doorway into the um adjacent room. >> That is correct. >> Wait a minute. Wait a minute. I'm sorry. I I I missed if it's a one-way door, but someone from the first floor could go
through that oneway door, be into the small vestibule, and then just go upstairs. No. Yes. I did I misstate that? >> I apologize. I thought you were talking about the the door um at the end of the hallway.
>> No, not that door. The other the other end >> adjacent to that. So that I think that it's it's maybe >> difficult. Yeah, this one here. Um that is actually it's it's not crossing here. That door actually slides in this
direction. So it would be blocking off this. So that for a person entering the vestibule looking to go into the second floor, they'd have to go into the main door and then they'd have to go right into another door for which they'd have to have a key u in order to get up to the second floor unit.
But if that door is closed, >> Yeah. >> then the access through the front goes right into the first floor also. Is that correct?
>> That's correct. But once again, the door at the end of the hallway is and and the bedroom door, I believe, is is not um accessible. Correct, Alec? Well, it looks like it's accessible from that hallway, which someone could get into. >> It It cannot be opened from that
hallway. >> That bedroom door cannot be opened. So, why is there a door there? >> I It was came with the house, but it cannot be opened from that hallway. It's only accessible from the interior of the
first unit. It can o that door is only accessible from inside the bedroom on the first floor. >> That's correct. >> But does that door open? Does it work? Can could someone in the bedroom open that door?
>> That's correct. It does work. Someone could open the door, but it remains locked and it's inaccessible from the vestibial area. >> Um, well, it's not inaccessible. Well, it just you say it can't be opened, but it it can be opened from the inside.
>> And what if it's not what if it's not locked? Then it would be opened >> that there's a pin pad on that door >> to get into that room from from that short hallway. >> No, only to open the door from the
bedroom. You cannot access that bedroom from that hallway >> because the door can only be opened from the inside. Is that what you're saying? >> That is correct. >> So I'm just asking I guess maybe I'm
pointing out for the rest of the panel. Is this sufficient separation between the first and the second floor? Does this accomplish what we had been asking about in the previous hearings?
>> I believe, and I apologize, Mr. Silver, my chair, I'm not trying to cut off the or anybody's response to this um because I believe um that question had also reared its head with respect to the door at the end of the hallway um and how to
appropriately make sure that that would only be usable and accessible for the first floor units. Um, and I don't recall if it was somebody from inspection services or somebody from the board who had who had actually recommended um, you know, essentially making that door only usable from one
side by by having some sort of locking mechanism in place. And and I apologize because I do not want to put words in anybody's mouth. Um, but that was one of the the suggestions that we had we had heard at a previous application previous application of course. So, someone could
go in the front entrance, walk straight ahead through that hallway into I I can't make out what that room is identified as, but there's a door at the end of the hallway. >> That's That's a living room. And
>> Okay. And that has also has a keypad um a keypad combination lock on it as well. >> Okay. All right. Um Okay. It's it's some sort of separation. I'm not sure it's what we had in mind, but um I'll accept it if
everyone else accepts it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you, Mr. Sloer. Um the chair recognizes Mr. Offeld and then Miss Morton. >> Yeah, I I I had the same concern Mr. Slover
um does or did. Um, and uh, the the answers that have been provided are are very helpful. As I'm understanding this, the vestibu vestibule, as we're calling it, the hallway is essentially a public space for the building.
And to get into the first unit, you have to unlock a door at the end of the hall. Or to get into the second unit, you have to unlock a door at the base of the stairs. >> Correct. And that would
that would seem to be fine to me. >> I would like >> it is fine to me as a separation. And I think this came up I I was looking at the record for this and this was a concern raised by inspection services some years ago.
>> I expect before the current owners uh owned the property. So I'm that may be where it originated. In any case, I'm satisfied with the with the design as presented. >> Thank you, Miss Afeld. Miss Morton.
>> Um, so I was just going to say about the fire prevention. Um, if that's a a shared corridor, just making sure that it meets the fire code properly with um respect to it being a
shared corridor between the two spaces. Um, attorney B or Mr. Roitz. Mr. Robbitz, I >> Mr. Um my understanding is that the um essentially inspection services will have to oversee the construction process
and and part of this construction will be uh making sure that there is sufficient fire separation between the units. Thank you. And Alec, I apologize for cutting you off. >> No, it's okay. Yeah, I just wanted to
state for avoidance of doubt, the vestibule is not open to the public as vice chair Sloveter had stated. It's there are two separate um pin pad numbers for both units to get into that
vestibule area and so that front door is secure. Mr. Mr. Meadows, any questions for the applicant? >> I don't believe so. I I I think this um as a legacy issue from the previous
owner that we rejected their application as a result of uh there being a free flow of traffic between the first floor and the second floor. and they I believe that they've worked hard and come up with a solution. As
long as the solution is acceptable to the building department, it it's fine with me. >> Thank you, Mr. Meadows. Are there any further comments and or questions from members of the board? Um, I do see Mrs.
