Okay, we are recording. Thank you. I'm going to wait a little bit to see if anyone comes in. No one likes us anymore. So gender must not be as interesting as some. So I think I've probably waited long enough and no one seems to be coming in. So here we go. When you figure out how to get rid of this calendar thing. You're not, you're not, there you go. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm seeing a presence of a quorum. I am calling this November 17th, 2022 regular meeting of the community resources committee to order at 431 p.m. Pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and it's extended by chapters 22 and 107 of the acts of 2022. This meeting will be conducted by a remote means members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via zoom or telecommunication. So I'm just going to call the roll. So I'm just going to call the roll. So I'm just going to really access the proceedings in real time. This time I'm going to make sure everyone can be heard and we can. Everyone can hear us and we can hear them. So I'm just going to call the roll starting with Pat. Present. Mandy is present. Pam. Present. And Jennifer. Present. And we are waiting on Shalini. We will note and check on her. She's attending on being here today. With that, we are going to move directly into. Our public hearings. So bear with me as I read all of the stuff for this one. It is 432 p.m. And in accordance with the provisions of MGL chapter 40 a, this continued public hearing of the community resources committee of the Amherstown council has been duly advertised and noticed thereof has been posted. And is being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity for interested residents to be heard regarding the following proposed amendments to the zoning bylaw. And this is where I get to read a really long sentence. To see if the town will vote to amend article three use regulations to delete existing use categories in section 3.35 2.0 class one restaurant cafe lunchroom cafeteria or similar place section 3.35 2.1 class two restaurant or bar and section 3.35 2.2 class three drive up restaurant. And to add the following use categories section 3.35 2.0 restaurant cafe bar with food or other similar food beverage establishment where food is available at all times. Section 3.35 2.1 bar with no food served section 3.35 2.2 nightclub and section 3.35 2.3 any of the above food and drink establishments with occupant occupant capacity of more than 250 occupants and to add standards and conditions for these uses and to amend article five accessory uses sections 5.041 5.042 and 5.043 to allow seasonal outdoor dining as an accessory use to the principal youths authorized by section 3.3 to allow outdoor furnishings associated with such use to remain in place between November 1 and April 1 as long as the use is active and operational to remove the prohibition on outdoor heating and cooling devices and to allow live or prerecorded entertainment as an accessory used to a principal use authorized by section 3.33 3.3 and to delete reference to drive in restaurants and to amend article 11 administration and enforcement to rearrange the paragraphs describing when site plan review is not required and to clarify the requirements and process for granting administrative approval and to amend article 12 definitions by clarifying section 12.05 bar and by deleting section 12.11 drive up restaurant and any associated renumbering that may be necessary. While I was reading all of that Shalini joined us. So Shalini, can you hear us? Thank you. Thank you. With that, we are going to go into an update from the planning staff and then we'll continue with questions from the board from the committee and then questions from the public then comment public comment then any other additional questions before we move on to potentially closing the hearing. So for the update, I'm going to go to Chris. We'll get an update on where the planning board was and what changes have been proposed between the last hearing and this hearing. I will report on the planning board's vote. And then I'll ask Nate to report on the details because there have been changes made since the last meeting. So the planning board met last night and closed its public hearing on this topic. They voted. Five in favor of the whole package of changes. One member abstained. And that was Janet McGowan because she had some concerns about the changes to article five. And one person wasn't there because she was momentarily absent doing something else for about 45 minutes to an hour. So she returned for the rest of the meeting, but she wasn't there for that portion of the meeting. That was current winter, but five members of the board did vote in favor of these changes. And now I will turn this over to Nate to let you know what the changes were since the last time we met. Nate. Thanks everyone. Nate Malloy for those in the audience that may be watching. I'm a planner with the town. Athena, could I have a screen sharing turned on? There you go. You should be all set. All right, thanks. Yeah, so I'll enlarge this in a minute. You know, we didn't change. So staff, you know, considered, you know, the various comments we've met with some citizens since the previous hearing and the planning board also met. And so, you know, we haven't clicked, we haven't changed any language in. Articles five, 11 or 12. And so. What we did change though was the use chart and so it's visible here is what's being proposed. And let me just zoom in a little bit. What's in blue is what had been changed, you know, before the last hearing. So we had a nightclub as defined by the state building code. What's in green are recent changes from the last hearings of the CRC and planning board. And so, you know, there had been a discussion right here. I'm under the larger establishments. And rather than 250 occupants as a, you know, it could be staff and patrons were saying, really there's a maximum occupancy of 200 patrons. And so that's a change. And so it's cleaner than, you know, it's both inside and outside. It could be seating or standing. So if there's a bar, it's really what their capacity is for patrons. And so staff can vary. It could be, you know, it could be five staff. It could be 15 staff at an establishment. And so really it's the number of patrons we found would be. A little more relevant and easier to understand. I'm just going to move across the use chart here. In the BN district. We have proposed that a bar with no food and nightclub in a larger establishment could be allowed by special permit. And we're now proposing that they be prohibited. So there, it's a no use. So those are, you know, it's an N where we still would allow a restaurant cafe or bar with food or other similar establishment as a site plan or view with the condition that's down below. That still limits the total number of seats to 30. You know, an alcohol service has to stop at nine and there's a, you know, a perimeter buffer from a residential use in a residential district. So we're, you know, we're really taking out the possibility of some more impactful uses. And the standards and conditions. You know, there's this, these are a lot of standards and conditions that we don't have in place now. And so, you know, what we've done is we've added some language under the management plan. And so we've, we've, you know, we put in language that there'd be specific management strategies for alcohol service, such as hours of operation and patrons leaving the establishment. And so really, you know, the management plan will have fields to be completed. And one will say, you know, if alcohol served and it can have a number of things, you know, describe your hours of operation, how patrons will leave the establishment. So a plain board member asks, well, what does that mean? And it's really what it, what it is, is, you know, at closing time, how are you going to manage people leaving? Is it, you have a staff member on the sidewalk, would you stagger groups of people leaving?  We found that, you know, a staff has found over the years that the management, especially at closing time is really important.   And that was added previously, but I just want to point that out that again, that's a requirement. So, you know, whether it's through a public hearing or administrative approval, an applicant has to respond to this. And so, you know, the staff can say, well, if you leave it empty, well, what does that mean? And usually, you know, it becomes a conversation with a potential owner. And, you know, we try to help them write what, what, you know, what they could use for strategies or methods to accomplish that. I guess the big one is number 11. There should be no alcohol service after 1am. This isn't much of a change in terms of common practice. So the zoning board or the board of licensed commissioners has been having 1am as a designated end time for alcohol service. It's never been codified in a bylaw or a policy before. So this is something that we're recommending. You know, like I said, it's just kind of following along with what has been the conditions in the, in the special permits and what the board of licensed commissioners, you know, in what their practice is. And so really those are the changes. So, you know, you know, article five, 11 and 12 remain the same. I can take questions, I guess here, if we have any questions about just, you know, article three right now. Jennifer. I'm just curious. So it's basically cancer of alcohol after one, but the establishment can stay open till two. Right. And so typically the zoning board would allow, you know, an hour after alcohol service for a restaurant to close and clean up. So, you know, closing time necessarily is really when alcohol service can end. Right. Okay. I have two questions and I'll start with the one related to alcohol service. Are there other. Establishments or use categories in this bylaw that could potentially have alcohol service or is alcohol service limited to these four use categories at all. And I ask that because if we're putting in a condition of 1 a.m. That we're looking for, for use categories or for establishments, if there's other use categories that. Could get an alcohol license for service. Would they be able to get one later than one, like would we want some sort of. To look at unifying that somehow. And I just don't know whether there's like. Some other use category that could potentially end up with a serving, you know, an alcohol license to serve alcohol. Sure. No, it's a really good question. So, you know, the way the bylaw works, you know, the Amazon and bylaw, if, if a use comes in, say like the Drake, it's the building commissioner's job as the zoning enforcement officer to put it in the most closely related category or use classification. And so. For instance. You know, is it a restaurant? Is it a bar? Is it a performance space? And so there could be, you know, some use that may not fit nicely into these. That would may serve alcohol. And they'd have to go through a public process with the board of license, license commissioners. And so. You know, I don't know if they have in the rules and regulations at 1 a.m. is their end time, but that's what they've done for every establishment. So, you know, there are some existing. Older special permits for, you know, maybe three or four establishments where they can serve after one. And so, you know, as you said, there are some existing special permit doesn't go away if it's zoning by a lot changes. So if, if somehow that establishment. You know, has to have their permit. Amended whether it's, you know, because they expanded or some, you know, something happened, they want to change their service. Then, you know, this, this condition would then apply. Or could be applied. But. Yeah. I mean, at your point, there could be another use classification that could serve alcohol. That would then be subject to. You know, the board of licensing commissioners and their conditions and not necessarily these standards and conditions. Okay. Thank you. And I'll go to Pat and then I'll ask my other question. Okay. I think quick, I'm curious to get a visual in my brain about a space that has 200 pay patrons and staff, or 250 patrons and staff. Could you give me site? Yeah. So, yeah. So, you know, Johnny's Tavern for instance has. You know, occupancy of around 180. Okay. That's helpful. And so that's plus patron plus staff. So yeah, the minor setting is that that's total occupancy, both inside and outside and including patrons and staff. And so what we have found though is like I said, I said staff could bury. So