We are live. >> Thank you. The chair notes the time is 6:06 p.m. and I call this meeting of the Amherst Zoning Board of Appeals to order. It is Thursday, February 26, 2026. We will begin with a roll call for ZBA
members. Um, Mr. Offeld >> here, >> Mr. White >> here, >> Mr. Meadows >> here, >> Mr. Greenbomb >> here. The chair notes a quorum is present. A quorum of three is permitted to take testimony. Also present tonight
is Mr. Justinta Williams, a planner with the town of Amherst. 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 means via remote means. Members of the public who wishes to access the meeting may do so via Zoom or telephone. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the
public can adequately access the proceedings in real time. The Zoning Board of Appeals is a quasi judicial body that operates under the authority of chapter 4A of the General Laws of the Commonwealth for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, convenience, and general welfare of the
inhabitants of the town of Amherst. One of the most important elements of the Amherst zoning bylaw is section 10.38. Specific findings from this section must be made for all of her decisions. Statutoily for a special permit, the board has 90 days from the close of the hearing for a final
decision. No decision is final until the written decision is signed by the sitting board members and filed in the town clerk's office. Once the decision is filed with the town clerk, there is a 20-day appeal period for the griefd party to contest
the decision with a relevant judicial body in the superior court. After the appeal period, the permit must be recorded at the register of deeds to take effect. Tonight's agenda, we will have approve review and approval of the minutes from our last meeting, February 12th. There
are no public meetings. There are two public hearings before us tonight. ZBA FY2026-09 74 North Witness Street request a special permit under sections 10.33 modification amendment or renewal to extinguish the existing special permit
ZBA FY197-2022 for the first floor supplemental unit. The applicant would like to return the property to the original single family use designation. Sent properties located on map parcel 14B/93
RG General Residence Zoning Districts. Then we have ZBA FY2026-10 169 Meta Street request a special permit for change of use under section 3.391 contractor's yard and 8.5 modifications
and waiverss. Modification requests pertain to the proposed sign located within the 20 foot setback. Said property is located on map parcel 4B- C C-1 commercial industrial zoning districts. We'll have a general
discussion, any general public comment, and any business not anticipated within 48 hours. We will start with review of the meet minutes from February 12th. Has everyone had a chance to review the m the minutes
and are there any amendments or can we vote to accept the minutes as is? I see no hands in the affirmative or the negative. Um to that if to that extent I will enterainate a motion to approve the
minutes for February 12, 2026. Is there >> still moved? >> It has been moved. Is there a second? >> Second. >> It has been moved and second. The vote occurs on the motion. Um, Miss Greenbomb, >> I. >> Mr. White,
>> I. >> Mr. Offeld, >> and Mr. Meadows, I see an I. The chair votes I. Um, the minutes for February 20, February 12th,
2026 have been adopted. Um, thank you. We will now move to ZBA FY2026-09 and going by which is 74 North Witness Street. I am going to go by the project application. Um the nature of the request is a
special permit to extinguish a special permit. The applicant would like to return the primary use of the property back to a single family dwelling use. The submissions dated January 16th, 2026. We have the ZBA narrative of 74
North Witness Street dated 116, 2026. We have the application of the same date, 116, 2026. And of course, we have the complete application packet dated January 8th of 2026. By way of background, the zoning board of appeals previously granted a special
permit in 1996 to Paul Fireman and Gail JRo to convert a single family home to include a one-bedroom apartment. There are no modifications and or waiverss been requested. There was a site visit on Tuesday. Um Mr.
Meadows, Mr. Offeld, myself were present. We had the opportunity to walk through the property. um see what's being asked. And quite frankly, um the request it's
primarily focused on us withdrawing a special permit. Um not necessarily granting anything that's been specially done to the property outside of um standard building coding requirements. Um and I'll have Mr. Meadows and Mr.
Offel chime in in case I missed anything. Mr. May, you're on mute. >> Format of the request is basically to go along with the state new state requirements. So, um I'm a little bit at a loss. If that is if that's the new
state law, it's basically a given. Mr. Offel, did you say something? I'm >> just going to say that we we observed that uh the upper part of the house, the the top floor, which had four bedrooms,
has four bedrooms, was finished off, and the bottom floor was still um in a state of disrepair, which is how the owners bought the property, as I understand it. >> That that is correct. So, thank you
both. Um, Miss Williams, who is representing 74 North Witness Street? Can you promote them, please? >> Mr. Dina Ragington, she'll be joining us shortly. >> And while we wait, um, are there any
disclosures by any member of the panel? I see no hand in the affirmative. >> This is Dina Raanatan. Mr. here. >> Adina, if you can just um I need just introduce yourself, but for the record, can you just um state your name and address, please?
>> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board. My first name is Dina Karan and the last name is Ranga Nathan. Um and this is for 74 North Whitney Street in Ammerst. I currently reside in 6 Kotilian Lane, Nasha, New Hampshire.
>> And Dino, can you just um elaborate for us what is it that you're asking of the ZBA? Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board. Thank you for taking the time to visit our house on Tuesday. I think you summarized uh my request like pretty accurately. We bought the
property at 74 North Whitney Street uh in October of 2025. Uh it has contained a lawfully created supplemental unit since 96 as you mentioned u and it was under a special permit that was uh issued to the previous owners. Uh the purpose of my request today is to simply
extinguish that historic special permit and allow this property to be governed under the current uh Massachusetts states protected ADU framework consistent with some of the recent amendments. And uh I want to clarify in addition to uh what you stated Mr. Chair that we've not proposed any expansion of
the building's footprint neither are we adding any external structures. Uh so as such the physical structure and the layout remains largely unchanged. Uh and I do not believe uh there are any impacts to the neighborhood either. Um and uh as Mr. Rafel pointed out, we are
in the process of uh rehabilitating uh a neglected property. Um and we just brought uh the second floor of the unit uh up to safety standards. Uh we believe we've reduced the risk and we brought like everything to code compliance for that floor. We're yet to begin work on
the first floor. So when the board visited our property, the state that the property was in, especially the first floor was how we found the the whole property when we bought in October. Um so since we've been working on like uh building permits and renovating but uh
for the first floor, we've not touched that floor just yet except for changing some of the eress window, changing some of the windows to eress windows. And uh my request today is to simply extinguish that special permit and return it to a single family home following which it will be governed by the protected laws
protected ADU laws of the state. I'm hoping that the board considers this this request in favor. Um so I'm happy to answer any questions that the board might have. >> Thank you Dana. Are there any questions um for the
applicants from any members of the board? M green bottom. >> Yes, sir. I would like to ask one question. When was the last time that unit was used as a rental apartment?
>> I have no idea, madam. I don't have that information. >> Has it been within the last two years? >> I have no idea, madam. I do not have that information. Um, the reason that I'm asking is that we may not have to vote on this because
that use may have sunseted not having been used in the last two years. And uh, I'm just bringing that up because it has struck me wondering why you want to do this if if it hasn't been a one-bedroom apartment for a long time,
which is what I was implying or inferring from the information we were given. Yeah, the only information that I knew of uh madam was so we brought this property from a bank uh right so it was owned by US Bank Trust um after it was
foreclosed and for the last uh almost 9 years um as far as I understand um there's been nobody living in this property um so I don't have any additional information I did try contacting US bank to get some information about the property but uh
they simply aren't answered me that they're under no obligation to provide any additional information. So, um that was the end of my conversation with the bank. >> Thank you. So Hilda, are you suggesting that if it hasn't been occupied for the na last
nine years, then >> I'm ugly understanding at least all of the years that I've been involved in this board that if a permit isn't used within two years or well, I know not used within two years of when it's it's
uh approved that um it's dead and you have to come back again. And I also understood that if a unit or use was not used for for two years that it automatically sunseted. That was my that's been my my assumption
from everything I've heard over 50 years. So that's my message. I I I I I couldn't quite figure out why he was coming given that's the usual practice that I've always heard unless there's something in the in the uh no what I'm
the the something in the conditions is for the other thing but not not for this one but I but I was I was curious and I also was going to ask him about the square footage because both of those floors are more than 900 square ft
And so it might be useful to have kept the this is part of the discussion rather than the question. But any I'm just bringing it up at the wrong time. >> Not not not the wrong time. Um but
before we give Dena a chance to respond. I think Miss Williams have a comment. Um maybe can answer some of your questions. So Miss Williams. >> Yes. Uh thank you Mr. Chair. So, Miss Greenbalm, I asked the building commissioner and, you know, my
supervisors the same question as well. I did work pretty diligently to try to, you know, make this as seamless for the applicant as possible, raising the same concerns that if this hasn't been
occupied for x amount of years and, you know, the use hasn't been, you know, active, why would we ask the applicant to proceed with this process? I was essentially in short told we needed to have him go through this
process. So you're not wrong in your thinking. However, we myself and then as I instructed the applicant, we were told we needed to prove somehow that the use wasn't active. We did the best that we
could. Mr. Ranganathan did the best that he could as well to provide the building commissioner with the evidence that he was able to gather, but the building commissioner still decided that that was not enough and he asked the applicant to
go through this process. So that is whether fortunately or unfortunately I'm not going to comment on that. Um that is why we're here tonight. >> Thank you for the explanation. I finally know. I finally get it.
