All right. Pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021, this meeting will be conducted by remote means. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so in the following manner by emailing Steve McCarthy at McCarthy S at emmersdma.gov. That's M-C-C-A-R-T-H-Y-S at emmersdma.gov. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be committed, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real-time by a technological means. In the event that we are unable to do so for reasons of economic hardship and despite best efforts, we will post on the town website an audio or video recording transcript or other comprehensive record of the proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting. And with that, we'll call the meeting to order at 6.04 p.m. and do a roll call of attendance. Doug. Here. Kelly. Here. Gaston. Here. So Dylan is absent. We are four here and one absent. Super. First up is public comment. Is there anyone here at all? We do have a few people. I expect they're all here for the agenda items, but if anybody would like to make a public comment on anything not on the agenda, please raise your hand now. Anyone here? General public comment? No? Okay. Thank you. Next up on to liquor license transactions under section three, a continued transfer of all alcohol, off premises license and change of location. Shilpa Enterprises, Inc. to Oxbow, Wines, LLC, 132 Poles Road. So this has been open for a couple of weeks and or continued for a couple of weeks. And is somebody here to, do we have all the paperwork steep? Can we resolve this? Oh, Doug. Was that a hearing that we continue? And if so, do we need to open it officially? I think it was continued from two, two weeks ago. Two, you did two hearings at this point. Two hearings ago. So, I guess we can, Belt and Suspenders, we can vote to reopen the public hearing. Is, are we doing the hearing now? Have they got everything? They haven't submitted anything else, but we do have Bruce McAmis, who's the owner of Oxbow, Wines, here to speak. Do we wanna, I guess, open the hearing? We open here? Doug? I'll move to open the hearing and we can continue it as well later, but we'll open it. Thanks. Is there a second? I'll second it. Thank you, Hallie. Let's take a vote, Doug. Hi. Gaston. Hi. Hallie. Hi. And I vote aye, four to zero with one absence. The hearing is now open. So, please. So I've received nothing else, Bruce. You should be able to speak now if you'd like to update the board of the progress. Hi. Can everybody hear me and or see me? Okay. I apologize for missing the meeting two weeks ago. I had to leave town on fairly short notice and was unable to arrange somebody to cover for me. So just by way of a quick update, I apologize, this is dragged on for several meetings now. I think that we have finally got the framework of a lease, you know, of a long-term lease agreement into place for that would permit this transaction to go forward. It has not been, you know, we haven't finalized it and or executed the lease yet, but I think that in two weeks, if by your grace, you know, give us another extension, we should, I think be ready to go at that point. And whatever additional information we need to get to Steve we'll submit by then as well. Okay, great. Thanks, Gaston. Thank you so much. I was actually kind of did a page flip on the application and there were two little details that I think are missing that I wonder if you could supplement. The first is, I mean, it's just a simple math. I assume that both partners are 50-50. It shows the percentage for one, but not the other. So that's truly just, it seems to be a typo, but it might as well complete it. Yeah, that's a mistake. Benson Hyde and I are each 50-50 partners in the Oxbow lines. Yes, so it shows your 50, it doesn't have his 50. That's just a detail on page, well, item six. The other one is on item 10, the financial disclosure, it shows an other of 135,000. And I think the form is asking to specify what that amount is for. Oh, and I don't know if we see that actually. I don't know if we see what that 135 is for. Quite honestly, I don't have the form, I don't have the documents in front of me at the moment because I guess if it's, I think we have some combination of business generated, the business is generating some percentage of the purchase price of the license. And then Benson and or I will likely make up some of the difference. But I don't have that totally finalized at this point. And I guess to be honest, I wasn't anticipating discussing it right now. Yeah, so I guess I think that would be, something to look at for our next meeting. And so just, it's item number 10. And it shows the sources of the cash contribution that add up to 135, but I think the form is asking to know what that's for. And they, I beg your pardon, I may have misunderstood your question. I mean, 135 is the total contract purchase price for what we, the difference between what we have now from the town of Amherst, which is just a wine and malt off-premise license and the license that we are acquiring from the, I forget the company name, but from the owners of the former cousin's market. Okay, okay, okay. I see. So the, it's set out to ask for what's the purchase price for real estate? What's the purchase price for business assets? And you had those as NA and the 135 and the other, but I guess it really is for the business assets. Well, yes, I mean, but the only asset being purchased is the license itself, but there's no inventory, there's no fixed risk furniture and equipment. Yep, okay. Okay. Yeah, and so I beg your pardon, I may have misunderstood your question at first. Good, so I mean, maybe it's obvious to everybody else, but that would be a detail. If you're fixing the other typo, you could just put in that this is for the acquisition of the license. Sure, okay. We'll do. Those are items six and 10. Will you notice that, Gaston? Yep. Okay, thank you. Any other questions from Mr. McAmis or anything to say or so two weeks puts us to our next meeting, which we don't have to date for yet because we were going to talk about meeting time. So do we want to talk about meeting time now so we can get them a date quickly? Would that be, should we just set something? Is that all right for everyone? Is Tuesday going to work or do we want to move to a Thursday? And where is, hold on, let me grab my calendar. Is that appropriate to do that at this point, Steve? Yeah, I don't see any reason why not. Yeah. So today's the 24th. Do we need to close the hearing before we do this or can we just do this now? We'll have to continue it anyway, so. Okay, so we just keep talking. All right, thanks. So there's the 24th and the nine. So that would be the seven or do we want to do the nine of June? Does anyone have a question? It's useful if, I don't know if we can keep, if we can keep like first and third or second and fourth through the summer. I think we switched it to second and fourth at one point. Right, we were first and third Thursdays and then we wound up on second and fourth Tuesdays. Right, that's what I've got on my calendar. Right, so, but if we can, so I don't know, do we want to stick to first, does anyone have a preference first and third? It doesn't matter to me. The