it could be that, you know, on any night that you have, you know, five staff, but maybe on a busy night, they have 15. And so when we change, you know, when we're recommending changing this to 200 patrons, it's really, it's easier to define that, you know, so the patron limit is not the occupancy limit that you'll see posted on the, on the building, right? That's a building code or fire code occupant load. And so we're really saying 200 patrons excluding staff. Okay. That's very helpful. Thank you. Thank you. So my next question is back to condition 10. And I feel like I keep going back to this one. And so last time we talked about that 100 foot limit as being really limiting within the BN. And now that I've seen now that there's been changes so that bars, nightclubs and large establishments can't be in the BN at all. And now we're just looking at restaurants, pure restaurants. Is there a reason why we're keeping the 100 foot limit versus since we've also added a condition 11 about alcohol service and there's already an alcohol service versus just saying in the BN, because we're worried about noise, particularly BN establishments can't be open past say nine or 930. What, what, why is the foot limit preferable to just establishing an end time limit within the bylaw in the BN? Yeah, I think the, when the BN was created, it was a, you know, meant to be a transitional zone pretty closely integrated with residential neighborhoods. And so, you know, this type of buffer was put in there really as a way to try to balance, you know, non-residential uses and residential uses. I, you know, my thought is that the 100 foot buffer is really somewhat irrelevant when it comes to noise impacts. I mean, noise can travel much further than 100 feet. And so, you know, the planning board, they didn't really discuss this condition that much. I think if we were to have, you know, you know, modify it, I think the 100 feet could be waived or, you know, eliminated, you know, the alcohol service and the number of seats really is something that we find would be more helpful in terms of managing an establishment, right? So if you're limiting the size and, you know, the, when the alcohol can stop serving, that, that helps with the management and operation of an establishment. You know, I don't think it's, you know, I guess if, you know, if you're really worried about having noise really late in the neighborhood, then maybe you'd have a, you know, an end time of the establishment as opposed to end time for alcohol service, but that's something that, you know, we haven't considered or the planning board didn't consider Okay. Thank you. Shalini. Yeah. First, just to comment that I really appreciate that, you know, the staff looking at this so carefully and offering these recommendations to correct some of the problems or to manage some of the problems, like the, you know, that number, point number five. And so it just makes me feel that you're really putting a lot of thought and taking all the considerations of people into mind, the residents. My question was about the BN where they shall be no more than total of 30 seats, both indoor and outdoor. And I was wondering if you've received any feedback from businesses because I don't know if it's like 10, like, is that feasible to open a restaurant given the higher ends and then limit the capacity of that? And so any kind of feedback we've heard from actual restaurants? No, although, you know, vacant spaces may indicate that these conditions are somewhat of a deterrent from opening, you know, a similar establishment there. So, you know, I think some of it was just in the BN, in the BN, there's a small number of properties and it may have just been that, you know, at the time, you know, staff would have done an assessment and said, well, the spaces aren't too big, 30 seats seems reasonable. But it may be that, you know, it could limit, you know, someone from considering that if they really, you know, that is not, you know, it is not a lot of seats, right? Yeah, because I feel like if you put other constraints that you're already suggesting about alcohol and time and all of that, I don't know if this is a good limit to impose that's going to stop and not make it attractive for people to come there. Especially if it's like a cafe or something like that. Thank you, Shalini. Jennifer. Yeah, I guess following on Shalini, like with the lumber yard that was in the BN, right? Yeah. No, that was in the B, I think the business village center. So I think. Okay. So the something like the lumber yard could come back where it is was. Right, right. So. Yeah, so yeah. Right, so south of Main Street in that location that, you know, east of Dickinson is considered business village center. And so BN is really, you know, the brick building across from the only Dickinson museum. That has a few shops in it. And then, you know, the Amherst media lots and some properties north of Main Street and then the BFW site. So there's not many properties. And then on the corner of high street, I guess. But there's not many properties that are his own BN. Okay. Thank you. I didn't realize that the. You know, where the hope and feathers then had a different zoning than, right? Okay. So hope and feathers is neighbor of business, right? Okay. Thank you. With that, can you give us an idea of my question is, can you give us an idea of a, a size of say a 30 seat or less establishment that's already in town. It doesn't have to be in the BN. And something that's like 50 seats. Or 60 seats. If you give me a second, I will. As with Pat, like get an idea of what are we saying when we say 30 seats? Like, what couldn't we have there if we go up to 50, but we can't because we said 30s type things. Right. So quickly the, you know, like Peter pockets in downtown is 20 about 20 occupant capacity. So that's, you know, that's 50. So Peter pockets is 20. I'll say Elco Malito is 80. And so, you know, Peter pockets is, is a, is a pretty small space. And so not much bigger than that. So if you had, you know, three tables outside or tables outside, you'd be. You know, at. Could be over, you know, if it was, you know, four seats a table, you're over 30 seats then. What is coronation cafe in the old Bart's place? Do we know. I, I haven't, I haven't emailed with the spreadsheet. I could just. I'll take, I could take a minute. I'd have to look and see exactly what that is. Thank you. Pat, did you have a question? Sort of. We had one red. Who sent. An email asking us to wait on article five accessory uses until the Pioneer Valley planning commission. Studies are completed. And I'm not sure I agree with that, but I was wondering when does anybody have an idea when the planning commission studies will be completed. Yeah, I think it's, it's not quite related. So we're, we have a technical assistance grant with the Pioneer Valley planning commission and staff's been working with them to come up with zoning for. Temporary uses. Which is not the same as accessory uses. So. You know, right now, maybe. Because we don't really have a definition or category for temporary uses. Some people might think it's the same, but really we're trying to come up with new zoning for temporary uses. So, you know, if they, someone wants to have a pop-up shop or have food trucks come in, you know, every other week for the summer, then that's considered say. A temporary use. So it's not necessarily related to what we're proposing here. Assuming that's what the reference was to not. I'm not sure of any other. Any other work with PVPC. Okay. Thank you very much.  Was that. Answered by Nate, what you were going to say. Without the hands for now, I'm going to let Nate do that on, on our, since this is a public hearing, we actually have to say we're going to the public. So while Nate looks up and because we don't have any hands right now, I'm going to formally transition to any questions from the public. And we're going to have a public hearing. And we're going to have a public hearing. We're going to have a public hearing. And then we're going to have a public hearing. And then we're going to have a public hearing. And then we transition to any questions from the public. And with that, I'm going to state that there are no public or is no public in attendance. And then I'm going to transition to public comment. Again. State that. There is no public in attendance. But that we have formally made time. To have public comment and public questions. And so with that, we are back to board questions for comments and anything the planning board would like the planning staff, not planning board would like to add to this hearing before we vote on whether to close it. So Nate has, I know that didn't give you a lot of time since no one's in the public, but did it give you enough? It did. It did. So a coordination cafes at about 50. You know, 50 persons as an occupant capacity. I found that lilies. Restaurant, you know, on North Pleasant Street, that's, that's about 30. And so, yeah, I was trying to find some smaller. Most of them are 30s really small. Yeah. Momos is 36. Right. Around 40. So I think, I mean, most of them, I'm looking at the spreadsheet now and most of them are like, you know, 40s to mid 40s to 60. Right. So they're not. Very few. I think there's two or three below 30. And now that was, um, that's a, you know, right now the list has about 70 establishments. So. Thank you for that. I'm going to remind our committee, we will discuss any potential amendments outside of the public hearing is the way we do it at CRC. We try to get all of the questions and any information we need in during the public hearing, which obviously also implies maybe things we might want to change when we get out of the public hearing. And are there any further questions or comments. To be made at this time. Okay. I don't see none. I will. Pam. Sorry. I missed your Pam Pam. Okay. I just popped it up. So we're just talking right now about section three. No, we can talk about the whole, all, all the changes. Okay. Well, so maybe we could ask Nate. If he wants to describe any of the changes. That have come up since the last time we heard it. On the other articles, five, 11 and 12. Okay. From what we saw two weeks ago. Okay. Do we hold our con discussion until after we close the hearing then. Discussion on recommendations is after we close the hearing. Any questions. Get made now. Well, Put my hand back up then. Sure. I had the pleasure of attending. The planning board meeting. And I would, I think it would be helpful for folks to hear from the staff. What some of the safeguards are for. Any changes in alcohol service and or hours of operation. Because that was one of the primary. Issues. When people thought that somehow we're relaxing. Or relaxing restrictions that would allow, you know, more volume, more alcohol service, more, you know, longer hours of service, especially in adjacent to neighborhoods. So I wonder if, if Nate, you could talk a little bit about what some of the safety valves are such as. Changes going to the board of health. I mean, I don't mean board of health. I mean board of license commissioner. Right. Yeah. So I can, you know what. I'm just going to, I'm just going to, I'm just going to, you know, quickly the way the use chart works, right. A restaurant in a bar with food, you know, is by site plan review and just quickly that if say one wants to stay open later and just serve alcohol, that becomes a bar. And so according to the use chart, they would then have to apply for a special permit. So they would need two permits in place. And the board of license commissioners reviews any changes to that permit. And so the board of license commissioners, the board of license commissioners, the board of law enforcement serves alcohol till 10 PM, and they want to then stay open till midnight or later. That's that requires a public hearing. Through the board of license commissioners. And so, you know, butters are noticed it's advertised in the paper. And it's a public hearing, just like it would happen with another regulatory board or committee. And so the board of license commissioners can place conditions on the service of alcohol. You know, it's not as broad as site plan review, but the board of license commissioners will always review changes to alcohol service. Additionally, you know, Pam did mention the board of health. And so, you know, any establishment that is trying to serve food, whether it's managing or, you know, how the operations are in terms of the storage of the alcohol, how much is served. And so the board of license commissioners really reviews any changes