We're recording. Thank you. It is 435 p.m. and seeing a presence of a quorum of the Community Resources Committee I am calling this September 8, 2022 meeting to order pursuant to chapter. 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended by chapter 22 of the acts of 22 and by chapter 107 of the acts of 2022. This meeting will be conducted via remote means members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via zoom or by telephone. No in person attendance of members of the public will be permitted but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time by a technological means. At this time I'm going to take attendance to ensure that the members can hear us and we can hear them. Shalini. Present. Andy is present Pam. Jennifer. Present. And Pat DeAngelis is not here yet. We will see if she arrives at a later time and check it if she does we will make sure she can hear us. At this time, we're going to go into our scheduled agenda, because we have continued public hearings to hold that we're settled for 430 and 435. In accordance with the provisions of mgl chapter 40 a this public hearing of the Community Resources Committee of this continued public hearing of the Community Resources Committee of the Amherstown Council has been duly advertised and notice 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 bylaw zoning bylaw article 2 zoning districts article 3 use regulations and article 16 female floodplain overlay district to see if the town will vote to add article 16 female flood floodplain overlay district to the zoning bylaw. Amend article 2 zoning districts to add female floodplain overlay district and amend related sections of article 3 use regulations to regulate activities in the 100 year floodplain, as shown flood insurance rate map issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency for the administration of the National Insurance Flood Insurance Program for maps indicate areas that have a 1% chance of flooding in a given year. The purpose of the floodplain management regulations is to protect the public health safety and general welfare to minnow and to minimize the harmful impacts of flooding upon the community we are opening this or opening the continued hearing at 438pm. This has been continued from when was it continued from May 26, 2022. So at this time there are two this one is all of the zoning regulations the next one after we do something with this one is the actual zoning map. We will probably, Chris will probably discuss both during during her presentation here I don't know how she's splitting it up. We will technically have two hearings today and the way the hearing is going to be held is just like everything else we already did disclosures unless there's any changes with that will move right on to the presentation from our planning director and then we'll do questions from the committee questions from the public public comment. Any responses and any further questions from the committee. And so with that I'm going to turn this over to Chris Brestner and Chris you'll let me know when you want me to share a screen. Yes, thank you. So, again, I'm Chris Brestner planning director, and I'd like to remind CRC members of a few things about the flood mapping project and bring you up to date on where we are today with this project. I'm reviewing a little of the past actions on February 28, 2022. Planning staff gave a brief presentation of this project to town council members. And on April 25, 2022, the town council referred the zoning portion of this project to the planning board and CRC for public hearings. On May 2, the town council referred the firm maps and flood insurance or flood insurance rate maps and the flood insurance study to the CRC for a recommendation. On March 16 we gave a presentation to the planning board members. And then we opened a public hearing on the project on May 26 with the CRC and on June 1 with the planning board. At that time we did not have the letter of final determination from FEMA and we didn't have the final maps. There are two different but associated items for the planning board and the CRC and town council to consider and adopt. And one is the zoning amendments which includes the text and the map. And the other is the FEMA firm maps, flood insurance rate maps, and the flood insurance study. So we'll talk about those. This introduction, the town of Amherst is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program and that's administered by FEMA, Federal Emergency Management Agency. The program provides flood insurance for property owners whose properties are subject to flooding. If the municipality in which the property is located participates in the flood insurance program. The town has been working on this project of updating the flood insurance rate maps and the flood insurance study for about 10 years since 2012 and we're hoping to wrap it up this year. The project is to create accurate federally approved maps for land affected by flooding in order to provide information to banks, landowners, the conservation commission, the planning board and two other interested parties. The first flood maps were last updated in 1983 and new and better technology for mapping flood areas is now available and town meeting appropriated funds during several town meeting cycles to update the maps. The consulting firm AECOM was hired by the town and has been working with us to create these new maps and has mapped areas along rivers and streams in Amherst. After 2017, the preliminary flood insurance rate maps were presented to members of the planning board, the conservation commission and the public. And at that time the town became aware of a new method of analyzing flood data and determining flood boundaries. And this new method had just come into use in the spring of 2017. The town decided to appropriate additional money to update the maps further using this method that was called the 2017 regression analysis. And mapping using this new method has now been completed and there have been three appeal periods, only one of which resulted in an appeal which was eventually resolved. The maps have been online available for view since July of 2020. And there were three recently revised panels that have been available for review since July of 2021. The maps have been presented at public meetings, including town council, CRC and planning board. The meetings was held on June 25, 2019, and at that time we sent notifications to people who owned property in the floodplain as depicted on the new maps. So the old 1983 maps were based on USGS topography. I forget what USGS stands for but Dave probably remembers. It was at 10 foot intervals, you probably remember some of the old hiking maps that had 10 foot intervals on them. And they were also based on data gathered up to the early and mid 1970s. The new maps are based on town of Amherst GIS topography which has one foot contour so that's much more accurate. And they're also based on recently gathered data. They've been gathering data since the mid 70s up until quite recently that has been incorporated into these maps. So this means that the new maps are much more accurate. What does the town need to do the town needs to adopt the firm or flood insurance rate maps and the flood insurance study produced by a ecom and FEMA. And the town needs to adopt the zoning amendment and changes to the official zoning map. The department staff, along with the building commissioner with the assistance of our state flood hazard coordinator joy duper at DCR has developed an amendment to the zoning bylaw, and that includes article two, article three and article 16, which we're calling FEMA floodplain overlay district. And we've developed a draft of an amendment to the official zoning map, showing areas that will be included in the floodplain overlay district. The zoning amendment and changes to the zoning map have been proposed because from municipalities that are part of the flood insurance program. We need to show that we can and do manage and control development in flood prone areas. So one of the things that we were missing back in May and June was our letter of final determination. And we have finally received that from FEMA that was dated August 9 and we received it the following week. We expect that the final set of firm maps with new dates will be sent out probably tomorrow. And so we'll have it have them very shortly. However, the new maps are not available for this meeting. The public hearings that were held in May and June or continue to this week and the expectation that we would receive the letter of final determination and the new firm maps. So we have one thing, but not the other. Therefore, we're recommending to you that you hold a discussion today about the material that you do have, and then continue the public hearing on the zoning amendment and the changes to the official zoning map and on the firm maps and if FIS study to a date certain time in October. The planning board held a continued public hearing session last night, and they continued their public hearing to September 21. But with the expectation that we'll have the new maps by that date. However, if we don't have them, the planning board has a backup plan to continue again to October 19. So what will happen if we don't adopt the flood maps. If the town fails to adopt the new maps, the town of Amherst will no longer be able to participate in the flood insurance program. And people in Amherst will not be able to purchase flood insurance through the flood insurance program. In May, you received copies of presentations that Jennifer Moss of AECOM and Nate Malloy gave to town council in February, and they were a little more in depth describing what this project was all about and what the history of it is. So those presentations are still available if you're curious. I'm going to talk on the town website in the planning board on the planning board web page for the packet for June 1 of 2022. And I believe they were also included in the CRC packet from May 26 of 2022. I recommend that you use the time today to review the text of the proposed article 16 floodplain overlay district, along with the texts of article two and three. And to review the outline of the floodplain overlay district, which we will show on the screen in a few minutes. And the map can also be viewed as an interactive map, as posted online I sent you a link to this or via Mandy. I think we sent it out last week so you may have had a chance to play around with that it's a really good map because it gives you a lot of information about exactly where the differences are between the old floodplain maps and the new. After you've had a chance to ask your own questions and have a discussion and hear from the public. We recommend that you continue the public hearing to to a date probably in October. Just to bring you up to date a little bit more after the meetings at the end of May and beginning of June. I think members of the planning board had questions and comments. Janet McGowan was one planning board member who had a lot of questions and comments and Nate and I met with her to discuss her comments and concerns on the earlier draft. And we did many of her comments into the new draft, but we also discussed some of her concerns that ended up not being of concern to her so we resolved the issues that she had brought up. And we've revised the zoning amendment based on those comments based on what we heard from CRC and also based on what we heard from other planning board members. There's an issue related to Tanbrook, and I'd like to just say a few words about that. So we've heard from some residents and a few counselors that they have concerns about Tanbrook, the area in the center of town. And they were concerned that there was no floodplain shown along the Tanbrook in this area. And one panel in the center of town is blank and not included in the floodplain mapping. So FEMA has a threshold for mapping of flood prone areas. And they require that the mapping be one square mile of watershed in order to be mapped on a FEMA map. So the Tanbrook does not have an area of one square mile of watershed. The conservation commission has been discussing Tanbrook and they and DEP have been working on the issue of whether Tanbrook exceeds whether the watershed exceeds one half square mile of watershed. And this relates to its potential designation as a perennial stream. The issue is different from whether the area qualifies for firm mapping. Dave may have more to say about the issue that was brought to the conservation commission, but I just wanted to bring this up. So aside from Tanbrook not having the size of watershed that would qualify it to be mapped on a firm map. There's some other issues related to having your property mapped as a floodplain that I'd