n also the council and the town staff working to revitalize and redesign on our commons with the Kendrick Park and there's talks about, you know, things like the block party or the performance shell, the farmers market and the bid going actively trying to create now public market spaces. They're trying to be creative and we don't want to distract and put more obstacles rather we want to create spaces and when we really talk so I did reach out to Barry Roberts today and to understand what are his plans and he talked about the designs that he created, which I don't know where the building is because there's so many obstacles at this point, but he hired Cune Riddle, which is a local architect to create a design which he thinks people will really like and appreciate and appreciate his aesthetics. We look at Amherst works what he's done with that taken an old building and change that or we look at Amherst cinema and his work with that or we look at what Cindy Jones has done with the beacon like she had many community engagement planning sessions to get as much feedback. So it's, we want to encourage these local developers so we are punishing everyone we're painting everyone with a whether we agree or not but what we're doing is we're saying we don't like those buildings whether they're good but it's a personal perspective. Nina does not like it and Steve thinks it's okay so but the point is we are punishing all the other local developers who are so invested in our community and they live here they've lived here for generations, and they want to do what's right, but we have to create a space for them to be able to come and share. I don't think any of them will talk today because there is there's no sense of invitation and cooperation and collaboration here when we talk about moratoriums. So I would just answer in that way that yeah Nina we are working really hard in trying to engage the different stakeholders including students. I spoke to, okay last thing, I spoke to a student in one East Building, East Street Building because we met on Instagram and he's a graduate student he's 40 years old he loves living there and he said I'm different but there is no policing I asked him what is your experience are there more So we need to be speaking to people and finding out who lives there who wants to live there we keep saying we want diversity and we want families do families want to live downtown we don't know that and so we are working on a community engagement plan right now at Tom and and yeah and that's all okay. Yeah we're thinking about it. I want to remind people to stick to the question that was asked. So, really the question is, do I think there's a problem and do I think the new buildings are a blight on downtown. I think five stories is a very accessible height. So from that, I'm okay with the height levels I think density makes a ton of sense. So those buildings are creating about a million dollars in revenue for our town that help pay for our schools and our sidewalks and our road maintenance and, you know, the kind of high standards for services that we want. And then, you know with regard to mass mutual. I only know this because my husband does data science work at UMass and you know he says that in that facility. Mass Mutual has really created a world class data science training program for young people, and it's the kind of thing that he didn't really think was possible in a place like Amherst like Boston maybe you can have an incubator for that kind of thing but it's happening right now in Amherst and it's pulling young professionals who are really up and coming in the data science field. A lot of them have connections to the university and you know there are 15 people who are employed there and doing interesting important work. And sure it's a you know it's mass mutual it's a large company but that doesn't mean that the contribution isn't important and adds to the vitality of downtown. So, you know, do I wish that one corner was set back further from the road. Absolutely. You know I was just going by the over design building and looking at the overhang that's there and imagining how 11 East pleasant might have an overhang similar to that and thinking how much more appealing I like that streetscape. But, you know, to me really, we're moving in the right direction we're learning from our experiences and I, you know, I don't think it's the, I don't think it's a blight by any stretch of the imagination. Thank you I'm going to move on to the next question. Ted Parker please identify yourself and state where you live and ask your question. You should be able to unmute now. I'm Ted Parker and I live in District five I live in in Amherst Woods. So my question for the sponsors is, you know, I manage some commercial property in the area and finding tenants is always a challenge. Did you, while you while you were formulating some of the site, these ideas. Did you ask the folks at archipelago about whether or not they were having success at getting commercial tenants to fill the spaces or why they decided to reduce the amount of space that they were going to devote to commercial. Do you have any, do you have any feedback from any developer about the success in in in filling the commercial spaces that they include in their developments. And the second question is, did you consult like lead for neighborhoods are any like objective standard about what makes good development good infill development because lead lead for neighborhoods encourages dense building on existing infrastructure, reducing parking. I mean, these are all like well established industry standards for responsible dense development. And, and this moratorium seems to fly in the face of them so I'm wondering about, did you consult developers and did you consult lead for neighborhoods or anything like that. Do any of the petitioners have a response. I can answer very briefly I certainly attended planning board meetings in which our Capela goes asked about retail, and he certainly mentioned this for the spokesperson mentioned difficulty at this time, but you know one of the things we're talking about is rents, talking about rents for apartments who can afford them. It's also rents commercial rents. And if the rents are too high for the kind of places we've mentioned, they're not going to go in there, but also in the middle of coven okay we're just getting out. We've been into two stores today for the first time ever. So what we've had in terms of the past year in terms of commercial may not be indicative of what's coming. Yes, we have no one we've read about what are standards we know the argument for density, but one of the arguments for density assumes local neighborhood services, and we don't have those we don't have a food store. We have many things that are that are needed in a discussion with Barry Roberts, a long time ago. He mentioned somebody said we need the shoe repair man. So, so glad he's still here. And he said yeah I haven't raised his rent since like the 1980s. In other words, sometimes to have the services that people want the people who own the buildings, don't charge the market rate, because it's a service we needed, but they don't make that much money. So there's people, you know, builders who have a certain kind of roots in the neighborhood, really are are are great, and think about the needs and some of those we've, you know, Shawnee mentioned some very forward looking developers. So, but we're not going to talk about one group versus another we're saying some of these arguments were developed holistically. And when you miss certain essential parts, such as stores for needed things, then the whole concept of the dense neighborhood that's walkable where people don't need cars doesn't it's a fallacy. So, that's it. Thank you Dorothy. Next question is going to be from Susan. Please identify yourself with your name and where you live. You should be able to unmute. My name is Susan Sheldon, and I live Mill Lane. And my question is, has there been any post occupancy occupancy evaluation done on any of the archipelago buildings. Thank you for that question. Does anyone if you have an answer to that please raise your hand Chris. There hasn't been any post occupancy evaluation done by the town. Does it follow up. Yeah, I'm just wondering why do we not require post occupancy evaluations. Correct, we don't require post occupancy evaluation. Thank you for that. We're going to move on at this point to the next question, which is Nina, do you have another question in a while. No, I'm sorry but you know what I'd like to just say for a minute. I'm really happy that your friends found a home at Mass Mutual. I don't mind Mass Mutual, I just think it's the wrong place for it. That's all. I thought we were hoping for, you know, some smaller shops, businesses, interaction, that's all. I just wanted to say that. Thank you for lowering my hand. At this point. We are going to, we don't have any more questions. So we're going to move on to public speaking in favor of the, the zoning by law proposal revision. And so please, if you'd like to speak in favor of it, please raise your hand and I will recognize you in turn you will have up to three minutes to speak in favor of it. And I will do my best to keep time and let you know when it expires. When I recognize you please state your name after, after unmuting please state your name and where you live. We are going to start with Richard Bentley. First I