you're all set, Mandy. Thank you. See if we make sure. Okay. So there we go. Seeing the presence of a quorum, I am calling this November 2nd, 2023 regular meeting of the Town Community Resources Committee of the Town Council to order at 4.40 p.m. Pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Acts of 2021, extended by Chapters 22 and 107 of the Acts of 2022, and extended by Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2023, this meeting will be conducted via remote means. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via Zoom or telephone. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time by a technological means. This meeting is being audio and video recorded. With that, I'm going to take roll call attendance to make sure that everyone can hear and be heard. We're going to start with Shalini. I am present. And Pat, present. Mandy is present. Jennifer, present. And Pam Rini will not be joining us today. With that, we're going to take our agenda a bit out of order. I believe Rob is here. If he's paying attention, we can start with that to get him off as soon as possible. We have one item on our agenda that is an item not anticipated, 48 hours in advance. And we will start with that item. And that is, I believe it was yesterday, we received a notice of resignation of a member of the plan, of the ZBA. And so I have added to the agenda that they can see to discuss. And so Rob Wachilla is here to answer any questions we may have about the ZBA's ability to operate right now with that resignation. There are, ZBA normally has five members with four associate members. Right now with that resignation, there are four members of the ZBA and three associate members. We had only filled three of the four slots last July of the associate members. So that is the current state of the ZBA. And one of the reasons I put it on this week's agenda is because we cannot do anything as a full council until the bulletin board notice of a vacancy has been published for at a minimum 14 days. That is a charter requirement. So one of the things we need to discuss today is when we're publishing that notice of vacancy. So that means even everyone saw the resignation notice. I haven't seen it yet, so can you tell me who it is? It's John Gilbert. And he signed, but in his resignation letter, he requested that he basically be appointed as an associate member, that he just didn't have time for full membership. But number one, there's no provision in any of our policies to just do that. And number two, even if there were, it would still require under the charter posting a notice of a vacancy for 14 days. So I put a draft vacancy notice in the packet. It was done very quickly, which means it's not quite accurate because I forgot that we didn't have all of our associate members full to begin with. So we need to fix that. But we need to discuss whether we want to post it, when we want to post it, and then any potential discussion on are there any requests we have to the town council regarding waivers of the policy? Sort of what do we want to do with this? Do we want to hold off and wait? There is, I will say I have no information one way or the other, but I will say one of the ZBA associate members is running for a school committee position. And what I do not have any information of is if that person wins a seat on the school committee, what their plan is come January regarding ZBA. Maybe we will have more information about that in two weeks. I don't know. But I don't have myself, this is not a hint one way or the other. I have not talked to that member about that at all. But it is something I thought I should bring up in terms of it might influence when we post or when we ask for other things or what we are looking at in terms of vacancies. So we are going to deal with that. And then we will go back to the rest of our agenda. Jennifer. Yeah, so I just want to ask, so we can't just interview the sitting alternates. We have to post it and let other people apply. Well, so yes and no. We under the council, under the charter, no matter what we choose to do or what the council chooses to do the vacancy must be posted for 14 days. Whether or not the council chooses to do anything with any new applicants or anything like that. That is a charter requirement that all vacancies must be posted for 14 days before they are filled. The current council policy on making recommendations from the CRC is that we would have to wait the 14 days, declare a pool sufficient, reach out to anyone who has submitted a CAF within the last two years, then go through statements of interest and interviews and all of that. One of the reasons I put this on here is for that exact question, Jennifer, which is is that something we want to propose to the council is to waive some of those requirements to potentially interview at this point associates to move up. One full to move down, things like that. What are we looking for in any potential waivers of council policy as we look to make these recommendations? And so the two things I want to do today is look at the posting, the draft bulletin board notice, because that's the first step in any policy is the committee needs to look at it before it gets posted. Decide when we would like to post it and then number two, talk about potential waiver requests. I don't want to talk beyond the waiver requests to what we might do if we get the waiver requests, but I want to talk about what waivers we might be thinking about asking for the council to do on November 13th, which is the earliest the waivers could happen. We have a meeting on November 16th. If the vacancy notice is posted on the bulletin board by November 6th, the council could technically act on November 20th, which is the second November council meeting. So hence the 48 hour rule. And then I thought with Rob here, I know he hasn't turned on a video and he doesn't have that, but he was expecting five, but I saw him sign on earlier. He can answer any questions as to urgency or questions we have about, is John currently serving on any applications and then things like that that we normally ask and who is on applications and stuff like that. So he'll be able to answer those questions. Oh, there's Rob's hand, Rob. Mandy, you have Rob Mora here right now. Oh, that's Rob Mora. Sorry about that. That's what I thought. I just text Rob Wachilla, so I think he was planning to join at five, but maybe he'll join up a little early. Oh, that'd be great if he could. You didn't have your last name, so I didn't know which Rob it was. So thank you for the clarification, Rob. So we will continue on this conversation until we get Rob Wachilla there to answer those questions if we have any, but the rest is we can seek his advice, but we can talk. Shall we start with the vacancy notice? Because that one's probably the easier one. This is what's in the packet, which I did not email anyone about it. It was yesterday. It's pulled from the one we posted this spring with changes here. And as you can see, this one is not accurate. So I would say I would go something like something that says, and at least one vacancy for an associate member, because we have one right now. It would be good to keep it open in case any others come forward, or if we promote someone from if that would happen, then there'd be more and we want this to be able to cover those two, I would say in my in my thoughts, other thoughts on this notice. I mean, I'm interested in sending out the notice because maybe we would elicit some more people because even with the suppose the council authorizes the shift making that easy for us, there's still vacancies and whether or not they they should come up. My concern is the timing and how much. Yeah, so I don't know. So Jennifer has her hand up. Jennifer. Yeah, so we have to post it. So I mean, I think we should probably post it and if we and interview people that apply, even though it's tight, because, you know, people, I can't say we're flooded with CBA applications, because sometimes we have to do outreach, but it's an important body. So we probably should, you know, a an associate might be given that would be part of the consideration. But if we're talking about so we have to post it. And I think if we get applicants, we should interview them. But this is the question I have. Should I don't know that we need to work? Well, how do we feel about this requiring, let's say there's some associates that would like to be full members, and we just interviewed them within the last few months, do they have to go through the interview again? So that would be one of the questions we might ask a waiver for is those that had submitted. So a couple things. Right now, the policy is that once the bulletin board notice is posted, only those CAFs that are submitted after the posting count. So anyone who went through the process just in June would need to submit a new CAF to be considered. It would also mean that if we want to consider John Gilbert, who has specifically asked to be sort of switched from full to associate, that he would also have to submit a new CAF and go through the same process. So hence, my thoughts on the next conversation is which potential waiver requests do we want to potentially ask for in terms of this process? So let's get this settled. And then Rob Wachilla has joined us. So thank you, Rob, for joining us a little early. And then we can ask Rob some questions and talk about waiver potentials. Any other, I will check to make sure this is the most recent one, the one that's in yellow. I did not do that yesterday. I just wanted something in the packet. So I would check that before we post it. Any other requested changes to this? We don't have to vote on this. This is just the committee has to see it under the current policy before it gets posted for comment. If not, I'm going to stop this share and all. And I will seek to have that posted tomorrow so that the 14 day clock starts. Welcome, Rob Wachilla. Too many Robs. I thought the other Rob was you for a while. Thank you for the last name. I'm going to start with, we're going to move to questions that we might have for Rob. And then we'll talk about any potential waivers. And I'm just going to start with, so with John having resigned, what is your thought, Rob, for the people in the audience's purposes, Rob is the staff liaison to the ZBA. So he's the one that works with the ZBA. Rob, what is your thinking and your opinion on the urgency of replacing and appointing a new full member and then at this point, and any vacancies to the associates? In terms of ZBA, how is it working? Has it been hard to find full five-member panels? And with John having resigned, will it be even harder, I guess? It's not a very concise question. No, but it gives me a good starting point to give