like to talk about. Anyone who owns property in a municipality that participates in the firm flood insurance program can purchase flood insurance. The property doesn't need to be mapped as a floodplain. The second thing is that flood insurance only covers the building and its contents and not property on which the building sits. Some people in the Tanbrook area noticed, noticed flooding in their yards, but damage to their yards wouldn't be covered by flood insurance only damage to the buildings. And the third thing is that in throughout the United States most property owners would be more likely to request that their properties be taken out of the flood zone, rather than being added to the flood zone for several reasons. The first reason being that the value of the property may decrease as a result of being added to the flood zone. The second reason is that properties in the flood zone may be required to purchase flood insurance in order to obtain a mortgage or a home equity loan. And the third thing is that properties in the flood zone would be subject to more scrutiny when making changes to the property, and they may need to apply to the conservation commission for permission to make changes. Since the hundred-year floodplain is considered a wetland resource area. Now, the conservation commission has other ways of determining where flooding is likely to occur. So even in places where the hundred-year floodplain isn't mapped, I think that they can somehow establish jurisdiction over those areas. But those are things that I'm not completely familiar with and Dave may have more information about that. So in terms of the vote that's needed, the adoption of the zoning bylaw portion of this project and changes to the official map require a two-thirds vote of town council. And the CRC needs to make a recommendation to town council about these zoning amendments just as it does about all zoning amendments. The adoption of the firm maps and the flood insurance study requires a majority vote of town council. The CRC also needs to offer a recommendation on the firm maps and flood insurance study. I'm not planning to present the flood insurance study today, but you've received either you have received a link to it or you've received it already. And you can read it at your leisure. It's quite a lengthy document that talks all about the methodology that the AECOM used to establish the flood zones. And it also gives, what should I say, cross sections of some of the streams showing where they took their data. So you might want to look at that. So I would be happy to answer any questions that you have about the introduction here. And if not, we can go into looking at the flood mapping and the text of the zoning amendment. Pam. Thank you. Just a couple quick questions. One is, this is the six months that we have to approve all of this start as of August nine, or does it start way back, you know, some of the earlier things. I think Christine Nottinger. It starts as of August nine. Yes. Okay. Or nine or 12 whenever we receive the letter. Did the planning board have any specific feedback that relative to the text or will you talk about that when we get into the tech? Yes, we can talk about that when we get into the text. Yeah, there wasn't too much feedback from the planning board, but they did have a few comments. And I think my other question had to do with the tech. So thank you. That was great. Any other questions before we get into the text, and we will not get into the maps until we continue this hearing and move to the next hearing, which is the overlay district so we won't touch the overlay district. We'll do that last after we've done motions and reopened another hearing. So that was my question, which was what was the planning board feedback. So, um, Chris, do you want me to just start with article two and then article three and then move to article 16. Yes. Yep.  So, we have to make changes to three sections of the zoning bylaw. The first section is article two, and article two establishes the zoning districts. So, we are in the process of establishing a new zoning district so we have to describe that in article two, and we have the definition of this new zoning district we're calling it the FEMA floodplain overlay district. This is an overlay district intended to provide protection of and regulation of activities in the special flood hazard areas designated on the town of Amherst's flood insurance rate maps issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency for the administration of the federal flood insurance program, the exact boundaries of which are defined by the 1% chance of base flood elevations shown on the firm and further defined by the flood insurance study and shown on the official zoning map for the town of Amherst entitled official zoning map Amherst, Massachusetts May 2011 as amended. So I don't know if you want me to tell you what the planning board said about this or do you want to ask questions first. Let's let's hear what the planning board thought about article two before we ask any questions because that might cover any questions we have. So one thing they asked was, why do we refer to the official zoning map dated May of 2011. And that was the date the town meeting voted to accept the electronic version of the official zoning map and established that as our official zoning map. Prior to that we had had a series of paper maps which were based on the assessors property maps and now in May of 2011 we actually established the electronic map that you see online the GIS map as our official zoning map. And then we've added the phrase as amended to take care of any amendments that have happened since then and obviously there have been amendments that have happened since then. So that was one of the questions. Another question was, how, how do we understand this 100 year flood, floodplain with a 1% chance of flooding in any given year. Is that something that has been affected by climate change and FEMA doesn't really predict into the future what might happen. They base their analysis on previous flood events so and previous storms. They look back in time, and they've looked back, you know, from the time in the mid 70s until a few years ago probably 2017 or 2019 somewhere in that area for data relating to flood events, and that's what they base their flood mapping on so they're not looking forward into the future but they're looking at collected data. They do have stream gauges that they use and they did place stream gauges in Amherst during the time period when they were doing this analysis. They have, you know, some relatively recent information, but that's what they base their information on they don't they don't put themselves in the position of predicting into the future. And that's a policy that they have across the country. Let's see what else. I think that's all the questions they had about this particular item here. Any further questions from CRC members. Pam. Chris, can you tell me, is there just going to be a new graphic overlay on the map just like, you know, flood protection zone or anything like that will will get a new color designation for that official map. Yes, that's right. So, we weren't able to create that map yet. Mike Warner is the person in it who creates those maps, and he wasn't able to make the actual changes to the official zoning map yet because the town council hasn't voted for that. So once the town council votes for that then he can create those changes to the official zoning map but we will show you a map later on in this meeting that depicts where those lines will be. Any other questions on article two. See none, we're going to move on to article three and just so members of the public know I will do questions after we've gone through all of the articles. So, and these are article three, the items in bold are what is proposed to be changed. So in article three, we're dealing with use regulations and article three mentions flood ways and flood prone areas in two locations. The first one is in section 3.13 which relates to development in flood ways. And it talks about that you can't encroach including fill new construction improvements to existing structures, etc. Unless there's a certification demonstrating that such encroachment will not result in any increase in flood levels. So we're not changing this existing language which is all in regular type. The only thing we wanted to do is call people's attention to the fact that we do have another section that deals with flood ways and flood plains. And so we've put in this additional phrase see also article 16 FEMA floodplain overlay district. So that's really what that first one is all about. In terms of the second item 3.22 the flood prone conservancy district. I'm sure you all know that we already have a zoning district that deals with it's a flood prone conservancy district this district was established back in the 70s and it's based on not as accurate data as we have today for the FEMA floodplain mapping, but we didn't want to change anything about our FPC district because it's relatively complicated. It has. It is not an overlay district it's an actual base district so in other words, if you were to remove the flood prone conservancy district from a property. You would then need to figure out well what zone do you want to put in that in place of that and so for all of the properties in town that are encompassed by the flood prone conservancy district we didn't think that this time was a good time to make those individual decisions about all those different properties. So we've left the flood prone conservancy district in place for now, we may choose to make amendments to it in the future, but for now we're just adding the sentence that says, oh the other thing is that in some places the flood prone conservancy district is more restrictive than FEMA. So what we've said here is that the floodplain management regulations found in the new article article 16 FEMA floodplain overlay district shall take precedence over any less restrictive conflicting bylaw or other local bylaw regulation or code so in other words if the FPC district is more restrictive than the FEMA floodplain regulations won't touch those more restricted regulations but again we wanted to call people's attention to the fact that article 16 exists and they should take a look at it. So, any questions regarding the proposed amendments to article three. Did the planning board have any requests to amend these two proposed amendments. No. Okay. See none we're going to move on to the bulk of the proposed amendments. We've created a new zoning bylaw article 16 FEMA floodplain overlay district, and we presented this to you in May and then we presented it to the planning board in June. And since then, as I said, we met with Janet McGowan. And we incorporated her comments to the extent that we felt that they were. How can I say this. Helpful. And she is fine with this latest draft. And she was very helpful in helping us to think about wording and how to make things clearer. So, it also incorporates any changes that the CRC or the planning board asked for at their meetings back in May and June. So the first thing has to do with the intent and purpose and item 16.02. We've added the words occurrence of public emergencies. So we're trying to prevent the occurrence of public emergencies. And then also contamination pollution of water resources resulting in flooding. So that was something that we added to this text here, and that seems to make sense to us. We've also added a new purpose down at the bottom, which is to allow the floodplain to operate naturally and drain flood waters without excessive development that can add to flooding. So the comment that we received from the planning board here was that we really don't need the word excessive in this purpose here. We can delete the word excessive because we don't want any development in the flood. So that would promote flooding that would add to flooding. So we're going to take out that word excessive. So do you want to keep going to definition or are there any questions about questions we'll do questions by section. So intent and purpose. My only comments are just Scrivener type things I just noticed that purpose is spelled wrong. And when you added the new section, the and and all just needs to pop down. Yeah, the semi colons now in the wrong spot. So, yeah. Okay. No other questions will move on to definitions. Oh, and I just wanted to state for clarification. The red that you see is the changes from the last version we saw everything you're looking at is what we would be voting to adopt though not just the red. In case there's anyone out there that that is used to seeing oh red is the what you're seeking to change no red is just showing us the difference between