have to unmute. I just often wonder whether wasn't this all discussed a long time ago, and the planning department decided that there will be no additional parking in the downtown hasn't this already been done. I mean, there's no parking, you can't park there. And so why would people go there and, and if maybe they put in some parking somewhere. Fine but where. I mean, this, this whole issue was solved. Eight to 1020 years ago. There's no parking. Thank you for that comment Richard. I'm going to recognize Pam Rooney now you'd need to unmute yourself and state your name and where you live. Hi, thank you Pam Rooney 42 cottage streets so I am in district four. I do support a temporary moratorium. Our master plan acknowledges desired increase housing density in the town centers. And it's very clear about that but it also says that new infill and redevelopment of existing historic downtowns and village centers will have to abide by rigorous and sensitive design and density controls intended to preserve and enhance existing buildings. So I want to say thank you to the counselors who sponsored this. I guess I'm one of 880 people that signed the sign the petition. I do support denser housing construction. I sadly feel different than some of you, because I do not like to see negative outcomes for the heart of Amherst. I want some design controls in place to ensure what's built is has wide pedestrian friendly sidewalks it adequate parking for the business visitors and also that creates affordable dwelling units as part of anything built in the town. I think the moratorium gives us just sort of a time to build a measuring stick first and evaluate the many many disparate zoning elements that are that are under consideration. It's a huge ball of many facets, many interrelated elements that are being handled, you know, one by one over a year ago we had the 40 our proposal showed us, you know, initially showed us five story blocks smashed up against the existing neighborhoods and lining North Pleasant Street. Four months ago the Council directed the 11 different zoning articles to the town department the planning department and the planning board. This is a lot to to think about holistically. These are now unfortunately being discussed one by one. Yet they have significant overlap and definitely some cumulative effects. We still have no guidelines by which to gauge and consider the outcomes of those zoning amendments. So I would I, we also unfortunately have no standards or zoning that actually supports adaptive reuse of historic structures. And those are the buildings that in fact give character to a once and former number one college town. I'd like to get to number one again. So I would say please do vote to pause the perm permitting and I mean, all permitting not just specifically building permits but also to include site plans special permits. And let's get some design guidelines in place. I think we can then we're we're we're earned to give developers a clearer direction and we're also able to give them better direction on walkable and engaging sidewalks and storefronts will look in the field that's been mentioned before, and also some adequate parking that supports the small businesses and the new residents. And very importantly, we do want the affordable unit as an outcome of the densification of the town center. So I hear lots of comments and questions but it just, it feels like we really do need to just pause. Put our eggs into the one basket and deal with them holistically. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you Pam. Next up is Sandy must prep. Please unmute yourself and identify your name and where you live. I'm John North prospect Street, and I greatly appreciate this motion and support it and particularly well expressed by Kathy. I find it hard to understand the resistance to a moratorium a pause. It seems to fail to recognize that there is a new event in town. We've actually seen buildings built under the current codes, and many people at least 800 are dismayed. Apparently not Steve Shriver who would have, I would prefer to have had the Hadley malls built in Amherst. I understand his comment. I think it is and thoroughly sensible to pause and think how we might do a bit better. This is not against development. It's not against diversity in all those wonderful things we wish could be reconciled. It's extremely difficult to do that. But we have had events which we find dismayed and many people do you should pause. Please support motion. Thank you Sandy. Next up is Susan. Please identify yourself after unmuting and state. Thank you Susan Sheldon again. I'm a landscape architect. I have a master's in landscape architecture and a BA and an art history. I've had my own design build business for over 20 years. So I'm mainly concerned with aesthetics and creating spaces that are human scale inviting. I've been in the Kendrick park committee for over two years from the community outrage getting feedback from different different parts of our community to vetting the design firms. I'm very excited when a major building was going up on the north end of town as a gateway to our downtown and I was really dismayed at what was built. I felt like it took didn't miss so many design opportunities to engage with the park. And both of those buildings just present a flat face to the park. One East pleasant has door that has sliding doors that open with these kind of dog like gates that are supposed to be balconies I guess I just I just makes me really sad of all the missed design opportunities. And I went down there today and I walked around the park and I actually stopped several people and asked them what they thought of the buildings. And I didn't hear anything positive. It was several comments about how they were out of character with the rest of the town. And they missed the little shops that were there where so much community action took place. I think basically that's what I just wanted to say is I do believe that we need a moratorium and to develop some stronger design guidelines that would ensure that future buildings have some kind of nod to our history and the vernacular architecture in our town. Yeah, so I do support a moratorium. Thank you. Thank you Susan. Next up is Fanny Rothschild please unmute yourself and state your name and where you live. My name is Fanny Rothschild and I now live at 25 Map Pollux Drive District five. I wholeheartedly urge you to vote for a temporary moratorium. I would like to step back to systematically study what our town needs to bring new energy to its center, like others like Susan who just spoke, and, and the petitioners. I think I know we're having a consultant but I still feel like there needs to be systematic way to reach out to our residents as to what we want to see built right now to. And I don't think that we're going to find that the answer is more student housing smack in the center. And apartments that unapologetically are designed as student dormitories. I don't feel like anybody's totally addressed that today. And I'm not sure why our town planners are feeling that that's what only needs to be built and that's what I feel like is happening. I don't think that we need more students living in the center of the town. You mask and handle that other areas can handle that. And I don't think that more students living in town equals more business revitalization. I believe it's other age groups like young working people, families and retirees. They'll support the businesses in the bottom of these buildings and other downtown locations. And in turn, I think these businesses will attract the 30,000 non student residents who live outside the center. I'm talking business like retail restaurants as well as art and music venues and something like thorns marketplace which I hear is being considered, which I'm thrilled to hear. We need a study to identify what other types of buildings are viable. We need to identify these student buildings, and then work with developers who will design for non students. This plan encourages the town to thrive all year round, not only when the colleges are in session. Thank you. Thank you, Fanny. Next up is Elizabeth fearling. Please unmute yourself. Thank you. Yes. Okay. Yes, Elizabeth fearling at 36 cottage street district four. And I just wanted to say that I think that the issues that the moratorium asks for review. Prior to issuance of further building permits I view as the most critical issues in determining the future of Amherst development for equity and inclusion. And for ensuring our town is a destination for residents and visitors. I think unfortunately the issues raised by the moratorium, we're either not on the list of council development zoning priorities, or we're down very low on the list of council priorities. And I think this was a major factor, catalyzing the initiation of this petition. Hopefully since the moratorium was first put forward, inclusionary zoning has made it to the table, as was apparent tonight. And mixed use building is under discussion, though I think the latter is far from suitable in its current form. I think the other issues of critical importance, the design guidelines setbacks public space parking and further consideration of affordable housing are woefully in need of serious consideration before further development proceeds. I also believe a moratorium is warranted as we consider if the town's vision for the north end of town center is really a