to alcohol service, whether or not the, the project goes through site plan review or, you know, administrative approval, the board of license commissioners will review changes to alcohol service. And so the board of license commissioners will review changes to alcohol service, whether it's managing or, you know, how much is served. Unless it's pre-packaged and that's a bar with no food. Anything that's serving food really has to have a kitchen. And that also requires board of health approval. And so, you know, In the accessory uses in, in section five, we're now saying that outdoor dining and other uses can be accessory to any principal use in the use chart. And there was some discussion at the funding board. About whether or not. You know, we're saying that staff is saying, you know, We haven't gotten to that item yet. Okay. Oh, sorry. Yeah. Stick to the first one. That was, that was, that was, if there are in, in businesses that come in and establish, you know, cut off time, say at 1130. And then, and then later want to extend their hours of operation. And I gave the example of the pizza place right down here, which is ringed by, you know, numerous neighbors. Many years ago, they appealed to the, to the. Select board to change their hours of operation. And it was, it was pretty clear that. That there was having, having an operation like that given, you know, doors closing, people talking in the parking lot, et cetera. And it was, it was a good thing to, to, to pause or to, to shut down at 1130. So that, that request to extend to, to 130 in the morning. Was not allowed at the time. So the same situation could arise obviously here. Where an existing business wants to make a pretty major shift like that in their hours of operation or alcohol. And what struck me was that in fact, there will still be a public hearing. By the board of license commissioners. And that's kind of for me, the, the key element that there is still some public input. And notification of a butters. Jennifer. So I wasn't able to be at the planning board meeting last night. So I was just wondering, was there a question about the timing of, of the public hearing. In the process. No.  And then the administrative approval. So why don't you ask them now. Okay. So it's, it's not really a question, I guess. Well, maybe it is. And the question is. No, it's not, it's not a question. It's a comment. Any further questions from the committee versus comments on where a recommendation might go. See none at this time. We should take a motion either to continue or to close. So would anyone like to make a motion. Pat, you raised your hand. You're muted Pat. I move that we adjourn the public for meeting. You're moving to close. Yes. The public hearing. Is there a second. Second. I think Shalini just beat you, Jennifer. Any discussion on the motion to close the public hearing. Pat, your hand is still raised. Yeah, that's because I'm old and decrepit. Okay. Gotcha. We'll, we'll move to a vote then. And that got you was in no way commenting or agreeing with that comment. Um, Shalini. Yes. Pat. Aye. Nandy's an aye. Pam. And Jennifer. Yes. Okay. We are closed on the public hearing. That means we move to action items. And then we'll move on to the public hearing. The action items. The first one is to talk about our recommendations and discussions on these changes related to this. So Pam. I too want to say thanks to the staff for putting all of this. These great packages together and recognizing that it wasn't just.  Um, I think my, my support of. Um, Article 11. Is it's, you know, is, it's pretty. Consistent. I again was reassured by the fact that. Um, whether it's site plan review or, or a special permit or administrative review of a project. If there were changes to extend the hours of operation or. The service of alcohol that there would still be public hearing. Run by somebody other than the planning board or ZBA perhaps. Um, I think that would be the item in my, in my book. Um, in sections five. Um, I've been really grappling with the, with the opening up of. Um, Allowing or, or recognizing. Accessory uses. Um, such as seasonal outdoor dining and the live. Um, Essentially any, any principle use. Um, I was, I heard in the discussion at the planning board. That, um, An accessory use and maybe Nate can back me up on this, but an accessory use is. Um, Usual and traditional association of, um, An accessory use to the primary use. That said. I would still be much more comfortable if it said, um, In the first paragraph, 5.041. As an accessory use to, um, Um, It, it keeps the, it keeps the umbrella a little or the belt a little bit closer to these, um, Primary uses of food and drink establishments without being too explicit. It could be a bakery because it sells food or drink. Um, it could be a gas station with a, with a, um, And I'm not sure that there are that many other primary uses. Given the, how many that we have in our by law. Um, that really need to be allowed for. So I, I'd like to see a just a slight tightening of that. Um, as I said before, to any establishment selling food or drink. And I think that's, that's my last comment. Okay. Thank you. Nate, do you have any or Chris, do you have anything on. In response to that. Thanks for sharing the screen on bringing that up. Yeah. Hi, this is there quickly. So, you know, this is the beginning of article five, which we're not proposing to change. And it says, you know, any use, which is in Hampton County, customarily accessory and incidental to a permanent or principal use. Um, And so, you know, that phrase is really important. And so when we're going to what we're proposing to change in article five, here's the changes. This is to that retail and business areas. Um, you know, right now we're currently in the by law, it's what's in red that's being, uh, has straight through. So seasonals or dining is allowed. Um, So, um, if it's a accessory to a restaurant cafe, lunchroom, cafeteria, refreshment stand, drive up fast food eatery or similar, eating establishment, bakery, deli, similar establishment for the production sale of food or beverage on the property or a retail store or convenience store selling prepared and packaged food or beverages on the premises. Um, and so that's right now outdoor dining could be accessory to any of those. Um, you know, the previous net, what we're proposing is in bold is any principal use authorized by section three and subject to the same review as it. So if the principal use needs a special permit. To have an accessory use as outdoor dining would require a special permit. So. Accessory uses aren't necessarily allowed. Um, through administrative approval to start an accessory use is always a permit, whether it's site plan review or special permit. Um, you know, so the one of the staining vote at the planning process, which is the one that's been approved by the agency, the agency has had the kind of the same kind of concerns that. Well, all of a sudden, you know, we could have outdoor dining to any principal use. So it could be accessory to.  And. You know, staff's response would be that it would still have to go through a public hearing process to establish it. The owner would have to show that the use is actually, you know, is accessory to that principal use. And they're actually operating a second principal use that that would actually be a second principal use in a different permitting path that wouldn't be accessory. So. Um, at the same time to have outdoor dining, you need to kitchen. So it's a pretty big investment, you know, so typically to have food service, you need to have a board of health approval and go through their approval process. And you need. Um, a pretty large investment. Of capital funds to have us a place that could have food.  Um, you know, that still needs other permitting. And so, you know, staff doesn't think that people will clamor to have outdoor dining now, just because we've made this accessory. Um, we also think that there are some opportunities that we don't know about, uh, that maybe this would actually be a good thing. Maybe it would be okay if, if a shop downtown or a village center said, I'd actually like to have outdoor dining. Um, and they're not necessarily related to food and drink. And so, um, you know, in the, the same concern, all the scroll down is for live and prerecorded music. So. Yeah. You know, we're, we're moving a restaurant bar or in, we're leaving in bed and breakfast, but now we're also saying to any principal use in section 3.3. Again, it would follow the same special permit or site plan review. And there are conditions for live or prerecorded music already in the bylaw. So it says clearly accessory and incidental to a principal use. So it can't just be, you know, I'm going to have music just because I want loud music. It has to be clearly accessory and incidental. We have a decibel level limit and we have, um, you know, some other conditions that the planning board could, um, could put on there. So, you know, there is, you know, that, so to Pam's point, that's, you know, the concern is that we're removing what's in red here and, you know, proposing any principal use in section 3. So I, I actually just noticed something only, um, just now on this one that might need changed. Um, you've deleted restaurant bar in and 5.042, but not or bed and breakfast. Was that just a mistake? Um, no, accessory use to any principal use in section 3.3. Is bed and breakfast not in 3.3 then? Uh, no, it's considered an accessory use. Oh, bed and breakfast is an accessory use. Okay. Okay.  And wanted a fire pit outside with dining out there where patrons could do that. I just don't know how that works. Like could, um, unless we do this change, could say, uh, hotel that does that morning breakfast, put tables outside for their patrons to eat their breakfast that they are served at the hotel, like that includes breakfast and all, um, now, or would they, or would they be prohibited unless we make this change from having sort of any outdoor seating at all, um, for, you know, next to the dining part. Um. Yeah.   And so I don't, you know, I don't, you know, I'm trying to think if, you know, for instance, it could be different where maybe, um, right, maybe if there's a boarding house, which doesn't, and then all of a sudden they want to have, you know, outdoor dining. Um, but it really, unless, if it's further patrons, um, you know, what we're saying here, sorry, I'm just going to keep scrolling up. Yeah, I, you know, I, I'm not, you know, I guess Chris and Rob, what they would think, but I think if it's for the people who are using it traditionally, that I'm not sure it's an accessory use, unless it becomes, um, you know, completely different than what they're offering. So, you know, like I, so maybe in the boarding house one that is an accessory use, but for a hotel or motel, I guess it depends on kind of the extent of what they're doing in terms of food service. You know, I mean, there's probably, I don't know, Rob might be able to answer, but I feel like if it's just the continental breakfast, that's different.  Rob. So with the proposed language, uh, as Nate has it up on the screen, the, the principal use would be the hotel, which is not a food or drink establishment. And this language being available to any principal use would allow. I mean, I don't know, I don't know, I don't think that Mandy just described to happen under an accessory use permit, uh, which would be authorized by whatever the permitting requirement is for the hotel. If we were to insert the language that Pam suggested. That limits the accessory use being available to only principal uses that are food or drink establishments, then it wouldn't be available through. Um, any establishment that sells food or drink. So it could be a hotel. That's going to be confusing interpret to interpret. So we're either going, we're either going to say that. Every establishment that decides to serve. Food or drink, even, uh, even if it's not part of their principal use.  