Oh, there he is. He's over here already. Okay, Mr. Marshall, you have a quorum. I do believe I have Mr. McDougal from the attendees over into the panelists. I'm going to rename that phone number. And I have 632 Amherst media is here with us in the house. I think you're good to go. Thank you, Pam. Welcome to the Amherst planning board meeting of June 21, 2023. My name is Doug Marshall and as the chair of the Amherst planning board I am calling this meeting to order at 632 p.m. This meeting is being recorded and is available live stream via Amherst media. Minutes are being taken. I'm going to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended by chapter two of the acts of 2022. This planning board meeting including public hearings will be conducted via remote means using the zoom platform. The zoom meeting link is accessible on the meeting agenda posted on the town websites calendar listing for this meeting. Now go to the planning board web page and click on the most recent agenda, which lists the zoom link at the top of the page. No in-person attendance of the public is permitted. However, every effort will be made to ensure the public can adequately access the meeting in real time via technological means. In the event we are unable to do so, for reasons of economic hardship or despite best efforts, we will post an audio or video recording transcript or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the town of Amherst website. Board members, I will take a roll call. When I call your name, unmute yourself, answer affirmatively and return to mute. Bruce called him. I'm here. Tom Long. Present. Andrew McDougal. Andrew, are you able to hear us? Thank you. Thank you, Andrew. I dug Marshall and present. Janet McGowan. Here. Johanna Newman. Here. Thank you, Johanna. And Karen winter. Here. Thank you. Board members, if technical issues arise, we may need to pause to fix the problem and then continue the meeting. If the discussion needs to pause, it will be noted in the minutes. Please use the raise hand function to ask a question or make a comment. I will see your request and call on you to speak. After speaking, remember to remute yourself. To the general public. The general public comment item is reserved for public comment regarding items not on tonight's agenda. Please be aware the board will not respond to comments during general public comment period. Public comment may also be heard at other times during the meeting when deemed appropriate by the planning board chair. Please indicate you wish to make a comment by clicking the raise hand button when public comment is solicited. If you have joined the zoom meeting using a telephone, please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star nine on your phone. When called on, please identify yourself by stating your full name and address and put yourself back into mute when finished speaking. Residents can express their views for up to three minutes or at the discretion of the planning board chair. If a speaker does not comply with these guidelines or exceeds their allotted time, their participation may be disconnected from the meeting. All right, so the time now is 636. The first item on our agenda is the minutes. We have two sets of minutes this evening we have a May 3 minutes and June 7 minutes, both from 2023. And so board members why don't we do the May 3 minutes first and does anybody have any comments or edits that they would like to make to those minutes. Otherwise I would like look for a motion to approve the minutes as drafted by our, our staff. Tom, I see your hand. Move to approve the minutes as drafted. Thank you, Tom. I will second the motion. Are there is there any discussion on the May 3 minutes. Do not see that. I do not see any hands from board members. And why don't we go ahead and vote on the May 3 minutes. We'll start with you, Bruce. I approve. Great. Tom. Hi. Andrew. Hi. Thank you, Andrew. Janet. Hi. Johanna. Hi. And Karen. And I'm an eye as well. The motion passes unanimously seven in favor. So we'll move on to. The June 7 minutes. Likewise, are there any comments or would anyone like to make a motion to approve. Tom, you're, you're the fast man tonight. Motion to approve the minutes as drafted. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I would like to second that. I'll second. Thank you, Janet. Andrew, I know you raised your hand. Maybe you were hoping to second. I wasn't as fast as Janet. Okay. All right. Any other discussion for this evening. Of these minutes. Nope. All right, we'll go through it again. Bruce. I approve. All right. Andrew. Hi. Janet. I'm going to abstain because I wasn't there. All right. Thank you. Yvonne. Hi. And Karen. Hi. All right. The motion passes. I'm also in favor. Six in favor and one abstention. All right. So the time now is 639. And we'll move into the second item on the agenda, which is the public comment period. At this time, I see seven attendees. I will. I will read their names as they appear in my participants list. Jamie Fitzgibbon. Fred Hartwell. Hilda Greenbaum. Matthew LaCroix. And I see one. So at this time members of the public, you are invited to raise your hand. And I will call on you for. Your comments on items which are not on tonight's agenda. So that would exclude. Everything that's listed as a particular business item. It includes excludes the zoning by law amendment proposal. And so. I see one hand. Pam, can you bring Jamie Fitzgibbon over into the. Participants so he can speak. Good evening, Jamie. Please give us your name and your address in Amherst. And. You have, we'll have three minutes to speak. Hello. Thank you very much. My name is Jamie Fitzgibbon. I am actually superior plus propane. And I apologize if my hand was raised. Because I am part of the conversation regards to 63 Main Street. Okay. Thank you. We will. We will get there eventually this evening. Thank you. Okay. Any other members of the public who would wish to speak? Okay. I'm not seeing anything. I'm not seeing anything. Any other members of the public who would wish to speak? Okay. I'm not seeing any hands from any members of the public. So we will end the general public comment period. And it's now 641 and we'll move on to the. Next item on the agenda, which is the zoning amendment. Pursuant to check. It's a site plan review. Yes. Site plan review. Do I have that wrong? So I plan review for 63 Main Street. 635 site public hearing. All right. Then I'll read what's on the printed revised. Agenda rather than on my opening comments. File. Sorry, Mr. Marshall. No problem. All right. So the third item is public hearing site plan review. SPR. 2023 dash zero five. Real property management. 61 to 63 Main Street and 69 to 71 Main Street. And four boltwood Avenue. Request site plan review approval to operate a restaurant with associated site changes, including. Along a budding parcels. In accordance with section 3.352.0 of the zoning bylaw. BG zoning district. Map 14 a parcels 258 259 and 304. Board members, are there any. Disclosures for this topic. I do not see any hands raised. Okay. In that case, we will. Welcome the presenters from the, the proposers. I see Jamie Fitzgibbon is back. And Matthew La Croy. So. Would either of you like to start off and introduce the project to us. Sure. I can kick off. Do I have a three minute, three minute timer? No, you, you get to go on. As long as we can stand it. I'll keep it just short of that. So I'm that La Croy with real property management. So we have put together a site plan review. To allow the opening of the restaurant. At 63 Main Street. In order to do that, we've had to make some pretty serious changes in terms of how. We power the, the cooking appliances in the restaurant. The kitchen. Due to the statewide moratorium on natural gas. We had to pivot and look to use propane gas. To power the cooking equipment. So the site plan review. As proposed, the use of. 11 tanks. Eight for 63 Main Street and eventually three for 61 Main Street. And then we have the. The two pieces that go along with that. The ballards. And. Breaking up the windows and making the surface similar to. What's there currently. So that's what we're looking for. We've already gotten approval from the design review board. If we're able to get approval tonight, we are in talks with the town already for a licensing agreement. And then we're looking at the, the propane gas. Behind the property as well to hold. The propane tanks. All right. Did you want to show us any of the materials that you've prepared or. You know, it seems like we're doing a site plan review. We ought to look at a site plan. Sure. Yes. I can certainly do that. But. Are you able to. We see your screen. I think. There you go. Now you're. Okay. So this, this here is the 61 to 63 Main Street. So the right side is 63. That's where. Well, who Tang would be. And Scott Zhang is on the call tonight. To represent the restaurant. We would need four propane tanks with the appropriate ballards to, to protect the tanks. There's two windows here, which will be closed. With either brick or block and then stuck out over to match the. The current surface that's there. This piece of property here is a concrete pad. That's kind of shared with 69 to 71 Main Street. We've, we've gotten approval from the city. To use that space as long as we continue to allow them to use the. This space in the back for. For trash cans, which we're perfectly fine with. On the back right corner. Would be the other four tanks. With the six ballards here in orange. These again would be installed by superior plus propane. And then the other four tanks. These again would be installed by superior plus propane and Jamie. If it's Gibbons on the call. For any questions related to. So these eight, these would power the cooking equipment for 63 Main Street. And then. When, when we get a little further along with places for 61 Main Street. We would look for three. Of the same size tanks and three ballards there. And then that the requests to the town. We're, we're in process of doing a proposed license agreement. With the town manager and the town attorney to allow us to use the concrete pad that's here. So right now you can see with the blue line. Some of it's on the current owners property. And most of it's on the town's property. So we're asking for use of that piece of property. Okay. All right. This looks like a lot of propane tanks.  Seen this and is there any concern from anyone. There. So I can answer that Jamie Fitzgibbon again with superior plus energy. I've worked closely with the town of Amherst. And the reason for the number of tanks is the energy that's needed. To use that kitchen. Far surpasses what was there previously. So it's. About almost 800,000 BTUs of kitchen equipment, which does require the propane. And that's why the need for the number of tanks that we have here on site of eight. And yes, I have spoken with Jeff Olmstead at length. I have applied for the permit, both the plumbing permit with Tim pizza, who's the plumber and for the storage permit with the town of Amherst as well. Okay. Great. Board members comments, questions. Janet, you got your hand up first. I was, I wasn't racing, but I did have questions. About the number of not just the number of the tanks, but the fact that they're open. To their sort of easy access and they, and I wondered if some screening would be in order. If somebody could interfere with the tanks or the vowels for it pretty easily. And it just seemed like. They were really close to the building. And they were really close to people, you know, or people driving by. They were really close to the building. And they were really close to the building. And they were really close to that screening. And I'm glad it sounds like the fire department is. Okay with it. But I'd be, I think I'd rather wait for a letter too, before we okayed it. So that was my, my concern. About the tanks. So with it. May I, may I respond to that? Sure, Jamie. Janet, thank you so much for those questions. That's always a concern. I think it's a great question. And I think that's what we do with the ballards, because they have to be the height that they are, which is three feet. That makes it very safe. And yes, obviously people are going to be people. But the ability of them of destroying the tanks or damaging this tanks is almost impossible because of the material that they're made out of. And the way that they are built. And it would be the worst thing that could happen is they could turn off the propane. And they would have to turn off the propane. And they would have to rip anything away from the building. So this is a very secure setup. Thank you, Jamie. Janet, any other questions? That was my question of the tanks. And then one of the questions that was raised in the. Development report was about trash pickup being twice a week. And if that's sufficient. And then the other issue was. Loading and unloading in that kind of tight alley. And, you know, obviously other restaurants have been there and dealing with that. But I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. And if people in town hall. Had experienced problems with loading and unloading trucks. So that's sort of a question for Chris. And then. A question about where is the unloading and loading going to take place. And is there sufficient room for cars to get around. All right. Thanks, Janet. Chris, would you have any comment on that? I don't have any comment, but Nate may have comments. He's been following this case more closely than I have. Sure. Yeah. I think the issue with the deliveries is. You know, on the left side, as you're seeing where it says 76 feet, that's the alleyway. And, you know, if a truck were to pull in. There's a back door, right? There's a little jog in the building. Yes, right there. That's where they're proposing to bring things in. If a truck were then to try to maneuver through the parking lot and leave town hall of the parking lot were full. So, you know, I think it would be a good idea to maneuver the parking lot. Unless it was.   On to Main Street and leave. And so on Main Street. On both sides of the street, the meters are for commercial unloading in the mornings. And so you can take over the first four, the four parking spaces across the street.  So, you know, I think the reason that alleyway would we want to limit it to a certain size truck or time of day. And I think the trash and grease removal. Is really important. So we're having issues with other restaurants in downtown where, you know, they'll have a, a pretty big drum or use cooking oil in the back, which isn't shown on this plan. And then they have a ton of cardboard from packaging.  But to hear that these four trash cans would also serve the neighboring rental property. And the restaurant just makes me think that it's not sufficient. And the concrete pad is really not big enough to support a dumpster. And so I, you know, from what we're seeing with other restaurant establishments that. You need almost a.  Yeah, so just to clarify. So there's currently four bins there. There's two trash to recycle that are used for 69 to 71 main street. And then the apartments above use that as well. The restaurant would have their own. That they would add. So there would be two additional barrels and one recycle. And those would be picked up twice a week by USA. Trash and recycling. So they would have a separate. Company, but they would be on a more accelerated schedule to pick that up. It still sounds like that's not enough containers or delivery pickup. All right. Let's keep that in mind.  