Slovener. Mr. Slovener. >> Okay, I'm changing the subject here. I'm I'm satisfied with the separation issue. I would like to get clarification of Wait a minute. I want to lower my hand.
That annoys me. Um I want to get clarification of Mr. Rovis's occupancy of this property. That was a significant issue before Mr.
Burson mentioned the other people associated who are no longer associated and uh Mr. Roas's presence as the awner who is occupying this place. Um Mr. Buren mentioned at the site visit that
Mr. Roitz had officially changed his residence that he that this will be his primary residence that he will be a full-time occupant. I presume this means that things like
voter registration and car registration and where you get your mail and everything that is reason a reasonable expectation for an owner occupant will be in effect
and that he will be in residence the great majority of the time. And I would just like to hear from Mr. Roitz that what we heard from Mr. Buren at the visit and what I just stated as what I
consider to be a reasonable expectation will in fact be the case. >> I appreciate those comments, Vice Chair Sloveter. for many months now. My voter registration, my government ID, my
vehicle registration, and even my taxes since I've purchased the property. I have resided there, and everything you stated is true, and I remain a resident of Ammerst
now and in the future. >> Okay. Thank you for confirming that. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Slover, and thank you, Mr. Robertitz. Um, I do not see any hands from any any more members of the
panel. So, um, Mr. Ser, did you No, you're on me. >> No, I'm sorry. I clicked the wrong thing. I apologize. >> That's okay. >> It's removed. >> Finished. [clears throat] So um with no further questions um from
members of the panel at this time I will take comments from the public. Um please remember if there's a maximum speaking time of 3 minutes per person. So um Mr. Bag, we do rely on you as a host to let us know if there are any members of the public who wishes to make any public comments.
>> It appears there's one uh Hilda Greenbomb. Uh so I'm going to allow her to talk now. >> Thank you, Mr. B. >> Mr. screen. Mom, you should be able to unmute and speak. >> I had a hard time reading the uh parking diagram online and I'm just curious
whether there is still a requirement the parking be 8 ft from the building and are those two spaces next to the house 8 ft from the building? Mr. Green, is that to the total of your public comment? >> Well, um Jeff is looking like he's going
to give me an answer. >> Mr. Green Bomb, you we you will not get an answer as is customary with public comments. >> Well, at the moment that that one struck me as from the picture did not look like they
were 8 feet from the building. And that's important nowadays with electric vehicles and lithium batteries and all the new fancy things people are using that could be more flammable than
our old gasoline motors. Thank you for your comment, Miss Green. >> Mr. Bag, is there anyone else in the public that wishes to comment? No, there are two other people in the audience that haven't raised their hand. I think one was Brian, the contractor that they mentioned, but no other raised
hands. Okay. [clears throat] So, um you can put Miss Greenbomb back in the audience, Mr. B. Thank you. Given that there are no um further public comments, um Attorney Buren and
Mr. Roitz, you did hear public comment. Um this is still the public hearing. If you wish to respond, this is your opportunity to do so. Um, I will give you a chance to respond if you want to to Miss Greenbomb's comment after which um I will move to a public meeting and
in that meeting you will now have the opportunity to um comment. But before you respond um chair recognizes Mr. Bag. >> Thanks. Sorry I I don't know how familiar anyone is with the bylaw. I did pop in there and I I think um there is a
section that talks about a separation of 8 ft as Miss Greenbomb noted but and I can share my screen in a moment but the preceding section that kicks off the it's 7.1 the design standards says residential uses of four or fewer shall
be exempt from sections 102 and 103 and and section 103 is the one that Mr. Greenbomb was noting had a separation from buildings. So I think because it's two units not it's not applicable and I I can share my screen if that's helpful for the board.
>> Um that's not necessary. Um Mr. Bagwell but thank you for that clarity. Um I I think we are operating under the fact that if we are doing a parking waiver then that would capture um those concerns as well. And of course,
[clears throat] we would defer to you as a proper authority to make sure that whatever parking is being built and regulated complies with the zoning bylaw. Yeah. So, Attorney Buren and Mr. Robitz, I'm
here for Mr. Bag. I don't believe they need to comment um on Greenbomb's um public comment. So um to that end um given that there are no further um questions either from the zoning board
and or the applicants, I would enter a motion to move to a public meeting while keeping the public hearing open so that we can discuss um the findings and the conditions that we do have to make. Um is there such a motion? >> So moved.