So I don't like that language because it's hard to interpret. Um, but finishing, you know, finishing my thought that if we, um, if we don't allow that, uh, to be clearly an accessory use opportunity for that, that principal use, there's another path. It's more complicated. It's establishing two principal uses. Um, so that they can serve some sort of food and drink establishment so that they can serve that, that food and have the outdoor dining as accessory to that second use. So it just complicates things, but it still would be a possibility through the way our bylaw is structured. Thank you. Jennifer. Yeah, I keep trying to think of like an example in my mind. So let's say at the general store, um, you know, at North square, if they sell candy, um, you know, take your snack and eat it with that. You know, would that be what we kind of have in mind here? It's not. Or, or because they sell candy. Is it not considered a different use? Rob. That, that is not what we're talking about here. So, you know, the way I've interpreted this over the years is there's a difference between outdoor dining and outdoor seating. Okay. Um, I think it's important for us to, you know, include in town hall, you know, for us to go out and eat our lunch. It really doesn't matter what the use is. Uh, if there's a food service, food sales component where it's prepared on site. Um, we always try to connect it to some sort of a food license that we grant through the health department. Uh, that's when we start looking at it as outdoor dining where there's, um, you know, what we're trying to do is to get our food and food sales component to the food being, uh, Uh, either delivered and consumed outside in a formal dining area. Defined dining area. So the general. So I quickly, thanks. So I just want to say, yeah. So I guess, maybe when you asked your question, I was thinking that. You know, sometimes when I go to a bed and breakfast or a hotel, they just have like a basket of muffins and some bagels. And then you can either eat outside or you take it to your room. And to me, that wouldn't be an accessory use, but I always think that if you have a bagel, I would say that it's not an accessory use. A bagel. So I mean, I feel like if a bed and breakfast just has in their lobby, you know, donuts and bagels every morning to me, that's not an accessory outdoor dining. Right. Right. And I agree. Yeah. You know, but if it all of a sudden they start, you know, they have a few chairs outside on a patio, but if they right, start having preparing more food with a kitchen and having service. Then that becomes. is. Okay, Shalini. I would be interested in hearing what Pam's concerns if this like what could go wrong with this because in my mind I'm imagining that we want to make it easier for more people to have outdoor dining. Everyone has loved that so much and and even if it's like a bookstore and wants to have you know outdoor tea and coffee or something to sit or like general store as Jennifer said not just candy but maybe they have a little cafe now out serving coffee coffee yeah or something like that that we want to make it we don't want to create broad blocks for that but we want to make it easier for people so yeah. Pam do you wish to respond? Sure I think more so than more so than the outdoor dining is probably the outdoor music that's a lot harder to manage really really hard to manage because we've all talked about sort of noise noise migration and noise pollution based on you know outdoor activities. I guess I have a harder time with outdoor entertainment being an accessory used to some primary function because it really is very different than any primary function of you know even food service or bars or something I mean it's a lovely thing to have music but it's it's kind of a weird connection to make with any of the uses so I think I could probably live with it I could probably live with it as it as it's shown with any principal use it just seemed so broad that you know it's like you really don't know what you're going to end up in your backyard and part of that is because I'm a nimby I have a whole limited business district you know within 40 feet of my back corner of my property I'm I'm thinking you know in 20 years when I'm tottering around am I going to have you know nightclub people pouring out into my backyard practically so it's sort of trying to look ahead but I'm I'm willing to accept the proposed language just recognize that I have I do have concerns anything else Solani? I guess do we have existing things in place to make sure that those concerns are addressed and that might be for Rob and Nate like what can we what do we already have in place or that would address what Pam just spoke about yeah well I think what's here in terms of the live or pre-recorded entertainment it's not necessarily outside it's just that it's accessory so we're not you know we're up above we're saying outdoor dining or you know it could be outdoor dining but here it's just a live or pre-recorded entertainment it could be inside or outside I think what we have here what's nice is that we say um a special permit will be required whenever an accessory entertainment is proposed and any outside wall of that portion of the building by the principal use is located within 150 feet or less from a residential dwelling in a residential district and so it's the similar language that was in the BN standards and condition but for music you know it's you know there is that safeguard so if if an establishment on triangle street would like to now have music as an accessory use and it's 150 feet or less within 150 feet of a residential use in in the adjoining district it always needs a special permit so these accessory uses aren't administratively approved they're either site plan or view or special permit so there's always a public hearing process with the neighbors being notified and so you know I think that that's one and then we also have you know just these sub conditions that it has to be clearly accessory and incidental to the principal use that there's a sound level and then you know we have right here which has been used that the permit granting board may impose a probationary period and that the applicant would return at a public meeting or to have things be reviewed again and so you know I I think that those are you know by having this in the bylaw it allows conditions through the permitting to have some safeguards and so you know clearly accessory and incidental to right so to the example is someone just going to cut any business it's also you know only in these few districts that it's allowed but those are the downtown and village center districts you know someone couldn't just come in now and say oh I'd like to do this just because you know we'd walk through and ask how it is clearly accessory incidental to you know is it the same hours of operation how is it benefiting the principal use how is it you know related to it so I mean I feel like those are you know that's what staff would would use that sounds like a lot of things in place with respect to the sound and the distance and all of that so I'm hoping Pam that those address thank you so I'm going to go back to condition 10 on section in the use table and given the questions asked in the comments had you know I I'm not going to make a motion now but I'd like to hear whether the committee would support and potentially whether the planning staff would support because maybe we can do it without a motion that we up the seat total to 45 or 50 you know not necessarily the occupancy we we have a disconnect between what total occupancy is and what seat total is but I guess I'm thinking a corn at coronation cafe size or a momo's cafe size doesn't seem too big for our bn area yet they are too big under condition 10 and then the 100 feet thing I'm still worried about so I actually like to Nate your idea of a potential waiver but I'm not sure any of the language in here allows a waiver and so I wonder if we could potentially change the 30 seats to 50 seats and add some sort of language that might allow the permit granting authority to waive the 100 foot distance requirement down to you know just wave it you know I don't know what the language would be but those are some of the that's a proposal I have and I'd like to hear from the committee what they think and also what planning staff would think about those two changes Jennifer yeah just off the top of my head I could support the first you know increasing the size to like a coronation cafe I'm just not sure about the 100 feet because I feel like that's in terms of even as Nate said that's nothing in terms of sound traveling so I'm trying to think so let's say it's where hope and feathers is if that were to become like a food establishment and could have 50 people sitting inside I would think that would be all right and if they but in the back it really does a butt up against a residential neighborhood so I would think you would want at least 50 100 feet there in terms of outdoor dining for the surrounding residential neighborhood but I'd be interested in what Nate has to say about that yeah Nate could you put up that map again that showed us the 150 things and for those plots yeah I was trying to get to the online GIS and it's not loading right now so I do think that you know so Jennifer will you just mention that building is you know within like 70 feet of residential use in the residential districts next to it you know south and west so that building essentially that property probably could never be developed as you know any of those uses and so you know I think what we found was at the VFW site and maybe the one property on the corner of High Street are the two that actually have some space that's 100 feet away but almost every other property in the BN with this buffer cannot be developed as as a restaurant or food and drink establishment because without in terms of outside space you could do it inside no the way that commission works is that so if the wall of the building that has the restaurant in it is within 100 feet of use in a residential district so you can't even be inside okay I'm sorry I think it can be inside so yeah sorry that yeah the website's not loading um yeah I might maybe I'll just use google maps in a minute then if but yeah so really there is about two properties in all the BN then that could be developed with that condition in place yeah I was gonna echo what Jennifer said that um something the size of coronation seems like it would it would be appropriate in some of the buildings that we know are already there um I think maybe maybe how we could manage it a little better given the really close proximity to residences is that is that there's some stipulation that there that there isn't outdoor dining allowed or outdoor music in the BN I mean it's just it it would be kind of over the top so you could have you could have a great indoor space but you just wouldn't you wouldn't be allowing it to spill out to the outdoors and carry that noise with it so is that sort of instead of saying I'm trying to read this condition um and it right now says any outside wall of a building occupied by they moved it by an establishment shall be located more than 100 feet from the resident from any residential dwelling and so instead of the any outside building outside of a building you could say any outdoor accessory use or something would have to be located more than 100 feet from the dwelling or maybe just say get rid of that sentence at all completely and say the BN shall have no outdoor thank you thank you um Pam is that sort of where you're going one of those kind of where I was headed yeah I meant yeah and I and I understand that somebody might want you know the three tables outside their front door on a summer night um is that does that become accessory outdoor dining that's a question for Robin Nate sorry so you're saying like if there's a rat like a say like a deli or something like a cafe and they put outdoor seating the way this works is that it's not whether or not it's accessory if you don't allow it at all then there's no outdoor seats at all so it doesn't matter if it's accessory or whatever it's just it wouldn't be allowed and so you know I you know my thought would be um if you're really worried about late night noise maybe you have an end time in the BN district and you just eliminate that whole 100 foot buffer at all and you just say establishments would close at a certain time I guess I mean I think it's hard right we're trying to have some balance and flexibility to encourage businesses and then you don't want to then um have a condition or two that's so restrictive no one no one wants to you know even try it right because um so I think like I said I think right now with the 30 seats in the 100 foot buffer it actually I don't think many I don't think there would be a restaurant at all really would would come in just I don't I guess I don't think there's many properties that could support it um you know so yeah I was just wondering if it's the music that's the real problem we could just see no music outdoors but you could have the seating outside yeah I I want to go back to Jennifer um because