>> So, um, Miss Rnathan, I'm not sure if you need to respond um to Miss Greenbomb. I I believe um her question was answered by Miss Williams. Yeah, I think Miss M Miss Williams covered it pretty accurately and uh you know honestly um it's been a lot of like
digging uh that honestly Miss Williams um has uh has done uh about this particular issue and we've gone back and forth as she said several times and out of an abundance of caution we just came to the board is how I kind of like you know um see it. Um, so, uh, if there are
no further follow-up questions for the first part, I can, um, if you're okay, answer the second part of Miss Greenbomb's question. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you. Um, Mr. Greenbomb. Um this property um the currently for in the in
the in the second floor um the way the ADU uh I'm assuming this question is in connection with like whether the ADU you know whether the property will meet like the protected ADU's um size restrictions. So we measured the primary dwelling unit which is the second floor
and the common areas um and that came to roughly over 9 uh 1 1,900 ft² that uh includes like nearly 1,400 ft² for the second floor and then um adding to that like common areas which includes common stairs the garage space electrical room
furnace room laundry etc. So that came to uh about 1,900 ft² and I provided and I've included that in the supplemental information that I submitted along with my application um the breakdown for that 1,900 plus square foot. And then like for the first floor area now uh the
total area as it exists at this time uh which is basically a one-bedroom supplemental unit is roughly 496 ft 495.5 to be accurate. Um, so that is substantially lower than the 50%age uh limit and it is also lower than the 900
square foot that the protected ADU allows us to have. So, uh, let me know if you need any additional information, Miss Green. Thank you for explaining that to me because I I sort of was thinking that either the the first order or the one of
them was going to be the ADU and I was thinking it was going to be as as it's as it's reported on the assessor's card. So I'm glad you clarified that. >> Are there any other questions from any other members of the panel?
I do not see any hands or any verbal responses. So at this time I will take comments from the public. Please remember that there is a maximum speaking time of 3 minutes per person. If there is anyone from the public who wishes to comment on this application. Um please raise your hand. Um we'll be
afforded the opportunity to speak. Miss Williams, do we see anyone? We do not have any members of the public wishing to comment. >> Okay. With no members of the public wish to comment and unless there are any further questions or comments from the
applicant, I would entertain a motion to move to the public meeting while keeping the public hearing open so that we can discuss um findings and conditions where applicable as well as having discussions on the disposition of the board towards this application. So before we move to a
public meeting, Mr. Rang Hisen, do you have any other comments or questions for the board? >> No, Mr. Chair, uh that's it at this point. >> Thank you. Okay. I will now enterain a motion to keep the public
to move to a public meeting while keeping the public hearing open. Is there such a motion? >> So move. >> It has been moved. Is there a second? >> Second. The motion has been moved and second. Is there any discussion?
Seeing that there is no discussion, the vote occurs on the motion to move into a public meeting while keeping the public hearing open. Mr. Offeld, >> Mr. White, >> I. >> Mr. Meadows, >> I >> Mr. Greenbomb
>> I. >> And the chair votes I. The vote is 50. We will now move into the public meeting while keeping the public hearing open. Um so I I I can start. This is a very
unusual one. Um as I think we all appreciate, we're asking to we're not even asking to issue a special permit. We're asking to eliminate a special permit. So I am not even sure um you know I I don't see how
we can issue conditions on something that doesn't exist. Yeah. Um so I I don't know if how the board as a whole feels about this. Um given that this is one of first impression,
do we need to what is it that we need to consider? um if anyone has any thoughts on that because again we are not granting a special permit. We're essentially canons as pressure permits. My first thought was that if this is something that may
come back before us, um we may want to have council weigh in with some guidance just so we have something that's unformed as opposed to um saying something here tonight and then somebody else comes before us and we peacemail
it. Um that is my thought. Um just because again our history has been we grant a special permit not extinguish a special permit. So um Miss Greenbomb has most experience here. So and her hand is
raised. So I will >> that the that the for the sake of the neighbors who have looked at this worse than an I saw for so many years. I think we need to do everything we can do to push the renovation of the house forward
so the man can get the work done and have it ready for rent June when when the most of the tenants turn over on this town. And if the building inspector who is also in charge
of uh of the zoning amendment and the and the enforcement of it says that this is a requirement for him in order for the project to go forward. I don't think we have a choice but to go along with what the building inspector is asking us
to do. That's everything that I am understanding from what the appellant has just said that we have to approve this if if he's going to be able to go forward and get his work done in time for the rental season and people are looking for places to live now. And he's
probably going to have to rent it now as as the tenants are looking uh before the work is done. And that that has happened many times before. But I think we need to help him go forward because don't forget there's a waiting period. Well, I don't know whether there's a waiting
period on this for um so many days before the the um >> so Miss Green as a matter of clarity >> what >> as as a matter of clarity I I I do not believe
work is being delayed by the special department because when we went there work was being done. So, they are actively working on the property with construction, >> but he can't I understood he can't get a building permit without that. I or he can't make
the second unit to satisfy the requirements of the building inspector unless we vote yes. >> There is already two units there. >> That's what I understood from everything I have heard. Now, if you understand something different, tell me what it is.
So there are already two units in existence um at the property. There's already an ADU um unit there. There is the second floor which is the full unit. Then there's the first floor which is the AD unit. And the first the second floor
which is the primary unit has already been renovated. Um I imagine that um the applicant has gone through the town building permits and that unit was renovated and is completed. um work is being done on the ADU units. So,
>> but not legally. According to what I'm understanding, the building commissioner just ruled >> that we need to we need to approve what the building commissioner is saying because he's the one that holds the the the the rights to do whatever he does
with his property at this point. At this point, the any unit that's in there has sunseted because it well except for what's allowed by right, which is the single family home. The apartment there has is is not a legal apartment at this point.
And I think we have to go along with what the building commissioner is recommending. Otherwise, the man wouldn't be spending all his money to be here. >> Mr. Offeld noting in the in the bylaws in article 10
10.33 zoning bylaw uh that we are allowed as a special permit granting authority to modify special permits. And if a modification includes elimination of the special permit, it
that seems logical to me that I think we do have the authority to do this. So I I wouldn't argue with that. Um I just want to make sure that we're all um on the same page because if we vote to
for what's been asked. We're essentially saying the special permit that you had is gone and we cannot issue any conditions. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> And the building commissioner is the one who is also the zoning enforcement
officer and so he must know what he's doing. have a reason for what he's doing and I >> Okay. So, to that end, um Miss Meadows, do you have any comments? Mr. White,
I I see no no affirmative. Um Mr. Rangathan, I see your hand, but this is the public meeting. This is not where you get the opportunity to weigh in. This is where the board gets to weigh in. So, um, with the board's permission, um,
we we do have a light agenda. If the board is comfortable, we can have Mr. Rhaden say what he has to say, but I I don't necessarily think that, um, it's going to change much, but Mr. Hathan, I see affirmative responses. So,
um, I can give you two minutes. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to clarify a couple of things. Uh yes we have finished the renovation for the second floor but for the first floor we have not touched anything uh right mainly because we want to hear from the
uh ZBA about like which way to go with respect to the first floor right and so I was um asked to appear before the ZBA before we could kind of like do anything with the first floor uh so the first floor since we bought the house for now
the fourth or the fifth month running we haven't made any changes is to the first floor. >> Okay, thank you for that. Okay, are there any other comments from any members of the board?