>> It has been moved. Is there a second? >> Second. Second. >> It has been moved and second. Any discussion? >> With no discussion. The vote on the motion to move to a public meeting while keeping the public hearing open. And I
will go by my screen. Mr. Meadows. >> I. >> Mr. Offeld. >> I. >> Mr. Slovener. >> Yes. >> Miss Morton. >> I. >> And the chair [clears throat] votes I. Um the vote is 50. We are now in the public meeting. um while keeping the
public hearing open. Um I I I think I can start um with this. We have been um with the exception of Miss Morton um 65 High Street has been
before us quite um quite a few times. Um we have made recommendations at times they were not followed and so again we made recommendations they went back. I do believe here that they are following um the recommendation that we gave. I
think we did say um come back to us um with a clean application that can be fully appreciated and considered and hearing from the site visit hearing attorney Benson hearing Mr. proit that you know the property will be owner
occupied and this distinguishes the current application from the prior submissions that were before us which was a proposed non-owner occupied use um with a resident manager and things of that sort. Um so I think the fact here
that you know continued owner occupancy um is the goal here. I would argue that you know the conversion is limited to the enclosure of the existing first and second floor. That is a proposal to have those additional spaces. Um as well as
the work makes use of existing building volume and does not you know alter the scale, bulk or exterior character of the structure relative to the surrounding neighborhood. And looking at the designs and the enclosure and walking the property, I would also suggest that
quite frankly that the turning this into a bedroom kind of in [clears throat] improves the building to a certain extent. I think there's some work on there that needed to be done and I think that is being addressed um with this um addition. Um I would also argue that you
know doing this there is no substantial detriment to the neighborhood. Um the proposed conversion I I would say is modest in scope. I think we were advised and based on the documentation that we reviewed is that there are no footprint changes. Um it uses the existing
building the volume. Um again it is subjected to the ownership condition um recommended by town staff which is owner occupancy. Um it is consistent with the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood and I find no substantial
detriment to the neighborhood and no diminishment in the value of the surrounding property. Um so consistent with the bylaw um I would argue that this application is on par with what we're trying to do um under the zoning bylaw. and I'm inclined to support it.
And I will go by my screen call on um board members to weigh in if they wish. And again, I will start with Mr. Meadows. You're the first on my screen. >> I agree with you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you, Mr. Meadows. Um Mr. Offeld,
>> excuse me. Um I'm taking a close look at the converted dwelling. Uh re redefining the use as a converted dwelling. It makes perfect sense. This is I It sure looks like a converted dwelling to me. Uh and it meets all the requirements as
far as I understand them that are um in the bylaws 3.3241. So, um I think it ought to be a converted dwelling. Um and I think the addition of the bedroom is fine. I agree with the the chair's
comments about the um architectural um suitability of the of the proposed uh change. Um so I'm inclined to support this application. >> Thank you, Mr. Ael. Mrs. Slovener,
>> I agree with Mr. Meadows when he agreed with the chair. >> Thank you, Mrs. Sloer. Miss Morton, >> I would say I agree with you all too. >> Thank you, Miss Morton. Um,
so seems like we are we do have a consensus. Um, but as we all know, there are findings that I do have to make on the record. Um, as well as conditions, um, any proposed conditions. Um, as
customary, um, I will skip the findings that are the sections rather under the bylaw that are not applicable and I will walk us through the findings. So, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Roitz, and the board, please bear with me. I do have to go
through these and I will be as um, expedient as I can. Um so going with um article 3 um 3.3241 converted dwelling um I do recommend
that we adapt to finding that the structure has already previously been converted in compliance with the applicable zoning bylaws at the time of conversion and therefore um it does rise to the zoning bylaw requirement. Um, a converted dwelling
may a converted dwelling use may involve the conversion of one or more structures on a given property, but shall not result in a total number of dwelling units on a lot exceeding what would otherwise be allowed under the provisions of table 3 dimensional regulations for the zillion districts in question. Further, the total number of
dwelling units on a given property shall not exceed four in the RG, RVC, RNR, and RLD districts and shall not exceed six in the BGBL and BB districts. Um, staff recommends that the current existing two distinct dwelling units on
the premises located within the RG districts. Um, subsection 3 is not applicable. Um section four, there shall be no significant change in the exterior of the buildings except that the special permit granting authority or permit granting board may authorize
modification or alteration of a building if such modification or alteration does not substantially change the building's character or its effect on the neighborhood or on property in the vicinity. Um I would recommend we adapt the finding that the proposed changes will adequately match the existing