you were concerned with this buffer and so I with you know we'll take the hope and feathers it I I keep asking this because I feel like that's a prime property that could potentially like that building if there isn't opening could house a cafe yet this condition does not allow it to house a cafe and so like Jennifer do you think that building should be able to house a cafe and if so like what conditions would you yeah I mean I don't see actually if if the lumber yard could be like half a block away I don't know I would like I do think hope and feathers I think it would make a lovely cafe um and that's why I was thinking but maybe it shouldn't have music which it wouldn't have to and if you had some tables in the front because the resident it abuts the residences in the back so I would think that if you went with your suggestion Mandy where you could have up to 50 because the interior could certainly hold that and I love hoping feathers I'm not hoping it goes away but if they wanted yeah I again my concern was just in the back but maybe you could have some in the front and the front because I didn't realize when I said that that 100 feet has to do with even indoors so are you saying feathers couldn't be a cafe because the indoors abuts the residential building is within 100 feet of the residential so no nowhere in that building could have a cafe Rob do you have any suggestions you had your hand up well because I would I just wanted to clarify that that building would no longer allow this use because of that distance so there there used to be a cafe in there it was called wheatberry it was it was permitted 15 or so years ago and the district was different it wasn't bn at the time so over the years and when I came to work here there were a couple modifications of the establishment including some outdoor dining right out in the front parking lot there on the corner and that was done you know through a permit process with the planning board and it was considered a pre-existing non-conforming use so since that ended and has been abandoned for for a couple of years or more that that is no longer available at that spot so that one this 100 foot provision would prohibit it from happening there now it be changed from any outside wall of a building occupied shall be located more to any outside use you know outside accessory use or something shall be located more than 100 feet from any residential dwelling is that some is that a logical like change from a permitting standpoint I don't understand what your question is so I guess what I'm trying to figure out is instead of basing the prohibition on the building distance so that you can't have the indoor use base the outdoor use and the outdoor concerns on that distance so like if you put and I can't look at the building but wheatberry for example that that corner outdoor dining that they might have had outdoor tables might have actually been 100 feet from any residential dwelling but maybe if you put it in the back like Jennifer said you're only 50 feet and that's not as reasonable and so could you base sort of the outdoor use needs to be within over more than 100 feet from the dwelling instead of the building so if you had outdoor tables in front where the parking area is would that bother the people living in the back of the building right like is that rob and Nate from a from a you know permitting standpoint is that sort of something that can be determined and enforced yeah I think it can I mean it's it's comparable to our marijuana marijuana provisions where we're measuring the actual activity the marijuana use to the distance to the residential property so it's similar to that you know I guess I always thought this was more about the door coming out of the establishment where I was trying to catch the outside wall but in the you know in the wheatberry example it's the it's the rear wall of the building that doesn't house this use at all that is in proximity to the residential uses so even even a change that the measurement is taken to the actual boundary of the use would be beneficial in that building uh whether it's internal or external uh any anything would be you know would I guess would offer more options because the building is so deep and it would have a nine o'clock alcohol limit yeah yeah Nate and then Shalini Sure thanks I mean but maybe what you're suggesting is saying instead of any outside wall you could say any outdoor seating shall be located more than 100 feet and so it becomes the outdoor seating that's the 100 feet and whether or not the the use inside the building is closer it's really that outdoor um dining see outdoor seating and so I mean that's the way I would phrase it any and any outdoor seating shall be located more than 100 feet and so we just I mean I you know I don't I don't I think that would be a lot more manageable than and allow some things to happen um you know but that's my understanding of what you're saying Manny so yeah I mean I don't if that if we think that's sufficient I think that's better than what it is now Thank you Shalini you did you have something to say I was going a slightly different direction so I just want to make sure every like can we all agree or whatever we need to do with this because I like your suggestion what you just made and I see all of us are nodding other than Pam I was looking at the BM map I was yeah I've got my map open to the satellite view I'm looking at that so this is a very this is a very particular situation where you have which I think is I'm looking at the right one it's at the corner of Dickinson in Maine and there's a large parking lot to the west of the building as well as parking on the main street side of the building and it seems that you would certainly not want to have outdoor activity on the west side because it's immediately adjacent to the neighbor but um that there could be some perhaps outdoor seating on the main street side of things and I don't know if I did a little if I did a little draw a drew a measured line what that what that would be well from the residence to the building itself is 124 feet so you oh there there's the map good yeah they're so much quicker than I am quickly yeah there's also the house to the south and so from the house to the south to the front of the building is about 100 feet so that you know that gives you an idea of what the 100 foot you know if we're talking about the way it's written now I mean right so then this whole property can't even be used for a restaurant if we you know bn is up here as well where most media is say for instance they um you know were not you know they were um going to change you know 100 feet I think we did this last time is you know to about here so you know basically anywhere in this area you know no building could be developed that could touch this radius right that 100 feet and so um the bn is you know this is being redeveloped um you know it's hard to imagine that with um you know we could do 100 feet that maybe somehow they would want to put um a use in maybe in this building right they're redeveloping it with apartments um you know it's been permitted with the new building so and the bn is you know so yeah I mean with that 100 foot there's really limited uh opportunity but yeah sorry so I'll go back to this example so so it looks like the 100 feet wouldn't if you're still 100 feet from the house in to the south and the house to the west if you went to the use itself right to the outdoor seating right but if you were you know the way it's written now the building has to be 100 feet which you know is basically to the front of this yeah so the right now the building itself is within that 100 feet so you can't put under the current proposed change you can't put a cafe in it you'd have to put the cafe in the parking lot right you have to build it right so you're not talking about putting like let's go back to Amherst media building you're not talking about moving the building well so for instance the way the bylaw is written now that condition is said that the outside wall of a building that houses the use right a restaurant cafe can't be within 100 feet of a residential use in a residential district so that means is within 100 feet a building wall can't even be within that distance you can't touch it so here's you know here's 100 feet right so 100 feet from this residential use you know basically to the street here I mean there's no you know unless you're going to put a building a small little building right here there's no building that can even be built that could house a restaurant on these properties although I don't know this is where things get I don't want to digress I think those two sides of the street are very different I don't think you'd want to that is such a historic spot by the Emily Dickinson Museum and those mansions I don't think you want a restaurant on that north side of the street I think the south side is a very different place right I mean this is also the local historic district so any any changes to the building would have to have local historic district approval so the character would you know would be compatible Chris so I just wanted to note that the local historic district commission did approve the building that was designed to house emerson media but what if they built the building and emerson media went out of business for whatever reason technology changed or whatever and then people were looking for a new use for that building and it could be that that building could be used as a restaurant it wouldn't have much parking associated with it but we'd figure that out in the future but it could be that that building needs to be re reused as something else so I'm just putting that out there to think about the and the current proposal would not allow that reuse as a restaurant that's correct so you know I don't know whether we're ready to propose any language or where we are in terms of making a recommendation do we want as a committee do we want to make a recommendation do we want to make a recommendation that includes potential changes to condition 10 it sounds like that's the only one where we are sort of struggling with potential language that we would want to see and potentially recommend to the council different where does the committee want to go Pam my gut feeling is that I think I think it's on the right track but I really don't like designing by committee and that I think the planning staff has has heard this conversation and that for now we just leave it as it is the bm statutes are still in play they've been in place all this time so we're not really touching them I'd like to actually have them just recognize we we're putting this on the table just for a short while and I hope that the planning staff might come back to this I like the idea of perhaps changing it from you know 30 seats to 50 seats for the time being but I'm really I'm really not clear on all the ramifications for the 100 foot setbacks and so it's it just feels a little rushed to be trying to do that right now um shalini I was just curious what if they're what are the ramifications in south armors like in the are there any such spaces in south armors near the palm area village or where this would be relevant this conversation or is it the end is only around that area we were looking at so it you know only encompasses you know that the 319 321 main street and then some properties to the north and then one or two to the south so it's you know it doesn't it's nowhere else in town I mean I mean yeah I would love to hear I'd love to hear Chris what she has to say first Chris well I was just going to talk about timing and article 14 is expiring at the end of December so if this proposal doesn't get approved we're back to the way we've always um you know regulated things so I'm just putting that out there that this proposal isn't going to be around and article what is it 511 and 12 aren't going to be around so I would encourage um you know even though even if you don't think this number 10 is perfect I would encourage you to vote to recommend the whole package and then maybe come back to this article 10 at a different time I don't really think people are going to be clamoring to open restaurants in the bn district anytime in the near future and to have this whole package be adopted I think is important and a good thing so I just want to encourage you to try to move forward and not postpone a decision about this whole proposal that's all thank you um can I ask a question I understand that and we could make a motion to recommend the council adopt the revisions with additional changes I'm