plan for a mini satellite UMass campus of student dormitories. And statements made that the buildings that are built and that are planned have the possibility of taking the burden of student housing out of neighborhoods. I would question the data to support this, given that the students I work with on a daily basis are looking for housing well under $1,000 a month, not starting at 1200 a bedroom. I would just like to say that the idea of building this student housing that that's going to suddenly make affordable housing pop up somewhere else is simply the worst form of trickle down economics applied to housing. Thank you. Thank you, Elizabeth. Next up is Ira brick, please unmute yourself and identify where you live in your name. I'm Ira brick. I live at 255 Strong Street District four. I sent a letter to you all with some excerpts from Amherst annual report from 1986 and 88 about the two year moratorium that happened then that pause was enacted to create the opportunity for improvement. Public input and more strategic study aimed at solving problems of over development, lack of affordable housing, whether we could provide essential services including clean water, as well as public open space to that growing population. Amherst annual report after the two year moratorium was done, reported on the creation of a phase growth by law that address the rate and type of growth that could happen, but also attracted national attention from other towns and cities, and even a feature and planning magazine. Unfortunately, that by law rewarded or penalized proposed projects by how well it met criteria. It was reported that there wasn't, quote, increased sensitivity by some developers to the protection of open space and provision of affordable housing unquote. The annual report also said that Amherst had quote, greater control over development proposals allowed for imposition of conditions by the board to ensure the site is developed without harm to the surrounding areas unquote. The journal also mentioned that in the 1988 report at the end of the moratorium it said quote, the growth of the town continue to pace and subcommittees of the planning board focused on growth management issues locations for a parking garage as well as cluster housing, affordable housing incentives and research parks. In our town's master plan it's strongly recommended to include the public's perspective in the planning process. We take great pride in Amherst that learning is baked into our town's economy and culture. I'd hope a moratorium a pause for thinking would be a time where we can benefit from the magic of representative government and recognizing that old adage, all of us are smarter than any of us. Thank you. Thank you Ira. Next up is Meg Gage, please unmute yourself identify yourself and where you live. Hi everyone. Thank you Mandy and thank you everyone. I'm Meg Gage I live in District one on Montague Road. It's really, I'm going to put on my little timer so I don't go over the time. It's really tempting to try to respond to what I've heard because there's so many. Mandy you'll have to keep time. So many things to respond to, but I'm going to stick to what I had thought I would say. I wanted to respond to three of Congress counselors Ross's points in opposition to the moratorium, but particularly the first. The three are the three that he raised in opposing the moratorium or the potential to jeopardize future and economic investment. The potential to jeopardize future state funding and the potential to exacerbate inequalities in our town point out these are all potentials which means they're neither true nor false or just like potentials. The potential to jeopardize our future economic investment and Amherst is the one that interests me the most. The argument that developers will develop will abandon Amherst if we pause to consider all options puts all power in the hands of developers and prioritize prioritizes what is most profitable for individuals, rather than what is in the best interest and the common good of Amherst Amherst is a treasure and one of the very, very few downtowns in Western Mass, where there is an opportunity for development. There are many and varied economic opportunities for revitalizing our downtown as well as our village centers. We have a great hand to play and we should be in charge of what happens, not cowtowing to what developers say they need us to do for them to be profitable. We are not supplicants. We need to take charge of exploring opportunities that will enliven our downtown, for example, services that people can't buy online, as well as more arts and cultural resources. If we flutter downtown with students, students, I feel the opportunities for serious arts facilities, for example, will diminish a few words about Amherst Cinema that I know a fair amount about. Amherst Cinema is not kept afloat by students. Amherst Cinema was not created because it would be profitable. It was created because Amherst residents wanted an independent film house. We raised 3.5 million and worked in partnership with a very creative and generous developer. We created the vision, the strategic partnership, and made it happen. I feel we need to pause and take time to envision how we can be in charge. A couple of examples.  For example, let's learn more about the Thorns Market Business Plan. It's very profitable and lots of small businesses are making. Let's explore how we might develop RFPs to create the kind of businesses that we want. Let's explore creative ways of building downtown arts and cultural facilities in partnership with developers. I don't know how I'm doing with my time, Mandy, because I didn't put on my thing. You have about 30 seconds left. I'm just going to point out how to jeopardize the future state funding. Councilor Ross should specify how the six months moratorium makes us ineligible for grants after that period. Seems like they're always state grants. There really is third point potential to exacerbate inequalities in our town. This is a scare tactic and an unfortunate and really sad attempt to gaslight moratorium supporters as reactionaries with implications of racism and prejudice against low income families. People supporting this moratorium are not trying to build more upper middle class homes. They're not opposed to affordable housing. This is a really unfair and false and extremely unfortunate line of thinking. Zoning regulations are for the long haul for the buildings they govern. We need to say that 180 days is nothing. 180 days is a trivial length of time compared to the long term. And we need to think about the long term. These buildings that we're talking about building are going to be there for decades. I didn't go over my time. Thank you, Meg.  Send both the planning board and the CRC email or email to me and I'll make sure it can get to bodies. The house I grew up in on North 220 North Pleasant Street, for example, is a historic house and you could build a beautiful four story building behind it and keep the front. Anyway, I'll send you a letter. Thank you, Meg. Okay. I realized as Meg was talking that there are people that would probably be wondering how many attendees we have had for this. And right now we're around 44 or so I think I wasn't paying attention to see how high we got but I think it was in the 44 to 50 range for this hearing 51. Thank you. And for the IZ hearing it was somewhere around 30 at the high I think before we started getting people in for the next hearing. So I'm going to recognize Janet Keller now. Please unmute. Thank you, Janet Keller district one pulpit Hill Road. I hope that you hear that 880 people spontaneously are asking you to consider this moratorium and that they are asking you to support them in providing and ensuring that there's room for them in a more welcoming downtown. And then we have now, and to explore that with the consultant and and to enable the consultant to do whole holistic and systematic examination of what it is that makes 880 people uncomfortable in the downtown. We're glad that Mass Mutual has done well and is training young people in new skills. We still want buildings that make us feel welcome that have inviting exteriors with plenty of glass and doors opening onto the street. And in buildings that are set back on sidewalks that allow us enough room to walk with friends and family and and have enough room for trees and benches and tables for outdoor dining. We do want to ensure that we get the affordable units. And that's one way to increase the diversity, not only of the economic qualities of the people but also BIPOC I've been working with affordable housing with Amherst Community Land Trust. And we have brought several families of color in into our housing and and we need that if we need the affordability if we want to get the diversity. And finally we need to protect our public parking. The recent downtown buildings were built or permitted with very few I believe only 34 spaces for a total of 229 units, either built or permitted. And residents of these buildings are parking in the Boltwood parking garage and on Pre Street and driving demand for another parking garage which, you know, then would be paid for with public money that does not compute. And we also need to look at during that period, updating the green building standards to the ones that the town is adopting with zero energy and the new stretch code. So, um, I hope you will hear the voices that are asking you to