Yeah, thanks, Doug. I just wanted to comment that the design review board had looked at the placement of the tanks and security of the tanks. And the wallets. The plinth or concrete pad they're on the changes to the windows. And approved it from a sort of safety and aesthetic perspective. I don't think that trash came into what we were trying to approve at that time. So I don't know if that's part of what we're approving today. But I do know that from an aesthetic and functional perspective that the design reward had approved the plan as is just wanted to make that clear. Okay, thanks Tom. You know, Hannah you are next. Thank you. You asked about our reactions. I'll admit I don't love it. My biggest concerns are around public safety in the event of a fire and just having this density of fuel like in the heart of downtown. And then I also have concerns about it a little bit from a climate standpoint, you know we as a town or, I think, trying to move to renewable energy as much as possible and so the idea that we're like putting in place close to a dozen propane in downtown, you know, gives me a little bit of pause. So I'm, I recognize that switch that fuel switching for cooking is a major investment for a restaurant but I am interested to know whether the applicant in the course of this process considered moving over to electric cooking and whether that's something, you know, that they have considered and ruled out for one reason or another. Matthew or maybe Scott. I don't know if Scott can speak it. I know we had the conversation with the fire marshal about equipment that could do it. The equipment that this restaurant already has in place was originally set up for natural gas. But due to the moratorium or unable to get that delivered to the restaurant so natural gas is out. But again the equipment already being set up that way the next logical step was propane gas, which is more cost effective. But then then electricity would be in this case. And I don't know, Scott if you can speak or Jamie if you want to address that, especially the safety piece as well. Yeah, again, I see Scott still among the attendees. So, Pam, can we bring Scott over. I'm working on that. Okay, Jamie you have you were starting to say something. Thank you so much. So just so the way that the propane is worked it is considered a green fuel so if you were building a building this is elite this is lead certified. It is considered a green resource for fuel, even though it does basically come from fossil fuel. In addition, the way that the tanks are designed should for some reason, the tanks get punctured, the pressure and the train and excuse me in the tanks drop so quickly, the tank freezes up. And then from that point, the vapor evaporates into the air. And so it's, it's really a very, very safe form of energy to use in this instance, especially considering the number of tanks that are needed to operate this business. So again, should the tank get punctured for any reason which would be an incredible amount of force, the pressure would drop in the tank, it would freeze the tank. Anything that's in the air would evaporate into the air. The only time that there would be a problem if somebody had a source of ignition. So for example, a car at high speeds hit the back of the building, which I think with that congested areas pretty unlikely. But again, it is a very safe form of energy, especially for this case for the restaurant. Jamie, how are the, how are the tanks refilled. So it we would have our, what we call a Bob tail so it's about. It's a smaller truck. And our plan is to be there before town hall opens first thing in the morning, as to not interrupt any anyone in town, especially using that parking area. And the actual filling of let's say all of the tank all at once would probably take about between 30 and 40 minutes. That's why we are intending that when these tanks do get filled, it will be before town. And in addition to the tanks, they will have monitors on all of the tanks. Therefore, we know that when the tank gets to be about 30%. And that's when we'll come and fill them up knowing that it has to be before town hall opens. And your Bob tail can navigate the parking lot in the back. It's small enough. It is it is it's about the size of it's a little larger than one of the town ambulances. Okay. Did you have any more. I had one more question which is what's the estimated frequency with which the tanks would need to be filled. So we're estimating based on the hours of opening and the times, basically on hours opening and knowing how the cooking is done. It's probably going to be once every three to four weeks. I'm hoping you would be much more frequently because they'll be so busy, but in the greater scheme of things, it's probably going to be once every three to four weeks. You know, how did you all set. Okay. Bruce you were next. I wanted to ask a question about the the filming schedule and so forth but the first of all I, I, I don't think I've ever heard in 50 years someone propose that propane is a green fuel. I wanted to give a fairly hostile reaction to that proposition but why didn't I just say just for my interest and possibly everybody else in town.  That's a great question. It is actually a collection of gas off of the refining process. So we are capturing everything that would ultimately go into the air, which is why it's liquid propane. So it's already being refined through that process and again I'm not a big fan of fossil fuel myself. Because we are essentially recycling things that would be going into the air that's why it's considered a great fuel. Okay. I guess I've heard that defense in relation to foam plastic so we'll leave it at that. My question had to do with the, although I'm really wanting to pursue Nate's question about the trash because that seems like the biggest problem but further to Johanna's question about the filling frequency of one every once every three to four weeks. I think we were also concerned. But maybe we're not but let's find out. There was some suggestion that the that the trucks would come in before 830 and after 430. I may be confusing that with trash and so forth because maybe your truck is less large and it can come in at any time. But would you be unreasonably constrained by a condition that limited your arrivals to prior to 830 in the morning and after 430 in the afternoon. The first trucks are typically on the road about 6am and whatever the town bylaws would allow us to we would be there as soon as possible, because we do not want to interrupt anything that goes on in town or at town hall. Thank you, Jamie. Doug, I think I'll leave that there for now but I'm sure we need to look further into this trash thing. Thank you, Bruce. Andrew, you are next. Can folks hear me all right? Yes. Great. Thanks for the presentation. I my comments actually are kind of parroting what Jen has mentioned and what needs have followed up with I think I like the idea of screening. Maybe as a sense since there will be more tanks here and it is a, you know, public parking lots at the front. And I do, I would also agree that the pick up frequency needs to be increased and it doesn't seem like that would be too onerous on this. Not saying necessarily more barrels just picked them up more often. You know, in my house. I can fill up a barrel pretty fast on a particular week. So, if nothing else just the plan for those, those situations where you might have some access looks, let's just get it out sooner. And also I just, Jamie, thank you for for sharing some of your, your subject matter expertise on this. It's not often that we get to hear from from the business side of the equation so appreciate that feedback. Thank you. Just to be clear, and I know Scott's he's in the in the panel now but USA trash and waste can pick up as often as needed right so we, we assumed twice a week based on, you know, however busy they are but if they get more busy. We can increase the frequency and just, you know, at one point in the past there were two restaurants there operating. I don't know what the trash situation was then. But I certainly think we could, you know, work with USA to make sure that that stays under control. Thanks. Yeah, I would, I would think maybe instead of starting light and accelerating you start heavy and then maybe ratchet back. So maybe maybe have that pick up, you know, every other day. You know, planning for weekends or however that works but I think let's let's go more often and then pull it back. Okay. Janet I see your hand but Nate is there who is there sort of a property manager at town hall that would be the person to coordinate with, you know, the with the applicant on whether there are any problems developing on the trash pickup. I mean it would be, you know, it could be like Rob Morris staff, you know, I often look out the window back there but yeah I mean I you know, I think that it's something that previously when the restaurant wasn't used I mean there would always be cardboard boxes just floating around the concrete pad. And sometimes they'd be in the, you know, off on the pavement and so it's just, you know, it's really a matter of the frequency right if there's only room enough I mean the plan only shows for but now we're hearing that there's probably going to be at least two more trash cans and then a drum for use cooking oil and so you know that one pad that shows the four containers will actually be pretty full. Yeah, I mean I know, you know, it's, it's one of those things where I was trying to go back and Google street view quickly and there's something from 2018 that shows six, six containers back there but that's where the propane tanks will be anyone there's cardboard is kind of laying around and so you know I don't. I think the frequency is the is the concern. Yeah, I guess the question is, do we need to impose a condition tonight that. I think, I mean the condition could be that the trash be kept in the receptacles and, you know, something that if it's, you know, if it's, if it needs to be picked up with more frequency it is right so that there's no, you know loose trash or recycling on the pad or on the exterior alleyway or the doorway entry. I mean one thing I was going to say quickly is that the board is approving the use to so it's not just the propane tanks it's, you know the restaurant use itself in terms of any. Anything that's happening out front, you know I think there's two lights by the doorway. They're not proposing any new lighting or signs but I mean that could be clarified. There's no outdoor dining. And so you just that the this becomes a site plan not just for the propane tanks but for, you know, the restaurant use itself. And so I don't, you know unless there's any other questions in terms of lighting or signage or outdoor dining which it doesn't seem like they're proposing anything but we could clarify it then the only exterior change right is this back piece that we're looking at now. Is that correct, Matt. Yeah, that's correct and in the management plan in the pack. There was a management plan that had the doors specific questions for the restaurant. And those were answered yeah so no outdoor dining, no additional light changes, the signs were already approved. So it's really just the propane piece. So Scott's working with Susan alone on that on the food establishment license the menus been updated the floor plan has been updated. So I think that's progressing well. So it's really just the back. Okay. Janet. So I just I wanted to go back. I think it was somebody else's comment. I thought they were talking about deliveries. So I didn't you know, I'm just wondering is it going to be I mean this these places have been restaurants before and do we want to require them to, you know, use the parking spaces across the street and just come across the street with kind of heavy stuff.   He just nailed that and I wondered is that a problem like if they just back up unload and get out in 15 or 20 minutes is that normal I mean do we. Is that a problem has it been a problem. Is it okay for them just to do their normal thing or when I know what people think or I don't want to hinder the restaurant because I think it seems like a great. I don't want to have it there, but I'm just wondering is the delivery system going to work or create problems or we could also maybe say, recommend the sites across spots across the street, as much as you can and if a problem we could sort of kick it to the building commissioner or something I don't I don't want them to keep coming back for little things because it just seems like it slows things down. I also want to like head off problems before they happen. Yeah, and just to clarify Nathaniel's point earlier, the alleyway into that side door is for 61 Main Street, but they could obviously come from the front as well. There is only three main street there is no door along the back it's either the front door, or through the alleyway there's a door there that goes right into the kitchen. But those I think would be serviced from the front of the building or across the street versus behind because there's no door there. Okay, thank you. All right, Karen. I was very impressed with how beautiful this restaurant's going to be and I think it's very exciting that this is coming to Amherst. The propane, the screening I agree it would be nice if there was screening but I think it's so close back there that probably it's very difficult to do, but I think if you. I think this is something that that has to be, you know, you're right under the eyes of town hall so I think the relationship it's going to be watched very carefully and worked out and hopefully be satisfactory and can be tweaked. And it's it's impressive. And I wish I wish you well so I think I agree that I was very hesitant with that's much propane, but it does sound like it's going to be safe. I don't think anybody's going to tamper with it. And, yeah, as far as I'm concerned, I'm satisfied. Okay, thank you, Karen. Any other comments from the board, Bruce. Yes, I think I'm satisfied with the, with the absence of screening, partly because there is. Well, there's only cars there this there's not a lot of activity of what we might call quality activity let's say, I mean I just made that up but I guess people know what I'm talking about. I think that if we were to screen at the only possible screening that I can imagine would be something like a fence or something that's then you couldn't do it with vegetation and simply no room for that. So then we have the problem of the fence, which is much less robust, you know, in in in so far as being whacked by a truck or by a vehicle or something than the bollards. And if we were to put the bollards then a fence then they tanks it would. The fence can dilapidate. It's it'll stuff will will will get inside the fence waste paper and stuff. It seems that we would be creating perhaps possibly creating more of a problem, particularly as the fence becomes more dilapidated and won't be maintained and so forth it'll interfere with the ease with which the tanks can be looked after service and so forth. And I don't think that we get very much for that. So, I think I'm satisfied to with with a without publicating any screening, so far as the tanks are concerned. And I suppose the same as true as far as the trash cans are concerned. And the reason for that would be, if there is, if they are messy then I think we'd want to see them rather than trying to imagine that we could screen them. Thanks, Bruce. All right, I don't see any more hands from the board at the moment so I'm going to go to the public comment. So members of the board members of the public are there any of you