Seeing that there are no comments, um and again this one is interesting in terms of findings. Um so um the staff has reviewed um the zoning bylaws and the majority of what
we usually um make a finding on are deemed not applicable. So with the board's permission I will articulate the ones that are not applicable and then have a vote on those and block. Um so we
can start with um section 7.1 um no new parking is I'm I'm sorry I I'm going to go with um the not applicables 7106
entrance and exit driveways staff has made a finding that this is not applicable um section 7.90 waiver waiverss. There's a finding that this is not applicable. Um section
10.382 10.383 10.385 10.387. Um staff make a finding recommends a finding that the proposal does not constitute a new sense nor is it hazard
of butters. Um it is not detrimental use. Um 10.384 recommend a finding of not applicable. Um 10.386 not applicable. 10.388
not applicable. 10.389 not applicable. 10.390 not applicable. 10.391 not applicable. 10.392 not applicable. 10.393
not applicable and 10.395 not applicable 10.396 not applicable 10.397 and not applicable and 10.398
um the proposal is in keeping in general purpose intent of the bylaw. So from my review there may be only one or three that's applicable. So, I'm going to go through the ones that I
that are listed as applicable. So, just bear with me. Um cuz there's more not applicable than there are applicable. Um 10.380 and 381. The proposal is suitably located in the neighborhood in which it
is proposed. Um 10.8 3828385 387. The proposal does not constitute any sense nor is it hazard to a butters. Um
10 387 recommend that the proposal to be safe and convenient for vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and in relation to adjacent streets and properties. and 10.3
bear with me one second and 10.398 the proposal is in keeping with the general purpose and intent of the bylaw. So um I would entertain a motion to vote and block on the findings that are not applicable and the ones that are
applicable. Um, and Miss Williams, apologies if I jumped around. I'm hoping that you you got track of all of those. Um, is there such a motion? >> Sure. It's all moved. >> It has been moved. Is there a second? >> Second.
>> Are there is there any discussion on the motion? With no discussion, um, the vote on the motion to make the required findings. Miss Greenbomb. >> I. >> Mr. Meadows. I
>> Mr. Offeld. >> I believe Mr. Offel said I. >> Yes. >> Yes. And Mr. White >> I. >> The chair votes I. Um the vote the vote is 50-0 on the
required findings given that this is a vacation of or a motion to vacate a special permit. Um the I I don't see how we can impose conditions on something that no longer exists. So I will also enterain a motion
to make a finding that given that we are terminating a special um permit that we cannot impose any conditions just for the record. Is there such a motion? >> So moved. >> Is there a second?
>> Second. >> It has been moved and second. The vote occurs. Mr. White. >> I >> starfeld. >> I >> Mr. Meadows. >> I >> Mr. Greenbomb. >> I
>> And the chair votes I. >> Mr. Ranhathan. um your special permit um has been well a request has been approved and the special permit um has been
terminated and that is ZBA 1997-22 um for your ADU unit. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Mr. Chair, >> Miss Miss Williams, >> just for the sake of um being overly
redundant, if you will, could we just vote to approve this particular special permit, which is the one before us? Yeah, I know it's silly, but just say it so that we have it on record, please. >> Nope, not silly at all. So, thank you,
Miss Williams. So, I will um entertain a motion to um one approve the special permit um which is for ZBA
2026-09. And with that same vote, I will um close actually let's do them separately. So I would entertain a motion to approve ZBA 2026-09. Is there such a motion?
>> Would you please explain what we're voting for? I don't understand what >> So the the request before us actually has a name and a title. So for the record, we are voting to approve the special permit. >> What's the special permit that we are
approving? Since we are here to remove a special permit, what are we approving right now? I'm confused. that special permit. I know it's very confusing. I agree. Yeah. So, we So, there is a there is a paper trail asking us to remove the
special permit and so so it was given a title and so we're voting on that title. So, the request is to approve the special permit before us tonight which is ZBA um FY2026-9
which is a special permit to vacate ZBA 1997-2. Oh, I don't think that's what we want to do. That's not We're not We're removing a special permit. We're not giving another one. >> We know that, Miss Green Bomb. But this
is why it is this is why it's confusing in the first place, right? If we didn't need to do this, we wouldn't have even been here with the applicant. But this is what we I was told that the applicant needed to do. This is what the applicant
was told that he needed to do. He needs apparently a special permit to extinguish a special permit. Does it make sense? Absolutely. >> No, absolutely makes no sense. >> I know. I know. But we do what we have to do to move
forward, right? And >> well, is this a special permit that gets recorded in the registry as a special permit that removes a special permit? >> Yes. Technically, yes. >> Yes. >> That's a new one on me. Fine. I'll I'll
make the motion if that's what you need to help. >> Yes, please. And thank you. So, is there such a motion to approve ZBA FY2026-9? >> Moved. >> And is there a second? >> I second.
It has been It has been moved and second. The vote occurs. Um, Mr. White, >> I. >> Mr. Meadows, >> hi. >> Mr. Green bomb. >> I'm not sure. All right. I >> Mr. Arel.
>> Hi. >> And the chair votes I. The vote is 50. Um ZBA FY2026-09 has been approved. I know this one was very different for us. So, thank you for working through it
with us. I will now entertain a motion to close um the public meeting and close the hearing for ZBA FY2026-09. Is there such a motion? >> So moved. >> Is there a second?
>> It has been moved and second. The vote occurs on the motion. Mr. Greenbomb, >> I. >> Mr. Meadows, >> I. >> Mr. White, >> I. >> Mr. Offeld. and the chair votes I. The public
hearing and meeting for ZBA FY2026-09 is closed. Thank you all for your patience and again Mr. Ron Havin. Thank you and good night and good luck. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you board members. Good night.
>> Our second item on the agenda tonight is Bear with me one second. Let me go back to ZBA FY2026 um-10 which is a special permit request to change the use from store or shop to a
contractor's yard. Um the zoning board of appeals previously granted 169 Meadow Street several special permits for an off-site medical marijuana dispensary and for a Christian marijuana retailer. The use classification at the time the first
special permit use permit was granted for the subject parcel was commercial warehouse industrial. In 2017 the use was reclassified to an office building. The use classification change once more in 2022 to its current use classification which is store shop. And
I do see a note um on here. Should the board choose to grant the special permits, the use classification would change again from a store shop to contractor's yard under section 3.391. Um by a way of submissions
um on January 16 submissions, we have the ZBA application for 169 Meta Street. We have a site plan. We have an existing survey survey. There is a proposed survey survey. There is a management
plan and there is also a signage proposal. On January 22nd, there was a waiver form submitted. On January 23rd, there was an updated signage proposal submitted. And on February 11th, um
there is a I'm sorry, Miss Williams, can you clarify what is 169 Meadow Street integrity proposed? What is this? >> It's the February 11th is the updated um proposal
that just tells us Wow, hold on. My mind went blank as well because I can't tell just looking at the name. Let me up. >> Yeah, >> one second. I tried to like get through that. I was like, "Nope, you're not going to get through that. You got to
look at it." Um, they updated, sorry, they updated the plan because what I had asked was for dimensions to be added to the plan for the driveway. So, driveway dimensions were added to that revised plan and that's what you're seeing in the February 11th submission.
>> Thank you. >> Um, so there was also a site visit that took place on Tuesday um as well. And again myself, Mr. Minnows, Mr. Offeld um were
present for this site visit. We were we weren't given access to the building because I believe the applicant does not have access to the building. But from the application and from our conversations at the site visit, um it seems relatively simple as to what's
being asked. Um there is nothing being with the exception of limited work with the sign and that porch. Nothing is being done or added to the exterior of the building or to the parking lot or to anything of that effect. Any changes
would be done primarily internally. And of course um that would go through the proper permitting channels um with the town. Um for the members of the panel that were there, did I miss anything? I do not see any affirmative responses.
So, Miss Williams, um, at this time, who's representing, um, 169 Meadow Street? I have Anna Cook and Heidi Flanders that I'll bring in and promote as panelists.