the last time we looked and now but the whole thing is new. Yep. So, in terms of definitions we want to make the point strongly that these definitions apply only to article 16 they don't apply to any other portion of the zoning bylaw and I think that was confusing to people because there are definitions in here. That could apply to other sections of the zoning bylaw unless we make this specific. So we've put the we've left the phrase in that starts off this section at the recommendation of joy do pro or contact at the state. We've taken out reference to flood hazard boundary map because we don't have a flood hazard boundary map for Amherst. In terms of the floodway. There were questions about confusion as to what is a floodway and what does the reference to height refer to. And so we put in the words as shown on the approved firm maps because the firm maps do show particular height in different locations so they'll show what we expect to have as the surface elevation in those particular locations. So just that was just a clarification. Now, the number or the wording in brackets if you many Joe goes back up. There were questions about these wordings in brackets now the state model bylaw had included those to help cities and towns understand where these words came from where these definitions came from. We, after hearing from the planning board and Janet agreed with this, that we should take those out and our state coordinator has also said we can take those out and just make a general reference to the particular codes and federal regulations in the first portion of this article 16 so in the introductory paragraph, we're going to make a reference to these codes. It doesn't make sense to make them throughout this. This document and the other problem would be that the numbers of the codes may change and then we would have to go back in and change the numbers. So we would have to get Town Council to vote to change the numbers so that is a very cumbersome way of dealing with this so everyone agreed that we could take out those references and just put a general statement about those particular regulations in the beginning part of the zoning bylaw. So that was something that was just agreed upon last night so we haven't had a chance to incorporate the exact wording. Okay, thank you Chris Pam. Chris, the question on the paragraph starting the floodway. Why don't we use the word designated elevation, rather than designated height. I mean we don't have we don't have depth of water measure measured we have water up to certain elevations. That's a good point. So we'll check that with our coordinator at the state and see if that is acceptable to me. So the sentence, the sentence says without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than it designated. I guess they're talking about a designated height over the elevation that the water surface is already. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Okay. The other changes in definition were down at start of construction. So the start of construction was one big run on sentence really or one big run on paragraph and it was very hard to parse out what exactly does this mean. So, we've separated things out a bit and we've said that you know there's the date of issuance of a building permit for new construction. Or substantial improvements to this existing we added the word or and or improvements that seem to make sense. And then we've made the statement that we've rewarded things here, the actual start of construction must commence within 180 days of the issuance of a building permit and that's kind of standard. The building permit expires if you don't use it within 180 days you are free to apply to renew the building permit but you need to use it within that six month period. And then the rest of this language is what you've seen before. So we're not in conflict with with anything else in our in our bylaws about permit permits being granted and time frame. Again, this language only applies to article 16. So that we don't have to consider that possible conflict. Thank you. Okay. Moving on to top of this page. There just one one small thing again. This is something Janet helped us with. Again, it was a kind of a run on sentence and it was hard to understand it so we've separated it out into two sections a and B to make it easier to read but the wording is essentially the same as it was before. So that was just a clarification. So again, excuse me started interrupt. So again, these, these repairs, or, or even some construction that may be allowed. I guess we're covering the we're covering the sort of the grandfathered in building that that was allowed or was built within this, this one floodable area. I mean our current regulations have wetland, you know, wetland regulations don't allow you to typically build back close to these areas so this is just sort of covering our covering the base of, of existing conditions. That is true. And also it is true that FEMA allows people to build in the floodplain. What they do is they say, well, if you're going to build in the floodplain you have to build your building, you know, on stilts and get it up out of the flood area, and we don't allow that. So. So yes, this applies to previously existing buildings. Section 16.2 16.2 designation of the floodplain administrator so if you go up just to the beginning of this section. Thank you Andy Joe. What we're doing here is FEMA requires that there be a position in the town that is designated as the floodplain administrator so in this case we've chosen to designate the planning director as the floodplain administrator it could be the town engineer, you could be the wetlands administrator. I'm not the town manager, but to us it made sense to make the planning director the floodplain administrator because the planning director has access to all of the other department heads in town and also the planning director has a staff. The planning director has the ability to contact other people who might be helpful in administering this floodplain bylaw, and also has the ability to enlist help from her staff or his staff. And that would be as opposed to say the wetlands administrator who was suggested as the person to deal with this wetlands administrator. They didn't have a staff, and the particular wetlands administrator who is currently in that position was not enthusiastic about taking on this role. So, we've decided that the planning director would be the appropriate person to do that. And again it's really the role of a coordinator, where the planning director figures out kind of what needs to be done and then gets the people who need to do it, moving in the direction they need to move. So, that's, that was the reason here and if the planning director is absent, their designee would fulfill the duties and in the case of our department, the designee would be the senior planner. And in this case it's Nate Malloy. So, that's, that's what this is all about. And then the duties of the floodplain administrator, the initial language of the model bylaw said the duties include, and we thought, well the duties may change over time. So, we should say may include, and these are the things that we think that may be included. The, the, the representative at the state, Joy Dupereau said, we didn't really even need to state all of these different things but we thought it would be helpful to people reading the bylaw to know a little bit more about well what does the floodplain administrator do anyway. And this is just an attempt to describe some of the things that the floodplain administrator would do. So that's what that's all about. Let's see. I have one question before we get to regulations. It always worries me when we put addresses in bylaws. Because addresses can change, and then we have to change the bylaw. Is it necessary to put these addresses in. Just be changes to FEMA region one risk analysis and a copy to Massachusetts NFIP state coordinator. I think you don't need to put the addresses in. Yep. Any other questions before we move on to regulations. Regulations. In terms of regulations, we've discovered or confirmed, I guess, by speaking with the wetlands administrator that anything that happens in the FEMA floodplain, which is the hundred year floodplain comes under the jurisdiction of the conservation commission. So, the hundred year floodplain is equivalent to the FEMA floodplain overlay district, they're the same thing. Anytime someone wants to do something in the floodplain and the hundred year floodplain they have to get. They at least have to tell the wetlands administrator what they're doing so that the wetlands administrator can determine if this thing actually needs conservation commission approval. So say somebody was making minor changes to a house or a building that's in the floodplain. These minor changes don't affect the land around it at all. Our permitting system, which we now have this thing called open gov notifies everybody when a permit application comes in so say someone wants to, you know, change the door on a building that's in the floodplain well that the wetlands administrator would get notification of that and she would say well that doesn't need to go to the conservation commission. On the other hand, if somebody wanted to make a driveway to a building that's in the floodplain that would need to go to the conservation commission because that is actually an alteration of the floodplain and the conservation commission would have to decide. Is that something that's going to increase the chance of flooding in this area or is it something that actually is completely flat and contiguous with the surrounding land. So that's why we've said here that any work in the FEMA floodplain overlay district shall require review by the wetlands administrator. And then that person will determine if review by the conservation commission is required. And that's how we've we've dealt with this now some cities and towns have a checklist where they have a number of different things that someone has to do in order to, you know, get get through this process. But we realized having talked to a couple of places particularly lately that trying to establish a checklist is really a daunting process because it's really hard to imagine all the different permits that you might need to do something. And I can kind of listen in my head but I'm sure they're not inclusive so we decided not to state it that way but really to require the applicant to state that he had indeed, you know, acquired all of these. All of these permits and I think we did state that somewhere somewhere in here, maybe it's in the previous paragraph. It's been removed here. There's another statement about it in addition to it here it is in addition to any building permit or other local state or federal permits any development. Nope, no, it's up there. Keep going up. No, I mean, it's here it says. Okay, a requires a permit. Okay, the proponent. All local state and federal permits necessary in order to carry out the proposed work so that's where we state that it's on the responsibility of the proponent to obtain all of these permits. Okay. And the last thing I think it's the last thing maybe not in subdivision approvals well the FEMA. So I should say that the letter that we received the letter of final determination refers to a section of the federal code. And I've read that section of the federal code but what our state has done is it's taken the federal code and it's translated in into this model by law which we've used, and they have incorporated the different things that the federal code requires. One of the things is a subdivision approval needs to be reviewed. And we, of course, always review subdivision approvals subdivision proposals and they're reviewed by town staff and then they are put through a process with the planning board or whichever planning committee, it needs to see it. So that's why we've said here that subdivision approvals shall be reviewed by town staff if they're in the overlay district while they're always reviewed by town staff. And then we have some other things listed below which are things that you've already seen. So that was just kind of a clarification. Can I move on Pam. Yeah, quick question. So it's, I mean it's a little redundant because in other sections you say, you know, you have to identify that you're not increasing the blockage it within the waterway or with the in the drainage. So to have to say that again for the subdivision as well. It seems a little redundant, but it's probably better to be a little over inclusive than under inclusive. I think that's true, especially since what's going to happen here is that after the town adopts this bylaw, it gets into the state for their review, and then it gets into FEMA. And I don't want any glitches when