consider their concerns. And I thank you for the opportunity to comment. Thank you, Janet. Next is Matthew and Judy, please unmute and identify yourself and where you live. I'm Matthew Mattingly. I'm in South Amherst. I'm the Matthew part of Matthew and Judy. I would like to advocate for the moratorium very strongly and for having a concerted effort to look at our design practices, and especially I would like to advocate for physical accessibility. This is something I've looked in the town on master plan and so on and the documentation I see that there is plenty of references to accessibility, which I think is really important and I like that. But I also know that it's possible for a building to be, you know, accessible on paper and in the eyes of the law and not really be accessible. It has to be accessible. And the weather is bad. It has to be accessible when it's crowded. There's more to it than just having the right number of parking places and so on. And accessibility should really be addressed holistically that the town services, the town sidewalks, the parking places, the cutouts, all those things and the way that the buildings are designed all have to work so that somebody can get off the bus or get out of their car and get into the building. And I know that accessibility is something that's in the law, and it's something that you will be looking at. But I also know that historically it's easy for it to get swept under the rug or pushed aside by things that are more, more sexy at the time, like, you know, if we want to have green buildings, that's great. We want to have buildings that look good. That's great. We want to buildings that are appealing to many different people. That's all great. But those things have to be all done in a way that's accessible. And in general, accessible design, if it's good accessible design, is just plain good design. It's beneficial to everybody that uses the buildings or the facilities. So I just want to advocate for that being kind of top of mind, as we deliberate about the design criteria for these buildings. Thank you. Thank you, Matthew. Next up is Robert greeny please unmute yourself and identify yourself and where you live. Hi. I'm Bob greeny. I'm on the column street in district three. And I think the points that I would want to make have all been made. So I just want to speak briefly saying that I really support the moratorium this very meeting is a good example of what the moratorium can do. It gives me a greater sense of connection to what's going on. I can hear people I disagree with stating their case, the trend that trajectory downtown is this disliked by a lot of people. That's obvious. The moratorium is a way of saying, we hear you. We're going to listen to you. We're going to make an effort to do things better. We're going to make it effort to have the bylaws, the standards that we use to guide our building more reflective of all of us. We're not so further scenes of division. We all live here we see each other we know each other. We want to get along with each other we don't want to be bad about being each other. We need to try harder to respect each other's position and find a compromise that works and builds greater consensus in our community. I really hope I think the moratorium would be an opportunity to do that. Thank you. Thank you Robert. At this time we're going to move on to seeing no other hands we're going to move on to public speaking in opposition to revision again if you would like to speak in opposition please raise your hand. If you recognize everyone in turn you will have up to three minutes to speak in opposition to the revision and proposed revision. And when you do get recognized please state your name and where you live before you start speaking. We're going to start with Sarah Marshall. Hello everyone can you hear me. Yes, great. Hello to all the visitors who have spoken I care what our new apartment buildings look like, but I care more about adequately funding our local schools. I care how wide our sidewalks are, but more about adequately funding repairs towards our existing sidewalks and roads. I care about the height of new buildings, but more about preserving subsidies that allow kids a financially stressed families to participate in our recreation and after school programs. In some I care more about strengthening our town's finances so that we can address people's needs, then I do about the aesthetics. I care most about creating an environment that welcomes and supports local businesses by welcoming people of any age who want to live in our village centers. I urge you to vote against the proposed moratorium, which could cost us more than we realize. Thank you. Brendan Bailey, please identify yourself on mute identify yourself and identify who you represent to everyone. Thank you for me speak again. Again, my name is Brendan Bailey. I live in Long Meadow. However, I am the CEO for the realtor Association of Pioneer Valley and our association represents the realtors in Hamden Hampshire and Franklin County. Speaking against the moratorium, it's been our experience and when I say our experience, I mean, with our partners at the state level, the Massachusetts Association of realtors as well as the National Association of realtors. It's been our experience at housing development moratorium does not help communities meet diverse needs and they can negatively affect local economies. We respectfully urge you to continue to import your important work without freezing the housing landscape. The big thing that really stood up to us is that Amherst can already decide which proposed housing developments are good for the community without imposing the moratorium. None of the housing development subject to the proposed moratorium are allowed by right. The board can determine whether proposed project adds value to the community or if it should not proceed. So our objection is pretty, pretty short and sweet. There is a process of site plan review and the board can ensure that development aligns with the character of the neighborhoods and the town's long range vision. So there are mechanisms in place and we speak in against against the moratorium and thank you again for the opportunity to speak. Thank you, Brendan. Thank you. I'm Ted Parker and I live in District 5. I have to call this effort disingenuous. I think that it is clearly an attempt to sort archipelago's development, the timing of its fact that nobody at archipelago was consulted. I mean, I agree with Mr. Brick that we're smarter together and I'm a little appalled that this is being proposed without consulting the developers themselves. I think it's irresponsible and I think it's lazy actually. And it clearly is an attempt to stop development for a while while other strategies are developed. A thousand people who don't like the way downtown is being developed, no matter how loud they are, are not a majority of people in town. And I think there's plenty of people in town who just aren't motivated to come and argue about it, who see nothing wrong with the development downtown, or see not enough wrong to want to stop it cold. And it surprises me that this such a hastily and ill thought out proposal is actually being considered. And it just seems like the same kind of obstructionism that that doomed town meeting, to be perfectly honest. Thank you. Thank you Ted. Erica Zickos. Hi, thanks, Erica Zickos. I'm also in District 5. And I will also speak against a moratorium. I worry that any moratorium will harm our relationship with our local developers and their willingness to invest. I worry that any time in moratorium is too long and that six to nine months is not actually long enough for the selection of a consultant, a legitimate study work by our staff to propose changes, public outreach and to change. I worry that zoning here is being asked to carry the burden for decisions about the public way and decisions about the type of business tenants that a developer would choose. I think that more regardless of the outcomes that there will still they'll still meet with a variety of opinions, and that we have really good changes to the zoning code in the works already. We've had parking study that recommends a garage and have developers interested in the project. I love some of the ideas that have been shared tonight and share a desire for affordable housing and for the arts in our downtown and I don't see any reason why those ideas can't move ahead within the zoning. And the amendments that we have and have already been proposed. Thank you. Thank you. Nicola usher. Hello, can you hear me. Yes, we can. Hi Nicola usher district one. I encourage you not to vote for this moratorium I think it's short sighted and regressive. There's a lot of talk about working people. I have to say as a working person with a young kid. All of us are able to attend a hearing that goes until 10pm to say our piece. I also would be curious how many working people signed the petition for the moratorium. Also hearing a lot about people of color wondering how many people of color signed that as opposed to how many people signed the sort of the counter statement. I'm not an economist but I wonder how we could even be considering doing this coming out of a global pandemic. We should be so lucky if anyone wants to invest in building anything downtown right now. You know there's there's all this it's stopping and porting development with all of this talk about small businesses