Thanks a lot. You're welcome, Athena. Thank you. Pam is having some troubles getting on or connecting because I've seen her pop in and out. We will at least start all of the verbal stuff as Pam works on it. And then we wait for Shalini, but we'll start getting started. Kelly, are you ready? Yes, I absolutely am. Excellent. Thank you. Okay. Seeing a presence of a quorum. I am calling this June 22nd 2023 regular meeting of the community resources committee of the town council to order at 433 p.m. This meeting will be pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended by chapters 22 and 107 of the acts of 22 and extended by chapter two of the acts of 2023. This meeting will be conducted by remote means members of the public who wish to access the meeting might do so via zoom or telephone. No in person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time by a technological means. This meeting is being recorded. At this time I'm going to take a roll call roll call attendance to make sure everyone can hear and be heard. Shalini is missing right now we'll catch her when she comes in. Pat. Present. Mandy is present Pam. Present. And Jennifer. Present. We have a quorum before we move on to the public hearing. I just want to let John know. Thank you for being here, John. We have a public hearing first so we're not going to get to residential rental bylaw.  I don't know whether it'll be even longer. So I thought I'd let you know. It'll be a little bit. With that. I think we are passing it off to Pam Rooney to preside over the public hearing and if it closes the next action item. The time is 435 in accordance with provisions of MGL chapter 40 a this public hearing of the community resources committee of the Amherst town council has been duly advertised and notice there of has been posted in as being held for the purpose of the community for interested residents to be heard regarding the following proposed amendments to the zoning bylaw zoning bylaw article 3 use regulations article 4 development methods article 9 non conforming lots uses and structures and article 12 definitions to see if the town will vote to amend article 3 use regulations to change the permitting requirements for owner occupied duplexes affordable duplexes non owner occupied duplexes converted dwellings townhouses to create more streamlined permitting pathways for these uses to remove the use categories of the vital dwellings to add a use category three family detached dwelling triplex to add a permitting pathway and standards and conditions for triplex to modify standards and conditions for other housing use categories to amend permitting requirements for housing use categories in the effort for recharge protection overlay district to amend article 4 development methods to add three family dwellings for appropriate to amend article 9 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 triplex and to delete subdividable dwelling. So that's the order of the order of business and I want to check to see if there are folks out there in the audience. There are three attendees, and so I think any disclosures from the board or committees. None. So, yeah, we'll go to the sponsors presentations and the sponsors have had many opportunities to present this. But it changes every time so if the sponsors want to once again. Describe what's happening or changes that have been made since the last time we discussed this. Why don't you go ahead and do that now. Okay, I'm going to share my screen so that it's easier to see. So everyone should be able to see. I put in this draft the highlights in yellow. The first one is this entire section that's in pink that has the comment I think Pam you had discussed why it was necessary in the, in the section the last meeting and so we're saying we're okay with deleting everything that's in pink. If the planning department thinks it okay. You know, if it really is duplicative, we're fine with streamlining the zoning bylaws. So we haven't formally proposed deleted it from here but but we wanted to put that out there. The change in yellow from board to authority is just a So again, we missed one as we were changing it through based on Rob more and Chris breast drops usage of language so it's just fixing one of those. The bigger changes here are in owner occupied duplexes in response to concern from both this committee and the planning board, we have returned or proposed special permits for the awkward for recharge We had previously had site plan review there. So we've we've moved it back to special permit in response to concerns about the aquifer recharge protection district. And the concerns were that a site plan review is not discretionary. So we've put it on to a discretionary where the board, the permit granting authority can can make a determination whether in that particular site in the ARP owner occupied duplex would be appropriate. So yellow in the conditions. We have since again in response to the planning board's concerns, and some of the concerns I think Jennifer and Pam had indicated we have adopted the language that Chris breast strip proposed in her memo from about a month and a half ago, regarding any buildings above to dwelling units on any parcel for owner occupied duplexes being requiring a site plan review for only the first, the two, three or four dwelling units on a property and a special permit for above dwelling units for dwelling units on a property in the RG RBC and RN. This is the actual language that Chris breast strip proposed in that memo. The other changes to affordable duplex, it's in yellow here, but it would not show up in any proposed motion because we are proposing again in the ARP to go back to special permit that's what it is right now in affordable duplexes so this is actually a return to not proposing a change at all. It's in yellow to see that it changed from the last version, but it's basically going back to what we have now in the bylaw. You'll see in triplex again there was concern about the ARP. And so we are proposing a no buildings of triplexes no building of triplexes in the ARP in the RN we had proposed a special permit there. And so we've added a no there for the ARP. And same with the townhouses we had proposed a special permit in the ARP for the RN, and we are moving to know which is actually no change from now because right now the current bylaw doesn't allow town houses at all in the RN district and we're proposing a special permit in the RN district and so the only