date is going to be, so Doug, are your, your meetings are on Tuesdays, right? Is that? I'm going to unmute there. Typically, yes. School committee meetings are on Tuesday nights. On the occasion of Wednesday, but. On the occasion of Tuesday or Wednesday. All right, so does anyone have an objection to a Thursday evening at six at this point? I can do the Thursdays, it's not an objection, but I guess I, I mean, I can do six if for everyone else, five is equally good. Is five good? Five is good for me. Five is good for me. Thursday, the question was, I think the question was whether Dylan had ZBA on Thursdays. Oh, right, Dylan has ZBA, that's right. But it would be at six if it were. Right. So maybe we can get away with Thursdays at five. Does anyone have a better day that they prefer? I can't do, I'm teaching Mondays at six through the summer, basically. Okay, so Mondays at six are no good. Tuesdays, Doug has. And it's, it's, because it's a weekly thing with one of the committees is that, is our week basically. Like four committees. Yeah, exactly. We can try for five o'clock on Thursdays, Dylan, you know, I'll just try to speed things through. And is he second and third? He's second. He's not first. I'm going to try to see if I can find out right now. He was the one that we had to move the set. He was on first and like, we had to alternate Thursdays for him. So we can alternate his Thursdays. Sorry, Mr. McKamons. We're just trying to get you a date so we can continue your here. The zoning board of appeals is meeting the 26th. So it's meeting this Thursday at six. So then, and this Thursday is, I think, the fourth, right? It is the fourth. So would going to first and third Thursdays avoid Dylan's conflict possibly or is that a weekly meeting? I think it's a, I don't know. I thought it was every two weeks. Okay. Yeah, it's typically two weeks, I think. So we continue this hearing to this, the 16th. We'll then give you enough, everyone enough time. Well, the second would be the first of the, first Thursday of the month. Right, but you, Oh, all right, two weeks. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. For this case, we need like two, two weeks at least. And that would give us three weeks. So we could have a meeting on the second if we wanted to, and then just continue this particular hearing to the 16th of June. Does that sound good? All right, so if anyone has anything else to say, is there a motion to continue this hearing until the 16th, Thursday, the 16th of June at five o'clock? So moved. All right, great. Thank you, Doug. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Hallie. Let's take a vote. Hallie. Aye. Doug. Aye. Gaston. Aye. And I vote aye. That's four to zero of one absent. The hearing has continued until Thursday, June 16th at five p.m. Thank you, Mr. McGamous for coming in and we'll see you then. Okay, thank you very much. Thanks. Good night. Bye-bye. Have a good night. Okay. So the next two transactions, so these are things we've already approved but they're follow-ups, right, Steve? Yeah, so the motion on these two applications at the last hearing was, there was a couple small things outstanding and the motion was to approve the application's contingents on everything coming in and nothing coming to my attention that the board's attention needed to be directed to. And given that we haven't received that paperwork yet, I spoke with Marian last week and she thought it was prudent to put these back on the agenda. So here we are. And we've got Mr. Barstow-Mans from the applicant to those two applications to update the board. Hi, Mr. Barstow-Mans, welcome. We're just wondering how things are going. Yeah, hi everyone. Last time we met, it was for protocol and for Amherst-Wisterbar and the things that were outstanding included financial statements, updates to leases, the additional note on basement and second floor levels and the application reflect the manager having 30 hours at each location. I did update the application to show 30 for the manager's hours at each location. Updated the floor plans, the leases were sent in. I did send in a bank account screenshot as well as an email from our bank saying that they were in progress trying to get our small business loan finished and wrapped up. Went back and forth with Steve. He was saying that you really want something a little bit more robust for the financials and reached out to the ABCC to understand what could be passed as a financial document. And I am in progress with the bank. I don't have that official letter on Blutterhead yet, but it is in progress. And that would be the final document to get to Steve and you all. Okay, great. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions or about this? We just thought that since it had been like a little over a week that an update would be advisable. Steve, is there anything else? I think so. Okay. Is everyone else satisfied with what's been submitted? Yes, done. So I just want to be clear. We're still holding the license until that final piece comes in. Sounds like we've got most of what we need, Steve, but those financial statements are the final piece to sort of complete the application, correct? That's correct, yep. And we'll hold the license until those are in, correct? Yeah, it's not in shape to send to the ABCC without that. So. Okay, great. Everyone's fine with everything. So thank you very much. Thank you, guys. Yeah, we really appreciate you coming in and hope all goes well. All right, thank you for your time. Thanks, bye-bye. Bye. All right, thanks for doing that, Stephen, for bringing him in. Of course. I know we were a little, we talked about it and it just seemed to, I think at the last meeting we said a week, that he said he'd have a week and it had just kind of been dragging out a little bit. So, okay, temporary, what's next? Temporary outdoor dining applications. Oh, this is Veracruzano. Yes, we have three here today. Okay, is anyone here for these? We have Sunia from Veracruzano. Oh, hi, how are you? Good, thank you. Great, welcome. Thank you, excited to be back outside. Yeah, I know. And thank you so much. It makes a huge difference for us. Yeah, definitely. So is there anything about these that is, this is just, we did these last time, last year, right, Steve? Yeah, yep, they've been around since first summer of COVID, if you will. So we'll tackle them individually, I guess, for Veracruzano, it's gonna be pretty much identical to how it was the last two years. Okay, I do have one little question. Yes, sure. Are we allowed to put up, and this might be a question for Steve and I apologize, are we allowed to put up a tent? I believe there would be some way for that to happen. I think you'd probably need a building permit for that, but we should probably go over the details. Maybe you can give me a call tomorrow, Steve, we can talk through that. Okay, or we can put up an umbrella, that's fine. I don't know that off the top of my head what exactly would be needed for that in terms of building code stuff, but yeah, we can figure that out. Okay, don't let that interfere, anything. All right, so did anyone have any, and I'm trying to find this point, the first side, it's not first side. My only question would be, if you had any learning experience from the last time around that would be useful for us to know about, or that's leading you to change how you pursue the outdoor service this season. No, you know what, for me, it went surprisingly well. I thought we might have late night people hanging out, after we're closed, trying to sit on the property, and none of that happened that I was aware of, so that was wonderful. Why I inquire about the tent is just because, it feels when the cars go by that it's just close. And I know from past experience with a tent, it helps really make it feel more comfortable. It helps really make it feel more cozy, but I can also do that with lattice and plants and umbrellas and stuff. But so no, I was surprised that it went as smoothly as it did to the artist. Great. Great, thank you. Does anyone have any questions about the Veracruzano outdoor dining license, anything else to say? If not, should we take a vote? I'll then take a motion to approve the license for the Veracruzano. So moved. Thank you, Doug. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Hallie. Any further discussion? Not, let's take a vote, Doug. Hi. Hallie. Hi. Gaston. Hi. I vote aye. That is four to zero with one absent. The outdoor dining license is approved for the Veracruzano. Thank you so much for coming in. Oh, thank you. Yeah. And good luck. Yeah, I'm going to dance somewhere. Thank you. So the next one is, sorry, I'm just lost my, sorry, I lost my agenda for a second. We have a fresh side. Fresh side. Yes, and the name is Tafi. Is anyone here from Fresh Side? It doesn't appear we have anybody from either of those. From either one? Okay, and all right. So does anyone have any questions about either of these? Can we do these together or just? I think we could. Yeah, these are going to be, the bid got a grants to put in Parkless. Oh, right. Which you might have seen going up their kind of little constructed structures that. Those little wooden things. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, and so their layouts changed a little bit from last year, especially Amherst coffee. They were, they were inboard at the sidewalk last time with the kind of extension into a parking lot for the sidewalk, the parking space for the sidewalk. And now they are going to be in the parking space fully. Okay, all right. Well, that gives them some more room. All right, any questions or anything about these? Anything done? Did we have a picture of that for, for Amherst coffee? Or either one actually? I don't have any pictures. I think they were just built. They are right downtown. I don't know if my, my camera lens is good enough to get it from the window here, but. It's okay. They look very nice. The real question, I'm sorry. The real question I have is, is they are, are they taking the parking spaces in front of the businesses as the, as the location? So they've got the sort of front door of their restaurant and then sidewalk and then, and then they'll be in the parking spaces immediately in front. Yes, yes. I believe they each have two. Okay. I did notice on the, I think it was on the first side of the management plan that it under signs says no change from existing Amherst coffee signs. So it seems as though they were, I mean, and not surprisingly, I know that the bid has been providing a lot of help as far as getting that sort of forms filled out. They probably is sort of a cut and paste error or a lack of a, of a, you know, replace. That doesn't really bother me. I think that did both of these have similar last year as far as outdoor spaces. Yeah, I think fresh side, he's using this, was using the same space that is now in the park. Like Amherst coffee did have that switch with them. They used to be on the sidewalk with the parking spaces, kind of the auxiliary sidewalk. And now they're going to be in the parking spaces with the sidewalk or remaining sidewalk. Okay. And you don't know if any difficulties either of them had with regard to outdoor service. No, I never had heard any concerns or problems with either of them. Or any of the outdoor dining really. Right. Okay. Is there a motion to approve the temporary outdoor dining absolute licenses for fresh side and a fine cafe co-incorporated? So moved. Thanks, Doug. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Hallie. Any further discussion? No. Well, let's take a vote, Doug. Aye. Hallie. Aye. Gaston. Aye. And I vote aye. That is four to zero with one absent. Two outdoor dining license applications are approved for fresh side. And I'm just talking. Great. All right. So special short-term alcohol serving licenses. And you said these are all similar. And so you just sent one, right, Steve? Yes, they're all pretty much identical. The applicant originally tried to do it as one application, but the board does have that policy that they can't really go for more than a weekend, narrow week or so consecutive days. Right. They reapplied with separate applications, but they are all identical. I think outside of that new dining commons, they just want to offer some evening alcohol service and their outdoor patio there and the indoor section there too. OK. All right. Yes, Doug. Just a question. Was this a license we granted last year, or was there an indoor license for them that we had last year? I don't believe they had this. They definitely didn't have it every night, every week last year. They may have had one or two events in this space. I don't know if they were using that patio at this point for something like that, but I do think I do remember seeing applications at the Worcester dining commons. I don't remember exactly where they were in the building or on the grounds, but I think that this evening service thing is new. OK. Any other questions about these licenses? And I was told that there would be somebody from UMass dining here, but it does not appear to have shown up. So. Kimberly McAllister. Six. Oh, there's one attendee. Oh, it's soon used to him. I think for me that if I may. Yeah. Yeah, the questions for me relative to the work at the DC. I mean, we've had this in the past. This is purely an external application. Is that right? You mean in terms of the location within the grounds? Yeah. It's just it's just the outside patio area. It's enclosed. I think it's the outdoor patio area and the and the. The end of that one indoor section of the cafe that's noted on the plan. OK, there is inside. OK, that that just the little one, right? Let me see. This is the third revision of the site plan. This is the this was the first. That's the lobby that they have, right? So. The outside. This isn't the front or in the back. This has got to be in the front, right? I believe so. And then they have you walk in and then there's a little cafe on the on the right as you kind of you're going in. And then the rest of it is this huge sort of lobby with televisions and things. And then they have the stairs going up to the part of the dining All right. Does anyone have any concerns about that or any other questions? Doug, did you want to? No, I just I think, you know, we've we've worked with these folks before. I mean, I think as far as, you know, service of alcohol, they've been good, especially given they're on campus where it's over the summer. So the student population is under 21 is less than it normally is. But I don't think we've had any issues with them in the past as far as service and that sort of thing. But I'm just trying to zoom in on a map a little bit here to see that the picture can picture on Google shows them during construction, so that doesn't help. Anyway, I think that the key thing for me is that they've got a little bit of indoor and outdoor space. If they've got, you know, decent, you know, sort of site control, because I think with the outdoor, they've got a limited according to the picture, they've just got two exits, which I think they can easily see from the inside. I presume that Steve, do you have to know how much outdoor seating there is and how much indoor seating there is? I don't know. Not, not going on that site plan. I did in the application, I think it notes how many attendees they expect. I don't know if 50 to 100. That's a pretty broad range. That is a pretty broad range. 