So, while we wait, just as a matter of disclosure, when I did get to the site visit, I was recognized by um one of our applicants, and that's because about 5 years ago, I had reached out to Integrity for a quote on um my home
renovation. So, as a matter of full disclosure, um for that. So, um Miss Cook and Miss Flanders, welcome. And just both, um state your name and addresses for the record.
>> Hi, I'm Heidi Flanders. Uh our business address is 110 Pulpit Hill Road in Amoris, Massachusetts. I reside at 112 Maple Street in Conway, Massachusetts. You're on me, Miss Cook. Sorry, >> that's okay.
>> Got it. Anna Cook, my business address is 110 Pulpit Hill Road in Ammeris, just like Heidi. Um, and my personal residence is 113 January Hills Road in Shootsberry. So either one of you or both. Can you just um tell the ZBA what it is that
you're asking? >> Sure. U so uh IDC LLC is we are both owners of uh as well as Integrity Development and Construction. Um and so we are seeking a special permit for the change of use for the property at 169 Meadow Street um from the current shop
retail store that it is to a um zoning by 3.371 contractor's yard. Uh if we were to be granted this special permit, we would then proceed ahead with the purchase of the property from the current owners.
Um, so at this time what we're trying to do is um purchase this property so that we can convert it to our professional offices. We've kind of outgrown the space that we're in um and looking to have a little more growth area there for ourselves. Um so what we would be having
there are offices for our our project management and design wing of our company. And then we would also be storing our tools and materials for our projects that are conducted offsite. So we don't do construction projects within the building. Um all all of our jobs are done on people's job sites, you know,
your homes and stuff like that. So um so what we are seeking to do is uh purchase the property and then install a new sign out front um for our company name. Uh the current sign is not large enough because our name is twice as long
as theirs. Um and so we are seeking um not only placement of a waiver for the placement of the sign. So the current sign um resides within the 20ft setback of the property. What is perceived as the boundary of the property uh when you
drive by is actually 30 more feet inside is actually where the property line is. Um so what we are seeking the waiver on is to place the new sign at the exact location where the current sign is. Uh no closer to the road on the south side of the property. Um our sign however
will be about 2 2 and 1/2 ft longer. uh that would be into the property towards the north edge or towards the building. Um so the waiver would be for us to be able to place the sign within the setback. Um we did send a revised proposal of the sign from the original
one that we proposed um so that we are under the uh 60 square foot um sign requirement. So we don't need a waiver on the sign of the size of the sign itself. Um, this new sign would be illuminated from inside um and would not
have the kind of spotlights that the current sign has onto it. Um, so less disruptive there. Um, we are also seeking to install a new um permeable patio pa area on the south side of the
property which is the side uh of Meadow Street. Um this would be to have an employee area for our staff to have a break area outside. Um we would be um placing a fence uh like a cedar stockade fence on the east and south sides of
that uh patio area um off of the new egress door that we would be installing um for our occupancy there. Um, we an update that I'm not sure if you were made aware of, but we did go to conservation commission last night and
did get approval from them um on the patio pavers, the fence, and the sign. Um, so that should be coming through soon. So, that's an update from when we saw you at the site. Um, let's see what else is there.
The other renovations that we're doing to the building are windows and doors. Um and then interior renovations. So not much that would be under the ZBA's perview. We're not changing the footprint of the building in any shape or form. Uh the parking lot that consists there um has an abundance of
parking. I think it's 33 total spaces. Um per the zoning bylaws, we are we need a total of 22. Uh so plenty of capacity there. Um it has four handicap spots currently, which we need two of bylaw. Um, and then that leaves plenty of extra
parking because we do it is about a 6,500 foot building that we intend to use about 30 uh yeah 5,300 ft² of and we hope to have about a 1,200 foot rental component. Um, so the parking would be additional so we'd have the additional
parking for a future rental. Um, we don't plan to make any modifications to the rental uh the parking at all other than to take down the signs that say patient parking because we don't have any patients. So, we want to get rid of those. Um, and
then the um trash enclosure would still remain. that's on the west side of the uh parking lot that contains the dumpster location which we would have um and the propane tank behind it and and the screening that goes along with that would remain uh which is a bunch of I
think arboritees or something um let's see what else did I miss um we plan to u mow ourselves or hire or contract it out um so maintenance of the property would fall under our purview
you um as well as plowing and sanding and anything like that that needs to happen for the driveway maintenance. Um so we would be the contact there. And then um as far as lighting goes, uh there currently are a whole bunch of um
light poles around the parking lot and the driveway in which are indicated on the survey that you have. And there are a bunch of downcast lights at all of the exterior egress doors at this time. and we would add one additional one at the new egress store per building code.
Um yeah, so that that's the gist questions. I do not have any questions. I think you actually answered the only question I had and that was the Kong question, but you did answer that. So, thank you for that. Yep. >> Um, are there any members of the board
who have any questions for Miss Landers or Miss Cook? >> Miss Greenbomb? >> No, I'm I'm confused about the 12 by 20 foot fence around the patio. And um, are
you saying that it's 12t high or or or is that the area? The >> That's the area. Yes. And >> so it's it's going to come out 12 12 and a half feet from the building, be 24 feet wide, and the fence will be I think six feet high. So >> Okay, that's what I want to know. I
thought I was y I was interpreting it as 12 feet high and so I'm checking the bylaw. >> Yeah. No, no, six feet. Yeah, it's going to mimic the fence that's currently there around the um trash enclosure. So,
>> thank you. Yep. And just to give you one more update from the conservation that I forgot to add in was that uh we were made aware from Aaron Jackson at conservation about the previous judgment on I want want to say January 30th maybe about the storm water management system. Um there's
storm drains that run through the property that have to be maintained. um and the previous owner didn't maybe didn't follow that the way they should have, but uh Aaron has brought us up to speed on what is there and what is required and we are fully aware that that will be something we will be taking
on. >> Thank you, Mr. White. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh I was actually in the process of putting my hand down. Miss Flanders, I want to give you a compliment. Uh that is probably the most thorough explanation I've seen in a while that didn't involve a
PowerPoint. Thank you on both counts. So both questions answered. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> If there are no further questions from the panel or if the applicants have nothing else to add at this time, I will take comments from the public. Um, Mr.
Williams, do we have any members of the public who wish to comment on this application? >> No, Mr. Chair, we do not have any members of the public wishing to comment. Thank you for that. Um, with no comments or additional questions from members of
the panel or the public, I would entertain a motion to move to the public meeting while keeping the public hearing so we can discuss the merits of the application. Um, is there such a motion? >> So move. >> It has been moved and second. Um, is
there any discussion on the motion? With no discussion, the vote occurs. Miss Greenbomb. I >> Mr. Meadows >> I >> Mr. White >> I >> Mr. Offeld
>> and the chair votes I. We are now in the float is 50 to move to the public meeting while keeping the public um hearing open. Just for the record, Miss Cook and Miss Fanders, this is not an opportunity for you to add or ask questions. It's a chance for the board
to deliberate. If no one wants to start, I can start. Um my initial response is we went there as you heard from Mr. White even in this presentation. It was very clear, thought, straightforward. Um one of the less complicated ones that we've had
before us. What's been asked is very simple. I do not see any red flags. There were no comments from the public either tonight or prior in the submissions. Um there was I didn't see anything um from appropriate town
departments um except for concom which um from Miss Fender's representation tonight has been satisfied. So I I don't see I have no issues with supporting this request and I'll let other members
of the panel weigh in. I I'm if I may, I'm only surprised that Miss Greenbar has not commented about the mural since she had numerous comments about it when it was originally going up and pro proposed. >> That's not my favorite thing, but you
know what? I've accommodated myself. I don't see them anymore, but it's that's their taste. The more they can keep them on a lot of it be may be covered by the fence, too. Who know? Um, I think it's wonderful to see this
property really in use again. It used to be known as the auction barn, but I guess I'm dating myself that way, but I spent many wonderful days, Saturdays particularly in the olden days, uh, at the auctions.