you a good answer. So thank you for inviting me tonight. I'll be brief. So John sent me his letter of resignation late last week. And he has been caught up in a lot of personal matters and work related matters. He's an architect for for Wayfinder. So his schedule is pretty busy. So he hasn't been able to attend many of the meetings over the past six months since I've started here. I would say out of all those meetings, he's been at like two, three max. And I would say the most pressing thing that he's currently a part of was a panel that he's been sitting on for the Shootsbury Road Solar Project. And just give some backgrounds. It's a 10 acre solar site in northeast Amherst near the Pellam town line. John has been at the first of two public hearings for that specific panel. He didn't come to the second one because he had like a conflict that came up. So he kind of already used his one absence rule within the public hearing. And he indicated to me that it would be really hard for him to make any other public hearing after the fact. And essentially, he's confident that he's not going to be able to have the time commitments to continue to serve as a full member. Hence, the reason why he came and suggested that he could continue as an associate. But obviously, I know the process is that you can't do that sort of move. You might have to approve a resignation first and then maybe he could always reapply as an associate later. So that's what John's been a part of. In terms of the immediate need for a full member, I would say it's definitely needed. We've had luckily three associates who've been very reliable to step in when needed. I would say out of all the meetings I've been a part of since March, we've had only one meeting where we had only four members. So we've had consistent five-member panels for a lot of these public hearings, which is a good thing. The only thing is if any of the associates apply to be a full member, that means we're only going to have two associates left. And as you know, the ZBA gets permits pretty often. We've had around seven special permit applications so far this fiscal year. So having at least three or four associate members at all times would be really crucial because people are busy. Every other Thursday might be hard for some of the full members to make, and having those associates step in is very important. So that's pretty much the point I wanted to stress. That's the only panel that John's a part of. But with the four-member panel that still remains, so the other four members just remain on that panel, they're pretty reliable and consistent members already. And one of which is David Sloveter, who's an associate who had recently applied to be a full member as well. So yeah, I mean, I don't know if you guys have any other questions for me. That was kind of like the spiel I wanted to give. Well, thank you. Any questions for Rob? Jennifer? He's right. A question. Is it a rule on the ZBA that once you're, you know, reviewing an application that that group has to review it all the way through? So can you bring an associate on for one meeting? So the way it works is whoever is on that five-member panel, when they open a public hearing, they have to stay on that hearing throughout the whole process. And usually a member is allowed to miss one meeting according to the Mullins rule, which means if you miss that one meeting, that's the only time you can do it. But then you have to review the previous meeting minutes and video recordings and then fill out form, and then you can continue to serve. So that's usually the way it's done. That's just how it is in the rules and regulations. There really isn't any state law that governs that. That's just how the town of Amherst does it. And that's how a lot of other communities do it as well. There's public hearings that get continued for months on end. And, you know, usually it's hard to keep track of who was on that original panel. But in Amherst, that's just the rule that we have. So we have same consistent membership throughout the public hearing process. The associates step in when they're needed to. So say, for example, if we had a hearing where we only had four members present, there's a fifth spot that's open. So if that public hearing was pushed to another meeting dates, you could have an associate step in for that last spot just so you had five members on a panel. But when you say public hearing, that's the whole application. So the public hearing is basically for each specific application, you're required to schedule this public hearing and then notify the newspaper two weeks beforehand. And it's basically a date that you have to advertise four weeks in advance. And you have to make sure that you open the public hearing on that date. And you have the same group of five people there each time you have that application come before the board basically. Yeah. Thank you. I was a little confused about that. So the public hearing means you're considering the application. Yep. And then public meeting is public meeting is anything else like that's like anything administrative. Since there is someone who can no longer serve on that five member committee, does that just putting somebody on it, is that legitimate? I mean, it sounds like we could decide as a town in a special circumstance to add someone, but we still have to post it, et cetera, et cetera. Is there any associate or who or full, I guess, full member who has been participating just by watching or anything like that? That would be could step in. So if the only thing is, since we had five members already serve on that panel, because John's absent, you can't replace him with anybody else, he had already taken up that spot. And since he's no longer on the board, and he was an original panelist, unfortunately, the board has to be four members for that specific hearing. In terms of members who are present throughout all of those hearings, I'm not aware of anybody, because usually when ZBA members aren't asked to come to a meeting, they don't usually show up unless they're interested personally. So yeah. Hi, I was hoping against hope. It's a good question though. Other questions for Ralph? I just want to clap. I'm being very naive or dumb right now. I don't know which. There are four members. There were five. John is gone. Those four members now will stay, so it doesn't slow down the process of the public hearings. No, it does not. So basically, this means we have one less person on the whole board. Yeah. And you could have a tie or something like that would blockade things. Okay. Thank you. That's why I thought that I just wanted to be sure. Yeah. Let's talk about potential requests to the council to waive the policy. This might require a number of votes if we get to thinking about requests we might have. Rob, as I explained to the committee before you got on the charter requires that a notice of vacancy be posted on the bulletin board for 14 days before the town council can take any action at all. So we have reviewed the bulletin board notice and that will get posted hopefully tomorrow. I will send it out to Athena tonight for posting tomorrow, which would allow the council to potentially, if they waive their policy, depending on what we recommend, to make appointments as early as November 20th. That does not mean they will because there's a whole policy that we normally have to follow. And so our next part of the discussion is going to be, are we as a committee that is tasked with making the recommendations regarding ZVA vacancies going to request that the council waive certain parts of the policy for certain things or not at this point? So I'm just going to go through some of the parts of the policy that we have. Vacancy, when there's a vacancy, the town bulletin board has a notice. We took care of that already. And so the next one would be community activity forms. And the requirement is that they only go back two years. And that the applicant pool only, well, so that the community activity forms that the applicant pool includes in sections two and three, the applicant pool includes only those who have submitted community activity forms after the notice of vacancy gets posted. And that the chair or designee contact those individuals who have submitted community activity forms within the last two years of the vacancy notice being posted to see if they're still interested and advise them that if they are, they need to submit a new CAF. So let's start with that part. Those are sections two and three of the policy which is CAF dealing with at this point. Any thoughts on any potential requests for waivers to the council of that portion of the policy? Jennifer? Okay, so if an associate wants to apply for a full position, would they have to complete a CAF or do they already have one on file? Because this is a new vacancy, they would have to complete a CAF. So I would ask a waiver that if an associate wants to apply for full position, they don't have to complete a CA. Well, I guess that's not a big deal. And I think in terms of the interview, I don't know how I feel about this, although maybe we're not really talking about the interview. It seems like if they want an interview, they should have one. But should we require it or do we feel like if we just interviewed them or do we want to hear everybody be interviewed again to compare? Is that something we have to decide now? Let's stick to the CAF for now before we start talking. I would throw out there for us to discuss. I would feel, I think I'd feel okay if a current associate doesn't want to complete another CAF. We could, oh, but you're saying they have to or we could waive that. That's such a, the CAF is so minor. That's not, it's not a big deal. You're just feeling a couple of lines. Yeah, so what I'm thinking of is the questionnaire where they do more, the statement of interest. I guess what I'm saying is, okay, I would think they wouldn't have to do another statement of interest. Either that or they could simply submit the one that they already submitted. Yeah, right. Because I think you can't, I don't think you feel it's a little awkward to say Chalene decides to apply. No, you're right. They can just do the one they did before. Yeah, yeah. I'm a little slow to, yeah. No, I'm a little slow. Chalene and then Pat. Disaclarification. Are we talking about waivers forever or just for this? No, for this, for this set of things. Okay, okay, thanks. Yeah, Pat. Well, it seems to me, I want to know, I don't want to necessarily just switch people if there are additional people in town who, because Rob, you're saying that we still need associate members no matter what. So it seems to me, and we interview them for, as members, we don't determine in advance which position they're applying for. So I