100 would be a little bit, it'd be pretty cozy. I don't get to 100. But I think that's a modest crowd. Again, I think we're going to, I'm going to operate from the standpoint of, you know, we've had good experience with these folks the past and their quality of service and understanding expectations we have of them. So I don't have any real objections to this. Anybody else have any objections or concerns about it? No? Okay. If there are none, then I will entertain a motion to approve the special short-term alcohol serving licenses, SST 22-17 through SST 22-28, top of the campus, Inc., all alcohol at the Worcester Diamond Commons. And I would suggest this is not reviewed by the police chief yet. So I would just suggest that any motions be made contingent on that. Pending review by the police chief. Yep. I'll move that contingent on review by the police chief. All right. Thank you, Doug. Is there a second? Second. Thanks, Hallie. Any further discussion? No? We'll take a vote. Doug? Hi. Hallie? Hi. Gaston? Hi. And I vote aye, 4-0 with one absent. The short-term alcohol serving licenses are approved for UMass. Okay. Super. Thanks. So moving on to discussion items. So we have a meeting time on the 16th of June at five. Do we want to do one on the, on the second, which would be next week, right? Or just wait until the 16th? I was going to bring this up in topics not reasonably anticipated, Marion, but it's probably a good time, just that request we got for the, for that, that to hold a special hearing for that potential application that would be coming. Yeah. Why don't you talk about that, Steve? So I've been in touch with a woman named Hannah Rex-Stoffin. I think she's, I think she's been spoken at the board meetings before. She is the, some kind of community manager or something for W.D. Coles in the mill district. She helps plan events and things like that. And she is working with a pride committee to hold a event, I believe on June 4th, on the, on the site up somewhere in the mill district there for pride event. And I've been in contact with her over the last month or so. I let her know about the board's hearing dates. And I think due to some confusion as to what she had to have ready for a short-term license application, she did not submit one in time for this board's hearing. And she wrote a letter to Marion requesting that the board, you know, meet at some time in, in between that before the next, what was the next regularly scheduled meeting on June 9th to potentially approve an application where it to be submitted. So do we want to, whatever the mind meeting on the second and for like very quickly to approve that? Cause it's on, okay. That sounds great. I mean, and let's talk about this enforcement action. We may wish to put that on the agenda for the second as well. Okay. All right. So why don't we do that? So we'll have a meeting. So we'll, let's say we'll have back to our first and third Thursdays at five o'clock. So we'll have a meeting next week, June 2nd, probably pretty quick, but with some discussion of the enforcement action. And then you could, Steve, you can, if you won't mind, please letting her know that we will be, if she gets everything in, we can meet then and do her license. Okay. So just for the minutes. So the board wants to move semi permanently at a time being to the first and third, or the second and fourth Thursdays of the month. Yes. We are moving. Until further notice, until schedule, schedules change again, we're first and third Thursday. Five PM. Five PM, correct. So is that it for meeting time? Rental registration program. All right, Gaston, did Heather would get the thing from the draft from the... Yes. I've had a chance to look through the documents and I can just give a few highlights of what I think I understand to be the policy goals and some of the approaches. And then the question that was posed to us by Councillor Mary Johenneke is, do we the licensed commission want to get involved in any of the licenses that are implicated by rentals? And we can come back to that, but let me just identify what I see as the key policy goals. Number one, stronger enforcement, especially with respect to issues that have arisen from student homes. In fact, one of the drafting methods in this draft is to actually define a student home and then try to create additional potential enforcement and address potential issues that arise from that. The idea currently is to create a point system where you get bad points in different ways. And if they add up to 10 points then your rental license can be suspended. Whereas currently rental inspection licenses are self-serve. Landlords conduct them themselves. The goal of having stronger enforcement has flipped the default to be mandatory inspection with some exceptions. And the key exceptions are owner occupied multi-family of six units or less. Dwelling units inside your home would also be exempted from a mandatory town inspection. The draft is also as we were concerned to do in our efforts, Hallie and I wants to recognize and address short-term rentals directly. And they are following the kind of state cutoff for having to report and pay tax, which is 14 days or less in a year. So beyond 14 days in a year, you're also into the rental inspection regime. Whether it's mandatory or not, I understand to be based on that same idea as it's owner occupied six family or less. It's a kind of self-serve inspection. An additional policy goal in this effort is to try to promote energy efficiency and sustainability. And I think that what I see is the counselors kind of fishing in the dark for how to do that. Possibly flipping the point system is what I could gather to try to create some positive incentives. But I think that my understanding is that the idea is there pretty preliminary and still trying to figure out how you can use a rental license regime and enforcement regime to promote energy efficiency. So that's from a very high level, what I see to be some of the big focus areas. And I would love to hear if Steve, if from where you're sitting, you see other issues or you wanna underscore or modify anything I said. I think that's a great summary guest on. And the GOL did invite me to speak at their meeting on Thursday just to kind of go over some of the