that would like to make a comment on this application. Okay, I don't see any hands. I know, let's see, I think Chris sent us some draft findings and conditions for this project. But Nate, I see your hand. Here, thanks. Yeah, I mean, the other thing that was raised in the development application report. One other thing was the issue of, you know, third party delivery drivers, like door dash or others and where they would park and so, you know, again this is something that we're seeing with other restaurants in town is that they often double park or park at their convenience, whether it's in the alleyway now between the buildings or in the parking lot and so, you know, I think that's something that could be considered as part of a condition and so, you know, like I said, it's not anything against this restaurant but it's just something staff is, you know, we hear about that with these types of services we you know, there's really not like a planned space for this type of quick pickup and so oftentimes they don't want to feed the meter or, you know, go do a coins in or something and so that was only one other issue. Are they eligible to use the commercial spaces across the street or not. That's for commercial loading and unloading that wouldn't be during the day they end up becoming a metered space. Okay. All right. I see three hands I'm going to go to Chris first, even though she was the last of the three. Chris do you want to make a comment. Yeah I just wanted to comment that I put these conditions together without consulting Nate, although I did consult his development application reports so he may want to make some suggestions about adding or correcting any of these possible conditions. That's all. All right, well it does sound like we already want to add a condition about the trash and keeping it in the containers and making sure the pickup is frequent enough to allow that to happen. Bruce. Doug I was just going to ask, thank whether he's whether he can type in the conditions, whether he can edit this thing that we see on the screen or not, because if so that would be a mechanism for for developing a list of conditions because I mean I think at this point I'd be prepared to move a acceptance approval of the of the site plan request subject to the conditions and then we would like to be able to track those conditions and we've got a good start but as you pointed out or as Chris pointed out there's probably a couple more that might want to go in there. So, Nate, do you have the that that word document and would you want to do the typing or should we have someone else do that. Nate if I put it back up there. There you go. It's got it. Perfect. And Nate you are muted. Yeah, I'm good to go.  Okay. All right, Bruce. So, I would defer to Andrew because I think he had to say the condition related to trash. And then possibly one related to the grease as well. And Andrew, you good to go on that. Yeah, you get if I talk to it. I'm not sure I understood that. John, I was just was asking if you were recognized if you would recognize me. That's all. Yeah, sure. Andrew. Yeah, I'm not sure the thank you, Bruce. I'm not sure the best way to put it in here, but I think that, you know, the spirit of it is aspire to have more regular pickups and then you can slow them down if needed. So I don't know how, how explicit we need to be in the language. But, you know, it seemed like it kind of every other day cadence would be probably appropriate to start with. But again, for language here, I don't know if it just like more regular than expected or, you know, I would defer to anyone else who has some better thoughts on it but Yeah, I mean spirit of it is just to make sure that we have. Sorry about the noise here. Okay, thanks Andrew. It looks like Nate you're doing your typing on to the surrounding pavement. Yep.  There's additional comments or not. Well maybe I could say the number six would be similarly with regard to the waste cooking oil. And disposal. Collection of waste cooking oil. And while he's doing that, well maybe I'll let Nate type. So yeah, I mean, they do have a waste management. Sorry to just jump in here in the management plan. And so I guess it would just be to ensure that it is actually collected on a regular schedule right I mean that's the idea is that they would somehow get it into the drama out and then they would the company would actually then vacuum it out of the drum. Yeah. If I do you want to impose the same eight prior to eight and after four. Is it possible to impose the prior to eight am and after four on the trash pickup or is that because that's an even bigger truck right in the management plan. There's just as it is today so they're currently driving back there today to pick up the four that are there so it would just be a continuation of normal as is. Okay. We didn't we didn't specify a time for trash. Chris I see your hand. I think the trash pickup is pretty quick so even if a truck does go back there it doesn't really block traffic for very long so I would say that the trash pickup the timing of that is probably not as essential as it is for filling the propane tanks. Thank you. Good understood. And there was one more. Oh yes number seven if it's not already there is that door dash and similar third party entities restrict restrict their parking to Main Street. Yes, I mean I, I don't disagree with it but I think it may be difficult for the, the owners to enforce that. Doug I was thinking that maybe they don't have to enforce it it's just a mechanism for if it becomes a problem behind I mean they might find that in the evening time that they're okay to park behind and because the town hall isn't active but it felt like it might be a good idea to have something there that if it became a problem there's a lever or a hammer during regular business hours. Yeah. Any other any other businesses in town like do they are there signs that get put up or you just talk to them when they come in just to let them know this is this is kind of how we operate. I'm not aware of the signage in other parts of town. Chris or Nate are you aware of anything. I don't think there's any signage but I also wanted to comment that I think that the third party services will could use the spaces out back. Even during normal business hours as long as they're parking in the spaces I think what you're trying to avoid is there blocking the driveway. You want to maintain access along that driveway so if they're using the spaces back there I think that's legitimate. So no double parking. I mean aren't these rules that apply to all vehicles and all of Amherst. So I guess it's specific to this restaurant that we need to say double parking is right. I mean some of it would be if it becomes, you know so busy that there's cars queuing up in the alley for deliveries, you know, and it. Can I jump in.  So I've been thinking about this because I think, you know, there's not going to be specific parking for delivery, you know, for meal delivery companies anywhere in the town because very tight parking but I do think the restaurant will have a contractual for delivery companies and so we could put some burden on them to prevent double parking or, you know, blocking driveway access on the restaurant and because that becomes a problem then they can talk to their delivery services and say you can't be double parking on Main Street you can't be blocking the, you know, the driveway into the parking spaces and things like that so I think this is actually not a bad condition. It definitely is a condition that we isn't on other established restaurants but I think that it sounds like this double parking and blocking has become a problem and so it might just be the beginning. Maybe later on there's a town bylaw on this but I think it's not a bad it's a very tight spot and there's a lot of use of that that lane. Okay, thank you. That looks good for condition number seven.  Thanks Doug. I'm not going to die in the cell but relative to the sensing it, you know, just curious Bruce I was thinking, my head is more like a PVC fence for privacy so nothing to do with safety or structural just for screening and low maintenance. Well, I'll be honest I've not been to the site recently as part of this. So I'm just curious, you know, maybe other board members does that seem like something that you'd be agreeable to. And I know that there wasn't any sensing there before but to the extent that it might improve the aesthetics and maybe that's, you know, an opportunity for us to eat some good will with with account. So I'm just wondering if you're reminding me, was there any sort of site visit report that anyone wanted to give. I would like to say that the site visit showed that the entire back of this building is all equipment, and it's all problematic and it's all visually unappealing. But the idea that like we're trying to figure out how to solve this problem seems really problematic because the whole back of the building is all like even the town hall. It's all just HVAC and equipment that's exposed and there's all kinds of stuff going on there so I think what we want to do here is try to solve a particular problem. I think we should try to allow this client to solve this problem. The problem isn't them. The problem is the moratorium and the moratorium is creating a conflict. Therefore we need to solve that particular problem. I don't think that they have more or less trash than anyone else. I don't think they have a more or less garbage or parking than anyone else. I think we just need to allow this function like any other restaurant in the town that doesn't have specifications on who can park where this is a normal lot that lots of people park in. I think they should be allowed to park there. I think there's three 15 minute spots right out front and they should be allowed to park there and that should be the normal procedure but when we were back here, all you see is mechanical space. That's exactly what we saw. We were showing that and I think they did a good job of tidying it up, making sure it's safe and putting in the ballers cleaning up the windows and so my sense is that the problem was solved from a functional perspective. I don't know if there's an aesthetic way to solve a problem of a mechanical space which is what this back alley is. Okay, thank you Tom Andrew you were, you were trying to break in. Yeah, yeah. Thank you. Yeah. So Tom I was just wondering like could you just enclose that concrete pad with the like PVC fans for privacy. But I get it on the form or the, yeah the functional form whatever just aesthetically is there an opportunity to make this a little bit less. Right but then we have to. Yeah, like so why is town hall not required to hide their AC and gas equipment. So I guess the question is just this place. Just this time, and not all the other places and hammers. Yeah I know that's a great and very fair point I'm just wondering if this is an opportunity to make an improvement is all like understanding wouldn't. That would make everything better but maybe it's an opportunity to improve at least one space. Alright, thanks Andrew. Chris I see your hand and I'm going to let you jump ahead here. I would just say that I think a fence there for screening is going to cause more problems than it will solve because people are going to be hitting it backing into it knocking it over and it's going to be dilapidated the way Bruce has described it so my point is not to make that requirement, but I'm just offering that recommendation. Alright, thanks Chris, I actually agree I think we're more likely to have people not backing into propane tanks. If they can see that there's a propane tank there.  I just wanted to say I agree so much with Tom. I think that this restaurant happening there, we should just help them encourage them they've done a good job of presenting it and I think there's nothing not much more besides the frequent trash pickups and making sure that we don't have any sort of restaurant that they build up back there to make things much worse but I think it's in their interest to have this place be attractive all the way around and if you see the ambiance that they've created I think they're going to be concerned about that so I think we should go ahead and approve it and with the conditions that we have right now. Okay, thank you. Tom. No, Janet. I'm going to cheerfully agree with everybody. Andrew, I agree about screening, you know, because we do usually screen splits like you we see that all over the place I agree with Tom this is kind of a really ugly spot, and the Bollyards will be are necessary more necessary than the fencing. And probably will look as good as fencing so I think, and we usually have people covering up their power things, you know for sound or just look, but I think in this case the Bollyards are probably best there's not a lot of space there. And, you know, you're right people don't back into Bollyards and they always knock into fences so I think it's just a weird small spot, then, you know this is an awkward fix for a problem that none of us can really fix. Okay. Thank you, Janet. That's all the hands I see. Andrew, I think there seems to be a prevalence of opinion that we should not go with screening. And I guess I just want to state that before we get any further. Bruce. I don't know whether I'm seconding Karen's motion, but basically want to make a motion, you can move that to approve the the site plan review for the men state the property with the conditions as proposed one through seven. All right, so there were findings drafted down below. And if you could scroll up a little bit. And, and with the findings. It's just a one liner basically it's. Do you do you also want to propose that we close the hearing. I do that we close the hearing yes. Okay, Karen. Seconded. Okay. Thank you. I just want to remind members is there additional discussion you would like to have before we go to a vote. And it looks like my internet bandwidth is getting to be a problem so you will see me disappear from video on and off probably for the rest of the evening. Okay, so. I'm not seeing any more hands for any more discussion. And Pam, I think we have a motion to approve the site plan review with the conditions that are drafted here. And the findings as drafted and close the public hearing. All right, so we'll go through that. Bruce, why don't you start. Hi. And Tom. I Andrew. Hi. Janet. Hi. And Johanna. Hi. Karen. Hi. And I'm an eye as well. That's unanimous. Seven in favor. Okay. Matthew and Jamie and Scott, thank you very much for coming to our meeting. I have a very complete presentation. I'd like to thank you for that. Thank you. Thank you. Good luck with your restaurant. Thank you. Thank you. All right, so the time now is 735. I'm thinking we should probably start the next item on the agenda and then we will break. Around eight or eight 15. And then maybe at that point we may need to continue kind of talking about the next item. All right, so the time now is 736. And item four on the agenda of the zoning bylaw article three use regulations. Article four development methods, article nine, non conforming lots uses and structures. And article 12 deaf definitions. Continued from March 1st, April 5th, April 19th, May 3rd, and May 17th all of this year. To see if the town will vote to amend article three use regulations to change the permitting requirements for owner occupied occupied duplexes. To add affordable duplexes non owner occupied duplexes converted dwellings and townhouses to create more streamlined permitting pathways for these uses to remove the use category subdividable