would like to open it up and go forward with the process, hoping we get some new people. Right. Which don't we have to, because we have to post it. We have to post it no matter what. So what I'm saying is let's do, let's go forward and not just simply move somebody. Let's see who else we can get. And, and now we have associates who have experience. So we have, it would be a kind of a neat pool of people. If we get, I agree, that's all I want to say. The committee is not seeking to ask for a waiver to essentially consider as applicants, those who submitted CAFs three or four months ago that we would like, we're okay with requiring everyone to resubmit a CAF. Yeah, because it's so simple. Why, why, but it does seem, you know, what we just said that Jennifer and I agree about is that why can't they use the same SOI unless they want, right? They may want to add their experience. So, or, yeah. And Rob, don't, Mr. Wachilla, that's why we'll keep you away from Rob more. If you, you know, Mandy would do this anyway, but if you're, you have things that you want to say, please say what your opinion is and your thoughts are, because you're, you're in the thick of it. Sure. Yeah, so I think, you know, it's always it's always advantageous to consider any associate that's interested in becoming a full member in the pool. It obviously has to be a fair process. You can't have, you know, any sort of differences because they're already on the board as an associate. But I would, I would suggest allowing for them to apply to, because they already been at a lot of public hearings and have a lot of experience already. So we're kind of at a point where it would be helpful to have people who can jump in and start serving when we need them to, especially since we're getting a lot of permits left and right for the ZBA. So that's kind of one thing I wanted to stress. That's, that's pretty urgent. Thank you. I actually have a question. Oh, thank you, Rob. I have a question for you about that. Because this goes back to my thoughts on whether we want to waive portions of this policy to potentially allow for appointments by the 20th, but maybe it doesn't at this point matter. So what I want to know is what hearings, new hearings that you'd be creating new panels for, because right now you've got panels for anything that's already been heard at least once. It's coming up, do you know of that are coming up in November and December? Or after November 20th through the end of the year? Let's see that. That's a good question. I would say for right now the biggest projects that have, well, the only biggest project I can think of that has a full panel, which in good condition is the Valley CDC Ball Lane affordable housing project. And the Shootspare Road Solar is the only one I can think of for any of the projects that only has four. And we've been fortunate enough to where we have the three associates on standby who've been able to fill up five members for each of these panels. As of right now, looking towards the end of the year, it's mostly smaller projects that we've been getting. So it's nothing that's, it's not a position that has to be filled ASAP, but it's good to have more membership on the board for when we get another affordable housing project, another 40B project, or another solar project if there is one in the works. We don't know of any, but just to be prepared for those sort of things coming up. Thank you. Okay, so it sounds like CRC is not leaning towards requesting a waiver regarding the CAF and the applicant pool. That brings us to selection guidance. That is just something we can do on our own. We will be changing my planned agendas the next couple of weeks. Selection guidance just means we have to adopt our own selection guidance before soliciting statements of interest. We cannot close the applicant pool for 14 days either. So statements of interest, our next meeting is within those 14 days. That's when we would do selection guidance and input and reappointments is number five, and that's just basically says they still have to be considered. Multiple member body handouts. We just reviewed it. So my plan is to take care of that. We reviewed it within a minimum of the ones per year. So we're good. And that takes us to the statement of interest, interview questions, interview questions we can do later statements of interest and interviews. Are there any requests for waivers of the policy regarding statement of interest? Or are we thinking we would like to request any waivers of that? That just the statement of interest section is only that we must receive one for a person to continue to be considered an applicant. Well, I think the waiver that we're looking for is for current members to have the ability to use what they've already submitted. I don't know if the statement of interest has to be brand new. So you would basically ask if there's support on this committee for requesting a waiver to allow current associate members to essentially count their prior statement of interest as the statement of interest for this process without them having to resubmit it. That we would just go find it. But that they could if they wanted to for some reason. I don't think any of them would. Never can tell. I would assume they'd just go to it updated and submit. But you never know. What are people's thoughts on that on Pat's thoughts there? I see a nod from Shalini, Jennifer. Yeah, I agree. Okay. So that means there's going to be a motion. I'm going to ask for a motion and a second. I'm going to read a draft motion. And if someone likes it, they can say so moved recommend move to recommend the council waive section seven of the policy to allow current associate members to count their prior statement of interest as the statement of interest for the process without resubmission. So moved. Is there a second? Shalini. Second. I think I heard Shalini. Any conversation on that one? We will vote. We'll start with Pat. Why? Jennifer? Yes. Shalini? Yes. And Mandy is an I so that is unanimous with Pam Amson. I'm interview questions. We can take care of next meeting. And then there's the interviews. And interviews are required to be in a group setting. Oh, interview questions. We have generally requested that the council waive the policy because I don't believe it's been changed yet. I'll have to go back regarding allowing follow up questions. If the policy hasn't been changed yet, do we want to request that waiver again? So that is sections eight and nine. I'll make the motion. I move to recommend the council waive sections eight and nine of the policy to allow committee members to ask follow up questions. Second. Second. Jennifer. Any discussion? We're going to vote. Jennifer. Yes. Shalini. Yes. Mandy is an I, Pat. I'm sorry. That's unanimous with Pam Amson. Now we get to the interviews are normally required as a group interview with all applicants needing to attend. And if you cannot attend, you cannot be considered for appointment. So we are nearing the end of the term. If all goes well, we would declare, I'm just going to think this timeline through in my head here to see if we could even get to interviews under the policy. We cannot change the 14 day requirement in some sense. So we would be able to, well, that might be something we ask to amend now that I think about it. We cannot under the current policy, we cannot declare the pool sufficient until after the 17th at the earliest because you can't declare the pool sufficient until after 14 days. And so our meeting after the 17th is the 7th of December, which is the earliest we could declare the pool sufficient and the earliest we could seek SOIs and notify candidates of when the SOIs do and all of that. If that all happens there and we make the statements of interest, we don't have a guideline on how long those need to be allowed for. But we could make them do some time around the 13th or 14th, but the interviews need to have seven days notice and all applicants need to be posted seven days in advance. So if we interviewed on the 21st, we're into the next council for appointments because the last council meeting is the 18th. It's a hell of a time to be interviewing four days before a major holiday. So I think talking about all of that, I think we have two options. Number one, we could do both. One, we could request a waiver of the interview requirement. And I'm thinking off the top of my head here. I don't know what I'm thinking, but where we don't actually try to schedule interviews between the major all of these holidays in October, November and December, we could potentially ask instead that we submit interview questions to the applicants. And in addition to their statement of interest, they provide written responses to the interview questions. And then we meet at some point to discuss those. So that's one option, either no interviews or written responses to interviews. These are all just options. We could also potentially request a waiver on the 13th, while at the meeting on the 13th of the council to waive that we cannot declare the pool sufficient for 14 days. The charter requires the vacancy be published for 14 days before the position is filled. Our policy requires that we can't declare the pool sufficient until 14 days after we could request that the that we allow be allowed to declare the pool sufficient in under 14 days, not knowing whether it will be or not. But it would give us a potential opportunity to declare the pool sufficient on November 16, which might give us a little more time to do interviews sometime around December 7 for appointments to be made on the 18th, or we'd have a little more leeway on when to actually do interviews. Those are what I've just thought of in the last three minutes, Jennifer. So we would when we post it, we would tell let potential applicants know when it has to be submitted. Because we can't have it be the 14 days that then we're going to decide we're going to close it. So we have to give everyone a chance to apply. Right. The applicant pool is not closed until statement of interest deadline. Okay. We could declare it. We can declare a pool sufficient, even if we don't have all applicants, even if applicants are still coming in. So it would be requesting that the council allow us to declare the pool sufficient in under 14 days from posting. In order to, I think the way it would be discussed and supported is in order for us to continue the process through the holidays to potentially get back to the council by the 18th appointments. Because the thought is if we can't get to the council recommendations by the 18th, you're into a new council. And it might be a couple more months then. Because that council would have to do the interviews. They probably wouldn't take They might or might not take any