change then in the RN district if this amendment was adopted would be in the non ARP sections of the RN district. And I think the last thing is down here in response to notes that we received from Janet McGowan regarding converted dwelling it came to our attention that our original proposal didn't require a change in the definition of converted dwelling, but after we had worked through some of the concerns and reworked the converted dwelling proposal to streamline it and bring it back to what a converted dwelling really is looking at we forgot to look at the definition there. And looking back at the definition, we realized that some of that definition might actually conflict with the new proposal that came from Rob more on fixing sort of the converted dwelling conditions. And so we have added a change in the definition to ensure that it does not. Again, more of a streamline and does not conflict with the conditions that are in there to create this weird sort of which one applies. And then some changes there I can talk a little bit more about that if people have more questions. But but that is a new change but it's more of a as we went through and made many more changes to the conditions than what Pat and I had preliminarily proposed to the council to the converted dwellings. The, the staff and us had not gone back to look at the definition to see that that also didn't need changed and so we happened to realize that this week and, and made some proposed changes to it. So that's, that's the only changes from the last draft that we talked about. Would you like me to stop sharing. Yeah, that'd be great. I don't want to read anyway. I'm going to mix this up a little bit and I think rather than going to questions from us first I would love to hear from staff. Before we proceed with Christine, I see Dave. Would you like me to give a report on the planning board meeting last night would love to, I would love to hear that. Okay, so that last night I think this was the fifth or sixth time they've reviewed this zoning amendment. And Pat reviewed the changes that had been made since the last draft that the planning board had reviewed. And Bruce Coldham stated that he had not been convinced that the proposal would achieve its stated goals. And so he moved to recommend that the planning board recommended town council that the proposal not be adopted and Tom long seconded that motion. And then Bruce read a prepared statement. He said that the planning board had spent a lot of time considering the proposal, and that the stated goals were loud, laudable, but the proposed solution was not likely to achieve the goals. It was consistent with the stated goals and objectives and he said that he had begun a process. A few months ago to seek out other towns that are like Amherst and to find out how they are coping with similar housing issues. And so far he's spoken with four or five towns and he's gathering information, and they all have different cures that they're pursuing. And Bruce also stated that he had attended the ITGA webinar that was held last week and he'd found it illuminating. He thanked Mandy and Pat for their efforts but stated that there are other better ways to address the issues and to achieve the stated goals. He acknowledged that this is an important problem, but that the proposed zoning amendment is not the way to deal with it. It's a long discussion after Bruce's statement and planning board members thanked and commended Pat and Mandy for their efforts. And the planning board members talked about parts of the proposal that the town should consider pursuing. Doug Marshall offered a friendly amendment to commit the planning board to follow up and pursue aspects of the proposed amendment within the next two years. And the board made two motions and the first motion that was voted on was that the board voted to commit itself to meet at least three times in person to before the end of 2023 to develop and discuss possible solutions to the housing issues, affecting low and medium income residents and students. And that was a seven to zero vote. And then the second vote was to that the board recommended to town council that they not adopt the proposed zoning amendment. And that was also a seven to zero vote. There was no public comment offered at the meeting. So, so that's my report on the planning board meeting. I thought there were two abstentions. Okay, sorry. I had that written that way. Because Tom and Andrew abstained. Oh, Tom and Andrew abstained from the first vote. You're right. Yeah, but that but for the second vote. Thank you. And in effect abstained from the vote that committed the planning board members to meet in the future because Tom and Andrew will not be members of the planning board so thank you Pat for reminding me of that. But Tom and Andrew, they all voted seven to zero to recommend that the town council not adopt the proposed zoning amendment. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Was there any additional staff commentary that you wanted to add at this time. I don't think so I, I'd be willing to answer questions but I have no commentary to add. Okay, thank you very much. I wasn't able to attend that meeting. Okay. Thank you. Any, any comments actually we have, we have four people in the audience now and again I think I'm going to go to public comment before we jump into our deliberation. Anyone in the public who would love to speak about this topic only. Please raise your hand and we'll bring you into the meeting. We'll be a later public hearing of public comment period on other topics, but this is strictly for this hearing. Any public comments I see in hand up, it is Janet Keller, can someone bring her in please. Name and name and address please. Sure, Janet Keller 120 Pope at Hill Road in the arrest. I've attended every single one of the meetings about this topic that I could, and I've done some research on it. And I want to commend the authors for their detailed work. And I want to also commend the planning board for the difficult decision they made last night and the care and diplomacy with which they made it. And the research that Bruce is doing on what will actually work to bring more affordable housing which we all want to have in our town. So, um, I hope that the CRC will support the work of the planning department and the planning board in this regard to achieve their very desirable goal of getting more affordable housing every day that that we do not find real solutions to