more technical aspects of applications and how they're handled. But I think the mandatory inspection idea is a good one and it would obviously require more staff resources for us, but our staff really is stretched tooth in with even the level of enforcement they have now. So I think that's a good thing if it can be accompanied by more inspectors potentially or more inspector time and would help to address some of those concerns, especially around the problem of properties because there are a few that seem to crop up time and time and time again. And I do think a more head-on addressing short-term rentals is a good idea and a good way to be proactive because we've seen that start to cause a lot of problems in some other communities. Yeah, Doug? Just couple of follow-up questions for Steve on that. Has anyone made an estimate of what additional staffing would be necessary to do this given the large number of people? And also I think that there's some things that are nuisance related, summer safety related. It's kind of like with the common victual or license and then at the same time you have very specific food and depending on what you serve and how you serve it, there's different kinds of safety and food inspections that you have to undergo and fire inspection you have to go. So I presume that the idea is is that you would have multiple things that would be getting inspected and that potentially multiple people. So there's a whole scheduling question there because I don't think, especially if you get into safety questions or that sort of thing that you're probably gonna need to have the fire department person do that type of an inspection whereas other sort of structural safety kinds of things and other questions around parking and that sort of stuff are more appropriate for the building inspection staff. So I'm just curious to your thoughts on that or if people kind of thought through what that, what it might entail to do that inspection and the level of staffing necessary. Yeah, it's the level of staffing. I don't know if I can really speak on that intelligently. I know Rob has been working more closely on that issue and I don't wanna say something that might be incorrect but I think our inspectors are stretched a little thin as it is with just complaint-driven inspections. So I think it's safe to say there would have to be some level of increased staffing but I don't know if I can speak towards any specifics. As far as how it's split up, I mean, I know how it's done for the fraternity and sorority inspections is typically they have to be done once a semester and there will be somebody from the building department the fire department and the health department who all go there and take a look at different things. I think that that level of inspection is a little bit more than what people are envisioning for these properties and I believe that it would probably just be the building that would be going out unless there's some kind of complaint response going on. So I hope that answers your question as best as I can.  I mean, I think part of the reason I ask that question is because if you can coordinate, so let's presume for no other reason than mental exercise here that we need two inspectors to go because they have expertise in two different areas. And just out of courtesy to the sort of landlord and property owner, because a lot of these are smaller outfits, they're not commercial, it's a personal house and an extra house. They have like their house and they have a rental house. And so they're not huge in the real estate market. There are some that are that where they have multiple homes and it's a true primary business that they run. But I think about the sort of smaller cases and some of the exemptions will exclude some of these, but I just think about, we don't wanna be too burdensome. If we have multiple inspectors that need to be there, we wanna coordinate so that they both show up at the same time so that the landlord just has one appointment to make, not two, twice a year, suddenly it's four. The number starts to be at large. So I'm just curious if that's part of the thinking that's going on if it ends up being more than one inspector that needs to visit the location. Yeah, it's actually, that's the first time I'm hearing that kind of concern in relation to this. And I know that just from casual conversations I've had with some of the other inspectors, what they're looking at kind of as a example is the city of Ann Arbor, Michigan, which does have a similar program where they inspect every rental property. And I believe how that works is it's on kind of a rolling basis where they try to get to each property every three or four years. And I think that they're kind of flat out even keeping up with that. But I believe it's primarily the building inspectors that would go out to these residential properties. And they look at smoke detectors and things like that. And fire might be called in if there's some kind of bigger issue, but I do think that it probably would be primarily just the building inspectors going out. I don't know if you've heard anything different, Gaston. No. I think to the question of whether we want to, you know, sort of touch at your own kind of thing. I mean, I do think we have by virtue of having the experience of going through that, you know, that sort of process of adjudication relative to liquor licenses. You know, we sort of have a mechanism that we can parallel for this sort of thing if we need to review a case and revoke a license and, you know, I think there's some weird things that come into that. Like if you revoke the license, do you suddenly then put the tenants on the street or what happens with regard to that? I mean, I think those are, you know, not ones that we necessarily need to resolve. Those are ones that I think the council needs to resolve. But at the same time, it's not a way out of form for us to potentially take this on. I think we might be better suited in some ways to the council just because we're more in that modality than they are. Okay. I was just gonna say, I think that's a good point. And I know that was even kind of considered a couple of years ago when the former government changed because there used to be a rental appeals board that is in the bylaw. I don't know if it's actually ever met, but I think it was supposed to be a member of the select board, a member of the ZBA and a member of the planning board who's kind of gonna form this super group, if you will. But I think that's Will's student. Go ahead, guest on it. No, no, I was just kind of going to the section in the longer draft that was shared several weeks ago about suspension of residential rental license precisely trying to answer Doug's good question, what happens to the people living there? And then I'm not seeing the answer in plain English here. And it's a very good question to ask Mandy Jo. So I'd be happy to kind of draft an email back to her telling her some of the kind of policy questions. And I'll be honest, my initial reaction was, what do we know about these housing issues? But on the other hand, if our competency is more on the kind of evaluating compliance and doing enforcement, not that we do that so often, but compared to the town