trying to draft a motion in my head that would say with additional changes to condition 10 um to increase the bn seating limit to 50 seats say and then we're dealing with this one would the planning staff have time between now and the first reading on the 5th to come up with changes that align with what we've just discussed about the 100 foot limit I mean I think I would um you know changes the way I I said so that the it's instead of saying in any outside wall of the building occupied by the establishment so um you know this area I would say in any outdoor seating shall be located more than 100 feet and so it would be you know to me that would be the change you know I'd keep you know we'd say both indoor and outdoor 30 seats and so we'd kind of use the same terminology right so any outdoor seating shall be located more than 100 feet I you know I don't I wouldn't unless there's more I would rather you know it seems like that's what we have been discussing I wouldn't unless there's a I'd rather have then a specific recommendation or more guidance from the committee as to what you'd want to see changed um you know I feel like those are the things we've been talking about the distance to this outdoor seating and the number of seats I don't know how how much more I want to change you know the standard of condition thank you Nate Jennifer then Pat then Shalini Chris sorry Chris has a hand up too oh Chris sorry Jennifer Chris first I only have three hands on my screen at that point so I was wondering what you wanted to do with outdoor um music or any kind of music in the BN that was a proposal that someone had made early on do you want to just eliminate the possibility of having live live or pre-recorded music in the BN Jennifer yeah so this is where I guess I'm well you know definitely feeling caring on what Pam said again to me there is a big difference between the BN by the Emily Dickinson Museum and where Hope and Feathers is so I would be reluctant to do a sweeping change that because I think if we're the building the local historic district commission approved a building but I think if you it shouldn't just be allowed to be maybe a pizza restaurant with pizza boxes outside you know in that very has the most historic square so to speak in town so I would be uncomfortable making a change that yes I think those two sides of the street are so different that we would really need to have a very considered conversation about that I don't know if that's possible if they're both zone the same I mean I personally think it's problematic that the north side of the street is zone BN it's much more appropriate for the south side of the street where Hope and Feathers is so I would be reluctant to to do anything hasty that would affect by the Hills Mansions the Hills Houses and the Emily Dickinson Museum and the Women's Club I think that has to be a very considered changes there it is very different than the south side of the street thank you Pat yeah um the historical district protects that area I really can't imagine the historical usage but what it would look like and and fantasizing pizza packages I think I think I really support what Chris is saying is let's move forward with this and then make any changes afterwards I think that there is a lot of um I think that there is panicking about things that most likely would not happen I'm so you know I just I think that I mean I'm thinking about the women's the women's building and you know and it just I think we're overreacting and that we just need to move forward with this I totally agree with Chris on and and we can come back but to keep going and making minor changes because pizza boxes feels to me like potential pizza boxes no no but Chris's change is not finished Jennifer that's okay I'm done I'm done Shalini and then Jennifer and I was just going to see that you know we still have the staff looking it's not like once we make this change everything is going to be allowed I mean we know that our staff really really knows the town and what residents and so I'm sure they'll be discernment there that we won't have any pizza boxes outside in that properties versus sorry to pick on that example but you know I think there's going to be that discernment that the town staff has and I I think what I'm really visioning is more like where wheat berry was and the cherry scones were and there was a lovely space outside to sit and have your coffee and meet people and be by the community and then walk down to the museum or library and also I think these are little pockets we want to create where people can be outdoors and so I would really like to see this move forward and can I I mean I don't want to go back to the 30 like maybe that's what they were envisioning that's why they had 30 to begin with is so that there are these little pockets everywhere but then just keeping in mind that maybe for businesses it's not worth the investment if they're only 30 occupants or patrons allowed so I think that's why expanding it to 50 I support that and if we can keep it to 100 feet to the to the outdoor I think that seems like it'll take care of a lot of the concerns here and also the outdoor did we answer that one that can we just not have music would that just take care of it or is that a big concern in this committee in the bn district what you can with somebody going to answer show me this question we started so um the the outdoor music would require either a special permit or an excess a site plan review based on the language we're aiming to change and so that that would require a special approval anyway even if it was planned right um under the changes to section five accessory uses as explained earlier in today's meeting right that was explained my bad yes thank you um Jennifer yeah no I just was wondering if Chris what you were suggesting we go ahead with included changing that hundred feet or as it was recommended without that Chris I was suggesting to recommend to change it as Nate had suggested which was 100 feet to any outdoor use and the 50 and the 50 um seats yes so I'm going to try something but I will also mention that currently in the bn there is no prohibition on live music or recorded music or entertainment right now um so that as long as it's for a cafe if the cafes were there um so that wouldn't be changing um either so I'm going to try a motion to recommend the council adopt the revisions to food and drink establishments article three use regulations article five accessory uses article 11 administration enforcement and article 12 desk definitions as presented on november 17 2022 um with additional changes to condition 10 in the use table to increase the bn seating limit to 50 seats and to change the 100 foot limit to apply only to outdoor seating is there a second to that motion second de angeles and Athena I have it written down so I can send it to you if you didn't quite get it thanks I almost got everyone conversation on this motion could you repeat it once more sure um this is a motion so I didn't last part just that you know so it was with additional changes because this is that's what would then happen um so with additional changes to condition 10 in the use table to increase the bn seating limit to 50 seats and to change the 100 foot limit to apply only to outdoor seating so that and I did that so that it allows um the planning department to come up with the best language to you know 30 goes to 50 right um but for the other one to come up with the best language based on that discussion nade I think's come up with good ones but I didn't want to have to concentrate on getting the exact amendment right here um Jennifer so is it possible to vote on the 50 and then at the next meeting nate comes back with language about the 100 feet that may not make sense but um so our next meeting oh yeah you are okay nate is still here um our next meeting is um where's my calendar the first which is before the first reading so we could um ask for that language specifically um what though I would hope though is because GOL would review this on the 30th which is before our next meeting I want to be able to say we've made a recommendation so we can get something to GOL even if we then come back on the first and review specific language I could add that potentially to the motion with further review you know with future review of the language or something um because we're really aiming to get this to the council for a first review on the 5th because of what Chris said um so you know I'm not sure I need to add it to the motion but we could have this and what I would say is make this motion that allows me to send it to GOL as we're done with it sort of um and let GOL know that there are additional changes to that one line coming that will have a draft by then um and then we could review it ourselves on the first and revote that particular language recommendation on the first all of which would still allow us to hit um the first reading on the fifth so that sort of makes sense Jennifer so I'm gonna ask Pam because I you really understand all these drawings and plans and where the you can visualize okay as a planner we'll go to Shalini while Pam thinks right I'm not sorry I was gonna ask a question to clarify a little more Jennifer and Pam like what we might be asking of Nate like is it a substantive change we're talking about like do we want to change the number hundred or are we talking about Nate coming up with alternatives to that or are we talking about just refining the language to make it so in which case it's not going to be a substantive change but were you thinking of a more um yeah what sort of like what were we hoping Nate to come back with I think Jennifer should answer that but I was gonna no I was just wondering because you we had just asked Nate to come back with something I didn't ask him somebody else did who so so Nate not suggested language me trying to figure out how to make a motion with that was difficult so yeah I was just saying if Nate is coming back with language or was going to develop language maybe we should you know hear it first that's just what I was saying I don't know who said Nate was going to come back with language so I think Nate's proposed language and I just didn't want to take the time to figure out how to put it into a motion was to remove the phrase any outside wall of a building occupied by the establishment shall be located more than and insert the phrase um I don't know something like where's my notes any outdoor seating shall be more than shall be located more than so change what he highlighted to any outdoor seating mm-hmm I just thought that got complicated in a motion and it was easier to just say those were the changes Pam um I I think I'm just looking at the other parts of the BN and I would I would like to hold to the hundred feet but I but I can live with the you know hundred feet from outdoor seating areas to any any nearby residential and I'm okay with changing it to a total of 50 seats um and no alcohol after nine I would I would be more comfortable simply saying no music um but I guess that's a case by case situation um where if it is a site site plan our special permit that there could be concerns raised at that time so I I believe I'm okay with uh changing get as suggested I really don't like doing zoning this way this is not a good way to do it raw I just would like to suggest that you keep uh the motion with the changes that you want but not specifically where you want them I'd like time to talk with Nate because um you know from my point of view I'd rather see the distance to outdoor dining and the the prohibited live entertainment or music to be in article five so that we're regulating all of that in the same place instead of breaking it up and and it'll be harder for the user you know not me necessarily but somebody else looking at adding outdoor dining to their establishment to find it here then over in article five where all the outdoor dining regulation is so I was okay with it when I was just talking about a total number of seats um but when we're getting specific about outdoor dining and and entertainment I might suggest that we at least consider that it be over in article five before deciding on it so I think the motion might be flexible enough right now to help you do that before the 5th of December I think I think it was yes yeah um so if if that's the feeling and and what I would request is that it be done before the 29th or 28th um I know Thanksgiving is next week because like I said GOL will will meet on the 30th and they're going to need sort of the sort of proposed language I