You wouldn't remember the name of Bill Hub. That's before your time, but all of his own um collections were auctioned off by Skinner in Boston. And I got some of those things, too. Actually, some that
even belonged in my house. But I I think that's wonderful to see the building being used because I every time I drive by, I don't see any cars there. I don't think that the town found marijuana to be the big e economic
driver that they anticipated it was going to be. So I I wish you all good luck and I hope that you do well there. >> Mr. Offel, I think I saw your hand. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Um, I'll just point out that we learned on the site visit that the
murals the mural will be painted over by the applicants. Um although that's not an issue before us of course but >> just to point of fact I just also note there's a request for a waiver on the uh
sign and we did look in the site visit we looked at the existing sign and uh the and imagined the new sign which is slightly taller and and a little wider towards the building. Um and it it it's
fine. It's it's it's quite appropriate location uh for it. It's just a peculiarity of the road width at that point is wider than normal or typical. Uh so that there needs to be a u a
waiver granted to allow the sign to be closer to the uh to to I guess set aside the setback from the property line uh so it can be seen from the road appropriately. So, I want to make sure to include that in the
final decision, but I also agree that this is this is a great new use for the building. >> Thank you, Mr. Offeld. >> Mr. White. >> Uh, yeah, my uh kind of only question or concern around this was going to involve
the waiver with the sign. Uh, but I think any issues I've had have been addressed on that. So, yeah, I think it's going to be a great use. >> And Mr. Mr. Meadows last word. >> I I have no further comment. Thank you.
>> Thank you all. Um so with no further comments from the panel, next we have to make findings and there are specific findings that we need to make under section 10.38 and we will go through these one by one and where a
finding is not applicable with the permission of the board. I will skip those. Um, seeing that there is no further discussion, um, I would like to go through the findings and Miss Cook and Miss Flanders, this is
going to be the longest part of your night, so bear with us. Um, yeah. and going off the project application report and we're going to bear with me. Okay. Section 10.38
specific findings are required. Um the proposed that we make a finding that's 10.380 10.381. The proposal is suitably located and is compatible with existing uses and other uses permitted by rights in the same
district. Um 10.3828385 and 387 proposed that we make a finding that the proposal does not constitute a nuisance nor is it hazardous to a butters. 10.384
proposed to make a finding that the applicant has provided adequate and appropriate facilities that are in keeping with the proposed change of use. Um 10.386 make a finding that the proposal is in keeping with this finding. 10.387
proposal make a finding that the proposal will does not adversely impact lo local traffic patterns. Um 10.388. Should a delivery service vehicle choose to utilize the driveway, there appears
to be ample space for said vehicle to enter and exit the property without issue. Um just from our site visit there was a one way in and one way out um sign um 10.389 make recommend we make a finding that the existing trash and recycling
enclosure and screening will remain at the rear of the property week of pickups will be by USA recycling or equivalent um 10.390 the applicant confirmed that they were in communication with the conservation commission to ensure that the proposal
is in compliance with our requirements and regulations and I believe the applicant tonight represented that they have the approval from the conservation commission. Um 10 391 again the applicant has been in
communication with the conservation commission and has the requisite approvals. Um 10.392 the applicant states that the existing landscape will remain maintenance will be either um by themselves or contracted. Um, applicants adds that
they plan on making the following improvements at a flower bed beneath the new sign that will be maintained by Integrity. Add a new 24x12 paper patio at the new egress door on the southside per plan attached for employee use and
two new wood fences, two new wood fence sections on east and south sides per plan. Um 10.393 the applicant states that the existing light poles with downcast lights will remain. Existing downcast lights at all
doors are also scheduled to remain. applicant does propose adding adding one downcast light on a wall at a new eager store as shown in the plan that was submitted um on January 15, 2026 um
titled 169 Meta Street Plan 24 by 36 um of that same date 10.394. The proposal is found with the conservation commission resource area. The applicant has worked with the commission to address permanent requirements and confirm that the
project will not adversely affect the quality or quantity of the water um in the LSP. I'd like to make a finding that 10.395 is not applicable. Um 10.396 the trash and recycling receptacles are
located on the west side of the property adjacent to the parking lot. A wooden stockate fence will screen the receptacles and there was documentation submitted um showing that C 2026 um
016169 Mist Street proposed survey like to make a finding that 10.397 is not applicable and 10.398 make a finding that the proposal is in keeping with the general purpose and
intent of this bylaw. So, there were three non-applicables. And so, with the board's permission, I'd like to vote in block on these findings. Um, is there a motion to um adopt these findings? >> Mr. Chair, really quickly.
>> Go ahead. Did we skip over and correct me if I'm wrong because I know we were kind of flying through them under 10.382 through 10.387 the second and third. Did we get those? >> I believe we did, but just for the
record, um I can do them again just to make sure. Um so 10.382 8385 and 87. Um make a finding that. >> Go ahead. second specifically the second one that says protecting against
detrimental or offensive uses including air and water pollution. I'm I can put in there if my I can make the suggestion that since they already went to Concom and they were approved, I can just make the note that they were approved. But how would you like to handle that? Because I'm not sure we read that.
>> I can just go >> it. We can just um recommend we make a finding that the applicant um has met with the has met with the conservation commission and has approval um all the
proper or rather requisite approvals for this project. They are in compliance with all requirements and regulations. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any discussions on the findings?
With no discussion, I I I'm seeing Miss Williams' screen. So, if anyone has their hand up, um just vocalize cuz I can only see her screen. So if there are no discussion on the findings, I would entertain a motion that we approve the
findings. Is there such a motion? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion has been moved and second. Is there any discussion? With no discussion, the vote on the motion. Mr. White. I.
>> Mr. Offeld. I. >> Miss Greenbomb. >> Abstain. because I think we should do the conditions before we approve this just to be sure that we've covered everything. And I and and tradition is that we
usually do the conditions before they do the findings because they're supposed to reflect the conditions. So I'm obtaining >> Mr. Meadows. >> Hi. >> And the chair votes I. The vote is um
40. The conditions have been approved. Um now we will review um any conditions. I'm sorry. The findings have been approved. Now we'll review any special conditions for the special permit.
Has anyone has everyone had a chance to review the proposed conditions of approval? Are there any that people want to um modify or make any additions? I believe Miss Greenbomb's hand is raised
>> somewhere in there. It should say, and I don't have it in front of me. I didn't print it out to write it down, but somewhere it should say that the um everything that has to do with the the
conservation commission should apply also to any future rules or regulations or changes um in in uh land use conservation of what I I can't
think of. I had it I I sent it to um to to just she may be able to read it out for me because I'm not I'm not pulling it together carefully. But but what I want to say is that land is land that has flooded and flooded seriously
with in this century and that rules may change in the future and that the um conditions should should say not only the current regulations and and and
uh conditions that Hong Kong has placed on it but any that may change in the future. with changing environment somewhere that should be in there that it's not just now but in the future they they need to comply with whatever rules
changes there may be in the water management you know what I'm trying to say >> Miss Williams do you have the proposed language from Miss Greenbomb >> I sent it to mean email when I read it
>> I'm checking email and phone right now because I didn't see it in email. Um, one moment. One second, guys. Uh, Miss Green Bomb, I don't see it. Can you send it?
>> Oh, hold on. >> Okay, wait. Hold on. I think I found it. Um, it says, "I'm only thinking that we might want to add words to the effect of or to ensure compliance with any unanticipated future concom directives
and/or conditions due to climate change, for example, as the site has flooded or has been flooded in past storms." Um, you don't have to flooding in there, but I mean the the rest of it. >> Can you can you throw in a bullet um in
the condition so we can see it on screen so we can see what it reads like? >> Sure. I can work on something while you deliberate the rest. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> So, I will go through the prop. Go ahead, >> Mr. Chair. I have a question. >> Mr. Offel.