recommendations, right? But we might not even get the interviews done because the goal is to always get everyone who's applied there. So thoughts on any of this. Any thoughts on asking the council to forego interviews? John's term, for example, just for, you saw it in the bulletin board notice, John's term expires 2025. So that full appointment would be for a year and a half or so. All associates would be six months. Yeah, I think we have to do interviews. I don't know. No, no, no, go ahead. That was just saying that we're getting the answers over email and we're reading them, which is what they read. So I don't think it's that different, is it? Other than receive them and hear them, but basically they're giving us the written responses which they read and we'll just get them over email. We couldn't ask a follow-up. Yeah. I don't know. Pat? So, this is incredibly important. ZBA is incredibly important. Here are my thoughts. Let's make a motion to ask that the council waive the 14-day requirement for declaring the pool sufficient. Don't ask the council for anything regarding interviews right now. There is another council meeting on the 20th. One week later, we'll have a meeting on the 16th before that. And there is also a council meeting on December 4th, which is, we don't have a meeting between the 20th and the 4th. So that might not help us much, but we could potentially, depending on what's going on, I could make a chair's judgment on potentially to bring stuff to the council there on my own based on, in consultation with Pat, Pam, based on what we're looking at in terms of other things having had a conversation on the 16th. But if we at least ask for that deadline to be waived so that we could potentially declare the pool sufficient so that we can move towards the other stages, to at least try to make this happen in December, we give ourselves some leeway that if we don't ask for that waiver, we basically don't have a chance of doing anything before the end of the year. And if we ask for that, we can see what kind of response we get, we can see where we are. And then we can, we'll have more information on the 16th to maybe talk about other potential waivers we might need that we would bring to the 20th. I have already told Athena to pencil in agenda items for both the 13th and the 20th, just to have them penciled in just in case. So thoughts on that as a plan, it will require one more motion. Let's try it. Let me draft that one, find the section on that one. I mean, quite literally, we may not get anyone. And then we're, you know, we have the associates we have. And although I'm hoping we can add to that pool for Rob and the committee's health and well-being. I mean, in the past, we have had to do some active outreach. Yeah. Okay, here's the motion. Motion to recommend the council waive section three of the policy to allow the committee to declare the applicant pool sufficient less than 14 days after the bulletin board notice is posted. So I'll make that motion. Is there a second? Second. Shalini seconds. Any further discussion? See none. We'll start with Shalini. Yes. Mandy's and I, Pat. Aye. And Jennifer. Yes. That is also four to zero with Pam Absent. I think that takes care of this unanticipated item. Today, I want to thank Rob. We will do our best to see this is a tough time given there's a transition in January that we'll do our best to figure out what we can do before then. And figure that out. So you will probably receive regular panelist invitations to these meetings now just so we can have your advice when we get any questions about stuff as we struggle, you know, as we deal with the timing that is tough because this is not an ideal time to be trying to gather people for interviews even even in the best of circumstances. So thank you for coming and for your thoughts and advice. Thank you for having me and have a good night. Take care, everyone. Bye. Okay. With that, we are going to go on to the rest of our agenda. I did not do, we don't have any public hearings. We are going to just so I know time wise what's going on. We're going to skip the council transition memo. We have a little bit of time to deal with it. It's very basic. There's now a draft in there. It might change by the next time we get there, but we need to kind of know where we stand on now a couple of issues that aren't in this draft before we take some motions. We will have to vote something on that by December 7th. So that's the last day we can act on the transition memo is December 7th. We will probably try and fit it into next week's meeting. So we will not deal with that today. We have two sets of meeting minutes that we will not be dealing with today, October 5th and November 20th. And so we are going to, I'm going to make the motion to adopt the September 20, 23 meeting minutes as presented. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion on those? Seeing none, we'll move to a vote. Jennifer? Yes. Melanie? Yes. And Mandy is an eye that is unanimous. So we are done with minutes. We're going to move on to general public comment and then we're going to figure out what time we have for the other two items on the agenda. But I want to sort of know exactly what we've got. So we're going to open up to general public comment at this point. Public comments on matters within the jurisdiction of CRC will be accepted. Residents are welcome to express their views for up to three minutes. CRC generally does not engage in dialogue or comment on a matter raised during public comment. If you would like to make public comment, please at this time raise your hand. Seeing no hands, I am closing general public comment. That brings us to action items and we're going to start with nuisance house. We have about an hour left of our meeting. We're going to try and do 40 so minutes on nuisance house and see where we can get with that. This revision is slightly different from the one that is in the packet. Some formatting issues have been fixed and some other items have been changed after conversation with Pam. Pam did the draft. But Pam could not be here today. So Pam and I had a conversation yesterday to go through it and we talked about some things that weren't quite working or just ways to reformat stuff. So any markup that you see is changes from the document you had. We were able to actually come up with some questions in talking through what Pam was doing with this and this draft so that I could present it to you. Questions that we had and some inconsistencies and all that the committee will have to deal with. So I will go through this section by section with what Pam's as best I can with her description of what she was thinking based on our conversation and all on this as we move here. So she had also provided in the packet a nice comparison of the Boston nuisance house or nuisance property bylaw, our last draft of a bylaw and the current nuisance house bylaw just to see where things were. This newest draft reverts the enforcement tiers basically back to where the current draft is although it's actually slightly stricter and it gets rid of that two-tiered problem property, nuisance property down to just one nuisance property. So that's the biggest change in the draft. There have been some additions of some definitions and some changes of other things will go through it as we get there. Given the- You make it a tad larger. Yes. Given the unanticipated item when I spoke to Pam on Wednesday morning, we were hoping that we might be able to finish this in this meeting and the next to potentially because we thought it would be really good if we could get this to the council for a vote by the end of December which requires two meetings. Given the unanticipated item we just talked about, I'm no longer sure we have the time to do that without adding meetings. So it may end up being a carryover item but we'll see how we get today and how far we get and where we're thinking at all. Jennifer. Yeah. If there's anything we could do to be able to get this council session, otherwise it's a lot of people come up to speed. Yeah. Right. So we can talk about that during future agenda items whether this committee wants to potentially be adding meetings or not to potentially get this done. Let's see where we get on this today and where we're feeling with it though. So Pam, anything in red is different from the last draft. Yellow is also some differences. So that's where some stuff is. There's some strike-throughs and all. And then yellow also has a lot of commentary in it. So the commentary would get deleted for the next draft but that sort of describes where her thinking was and where other questions were. So definitions. Any concerns, questions, thoughts on definitions given these changes. I am not seeing any. I will have a request to add a definition when we get further down. I can type it into here. I don't know what it would look like. We use the term corrective action plan and when we get further down into the document we don't actually define what needs to be in there and I think a prior draft did. So my request I think would be to add corrective action plan into the definitions instead of down farther. Let's just put it into the definitions of what that is. Would people be okay with that? I think the last draft might have had a general idea of what would be included in it. And I just realized this one. We would also make these alphabetical in the next draft. So moving on to this one. So Shalini? I heard a comment about adding purpose which I think we should add. Especially given what last meeting that Chief Tang also said that he would like to get the tools to then take action to be able to take the appropriate actions and then looking at what Boston has. They have like I mean I think it's a little rigid and I don't like the tone of it but I like the message it's trying to convey. And so the Boston message you want me to just quickly read it. It says the purpose of this bylaws to empower this city to police properties that have become a public nuisance. And so I think we can and then it goes on to what that is but I think instead of maybe police properties change the tone a little bit but be more like is to empower the town to correct help properties to correct the actions or something like which is more moving it around to have a plan to address and to ensure the quality of life and blah blah blah something like that. I'll work on something. Any other thoughts on a purpose? We'll add a corrective action plan item. We'll reorder them back now down to public nuisance violations. So this is where one of the differences is a different format for this from the draft you saw. And some changes. It's a violation to engage in a public nuisance and then even though public nuisance is defined up here it is further defined