Central to the meeting was the applicant’s request for a modification to an existing special permit. The property, initially intended for owner-occupation, was now planned for rental. Significant upgrades had been made, and the applicant outlined a careful plan for renting out the space, including conducting thorough interviews with potential renters. The ZBA questioned the number of rooms and the utilization of a space not designated as a bedroom. The applicant assured close monitoring of the property to prevent unauthorized use and discussed potential solutions such as padlocking a room to be used as a study area.

A contentious point that emerged was the discrepancy in the number of parking spaces; the board noted a difference between the permitted number and the actual availability. This sparked a broader debate on the challenges of property management in a university town and the balance between property owners’ interests and community concerns.

The conversation then shifted to the definition of lodging houses within the existing bylaws. There was a debate about whether leasing to multiple individuals constituted a boarding house, with members expressing different views on the responsibilities and qualifications of a resident manager. Suggestions were made to outline these duties clearly, with the possibility of requiring the manager to reside in a separate studio apartment to avoid tenant conflicts.

Considering the university context of Amherst, the issue of leasing to individuals versus groups was scrutinized, with some board members favoring individual leases to minimize potential issues. The board also discussed the necessity of a resident manager, with the agreement that a detailed proposal for this role should be presented by the applicant. Furthermore, the legality of prohibiting certain groups from renting the property was questioned, emphasizing the need to avoid discrimination while ensuring compliance with zoning bylaws.

Public comments reflected concerns about the potential impact of the application on the neighborhood’s character. One individual professed their love for the neighborhood. Another called for a more defined management plan, advocating for the application to return to the board with a proposal.

The ZBA members expressed a preference to address all concerns in one comprehensive review rather than approving the permit and revisiting it later. They requested a detailed description of the qualifications and responsibilities of the project manager and a comprehensive lease from the applicant. Some board members highlighted the town’s intention behind the regulation requiring detailed leases, signaling the importance of clear and thorough documentation.

The discussion extended to planning for the next meeting, with the agenda set to include continued hearings for the Shay Road solar project and a property on A She Street. The board deliberated on the scheduling of future hearings and the involvement of new members in upcoming proceedings. They underscored the necessity of a 20-day waiting period before the permit could become legal.