>> Yes. Do we have to explicitly uh approve the change of use? >> Yes. >> I I don't think that we've done that yet. >> Is that or is that implied by the >> I thought granting the special perm would grant the changes
>> would imply. Okay. Okay. That's fine. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. If anyone has any other comments, be mindful. I'm only seeing Miss Williams's screen, so feel free to vocalize. >> I'm going to stop sharing for the
moment. One second. >> That's okay. So, I will go through the current proposed conditions starting with condition one. The project shall be built, maintained, and managed according to the approved plans and application package. And with permission, um I will
skip the approved plans that were included. Um they're listed there. Sheet A2, A4, A6. Um the proposed survey and the revised proposal that includes a driveway measurements. Um any changes
shall be reviewed by the building commissioner to determine if the changes are significant enough to require a formal modification of the permit and or condition. If deemed significant, submission to the ZBA um is necessary. as built. Um, plans should be provided
to the building and inspections prior to final inspections and prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy. All exterior site improvements including the driveway, parking area, striping, curbing, lighting, dumpster enclosure,
storm water drain systems, landscaping and planting shall be constructed or installed substantially in accordance with the approved asbuilt site plans and associated details prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy and shall thereafter be maintained in good
working order in accordance with operations and maintenance plan and article 7 of the zoning bylaw. All lighting shall be installed substantially in accordance with approved lighting plan. It shall be downcast and she lives till as prevent light spillage onto adjacent properties
or roadways. After hours lighting shall be turned off except as operated by motion sensors. Parking shall be condition five. Parking shall be provided and managed in accordance with the approved plans and management plan. Any significant
increase in vehicular traffic resulting in insufficient parking as determined by the building commissioner shall be addressed by the applicant with changes to the parking area and or management plan for review and approval by the zoning board of appeals. Um, Miss
Williams, there is the word determined in number five may need to be fixed a little bit. >> Yes, I see it. Thank you. >> Condition number six, the you shall be operated in conformance with the
approved management plan. An approved management plan shall be in place at all times. Any changes in the management plan shall require the review and approval of the zoning board of appeals at a public meeting. Condition number seven, all landscape plantings associated with the parking
area shall be installed in accordance with the approved landscape plan and once installed shall be cared for and continually maintained and replaced inclined as needed. All disturbed areas shall be loomed and seated unless otherwise specified.
And the granting of this special permits will nullify all previously granted special permits. And do you have wording yet on Miss Greenbomb's proposed condition? conservation commission.
>> Thank you. >> You can say now and in the future. >> I want to try to word it in such a way that it captures their approval. Hm. Um,
>> Miss Greenbop, isn't it your intent to make sure that whether it is Integrity or anyone else moving forward has to comply with the Conservation Commission's recommendations and approval >> now? And if there are changes which are
possible due to changing climate in the future that it that it continues to comply not with today's rules but any that may change in the future. >> Okay. So how about this? because I recognize we don't have
so first of all I don't int see I don't foresee this happening but um should uh >> couldn't you couldn't you just put in there what I wrote any unanticip now now
any unanticipated changes in the future >> I know but but one second if if you with me. What I'm trying to do is in the event of change of ownership. Um,
>> no change of the No, I want the wording sounded like you were only making them abide by the current approvals except that laws may change. >> Okay. >> Especially with regard to the
environment and that is a very floodprone area. I I understand >> this this continues to be a condition even when changes happen to the rules and regulations. That's what I'm trying
to say. Not just today, but in the future also. >> Okay. >> I I don't necessarily I don't necessarily think I agree with that. Um we're we're creating an undue burden on them. I mean, if the law changes, then
there's compliance with the law. It is the town's responsibility to make sure that our bylaws are updated to reflect that. It shouldn't be on um integrity to do that. I I understand what you're asking, but I I think we're
creating an undue burden on them with that condition. I think that this if this permit goes with the land in perpetuity,
then it has to make room for things to change in the future. >> But we have a condition >> bylaw. Special permits go with the land, not with an owner, unless there is a condition on the permit. That it that
they come back with a management plan or that the permit uh ends with with the change of ownership. But we're not assuming that the ownership is going to change when we write this, whether it does or it doesn't.
The so >> the the the plants need to comply with what what what is today and whatever the law may be in the future. If they come in with changes, then this would
have to be amended or whatever. >> I I think you said >> I I put the words in there in the event of or >> Okay, one moment. One moment. >> I think you said something. I don't want them to be locked into having to obey
these permits 200 years from now or 50 years from now because the the case with the climate is it could change in two years. And then the what you're requiring them to do now
may not be what's appropriate 5 years from now or 10 years from now. and they should com be complying with the conservation commission permits for whatever whatever time may
be in the future. This may be irrelevant in 5 years and the Hong Kong may change it and and the one that they change it to should be what's relevant but it's going to be in conflict with what's in here. That's what I'm trying to say.
and and >> we have to allow for the law to change and they still have to comply with it. Not with this, but whatever new thing that Hong Kong may require of them. >> Okay. I Mr. Greenbomb, I need to be allowed to speak now. I I I disagree. Um
the when when it's when a person comes before us in a special permit, we are approving a special permit based on current bylaws and authority that we have. That is what the special permit
should be. Not anticipating what may happen in 5 years. If that is the case, then we'd be in a very difficult situation. So, you said something earlier that I'm inclined to agree with, which is if there's a change of ownership, they have to come back and get a different special permit. But to
add to your condition, I'm not in support of that. >> Well, this is going to be in conflict with the conservation commission. If climate changes in 5 years and the conservation commission rules differently, it has to comply with whatever they say whenever the time is,
not necessarily just today. I >> can I just add something to that? >> I'm sorry, Miss Flenders. Um, this is the public meeting. >> Oh, okay. Um, >> she may have something to say that's very useful and I would like to hear it.
>> You Mr. Chair, go ahead, Mr. Alfeld. Um, I think I understand Miss Miss Greenbound's point, but we could have changes in uh building codes that would be relevant to the the applicants to the
property 10 or 20 or 50 years from now. We we are we we don't want to lock in any conditions here that might be overridden by some other body. And if that's the concern, we should remove those. But I don't think we can anticipate
I don't think we can write a condition that requires that they obey the law, obey the regulations in the future because we there are other bodies that will enforce those uh regulations. So I'm not sure that that's our job.
>> That that makes sense. >> It is and that's a good point and good example. I mean imagine are you saying that if we grant this permit in in two years there's a bylaw that says oh your building is too short. they have to knock their building down or build up on it. I I I don't think um again
appreciating what you're saying, but I think what you're asking exceeds what our authority does and it's creating an it would create an undue burden on the applicant and that should not be the case. >> Can I make a comment about that? When you're talking about things like
building codes, we have things called grandfathering. I don't know that there's such a thing as grandfathering in conservation and and climate regulations. >> I don't know about that.
>> Well, my recommendation would be then if Concom has concerns about the future, then when they do their approvals, they should make those stipulations in concom. then maybe we shouldn't put a date in the in the thing and that they just
comply with everything that the Cong requires them to do. >> Miss, >> that would cover that one. If they're all that they remain in compliance with Concom directives. How's that? >> M Mr. Meadows has his hand raised. I I'm
I I'm I agree with Mr. Offeld. I'm not certain that that this is the right place to do this what Mr. Greenbomb is suggesting. I I think it's up to the concom
um for whomever is coming in front of them. And I I don't think that it's uh it's appropriate for us to be doing that. >> Thank you, Mr. Meadows. So,
>> I'm comfortable with number nine because we've done that before for other um petitions. If there's a change of ownership, the new owners have to come back before us. And that's and that was your suggestion, Miss Green Bomb. But the
other one that requires so much I I'm agreeing with Mr. Offeld, Mr. Meadows, and from Mr. White's not enough head that we shouldn't impose number 10. >> Should we just leave that leave out
number 10 or just leave out the date? >> I'd be happy if you leave out the date. Okay, hold on. Let's just look at this. >> Should stop there of of just take out approval
that the applicant shall appear to and remain in compliance with all requirements of the con conservation commission and period. And I'm happy with that. Leave that the next sentence. Okay,
>> that covers my tail. cuz it's not time limit though. I'm I'm still I'm still not comfortable with that. >> It's it's it's just it's just a shortened version of everything you said. They already
went before a concom. They already got the approval from concom. That should be it. >> Then leave leave it out then. Don't even put in 10. >> So, Miss Williams, we leave it at nine and take out 10. >> I'm happy with that, too. I just didn't
want to tie him into something they decided last night which may be irrelevant in the future. >> Okay. So then I think what you're seeing is if you will permit me just one moment there was something in the conditions I
will take the well no because it says applicants petition was approved by the conservation commission on February >> that's fine that's a finding that's not a condition >> okay then we're okay there
and just um for the record Mr. share the conservation agent did say that the asbuilt plan should be stamped. So I've put in the word stamped in the condition two and in condition three. >> That's fine.