down here to sort of get further into that giving people a better idea as to what we're doing here. And so a public nuisance includes but is not limited to and then you'll see the small a is some of the things we talked about last time. We've changed minor to underage person because minor is generally under 18 but we're talking about alcohol so it should be underage person. We've removed the lewd and lascivious behavior as we talked about last time. And in changes to that we'll talk about some of these yellows. Pam added back in the specific events such as gatherings including underage persons where alcohol is available. This is in the current bylaw and that wasn't really transferred over into the newest draft so she's added it into the newest draft. We added at Chief Ting's request public urination. Pam also proposed adding in public fights so fighting outside. We've moved it from general bylaws down into this may not violate a specific law. We didn't have a lot of sight so that's why we throw it down there. And then so a couple things to talk about in this one is some of the additions. Public urination, public fights, gatherings and then Pam had a comment in here about including by excessive pedestrian and vehicular traffic due to an event. I'd like to talk about that one because it doesn't quite fall into obstruction of public ways as we just modified that. So thoughts on that part of public nuisance which is sort of what better describing what a public nuisance is. Jennifer. I think this is good. Any thoughts on this parenthetical? Rob? I do have a couple of comments. Do you want to go one by one as you go through it? If you've got any comments up through this part let's hear them and then as we go through add yours in as we go through. Yeah so for zoning bylaws in your two C, I was thinking that it should be maintenance of vegetation. I can explain anything you want me to why but those sections don't actually require vegetation to be installed for all properties. It's when they're installed under those properties that they be maintained is how what I would think that would want to say. In D parking the section, the first section, should be 7-0-0-0 so remove 1-0. Thanks. And that captures the parking on the front lawn or in the front yard setback which I think is critical for these. And then I had a comment about what you were just about I think to talk about the including excessive pedestrian vehicular traffic. It doesn't belong there associated at 3.40. Inspection service is now responsible for the obstruction of the public way bylaw and it actually gives you 24 hours to remedy the situation and remove the obstruction so it just wouldn't work with the intent here. I think that should probably if we're going to do something like that probably move it down to the other activities that are not right specifically regulated. So I'm going to move it just for discussion purposes for that part of getting it into the right section. Any other things up through the property designations Rob? That's it. Discussion of the excessive pedestrian and vehicular traffic due to an event. Jennifer. So again just to I guess to ask Rob if there's so I mean I'm thinking of you know an incident that happened around the corner and they did call the police department and a traffic officer came out so that's not under your department is what you're saying but could it still go here? Right I think there's going to be a mix of things here some that'll get a response and follow-up by inspection services and most of these would be handled by the police department. And so I think and again it probably doesn't go here I guess this is talking about if there's a lot of like what happened here once was cars were parked on the street where there's no parking so then the other cars couldn't get through but if there's noise related to you know if it's after midnight and there's a lot of noise related to cars or a party letting out would that fall under the nuisance? It could so if the police department felt that it was violating one of these sections that that they would cite it under then it could be. Yeah so I guess there's two things there's the actual causing blockage of the public way from traffic and then just noise it seems that the noise would go under nuisance and the traffic issues would go for the police so I guess I'm saying I don't know if which should be here but yeah so noise is also unlawful noise you know it's one of the things that the that either inspection services or the police department could decide constitutes a nuisance property and write a ticket under this one too as this is written and but they could also just write well the the police department could just write an unlawful noise ticket and I think we're I'm saying he his department cannot write an unlawful noise ticket but his department can write now an obstruction of public ways of snow and ice ticket because we've given his department that ability. Shalini the excessive pedestrian and vehicle traffic do we need to describe what that is like I think like it's blocking traffic because just excessive is ambiguous and you know we have parties and we have a lot of traffic created because of that but that does not make it you know a problem you know it's something that Pat has brought up like homeowners versus tenants like we have parties and we have a lot of cars parked outside and is that a problem in either way regardless of whose house it is so it should be maybe more defined as in pedestrian traffic that's blocking traffic regular traffic or something qualifying it. Yep Pat. Yeah I'm stumbling around with Shalini's question from a different perspective and as somebody who's done lots of non-violent civil disobedience we have blockaded streets and I've never taken cars but I can remember some people who wanted to protest Hampshire Hampshire College who brought trucks through town etc I guess I don't feel like I wonder if this can be used against people who are peacefully protesting something that's happening in town or in the world or something like that is this another tool where they can be fined and arrested for being active citizens I've been arrested enough that I just really came up to me that I need to hear about this because it could be excessive pedestrian traffic you know when we left the at Amherst College yesterday there was a demonstration outside now they left a corridor and you know it was noise it was loud but it was on campus etc you know but what are the rules around political events as opposed to parties and things like that yet the results in terms for neighbors may be very similar. I'm gonna take a chance to comment and then I'll go to Shalini so I'm also concerned about the ambiguity of this and thinking about what the purpose of this nuisance property by law is whose property does the excessive pedestrian and vehicular traffic go to right you know if there's a protest that goes across the street as Pat said or even you know the gathering of we we received a video from a I think a Fearing Street resident that had videos of late at night of pedestrians gathering under a street light well if they're cited for nuisance property is it the residents property that is tagged on that when they had nothing to do with that gathering right and so yet yet would they be the one that would get tagged for the first violation of the nuisance property by law if we put something like that in here because that also doesn't seem right you can't always versus something related to gatherings at a house right this the way this one was written and even the public blocking of a way isn't necessarily attached to a particular property all the time and so I hesitate to include any of what is now in this for in the bylaw Shalini oh wait I thought that was quite brilliant what you did blocking a public way due to I was going to just see it to address Pat's concern which is very legit around political rallies or peace protests do you just say it's due to social gatherings and or just to qualify other than due to gatherings other than peace rallies and political protests or something just or just to say that due to social gatherings and that would exclude political gatherings yeah I think that having something here is important but I just want to really clarify what the Jennifer okay so first of all what I'm fearing street nobody would ever go there and cite the people who live in the house so I don't know there's two things there's a lot there is a lot of pedestrian traffic that happens in certain neighborhoods which is really loud till three in the morning but it's not it's people passing by so it's no there's no confusion that it's connected to a property I guess it could be if a party was letting out but something like fearing street that's just every Thursday Friday and Saturday night is nothing you know nobody would ever confuse that so um yeah I don't I don't know that we exactly need I mean I guess it couldn't hurt I'm just saying there's a that's I think it's actually covered by the noise you know if there's noise at a party if there's a party and it's noisy when people are leaving that gathering then it is related to the property which is very different than just crowds of people being very noisy going down the street just because they're going from one place like the dorms to downtown it's not connected with so again it's no one's gonna I mean I hear what you're saying about a political but that no one's gonna but this is really getting at no one's gonna confuse it with anything else it sounds like during okay keep this part of this one in yeah it's not is that a consensus uh pat you're muted yeah there's something there okay good uh what do two gatherings we could add a definition of what a gathering is the current bylaw might have one maybe but I'm hearing Jennifer saying just troops of people going from one place to another that's not really a gathering it's not a gathering and it's not it can't actually be addressed by the nuisance bylaw and I would say it shouldn't be under this yeah I think what pat ham was trying to get at was maybe this I think this is more potentially of what ham was trying to get at with that that blocking of the party gets so big they're standing in the road type thing so this might be a better wording and and I will put up here to potentially add a gathering okay I think we're on to D and we have multiple E's now the formatting is messed up so D up Shawnee oh just a refuse thing I remember in the survey there was a lot of concern about garbage being thrown out I know we've mentioned the refuse bylaw 3.3 but I don't know if the refuse bylaw itself stays enough or I think it just says that Board of Health will do this and blah blah blah I don't know if it's it includes I wonder if the