dwellings. To add a use category three family detached dwelling or triplex to add a permitting pathway and standards and conditions for triplexes. To amend standards and conditions for other housing use categories to amend permitting requirements for housing use categories in the aquifer recharge protection overlay district to amend article four development methods to add three family dwelling where appropriate and article nine non conforming lots uses and structures to add a reference to three family dwelling to amend article 12 definitions to add three family detached dwelling unit or triplex and to delete subdividable dwelling. To add a use category four disclosures. I know we've talked about this on this topic several times so not expecting any. All right. All right, do we have any, do we have any presentation from the sponsors this evening I know Pat was in the audience. We saw Chris I think you sent a further revised amendment today. And I at least didn't have a chance to go through that before the meeting after I just got home tonight. Is there is there any sort of succinct synopsis of what changed today that anyone can offer Chris. I'm not really sure but I think it had to do with the definition of converted dwelling. That's what I gleaned from Mandy's email, and Pat may have more information about that. Okay. All right then and we'll go to Pat. Hello Pat welcome to the meeting. Thank you. We have made changes to the 3.3210 the owner occupied duplex. From our hope that it would be a yes to special permit. We have changed in the 3.3212 affordable duplex in the RO and RLD and the RN. We have moved from yes to special permit. I'm trying to. Let me see. And in terms of duplex, we have in the RN, we have moved we have made instead of special permit which we were suggesting we're saying no. In terms of 3.322 townhouses or town homes in the RN, we're saying instead of special permit no. And there are some language changes. So, Pat, I guess I need to ask were you expecting us to absorb this and be able to process it to that tonight. Well, I was hoping you would get it before today. And yes, I mean, I feel like. Yes, I hope you can absorb those changes. They actually reflect changes that you folks wanted and Chris wanted the planning department wanted. They're not changes. So they're not changes that are re changing something you don't want or anything like that. I wasn't able to keep up with you with to write down the sections that you reeled off. Okay. Do you think you could repeat those four numbers slowly. Yeah, well, I could do it that way or I could do it verbally in a different way I could talk about what we're trying to do. Well, we have the we have the document on the screen. So, Pam, do you think you could close the the right hand side. The little triangle on the vertical bar. So we can go down. Click on that little. Whoops. But this. No, go up to the center. The little triangle in the very middle vertically of that same area. Oh, okay, on that little triangle right there. The triangle not this, not the scroll bar. I'm not seeing a triangle Doug. All I see is the scroll bar so Nate if you want to jump in here if you know what he's talking about. I'm just trying to get you to blow it up so it's awfully small. Can we do this. All right, that's good. All right, Pat let's go to the first first point of. Okay, so the current revisions that we're talking about are in yellow. So this page, I didn't bring this up. We're adding print permit granting authority here in the design standards for two or three family detached dwellings. And you see that. So that we're saying we that was just a script nurse thing. This is highlighted in yellow. Yes, yes. So page two, and under 3.3212 and three family detached dwellings. The changes that we're, we're going with are instead of in the art. Wait a second. I'm in the wrong place myself I'm trying. Okay, in terms of owner occupied duplexes. That's where we are. Thank you. So first in the RO. We had requested and the RLD we were hoping for a yes we're, we're saying let's go back to set a special permit. And in the RN also go back to special permit. That's that's only in the aqua for recharge district. Yes. Okay. And then if you go down to the highlighted area on the third sentence in the RG RBC and our end districts, any development with two or, but not more than four dwelling units on a single parcel shall require site plan review. Any development with four dwelling units on a single parcel shall require a special permit. So that's my right that that language is is pretty consistent with what Chris Brestrup had recommended. Yes, it is. Chris, do you agree with that. I do. Okay. All right, let's go to the next one. Yeah, and the next one is 3.3212 affordable duplex. We have. Yeah, thank you. In the RO and the RLD, we've gone back to supporting Chris's special permit and also in the RN going from yes to special permit. In the aqua for recharge district. Right. All right, are there any others. If you go to page for 3.3213 triplex. Okay, the only change there is to go from special permit in the RN to a no. And then that have people registered that. Okay. And then in 3.322 townhouse. In the RN, we're saying instead of special permit. No. Let me see. And I think that's pretty much it. All right. Thank you. Though the rattling is worse than just doing that this way that was helpful. Okay. All right, so these board members. Can I, can I say one? Sure. Thank you. Because, you know, this has been, and I appreciate this has been going on for a long time. And so tonight we are encouraging you, the planning board. To vote positively on aspects of the proposal you support. And negatively on those you don't. For example, in regard to converted and subdividable dwellings, it would be more logical to not change a thing. If that's the case, it would be more logical to vote on our proposal than to discuss the changes, which basically amount to a suggestion to vote not to recommend those changes. Our approach to housing in Amherst needs to be multifaceted and our proposal is one of these facets. And I think. Given the work that you've done and that has been done. I think it's time to move this into sections and. And vote approval or disapproval. And that's my hope. Thank you, Pat. Let's see how the conversation goes. Okay, I see so far two hands from Bruce and then Tom. So Bruce, go ahead. Bruce, you are muted. I was hoping to be able to read my motion, but I'm see if I can do this. That's right. Pat. I have not been convinced. And what I'm, what I move is that the planning board recommends a town council. That the pros that the proposed zoning amendment not be adopted. And Doug, I'd like to speak to that briefly. Okay, Bruce. Do you, do you want to wait for a second or not? I think probably I should. Yeah, I think that would be good. So Bruce is proposing that we. Not recommend this to town council. Tom is your, are you, is your hand in response to the. Possibility of a second or not. I was hoping to call for a straw vote to try to get a sense of this before we spend some time discussing it. But I would be happy to second versus. Okay. All right. So we have a second. And that will enable us to have a conversation. Bruce, go ahead. I'm going to read what I wrote because I wanted to be succinct and to be brief. And I may have other things to say as others will, but essentially. In speaking to the motion, the planning board has spent considerable time during, I think, seven meetings since January, considering this rezoning proposal. And whereas the state of gold is laudable. And one, I think we all support. It's increasingly evident that the proposed solution. That the recommenders zoning changes. Are unlikely to achieve that goal, even with all the changes adjustments and refinements that we've made to date and even this evening. Like many of us from the beginning, I thought that this proposal was inconsistent with its stated objective. I think I said that at the first meeting. I've said that periodically since. It's also a being a statement that's been state that's been shared by many public in the public comment period. But right at the beginning of this in January or February, I began to seek out other towns like Amherst, I called them. And I eventually after skimming through 100 or more, I got down to 15. And not all, but so far four or five, I've spoken to the planning staffs to find out what their situations were like. And what they were doing about it. And they all had similar a similar version of our problem. But they are all doing and pursuing quite different cures. And last week, and this was the clincher for me along with actually at least two other members of the planning board and and town officials. I know at least one town councilor sat in on an illuminating discussion. I felt hosted by the. International town gown association, which was an organization that they discovered in this whole process. But then Paul Bachman sent the invitation to the webinar. It focused exactly on the matters we are considering. And I became even more aware of the variety of solution concepts available and under consideration by other towns like us. Pat and Mandy Joe to be thanked and applauded for the work they've invested in developing this proposal and triggering this discussion. But it's become abundantly clear to me that there are other and better ways of achieving the stated goals. And I therefore think we should vote to end this discussion on this proposal by supporting the motion as presented. And then we can get to a broader and more and ultimately more focused address of the solution concepts. And I think this is an important problem, but this is not the way to deal with it. I think that's for me though. Okay. So that's the end of your remarks, Bruce. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Board members are there other comments you, anybody would like to make. We're all. Talked out about this. Tom. Yeah, I mean, I just wanted to say that I, I think it's a good point to make. I think it's a good point to make, I think it's a good point to make. I do recommend Mandy Joe and Pat for the effort that's put in here, but I definitely agree with Bruce in terms of. Finding the most efficient ways to actually address the problems that are raised. And I think there are other ways to do that. They don't require the kind of breadth of changes. And the. Unknown impacts that come from this particular proposal. I think it's a good point to make, I think it's a good point to make, I think it's a good point to make for Bruce in a lot of ways, but also, you know, as Bruce said, command them for the effort to put this together. I'd love the opportunity to. Imagine what comes next in terms of trying to achieve these goals. But I don't think. For my perspective, I don't think this is going to do it. So I hope we can all be on board with. This. Moving on from this particular proposal. So. I've really agonized over this myself. And I've. I know that I have not been a particular supporter of it. But I have worried that I'm letting the perfect be, or the better be the enemy of the good. In that, you know, if this resulted in two more, 200 more units of housing in town, that would probably be a good thing. I, I'm very, I regret that I haven't had time to look at the. Latest edits that were made. As Mandy, or as Pat went through them, I did feel that. Some were addressing some of the concerns that I had. And so I'm, I'm more optimistic that I could accept this than I was before. I, I also want to point out that if, you know, regardless of what we vote, if this is voted. Down by council that the, that it can't come back to council or be proposed again for two years. And so I was looking at the town council rules of procedure. And basically I'm going to read one sentence from that, which says a zoning bylaw, which is finally rejected by the council, that is, may not be reconsidered within two years, unless the planning board makes a recommendation to do so. So it seems to me that there's parts of this. That we ought to be pursuing. And we ought to be doing it sooner than two years. You know, even just eliminating subdividable dwelling units from the bylaw, we've got the recommendation from staff to do that. Why not allow ourselves and give the council the ability to do that. So rather than just reject this and not recommend it. I would recommend, I would suggest that. I think I would do a propose a friendly amendment. That we simply. That we say at this time we can't recommend it. But there are parts of it that we think could be pursued and should be pursued sooner than two years. That would give us and the staff. The flexibility to come back with specific parts. That we could enact that might be more limited. And would, you know, allow us to make an incremental change rather than, you know, this sort of wholesale change that's been so challenging for all of us to completely understand and to digest. So, Bruce, consider that a friendly amendment proposal.  Bruce. Doug, I support that sort of friendly amendment because I too have things in here that I'm more broadly supportive of there are things that I'm not really confused about my general sense was that that the things that I might support in here. I don't kid myself that would necessarily support the treatment of affordable and workforce housing. It'll just be more housing. And I think this has been pointed out it's really clear in this market that the bulk of that housing at least would probably be student rental housing. And but we don't really know. And it's just highly likely based on the market that we're in at the moment. But it does. So yes, there are things here that whether in whether even if they don't, I think address the goal specifically stated by the proponents might be good for the town. But I would like to do as you suggest and and leave open the opportunity to dissect this and bring things forward, but I wouldn't like to try and dissect it and do it now. But your wording was that they're my country. It had to do with we we we at this point we vote not to recommend, but that we recognize that there are possibly or probably components of this that would be beneficial to the town and that we might choose to pursue sometime in the in the in the future earlier than two years sooner than two years. If that was what you said, I think it's more or less what you said. I think that's the gist of it. I would accept that as the second sentence on to the motion or a or a comma after what I said, however you want to phrase it, but it might be good to write that out because this motion is probably one that we want to make sure we understand. Right. So maybe what I if you if you take when we take a break, I will I will redraft or you if you want to you can send you can you can write up what you think and I'll write up what I think you think and then we can add it and then that can become the the motion but I'm I'm I'm quite prepared to accept that friendly amendment. Alright, thanks for Chris. Since, you know, any parts of this that we bring forward in the future, I would hope you guys on the staff would be involved in. Are you okay with the way we're talking about proceeding? Yes, I am. I agree with the way you're proceeding. Do you do you in fact think that or hope that we in fact can look at some of this and bring parts of it forward? You know, I mean, I think the subdividable dwelling is probably the easiest one. But I agree. I agree that there are parts of this that that can and should be brought forward. I'm not prepared to list them right now, but I do agree with that. Yeah. I agree with that. I agree with that. Okay. Doug. Yes. I'm sorry. I don't think your proposal or your friendly amendment is going to help. As though though I see the good intentions in it. Because if we could wreck, we could say we don't vote. We don't recommend this package, but we see some merit. That doesn't really get the town council out of. Voting on the amendment. So if they vote the amendments down, then we have the two years. If we vote not to recommend this package, just because of the complexity and, you know, a myriad of reasons. I think a prudent next step would be for the proponents to withdraw it. And that would leave everything on the table to be picked up later. So, I mean, if I was a town counselor, I'd be like, oh, the planning board didn't recommend this package, but some people like some parts of people like others.   