would bring that language back on the first for CRC to see so that I could add an addendum to our report about the specific language um you know and and we could then vote on that language wherever it end up um any other comments questions Pam could you just read your uh and I want to say thanks to Rob for that that's exactly what was making me kind of nervous because we don't really know what we're tweaking and you need time to look at it um could you just read your motion again please sure it's to recommend the council adopt the revisions to food and drink establishments article three use regulations article five accessory uses article 11 administration and enforcement and article 12 definitions as presented on November 17 2022 with additional changes to condition 10 in the use table to increase the BN seating limit to 50 seats and to change the 100 foot limit to apply only to outdoor seating and so I think that's flexible enough for at least the change to the 100 foot limit to be potentially removed from condition 10 and moved over to accessory uses article five Rob is that true yeah I thought I'm comfortable with that I thought it was did you want to add and to prohibit outdoor music committee yeah I think I think that would make sense in the zone yeah because it's so close to is it outdoor music or outdoor entertainment and I don't have the thing out yeah I think outdoor lives are prerecorded entertainment yeah that's correct okay so um so I would add to the end of that motion after the word seating and to prohibit outdoor live or prerecorded entertainment um Pat I believe you seconded the motion would that be a friendly amendment that's fine okay with that are we ready to make a motion uh ready to vote it looks like we are um I think I start with Pat I um that means me I'm an I Pam I Jennifer I and Shalini that is a unanimous vote I am making a note to bring for for CRC to review the language on the first but I will and all of that um given the time I sorry John it's taken me so long I don't think we're going to get to anything rental registration today um so sorry I didn't tell you that sooner um looking at our agenda our next thing is associate member vacancies on the zba in the packet was the list of of current applicants prior to the so I um Shalini so we can I mean so can the staff leave them oh yes so yes thank you for making me finish that we are done with Chris Nate Rob and John because we will not get to rental registration given the timing today so thank you all of you thank you John for popping back in I was a little off and how long it would take us but thank you all um I'll be in touch regarding the meeting in two weeks so um with that yes associate member vacancies on the zba um Pam would you like to explain where we stand right now sure we have um five people that have responded saying they are still interested in being considered none of them has been asked for a statement of interest yet that's going to be done in one one group um we have three zba associate member openings and I wondered if it would be worth considering or discussing the length of term since it is going to be literally half a year late in getting folks on um as associate members that they would literally only have between let's just say in January and the end of June to serve their term if we if we as part of this process asked if they would be interested in serving a year and a half which is a term and a half respond to that one which is the charge itself limits the zba associate member terms to one year so we can only appoint for one year at most and right now we are actually appointing for vacancies and so the vacancies can only be appointed to the end of the vacancy what we could potentially think about is asking the council to um appoint zba essentially make two appointments appoint to fill the vacancies as they are now through the end of the term June 30 2023 and also appoint simultaneously to fill three of the vacancies for the next term there's a potential downside to that though and I will say that means a lot of times some of our zba associates become zba full members if they've already been appointed to a term for the next year as an associate member if they if if they were to want to sort of apply to upgrade to a full member and this committee made that recommendation to do so and made a recommendation and the council did so we would end up with then a vacancy in the associate members that we might not we might be in the same situation here versus if they're all expiring we get to look at that set of appointments in may and June holistically more um it it just becomes cleaner at that point that but that's the only thing I would say about that just think about that because we have at least one opening um coming up I'd have to look to see whether it's one or two coming up for full members and who knows whether there will be people seeking reappointment but we have to do the interviews for that um and so it all it's it's a puzzle come June depending on what you're looking for and if they're technically already appointed they'd have to resign their associate yeah it just gets more complicated I would say um if that is that is if we if we appointed them for longer than than a half year yeah if we did both sort of things simultaneously yeah thoughts on right now all we're considering is sufficiency of the applicant pool um and whether it is sufficient or not to continue on to the SOI process or the interview process at this time this is all part of the council policy on making recommendations so we have to make a determination on sufficiency and find it sufficient before we can actually request SOIs um and so thoughts on these next steps from any CRC members yeah I think we should keep it clean so that their term ends June 30th um and we'd have a sense then of any if any of them wanted to stay as an associate member or whether they wanted to move into full membership Jennifer um did I miss something in the packet so we haven't yet we don't know who's applied in terms of knowing whether it's sufficient we just know that there's a certain number so all of the SOIs um and so um okay let me the CAFs right yes sorry the CAFs not the SOIs um and in SharePoint there's a consolidated list with the green highlights I think yeah if you go to if you go to our CRC SharePoint site there is something called it's not in the public packet it can't be because the can't be right okay so I need to look at SharePoint I'm sorry um okay um yeah I can answer some demographics oh Pam can probably run for the demographics you probably have it up they are all white males so some some a little younger than others very diverse pool white males yeah I think the age range is is the ranges they gave was somewhere between the 18 to 29 range and also the 70 plus range I think is the current age range so so there is a wide age range yeah which brings up a good point and that is that a number of folks in the community have at least asked that um that we we don't share CAFs because that's you know personnel personnel papers but that that we are at least able to list who has applied who's put in and has expressed interest in all of these positions because it we're trying to lift the the veil of secrecy um to sort of at least at least and I don't know yeah I would say that's completely my fault GL just talked about this right and and we said you know we were using actually the CRC rules as examples of we do disclose those demographics but I used a we do it always in the report of the applications I used a different template for this demo this this sort of applicant numbers and I will make sure I go back and add to that template the demographic information to that one too um so that the next time I pull up the demographic the the sufficiency of applicant pool template it's got a thing to fill in the demographics so that we get that out there publicly when we're discussing the sufficiency of the applicant pool so I take full responsibility for for getting to do that on this one um but you're really challenged with this committee yes so you know I want to add some of my thoughts um and and this is where I struggle five for three is in terms of numbers probably sufficient um but can we get interviews I'm just looking at the timing of stuff if we declare the pool sufficient now um either Pam or I will send out interview um date requests this week we generally have been seeking to do them at our meetings on Thursdays um but we would probably pull for all Thursdays in December not just the ones that we have meetings for and we might even pull for a variety of Monday evenings or something some other dates that there aren't council meetings say um we have to under the rules under the council policy have the SOIs do seven days before the meeting um because they have to be posted seven days before the interview meeting um I can't imagine we can get an interview to uh given the holidays I can't imagine we'd want to schedule an interview meeting before the eighth because that would require the SOIs do the first um any earlier you know and figuring out if everyone's available and then giving people sufficient time to write a statement of interest over this coming week's holiday might be very problematic I'm thinking it will take at least a week to get responses back and figure out availability I'm just looking at generosity here and then give them another five six days to write so we're looking at the earliest the eighth for the interviews which should be an appointment on the 19th so we'd be looking at and that's the earliest um if we can't get anything before the 15th I might not be able to get anything before the new year on terms of interviews um and if that's the case we're appointing for less than six months and that's where I struggle do we go through this to a point for less than six months and then turn around three months later and start the process all again um and given the struggles we've had with this one would we even be waiting three months to start the process all again um or you know given the pool too right um which despite its numbers might be sufficient it is in no way diverse yeah and one of our goals is always to have a diverse pool um you can't appoint and create diversity on a committee unless the pool is diverse so I struggle with saying do we leave these open yet again for another full year because of the timing and because of all this or do we just go ahead and do it anyway and I don't know what the right answer is Pam I need to clarify that that at least one applicant is quite and or mixed so that that broadens the diversity a little bit I have a question and has I have actually never spoken to Steve Judge to ask him what the responsibilities and how frequently somebody ends up serving I think there was a meeting not long ago where they in fact didn't have a quorum but um I honestly don't know how often these associate members have to serve or get to serve and I I I really I feel badly because some of them have asked this question does anyone know that answer so my understanding is it varies widely year to year and you know committee to a committee I think in the four years I've done this we've had years where the associate has never served or a specific associate this has happened I think when we've had a fuller associate membership but we've had years where an associate has never served and we've had years where the associate is used heavily so I I think that's why we don't really have an answer because I think it depends on the busyness of the ZBA if they don't have applications and they're not reviewing projects they don't have meetings right if they're reviewing a lot they might have more use or need for use of associates and so I think that's why it's hard to answer that well Jennifer is it true that um if an associate serves like then they have to follow that application even if at the next meeting the full members back okay yes yes so once you've got your panel of five those five follow that application to the end it's why last July we actually extended Karen's term as ZBA member through the end of that one application even though we just appointed her to the planning board um so she was sort of on both at the same time because she has to finish off that application and we've done that now for the last two or three years that we make sure we specifically extend the serving whether they be full members or associate members that whoever if they're not continuing on the board part of the motion in the June meeting from the council is to extend to appoint for those particular matters and we name