it gets to FEMA because we want the FEMA approval to occur within that six month period. And if we have something that we've taken out that they say you got to put it back in, then, you know, that's going to complicate the approval process. So I would say if they suggest or want us to put this in, let's put it in and, you know, call it a day. Yep. Thank you. A couple more changes. This flood elevation data. Oh, this was something that was really confusing when proposing subdivisions and other developments greater than 50 lots. Initially it said, or five acres whichever is less and we kept trying in our minds to think about what does that mean. So if we just put anything greater than five and 50 lots or five acres, the proponent must provide technical data. Now, that would definitely be true anyway in Amherst, and maybe it's not true, you know, because this, this type of buy or this type of regulation in Idaho and it applies in, you know, Alabama and Florida and all of these places that are not as well regulated as Massachusetts. So we have a lot of these things in place already. So we felt comfortable just changing this to say, you know, developments greater than 50 lots and or five acres. You got to provide this information. And then you have addresses here again. Okay, 16.3. Yep. Delete. Okay. Yep. Okay, so this was a suggestion that was recreational vehicles. Oh yeah so you're allowed to have recreational vehicles in the flood zone, provided they are that you can move them out out of the flood zone easily they have to be elevated and anchored. They also have to be on wheels, I think, but that's all covered in the federal regulations. So we're, we've said in accordance with FEMA's flood zone regulations. We're requiring here for recreational vehicles. I don't think we actually have regular recreational vehicles in flood zones in Amherst but I know Hadley does, and they had a lot of conversation about that a few years ago. Okay, what are course alterations or relocation of river in areas. We don't really do this in Amherst we don't relocate our rivers. The case that we did, we're required to notify some entities so we have to notify the adjacent towns and the boarding states, and then national flood insurance program state coordinator, and program specialist. We can delete the addresses, but we wanted to make sure that it was any, any suggestion that we're going to move these proposed or actual, but we don't think this is going to happen in Amherst. So the floodplain administrator, if someone gets a variance from floodplain standards, which we think would be rare, then the floodplain administrator is required to notify the property owner that their flood insurance policy may become more expensive as a result of the variance. So that's what this is about. And initially it said that this letter should be issued in writing over the signature of a community official but then that was kind of vague so we said well, why don't we just say it's going to be the floodplain administrator who issues this letter, a warning that her opponent who's obtaining the variance that you know if you get this variance your flood insurance rates are probably going to go up. And then we have to maintain the letter in our files. So that made sense to us. Just a scrivener that second paragraph in there that starts the floodplain administrator the shall is held over from something where it started a sentence. Shell should be shell. Okay, and variances. And we are almost through. This is the last two sets. Okay, and then let's see. The variance, if, however, a variance shall not be issued with any designated regulatory floodway. If then we put these words in to make the sentence makes sense if the variance would result in an increase in flood levels. Those words just seem to make that sentence read better. And that's what we're talking about. And then in the section on enforcement. The floodplain administrator doesn't really have power to enforce things but the building commissioner does have power to enforce things so we're putting the building commissioner in here as the person who would enforce the regulations and the building commissioner has the power to, to impose a fine or a penalty of up to $300. We thought this was a better situation building commissioner agrees and our person at the state said that this was a fine thing to do and it kept it. It kept the enforcement of this section of the bylaw in line with the other sections of the bylaw which are also enforced by the building commissioner. Yeah. Thanks, that's really good explanation. It occurs to me that a $300 fine for somebody building in illegally in a waterway is a fairly light. It's a fairly light fine and and I think anyone who's dealing with wetland zones should be totally aware of, you know, the impact I wonder if I have your fine would be appropriate and acceptable by other people. Well, the $300 a day is actually kind of standard throughout our regulations. And I think it's true of the general bylaw as well as the zoning bylaw, and it is a daily fine so it does build up over time. Each day is considered a different offense. So, even though I agree that, you know, violating this would be a serious offense. I think that to keep it in line with other things that we do the $300 a day seems like the right amount. So, I believe it's subject to the same maximum that all of our general bylaw $300 fines are which is you can't as a municipality do more than $300 per any offense which is why you declare each day a separate offense, so that they can build up because 300 is the highest we can go. So did that answer your question. Yes, and also because the day appears in the next sentence. So actually when I first turned it I was concerned it was just $300. But it's per day, per fin. Okay. It's why we always state each day is a separate violation because that's how you build up right to make it. As Pam says, a little more reasonable in size given the damage it would do. Yeah. Any other questions, concerns, things about this bylaw, even though we've heard that we're probably continuing this hearing because there might be further changes and we're waiting for the final firm maps. I want to get us through as much as we can this time so that the next time we hear this we're as quick as we can be. So Pam, any can we do any public comment on this now or if there's no more questions from us will move to public comments and then come back. So I'm going to stop the share seeing that there aren't any because we are in a hearing so we have to have public comment and public questions so at this time we're going to move to questions from the public, which is different than comments if you've got a question that you would like one of us to answer, most likely Chris because she's the most knowledgeable. Please raise your hand at this time and we will recognize you in turn, and just just so people know we have one person in attendance right now. Seeing no hands if anyone has a comment on the three sets of changes we have just been through article two article three and the new article 16 please raise your hand. Seeing none. Any other thoughts questions concerns, requested changes to any of the things we just reviewed. Pam. I just want to say thanks to Christine and the staff because this has been a long process. And I, you very carefully turned over each of these stones and sort of followed it out to the ends of the, of the lead. And, and thanks for the good coordination with all the state level folks that are leading this, this charge as well so I appreciate all the hard work. Thank you. Thanks for those words Pam. So my next question is, we had originally thought Chris and I when I asked her when a reasonable date to continue the hearing to because we don't have the final study and the final maps and therefore the zoning overlay could potentially change and so we don't want to make any recommendation until we've got everything finalized from FEMA. She had suggested maybe October 27 because of when the planning board might continue their hearing to. But if the planning board's gone to September 21. Chris, do you think it would be reasonable for us to just continue this two weeks I know we're on that time deadline so I don't want us continuing too far out if you think we can get this done on the 22nd of September. What is your thoughts on that Chris. So the planning board is sort of taking a leap of faith that they can do something on the 21st. They have a public hearing on an archipelago project 47 Olympia Drive that same night. I think they can get this done and you know, not much time at all because they've already heard it so many times. I would say it's quite possible that they could finish it on the 21st and then if you had your hearing continued to the 22nd, you would be able to wrap it up on the 22nd, but I'm just letting you know that because of the of the particular case that's on before this on the 21st. You know, it's possible that we may not fully wrap this up, but it's a good bet that we could. I'm sure the final study and firm maps will be issued in the next week. Based on past performance, I wouldn't, I wouldn't guarantee it. So, you know, what the planning board did essentially was say, okay, we'll continue our public hearing to the 21st. And then if for some reason the map does maps don't come in or we're overburdened on the 21st we can always continue to our next meeting which would be October 19. I would choose to take the same path and say okay you'll continue this to the 22nd but then if that doesn't work out for some reason you'll go to your next meeting which I think would be October 13th is that right. No, our next meeting's October 13th which is before the planning board would hear it. The one after that is the 27th. That's right. Yes, yes, yes, right. If we're trying to hear it after the planning board makes their recommendation that personally I think it's ideal is waiting until we've got the planning board recommendation so that they've made any changes to the language that they want. So that sounds like I'm going to make a motion to continue this public hearing until September 22 at 430pm. Is there a second. Pam Rooney raised her hand for the second. Any conversation. Seeing none we're going to vote. Shalini. You need to unmute Shalini. Yes. Mandy is an eye. Yeah, and Jennifer. I, that is the unanimous vote to continue the hearing to September 22 at 430pm. Now at 536pm. We're opening the continued public hearing on the zoning bylaw official zoning map female floodplain overlay district that was continued from May 26, 2022. And this is to see if the town will vote to amend the official zoning map to add the female floodplain overlay district for the purpose of regulating activities, as described in article 16 female floodplain overlay district. And so, let me share this. And again, we will go through this. There's a link. Yeah, no, I think it's, I think it's this one. But it should be that. There we go. Okay, so this map is something that was created by our it staff. And it shows the new floodplain configuration in blue. And it shows the 1983 floodplain configuration in yellow. And so the two things are overlaid with each other and it's a map of the entire town. And you can move it around and you can zoom in on it. And it's, it's really quite useful. You can see by looking at this particular location and what is this location, this is Heather stone brook and Holly brook. I can zoom out I just thought it was a nice one above. I see where this is. Yeah, this is amethyst. Going east west and then this is north of Pelham road and it's behind a lot of those farm properties. And you can see that Pelham is over to the east over to the right. So this gives a good impression of the differences between the old map which was based on 10 foot contours and not as good technical data. And the new map which is based on one foot contour so it's the new map is obviously much more refined. A cool thing about this is that you can go back and forth between the maps. I won't show you that right now because I don't know how to get out of it. Unfortunately, I'm technically disabled, but in any event you can see the difference between the two maps here very, very starkly but I think it would be helpful to go to some places that we know, like Pomeroy village if Mandy can move this so that we can have the intersection of Pomeroy lane and root 116.  