nature and character of the premises. um except as inherently provided, no converted dwelling use shall involve the demolition and removal of an existing structure proposed for conversion. Nothing that we've seen suggest that there would be demolition in here. Um so
there is no demolition proposed as part of the current application, nor was demolition involved in the initial conversion back in 1966. I proposed we adopt that finding. Um, the proposed conversion shall be seen to be located in the neighborhood in which
it is proposed as deemed appropriate by the special permit granting authority. And the conversion if in a resident residential district shall either be located in an area that is close to heavily traveled street close to business, commercial and educational districts or already developed for
multif family use and shall require owner occupancy or resident manager um in one of the units. Um this is this application before us is an owner owner occupied application and therefore um the conversion of this property took
place again in 1966. The property is located in the neighborhood um with a number of existing established multifamily uses and of course the property shall be owner occupied. So again I do recommend we adopt the findings that this meets the criteria
under section 3.321. Um the applicant has also asked for um a waiver under section 7.104
um in terms of parking. Um and the area of all parking areas shall be included in the calculation of maximum lot coverage. Parking areas shall be clear by delineated and shall be provided with a permanent dust-free surface and adequate drainage. Each parking space
shall be at least 9 ft by 18 ft in size and all parking areas must have adequate access and maneuvering areas. The zoning board of appeals or the planning board may allow upon application small car parking spaces 8x6 ft to be substituted for up to 50% of the standard parking
spaces. Compact parking spaces shall be designated by clearly visible um signs. And under um section 7.90, any section or subsection of article 79 parking regulations may be waved or modified by
the part by the permit grants in board or special permit granting authority authorized to act under the applicable section of the bylaw for compelling reasons of safety, aesthetics or site design. The staff recommends that the board find that the following inclusion of the compact parking space
is compelling since the property has historically been used for a multiple dwelling units and formalizing the parking does not require any substantially changes to the property within the neighborhood. So we do have to um vote on the waiver of the parking
as well. um nonconforming structure. Um I do not believe that is before us because I do believe that um it it already is a non-conforming structure. Isn't that correct, Mr. Bag? >> It is non-conforming. I think
technically it's an alteration of a non-conforming structure, which is why I included that. Um it it applies to alteration of any non-conforming structure. So we put it in there just to be sure that the convert that you know
those exterior changes to convert the porches was included. >> Thank you. So under 9.22 um rather under section 9 section 9.22 nonconforming structure the staff recommends that the board find that the porch [clears throat] enclosures are not
substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. The changes are minor in that they do not increase a nonconformity and are designed to be in keeping with the architecture of the existing building. Um under 10.38 we do have to make
specific findings and so these are the findings that um I will go through. um 10.38 and 381. The proposal is suitably located in the neighborhood in which it is proposed and or the total town as deemed appropriate by the special permit
granting authority. The proposal is compatible with existing uses and other uses permitted um by right in the same district. I recommend that we make a finding that this meets on this meets the criteria under section 10.38 and 31.
um 10.382 8385 and 387. The propos the proposal would not constitute a nuisance due to air and water pollution, flood, noise, order, dust, vibration, lights or visually offensive structures or sight
features. The proposal would not be substantial inconvenience or hazard to abutters, vehicles or pedestrians. The proposal reasonably protects the adjoining premises against detrimental or offensive uses on the site including air and water pollution, flood, noise,
odor, dust, vibration, lights or visually offensive structures or site features. And the proposal provides convenient and safe vehicular pedestrian movements within the site and in relation to adjacent streets, property or improvements. I recommend we make a
finding that um this does not constitute a new asense um under the ZBA bylaws. Um 10.384 um adequate and appropriate facilities would be provided for the proper
operation of the proposed use. Make a finding that the management plan identifies adequate areas for the storage of waste and recycling. Weekly trash and recycling pickup will occur. um 10.386. The proposal ensures that it is in conformance with the parking and sign
regulations under articles seven and eight respectively of the bylaw. Um there the applicant findings that there is adequate parking for the dwelling units on the premises see attached site plan and of course applicant states they will continue to be in compliance with
the zoning bylaw. Um I'd make a finding we adopt 10.386 10.387 um the proposal provides convenient and safe vehicular and pedestrian movements within the site and in relation to adjacent streets property or