but no constructive information or reasoning on how this would actually result in their being an influx of shops. And one of the counselors I believe counselor Shane mentioned something about now being the time or being stuck with it or actually I'm sorry I think this was counselor Pam. Stuck with a downtown changed for good. I want downtown to change I want more things to do I want more reasons to go downtown why is change bad what are we protecting. So counselor DuMont said density is only a thing if you have amenities to support the people living there. How is a moratorium going to create these amenities. And what's so bad about students living downtown we don't want them in single family homes as our neighbors but we don't also but they also can't be downtown. It would be comical if it wasn't so insulting and discriminatory. If they're living downtown they're going to spend money downtown but also we don't get to socially engineer downtown. You know I think that proponents want a moratorium because they want nothing to happen. And nothing to change and we need to confront that reality because six months isn't going to make that go away. Thank you. Well, Nicole. With that, we are ending the public speaking portion I appreciate everyone sticking with us through 10pm at night. We are now moving on to the next item which is the petitioner applicant response to counselors, Pam Shane, or do not have anything they would like to respond to or say at this point. Well just, well first of all I want to thank everybody for their time. It is really late at night and I can't tell you how thrilled we were to be preceded by inclusionary zoning because I think one of the words moratorium sped a lot of things up so it had an impact just by saying let's what Chris was saying what we really want are some changes in the zoning law and some positive changes so that's important. I would really encourage people to look Darcy uploaded the comments we got of people who signed. There are a huge number of people that are very pro development they want growth, they want change. So it is not a keep things the way they've always been I realize there are people who would like to keep them. It is a sense of taking hold. So I just leave you with that thought and whether mature moratorium is the only way to do that as opposed to a package with Pam talked about of holistic changes where we think about them all together and how they interact. And that's in the planning boards hands as well as staff. I do, I do think this is a moment I watched. I had two main towns that I looked at sea coast. One decided to take hold, and the other didn't have where they wanted to go and one is prosperous and the other is not so there are moments Dartmouth some other towns have taken hold. So I think we could do this, whether we can do it in six months. I don't know. Dorothy, would you like to say anything at this point, just a few brief things. I don't really like having a defeatist attitude that says whatever comes our way we have to take because we'll never have another chance. And I don't believe any of us have ever said we're against change, but we said we didn't want to have the town change so much that we didn't know that it was still Amherst. The thought of Amherst being a special town is very strong. And there's no reason that it can't continue to be so, but some of the changes that have been happening are not ones that we think are going in the right direction. So it's time to have a pause to time to think time to give the planning department planning board CRC time to deal with this. We have about four or five zoning bylaws, which are deeply in process to get through at least some of those. We solve all the problems. No, but some of the arguments against the moratorium were just reaching and creating strong and which they disposed of. And I ask you to think a little bit deeper and understand that we are not saying nothing should change. It's great the way it is. We hate everything that's happening. We don't want a new building or we don't like students. That's not what we said.  I think we're moving in a direction which is making that challenging. So I'd like the rest of the town around Kendrick Park to be the kind of place that looks like it has a park has children has families and wants to get outside and do something artistic and creative together. Thank you. Thank you Dorothy. Darcy, do you have anything to add. I'm going to assume the lack of unmuting means not at this time. Okay. Yes, I just wanted to thank everyone again for coming and I especially want to thank the planning department that has worked hard on this for a long time they they had some very good plans in the making way back in September of 2018 and I think that I have a lot of comments that that we're going in the right direction, and I hope that the planning board and the CRC will really spend time learning and looking at the comments that people have made. I guess I just really feel like the parties are not that far apart that that that it won't be that much of a reach to to come to agreement and solve some of these problems and probably sooner than what we think the time would take so anyway I want to thank you again and I hope that you will strongly consider the moratorium. Thank you Darcy. Are there any further or final questions from the planning board or the CRC. Please raise your hand if there are. I'm going to try and make sure Jack's on my screen so I can see him too. Steve. Are we taking comments or just questions. Questions no comments. Okay. I'll pass. Chris, did you have anything. I have a question about the process afterwards so what I'm going to ask you is, when you close the public hearing, don't all scatter and let's talk a little about process and dates and procedure. Thank you. Thank you for that. Any other further questions from the planning board or CRC members. I'm done at this point I will take a motion. We're going to do this motion again fully jointly. I'm so emotion to close the public hearing on proposed zoning article 16 temporary moratorium. Is there a motion Doug move. Is there a second is that Andrew for a second. I will second. Okay, we have a motion and a second any comments. We're going to do a vote I will try to make it through the planning board again without missing anyone. Jack. Yes, please. Andrew. Hi. Tom. Hi. Who's next you Hannah. Hi. Maria. Yes. Janet. Did we lose Janet. We lost Janet at some point. So Janet. Yeah. Janet had told me prior to the meeting that she was not feeling her best and that she might exit. So. Okay. Yep. Nope. That's totally understandable. Did I get Doug. Hi. And I think that's all for the planning board. And so CRC is Mandy is an eye and Dorothy. Hi. Evan. Hi. Hi. Melanie. Hi. Did I miss anyone at all. Okay. So that is unanimous with one absent, which is Janet. And so the public hearing is closed at 1017. At this time, I know it's really late. I will say that CRC will discuss and vote on a recommendation on this on its May 25th regular meeting. If the planning board has already voted and made its own recommendation. CRC's policy is to wait until it has a recommendation from the planning board before it makes its discussion and recommendation. Okay. With that, I know Chris wants to talk about going forward with timings and plans and all. So before I adjourned the CRC meeting. And hand this back to Jack to determine whether the planning board's going to discuss anything tonight at 1018 or not. Chris, did you want to mention anything about timing or anything? No, I don't want to. I don't want to talk about it tonight because I think it's very late and we wouldn't have a very rich discussion. And so I hope that Jack will consider that. But with the idea that the CRC would like to vote on. May 25th. I wonder if there's flexibility there. And I was going to ask Mandy, Joe, how. What is our deadline? Do we have. Any time now. Any questions? I don't know. I think we'll go to the public hearing closes in which the town council can take a vote. What is, what is the rule about that? So the council has up to 90 days from the close of the public hearing to vote. If it does not vote within 90 days of the closure of the public hearings, a new public hearing needs held. So it doesn't require. It's not like the bylaw fails under state law. And so the referral to both bodies was that after the public hearing was held, we needed to get. CRC needs to get to the governance organization and legislation committee. It's vote and recommendation and language on the bylaw by. 60 days within 60 days. So, you know, I think we're going to have a meeting on June 9th. So our tentative plan is to discuss this for CRC on May 25th, but if the planning board has not had its discussion yet, it will wait until whatever the first meeting after the planning board's discussion is until it does its discussion. Yes. So I was going to make a recommendation to Jack that he consider holding a planning board meeting on June 9th. And that whole night is going to be filled with the new building that's being proposed for downtown. And then they're meeting on the 16th, which seems a little far out into the future. So I wondered if the planning board could muster itself to meet on June 9th to discuss inclusionary zoning and the moratorium and come to a vote and then pass that vote along to the CRC and then the CRC could meet after that. I know Evan raised his hand, but Jack first and then Evan. Me. Yes, Jack. Oh