You can see that Hickory Ridge country club, or not country club golf course, whatever it's called now is primarily in the flood plain so that's really, you know, a clear indication of what's going on over in that property, but the area right around Pomeroy lane right around the intersection is also good to look at and many might zoom in on that particular intersection just a bit. And, yeah, that's, that's terrific so you can see the difference between the old map and the new map in this location you can see the yellow was very sort of generalized and smooth and it didn't really reflect the jaggedness of contour elevations. And there are two buildings here, right in the middle of this picture. One is RMP liquor and the other one is that mixed use building so those two buildings were initially shown as being in the flood plain. In fact, those two properties are elevated so they're actually out of the flood plain and you can see that clearly in the blue area, the blue area is the new flood plain so those two properties are not within the flood and that's a case where somebody who might have had to buy flood insurance in the past may not have to buy it in the future as a result of these new maps. Let's see what would be another place that we could look at, we could look at North Amherst up around the Mill River recreation area. That would be a good place to go. So that's right here. And this is interesting to look at, because you can see that the, there's a lot of flood plain in this, in this village center. And again, is the old flood map and the blue is the new flood map. So that little shopping center that contains the pizza place and the post office and come bees that used to be in the flood plain that is no longer in the flood plain based on our new analysis of topography. And also parts of the Mill River conservation area that used to be within the flood plain are not in the flood plain anymore. So that is revealing. And then there are some properties over to the west of Sunderland Road that have that would have less of an issue with flood zone. Now, if you look at the properties just west of Sunderland Road, you'll see that the area has shrunk. So that would be right to the left of where it says Mill River that area there. Yeah, so that has shrunk. On the other hand, the area to the west of 116 has grown dramatically. So that area was was not as big as it was as it is now, but now we've remapped that area and all of that is really within the flood plain. So, you know, and that includes the new marijuana place up there and a lot of that land. So that's really significant. There's a controversial property down below the intersection of Meadow Street and Route 116, which you might want to look at, because this might be brought up by members of the public, but so Ron Lavertier and Lee Andrews, Ron Lavertier's father and Lee Andrews own a chunk of property here, sort of a triangular shape that is bordered by the farm to the south, Route 116 to the east and Meadow Street, which turns into the Gresselville Road to the west. And you can see that the area that they have available to them to develop. It used to be all pretty much all yellow, which was the 1983 flood map. And now some of that is removed from the flood map, and the area in blue is what is considered to be the 100 year flood plain. Interesting. Interesting change. Is that the light industrial area. Yes. So this still has flood prone conservancy district on it. And so that further restricts ability to develop this property but I just wanted to point this out to you because it was somewhat controversial back in 2001-2003. I think there was a lawsuit about this property and about its designation as flood prone conservancy. So this is the way FEMA has determined that the actual flood plain lies on that property. So, I actually think Pam, I don't think this is light industrial over here. I think the light industrial zoning is up here. And there is a little chunk of light industrial on that property that we were just looking at. Okay. And unfortunately, I don't think you can get to the zoning map from here, but there are two little areas of light industrial that are right along the road and those are places that Ron Laverdeer had actually gotten permitted to build two buildings and he never built them. So those permits have expired, but I think he's still interested in developing parts of this property. So that may, that may come about. Are there any other places in town that people are interested in looking at? Just shout it out. If you do, I can move. I think it's all pretty cool. It's great, isn't it? It's so much fun to look at. I had fun browsing the whole thing at a high resolution this morning. But, but I guess one thing I would say is I am very impressed at how few buildings are within our floodplains, even with these new drawn maps. And so I would say that's probably a kudos to whoever did the floodplain conservancy district, which probably helped in the 70s, 80s and 90s stop some building in what has now been deemed flood area.  So, so that brings up something that I did want to mention and it was something that Nate talked about in his presentation last night. The 1983 floodplain includes 500 properties and over 400 structures that are within the floodplain. And as a result of the new map, we still have, I think around 450 properties that are included in the floodplain, but we only have 70 structures. And that makes sense because, you know, people tended to build their structures on higher ground, but the 1983 maps didn't capture those minor changes in topography. So we only have 70 structures, roughly 70 structures in town that are currently within the floodplain. So that's an interesting statistic. And maybe several recreational vehicles, but we don't know. Although I haven't seen any. Any other questions. On the map. Okay, again, we're going to go to the public. If there are any questions from the public on the map, please raise your hand at this time. Seeing no questions if there's any comments from the public on the map. Please raise your hand at this time. Seeing none. Any other further questions from the committee. So just to let you know, the blue areas on the map that we just looked at, those are going to be the areas that will be included in the official zoning map as the overlay district. Okay. Sounds good. Seeing nothing else we're going, I'm going to make the motion to continue the public hearing until September 22nd at 435pm. Is there a second. Jennifer seconds that any further questions or discussion on the motion to continue. Pam. Yeah, we're, we're we planning to actually vote on articles two and three or 16 at this time. Before, you know, even without without closing the public hearing. No, we will be doing the votes after the public hearings are closed. We're trying to get as much of that discussion done now so that we can move efficiently. When we can finally close the hearings because we've got the final things. But, and that's presuming that the final ones that come in are not vastly changed from what we've seen right which is why we don't want to close the hearings because we don't know. And so we might have questions if they change something dramatically. Seeing no other questions. We're going to vote Mandy is an eye Pam. Hi, Jennifer. Hi. And Shalini. Yes. That is the public hearing is continued to the 22nd at 435pm. With that we're going to move on to our action items. And in the vein of what I just described. We are not going to discuss the proposed amendments. We can have a discussion we're not going to get to a vote. I think we've probably given everyone's comments already had the discussion. But if anyone would like to on action item for a, which is the amendments to the bylaw and the zoning map. Talk about anything now before we move on to the next item. Chris, I just wanted to encourage you all to look at the flood insurance study. It's posted online because you are going to be asked to vote on that and it's hard to present because it's all about methodology and stream cross sections, etc. So maybe the next thing we talk about, because that's 3B the rate maps and the insurance study. So the zoning things does anyone have anything to add to discussion or anything before we move on to the rate maps and insurance study. Seeing none, we will be back with that item on our agenda next meeting. Our agenda is the flood insurance rate maps and the flood insurance study. The study is online. I think I forgot to put it directly in the packet it has been in a council packet before so we've seen it I just think I forgot to move it over. So the maps are I believe the ones we've seen in the past that were in the packet they're the ones that designate the a and the sections and all right which is different than the overlay that we just looked at in how it's designated but not in where is that correct Chris. These are exactly the same as what you've just seen they're just shown on panels. You're shown on individual panels and you've seen them previously but you've seen them with dates that are out of date, and you are going to get these maps in with dates that are actually dated February 9 of 2023. And those will be the maps that you will be asked to adopt. Thank you. If anyone have any questions on the insurance study that we've seen in the past or the rate maps. I will make sure to forward that study. I will create the packet for next week's meeting today. It's basically going to be today's packet, but I'll make sure to put the study in and a link to the rate maps so you can see the labels. If you have any questions on those or discussion on adoption we're not going to vote until we have the final versions from FEMA. And final text. Yeah. Yeah. Seeing no questions. I want to thank Chris for her patience with us and working through this 2017 to now and multiple studies and multiple maps and multiple appeals. It's been a process and we're, we're in the home stretch. I think we can finally see an end for you guys. So, thank you for all your patience with us and helping us learn what it all means and how to interpret and look at and answering all our questions. We will see you in two weeks. Hopefully to make a recommendation. Hopefully we'll have them as their role in this done. Are you holding a public hearing on these last two things right now. No, we don't need to hold a public hearing on the insurance study and the rate maps because it's not zoning. Yeah. And so it's just on our agenda as an action item. As you can see there hasn't been a lot of public interest with the two hearings we've held and no comments at all. We're holding the hearings and keep the comments coming, but if they come, but yeah, we haven't scheduled specific hearings for these because it's not required. Okay, he spends this much time in towns across the country. So, may I answer that normally towns don't set out to change their own FEMA maps. Normally FEMA comes along and says you're going to change your maps, or some regional group gets together and changes their maps and in fact there's a process in the Connecticut Valley watershed is their maps are being changed and our maps will be incorporated into those maps but that was a process that hadn't started when we started our process so we set out on our own because we realized that there were issues about our maps and we wanted more definitive, you know, accurate maps. So, so we're kind of a, I don't know an outlier or a first, first adapter or doctor or whatever you want to call it, we took the leap, and we're doing it on our own with the help of FEMA and our state rep. But it's not a typical thing that cities and towns do. Yeah. Interesting. Thank you. Any other questions for doubly. Thank you. Lots of thank yous. And so, before we Rob has just joined us so what we're going to do is we have Rob has joined us about on time. We have to do associate member vacancies that should be really quick and then we'll probably spend about 20 minutes on rental residential rental bylaw before we do general public comment and the minutes. It's been a long time but we're going to use the time because we've got a lot to do. So associate member vacancies on the ZBA as everyone knows we posted the bulletin board notice about a month ago. A little over a month ago almost five weeks ago. Right now. There are technically for applicants. So we're not, we can't seek statements of interest until after we declare a pool sufficient. So we do not know whether any of those applicants will submit statements of interest. We have three associate member vacancies. So we're going to put this on here not to necessarily seek a vote of sufficiency, although if this committee believes it is a sufficient pool for members for four applicants for three vacancies. We can take a vote. But I wanted to sort of make sure we haven't forgotten that there's a bulletin board notice out there, and that we're hoping to get applicants. So yeah, so those four applicants, only two of those four submitted SOIs after the votes on the previous appointments. So, in other words, two of those four applicants are applicants because we sought the waiver to accept applicants up to May one, even though the bulletin board notice did not get published till August one. So, Jennifer. Last time, do we know who the applicants were to see whether it was sufficient in terms of, you know, diversity and. So I can, I can, you can go look because everyone gets sent the community activity form. So, if you go back into your email you can find it. The most recent four basically. Yeah, or the most recent five one of the one of the ones that is more recent was appointed. And so was already a member, but you can go back in that. I tend to only do that, that true compilation when I think it might be sufficient to save a little bit of time. But if people are want to want to consider whether for applicants for three positions is sufficient. We can, I can't share it but I can point you to where that information is for you to look at. It won't, it won't be a special document but but there are four. I think in the past we've disclosed gender and age and stuff. I think they're all male on the application usually. Yes. Yeah, demographic information that we put in our report is on the application. And so that includes age languages spoken and self identified gender. That's usually where they live in town. Yeah, they tend to put an address to so so we can look at the addresses to. And when are we wanting to hold interviews. So we haven't aimed for any specific date. Pam and I have discussed, you know, we need a pool right and then we need to survey the pool. We need a pool to see when they're available Pam and I did discuss potentially what did we say, October at the earliest. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. But if we don't have us if we don't declare pools sufficient those obviously have to get pushed back because it just does take a little bit to schedule and get people to respond to scheduling and all. But it would be wonderful if we could get interviews done in October and appointments done by that first November Council meeting. You know, because at this point we are operating the ZBA is operating with one associate member and for four, five members so they have a complete complement of members and then one sub, basically, but as we all know, the chair would love to have more subs. So Pam, your hand is still up. So question. I think we requested of Town Council that let's see how does that go that we were going to accept applications or the people that wouldn't have to redo a cat a calf. If they had submitted it after May one and I, and I didn't think that we actually voted on that in Town Council. It was on consent and all of our waivers on consent. Thank you. So yeah that number of four includes everyone from May one forward that is not currently sitting on the board questions comments. All I would do is encourage I'll make the announcement at the Council meeting on Monday encourage everyone to continue letting people know that we're seeking applicants. And at some point we may have to move forward. I think we did last time without necessarily thinking a pool is sufficient, but not wanting to keep things as open as they are. But we can have that discussion now or later. But I think we still have a little bit of time to try. Other thoughts. But we have another discussion next week. I think next week's agenda. I'm just going to change the date on this week's agenda. Because and change the minutes. But yeah, I will, I will put it, it will be back on the agenda. Next up is our residential rental bylaw review of the bylaw language in the working draft focusing on inspections and other requirements to obtain licenses violations penalties and issuance or denial permits. Thank you Rob for coming. And I am actually kind of on time. I'm impressed by my, my estimate of when we might get to this. So, let me see if I can pull that one up. I just want to move right into the document. As we start moving through these, the language, and so we had marked. We changed from the last time we saw it based on our conversations that at the last meeting. But we did not get through everything so we're going to start with where we ended last time and not look at today since we have such minimal time. The changes that were made between it based on those conversations we're going to start where we didn't get through, which is. Disclosure notifications and then consent and then let's see. Suspension revocation procedures and beyond so we're going to start with suspension revocation procedures beyond and then move back to consent and other disclosure notifications. Any thoughts on this one this is this is if a permit we're going to be suspended. What happens in order to suspend the permit and whether there can be appeals and how those appeals work. And so are there any thoughts on anything in sections three a to e that's on the screen right now Pam. Yeah, I would like to hear from somebody, maybe Rob, maybe from any of our of our audience who might be a property owner. If the whole issue was suspensions because I'm still very strongly wanting to make a statement to potential and existing landowners that that points add up and and there are consequences for bad management. So, I've heard a couple arguments about, well, we can't do it at this time of year or we can't do it at that time of year, because people might be left out in the cold. Obviously, we do not want that happening, but there are, there are a number of communities that have very strict permitting and and regulations in place. And somehow they seem to manage this so could I could I hear from somebody just at least explaining, you know, what a duration of notice might be or what a duration of suspension might be. Thanks. Rob, do you have any thoughts. Just, just that we, you know, when we discussed this previously under the current by a lot when drafting the current by a lot. You know, with the laws of Massachusetts and procedures for eviction and everything that has to happen in order to remove occupants from a from a building. It was decided that the any suspension that would be imposed would take effect at the end of a current lease. I don't know of any reason why that would have changed. We have an interesting case right now that's in front of the court that, you know, actually has a continued hearing tomorrow so I'll know more about how the court kind of reacts to some of these situations but you know my understanding is that, you know, in a, or my, my feeling is in a in a property that is maybe safe to be occupied, and that's not being that's not the issue. Removing tenants mid cycle of a lease for say a zoning violation is is going to be challenging. So I think the, the idea of keeping the suspension something that that takes effect at the end of a lease or when occupancy is ended makes probably is going to make sense. And then, you know, from that point in the discussion, my comment would be that our current bylaw that offers a 90 day suspension. I think I've said before just doesn't seem like a useful tool. So we need to do something different that makes it more of a penalty for the landlord so that it's not simply just a vacant unit for the summer months. Oh yeah, right, right. Can I ask a question so so that we've started here with effective at the end of the lease for six months the first time and then if within the next five years they do this again a full year. My first question is, would that be sufficient, potentially to to be that sort of deterrent and then number two is the reason we wanted at the end of the lease for things that are not sort of safety related I forget how to be worded at Rob. Because it's considered an eviction, if it's not safety related, even if it's being done per the town bylaws. So we have very specific situations that we can condemn a building or condemn a dwelling unit that wouldn't it wouldn't be one of those if we're talking about a zoning violation. So, you know, those, you know, those tools that are available in those situations where the building is found to be unsafe. Just aren't there to be used when we're dealing with other issues so do I, you know, it'd be interesting I guess to play that out for real because we haven't done it yet but my my feeling was that we would probably in those situations by order tell the property owner to empty the building by whatever means they need to do that. They need to stop renting the unit. And if that's eviction or if that's relocating or something else negotiating a deal that's up to them to figure out. But, you know, with with I think at the time the landlords that were part of the safe and healthy neighborhood working group. You know they have strong strong belief that that was not that was not going to be an effective tool that wasn't going to be supported legally, but we have not tested it. I do believe we discussed it with our town attorney at the time and I would advise just to stay away from the potential of trying to empty a unit mid cycle of a lease that wasn't related to one of those, you know, health and safety situations. But you know we haven't we haven't tried it yet. Thanks Jennifer. I guess what I'm thinking of is. Obviously you know if it's like the issue on Allen Street where it was a, it was a major that building had to be condemned so that students have to leave they can't come in that day that's one situation. That's not an addiction that's because the landlord I believe had to provide shelter someplace else, but that was for the tenant safety. If you have like a scoff law landlord I mean someone who approves a certain number of points, when they go to renew their lease, can't there just be, they're not allowed to renew it so at that point the tenants have left. So, I mean isn't that doable without causing tenants to, you know, anything that could be construed as an addiction, they just, they haven't earned the right to renew their permit. Absolutely I think that's one scenario, you know what we're discussing a lot with permitting conditions right now really has to do with a situation where maybe the tenant isn't, you know, you know, complying with the terms of their lease. There could be a situation where that results in a violation maybe that results in a zoning violation, and it's expected that the landlord would exercise the terms of their lease which would probably be eviction, you know for those, you know those more egregious violations of the lease I think there's a number of different situations but the one you just described would be probably a nice clean, you know path to a suspension. Pam. It occurs to me that that the landlord would need to know though in advance of sort of the end of the of the first tenant's term so that they know to advertise or not advertise. And I think that probably some of the tricky timing that we've been talking about. I think that Pam, because Rob, do you know when most we've heard from some people that leases for the next year are assigned sometime in January, February, March, yet they don't start till September. We were new July one. And so, if a lease is already signed to start September. These are all probably questions we need to ask an attorney but maybe, maybe you, you know, a little bit about it but you know if, if we didn't issue that permit, what happens to that lease like is that essentially a landlord tenant breach a contract type, you know, like what what happens, you know, or are we really getting into problems where you can't even not renew once a leases signed, you know, type thing does that leave the town with some liability. So that's a good legal question and we have to we have to see that through and get get the best advice we can on that but when I have looked at that before. My thought would be that our bylaw would specify that the landlord has to do something the landlord has to have a provision in their lease that would, you know, would react to that situation, you know, in the event that their, their income it's not renewed for one reason or another.  