improvements. If a special permit granting authority deems a proposal likely to have a significantly adverse impact in traffic patterns, it shall be permitted to require traffic impact report um 10.387. I recommend we adapt
the finding as not applicable. Um 10.38 the proposal ensures adequate space for off- street loading and unloading the vehicles, goods, products, materials and equipment instantial to the normal operation of establishment or use. Um there is adequate space for off- street
loading and unloading as may be required for residential use. I make a recommendation we adopt said finding 10.389. The proposal provides adequate methods of disposal and or storage of sewage, refues, recyclables and other waste
resulting for the uses permitted or permissible on the site and methods of drainage or surface water. Um the management plan proposes a weekly trash and recycling pickup and sufficient waste services would be provided to accommodate the proposed use and this property of course is connected to the
municipal sewer system. I recommend we adopt set finding um 10.390. The proposal ensures protection from flood hazards as stated in section 3.228 228. Considering such factors as elevation of buildings, drainage,
adequacy of sewage disposal, erosion and sediment, sedimentation control, equipment, lake location, refuge disposal, storage of buoyant materials, extent of paving, effect of fill, roadway or other encroachment and flood runoff and flow storage of chemicals and
other hazardous substances. Recommend we make a finding that the proposal construction is relatively minimal and does not create a flood hazard. um 10.391. The proposal protects to the extent feasible unique or important natural, historic, or scenic features. The proposal does not include any
changes that would impact any unique or important natural, historic, or scenic features. I recommend we adopt said finding in terms of landscaping under 10.392. No additional landscaping is proposed as part of the proposal and the existing screening is sufficient for the proposed
use. I think we've all been to that property and see the vegetation. I would argue that there is sufficient screening there and I recommend we adopt set finding >> it's 7:00 >> 10.393 um in terms of lighting um the applicant
proposes to install additional lighting on the front porch [clears throat] vestibial as well as a landing at the foot of the exterior the foot of the exterior stairs on the north side of the premise. Applicant understands that any additional lighting will be downcast and dark sky compliant. I recommend we adopt
10.93 as applicable. 10.394 The proposal avoids to the extent feasible impact on steep slopes, flood planes, scenic views, great changes in wetlands. The proposal does not require the modification of the existing building footprint, nor does the proposal require
any additional structures or construction on any undisturbed area of the lot. 10.395. The proposal does not create disharmony with respect to the terrain and to the use scale and architecture of existing buildings in the vicinity which have
functional or visual relationship. Um there too I recommend we make a finding that the proposal is complimentary to and in consonants with the existing structures and uses in the neighborhood. The only exterior modifications will involve additional lighting as
previously indicated and places additional matching sighting around the porches to be enclosed. The aforementioned porches are located in the rear of the property not facing the public way and will be screened from view. Um 10.396 the proposal provides
screening for storage areas, loading docks, dumpsters, rooftop equipment, utility buildings and similar features. um recommend we adopt the finding that the proposal provides for adequate screening. 10.397 is not applicable. Um
10.398 the proposal is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this bylaw and the goals of the master plan. I recommend we make a finding that the proposal is indeed in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning bylaw for the reasons listed herein. The
proposal is in harmony with the goals of the master plan by meeting the needs for additional housing while minimizing impacts on the environment and increases appropriate infield development adjacent to heavily traveled ways. Um for any
ones that I did not read verbatim as always this document is available on our site for anyone who wishes to read everything in detail. Um so having read through the findings um under section
10.38 um special granting authority as well as the parking um waiver under section 7.104 and of course um use classification converted dwelling under 3.3241.
Um I will entertain and block um these um three motions. We approve the findings under section 3.3 use classification standards that this is rises to the level of a converted dwelling under 3.3241.
I would also in that same motion approve the parking waiver under section 7.104. Um is there such a motion? >> Yes, there is. I so moved. >> It has been moved. Is there a second?
>> Second. >> It has been moved and second. Any discussion? >> With no discussion, the vote occurs on the motion. Mr. Meadows >> I. >> Mr. Offeld >> I. >> Mr. Sloer >> I.
>> Miss Morton >> I. >> And the chair votes I. The vote is 50. Um we've adopted the findings under section 3.321 and we have granted the waiver under section 7.104.
Um article 10 section 10.38 specific findings that the ZBA has to make. I will entertain a motion to adopt the findings under 10.38. Is there such a motion? >> So moved. >> Second.
>> Is there a second? >> It has been moved and second. The vote occurs on the motion again. Mr. Meadows >> I. >> Mr. Offeld >> I. >> Mr. Sloder >> I. >> M. Morton >> I.