>> Okay. >> So we have nine conditions. Can you >> Yes. I will I will try to present them again for you. >> Hopefully they're legible if I make the screen smaller, but I don't know. you won't be able to see all nine and then
they'll just be too difficult to read. So I'm >> That's okay. But um with the exception of number two and number three, the only changes was we added number nine. Yes, >> that is correct. Yes.
>> Okay. So um thank you everyone for that. So seeing are there any discussions on the now existing conditions? With no discussions, I would entertain a motion that we approve the conditions 1
through nine as amended. Is there such a motion? >> Moved. >> Second. >> It has been moved and second. Um, is is there any discussion? With no discussion, the vote occurs on
the motion. Mr. Meadows, >> I. >> Mr. Greenbomb, >> I. >> Mr. White, >> I. >> Mr. Offeld, >> I. >> And the chair votes I. The vote is 5-0.
The conditions are approved. Now we'll come to the motion to approve um ZBA FY2026-10. Um do I have such a motion? >> Can you read the the reading of what
we're approving so that we know that it includes everything that Mr. Alfeld mentioned? >> Yes, we are approving. Bear with me. Let me go back to the project application on my screen. We are approving ZBA FY2026-10
in essence um approving the change of fees of the property from a store shop to a contractor's yard with the approved findings that were previously accepted and the conditions that were previously approved. I think we need to
amend what you just said by that we also approved the setback the waiver of the setback and the size of the did we decide the size of the sign was okay but we do have to approve the waiver of the setback.
>> So we can we can do so too. Um, okay. >> What else was there? There was there another I think. Is that everything now or did did we have to approve the size of the sign? Did you finally say in the end of No, that's the square footage.
>> Yes. >> Have we have we covered everything that that they were asking? I'm asking. >> So, it's just a setback in the sign. You're correct. Yeah. >> Wait. Here it is on the nature of the request. No, that's not it.
>> So, Miss Williams, do we have the size of the sign? >> Size of the sign. Hold on one moment. >> I think she said that that that now complied. At one point it didn't. We can just say it approved that we did
approve the sign and we approved the location of the sign. >> Okay. >> And the change of use. Now, is that everything? >> Yes. The change of use, the setback, and the size of the sign. So, I would entertain a motion to
approve the change of use, the setback, and the size of the sign. Is there such a motion? >> Second. It has been moved and second. The vote occurs on the motion. Mr. Greenbomb >> I.
>> Mr. Meadows. >> I. >> Mr. White. >> I. >> Mr. Afeld. >> I. >> And the chair votes I. The modifications have been approved, the setback, the size of the sign, and the change of use.
I will now entertain a motion to approve overall um ZBA FY2026-10 approval of the special permits to include the waiverss, modifications, the findings and the conditions. Is there
such a motion? >> Second. >> It has been moved and second. Is there any discussion? With no discussion, the vote occurs. Mr. Offeld >> I. >> Mr. White
>> I. >> Mr. Meadows >> I. >> Mr. Greenbomb >> I. >> And the chair votes I. The motion has been moved and the the vote is 50. The motion passes and the
special permit is granted. Congratulations. um integrity. Um as you heard from Mr. Green Bomb, there is excitement that there is life in that area. So um best of luck um with your new space. Hopefully you guys can close on the sale
relatively soon. >> Thank you. >> Thank you so much everyone for your time. We really appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. I would now enter in a motion to close the public hearing
and the public meeting for ZBA FY2026-10. Is there such a motion? >> So moved. >> Second. >> It has been moved and second. Is there any discussion? With no discussion, the vote. Miss
Greenbomb. I. >> Mr. Meadows. I >> Mr. Offeld >> I >> Mr. White >> I >> and the chair votes I. The public hearing and meeting for ZBA FY2026-10
is closed. Again, Miss Flanders and Miss Cook, good luck and thank you for being here. >> Thank you. We will now have a general public comment period for any comments on
business not before the ZBA tonight. Um I do not believe we have anyone, but Miss Williams, I'll just have you confirm. >> No, we do not have any members of the um public wishing to comment. So, with no members of the public, we
can look at other business not anticipated within um the last 48 hours. And I I do have um a couple things. So, I I I want to start with something that Miss Greenbomb said. You abstained from
voting on the findings because your history with the ZBA, it has always been conditions before findings. Um, you said this previously in the last meeting that you were on and just to make sure I wasn't doing something incorrectly, I
reached out to town council and there is no requirement that I do conditions before findings or I do findings before conditions. The reason I do um findings before conditions because they train the
lawyer in me. The findings are the regulations that we have to say that this thing meets the required standard under the bylaws. So in my mind that makes sense first. If it doesn't meet there's
no point for conditions. And so after we make a finding that okay we have the authority it meets we can grant then we can talk about um conditions. So as a matter of point just for your benefit I wanted to reach out to council they
concur with me um that I can do it in whatever order but just as a courtesy I do it findings then conditions and that is how I intend to do it. You may intend to do it that way, but in
the past whenever we have done findings, we can make the finding because we have put a certain condition on the permit. That that's the way it has been done for the last 50 years. You can do it your way, but your but that does not give the
finetuning that a permit may need to have if it is appealed. But you can say it's not going to be a nuisance to the to the uh neighborhood because we have such and such a condition that noise complaints are
going to be handled by such such such or whatever. You're just making generic answers to the 10.38 rather than giving legal answers that would stand up in a court on appeal. And this is the way we've been taught by
the many years of the state teaching programs in Wor that I have gone to about how to write a decision. That's what I'm reflecting that you have a different way of doing it. Fine. When I'm chair, I do it my way. When you're
chair, you do it your way. So that I guess that's the way it's going to be. And luckily, you haven't been appealed, but I've been appealed several times. I never had to go to court because the lawyers handle it. But when you're on appeal, you got to have a case. And I
don't think that generic answers to 10.38 cover it. You know, sometimes if you're talking about traffic, there is a traffic report which you can say in the findings the traffic
report showed such such and such or whatever. So, I'm I'm just saying that there were ways we always did it and you changed it and I got very confused. >> Well, thank you for that feedback. Um,
the other order of I'm sorry, Mr. White. >> Oh, go ahead, Mr. Chair. I'll give my comments after you're done. I appreciate it, though. >> So, and and Mr. Bomb, you weren't here in the last meeting, but um let's see.
>> I was there except I'm sorry. >> I sat through the whole meeting last time. >> Okay, good. So >> I could I was there. I could have served. You could have had five people. >> Okay. >> But but you just said you don't find that's legal and I'm I'm very offended
by that. Thank you. And this is on tape and it's on the record that I was offended by that comment. that you have to go find out if it's legal to let somebody who's sitting in the audience in the Zoom room who's observing to serve on a panel when
you only have four people that it's I don't want to go into further what what implications that has, but it's offensive given I'm the only one from North Ammeris and the only woman on the panel. Your statement was offensive.
>> Okay. So my point was with the petition that was before us last week, um there were some questions that I had asked Miss Williams to reach out to town council on and the primary one
was >> um can we transfer a special permit um based on what they were asking? Um the feedback is yes if we as a board make um findings.
Um the key one is that if substantial construction has started and M Williams keep me honest. I'm not looking at my email. If if we make a finding that substantial construction has started, then yes, we can, but we would have to
make that finding collectively as a board. Um, and and that may warrant us to do a site visit to make a determination for ourselves as to what we determine to be substantial construction. Is that right, Miss Miss
Williams? >> Yes, that is correct. So, so the answer, >> but that is that in writing the finding that why you thought that was illegal last week, is that in writing somewhere?
>> I'm sorry. What is their question? >> Is the opinion from from K in writing? May I see it? >> I haven't shared it with everyone yet. So, but yes, I spoke to KP Law this morning and I received a written
explanation yesterday from KP Law walking me through their thought process as to why they believe the board has the ability um to transfer a special permit. They cited specifically >> Oh, well that that that agrees with what
I thought. >> Okay. that that that it was legal for you to act last week, which you didn't do. >> I was confused by by you thought it was illegal. >> I think we're talking about two
different things, Miss M. Greenbomb. Um so, if you can just for the benefit of the board, if you can just allow Miss Williams to read um the attorney's response, I think that'll be helpful for the entire board.