council, let's say, or some other administrative body, maybe we are best suited. I think we'd wanna kind of beef up some of our process for these adversarial hearings because it's very different in tenor to our day-to-day fare. But I'd be happy, how about I do this? Let me draft an email that I send to Steven Marion. Marion's been having direct kind of contact with Mandy Jo as well on this and subject to any feedback from Marion and Steve, send it out to the full board to see if you have any comments so that we kind of get our policy considerations that we wanna get into their hopper of process because I mean, I could show you their time plan, but they've got kind of weeks mapped out for three months including public hearings and so on. So I think as a matter of efficiency, it would be good to send one message with a set of questions and say, that in principle, we are open to serving this function for kind of the reasons that we've just covered. Does that seem like a good approach? Yeah, absolutely, sounds great. Okay, then I'll send an email this week to Steven Marion. All right, super, thanks, Gaston. Yep. Great, but anything else on this for the time being? Or we'll just await Gaston's email. All right, item C, adult use, anything? No new update. No new updates, okay. Moving on to lunch cart regulations, I have sent the draft to Gabrielle, even though Gabrielle has had COVID and so I'm waiting to hear back from her and then I will be probably not on the second but probably on the 16th of June, I will have something to share with everybody. So that's where I'm with that. E, guidelines, regulations for liquor license decisions. And this has got something back, right? Yeah, I did a quick, quick three or four page scan of the comments and I can kind of incorporate them into a new draft and send it out to everybody. And then hopefully after that, maybe if there's no more feedback, we can vote on them. Okay, sounds good. My goal is by the end of July to get it passed. Was that feedback in the first packet today, in the first packet for this meeting? No, it came today. In the second one. That was in the second packet, okay, got it. So everybody take a look at that and then we'll wait to hear back from Hallie. But it's separate from the email from Attorney Riley about the pocket licenses. He added that as an addendum just to keep in mind. I think there was some language in the guidelines relating to that. And he just wanted to update us on the state of law. Okay, I just wanna make sure I know, I see, got it. I see the KP doc. Okay, now I know where it is. All right, great. License fee comparison. Nothing to report. Okay, totally fine. Great, so discussion items are finished. Topics not reasonably anticipated 48 hours prior to the meeting. Steve, let's talk about the thing we're gonna talk about more next time. Yes. Hazel's kitchen, what's happened in Greenville? So I received this morning an email from the ABCC containing a inspector's report detailing violations that were found, I guess on May 4th. They, four investigators went in, they do periodic checks of establishments all over the state and they were in Amherst at night and went to check on Hazel's blue lagoon and they were initially denied entrance to the building and there was a, I don't even wanna say altercation, but there was a bit of a confrontation between one of the bouncers and one of the investigators. The investigators went in and appeared that noted that everybody looked very youthful there. They carted a few people, six of whom ended up having fake IDs and so they have been brought up on those charges and the ABCC will be holding a hearing. So this brings up an interesting question about the parallel jurisdiction that the ABCC and the local licensing authority has over these matters where either party really has the ability to enforce any kind of violations of the liquor laws. And in this case, the ABCC was the investigating agency and they will be holding their own hearing just like we might hold ours and we have in the past. And it's an interesting question if the town wants to do something based on this, I don't actually know how much latitude we have given the parallel jurisdiction issues. So I can certainly inquire if the board is interested, but yeah, this just came in today and I thought it was worth sharing it forwarded it to the Amherst Police Department as well just so they're aware. All right, thanks Steve Dunn. I believe in the past, I don't think it's been since we've been a border license commissioner perhaps previous to that. I think the ABCC had found some of those kind of violations and then referred them to us for the hearing as opposed to them taking on the hearing themselves. So a little surprise to hear that they were, that they're doing the hearing, I mean, I'm fine with it, personally I do, but I'm just a little surprised because I think in the past, the ones we've had, they've referred them to us for action, but I could be misremembering, but Steve, do you recall? I can recall times in the past where this has come up and they have done it all in-house so to speak. I've never heard of it being referred, but you have longer experience than I do, so I'll certainly take your word for it. It might have been something quite minor that they referred to us. Who's gonna go, Gaston and Kelly? Oh, Kelly? Oh, no, go Gaston. Well, I'll let you go, but can we, I'm just looking at the second packet that came in, could we put on the next meeting agenda to talk about the pocket license issues? Yes. That are addressed by, yeah, Attorney Riley? Okay, I'll comment on this, but after you, Hallie. I mean, I would love to find out more about what we can do because I think sending a message that we also don't tolerate underage drinking is important to come from us. And I'm wondering now if the ABCC will be targeting more of our restaurants and bars, and it might be worth letting Gabrielle gould know just so she can shoot out a gentle reminder that even though UMass is out for the semester, we still take this seriously. Yeah, I can forward it longer. That's a great idea, thank you, Hallie. Gaston? But my question, I'm just looking at the investigative report, Steve, did you receive anything else? Yes, there was some other information about the hearing date and how to participate in the hearing. Okay. Not a link to the hearing, but... Could you send us that too? I'm just curious how they talk about it. Yeah, I'll just send you the full email right now. Okay. So they just send it to you to be informed and not for us to take any action, is that... That's correct, yeah. They don't even send me the hearing link, I don't think. What's the date? It's June 14th at noon. And I have just sent you along what I got. So we have a meeting that... We have our meeting plans for the 23rd, right? Sorry, the... The 16th. And that's our last meeting. So then our next meeting after that would be at the beginning of July. Yes. Okay. I mean, one possibility would be to ask the proprietor to come to our first meeting after they're here. Yeah, we could do that. Yeah, I mean, if no enforcement actions take it, I don't think there's any problem of just having a conversation with somebody. Okay. I think it becomes more sticky