>> And the chair votes I. Um that therefore means that the findings um have been adopted. Um now we look at conditions. I do see um that there are only three
recommended conditions. Um the property shall be used as a two-unit owner occupied converted dwelling. A change in ownership to another owner occupant shall be reviewed and approved by the ZBA at a public meeting. Um a change to non-owner occupancy shall require a new
special permit and parking shall be maintained in accordance with the approved site plan. Um, do any members of the ZBA have any additional um, conditions that they think is
appropriate and would recommend? Um, before I recognize Mr. Offeld, I think Mr. Bag raised his hand. Mr. Bag, >> thanks. Sorry to jump ahead there. Uh, you know, in preparation for the project
application report, we put those three conditions in. I did have three more that I wanted to propose to the board and I can share my screen and just walk them through. They're all pretty straightforward, but I didn't know if it was appropriate to do this now. >> No, we usually do this back um you have
full reign to share your screen and add conditions as we add them to um orally. Yeah. >> Okay. So, the way it's set up is um you left off on number three. Parking shall be maintained in accordance with the approved site plan. Um
the floor plans are included. The floor plan should be included actually. So um sorry I'll do it on the spot here. The idea would be that we have a couple um documents that control the property. So floor plans would be one and the
management plan and the parking plan. So I would propose that these just be codified in the conditions. Number six was just to ensure so I was looking back at previous decisions and this is kind of um common one and that that gives the building department a little bit of
discretion to work through any kind of life safety requirements. Um you guys were discussing some of those earlier with the vestibule. And then the catchall really is number seven, which is any changes to the approved plans uh are first reviewed by the building commissioner to determine
if they're significant. And if they are deemed significant, the changes would be reviewed by the board at a public meeting or require formal modification. So that's kind of also a very standard condition that we kind of wanted to round this out a little bit. Um and but then I I'll yield to the other member
who had a question. Thank you, Mr. Bag. And and historically, those are conditions that we would typically expect. So, thank you for adding those to that. Um, Mr. Offeld. >> Yeah, I'm just recalling u appreciate
Mr. Beag adding these um items and I also recall and maybe he means this by number four, the floor plans. we there's kind of some standard language about the the project will be constructed according to the plans and approved so
and so and so on. So I mean if you look at previous special permits that kind of language is in there. Uh I'm not sure I'm getting it right. So I wouldn't I wouldn't quote me directly on that. But
I also had a comment on the first one. the uh which is that just a clarification really it's upon change in ownership the special permit shall be reviewed
we don't have to approve the change in ownership we the the permit comes back to us it's a little conf to me it's a little confusing as written >> can can I uh elaborate so I think the goal the intent of the The way I wrote
this was that the first sentence requires it to be owner occup owner occupied. So in the event that the owner sells it and it's continued to be owner occupied, that shouldn't lapse the permit. So someone
who who purchases this property and chooses to live there should be able to do that without triggering a new public hearing. And so I think looking back there were quite a few where that new owner would come to a public meeting to just say that they're taking over the property and they understand there's
conditions and there's a management plan and that kind of thing and to try to distinguish between condition number two, which is that if this property were sold to a new owner who did not want to own or occupy it, that would require a full review and a new special permit. So there was I was trying to distinguish
between those two events that might happen in the future. I don't know if that I don't know if that clarifies it, but >> it it does. Thank you. I if I follow up on that. >> Um yeah, I think we have Isn't it the case
that upon change of ownership even if it was a new owner occupant, we would want to review the management plan that has to come to us. I think that's been the practice in the past. >> You you are correct, Mr. Afeld. So I I I
do understand um what your position is and what you're asking. Um but yes, typically um Mr. Bag the language has been when there is a change um in ownership um
there needs to be a request for a special permit back for the ZBA >> which may just be a review of the management plan and you know great go for it. Uh but um >> yeah, I think what I would see if just
for conversation quickly here is you know if the board would be willing if it changes ownership but the new owner is owner planning to owner occupy it would you be willing to have that come back to the board at a public meeting. So, it
would be continuing to require owner occupancy. The new owner would come and present the management plan at a public meeting because there, you know, there's certain thresholds. There's, you know, a $350 application fee plus $300 legal ad plus waiting a month plus waiting a
month after the decision in order to just simply owner occupy it again. So, this um condition number one was intended to allow a little bit more streamlined approach if the person is proposing to owner occupy it. Um so this should be like 1 A upon a change of
ownership to another owner occupant um the revised management plan shall be reviewed and approved by the ZBA at a public meeting. So that would still give the board the opportunity to see who the owner is, understand that they have the management plan in place,
and then move on without triggering the full-blown public hearing process. >> May I ask you a question, Mr. Beck? Um, >> yeah. Does the building commissioner um get notification when there's a change of ownership or do you have to wait for