yeah that should be in the four or see in the C activities that may violate and include um the dumping of stuff I guess furniture is mentioned but but other stuff that is thrown out oh maybe just make the furniture more not just furniture but just general yeah based on the front yeah yes I'll highlight it for better wording yeah thank you nuisance property so a couple changes here you'll see there's a an ad here um this is where we had two tiers um where we have the problem property and the nuisance property the attempt this draft is to streamline so there's no two tiers there's just a nuisance property after a certain time um gets closer to us as Pam noted here the current bylaw um and so and this is where we'll need Chief Ting probably at the next meeting um and I've made a note to do this this is where we start getting some questions about violations versus responses um and all um this one says third violation of the bylaw and a violation would normally be the third ticket written under this bylaw um the property is designated a nuisance property there was some additional language that Pam was trying to get at um current lease period for rental property one year for non rental properties we talked about some of the issues with that and the current bylaw has this language in it here which we thought was a better wording of getting to the one year period but recognizing that if the person living in the property has changed that the new person does not um essentially the the clock starts over at the new person whether that be an owner or a tenant or whatever if the person living there has changed basically um it would and this is the language from the current bylaw um and then Pam made a note that the current bylaw notifies the owners after each offense and that you'll see farther down in this draft um but that was just a note um so Jennifer yeah I am very much in support of the property owner or management company being notified when the police are called if I was the owner I would want to know and I think certainly with responsible owners and managers they will I think help make sure that there's not another violation so I think I think the sooner and if Rob thinks I should if we should discuss this offline I don't want to take up the committees but I'm wondering so there's a property that has been a problem um on the 300 block of Lincoln and it turns out it's a satellite fraternity which I thought was just sort of a euphemistic name but apparently it kind of really exists and they know the house is connected to a particular fraternity so my question is I know we're five arrests there I think um within the last few weeks so there's it's definitely a problem property has the fraternity if the is the fraternity notified because that's my question Chang might be better able to answer Rob in that particular case I don't know because what I know is we're not involved at all with anything there you know we haven't been through the building or responded to anything so I don't know who's been notified okay so is satellite fraternity an actual thing it's not a thing to me because it doesn't have a zoning classification and it it it really doesn't matter um until there's sanctioned events or activities associated with the fraternity and then I would simply consider that a a fraternity type use that either is or is not permitted depending on where it is so the whole satellite fraternity thing doesn't okay but the police chief said it's known to be connected with a particular fraternity he told me which one so how do we deal with that is that through your department or his we'll have to talk with him about that but I would suspect there's a lot of those situations where there's groups of members of fraternities that are living outside the fraternity marked fraternity houses the 11 that we have and are they owned by the fraternity you think are they're owned by someone could be owned by someone else no I think they're owned by somebody else at least because I we would we would have I think we would be more aware of it if they were owned by a fraternity I don't think that's the case okay let's one more question so when the if the police have to come out and the property owner is notified if we know it's connected to a fraternity in some way could the fraternity is there a entity that's registered with the campus that could be notified also well we have all the information on the fraternity so you're contacting the fraternity is as long as we know they're connected to that fraternity should be fairly easy and should that be in here let me think about that okay okay okay any other I did have a comment yep yep wrong just generally about this new the the second sentence in the underlined language I think this showed up later in the document somewhere and I and I highlighted it you know I just wanted to make sure that it's understood that you know there's plenty of situations that I know we've been involved in where you know three of the four residents remain and one's new or we were just talking about fraternities you know oftentimes the fraternity members are the same but there could be a new one you know a new member so just as a technicality if there's a new resident or a new occupant it automatically restarts the timeframe just something to think about Jennifer yeah so is there a way to catch that I mean I just feel like there's there's seeming to be that there's all these loopholes that allow houses to continue to be a problem and it's really doesn't inspire confidence in the neighbors that anybody cares so one possibility that that Pam I'm not Pam Pam and I discussed and we threw this in here and left it down below was what what we didn't really have in this bylaw Pam added some of it was how do you remove the nuisance property designation and so if this committee wanted to recommend that it doesn't matter if the residents have changed over you get the nuisance property designation so that the owner becomes liable even if the residents turned over and the prior residents had two nuisance property calls and violations and the new residents get their first one two weeks in that or three months later or whatever that the nuisance property designation still happens um but you deal with it within the corrective action plan of well you know what it's been 10 months and these residents haven't been a problem it was really the other residents and we took care of it type thing is is that where we want to deal with the issue of this potential that there was concern from Pam that that property owners might be unhappy or feel that they're being punished if they've tried to address the nuisance issue of tenants assuming that there's rentals there um by not renewing those tenants as lease and then they become liable when the next set of tenants maybe have one party but beyond that you know at graduation a year later but that's it right um and and so how do we deal with that and maybe that we just have to rely on the discretion of who's writing the tickets um and the corrective action plan instead of trying to deal with it here it's it's a possibility of eliminating these two sentences that were put here to try and better define the one-year period but dealing with that correction after the property has been designated a nuisance property yeah i'm sitting here wondering in terms of generally speaking uh if you're renewing if some of the members of a household are staying they renew their lease is renewed so there are at least one or two names or maybe more of people who have who sign the lease so if there's a repeat group or partial group would that be easy to to know uh through lease information or is that or are we just getting to yeah what if we do something like this i don't know whether this works jennifer muted i'm sorry the other thing is but what about houses and there are some i mean rob knows of a couple on east pleasant street which they have new residents each year but those houses for year after year after year like going on 20 years are always a problem the neighbors stay the same that the year-round residents stay the same new tenants move in every year same owner of those properties and it's their year in and year out a nuisance and again that's where the you know neighbors feel like what's going on here donnie so i want to but ask rob how we deal yeah i let rob answer better than i can ask so i as far as what we deal with in inspection services the the set of tenants doesn't really matter if it's a violation we're responding to the violation so on east pleasant street we got a lot of parking issues number of cars or where they're parked uh on the property so that's what we're dealing with you know but as you know the rental regulations they were lacking those enforcement steps beyond say writing a ticket or citing the violation so um you know i think the the important thing with the by-law like this is that it has to be aggressively applied you know we as we read through this document you get to the third offense and something shall happen there's no more maze you know it shall happen so those are the things that have to be with that well we're going to have to follow through with but uh i you know i don't know exactly you know what chief ting would say in response to that uh jennifer you're muted sorry i may i think you have a house where there's it's not really more noise you know 2019 east pleasant i just i think i have the right address so i yeah i don't enforce the noise regulations so i can't answer that okay so i'm just but i'm more getting to the point of we're only dealing with the tenants who change every year and is there anything we can do when the owner stays the same and their property is year after year a problem um are we just always having to reset the clock every year so as this is written yes um which which goes back to do we do we not want to reset the clock even if there's a complete turnover of tenants because you need to get to that third in a year and it's helpful to not start that clock over if the issue really is the property owner not the people living at the property um i mean could you say something like a house three years in a row is a nuisance then something else happens well i think it would probably be better to just say um upon the third violation of this bylaw in a one-year period the property is designated a nuisance property not with and it and and make that your respective of who's living in it um it's just a one-year period that doesn't restart any you know is always a count back to a year um and then deal with the issue of well what if we did a property owner would say well if we tried to get rid of the tenant because they were and we've basically had a very good year since then deal with that in the corrective action plan and