when there's parallel enforcement action being taken, but I don't think there's any problem with conversations happening. Okay. I mean, I think it is a good question to ask Trini Riley, especially, if you haven't written him back to thank him, you can do that and ask the question. Yeah, ask him that. And then, okay, go ahead, Doug. I was just gonna say, I think that's exactly a great question to ask, but sort of what's the dual enforcement opportunity there? But I think also, even if we're allowed to take action on our own, I think we wanna be conscientious of what actually the ABCC has already taken. So it could be a thing where we do maybe a hearing with every intention of just sort of hearing the case as well and talking through the points that we like to make, that may be slightly different than ABCC makes. And we may not be able to, but even if we are able to, we may not wanna have any action that we take. But I think sort of certainly scheduling time to discuss it with them, but we may wanna make it as formal as the actual hearing just to sort of impress upon them the seriousness of this and how serious we take it. Okay, yes, Gaston. Yeah, I agree 100% with Doug and I also like how Halle put it before that it's important to communicate that, we care about this directly, independently of the ABCC. And I mean, I assume the ABCC handles its manner as well, but we also have a certain, I would say kind of responsibility to the establishment that is kind of independent from the ABCC. Okay, definitely. Okay, so if we can invite them for the, we're thinking of the 16th, June 16th, we invite them or do we schedule a hearing for that day or just a... I don't, I mean, I don't, I guess this is a question to the attorney, but I don't know if we can, in any case, really have parallel hearings going on while they're also waiting for the, this is at this point allegations that haven't been, I guess there's not really a conviction with this type of thing, but there hasn't been a hearing on this. So it's just the investigators report at this point. Okay, so we don't invite them until we hear the results of that. Well, that should be June, what was it? The 14th, yeah, so at the 19th or the 23rd, would it be the 23rd, they would have a result unless it's continued at the state level. Okay, does anyone have, is anyone available to attend that June 14th hearing? I will try to. Can you try to go? Yeah. I don't know if I'm gonna make it, but... I should be able to. I think I've gotten these once or twice in the past and I don't even think they really send me the link unless I requested, so... And anyone can go to these, is that right? It should be a public hearing, yeah, I mean. Okay. I believe, yeah. All right, so let's put that on, oh, Doug, could you add something else? I was just gonna say, Steve, if you get the link, share it with us. And then... Yeah, I might be, what's that? If it's available, we can pop in and to make our presence known. And then, yeah, I think the 16th, you know, I mean, maybe the ABCC rules and meets out punishment immediately, but I'd be surprised in some ways. Okay, all right. But I think the, you know, if we decide that, or if we find out from Dray-Raila that we can do a hearing and we wanna have a hearing, it's probably July is a better time to schedule that anyway, but that doesn't mean we wouldn't wanna necessarily have an initial conversation with them on the 16th and just talk through what we may have seen or as part of their hearing with the ABCC. Okay, so schedule a conversation with them on the 16th, invite them and attend a hearing if we can and then just, and then you're gonna talk to the attorney, Steve. Yes, I'll email them tonight or tomorrow. Great, super, thank you. And then we'll, should we talk about this at our next meeting too? Does anyone want to put it back on the discussion item? Yeah, okay, it's for, all right. Dylan, I wanna hear what? Yes, all right, so let's throw this on the discussion item agenda for the 2nd of June. Okay, anything else on this one? Do we wanna bring up some of our travel plans next? Oh, for us, right? Yes. Okay, so. Or not, I mean, doesn't. No, let's do we have a minute, so we have a minute, so all right, so who's gone when? I'm gone the first week of July, which I guess would now include a scheduled meeting on the 7th. On the 7th, so that's the 4th through the 8th? Yes. I'm gone the 18th of June through the 24th, but that does not include a scheduled meeting. And then July 12th through the 20th or maybe 21st. And I'm not sure if that included a meeting, probably. I think the 21st week would have one, right? Right, oh, I might be back by then. So, okay, meeting, right, see you all soon. Okay, anybody done? Oh. I'm out of time on the July 23rd through 30th, which would be the 25th through 29th or the weekdays that week, so. Okay, out into the 30th. I'm gone July 9th through 26th, but with time change, I should be able to attend meetings, but I am having surgery August 3rd, and we'll be out for a week or two. At first up, two hip replacements. Oh, no. Sorry to hear that, sorry. I am sorry to hear that as well. Good to follow up Steve, the modifications of open meeting law that allow us to meet virtually, does that expire at the end of June, or is it in July? And if so, then that may mean that our meetings in July will have to be in person, but I just don't know if that changes, or if they're contemplating extending it even further or making other modifications. That's a great question. I know Dylan's been bringing that up almost every meeting since then. I still haven't heard anything. I expect that we'll be making waves on the state and the local level because, you know, we've all become so useless. And I think pretty much everybody still is meeting virtually. So I would expect if there's any changes, it'll probably be, you know, maybe notice to us, I don't expect they'll just let it expire and pull the rug out without any kind of discussion, but it probably would be something to keep in mind. Because does it expire at the end of June or like the middle of July? Do you recall? July 31st is popping into my head, but I have low confidence of that. Or I'm going to do a quick search and find out. Kind of enjoyed being, I mean, I love seeing you all in person, but it's a thing very easy about. Yeah, I mean, and it increases access, not that we can get many visitors in any form. But I would think that many of the proprietors are happy to be able to zoom in. Exactly. Well, just to accommodate your schedule, Hallie, maybe we'll have to do an onsite meeting in Hawaii. Sounds good to me. Yeah. My quick search shows that updated guidance on holding remote and hybrid meetings until July 15th, 2022. So I think it's till the middle of July that we're allowed to do that. Hopefully they'll continue the hybrid meeting option, because then it can be some combination. Yeah. It may require somebody to be at a physical location in person, but... I think the technical back end of that would be a bit challenging. Because I think the town room is set up for that, but nowhere else, so we'd get kind of tight on space. But I am sure the town... The third floor there is keeping an eye on that, because it will have a lot of implications for a lot of different boards and committees. Right now? But it's wise to start thinking about that now. Right now, it looks like we don't... We have two people. Hallie and I will be out on the 21st, which one we'll miss. Of July? Of July, yeah, that's the one we'll be having. I have to finalize my plans, but I think I might be away that late too. So I'm gonna have to go on afterwards. Well, maybe we'll... Yeah, Gaston? No, no, I mean, maybe we need to reschedule that meeting. Yeah, maybe we'll reschedule that, but we can, I guess, cross that bridge when we come to it. Okay, great. Well, we have that done. Steve, could you let Dylan know that the meeting time has changed? With that... Yes, yes, I will. Just so that he doesn't try to turn off on a Tuesday. All right, anything else not anticipated? 