So, that's a, it's a great question we need to explore that legally and just see exactly in what form that needs to be but I think it'd be addressed in the bylaw. And if we don't, unfortunately, then we would be looking at waiting another whole cycle of at least an occupancy which we wouldn't want to want to do any further. The people who've been studying it longer was, I mean, do you have other language from other towns like maybe two or three different ways in which other towns have implemented this. And, and I think it's not going to be a complete surprise for the landlord because it's based on points so as their points are increasing they're getting notified at each stage that, you know, take care of these issues. So, hopefully that's not going to be a complete surprise but I would love to see possible this seems like a very important issue this with inspections and what are how are other towns phrasing these issues. So, I think the language here is basically based on some other towns, but I'm not sure which one because it's been so long since this was drafted. The concern that we've heard in the past from at least one person is if it's not based on a Massachusetts town. And more tenant laws are extremely different in other states, and so what can happen in say Pennsylvania or Iowa might not be able to happen here because of state law here. But I think we base this language basically on some other towns language, not hearing any concerns about this language per se at this point, we're going to move on to appeals. I can't I can't really read it on the screen anyway so I'm trying, but it's in the packet it's in the packet. I know. So the appeal section is basically what happens if a permit is suspended revoked or denied. And so, basically there's not necessarily as written right now I don't think there's really an appeal for anything other than suspension revocation or denial. And so any other one, there isn't this appeal process this only applies if you're not getting a permit or your permits being revoked, at least how it's written, the attorney will tell us whether we've that's that's okay or not. So this one maintains a rentals appeal board, and the rentals appeal board as drafted would include at least one member of the town council the ZBA the board of licensed commissioners and the board of health. It could, it could be more it doesn't set a size and it's the manager who establishes it. Oh, and it includes the town manager and at least one member of the following. The town manager or designate. I can't imagine that the town manager would have time for this. I mean not that any other staff person does either but still. So, so the question we have to also ask is, do we want a separate rental appeals board, or do we want to assign it to the board of licensed commissioners. I think that's the area where the board of licensed commissioners actually when I went to their meeting and updated them on this because I happen to be there for something else, where they, they said that they might be willing to take this role on because that that sort of appeal of a decision particularly they deal with license decisions right and revoking licenses appealing things like that, that they felt this type of hearing type process is something that they could handle. The question is, do we want to say go for it or do we want to constitute essentially a new body every time there is an appeal. I'd like to hear Rob thoughts on that. Me too.  Appeals are hand appeals of our current, you know, work go different places state boards, or local zoning board of appeals. Otherwise, if it's, you know, just a concern about, you know, the way a staff person is, you know, doing their job, it generally goes to the town manager, but I've always been in favor since we started talking about this of having it go to the Board of License Commissioners I think they would. It's there in a good routine with their work that they do it relates. They have a specialized licensing lawyer that supports them when needed. If there are any letters, we have a staff person that's designated to support the Board of License Commissioners so preparing all the documents and packets and if there are any notices or mailings that are needed. It would work well, you know, we wouldn't have to create all that or figure out who would do that, you know, would it would somebody from the town manager's office have to do all that paperwork for a hearing like this. And that's, you know, for all those reasons I felt like the Board of License Commissioners was was a good place to hold these these appeals. The size of the of the Board of License, the licensures. The size matter would additional input be appropriate in in sort of this real estate or rental permitting process. So the board is five members right now. Yeah, and I think I think if they, you know, if they were to take on this I think, you know, moving ahead the desired qualifications of at least one of the members might might change. We do have a wide range of very experienced and great set of, you know, expertise on the, on the commission right now. And I think it's really cool and otherwise so I think I think there maybe there'd be a focus in the real estate or, you know, relevant area for this. Jennifer. Yeah, I'm just thinking on. So, the, for a brief time, there was like a pizza bar restaurant where Garcia's was between Bertucci's and Garcia's. And it was, it was a mess and the Board of License Commissioner did a really good job of suspending the liquor license and close it they did all be steps and eventually they just the guy who owned it had to go. So they were pretty much brand new at the time too. So, does that mean the four of us are kind of are sort of on to assigning this to the Board of License Commissioners. And that would mean that we can delete this one here. Yeah, you go. Not needed then. Anything that I this language. I think might have even come from our current bylaw I'm not sure because I think our current bylaw has a Reynolds appeal board. But we don't have one. It's if there hasn't been a suspension revocation and all you never needed to constitute one. So, okay, anything else with this language, or this, the appeals process. I'm just working my way through changing everything that references the rental appeals board. And I wouldn't mind hearing from the audience, too. We're going to, we're going to have audience comment. But I want to get through one more thing before we go to that because they might have comment on that too, which is I want to go back to consent and permit display and use but start with consent because I'd like to get us. If we get through consent, we have a draft while not anywhere close to final that can at least be sent off to an attorney to say hey, what might not be complying with law so that we can get our attorney in. I'm hoping for the October 27 meeting, where we'll actually potentially have an attorney here at the meeting to talk to us. And so we can ask all these legal questions of what's allowed what's not allowed. So we can move on some of that. Consent Jennifer. Okay, I haven't. We don't have to. It's late. We're almost adjourning so maybe it's another discussion but just to sort of high level altitude discussion of. You know, I guess this would come under inspections but they're just seen based on the feedback that we got the forms that were filled out on the engage ambers that came from tenants. There was a lot being reported of just, you know, rental dwellings that were just in bad condition. I don't know what, I don't even know if they're code violations but just dirty deferred maintenance and when I think of, you know, all the properties I see that look pretty crummy on the outside I guess they're, they can often be pretty crummy on the inside is would we, if we had annual inspections or whatever, begin to catch this so just this weekend on the next store app. A mother must have just moved her daughter into a rental unit and she posted. She said my daughter moved in she was assured that this unit was going to be cleaned and it was just, I guess, dirty and pretty awful. And there was, I mean there must have been 25 different there was all this back and forth people say it's the attendant board you know everybody was weighing in, but I think this is probably not that unusual. So, what can we, with these inspection cats, just do so that your students aren't moving in to these pretty awful places. And I don't even know if that's a violation of the place is dirty is that a violation but it just seems like, you know, I feel like you mass, a lot of students have to live off campus, and they're, you know, we discussed this before they're paying a lot of money but certainly not all of it but you know how do we catch these rental units that are just, you know, not a place we never want to live. Rob. Yeah, you know it's possible that it could be a zoning or could be a violation. I don't think we're going to be able to say with this new regulation that will be able to catch all that necessarily. And that moves in can certainly call us and we would go look at it and get involved at that point. But we're not going to be able to do pre occupancy inspections, all at that one time so they're these inspections would occur throughout the year so we're not going to see it in in that condition necessarily. So, you know, I think I do feel like that's going to be useful that's going to be what starts to change the way landlords manage their properties. Because we will be conducting inspectors and we will be calling out things like that at various points of the year but it might not be caught at the time of moving like the situation you just described. I just responded to this mother and told her to email me, I could refer it to you if she does. Absolutely. So consent. I just want to go through some of this quickly. It's got multiple terms right now I do not know whether anything, any of this violates current state law, but this was some of the stuff that was in a draft some of the things we've heard. But applying. So the first one is if you apply for a residential rental permit you as owner of the property consented to the inspection that is required to obtain that permit. The lease terms must include a provision requiring the tenants to agree to provide reasonable access to the property. As required under the bylaw again I don't know whether we can actually do this but that's something that we've heard. So start with it all and see what our attorney says. The third one is notice to the tenants that the owners must provide seven days notice for inspections. For the initial inspection the sort of standard inspection and if there are follow up inspections as as much as possible as much notice as possible. The tenant and authorization says that the tenants must authorize an inspection before the inspection can begin and that consent or they can wave and the, the being there I guess they have to be signed before you can inspect to the dwelling. The additional inspections would be notice of that would be given to the owner at reasonable time and known violation with impeach the health, the code inspectors. Yeah, our, our staff can go to the courts to try and get a an order allowing us to go into inspect. So that's the consent side. Rob mentioned today that he'd like to see another lease term about non renewal permit that maybe we can put that into the section where they'd have to have in the term some sort of, if the permit is not renewed. The leases cancel basically things like that. But I miss anything in consenting and all of the notices and inspection notices for what we want to potentially try to do. Or what Rob needs or all to be able to inspect, or is some of these two onerous to get Rob's team into inspect to Pam. It seems like there's a little bit of conflict, perhaps with, you know, the mass renters regulations or requirements, whatever. But I don't think it hurts to, you know, enumerate these five or six items. I don't know if, if in this section we would add something to the effect of all, you know, contact for health and safety and I must be posted and I know, I know the good landlords do that. But I didn't know if that's really in essence part of the consent like you, you, you the tenant signs on this line saying you're going to let a an inspector in. They also sign on a line saying you received all of the tenants rights. You know, so I don't know if that if that particular element needs to be included here as well. So I think we actually we've got this distribute and I'm browsing it quickly. A signed copy of the form or proof of delivery maintained by the owner and made available on request so we've got that some of that is there up in this other section you haven't gone over with I think that's what you're talking about. Yeah, yeah. Okay, I think that covers it. Thank you. So, and I popped up to this because this is the requirement for displaying the permit and what the permit needs to show and where they need to display it. So, any other thoughts on these two sections for now. I know we probably have to talk to the attorney a lot. Mandy, do you do we still have in there the, the requirement to provide a copy of the lease upon request in another section, I'm just not finding it, a lease to the town to the town, you know, in the case if the situation warrants that we need that information that is provided to us and I'm not sure if it belongs in this section somewhere as well, or instead, but I just want to make sure we don't lose that we use that quite often. So you. So, Rob, you get a copy of the lease when you've said before when it's a special permit, and they provide a copy of the lease as sort of a evidence for you for making them. But you would