corrective process and how you get rid of your nuisance property designation not here in designating a nuisance property that we take it to the designation because only when you get to that third offense is when the property owners become liable to so it might be better to leave it as it was originally written and deal with those concerns later on everyone okay with that so it's almost time for us to leave i'm going to mark that we're starting here next time um but in doing so we there's there's formatting issues so so we'll deal with it um we have about half the bylaw to get through again um if rob wants to send me his thoughts that so i can incorporate them into the next draft that i will get out that would be great um and i think i'll be doing the next draft um since i've the one making the changes and and then i'll ship it off to pam who did a great job on this one um and then i'll make sure we invite chief ting because we're getting to some of the questions that that we ran into that you would see in some of these comments which is the difference between violation and response um which are two different things and we have to make a decision which which it is and that's a committee discussion so that's where we'll start the next meeting on this um with that we're going to move on to our next item manager comment about this yep you know with the goal that we're trying to get this passed this bylaw passed before the end of our term is there a way that we can send out an email to tenants landlords residents to get feedback because i mean it's only fair if you're making huge changes that we inform the public who's going to be impacted by it and we do that not wait till the end but like let them know that you know that these are the kind of changes so we can anticipate and address any concerns they have and i think it's also an opportunity for tenants to be aware because in the survey and through that process there were a lot of people who did not even know what were the guidelines around noise bylaws do we have one and so this could even be just another way to let people know but mainly we should inform people and get their feedback so i i will try with the next draft that is clean and readable um that will take up at whatever our next meeting is i will try when i got that draft ready to to get it if rob is willing i will get it to rob um so that he can send it if he's willing his department's willing to the rental permit email list um and i can send it off to the sga umas and off-campus housing um to request that they send it off seeking comment and that the comments could come directly to town council at so that all counselors see those comments um and i can send it to counselors to the town council email requesting they use their listservs it didn't mean to add to your uh list of tasks but if you want to appoint somebody else to do it do um it it'll literally just be one email that goes out to everyone okay once i've got that draft done basically thank you so much um i'll add that to the list um and with that rob i want you to stick around actually let what where's my thing let me do let's move on to next agenda preview and then we'll go up to the follow-up um next we have three meetings after this meeting and we got thrown a curveball yesterday with a resignation um and i was not counting on that took up and will continue to take up time at the meetings um how what is this committee's feeling on trying to get the nuisance property bylaw to the council by their december fourth meeting because that would have to be the first review um it would also have to go through gol prior to that because it's a bylaw uh does this committee want to try to do that or not if so i think we need to be adding meetings um because we have one meeting before december four uh next and that's on the 16th or do we want to use this uh so so the question is should i be scheduling more meetings to try and get this done or are we just going to get it as far as we can and then see what that is thoughts from the committee jennifer so if we don't if it doesn't go back to council for a vote then it's just on the carryover memo but do they have to deal with it they could always decide not to has that happened um so tso sat on some carryover items for a while crc did too it it just always depends on what comes up with a new council right and who the new council is right i mean this is important if there was any chance it was going to just linger that would not be good i mean i don't i we can't predict that right we just don't know what i just not required that they take it up it is not required no but can i my understanding was remember when atina was trying to explain it to us oh i think i said if she's there if she said maybe she can explain that because in tso i thought she was saying that even well one if one of the councillors who's sponsoring it is continuing they can bring it back but then she was also saying even if there's no sponsor the town like the crc can ask the town council to vote on it for it to be passed on to the next so yes the council rules are that we've had a referral for nuisance bylaw it's sitting as a referral right now and if we have not acted on it um or if we have acted on it with a positive recommendation it is automatically carried over to the next council unless someone requests it not be and then it's put to a vote as to whether to automatically carry it over um so at this point in time if we did nothing else with nuisance it would be automatically carried over unless someone requested it not be but as with any council if it's carried over in committee the committee can always not deal with it right the committee can just or the committee can vote something else if it's carried over after the this committee has voted a positive recommendation it's possible that the next council and their president may decide never to bring it up who knows um or it would be sitting in gol potentially um depending on what gol's doing um so but afina yeah just quickly shall we the situation with the um the the things in tso that we're outstanding they're a little different because they have sponsors and the rules are different if there's a sponsor and the sponsor isn't continuing to the next term and so forth so that's just a little different than what's going on here tonight thank you so we'll talk about the transition memo and the carryover items at a different meeting i just am trying to get advice on whether i need to be scheduling more meetings and so that rob is here so that if we are scheduling we can know whether he can attend to um so does this committee basically want me to try and schedule a meeting next week pat i cannot meet uh this time every other thursday i have a mobile market meetings if we meet on a different day or a different time then i'd be willing to do it but i've had to move that meeting several times and i'm not going to move it now it's literally alternating this one tenifer yeah i'd love to i mean i would really like to get this done before the end of the year but i can't actually make a meeting next week so who am i to you can all you should all meet no and i can't so yeah so i don't i can't really ask that there would be a quorum if shallony and pam uh runy i don't know whether pam i don't think pam can yeah we i know we can't meet next week so so we will go ahead with the 16th we'll get as far as we can and then we'll leave it for wherever it is rob i just wanted to ask is is it even an option to say have a you know working session with me chief ting and one of you between now and the 16th and kind of work through i mean i have you know of your last version i have notes all over the place if he did the same you know again just to try to just to try to make the most out of the next meeting that would be great if you would be willing to do that i will try to have either myself or pam schedule one of those i'm not sure which one of us is going i'm going to be in charge of this one because pam is not here today so it might be best if i'm the one that does that but but i will try and get a draft out tomorrow so that chief ting can see um the one with all of these changes and with the questions we have about some of that um and that's a great suggestion to then and that'll be a draft that is circulated widely so it'll end up in as i said with shallony for um public comment but we might end up with a different draft two drafts in the next meeting's packet then um in order to allow enough time for circulating for public comment so i'll be in touch rob okay so thank you rob that's next agenda is this and other things we have 10 minutes and potentially more depending on um what we want to do which is the town manager goals um i have had this this is sitting in gl right now for drafting but we've had it on our agenda because it was one of the things we had said we would follow up as part of that joint meeting to try and put goals in you know craft some crc draft goals that could be added into or changed or recommended into what gl is working on um so the the question is we've got a combined document i've i've modified it and i'll tell you why um and and let me so many things so this one the additions to this from what you saw or what pam rooney sent me she had sent them directly to pat for gl chair and i did not have copies of them when i posted the combined document and i asked her because she wasn't going to be at this meeting to send me them so that i could put them into this combined document for the ones that relate to anything we were discussing tonight um and so i've added them in some of them are under these alternates because it was similar wording but i didn't want to deal with the wording so i just put a comment in that said other wording or alternate wording or things like that so the question becomes what do we want to do with this document and where do we want to spend our time as a committee um we could take this combined document and ship it like this over to gl um it would not be a vote of the committee of a recommendation of the committee unless we actually voted to recommend gl do this but i don't think we've got time to get into that unless we spend a lot of time doing so but gl's also there so what do we want to do with this document and our follow-up to that joint meeting in goal recommendations i would like to see it just go over to gl um and i want to ask kathina if this could be this version from crc could be added to our packet for the next meeting which is next week or is it too late to add that nope it's not never too late to add something to the packet and i haven't posted the agenda for gl on wednesday yet so we can oh actually we had time management goals in there anyway so right you know we did i just yeah okay so i would not in