48 hours prior to the meeting? Nope. Okay, any minutes? No minutes today. No, okay. All right. Enough topics anticipated. There were enough things to go over. All right, super. So is there a motion to... Is there anything else? Anything else? No, it's not... Was there anything else? Was there anything else we were gonna bring up in topics? I feel like there is, but maybe it's just... Oh, there was the lunch cut thing. You said somebody had inquired. Yes, oh yes. Thank you for reminding me. So, yeah, since this wasn't really a full notice thing, I guess we can't really launch into a full discussion, but I just wanna put it into the board's mind. Strangely enough, after a year of not having and hearing any questions about lunch carts, within a week I got two inquiries of people who were interested in holding late night lunch carts. And the select board regulations are still controlling and they, I think basically just say hours should be as approved by the board. But I did wanna put that into your mind is something to think about and something to consider. I don't know if either of these applicants are that serious, but from a business sense, I think it makes a lot of sense, but there's also some other externalities we have to consider. So I just wanted to plant that seed for you all. Okay. I don't know if the kind of placeholder for lunch cart regulations is sufficient, but this would be a good topic to discuss next time. Yeah. I actually do think actually, you're a very good point, Gaston. I think that is actually sufficient if people wanna have a little bit more of a thorough over discussion. But we could tell Gabrielle that we wanna talk about it. Yeah. So why don't you, I'll send around the latest edition of the lunch cart regulations for next time and we'll tell Gabrielle about it, more about it. I gotta jump. Okay. All right. Okay. And motion to adjourn. Come in. Thank you. Second. Thank you. Let's take a vote, Doug. Yes. Hallie. Yes. Gaston. Yes. And I vote aye. Four to zero with one absent were adjourned at seven, 10 p.m. Thanks everybody. Bye. Bye. Thanks everybody. Thanks a lot, Steve. Bye.


If you just watched the first video, then welcome back. And if not, then what we're looking at here is a few of the less common ways that a runner can be called out while he is out on the base paths. And this is certainly not all of them, but just a few of the more less common ones that we're looking at in this video for these two videos. So last time I looked at four this time, we're going to look at three. And the first two of these involve failing to touch a base or oversliding a base and failing to go back. So the first one is that a runner is out when he fails to return to first base after sliding or oversliding or overrunning that base. So the runner is out when he fails to return or as the rules say, he fails to return at once to first base after overrunning or oversliding that base. And so then after that, I kind of breaks it off into two parts. It says that if he does that and then the runner attempts to go to second base, then it's just kind of like a normal play. And so what the defense has to do is get the ball and tag him out. But so let's write that. If the runner attempts to go to second base, he must be tagged where if the runner kind of abandoned for whatever reason, maybe he thinks that there was a close play at first base and he thinks he was out and he tries to go back to the dugout, then in that situation, it would be an appeal play. So if he goes to the rulebook, covers a couple of different possibilities as to his position or the dugout, he can be tagged or called out on an appeal. And so perhaps this is something that should have been covered in really early videos. And that basically says that whenever I'm sure it's something you'll see pretty much in every single game. And that is if there's a batter up the bat and he hits a single, especially if it stays in the infield, that batter is going to run to first base and he's not just going to stop on the base. He's actually going to continue and run through it. And a lot of times they'll kind of peel out this way. And that's to avoid any confusion that he's attempting to make at the second base. But so he's not out or he can't be tagged out when he's off the base as long as he comes right back to the base and stands on there. And that's really what this rule is referring to, is that he can run through the base. But as soon as he either turns towards second base or he tries to leave the field, then he's kind of fair game to be tagged out. The next way we can look at, we're running out of colors here, is that the runner is out when in running or sliding into home base or home plate, he fails to touch home plate and makes no attempt to return to it. So he fails to touch home plate or sliding and he makes no attempt to return to the base. And so this would be done on an appeal play where a player then would get the ball and he would step on home plate and then the umpire who should be watching. And a lot of times, if you watch games closely, a home plate umpire, even if there isn't a play on home plate, he will actually make the safe signal whenever a runner comes across and steps on the base just for this reason. The final way is probably a situation that you'll never see and it's kind of a silly situation and that is that after a runner has acquired possession of a base, he runs the bases in reverse order for either to confuse the defense or the rule book uses the phrase to make a travesty of the game. So the runner is out when he runs or really it starts out that after he has legally acquired base, he runs the bases in reverse order to confuse the defense or make a travesty of the game. And so whenever this happens, the rule book tells the umpire that he should immediately call timeout and then call the runner out. So that's not an appeal play at all. That's just the whenever that happens, the umpire should stop playing and call them out right away. And so the reason that's in there is because at one point that wasn't a rule. And so maybe we'll look at why somebody would have done that. It seems like a silly thing, but there's a few rare situations where somebody might have done it for whatever reason. So that is why that rule exists. But so there are seven more ways. I think now we have covered every different way that a batter and a fielder can be covered out throughout the whole history of these videos.