So, Miss Williams, you can continue. >> Okay. One moment. Okay. So, where I'm just going to pick a part apart and you know where it makes sense to start reading. Um, as explained in detail below, it is my opinion that the
special permit may be transferred to a new entity so long as substantial construction of the project has begun or if substantial construction has not begun after a public hearing and approval by the ZBA. By way of
background, you provided a copy of special permit ZBA FY202601. This was the permit that was issued back in August of last year um to LSC Fornax LLC for a battery energy storage system.
And this special permit had two conditions uh one modified to two prior special permit decisions uh 2018-9 and then 2020-01. None of the special permit decisions
contain a provision explicitly prohibiting a transfer of the permit. Although ZBA 2026-01 conditions of approval number one states any changes to the proposal regarding but not limited to size, location,
equipment upgrades, wetlands, and environmental impacts requires a special permit. Section 3.340.0 0 contains no provisions relative to transfer of special permits for this
use. However, article 10 of the town's zoning bylaws provide the following regarding the transfer of a special permit. This is 10.34. transfer where a special permit involving the construction of buildings
has not been implemented by substantial construction. Said permit shall not pass to future owners of the property without a public hearing and approval by the special permit granting authority.
Um, attorney Murray goes on to say, "The zoning bylaw does not define building or structure, but in my opinion, the above provision would be applicable to a solar array and BES. It is not clear from the information provided whether substantial
construction of the solar array and/or BS has begun. In their January 29th, 2026 letter to the ZBA, Loadar Energy advises that they are in compliance with all conditions associated with the above
permits and that construction of the BES is slated to begin in or around the second quarter of 2026. If the solar panels have been installed and the best is a related component of the solar energy system, then the ZBA
could find that substantial construction has begun such that the special permit could be transferred. If the ZBA finds that substantial construction has not begun, then the special permit could be transferred to the new entity as a
modification or amendment under section 10.33 of the zoning bylaw following a public hearing and approval by the ZBA. >> Thank you, Miss Williams. >> So, I I don't know about I I hear what
you're saying, Mr. green bomb. But I think that clarification was very helpful and and needed because again the takeaway is we would have to have a public hearing and make a finding um before we could say yes. And the finding
>> I would I would agree with that but I didn't I didn't know about this sub that the argument then was whether the the solar farm cons is considered the same permit as the best. That's the and the solar farm is functioning. So So that
that I'm glad you explained that because um it was very confusing. >> I will just forward this to everyone so that everyone has it. >> I can't hear you. >> I will forward this to everyone so that everyone has it and can reread it.
>> Thank you. Yes. Yes. It's complicated. Yes. >> And this will be helpful because David is on the that panel and he's not here tonight. So yes, please. Thank you. So um so the question is do we we would need to make a finding
that either one substantial construction has started or hasn't started and I think um the way we do that is a site visit and so I think um Miss Williams can um coordinate with LSC foreign acts to make
that happen. Um but if we understood from what they said in the last meeting was that it was slated to to um to start in second quarter of 2026 if I'm remembering or hearing that correctly
before we can actually say yes to what they ask us to do. We'd have to make that finding to say significant construction has started or has not started. So, um, more to come from Williams if and when we are going to go out there.
Um, but I don't think they're back before us. So, we do have some time. I imagine they're covered in snow right now anyway. Um, to go out there. Um, but we can talk about um if if an 111
gets scheduled um I'm h and I'm available. I'm happy to go out there and see and have them let us know if this is if the construction has actually started and then we can actually have the the correct information to say to make a up
or down vote on their ask. Okay. Um, as this customary, um, Miss Williams, >> Mr. Chair, >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Sorry. I'm sorry to interrupt you. Uh, I
was gonna say before we kind of do the calendar review, um, can I make a request? >> Yes. >> Um, so I'm sure we're all experiencing this, but over Zoom when we have multiple people speaking, it's very confusing. Zoom doesn't know who to put
on the microphone and we all end up missing out on what anyone is trying to say. Uh obviously this is the chair's prerogative, but I would ask that we go back to the formal model of we don't speak until we're acknowledged unless obviously we've had our hand up for a
substantial amount of time and we're moving forward. Uh but I I would appreciate that. It would greatly benefit and help me. >> I am very comfortable with that. I I think um to have the meeting run smoothly and to your point to make sure
um that everything is being captured properly um as well as Miss Williams has to do the meeting minutes. So I think that would also help her as well um if there is a clear order um as to who's speaking for documentation purposes. So, yes, I I
I do support that. I think the only time that um as you saw tonight that I may not be able to see someone's hand raised is when Miss Williams is sharing her screen and so um but as you said, people can, as I said,
people can be vocal. Um cuz I advise that I couldn't see um your hands at that time. But yes, I would strongly support You're frozen. >> You're back. >> Yeah, we lost you for a second. >> I'm sorry. No, I said thank you for that
suggestion and yes, I think we should adopt that moving forward. >> Okay. Um, Miss Williams. >> Sure. Let me uh just share my screen. One moment. Okay. So, we just concluded tonight's
hearings. Everything was approved. Um, we do not have any petitions for March 12th. So, I would suggest perhaps we cancel that meeting. Um, or we could use
that day as a possible site visit day. That should hopefully give the weather some time to I don't know. I don't want to say calm down, but >> maybe it'll give the snow enough time to melt. I don't know. But either way, we
don't have any petitions on the 12th, so it doesn't make sense for everyone to meet. Um, unless again anyone wants to have like an administrative meeting, but that's completely up to all of you. And then on the 26th, we have a very full
house. Pulpit Hill is scheduled to come back. So, I will work with them to coordinate the site visit prior to this date and um we can go from there. I think probably you would probably want to just do another public meeting with
them to discuss whether or not we think substantial construction has actually occurred. >> I think that is what we continued it for to a date certain was another public meeting. >> Okay. So that's what that will be. And then you have Tilted Orbit coming before
the board that evening. That's 113 Kohl's Road. It's a sort of revisioning of what was formerly the Atkins Market and it's going to be an indoor pinball machine arcade with bar.
Um, I will be putting the project application together for that over the next week and you should be seeing that sooner rather than later. And then Fort River Solar is coming back before the board to seek an extension for the work
that has yet to be completed. The extension request was triggered because building and inspections went out to do an inspection and because they're not where they need to be, they have to first seek an extension of their special
permit in order to continue. Um but again I will provide a project application report going into detail about this as well. So that is where we are at the moment. We don't have anything for April, but that could very well change um in the next couple of
weeks. >> And and before we I asked us to vote on the March 12 um no one can we're we're outside the dates plan for any submissions. Right. >> For a for April, no. But for
>> I'm sorry. For March for March for March 12th. Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. That makes it easy. Um, so thank you again, Miss Williams, as always. So I would I would make I
would entertain a motion to cancel our March 12th date. Given the representations by Miss Williams that um we are past date of any um appropriate submission, we can cancel um that date from the calendar. Is there such a motion?
>> So moved. >> I see Mr. as his hand. Is that a second? >> Well, uh the mention of is that a good day for a site visit, but that wouldn't be a meeting. That would simply be a site visit. Yes, >> that's correct. Yes,
>> we'll just go during the day. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Second. >> It has been moved and second. Is there any discussion? With no discussion, the vote occurs. M. Minnows.
>> Hi, >> Mr. White. >> Hi, >> Mr. Offeld. >> Hi, >> Miss Greenbomb. >> You are on mute if you're voting. >> I >> and the chair votes I. Thank you. The
March 12 um meeting date has been cancelled and taken off the calendar. I see no hands in the affirmative. So, I will entertain a motion um to close tonight's meeting. Um do I have such a motion?
>> So moved. >> It has been moved. Is there a second? >> Second. >> It has been moved and second. The motion is not debatable and requires a roll call vote. Um, Miss Greenbomb, I believe you said I.
>> Yeah, I'm I'm muted. I'm I >> That's okay. And Mr. Meadows. >> Hi, >> Mr. Offeld. >> Hi, >> Mr. White. >> I The meeting is adjourned. The time is 7:159 p.m. Um, have a good night and
thank you all for your service. >> Thank you and good night. >> Good night.