And under this proposal, if we got rid of triplexes that we allow in the RN, but the proposal is not allowing triplexes in the RN. And so I feel like there's so much confusion and complexity in our bylaw to begin with. And then this is just adding to it. But I think it, I think your idea. I see what you're trying to say, but I think the town council is still going to go up or down. And we're not really giving them guidance to say, well, Doug liked to want to get rid of this, but Janet wanted to, I want to simplify. I guess, I guess what I was hoping was that we could word it in such a way that we, we met this wording of the, of the town council rules of procedures that we were, you know, recommending that parts be reconsidered in sooner than two years. Yeah, I think it just be easier if they withdrew it. And then, you know, the planning department and we put our heads together and say, Hey, what did we like? Or I have some suggestions just to say, let's just treat multi unit housing consistently with design standards and protections and, you know, one permitting route. So there's not three possible routes. You know, we're going to see simplicity and, you know, logic. And that's my problem with this proposal is, and it's my problem with the bylaw. So I wouldn't mind working on this, but I think we're not really going to give the town council votes it down. Then you have the two year thing. And then. Yeah. You're right. They've, they've got the final word. And. But it looked like at least the way I was reading those rules that we, that we had a role, let's say, in, in, in. Helping in helping them the option that all of us, the option to do something sooner than two years. And so I guess your suggestion about withdrawal, I need to ask Pat. Pat, given the way the conversation is going. I'm not going to say yes or no without talking to Andy. Okay. That would not be appropriate. Okay. Thank you. Chris, I see your hand. Bruce is, we'll come to you next. Yeah, I, I guess I kind of agree with Janet. I don't necessarily think you have to make that second statement. That the planning board, you know, thinks that there's merit in some of these items and that we could bring them back before the two year limit. And so I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. Because I think that's implicit in the regulations, the regulations allow things to come back. If the planning board brings them forward, but the, there's also another thing, which is that as long as you're not bringing back the same exact. Proposal. If you bring back a part of the proposal.  So it's only when you're bringing back something that's, it's only when you're not bringing it back. So I think that's a good point. I think that was previously that there's a, a prohibition on having that come back before two years. But if you wanted to bring parts of this back, I think anybody could do that. So I don't really think you have to have that second part of the. The motion. So that would obviate the need for my friendly amendment. And Bruce, your original proposal, would you recommend as it was? Yes. Okay. I, I was just going to say that my understanding was that, that the proposal was that we would be recommending clearly to the, the council not to, we're not recommending adoption. And then. Well, I understood your statement to me was to give them some support in the notion that the board sees some merit that would, because I think you said that it can't be brought back within two years unless the planning board. That's what it says. Yeah. So, so what I understood, your friend, the amendment, the saying to Janet and Chris is that the board feels favorably, potentially favorably, some fractions of this and. And we, and we might be inclined to bring that back early in two years. And that's actually giving the, the council some support really in being able to follow our recommendation. But that support can be given by the planning director in a statement to the council and probably that's the best way to do it. And so I think perhaps we should not put the friendly amendment in. Based on what Chris just said. So yeah, I'm good with the original. Sorry, Janet. I'm Doug Andrew has his hand up in, in the attendee section. Oh, thank you for noticing that. Thanks. Janet. I lost track of what the, what the friendly amendment was, but I will just say that, I mean, I, I really want to say that we got a lot of feedback from. You know, I'm thinking of a specific attachment, which was probably 30 or 40. People indicated that, you know, you should vote no. I'm sorry about the noise here. You should vote no on this, right? But what we didn't have with anybody saying. Providing a better idea. And so like just echoing what people had said. About just kudos to Mandy, Joe and Pat for actually like doing something about it. I don't feel comfortable just saying we should let this go. I feel like the only thing that I feel like we should require or we should. All right, let me, let me rephrase. I would say that I'm supportive of Janet's prospect or her proposal of. Let's ask them to rescind this. It's way too important. And I feel like. It's very easy to gloss over. What we should do with someone who's actually proposing actions. And I, again, I just, I, and I apologize for the noise. I cannot overstate how impressed I am by. Two people are actually proposing something. Instead of just complaining about stuff. It's, it's just so incredibly frustrating to me. That we've got people who are willing to shut down a proposal without providing an alternate. I think that there's a lot of very relevant and useful points in this that we should be talking about. I would, I would echo Janet's proposal that they rescind only in that it makes it easier for us to bring it back later without somebody suggesting that we're rehashing that something that was already shut down. But we need to do something about this. We need to actually make it. We need to like have some actual actions that come out of this. It's not enough in my mind to say this isn't good enough and we'll figure something out down the road. Because no one else is bringing any other ideas. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Andrew. I will, I will remind the board that at times we have talked about increasing the zoning down along Belcher town road. And, you know, no one had followed up on that to bring a proposal for that, although I have done some work on it myself and may bring something to the board. So I think it's my sense is that most of us felt like this was being relatively ineffective. And, and that we thought something, some other approach could be more effective. And that does get toward is the perfect being the enemy of the good here in a way that I, I've wrestled with. Johanna. Thank you. I'm really appreciating the conversation tonight and also I really want to thank Pat and Mandy for just putting something out there. I think I've kind of said from the beginning that to me, this seems like a, it's not a panacea to our housing problems, but it does. It's a comprehensive nudge that's townwide that would make it easier to add housing, duplexes, triplexes. And yeah, we think it would add a couple of hundred units that doesn't, you know, that doesn't solve things, but I do think it is, you know, it's a step in the right direction. And it does seem like a lot of the recommendations of staff and the concerns around protecting our drinking water supply, like those changes have been made in this. And so I'm interested in hearing where, where, what are the sticking points now and what are the elements of this that this board could approve? And I guess I'm interested in pursuing, let's, you know, are there things like that right now that we could recommend yes to and work with Pat and Mandy Joe, you know, on continuing to adapt the proposal to the place where it gets us to a yes and sending it to town council. So I guess it's going back to Tom's straw poll idea of like, let's talk through the different elements. And if, you know, if there's enough support for a certain provision, let's, let's do it, you know, change doesn't happen all at once. It's incremental. And there's going to be a lot more work to do, you know, even if we say yes to some of the steps in this. So, you know, I think there are a lot of different ways we could go, but I, I'm, I'm interested in figuring out what can we say yes to what can this board, you know, where can we get four votes now at a minimum to move something forward. Okay. Thanks, Johanna. Bruce. I think I want to speak to Andrew's. Concerns that somebody has proposed something we should acknowledge the effort. And I think we are acknowledging it, but I certainly am because what this has caused me to do. And I perhaps on a little remiss because I haven't really been filling, keeping the broader prized of all what I've been doing since this thing first hit the table. Four months ago. We've got a, quite a project going. And, and so that's thanks to this initiative. And I think there are better ways, as I said, of handling this. And so I would rather than, as Johanna says, pick through this and look at the things that we thought think well of enough to say yes to. I would rather start back at the goals. And say, how can we achieve those goals? Because it's become, as I said in my initial piece, abundantly clear to me that there are lots of other ways of doing it than that they are more likely to be successful. And I think that anything that we do. So far as this, the letter of this proposal is concerned should be done in the greater context. Which is why I was supportive of the friendly amendment, but which now we realize we don't need to be because we have the power to do that. I think this is raised a larger and more important way to frame the conversation. And I really want to encourage us all to decide to take that sleeve. We've met a couple of times in town hall and I think we've enjoyed and found that productive and we would meet more. This is that I think it does initiative. Again, I would say that's an initiative that has stemmed from this proposal to look. Because one of the ways in which towns have been solving this is by building various types of multifamily housing in particular locations. And whether it's on campus at the age of campus or off, whether it's renovation and aggregation of existing buildings or whether it's building new, whether it's a private partnership or private, the public partnerships or whether it's private, private initiatives, developers on least public university lands or various, there are. I'm going to stumble if I start trying to list all of the ways in which I've become aware that this problem, this housing is being provided. And of course, the more we provide student housing, the freer housing in town can become. And it's not to say that all housing can be done on or at the campus, but more of it can be, I think. So I would like us to recognize, Andrew, that this is not a vote to dump something because it's and disrespectfully. It's not at all because a lot of effort has come. In particular, I think certainly I can speak to myself on this because I know I put many, many hours into trying to understand this problem and how other people are handling it. And I know that Doug's has got his whole way of thinking about this as well because we've witnessed that. And I suspect that others of us have been wrestling in our own ways. And so I don't think a vote to support this motion is a disrespectful vote. I think it recognizes that we've been kicked into action here. And I think I'd like to think that we were being kicked into a higher gear because as I said, I think the impetus of this, the goals and so forth are very laudable, but I think we can do better in terms of the solution concepts. And I do think also that Mandy, Joe and Pat have proposed this themselves and they brought it forward themselves. But really it's not the best way to do it. We've got planning staff and I think it's better that we frame the goal statements, objectives, design requirements and so forth. And then allow our planning staff to bring forward proposals as opposed to reacting to and refining proposals progressively through a series of seven and now eight meetings. That's not a good way of doing business. It's confusing as we all know. And it's especially confusing for the public because we've heard that. So I think we can do it. I think we can run a better process. And I think there are more abundant and better solution concepts. But we have been, this has been initiated by two folks who took it upon themselves to do something. And don't forget that we spent, you know, almost the last six months on and off looking at this. So this has certainly been dignified by this board's attention and efforts along with the planning staff. So I don't think supporting the motion is disrespectful or is in some way being yielding to apathy or so forth. I think it's part of a good process. And I certainly want to be able to bring, to begin to think about some of the things that I've learned in the last four months because I've been reacting to and trying to understand what this all means. So I do support, I do recommend supporting the motion. Thank you, Bruce. Okay, I see Janet and I see Andrew's hands. And then I think we'll take a break after the two of them speak. Thank you. So I, I, you know, this, this proposal has bedeviled me and it's so complicated. And, you know, you know, I have a like almost like three inches in my file on changes and comment, I keep on writing the same comment over and over to myself, but, but I think that what this has done is I think it's launched really for me, hopefully two efforts, because I've always wanted to work on the college student housing question and Amherst. And I think Bruce's work is really reaching out to other communities. And, you know, when I listened to the seminar, I realized like we have all this extra density in our zoning. We, you know, we're way ahead of a lot of the college towns, but it really hasn't worked and it's not just because somebody has to get a special permit. There's other other things that at work there. I, you know, so I think that Bruce's look and are, you know, where can we put more people, village centers, maybe a student housing area, maybe, you know, you know, a different mixed housing area, but we need to make space in our community for non-students. And, and so I'm, I'm really excited in Bruce's, you know, work, but I also think, you know, maybe in a something that may just excite planners is I would like to work on how we add density to our neighborhoods and maintain some design controls and reduce negative impacts. And so I feel like it was decades ago, but it was really just four years ago. The zoning subcommittee under Maria chat, we started