like to be able to ask for a copy of the lease for any unit. Well, yeah, there's different. So for special permits, typically, there's a template lease that's part of the approval for that that use. And that's where we are, you know, through that process we're inserting the various conditions about gathering size or number of vehicles, and now we're getting even more into the details of, you know, response to violations but the current rental bylaw gives us the authorization to require to request a copy of the lease and the owners required to give it to us within 48 hours that that's something that we wanted in there from the very beginning. And it's probably one of the most used provisions of our current bylaw. Because it, you know, it's the place we start, you know, especially when we're dealing with over occupancy because at least now in recent years, you know, we get that that lease and there's, of course, only for individuals that have signed at least. And it's just the starting place to start start a lot of questioning to the owner about the seven people that we're talking to out in the property. You know, when there's only a lease of four so, and I mean there's been other situations where it's been useful for other reasons but we often asked for it just before we get even going on any investigation. So I don't see it in here now it might have gotten dropped by accident because I thought I was looking for it because I thought we had it as part of the application requirements to provide the lease like when you apply for the permit you must provide the lease. And so I'll check more fully and make sure we put that in. Would you want a copy of all the leases or do you just want to be able to request one need be. Probably just when we need it. Just because you know managing that kind of additional set of documents might be a lot right now. Okay, Pam, and then we're going to go to public comment. I didn't take my hand down. With that. We will get to more of this at the next meeting. So public comment is now where's my language and public comment on matters within the jurisdiction of the community resources committee is open right now residents are welcome to express their views for up to three minutes. I'm not engaged in a dialogue or comment on a matter raised during public comment at this time. Many who see know that we bring them up within further discussions at later times so if you like to make public comment please raise your hand. We're not a shepherd, please unmute yourself state your name where you live and make your comment. Hi, we're not a shepherd. First, I just wanted to comment on timing, in terms of either license issuing permit, whatever is done that is done speedy, you know that there's no, not a lot of weight that I had sent comments regarding. Getting it, making sure to facilitate men lords getting a permit pending, even if it's a temporary permit that they will be fulfilling all the obligations. And, and they will because they don't want to lose that rental and those that don't comply I mean that's on them, but also regarding showing the lease. The lease is like 12 to 14 pages long depending on the situation. So, and also, I would think that's kind of a violation of privacy I don't know maybe that's something to bring up with the attorney. Because also there's names of residents, maybe they don't want to be known to the, you know, public or whatever. It's a matter of matter of privacy. I guess that's all for now. Thank you. Thank you for not a friend comments and seeing no other hands. We are going to close general public comment. We have minutes to approve and then pretty much I'll adjourn after that we have the adoption deal, August 11 2022 minutes and the August 25 2022 minutes are there any requested changes before I make the motion. I just had a clarification for the 25th one where it said members agreed that permitting per parcel is the preferred permitting method. And I just couldn't remember if he had it's that you know when we were discussing whether it should be per unit the fees should be per unit or per parcel of a building. And did we say per parcel is the preferred one. Um, we kind of reached an agreement on that, or, or some general right now to see if that would work when we see a fee structure. So that fees would be per unit of some sort, but building versus parcel I believe the conversation was that yeah, it doesn't make much difference from Robs and the town's point of view and so it putting it per building would add a lot of paperwork that doesn't necessarily add to flexibility, or the ability to charge different fees. Like a fee structure so I think it was move it back to per parcel and await what we can do with fees. Got to. Okay, so then we don't need to change that. And the other one was where I made a comment about the parking plan and how that is enforced. And I think I just wanted to actually what I specifically said was the downtown parking. I'm just using this opportunity to let resident residents know that the downtown parking expectations are different as per our zoning by law or whatever. And the comment is just saying that it's Bell Mellon asked about the parking plan and how that is enforced. I mean it's not a big deal but since it's in the minutes and people might read it I just wanted to make sure that people. Like you know how people say like how come downtown they are not being asked for. So you're looking to add to that sentence which is on page two. The very bottom third to last paragraph Bell Mellon asked about the parking plan and how that it is in how that is enforced, and how residents are notified of different requirements in the downtown area. Yeah, specifically, yeah, especially the difference between downtown parking and other, you know what I'm saying, the downtown parking district or whatever it's called. The school parking district. Yeah, yeah, thank you. Any other changes. No, that's it. Thank you. Okay, so Pam I'll send you the modified because I just typed it so I can make the motion. So we're I'm going to make the motion which is to adopt the August 11 2022 meeting minutes as presented and the August 25 2022 meeting minutes as amended to add the phrase and how residents are notified of the differences in the municipal municipal parking district. So the end of the third to last paragraph on page two. Is there a second second panel second that Shalini your hand is still raised. Okay. I do I do appreciate Shalini bringing that up because I didn't think that we were absolutely settled that that a permit would be by property. I just don't think we're on that yet. Point that's what it says and then when we get back to those languages right. It may change again. Okay, we start with Pam on the minutes. Jennifer. Yes. Shalini. Yes. And Mandy is an I. Okay with that, I want to thank you all for your patience. So agenda next week is going to look basically what this week's look like. We might add a different discussion and I have to go back to our work plan to see what we might be missing in terms of discussions or first time discussions on the bylaw. Before we go back to language. But that'll be detailed, what we're going to focus on in the agenda, but otherwise it'll look like this week's. Any other questions. So do we have a meeting for three weeks? Right. We have one on the 22nd. Isn't it. I mean, that's where we just moved the continued the hearings till. Okay, so we do, because I don't have to my calendar. I just have a 20. Yeah, I have on the 29th is the next year. See me. Right. Me too. I had the wrong meeting date and that's where we just put hearings. I'm sorry I didn't touch that earlier. I didn't either. I believe, can we go back and modify those two motions. Since we haven't adjourned this meeting yet, Athena. Yeah, unless you wanted to meet back to that meeting. So I'm going to do it now. So I'm going to move to. So I'm going to amend the motion to continue the zoning by law article two, article three and article 16. Hearing. From to amend it from September 22nd to September 29th at 4.30pm. Is there a second. Second really. Any discussion. Thank you. Shalini your hands up. I just wanted to say that about the entrance thing. I went to the fair today and about 10. We're in the middle of a motion on changing hearing. Okay, so sorry. Any discussion on hearing on that, that one, that changing that one. We're Jennifer. Oh, yes. Shalini. Yes. Mandy's and I Pam. Yeah. Thank you, Jennifer for catching that. Now I'm going to move to amend the motion. So I'm going to move to amend it to continue the public hearing on zoning by law official zoning map to change the date from September 22nd to September 29th at 4.35pm. Is there a second. Second. Jennifer seconds that. We're back around to Shalini Shalini. Yes. Mandy's and I Pam. Yeah. Jennifer. Yes. Thank you guys for catching that. Well, we could still fix it. Shalini. Intern and then we're going to adjourn. I'm sorry, before we move on, I, I, you spoke quickly and I wanted to make sure that the second one was 435pm. It is 435. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Yeah, I just wanted to report back on the interns fair today and they were like 10 to 12 interns from political science and legal studies and all who showed a lot of interest and they were well aware that we had a lot of time to study specific kinds of things. So I ended up sending resumes, so I'll. Keep working and I'll report back. And I just also had a question about. Is the up to date data. In our. Share. Full SharePoint. No, I will make a note to try and pull. The last time it was pulled was early August. I'll make a note to cool. Yeah, I can start organizing it. And if there's an intern who works with me, Okay, I will make a note to pull that and get that done tomorrow as long as I still have access. I don't know whether I still access. So, okay. One very one question. I think it was our previous meeting we asked Rob if we could please get total number of rolling units in town and total number of owner occupancy, non owner occupancy as best they could possibly do that and, and I don't know that we've seen that yet. You have not seen that yet. We are working on it. We're getting really close. It's, it's, it's a lot of work. And but we're trying to get, you know, as accurate as we can. And just, you know, if you got a minute, you know, the, you know, the issues are with, you know, different classifications that the assessors use for properties, the way they've taken notes over the years, you know, where you might see a owner occupied or non owner occupied note on a card. I was shown one today that had both notes on the same card. So, you know, we're working, we're working on that. Our IT departments helping us because we needed to create a new program to be able to compare lists with our properties properties that are permitted and the ones that are, are, we're pulling out of the assessor state up based on something, the not matching the property address we're trying to get them all. And we did this back in 2013 is how we started the program. So we're doing it again, it's much more, you know, the systems are helped much more helpful now than they were back then it was a lot more manual work and it's helping us set that up or down to about 300 properties that we're still sorting through, but I'm going to be able to give you those numbers hopefully so maybe by the next meeting. Is there anything is just on that note. And I hate to. Okay, is there anything in our permitting forms that we should also be thinking about as we're, we're collecting data as part of these forms so that these aren't manual things these are as much as possible. So that's it's not a problem in our current system so that the data we collect in our current system is fabulous we can sort that report that I can give you anything you pretty much asked for about permits we issue, or applications that are filed. We're, this has been really slow is that we're going through the assessor's records to try to look for what might be missing. So I think once we do that, and set this up will have a good will be in a good starting place and really the key that I see that we weren't able to do last time. Just as a reminder we just got this permitting system up and running about 15 months ago. The way it was before was was great that we were able to do it electronically for the applicant but it wasn't great for us. But once we have that set up, and we're able to maintain it year to year or quarterly throughout the year. That's going to make life a lot easier and it's going to be a whole lot more accurate and we don't have to do this again. Great. Thank you for those questions. Anything else before I adjourn. Your hands still up Pam. No. Okay. With that we are adjourned at 648pm. Thank you all. Thank you, Rob. Thank you.