the sale um go through the sale process and that's final and becomes public notice or are you guys made aware that there's a change in order? >> That's a great question. Um I don't think there would auto I don't think there would automatically be a
notification of the change of owner. I think where the town is caught up a lot would be catching it at the rental permit. So, at the annual renewal of the rental permit would be the check and balance unless there's some other way. Um, I looked back at quite a few. I looked
back to about 2019 and there were different versions of this condition that kind of floated around. I think the idea would be to reduce the burden of a owner who's planning to owner occupy it. Um, but the keep condition number two is
really important. Um, that would be a full-blown special permit process. >> I I I think this board has tried to be efficient and not have people go through a process that they do not need to go through um or come back before us that doesn't need to go back before us. So, I
I think we have the same mindset as a board to [clears throat] reduce administrative burden on owners. So, I think I'm inclined to support what you wrote um with the condition that you add that um the owner shall notify the
building um commissioner um in writing within 30 days of any transfer of title to or change in owner occupancy of the property. >> Within 30 days, did you say? >> Yes. of transfer of title
>> to Yeah. or change in owner occupancy of the property, >> current owner occupancy. Yeah. Cuz if it might be sold to another person who is Yeah. going to be owner occupied and and that
way you get to you know that now there is a change and that triggers you to review any management plan to see if it needs to come back before the ZBA. >> Okay. Yeah. Do you want to would you mind just saying that one more time the the your intent of this one so I can It's hard to live edit but I'll try it
one more time. And >> No, that's okay. Do you want me to say what it should be? >> Yes, please. >> Yes. The owner shall notify the building commissioner in writing within 30 days of any transfer of title to or change in
owner occupancy of the property. >> Okay. Yeah, I'll I'll I'll watch the recording to get that perfect, but I understand. >> And as I said, that will give you an opportunity to review any management plans um and to see if that needs to
come back at a public meeting. >> Great. >> Um I think I had [clears throat] wrote um some notes down. I'm just trying to make sure that Can you go back to sharing your screen, Mr. Bag? I want to make sure that um
okay, okay. Um I think you capture that one. Um going back to what Mr. um Aldos was referring to in number four. Um I think that
I would go farther by saying that all construction shall substantially conform to the plan submitted with the application and any material deviation shall be referred to the board to determine whether further review is
required. I'm happy to add that it's it's a little bit similar to number seven, but I'll add that in reference to the floor plans. That's fine. Okay. Um any other members of the board have
any conditions they wish to discuss, add or comfortable not comfortable with what's written? I do not see any hands or heads in the affirmative. Um, okay.
With our conditions, I will now entertain a motion to approve the conditions. I'm sorry, Mr. Mr. Bag. Did you say that you're you're going to have to add um typically just to make sure that when we vote, we are voting on the
conditions as we discussed here. Um we typically have them in real time finalized. That way we know that once we are done, it doesn't require another vote somewhere to say these are the conditions. But with the board's permission, um we're deferring to um Mr.
bag to finalize the conditions as described as you heard him say, he will listen to the recording to make sure he captures anything um that he did that he missed. So, if everyone's okay with that, I recommend we vote to approve the conditions as discussed and defer to Mr.
P to fix um when he can. Okay. All right. So, with that, >> thank you. So, with that, I will entertain a motion that we approve the conditions as discussed um tonight. Is there such a um It has been moved. Is there a second? >> Um
>> Miss Morton. >> David has his hand up. >> Um >> Oh, David. >> Yes. So, typically in the public meeting, we don't take any input from the applicants. >> Um but um
if the board is [clears throat] okay, we'll have Mr. Buren make a quick comment and ask a quick question. Is that okay with everyone? Okay. Um, Attorney Benson, >> thank thank you very much. I do appreciate the uh the opportunity to
speak. Um, I just had a a question just for clarification on that that fourth condition. Um, I primarily was just wondering was that the submission to the commissioner was the intent so that the the future owner would not then have to come to the board. I guess that that was
my con my confusion there. You say number four or the one that I initially proposed. >> I'm so sorry. I'm number number two. The the subsection B. >> Yes. The intent here is to rather than go through a whole public hearing to Mr.
B's point, it goes to the building commissioner and then they make the determination if it needs to come back before the ZBA. >> Okay. Thank you for the clarification. >> Okay. Thank you. Um the motion has been moved and second.
The vote occurs on the motion to approve the conditions on ZVAF FY20266 um I'm sorry 165 um High Street. Um Mr. Meadows >> I >> um Mr. Slovener >> I
>> Miss Morton >> I >> Mr. Offeld >> I >> and the chair votes I. The vote is 50 approving the conditions for 165 High Street. We have approved the conditions. We have approved the findings. We have
approved the parking waiver. We have approved the converted dwelling. Um I will now enterain a motion that we grant the special permit um ZBA FY2026-2065 High Street. Um is there such a motion?
>> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> So seconded. >> Has been moved and second. Any discussion? With no discussion, the vote occurs on the motion. Mr. Meadows, >> I. >> Mr. Slovder, >> I. >> Miss Morton,
>> I. >> Mr. Offeld, >> I. >> And the chair votes I. ZBA FY2026-2065 High Street has been approved. Mr. Robbitz and Mr. Buren. Congratulations and good luck.