the matters those members until the those matters are complete other thoughts the question is do we move on to solicit SOIs and try and schedule interviews or not is the is sort of the big question um well should we ask should Pam speak with the chair if he's really needing at least you know if he feels the urgency I'm happy to do that I'm happy to reach out to him um I'm looking at Pat and and Shalini because I mean I've been pretty engaged in you know these requests coming in and and reaching out to them so I have I have some opinions but I'd rather hear from you too or Jennifer I mean I would I would like to go ahead with it but I know it's um I mean I'm just trying to think it'll be in part because Mandy said you know this night position people so in terms of the applicants they'd be going through all this for a short tenure but it may position them better if they want to apply for full time for us it means we go through interviews now and then five or six months from now yes Pat or Shalini I still think that's a good idea um I was trying to find the names that aren't in the public packet yet on SharePoint and I haven't been able to find it I'm just curious um who you know and I am concerned about diversity um but we have a limited pool five is not very many people but it is enough to secure three associates Shalini any thoughts I guess uh it makes sense to speak with Steve judge and see how urgent it is because if it's not then um I wonder if again we can do a more focused uh reach outreach and I don't know it's just like we're so stretched thin to do the outreach otherwise it seems like Amherst college or Hemsher college and UMass they have to be people in fact I did meet at the South Asian festival a young woman she's from Pakistan and is in the urban planning and showed some interest so actually reached out to her I haven't heard back but I'll keep pursuing her so I just feel like people just don't know about these opportunities and how do we do a better job of somehow you know beyond our district newsletters because those go to the same people but if there was a way to reach out to the universities through the chairs of the department maybe Steve I know he's busy too but if there was a more systematic way I'm saying of and somehow just sending random emails don't work but it's like that one-on-one like I had hey you know you can contribute if you're interested in this and she's like yeah actually I'm really interested and I'm like so somehow how do we do that I don't know so maybe the suggestion and and we would have to actually formally vote to declare the pool sufficient but maybe the suggestion is to vote to declare the pool sufficient start polling the known applicants for an interview date that might be a little later in December you know such that we aim for maybe appointments at the January meeting something like that that gives us time for Pam to reach out to Steve judge and see how urgent it is um for us to solicit the SOIs and see of those five whether we actually get five we've had we've seen in past that sometimes we have seven eight applicants and we end up with three SOIs right you know even though they said yes I'm still interested right we have no idea um but it would also you know it would at least move the process forward we could then determine and we could then talk before SOIs are distributed when we know exactly how many met to see potentially whether the pool is sufficient I worry that so one thing I worry about in terms of getting SOIs in and then revisiting sufficiency of pool if people have read SOIs and I will say when I get them in I don't read them until they're in the public packet I I open them up to make sure they comply with our rules 50 words or whatever that limit is and I close them again because I think it's unfair for me to get them a week before you guys get them say um but maybe if we what I worry is if the SOIs are out there and we're discussing sufficiency it goes to more than people's opinions of the candidates then go into whether you believe the pool is sufficient anymore um and so that's why I hesitate to revisit sufficiency once SOIs are received unless no one's read the SOIs and then we're still looking at numbers and demographics and all which I think is a fairer way to say yes we have a sufficient pool or not before we look at who they are um thoughts on sort of trying to move the process forward while also keeping it nimble like that to revisit some of these once we have more. Pam um yeah let's see where my hand here um I I think our job is to fill slots on the zba and planning board that is what this group is supposed to do so I I do agree with Pat it seems like we really need to move move on this so it's now the 17th of November and I can certainly reach out early next week um or tomorrow but I'm shuttling my husband to a procedure so it may not be tomorrow um but let's just say early next week a request goes to the five people that have expressed interest still and and say please you know send in your statement of interest I give them the whole packet which needs for the rest of you it's the uh request for statement of interest it's a little description of the zba itself um help me out Mandy there's there's another item or two that gets sent to them it's the interview interview questions interview questions go out before the interview um which is why we'd have to deal with the interview we would have to be we start with sufficient interview process interview questions go out before the interview um and so we would have to adopt those interview questions at the next meeting depending on when the interview is we have to adopt them a meeting before the interview happens um and so the other thing that goes out is the what do we call it the criteria um the selection criteria which at this point is the same ones we had last last time um GOL is still in the process of looking at different things um that criteria we would use last july's june's criteria um for that and and i can also reach out to Steve judge and ask him about it at the same yeah sorry cam that's it yeah and at the same time we reach out soliciting SOIs we have to have an SOI deadline but we also have to ask for availability on specific dates for interviews so i could i could start that interview availability tomorrow um and and that's a what we tend to do is just a doodle poll for specific dates and times that includes all the committee members and all of the applicants um because sometimes we're offering dates that aren't on our schedule um as a committee um so we need to and and i always prioritize getting all the applicants there um sometimes it takes a while but i could start that process tomorrow pat and then shalani i want to be sure that we don't have the same kind of peripheral that we had before um so if we have an interview date and we get some new people before that they can't make that date we are responsible for setting up another interview either separately for that person i just don't want to see the same kind of flap that we had before okay um jennifer yeah i agree with pat and i think last time we got in it was a little bit with summer vacation so i don't want to get too close to holiday when people are likely not to be able to make it so here's here's what i will plan on doing lessons learned right um we can set an interview date the pool doesn't technically close till the so is are due or actually till they're posted on online um and so what i can do is if the committee wants to ensure that doesn't happen if we get additional applicants between additional cfs between now and when things are posted online they immediately get the whole packet from either pam or i and with a submit your so i buy this deadline um and then that that email also includes and here's the intended interview date are you available and last time we ran into the oh i'm not and i think it was like a day before the so is were set to be posted and all and i i really didn't know what to do right um and so i think my plan now would be then to reach out to everyone and say we need to reschedule the interviews retake the poll um would would be given given the desire for that not to happen instead of saying oh no we already set the date and you're not available you can't be an applicant anymore um i think that's that would be what i would do is potentially move the interviews to a later date to find availability for everyone who submitted an so i if that sounds good to the committee shalini also could uh pam could you send us a packet also that you're sending out so if you're reaching out to residents and we can share the same set of documents thank you okay um well they would all they would really need to do is submit a cal unless you i mean but definitely i could i could include those documents yeah i just didn't know the criteria the charge anything that we need to tell people like what because generally people like what is expected from them and things not so they would still have to submit a calf but you could reach out with that information um so i'm going to make a motion to declare the pool the applicant pool sufficient is there a second second any discussion oh i'm sorry athena i'm going to add a word to that we always add um declare the pool applicant pool sufficient to move towards soliciting statements of interest and scheduling interviews that was more than one word that was entire phrase sorry to move toward um towards soliciting statements of interests interest and scheduling interviews thank you is that okay pam okay since you were the second any further discussion on that like why ask me i've seen none we start with me i'm going to say yes pam yes jennifer yes melanie yes pat hi that is unanimous um with that we are over time as i said we are not dealing with residential rental bylaw um we need to open to general public comment is there any general public comment at this time um those attendees i apologize to all the attendees they just all left i tried to make known we weren't getting there but maybe none of them were here by the time i made nothing that we weren't getting there they were both for that one um i tried to um so we now have no public for public comment um they can yell at me later um but um that um and then we don't have discussion items we have the meeting schedule um did anyone have concerns with the meeting scheduler is it possible for us to quickly vote that in the minutes before we adjourn i do want to note that i changed the january 2023 dates from the last meeting schedule to this one on the meeting schedule um i'm not sure what i changed them because they were bad to begin with um so just a note on that are there any questions on the meeting schedule i had two when i looked at the town calendar on holidays um the first one is Passover ends on the day of our April 13th meeting is that um if we run 430 to 630 is that problematic um Passover's last day is the 13th and i just don't know it does seem like it could be problematic for people who wish to attend the meeting it's not have a say to the second night that really problematic yeah okay so maybe we'll look to i'll look at alternative dates for the 13th and then September 7th um jan mushtami i might have pronounced that wrong shalini is the 6th to the 7th i ask again is that a problematic schedule then no okay thank you for pointing that out that's sweet thank you i looked at all of them and marked the ones that i was like huh these are the starter end dates of holidays that i wanted to make sure okay um question i was i was going to make a motion to accept the the proposed meeting dates with the caveat that you know if we see something coming that doesn't work that we adjust it because i have to look at my you know complete for the next year and a half and and adjust the April 13th to avoid yes yes okay is there a second to that very general vague motion second second um any further discussion on that i mean none we're going to vote we start with pam hi uh jennifer hi uh shalini yes uh pat by and mandy is an i that one passes um i will publish a new one with pass over adjusted um that 13th adjusted one week before or after minutes any questions on the november 3rd minutes see none i'm going to make the motion to adopt the november 3rd meeting minutes as presented is there a second d angeles uh we start with jennifer yes shalini did shalini freeze shalini minutes vote yes no now i can hear you okay um pat hi mandy is an i and pam hi so they are adopted thank you so much for your patience as we got through and ran a little bit late it is 6 40 p.m and we are adjourning thank you