looking at the missing middle and with pictures, you know, like how do we make this kind of multifamily housing attractive and looks like it fits in and the impacts, you know, aren't, you know, really overwhelming to sort of single family or in my neighborhood, there's single family and, you know, multifamily. So to control the impacts and one of the impacts is the impacts of student housing on the neighborhood. And we have to acknowledge that to, you know, duplexes or quad fourplex in a residential neighborhood that's filled with 16 students is going to have a really different impact than maybe one unit has four students and the rest have a mix. And so I just think that we do need to look at our zoning and how inconsistent it is, but we have to consider design. We have to consider impacts and make sure the results are the ones that we want. And when we're listening to that seminar, people, you know, everybody was talking about neighborhoods that just flipped over to student rentals and there's a lot of conflict, a lot of people leaving that we don't want that town. And so I think, let's, let's do, let's do this hard work because it could have really fruitful results. So I, you know, I, you know, Pat, I don't love your proposal, but I love the energy and the quality of it. I understand how hard this is to work on, but I think you're pushing us to deal with really difficult issues and I'm really committed to working on them. And the nitty gritty, crazy zoning bylaw that we have. Thanks, Janet. Andrew. Thanks, Doug. Bruce, actually agree on almost all of this. I think the only way that this would be disrespectful if we actually do something about it. It's one thing to say that this isn't a perfect fit and we can do better, but we need to figure out how to do better. And, you know, I actually, I think that the idea that the process is working is actually not correct because a process relies on Pat and Mandy Joe to come up with an idea. And it's not because we all don't want to have the best idea, but we're resource constrained. Right. I mean, we're all trying to manage our daily lives and still come up with good ideas and make them, you know, enact them is, you know, we need to, we need to find a way where we can get together and, you know, really think through and have some very meaningful conversations. I'm going to put myself on mute. Sounds like he's in a train station. 10 more seconds, please.  I wouldn't be anywhere near as brave as you. I think you said train station trying to make an argument that's actually compelling. So I'm going to wait and hear you out. Probably reason why my argument is not very compelling. Yeah, I on the contrary. Again, I would just challenge us to actually put pen to paper. And, you know, where we're through a lot of the COVID issues. I know that we're, I know it's very convenient to meet the note, but I will say that when we did mean person and in my three years on the board, I think it's maybe two or three times a man person. Those were the most effective means that we had this calls for, you know, planning board, planning department, and residents to roll up our sleeves and actually have some very candid and real conversations about solutions. And I feel like any, any statement that we would make should have some qualifier that would indicate that we will can, you know, we will reconvene or we will continue this conversation at some sort of date specific. I don't feel like it's enough to say these are great ideas and let's process them. We need to hold ourselves accountable. And I don't feel like we're doing that right now. And so anything we can do to, to again, introduce that accountability for the conversation. I mean, in kind of Robert's rules, what I love is managed Joe and Pat, they call the question. You know, everybody talks about the stuff.  They don't know what they're doing. And they have, and if we don't come back together, then I do feel like we are doing them and our citizenly to serve us. So I would just challenge us to do that. Thanks. Thanks, Andrew. All right, I'm going to go back on what I said before, Chris, I see your hand.  Okay. So I'm going to go back to the meeting board report to town council. About all this discussion that you've had over the last five months. And certainly, you know, including the motion, but there's going to be a lot more than the motion. We will try to describe this conversation that we've had tonight. So I believe that the town council will definitely get the. The message that you are interested in pursuing parts of this, or maybe even all of it, but just in a different way. So that, that message will not be lost as a result of the. Of the motion being limited. That's all. Okay. Thanks, Chris. Okay. So at the moment it's 826 by my clock. Let's take five minute break and come back at 831. Mute and turn off your camera and when you return, please turn on your camera. Thanks. All right, it looks like we're trickling back. Oh, good. There's current. So we have Chris, we have Pam. We're still missing Nate. Andrew, are you there? I am here. Here we go. Okay. Great. All right. So. Is there more discussion that people would like to have about this motion to not recommend the. Proposal from Pat and Mandy Joe. Yes, Andrew recognized me. I can't figure out how to raise my hand. But yeah, I just feel like we do need some sort of date certain or some actual next step. Before I would be willing to accept this, I am not comfortable just saying no, and we'll figure it out later. So. Okay, I realize I'm in a different position since I'm coming off the board, I don't want to commit the board to future actions, but I think this is important enough. And I would suggest that we have some language in there that would say by a certain date. That we will get together or either. You know, in. In my opinion, then, you know, it's a in person. That's a charrette type of arrangement. You know, regardless of format, I would say that we need some sort of date certain where we would. I continue to come. Okay. Well, it certainly is a complication that you and Tom are coming off the board. And possibly sounds like your Hanna. And so I, you know, we may have at least two new members. But for our next meeting, and so it will take them a while to get up to speed with something like this, not to mention just. Generally, I know at least one of them is new to the planning board. So personally, I'm a little bit reluctant to commit to a timeline at this, at this moment. But I see a couple of hands, Bruce. I have to say that I, I think this would be very good if this was a unanimous vote in whatever form. I guess I just like unanimous votes because they're very clear to whomever we're making a recommendation. So I personally, as the as the proponent of the motion would like to think about how I could, how we could amend or construct the motion to get to get Andrews votes. But I feel the same as you do Doug, but I don't quite know how you would put language in that that wouldn't make it seem queer. Andrew, I could, I could try to get your vote by, by, by making a personal commitment to continuing what I'm doing. And Doug, I think has already made it clear that his intention is to convene more of the, the, the charrette conversations that he's been, that he's already convened to. I would hope that, that that would be enough. I think the will is there. I don't know how we could put it in words in a way that would, and I think it would be a, it would be kind of an awkward and rather kind of planning for a personal thing to put it into a motion that is going to be put before the, the, the, the the town council, which is really looking for us. And the part of the, the, the part of actually the part of what do we think is, as Chris has already said, is going to be enumerated by the planning board report. So my sense is that we could have the clear vote. And, and, and the commitment that we will move on that's a personal thing because I've got, well, I've got another two years and, and I, I've got room to make myself available for reappointment. So I'm here for quite a while, potentially. And I found something that has got my attention. So I, I didn't, I think you've, I think, I think you've got my word that this is something that's going to continue. But I don't know how to put it unless you can craft a, a, a sentence. I don't know how to craft a sentence that would work to do what you, what you're asking other than to just have this public declaration by at least this member of the board that I'm, I committed to doing what you're saying. Thank you, Bruce. I see three more hands, Karen. I think that you can rephrase it and say that the proposal that Mandy Joe and Pat have put forth has stimulated the board to work hard in addressing the housing needs by examining specific parts of that this which, which is exactly what we're doing. And Bruce's proposal is that we continue work that you, Pat and Mandy Joe have started for us by reaching out and finding out what is being done across the country in places that are similar just to give us a little bit more of a broader sense of possible solutions that could be addressing the need that we all see. So I think we're not really rejecting what you're doing. I think we're putting a pause on, on spending so much time for all of us in looking at, you know, these, these little changes in, in a broad thing, which is very time consuming. It is important and at the end has to be done. But maybe that's not what we start. Maybe we go now to the broader thing. How can we communicate with the universities? How can we listen? I also was on that conference when we learned from the other university towns, how they were addressing it, how Boulder was, was addressing the student housing needs, how other universities were doing it. So it's just a broader context that needs to be, needs to be our focus now. And I think we're really lucky to have Bruce, who is so capable and who's so dedicated and is putting so much time into that. And that's going to maybe be what we focus on now. And then the proposal that you have can fit into that. So I think Andrew, we're not rejecting it at all. I think we're just saying we're going to pause from this detailed analysis and spending so much of our time, which we have, trying to understand it and seeing what the constituents say about this, we're going to pause with that, go to these more. You muted yourself, Karen. Sorry. Okay. But I think you got what I said. Thank you. Chris. I was just going to say, I think if you're going to consider, you know what we've been talking about recently that you might want to take two votes and maybe you take the second vote first to, you know, ameliorate Andrews issues, but you may want to frame a motion that you support an effort to keep working on the topic of, you know, however you want to describe this. And then take a separate vote on what you want, what you want to communicate to town council about whether they should adopt this or not. So you would sort of solve Andrews issue by putting in place a framework for moving forward with something. And then you would make the motion about what you want to do with the current proposal. That's my suggestion. Okay. I don't see any other hands at the moment. Andrews is raised. Thank you. Thank you. Andrew, go ahead. You make me go for Chris, man. I always agree with the criticism. I, and I do agree with what you said, Chris. I just, I would just challenge us to actually put Gates out there to get together. It's not about we need to have a solution by certain times, but we are going to commit to carving out time to have conversations about the specific topic at, you know, some specific planning board meetings. And I know we have people coming on board. But I don't, you know, it's a clear term. And I know that certainly I could, you know, I don't speak on behalf of. Tom or you, you Hannah, but there's a lot of onboarding time. So I'm going to be into the fire like let's get stuff done. So. Anyhow, agree with, with what Chris has proposed from a motion perspective and just kind of getting this kind of ramp through the various legal use of what we need to do here. But, you know, we need to, we need to have a date on it. We need to, we need to actually commit to doing something by a certain date. Conversation is fine. There's not to be solutions. We need to commit to actually talking about this in the future. And then for all, you know. Yeah, again, I know 3040 people, you know, we had the PFO. That listed 3040 people who said this thing. You'd need to reject consistent stuff. Part of my language, but like. Give us met better ideas, people. You know, we'd love to hear them. We're all trying to solve the same problem. So like, let's. Let's figure this out together. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Andrew. Thank you. Thank you. So as people were talking, I was taking notes and I was thinking that we have like the East Amherst Village Center kind of planning. Bruce is doing college town issues. I'm interested in kind of the missing middle and making the zoning bylaw like more uniform and clear. And also protecting neighborhoods from impacts. And I kept on thinking of the phrase like density discussions, like maybe that would be something we have. And so I'm thinking about that. I'm thinking about that. I'm thinking about that every meeting, but just setting aside separate meetings and occasional one meeting out of the month or, you know, a third meeting to really focus on where should density go. And how should it go? And so, you know, one idea it had was, you know, let's increase the density and existing apartment complexes. It's already developed. You know, we know. What parking lots are full. We know, you know, what amenities are needed. We're all interested in more density in the village centers. And we all want it to look good. And so I think, you know, we could do density discussions and, and not add an item, but we have any, you know, like Bruce is just starting a conversation that, you know, is really, has been really badly needed. And it's, he's got, you know, lots of solutions on the table. I think of the, I don't know how many hundred people sign that petition if we went back to them and said, what are your ideas? I'm sure we'd be flooded. And that could be a day of density discussion with public input and ideas. All right. Thank you, Janet. Bruce. I'm trying to respond to Andrew's challenge here. And I don't know how well this is, but Andrew, or Chris's challenge really Andrew's balance as well. But a proposed initial motion could be that the board commits to pursuing, pursuing study of issues around housing for low moderate income residents and students, with a view to identifying five clear and feasible planning solution concepts to improve these housing options before the end of 2023. And that's pretty specific and it's got a time on it. I don't, it might be too specific. It might be, but it's not a commitment to achieving it because that would be stupid, but it is a commitment to pursuing the study of with a view to identifying five things before the end of the year. Would it be more concrete to have some number of actual solutions to those five things before the end of the year? I mean, we could change solution concepts to buy law, revision proposals. Five sounds awfully ambitious based on my experience a couple of years ago where we talked about a bunch of things. Chris, I see your hand. You've definitely got something to say. I think that committing to five by law amendments is probably not the way to go because bylaws are intertwined.  