this packet yet i will i will put it into this packet yeah uh jennifer so we're sending this over but this doesn't have our blessing so to speak because we haven't voted on it that that would if we decide to send it over unless we actually vote on the as you say the blessing so to speak no it would just be in part of discussions at crc here are some crc member requests but it would have no crc recommends that this is what we put into the goals or anything like that unless we take the time and and vote and discuss it all so i'm gonna tell you there's something there that i just didn't understand where it came from under economic vitality it says including on the land of the former gateway i mean that's not even um that's isn't that university on land that came from shalini's requests from last week last meeting i mean that doesn't seem that's i don't understand we've have we ever it seems like something that would go to the planning board or or i don't know why would how it just seems odd that would be a town manager goal i don't know so i think that goes with the my comment from last week of get more specific about what he's reviewing and revising and presenting to the council with um in terms of zoning revisions instead of just say facilitate a review here's where we want the zoning revisions to focus and so shalini had had asked that zoning be there i would have other suggestions again this is why i'm asking what do we want to do because we yeah i don't know that seems like it requires a lot of conversation yeah shalini yeah i was just including that as as a area for review not that we should go ahead i'm not proposing that they should be development but i think that something that should be looked at specifically like i you know giving paul the clear indication that we'd like that to be reviewed so that's where i was going with that jennifer so this is what the planning board is doing now and actually that's one they're you know having these in-person meetings and they're discussing different areas and the gateway was one so i would think we'd want to let them have their conversation before we got that specific in a town manager goal i mean i think we're supporting their work also by telling paul to support that work like if they're already doing it that he should be paying attention to it well i think he's gonna i mean i don't feel comfortable with that i wouldn't feel comfortable it's like saying you know we want him i just don't even understand it enough to get that right yeah we haven't had a conversation about it sure i kind of agree with the jennifer here which has always is a surprise it's always a surprise no twice we've agreed today so the question is what do we want to do with this document do we want to continue discussing it do we want to send it over to gol without sort of that recommendation of just here's things we've all mentioned but or do we want to try and come up with a couple of actual recommendations while we're running out of time right i have a hard stop and i apologize for that but i do so um it is it feels awkward because i have no there's three of us on gol here right jennifer you're on jill right right yeah and uh and we also are on crc so it may be if the committee trusts us we could be sharing this uh i don't know if in the town manager goals and i'm not even i'm not talking about these i'm talking every committee is going to put in what they want and those will be the goals we have to vote on it as a council so i'm i'm just trying to figure this out you know what is my role as a crc member and what is my role as a gol member and i know it sucks you know i know what my limitations are at gol but do we just literally lift anybody's suggested um goal and stick it in um and i am not reflecting on these specific goals i'm i'm just felony and then and then i'm oh i'll add my hand um it's too hard to find when i'm host um yeah so this this becomes the question right in a lot of times the council takes recommendations from everyone and then gol sorts them maybe add some maybe delete some and then motions can be made at the council on whether to keep them or not right you can always move to add or move to delete and amend and all um and so the the part what what this topic started as was when we had the joint meeting thinking about what could crc do to promote affordable housing and and that that all and one of the things that was sort of talked about was that crc could work on proposing some goals for the council to add in or revise for the manager goals for the manager to work on and it takes us back to the crc charge that has us reviewing and making recommendations on matters related to several different things um and so to pat's point we could make recommendations regarding town manager goals related to these items um it would fall within our charge does it get unnecessarily complicated when one committee's trying to come up with a group and then there's still any councillor can still propose anything even if this committee would say you know we don't agree with that or we do agree with it even one of us could show up at the council meeting and ask to strike remove or add something that the committee didn't agree to and so that's where we get this confusing what are we trying to do which is why i started the conversation with what do we want to do with this document and how much time do we want to spend on it Jennifer um yeah so any councillor during the council meeting because that's we did that last time can bring up so i would say maybe that something that specific should should be happened then and not that this committee sends it over to gol with because we haven't discussed that at all right but even if it's a suggestion that's made it doesn't mean it's going to get in the final polls even from gol i'm thinking but i don't know if that's accurate or or do we just take anything that we've gotten and but this if we send this over from crc isn't it that crc felt comfortable with this not if we depend on how we word them any motion or any consensus agreement on whether to send it or not a motion or consensus agreement could be an agreement to send it as as discussion items but that there has been no vote by crc as to whether to recommend any one of these it is literally you know it is actually just a combined suggestions from crc members on items crc within crc's charge or we could not do anything with it this is a time that wearing two hats is quite difficult we could not do anything with it but there are three of us on gol and any one of us could i think i've sent half of these over to pat on my own pam has sent all of hers over to pat on her own i don't know whether shallony and jennifer you had some in here too you could send yours over to pat on i think we don't yeah jennifer i think we don't send this if this is already in gol let's just take it up a gol sign does crc have time to discuss some of the things that we're like i agreed with a lot of the things that were being proposed by others and you know just if i had an opportunity to explain what i meant by review including including the review of i didn't mean the way it's word it sounds like let's go ahead with it but no it was more like let's bring back some of these projects which are underdeveloped right now to meet the current needs of housing economic development you know and all of those things but it's a review of it i will try to answer that question every time every minute we spend doing this we can't spend doing other things on our agenda we've got three meetings but some of what you're discussing or talking about shallony could potentially be part of a discussion on carryover items if you look at the carryover memo there's not just referrals but also other things that the committee would like the next council to discuss okay and and so it could be potentially part of that discussion and that memo without necessarily going into goals for now i agree with you i think it's makes it's more appropriate as a carryover than in the town manager goals so and then pat and then i'm gonna conclude it oh pat can go because i think she needed to leave well all i'm gonna say is this has to this document already has pam and mandy and other ideas integrated into it and i want it in gl so i don't want to i mean and then i'll compare all these thousands of other things you're a chair pat you get to decide what goes in that packet it's in this particular document is not in CRC's packet yet it will be in there um shallony and then can i conclude yeah i just wanted to clarify about economic development also we've had meetings with paul m and jeff cravitz was there around economic development and there was a lot of confusion that if you did hire an economic development director what would that person be doing and so i was thinking again that if you provided more specific guidance to paul what we want in the economic development director and of course it's just guidance he will choose eventually but i think given that our industry is housing and our need is affordable housing and many of us counselors have been trying to do research to find solutions but there are people out there who are professionals and do this all the time and it would serve us well if you were to hire somebody who can work with wayfinders and all of these other innovative ways of bringing in housing and bringing into the changes we need to meet the kind of competing needs right now in our community thank you shallony um i'm going to conclude and then i'll go to jennifer for one last thing which is i will put this document since it's been shared in the packet i will not put a town manager follow-up on an agenda anymore on this one the potential survey will but these two items the town manager goals or however we want to word that and the potential survey will get folded into the council transition memo discussion when we bring that back either on the 16th but more likely on december 7 at our first december meeting which is going to be the meeting we must vote on the transition memo and finalize the transition memo but i'd like us to know how far we can get on nuisance property before we do the transition memo jennifer okay so we're finished with this document it's just going to be its gl it's going to be put in the packet and it may be brought up and it will probably be added to the count i'll probably find a way to add some of it to the council transition memo for talking points and discussion purposes right so any concerns we have now we can just bring up if we're on gl we can bring it up a gl yeah but i would like it in the packet ethena for gl thank you i don't have any other items unanticipated one is always enough and so thank you for your time i am adjourning the meeting at 6 37 pm thank you bye bye thanks