yeah. For whatever reason, I know I'm good with, you know, powering through this. I mean, we've heard everything. And I think that I think we could collect the votes on these two articles. But I will, you know, we'll do a straw poll. We'll do a straw poll for the planning board members. And if we want to adjourn after, you know, the hearing joint hearing with CRC is concluded, then that's, that's fine. But I'm willing to throw that out there. Chris with regard to just having some discussions and then a vote on each because I did, I, but. Let's, let's do a straw poll, you know, with the board for tonight on these, on these issues. So before that happens, I want to recognize Evan and then determine whether CRC can adjourn. Evan. In response to Chris's suggestion and remind me if I'm getting the dates around me, but I believe June 9th is when CRC had scheduled interviews for planning board appointments. And there are members of the planning board currently serving for, for reappointment. So I'm not sure a June 9th meeting for the planning board would work. Thank you for that reminder, Evan. Yes, there are potentially two members of the planning board that, that would need to attend those hearings. The interviews, the interviews are currently scheduled for 7pm to start. So are there any other questions? Chris for CRC before I adjourn CRC. So I will just make the statement that CRC will modify its schedule. On when to discuss these recommendations based on what the planning board decides. I think you've given me good information, Mandy, that it's not. There's, there's not a lot of urgency in the next couple of weeks to get this done, but maybe we can get it done tonight. I just wanted to know what the, what the deadlines were. So thank you. Thank you for that. Unless there's anything else from the CRC committee. There's nothing else on CRC's agenda. So CRC is going to be adjourned at 10. 22pm. I passed the gavel back to Jack to take his straw poll and everything. I would ask. Pam. To move anyone. I'm going to, I don't think me leaving as co-host will affect me. I'm going to ask Pam. To move me as co-host and then move. Anyone that is not on the planning board. So the seven counselors into the attendees. If they have not left. Is what I will ask. Pam. And I am just going to leave and say, thank you to everyone. I love the idea that you are willing to power on Jack. Thank you all very much. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to remove your co-host. I don't want to hit leave until I know I'm not going to kill the meeting. Hi, everyone. My planning board standards. Put me in the attendees, please. And same with me, Pam. Okay. Talk to you.  I'm going to take a five minute break or. We can do a straw poll, whether we just want to. You know, take this up at a later date or. For whatever reason, I have some energy. At this late hour. So. Andrew. Yeah, I would say we don't Janet here. And then also I. I don't feel as compelled to rush through this either. I think that. I don't have a lot of information tonight that I'd like. Like to process. So I would, if it wants to straw poll, I would say to not. Okay. Tonight. And Maria. I'm ready to vote. You're ready to vote. Okay. Doug. I am also ready to vote, but it does occur to me that we could have, we could meet next week. You know, and just postpone the CRC. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know if I can vote by a week or two. I don't know when they would meet. As far as I know, we don't have a meeting scheduled for next Wednesday evening. And I could make a meeting then. Thank you. Chris. So if we were going to meet next week, we would have to have a very minimal. Amount of paperwork. We could post an agenda that would just include voting on these meetings. I'm going to be out of town. Friday, Monday and Tuesday. And I think Pam is going to be out of the office on part of Friday. And so there's not going to be a lot of. What should I say? Manpower, woman power behind putting a meeting together. So if all we have to do is have an agenda, post the agenda, have a meeting on Wednesday, the 26th. I think we could do that. I was just going to say that I think I'm ready to vote too. Okay. I am as well. So that's four of the seven that are, that are ready to vote. I think that Janet was going to provide. An email or something. Chris, did you receive anything. Of that nature. I don't believe I received anything from Janet. And I stopped looking at my email around 430, 445 tonight. But Janet probably wouldn't be able to vote on the. Moratorium because you're for the public hearing. I see. So. Yeah. You know, I think we're looking pretty good just to, to, to. You know. Do our deliberation to have, do our additional comments and, and. You know, tally up our votes. So. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's looking that way. So. I mean, I can go, do I need to do a. A roll call for, for, for us continuing. Chris, do you think? Or just. We get into it. Can I interrupt really quickly. Tom's missing Tom long. No, where is he? Must have left. He's in a 10 days. I'm going to bring it back. Okay. Yeah. My goodness. How could one of our board members. I'm still here. Do you want to. Thank you. Around here, but. You move. I must have put Tom over there and not. And what about. I just, I sent you an email and I was flicking my raised hand. You have to know my text. Oh my goodness. Darcy, she's going to go to attendees also. Isn't she? Um, double take. Go ahead and put me in attendees. Yeah. Okay. Everybody's hands are down. Okay. So at this point, Chris, do you recommend that we take a vote to continue? Or, or. Because it was a straw poll looks like we have the numbers to continue tonight, but. With your, on your path to voting. Okay. I think you probably do have that. Okay. So let's, let's discuss zoning by law. Again, we've had the hearing, the hearing is closed. We're going to deliberate and then. So this is on the zoning by law, article 15 inclusionary zoning. You see if the town will vote to amend article 15 of the zoning bylaw inclusionary zoning by expanding the scope of local preference, extending the applicability to more residential developments and adding new definitions and tiered affordability. So, um, People want to, you know, discuss beyond what. I know we have, uh, That's far. Um, Jack, this is Nate.  I was going to share my screen again. Um, In 1512. So. On one or more adjacent properties developed at the same time or in phases or that share aspects of the properties. I think that was something that was brought up. Um, You know, a pretty specific comment. And the other one was just, You know, eliminating some of these exact exemptions here. So I, you know, those are. From my notes, I mean, there are other, there are other comments, but those are kind of specific. To the bylaw has written and then there are a few others. Um, But I just wanted to, you know, to me, You know, Very helpful, Nate. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, because yet again, we, it's been an hour, hour and a half since we talked about this, but, um, Good reminder. So, uh, Do you see any. Issue with, with Doug's suggestion for changing it to and or. Nate.  I actually think the, um, When he said it, and then I think someone, I don't know if someone else reiterated it. I, it does make me think that, um, you know, that would be, I think that not, I don't want to say it's a loophole, but I think they're, you know, The way that's phrased now, I think you would have to have both, you know, both parts that would have to be true. And so I'm not sure that's necessarily what, what we want. So, um, I think changing it is, is for the better. So, um, Changing it to end or. Uh, just saying or. So, or that chair aspects of the properties. Remove and. So yeah, right. So this would just be, um, Oh, my text. Okay. So we have that modification to the 1512. Uh, With regard to a future. Um, I would, I would propose and then with regard to your, you know, going down to the exemptions. I think that, I mean, I don't know, Rob, what if you're reading the bylaw now, sorry, Jack, I just want to. Rob had his hand raised and he's. Okay. Yeah. Then we got, we got Rob and we got Doug and Chris. Okay. So Rob. Uh, yeah, thanks, Nate. I just wanted to remind you that we actually had that language as, uh, as we were talking about. Um, It's being suggested now prior and our, our question at the time was about, um, what would it mean to develop adjacent parcels and phases? Um, and we, we were really, um, Trying to capture the situation where they shared, you know, common entrance ways, utility connections. Uh, where, where a project was developed more as a, um, a set of units or buildings on multiple properties and not so much, you know, one lot being developed and then two years later or the next year, even another lot next door being developed. We weren't trying to capture that, at least in our discussions, uh, with staff. So Rob, what would your recommendation be? Well, I, I don't, I don't have a problem with Doug's recommendation. I just wanted to remind Nate that we chose specifically not to do that. Uh, and, and, uh, have that be, you know, have that be a, um, uh, a less of an incentive for a developer to purchase multiple properties that are adjacent to each other. Uh, that may in fact develop them over time, one lot or a structure or building at a time and try to close a loophole on combining properties and benefiting from sharing those common, uh, parts of infrastructure or, uh, whatever it might be for the part of the development. And that's what, that's what this language does is it, it, it really goes after that, that proposal to develop multiple properties together, uh, not individually. And that was done intentionally. Doug. Yeah, I, I mean, I, I basically made that observation and I wouldn't even call it a recommendation. Um, it was just an observation that having the and means, you know, both sides of that and have to be, uh, have to be in place in order for the, the restriction to take place.  