And so, you know, they could multiply exponentially, or they could all be part of a whole. And then you'd only have one. So I wouldn't say to commit to five by law amendments. I think that the five concepts probably makes more sense in my opinion. Okay. That's what I thought because we can define that. And I know, and Andrew, to be frank, we are, this does a motion such as this does obviously include wiggle room. But I think it would be disingenuous of us not to, probably imprudent as well as Chris has pointed out. So again, the, the proposed motion is that the board commits to pursuing the study of issues surrounding housing for low moderate income and student housing with a view to identifying flies, clear and feasible planning solution concepts before the end of 2023. All right. Chris from a parliamentary point of view, can we have two motions at once talking about a second motion and before we're done with the first one. Chris, you are muted. I'm not sure. I'm not a parliamentarian. Yeah. So you could perhaps Bruce could withdraw his first motion. You could work on the second motion and then go back to the first motion again or something like that. Before we do that, I guess, how does, do other board members feel about this second motion? Are you willing to go there?  Could we just say the motion again, I've kind of gotten a little lost. And then also we, we should make a little time for public comment maybe. It might be helpful. Well, can I Doug, shall I do what I repeat the repeat your motion Bruce. Thank you. The board commits to pursuing study of issues around housing for low and moderate income residents and students. With a view to identifying five clear and feasible planning solutions. Solution concepts. Director that improving these housing options. Before the end of. Maybe options would be products or something like that. I think they're just concepts, Bruce. Yeah, no solution concept to improving housing. Before the end of 2023. I think that's fine.  No, we're not. We're not talking about that. That puts me into a panic. And so. But I think. I think. Yeah, I'm there. Good. Can I jump in? And or. Yeah, I'm sorry, Doug. I would not commit to. I would not commit to a number. I would not commit to a number. I would not commit to a number. I would not commit to a number. I would not commit to, I would not commit to a number. I would not commit solution. I would copy just say, let's commit to. Meet. You know, the extent that we can within. You know, state regulations through this in person. I would encourage us to do them. Person. I mean, in my perfect world, we would, I would say that. We would have time dedicated to our agenda to meet in-person monthly to discuss issues around housing inequality and what we can do to remediate that. But we can't commit solutions. I would definitely not recommend that because who knows what will come of this. We can't agree to talk about it. And that's the thing that I think has been missing from this is we say we can talk about it, but we don't actually talk about it until Pat Mandigio do and force us to talk about it. Thank you. Thank you. Bruce, are you? Yes. Oh, Bruce, you're muted. You muted yourself. You were already unmuted. Yes. The board commits to pursuing the study of issues around housing for low and moderate income residents and students commits by meeting in-person at least once a month through 2023. So, Chris, anytime we meet, we have minutes. We have open meeting requirements. I know that you and Pam's time has been a part of the constraints that we've operated under. And how do you feel if we tried to meet once a month, I assume, you know, either in a regular meeting or an additional meeting? Because when we've met in-person, it's been an additional meeting. Yeah, I think it is. It would have to be an additional meeting because you do have things that come up that you have to have on your agenda, but you could commit to rather than meeting once a month, meeting three times or four times between now and the end of the year to discuss this topic. There are six months left, right? I mean, three sounds reasonable to me. Four sounds already a little bit more. So, three meetings between now and the end of the year, and then we can figure out, you know, which times do we have less of a burden of application review and or, you know, which month has five Wednesdays and lends itself to an additional meeting. Okay. Okay, I'm good with all of that. So, three times before the end of the year. Yes. And the in-person thing, I agree with Andrew and Tom, I think. The in-person part of it, I think is important. In-person three times. That's fine with me. Karin, Johanna, Tom, you guys okay with where we're headed here? You want a second? Well, you haven't withdrawn your initial motion yet. All right, you're right. We're still deciding whether to ask you to do that. Okay, thank you. Johanna. I'm okay with where we're headed. I'm a little bit worried that it'll just lead to three meetings where the whole laundry list of issues gets put up and we talk about, you know, all right, you know, great, East Amherst Village Center. Yeah, let's do, let's fix the zoning there and, oh, downtown, let's add density between downtown and the university and, you know, let's, and that unless going into those meetings there actually are some concrete proposals that we can discuss and deliberate, I worry that it will just lead to a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. Right. Johanna, you don't know me. Okay, well, Bruce. Okay, Karin. So the one issue that has always muddied all the waters of every zoning change we want to do is that the pressure of the students makes it impossible for us to address the affordable, you know, having more housing and it, we always come up and this is what the people that write to us say to with the problem that investors will snap up these houses and put in students in. So this, I mean, we have to acknowledge that this is something that we really have to work on together with the university to see how can we address the very real need that the university has for housing and we want the university, we need it, we want it to succeed, how can we address these needs and still come up with zoning, which is going to make it possible for other low income, not just low income, middle income, everybody faculty who need to work at the university staff to be able to live here. So that's an issue that that is really foremost on my mind right now that we have to address. And once we have a few solutions or no in which direction we can go there, then all these zoning changes will be easier to get completely behind. Okay, so maybe at the first meeting you can show up with some ideas for how we could solve the student housing problem on with through town zoning. And then in the second meeting we can solve the the full time resident problem. But we need to show up with some some proposals, some actual, this is where I think we can put thousands of beds of student housing on town, townland, not state land. Okay. It sounds like it looks like most of us have been able to comment about this. So Bruce, I just over there all the way to the right. No, I totally get it. Hey, I was I was just wondering just for giving us a little bit more flexibility if maybe the motion is more that we agree to devote an agenda item once a month to this right. And ideally we can be in person that's for the board if they can make that happen. But we agree to dedicate an agenda item for this once a month. It's like a pretty easy solution and keeps the top of mind and gives us some flexibility to do in person if we can or if not at least we're talking about it. Yeah, thank you. I mean, it's easy to put on the agenda and you know, we don't have to talk about it for very long. So that feels to me like backsliding from where we were. I think we've got more momentum towards actually committing to meet in person and focus on the housing problem in each of each of those three meetings. To me, that's a higher bar. Sorry to recognize me. Thank you. I think my proposal can coexist with that proposal in that we can you know, we can say well we're going to meet in person this month. But if we can, due to some circumstances unforeseen, we're at least talking about it. But I would definitely suggest that we strive to make those meetings happen. Thank you. Okay, I missed the last four words. Oh, I'm sorry, just that we should strive to have those meetings in person. Yes, yes, but if we can't, we can't. I just want to be, you know, recognize the commitment and burden on the town staff and the planning department to make this happen. Right. Well, it did sound like Chris was willing to to make this happen sometime between now and the end of the year. All right, Bruce, I think it's time for you to withdraw your motion. If you would, so. There we go. Yes, I propose to, I will, I agree to withdraw the motion. All right. Can I continue to recognize you to make a new motion? Yes, but I agree with you that the bar is higher when we meet in person. And so I'll keep it the way it was. The board commits to pursuing the study of issues around housing and the low and moderate income residents and students by meeting in person three times. Well, let's say at least three times through 2023. All right. That doesn't mean you can't put it on the agenda because, for example, I think later tonight we won't be tonight, but maybe next time I was going to give a report on what I've been doing. So I think what Andrew was happening will probably happen as well. But this is the motion that I hope he will get his support. I guess I will second your motion. I still see Andrew's hand up. Andrew, do you want to comment? No, I would support that. I'm sure it's just on my phone now and I'm not sure how to lower that. That sounds great. There, good. It came down. Does anybody want to discuss this motion? All right. We'll go to a roll call. Commitment of the board. Karen, you're muted. I'm sorry. Could you make the motion one more time for me, please, before I vote on it? Why don't we ask Pam to read it? I knew you were going to say that. All right. I have a piece together here. Let's see. So the board, the proposal is for the board commits to pursuing the study of issues for low and moderate income and student housing directed to improve housing before the end of 2023 by meeting in person at least three times before the end of 2023. So that was not very good, but that's what I have written down. I've covered the gist of it. I think so. Yeah. I will commit to sending you the motion that I said in an email following the meeting. Thank you, Bruce. Thank you. Thank you. Karen, are you now clear? All right. Should I put your hand down? All right. Okay. We'll go through a roll call. I'll start with you, Bruce. Hi. Tom. I'm going to abstain. Okay. Andrew. Same. I'll also abstain. All right. Janet. Hi. Johanna. I'm an I. Karen. I. And I'm an I as well. So that's five in favor, two abstentions. The motion carries. Now, Bruce, you wanted to bring up another motion. Since I don't have it written out in front of me now because I've lost my screen, but I know that Pam has that. So Pam, I'd like to reinstate the original motion. I probably find it. The original one that you said way back at the beginning. Yes. The planning board recommends to Town Council that the proposed zoning amendment not be adopted. That's what I have written down. Yeah. Okay. That's the motion. All right. Anybody want a second at this time? I see Janet. Second. Okay. Are there any, is there any more discussion that people want to have? Bruce. Doug, I just want to ask is I don't know what the protocol is, but is there a requirement to have public comment? I mean, I hope they wouldn't be because I think this has been a very personal thing, but I just recognize that we haven't had public comment. I'd prefer to have it afterwards, but I want to make sure that we don't drop a ball that we shouldn't drop. Yep. Okay. Public, any comments anybody wants to make? I see five members of the public who remain excluding Andrew. Okay. I don't see any hands from the public, but thank you for reminding me of that, Bruce. Okay. We'll go through and vote on your motion. Once again, starting with you, Bruce. I'm an I. Okay. And as a reminder, an I is that we agree to not recommend. So there's a positive to do a negative. It's all right. Tom, I Andrew. Yeah, just just the mind of the two motions are coupled together. So, you know, with that backdrop, I'm an I. Okay, you're an I. Janet. Hi. Hi. Johanna, Karen. I, and you need to close the public hearing. Yes. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Johanna, you want to second that? I do. Any discussion? We'll go through. Bruce. I. Tom. I. Andrew. I. Janet. Hi. Johanna. Hi. Karen. Hi. Hi. And I'm an I as well. Thank you all. Time is 909. Pat, please. I recognize you. Thank you. I am while I'm disappointed in the vote, I'm not surprised by it. I want to thank you for your work and I want to give a particular shout out and thank you to Chris and Nate and Rob Mora who, while we often disagreed, were very helpful and worked hard. So thanks. I hope you actually do what you're saying you're going to do. Thank you, Pat. Time will tell. Time now is 909 or 910 actually. Next item on our agenda was old business and we were, I believe we're going to, I guess, Chris, I heard we may not need to speak about SPR 2019-07. That's the good news. Yes. We do not need to speak about that. Would you like me to explain anything about it or just for the record, read what it is about and then you can tell us why we don't need to talk about it. So this is SPR 2019-07 from Amir Michi, 133 and 143 Southeast Street review and possible recommendation on location and potential screening of transformer in the town right of way prior to review by town council associated with a mixed use building containing 57 apartment units with retail space and associated site improvements. Okay, Chris, why don't you give us the update. So the contractor thought that he had approval to put a transformer and a large switch gear in the place where it is currently located. He didn't really understand that that was part of the town right of way. In any event, there have been subsequent conversations. We had a site visit so four members of the planning board became acquainted with what was in place. But Rob Mora had a conversation with the contractor subsequently and that was after hearing from the town manager that the town council would not accept these two things in the town right of way. So the contractor has agreed and the owner of the property has agreed to move the transformer and to relocate what was in the switch gear onto a building wall and Rob Mora at this point is thinking that it can be approved administratively and will not need approval of the planning board but he's going to think about that a little bit more. If it does need approval of the planning board it would come back to you in the form of a site plan review application. So that's it. All right, so we don't really need to speak more about this tonight. That's right. Janet, I see your hand. I have been pondering this situation and Chris, were these two the switch gear and the transformer, is that because of the solar or is that one of them because solar and the other one just normally put in? Were these unexpected? That's my question I guess. All right, thanks. Chris? There was no solar proposed on this property so it was not because of solar. It was because of a misunderstanding among the people who are working on this project. Various people thought that these things had been approved and they hadn't been. So that's where it came from. Okay. All right, thank you. All right, so we'll move on. Time is 9.13. Are there any other old business topics not anticipated? 