>> Thank you. I will now entertain a motion that we close the public meeting as well as the public hearing on ZVA FY2026 2065 High Street. Is there such a motion? >> So moved. >> It has been moved. There is a second by
Mr. Slovder. >> Second. >> Um the vote occurs on the motion to close the public hearing and the public meeting on ZBA FY2026205 High Street. Mr. Meadows. >> I. Mrs. Slovder
>> I >> Miss Morton >> I >> Mr. Offeld >> I >> and the chair votes I Zia FY2026-2065 High Street public hearing and meeting is officially closed
as is customary. Our next order of business um are we go to general public comments um on any matters that is not before the ZBA tonight. Um Mr. Bag, is
there anyone in the audience? >> No hands are raised. >> Okay. um with no general public comment. Um other business not anticipated within the last
48 hours. Um I I do want to um we we do have a new member in Miss Morton and um so I would as a matter of um uniformity and policy that we do
actually have a full election on the current structure of the ZBA. So as much >> yes as much as reappointed um by the town I think we need to have um the the
board um here. So um I would recommend um we keep the current structure as is unless there is um any opposition. Um with myself being the chair, Mr. Sylvia the vice chair and Mr. Offeld um our clerk. Um are there any
comments, thoughts as to that um recommendation, >> Mr. Soldier? >> Well, once again, the chair anticipated what I was going to say under new business. I was going to point out that it's the first meeting of the term and
we need as usually the first order of business to elect a chair. I was going to suggest that we forgive um Mr. Henry for hijacking the position at the beginning of this meeting without so much as acknowledging that he's
supposed to get elected for the new term. But I understand enthusiasm gets people carried away. And I would absolutely support Mr. Henry continuing. I think he did a notably first rate job
all of last year and not just because he anticipates what I want to bring up, but I he is organized and effective and a and a gentleman and the tone of everything is excellent and I would love
to continue the way we've been going. So I support that and when the motion comes around I will be happy to either make it, second it or vote for it. Thank you. >> I'm done. >> Yeah. >> So moved. >> Ah, there you are.
>> Thank you. So, I think this requires a roll call vote. And so, for the record, um, it is myself as the new chair moving forward. Mr. Sloer as the vice chair and Mr. Offeld as the clerk. Um, Mr. Meadows.
>> Hi, >> Mr. Offeld. >> Hi, >> Mrs. Slovder. Uh, let me think. Uh, I >> and Miss Morton >> I >> and the cheer votes I. So, Mr. Bag, for
the record, we still have the same um leadership structure on the CBA. Um, as is customary, Mr. Bag, we look at the what's coming up on the calendar. I'm not sure if you have um a calendar for our next couple of meetings. We can
skip that tonight. appreciating um that you're playing catchup. Um but typically at the end of each meeting, we'll look at what's coming up um ahead of us and we'll look at scheduling to make sure people are available to see if we need to reach out to alternates. >> You guessed it. I do not have that
future looking schedule. You know, the board talked about July 23rd is the next meeting and so there's an appeal of a determination of the building commissioner. I think you guys voted to extend that timeline last time. So the that packet and material will be prepared for next week and then you just
continued the 112 114 North Whitney to July 23rd. The next meeting after that is going to be August 13th and there is uh we are looking at an item for that meeting. So that will be the next meeting after July 23rd. >> Okay.
>> Can you can you give us an idea of what the item is for the 13th of August? Um there are several floating around. Um yes, there is a property at 408
Northampton. No. Yeah. Northampton Street is Aspen Meadows, Aspen Heights, the apartment complex, and they have a minor modification that they want to propose to the board. It requires a new um special permit. And then there's a owner occupied single family house
that's non-conforming. and it's a structural addition that is needs a special permit as well. So, those are I believe those are the two that we're um organizing for August 13th. >> Okay. >> Thank you. And looking at our calendars,
is everyone available for August 13? Do we need to reach out to alternates? >> I'm I'm available. Could it be okay? >> I'm available as well. Yeah. Meadows. I believe that's fine. Sure.
>> Okay. So, Mr. Bag, I think you have us confirmed for the next two meetings. I think that should give you a chance to just, you know, get your bearings and put things together. So, you have um um the full committee at your disposal for the next two um hearings, you know. >> Yep. That's great. And, you know, I'm
getting a little bit of help from inside town hall. We have the licensing um staff person is going to be helping out as well. So Steve McCarthy had been emailing with with the group. Um so part of the the temporary team that we're building to keep your coverage um
strong. >> Okay. Thank you. Um with no additional business, it is um 7:27. I will entertain a motion that we adjourn July 9th's meeting of the Amazon
board of appeals. Um is there such a motion? >> So moved. Is there a second? Second. [laughter] >> Could you be any quicker? >> No. >> No. No. I agree. Yes. >> It has been moved and second. The motion
is not debatable and requires a roll call vote. Mr. Meadows. >> I. >> Mr. Offeld. >> I. >> Mrs. Ser. >> I. >> Miss. Morton. >> I. >> And the chair votes I. Thank you all for your service. We are adjourned. Good [clears throat] night.
>> Good night. Good night. Good night.