I just saw it as something that if I'm trying to wiggle my way out of this, uh, having that and look like it would be an opportunity that you wouldn't have if you had the or, but I, Rob, I hear what you're saying and, you know, you've got a little more experiences with this than I do. So I'm fine with leaving it as and if I do think Doug, to your point, though, is, you know, so what if someone, a developer is like, well, rather than, you know, yeah, it would be better to have a common driveway, but you know what, I don't want to do inclusionary zoning. So I'm just going to have two separate driveways on adjacent properties just because it saves me from doing, you know, a few affordable units. I mean, I think that's, that's the reality of having this and there that we might get some action, maybe some undesired, you know, some, some, someone would find a way to not do it. So, so we would get less pavement as is Nate. I'm thinking if we say to and, yeah, and that share aspects, I think no, I think we'd get more pavement. So for instance, if you have two adjacent properties and someone's thinking, oh, you know, I'm going to put, I'm going to develop these both at the same time.  So I don't trigger that and right rather than maybe I'd only have one driveway and have a better parking layout. I don't want to trigger inclusionary zoning. So I'm going to do two separate driveways and two separate parking lots, even though a better site plan might be to have one driveway and one parking lot between the two properties. So as this will result in less pavement. Yeah. I mean, this is one example. I don't. Okay. Um, Chris, is your hand up? Okay.  I wanted to say, um, that I don't think we should remove standard subdivisions and convince conventional standard subdivisions or cluster subdivisions from the list of exemptions. Um, first of all, there's not that much land left in, in Amherst where anybody is going to develop a subdivision, a new subdivision. So I don't think it's really going to be an issue. And it really does complicate Chris. Wait a minute. Can we scroll to that portion? The list of exemptions, except for units resulting from exemptions. Um, and Steve Schreiber, um, encouraged you to consider, um, not exempting conventional residential subdivisions or cluster developments. And I think you should exempt them for now. And if you decide later on that you don't want to exempt them, you can always make that change. And it would be fairly simple, but we don't have that many opportunities for, um, either type of, um, development rate at this time, there's not that much land left. So I don't think this is going to be a big, um, a big source of affordable units and it really complicates things. And I think it makes makes, it would make it harder to administer these things for the planning department. And so for right now, I think to simplify things, leave it in. Um, you can decide later to, uh, decide differently. That would be my advice. Chris, the RF district again, I, the RF district is all about students. So what's allowed there is primarily, um, dormitories and buildings related to, um, student life. And so, um, you're not really going to get affordable units there. We had a long discussion with various attorneys at the state level when archipelago was developing the, um, building a drive Olympia place. Yeah. And it ended up that, you know, we really couldn't, um, require affordably. Well, it turned out that we decided not to require affordable units, but there was a lot of argument in favor of not requiring. So again, again, it would just complicate things. So I would leave that the way it is here, leave that alone. Okay. Um, Rob, is your hand up? No. Okay. Um, So any other discussion amongst, uh, the board on, uh, this article as proposed. Okay. And, and we're not doing public comment because we already did have the hearing. Chris. Yep. Okay. So, um, with that, I guess we could take a motion. Maria. I'm going to approve the article is written with no edits. Very good. Is there a second? Second. All right. Doug. Uh, any discussion? I see none. All right. Let's do a roll call here. Maria. And Andrew. Hi. Uh, Doug. Hi. Tom. Hi. And Janet is not with us. Uh, your honor. Hi. And myself would be an eye. Very good. Okay. So let's, uh, move to the next item. Then we're going to deliberate post the hearing, which is the, uh, zoning bylaw article 16 temporary moratorium for 180 days on building permits for construction of residential buildings with three or more dwelling units to see the town will vote to add article 16 temporary moratorium for 100 days on building permits for construction of residential buildings with three or more dwelling units to the zoning bylaw. Uh, I'm not going to read the rest because we just, uh, had this presented. So, uh, Chris.  I just wanted to go back and reword the motion for the previous. Um, article, which really I think should have been. I think we should have moved to recommend to town council, the town council adopt the inclusionary zoning article as written. Can I change my, my previous move or do I have to resay it? I'm moved that the flame board recommends the town council. To a judge that we said already. I think that's what we understood. Okay. But I think we're only recommending. Um, And Doug seconds. Three wording. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thanks. And we're okay with not taking a vote again on that, right? I mean, I think we understood that was here. Yeah. Yeah. Anybody, any, anyone object to that? Okay. I see none. All right. So, um, on to article 16, uh, the building moratorium. Um, any, any board members. Want to discuss this further, uh, Doug. I was just going to move that we hold a vote to, on whether to recommend this. Proposal or this petition. For adoption by town council. Uh, is there a second? Not sure. I didn't understand the motion. I don't know. I don't know. You say the motion. My motion, my motion was that we. Uh, hold a vote. On whether to recommend to town council or not. So the vote is. I guess you could say I was calling the question without. Uh, wording it in such a way as to indicate whether I supported or opposed the measure. So then you're going to have two votes. And then you're going to have the next vote to actually vote. Sound right. Okay. Um, Johanna, do you want to, uh, we'll, we'll still have. An opportunity to discuss here before we vote, but Johanna. I was going to second Doug's motion. Okay. So now we can discuss. Um, and personally I had, I had some items there that I just want to get into. Um, um, Um, personally, I think the, the, the thing for me is, is, is parking. And, uh, the moratorium.  For reevaluating, you know, where we are with parking, but I don't see it changing. Um, You know, anything else. I don't think like parking has been. On our agenda much with regard to the zoning priorities and. You know, maybe it should be. Um, But I mean, I'm not, I'm not really moved by the, the arguments of shadows and, and narrow sidewalks and open space. Um, because I, um, Again, I think when he's pleasant street. Um, you know, needs a fixed, but otherwise our sidewalks are fine. Uh, shadows. There are shadows. Um, up on main street that nobody complains about. I'm not sure why, but there definitely are shadows, uh, from a five story building, uh, in that area, but nobody complains about it. Um, and When it comes to open space in downtown, I don't really, I mean, I don't go downtown to get open space. I mean, Amherst has the most highest percentage of open space, recreational space of any town in the pioneer valley. And, um, I understand it has value, but. You know, I would couch that somewhat.  And, um, that's, I just had it. I just wanted to say that from, from the prior discussion. So, um, Maria. Oh, yeah, I, there are a lot of subjective things said tonight. You know, very emotional things, but the bottom line is, um, Amherst has a very, very comprehensive review process in place. So many, uh, departments and eyes on each project, more so than a lot of other surrounding cities. And then the other sort of non-subjective aspect is that this moratorium is basically, uh, I think one of the people wrote the best was that. It's basically a moratorium on the downtown recovery and of businesses and of people working. And, um, it just didn't make any sense at all to me, honestly. I just, yeah, I, um, I'm, I'm ready. I mean, I'd like to hear if everyone else wants to make any comments, but I'm ready to make a motion to not recommend it to town council for consideration. If that's the right wording, but, um, but I also didn't want to like put the kibosh on a fitting once in the board wanted to say anything. Yeah.  