48 hours in advance? All right, new business? Bruce, update on your research project for housing issues at college and university towns. Frankly, I wasn't prepared to do this because I rather thought we have another 60 minutes and I thought this is definitely going to be postponed.  Basically, one was a table of the towns that I've identified or cities in towns that I've identified as being towns like Amherst. And I put some effort into that based on basically data of the size of the town, this number of students are not looking at. There it is. That's the conversations. The other one, the data table is that one there. Sorry, in the process of filling that out, but basically with what's there, I was able to get a sense of which of the towns of the, there were hundreds of these. First of all, you go to a site that says 100 favorite college towns or something like that and then you work backwards from there. But I was working on the population of the town and the population of the student and the ratio and then some data related to median age and proportional housing ownership. And through that, I got 15 towns that seemed to be the most likely fits. And then I started calling around, I created a set of questions. There's about 11 questions that I had in mind for asking all related to housing and particularly related to how they're managing student housing. Because the concern that I had, and we all had, I think was that the, that the any new housing that was created, not any, but most new housing, much of the new housing would be created would be in service of the component that's paying the most. It's the most profitable. So that's probably what's going to be built. And I wanted to know how these towns were handling that. And so I had questions related to that. And I had the towns in highlighted in green are the ones I've spoken with, the ones highlighted purple to that I'm pursuing at the moment. And the others are ones that I will get to in time. And the ones below that the non even highlighted, I'm, I'm, we'll see that might, I might extend it to that in the future. It's become very difficult to get hold of these folks. Because the way that the world works now, probably particularly after COVID, so many people aren't in their offices. So many, nobody has a receptionist anymore. You can't call up and speak to anybody, you have to somehow figure out how to break into the, into the planning office. And I'm still trying to figure out how to do that. But I think this networking through the town gown association might be her way. But it's become quite difficult to break, break through the, the, the shell of planning staffs. Chris, I might ask you to help if there's a, if there's a network of people, if you know people in any of these towns and so forth, that we can somehow, once I get through, I have conversations of over an hour with planning, all of the planning directors of each of these highlighted and green towns. And then those conversations have been summarized in the, in the third document, which is the, the notes. And I just, I don't need to summarize those. I don't, I mean, any more than I've done. I think you can read those. But essentially, you can see what I was saying that many of these places, or the places that I've spoken to, have got quite different ways of handling the problem. And I've also got a lot of data that I've gotten from their websites, or that these folks have given me when I've asked for it, or they've directed me to comprehensive plans, housing studies, all this kind of thing, a very specific regulatory ordinances and so forth. And I've been gathering that in, in, in folders related to each of these towns as I speak to them. So briefly, that's, that's what I'm doing. That's where I am. And, and that's what drove me to the motion that we voted on tonight. All right. Thank you, Bruce. And I'm looking forward to hearing about the rest of them. Me too. Chris, have we distributed this material from Bruce or not? I thought we had, but maybe I'm wrong. I just don't remember actually. There have been so many things that have come in. So maybe Janet could tell me whether she's received these things. Janet, you're muted. I'm sorry, I was staring at these numbers. What are you looking for, the things from the seminar? I thought that I had sent Bruce's email with attachments to the planning board members, but perhaps I did not. I got this, I got this summary of conversations, but not this chart. Karen said she received these. Karen received it. Well, there were three attachments to Bruce's email. So if you received one, then you received all of them. So apparently you did receive them. Okay. That's good. Okay. Good. All right. Thank you, Bruce. So now we will move on. Chris, is there any other new business? Not reasonably anticipated? No. Okay. Time is 9.19. Do we have any form A, A and R subdivision applications? We do. And PAM is more, what should I say, up to speed on those. Since I was out of town, PAM and Nate took over many of my tasks. So maybe PAM can describe what this is, but it's, I can just introduce it as property that's owned by Barry Roberts and he's changing property lines. And this is at the northern end of Kendrick Park. Right. And on this plan, north is down. For some reason, these are labeled upside down. Could we turn it around? Well, I did it this way so that the maps all look the same. Okay, forget it. I'll do it. The site plan that was submitted was upside down. So I made these upside down so they would all be consistent in the way that you looked at them. I thought so, but I could be wrong. So these are the original seven lots. And what is being proposed is that these seven lots be made into three. So one large lot, second and three. So it's these and one and two. And then we do have the site plan, which is here. Isn't that weird? Yeah, I'm lost. Okay. So I can jump in and just explain what the purpose of this is, is that Barry Roberts owns all of this property. And what he's going to be doing is re renovating a building that looks like a big old barn. It's a brown building that isn't really that visible from the road. And he's going to be renovating the units that are in that building. And then there's a building behind it that he is going to, I don't I think he's going to tear it down. And he's going to add 17 units. But perhaps Nate or Pam knows more about that back building, whether it's actually going to be torn down or not. Yeah, no, I don't I don't know exactly about right. So what Barry's done is he's made a big lot here for a lot, you know, to accommodate additional lot area per unit. And he's made the two lots on Fearing Street large enough to accommodate, you know, one unit plus one additional unit. So the two smaller ones on the front. So, you know, Rob Mora and I looked at it when it came in.  There's nothing everything meets the dimensional standards.  Okay. All right, any objection to my signing this A&R? Um, I just have a quick question. So on the big lot that fronts North Pleasant Street, is there just one building in like a little garage behind it? I can't know, there's an existing three unit structure on the that front's North Pleasant Street. Okay, so it'll be two, two, you know, two apartments, essentially on one property. Okay. I mean, there's two apartments there now. Okay. Right. There's no new building being proposed. Just Yeah. I just couldn't see what the like, it just looked like a little garage, but thank you. All right. Bruce? Nate, are any of these lots in the Lincoln Sunset Historic District? Uh, some might be, um, I mean, like Fearing Street, but, you know, currently there's nothing being proposed. Yeah. All right. This, this isn't in anticipation of a project as Chris referenced. It's just, you know, I'm not sure when that would be brought forward. Yeah. Okay. Okay, I'm getting it. Thanks. All right. Any other questions or comments? All right. Please raise your hand if you object to my signing this as an A and R. All right. I don't see any objections. So Chris, I guess we can make an appointment to have me sign. All right. Time now is 9 24. Any upcoming ZBA applications we might be interested in? Pam, I don't have anything new to report. I know that there is, um, the Shootsbury Road Solar is probably going to go to the town clerk sometime this week, tomorrow or Friday. And there's one other Pam, isn't there? That. Nate, what was the other one that you talked about last meeting?  Battery storage. Battery storage is, um, it's us. It's plenty of board. Pulp and Hill. Pulp and Hill. Yep. All right. So it's mainly the Shootsbury Road Solar that's coming to the zoning board. Okay. So is that something we might be interested in seeing? Yes. So is that a, um, that's an indication to us that we should ask them to make a presentation to the planning board, correct? I think so. Although there may only be three of us who are at that next meeting. Well, you know, I think one of the reasons it's interesting is that, you know, working in the solar bylaw and all the regulations and things we're asking for, and this project will be, I think, coming in before that when we really have like one sentence on energy facilities. And so I think that, I think that'd be interesting to hear about and see. You know what I'm saying, Chris? Yeah, I think it's a good idea for the planning board to see it. Yep. Okay. All right. Next is upcoming SPP, SPR and SUB applications. I don't know what Nate told you about before, but we have AutoZone coming to talk about a small solar array that they're going to put on their property. We have Eversource redoing their station on College Street. And we have a house on Vista Terrace, which is in South Amherst that is putting in a shed. I think Nate told you about that before. So that's all I have on my horizon. Okay. Great. All right. Committee and liaison reports. Bruce? I have to admit that I missed the meeting, and I don't think Jack was there either. I was derelict. I went to Leo Kaki Thompson. Okay. Wow. All right. Well, we all have to make our choices. Yes, sir. I'll be good in future. Anything you want to say about CPAC in your last meeting with us? Nothing about CPAC, Doug. Thank you. All right. Tom, anything about DRB? I will briefly say that we approved the gas tanks that we looked at today, and that was our last meeting, was to approve those. And we had no comments on them to make sure that we're securely closing up all the windows that are nearby. Other than that, we had no other comments or changes. So that was the latest report. All right. Thank you. Janet, solar bylaw. So we had a really interesting meeting about dual use, like, which is, you know, having solar and farms together. And we had people from DOER, the state, and then, so it was just a really interesting meeting.  His company is like motto is Farms First, and they have a, he has a project that just was built in Hadley with a farmer growing broccoli and kale, which do well under shade. And then there's all these state requirements. And so like a lot of the solar industry is basically there's all these credits that the state will give and requirements. And so they're called adders. And so if you do dual use, you get like six more cents per kilowatt or whatever. And so it's also, so it sounds great. And it is great, but does it work? And so UMass Clean Energy Extension has a big grant from the feds to do these as experiments to see what grows well and what doesn't. The state is kind of pushing certain requirements, you know, in terms of shading and sort of documenting what you're growing. There's a whole issue about whether you can take like vegetable fields and turn them into hurt, you know, you just put some sheep under it, or a hay field, and is that enough? And so it was just, it was a good discussion. And I think we're going to continue it on Friday to kind of talk and go through some more information. But it's a tough issue. And it's a tough issue in the Connecticut River Valley where we have such great soils. And then we have open fields. Okay. Thank you. Chris, anything on CRC? Only that the CRC will be considering the zoning amendment at tomorrow's meeting. I know they were waiting for the planning board to make a recommendation before they made their final recommendation. Okay. Thank you. Report of chair. I guess I know for, I know that Tom and Andrew are going off. And I think there's some question about Johanna staying with us. So I'd like to thank you three in particular. It's been great working with all of you. And good luck with other productive uses of your Wednesday nights. Or just fun times. Yeah. Thanks Doug. I would like to appreciate all the efforts that you made as well as Jack before you. But I also really want to comment on Chris Brestra. And she's a neighbor of mine who is invisible in the world that I see day to day. But having been witness of all the things that she's done over the last several years, I can, I have so much appreciation and respect for her. And I just wanted to say thank you for all you do Chris. And I can't imagine this board or any part of Amherst actually working without you being here. So I just want to say that you've impressed me and you have my appreciation. And I want to thank you for all you do. And I hope you do soon get a chance to step away from all of this mayhem and enjoy a quieter part of your life. But I thank you for all of your work. Thanks. May I respond that. Thank you so much Tom. I really appreciate that. But I couldn't do my job without Nate and Pam, because we're a good team. We work well together. So thank you. I do see, Andrew, you have your hand up. Yeah, well, you've got part of my first part. I suspect the time also mentioned. I meant to thank Nate and Pam. My years on the board has really been wonderful. I cannot overstate how impressed I've been by the people on the board, the opinions they bring on the board, their dedication and desire to just make our community more livable for all of us is just really amazing. And the fact that everybody has not only said that, but backed it up by being on the phone or on Zoom every Wednesday for one, two, three, four hours at a time is really amazing. You guys all put your money for the noise again. But again, just an amazing group of people. And I am extremely confident that you are helping to make it more livable for our generation and future generations. So thank you all. All right. Thank you, Andrew. And I will thank all the other members of the board who are continuing. Johanna, I know that you're, I don't know whether to say you're leaving or you're staying, because I know that CRC and Town Council are all talking about it. So thank you. Thank you for your interest in your service. You know, I want to thank Tom and Andrew and also Johanna. And I know what it's like to have your fate in the balance of people talking about you. And that's a hard spot to be in. But you can live through it, obviously. And then, but thank you for all the, I mean, it's a lot of work. And it's just, it's a crazy but interesting board. Yep. Okay. So that's probably all I had for my report. Chris, you want to add to anything? I don't have a report except to say I really enjoyed my trip to France.  And it was really fun, but I was glad to be back. So thank you. Okay. Okay. So the time is 9.35. Thank you all for another three-hour meeting and we are adjourned. You and a couple weeks at your house, Doug. Yep. Yes. Bye. Thank you. Bye-bye.