Yeah. So we can wait on a second there. If other folks want to, um, I think we can move to the next one. I'm gonna move to the next one. Yes. Only if I said it correctly for us and move to. Andrew's got his hand up Andrew and Tom. Andrew, please. Yeah, thanks. Um, you know, I tend to agree, Maria. I, um, and I'm, I'm just like a little tired right now, but the, the, the area that I have, uh, just some concern around is just, you know, What other mechanisms do we have in place with the proposal in front of us, for example, to be able to get some fair market or low modern income housing in place into those new developments? You know, Andrew, I'm wondering, and again, that didn't really get addressed, does providing more housing alleviate and encourage affordable housing by taking pressure off, you know, we're talking about downtown right now, but I think that's something that hasn't been addressed adequately, but to me, my gut tells me that more housing is going to help the overall situation in the town of Amherst. Tom? Sure, thanks, Jack. I mean, I think, you know, one of my questions is pretty clear to them in terms of not seeing correlation between the goals of the moratorium and the deliverables that they're saying are going to come out the other end. And, you know, so I have a problem because I do see ways in which we can enhance the business downtown with, you know, with financing and all kinds of other things, but zoning's not going to do that per se. And I don't think the design standards you're going to get are going to fix the problem.  So I don't know if it's going to solve the problem. And I also have sometimes take issue with the idea that we live in a town with a massive industry. And if that industry were some factory and we were talking about housing factory workers, we wouldn't be having a conversation about not wanting them to live downtown.  And that's where I find the problem in terms of the way we think about who's living where, because it's our industry and we have to support our industry. And so, you know, I'm not in favor of, for a few reasons, but one, primarily, I don't think it's going to solve the problems that we want, that they're trying to address. And I think the ones that we are already trying to address and as Chris said, the amendments are going to get us to a place where we can address at least some of them on the short term. Very good. Thanks, Yoana. I grieve at the amount of time that our staff have spent working on this as opposed to advancing solutions. And so, yeah, that's all I have to say. Thank you, Doug. Yeah, I guess, you know, I have felt like this was, on the one hand, it was unnecessary because if you look at the six bullets of what they want to accomplish, we're well into, we're well down the road of accomplishing an evaluation of four of them. The fifth one has to do with the municipal parking overlay, which feels like a conversation that is really complicated and could take years. And then the last one is this climate action resilience plan, which hasn't even been released yet. I asked town staff earlier this week to give me a copy of it and it's not available. So, you know, who knows what that's gonna have and whether anybody wants to adopt what's in that. So, I feel like this is an unnecessary motion. And then because of the timelines involved in some of these conversations and getting things through the process, I think it's inadequate to accomplish its purpose. So, I intend to vote against it. Thank you. Thank you, Doug. Johanna? I'm lowering my hand. It's a vestigial tail. Oh, okay. Andrew? I would just say, this is actually, I've really enjoyed this. I went into the meeting today, thinking that I was going to be like a dissenting vote and hearing folks talk has actually been very useful to me and I appreciate hearing from everybody on this. Thank you. So, you know, in my mind, I'm wondering if we can, all right. So, we need to move to vote in favor, or not in favor of this now. I guess, Chris, you got to help me out because we kind of got down a road here. I think Doug could withdraw his motion and the person who seconded would be Johanna, could withdraw her second and then someone could make a motion to vote to recommend against, vote to recommend to town council that they not adopt article 16 on the temporary moratorium. Okay, Doug? Yeah, I was on the same wavelength. I withdraw my motion. Okay, and Johanna, good. So, I'm wondering in terms of an adder, if the town can put the parking aspect of things, because I don't see that in the zoning, you know, Chris, let me know. I mean, maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the downtown parking as one of the zoning priorities and it just seems to be a driver. And can we recommend to the CRC that that becomes one of the main zoning priority, you know, efforts within the coming months? I think you could do that under a separate motion. And I wanted to say that Nate and I just had a conversation today with two members of town staff about parking and they're really involved in it. And we recognize the fact that we have to take another look at the municipal parking district that was developed in the 60s, revised in the 2000s. And now we've got a lot of development downtown. So we really need to take another look at that. So that's on our radar screen. And if you wanted to make a motion to ask the CRC to put it on a priority list, I think that would be well received. Okay. All right, so at this point, we have a motion with regard to not approving the proposed zoning by law, you know, article 16 for the temporary moratorium, 480 days on building permits for construction of residential buildings with three or more dwelling units. Is there a motion? Maria made that motion about- Oh, Maria. Okay. And then a second. Nobody seconded. Seconded. Okay. Doug. And so any discussion for the discussion? I see none. Okay. Let's do roll call. Maria. And Andrew. Sorry, this is to not set, sub-send it for correct? This is to recommend that town council not adopt article 16. Aye. Doug. Aye. Tom. Aye. Johanna. Aye. And I am an aye as well. So that's six zero. And I guess I would like to make a motion that there is a priority set for, you know, resolution of downtown parking concerns within our zoning priority bylaws. Cause to me that seems like a crux of, you know, a lot of the issues associated with what was behind the building moratorium. A second. Doug. Doug second. Okay. No, I did not second. Who seconded? It was Tom. Tom, Tom. Okay. So any discussion on that or? Yes. Yes, okay. Doug. Yeah, I'd like to talk about this at our next meeting or I don't want to talk about it tonight. Okay. So can you put this on the agenda, Chris? Next meeting. The next meeting is going to be all about archipelago. How about if we put it on the agenda for the 16th? Sounds good. Okay. I ran out of paper in my tag here. I found my last sheet. Are you talking about just parking general, the discussion of parking as a zoning priority, is that? I think you're talking about looking at the municipal parking district. Is that right? Correct. The only municipal parking district, not about article seven or any other parking or is it just really the municipal parking district? Let's focus on one thing at a time, municipal parking district. Okay. And that's why I want to talk about this at another time. Yeah. And Chris, one of the things is how the town is offering cheaper parking permits than UMass. That was another thing we discussed today. Yeah. I mean, there's a lot of stuff going on there with parking that I think would address a lot of these two hearings that we had today. Well, not two, but the moratorium anyway. So I think we're going to have to rope Nate into coming to the meeting on the 16th because he's our resident parking expert. I don't have that, but yeah, I agree. I also think that there's things outside of zoning and whether even in the general bylaws there's other regulations that could apply too. So I mean, I think there's a number of factors. So why don't I put on the agenda kind of a parking umbrella with some focus on the municipal parking district? Okay. Thank you. And okay, so I think we hit all the other items and it's 11 o'clock on the dot. I think we can adjourn. Where's Andrew? I think Andrew's hand is still up. Mr. McDougal. Who's hand? Oh, Andrew. Yeah, not to kill. I wanted to make sure we got all the way to 11 just so I could. But no, actually like a really simple new business question I forgot earlier is like, are we, what's the town policy like on having these meetings in person with some of the latest news announcements? Is that in our foreseeable future or are we still zoomed for a long time? That is unclear. It's, we know that the governor is ending the state of emergency as of June 15. What we're not sure of is, is he going to take away the ability for groups such as the planning boards to have meetings in remote format. And we haven't heard anything about that yet. Usually we get some kind of announcement from the state in a written form. We get something from the town manager in a written form and then we get something from KP law and we haven't gotten anything like that. And previously a couple of weeks ago, the town manager has said that he thought we would be having zoom meetings through the end of the summer. So it's all to be worked out. Okay, thanks. Good question. Thanks Andrew. So at this point, I think we're good. Correct? You're going to move to adjourn? Just say we're adjourned. Yeah, we're adjourned, we're adjourned. Thank you all. That it was a long night, but I think it was very productive. We did it.