that and I have done research that convinces me that the solution is going to lie, primarily outside the zoning bylaw with the exception of possibly upgrading the inclusionary zoning portion. So thank you for this opportunity to comment. Thank you Janet. Anyone else in the audience who would like to speak please feel free to raise your hand. I'm seeing folks raise hands so I'm going to close that portion and move back to CRC member comment. Oh, Chris. Chris has her hand up. I believe he'll the green bomb. Raise your hand just as you were. Yeah, thank you. He'll the green bound please enter and give us your name and address. I just wanted to say that after last night's meeting and everything that's been settled over seven months, there's nothing else left to say is to just recommend that they just stop discussing this issue when we look at the other ways to solve the problem. There's nothing left to say, except it's not it's not going to work. Thank you, I think that that was that was the message. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience. And thank you Chris for keeping your eye out. I had switched my view to the side. Let's then let's proceed back to counselor comments and we're missing Shalini right she's she's absent. She is and I have not heard from her and I did text her right before we started to see if she was coming and so I don't know what her plans are because I have not. I did not receive an email ahead of time and I have not received a response to the text so. Okay. Okay. Any, any comments from any of you folks. Andy. I guess. Actually, no, not right now because we tend to do our deliberation after we close the hearing. So sorry, never mind. Jennifer. No, I was just going to ask, would we close? I mean, we don't close the hearing we've continued it. I guess I was just confused by that because we're continuing. We have been continuing the hearing to a date certain. So for us to deliberate, we wouldn't necessarily, I mean, we haven't been closing the hearing. Right, we've been speaking about it each time without necessarily closing the hearing. Right. So I guess I was just a little confused by what Mandy's. So in past practice, the hearing at CRC has focused only on questions. And once the hearing is closed, then the CRC members deliberate on whether to recommend or not, but the hearing has focused on questions and any needs to modify proposals before closing the hearing, which is slightly different than how the planning board does it. So you'll see on our agenda that the action item actually has committee discussion and vote and recommendation outside of the hearing. And so I had thought about commenting on my thoughts on recommendations, but I felt like that's not part of the hearing that's after the hearing. So that's why I said that. It's not procedural, but how are we going to make the decision to close the hearing and I mean, how do we do close the hearing if we don't know if we're going to make a motion. I mean, if we close the hearing, then it's closed for good. We have to repost it to open it again. Correct. So the hearing is to hear from the public and to answer questions per hour rules on what you do with a hearing. There's a whole list as Pam knows. Disclosures proposal presentation council member questions, questions from the public comments from the public member questions, and then you close the hearing. And then the committee debates on whether to recommend or not recommend after the hearing is closed. If you've gotten all of your questions answered, then it's time to close the hearing. Chris, Chris press up and then we'll come back to Jennifer. I just wanted to note, I think I emailed some of you earlier. I need to depart at about five after five and I will return at 525 I have to meet the planning board chair out here to get his signature before he goes on vacation so if you had questions for me. Five or 10 minutes I could answer them otherwise I'm going to be elsewhere for about 20 minutes. Does anyone have questions for planning staff. Jennifer. Well, I guess, Chris, I can't recall if you answered it last night, but do you have any comments about the sponsors proposed changes that were presented today. I am in agreement with the proposed changes. Thank you. It would be amenable to closing the public hearing. We have talked about it for quite some time. It doesn't sound like there are necessarily any questions remaining it may be more commentary and so I think if anyone want to make a motion to close public hearing. And I'll move to close the public hearing. Okay. Jennifer. Okay, so now commentary. No, we have to vote. We have to vote to close it. Yes, you're right. Pat. Hi. Mandy Jones. Hi. Jennifer. Hi. Hi. Okay. So the public hearing has been closed on whatever it is June 22nd commentary. So we're moving on to action item three a right. We are moving on to action item. Well, gender item three a. Yes. Okay. So we have item three, article four, article nine, article 12, actually townhouse and converted dwelling. So we have committee discussion Jennifer. So we could also, um, I mean the planning board last night. They had two votes. They were, and they were very clear. They were connected that if they were voting, that they would work with the planning department. To craft recommendations. So we could agree. We could vote. To do the same thing. I mean, to vote that we would. So how would we, we'd be voting to recommend to the council. So it would be that we would like. What we are asking is that the planning board. Work with the planning department. To craft a proposal or set of recommendations. That we feel we'll be able to. Generate more housing. For low and middle income. Residents. I think our current zoning has done a very good job of supporting. Housing for students. That's the issue is that we haven't really built housing for anybody else. So that would be a, that would be, um, If I were to paraphrase that, that would be a motion to. Well, I think we would have to vote to not support. This proposal. And with some, and that we asked the. Planning director. The planning board to work with the planning staff. To in fact address. The housing needs and, and any. Um, opportunities within the bylaws. To make that happen. Yeah, I may be cutting too quickly. We may want to discuss it, but I. You know, that's what I'm thinking. As in what would be the method for doing so. Well, I don't know if there's counselors wanting just members want to. You know, discuss the, but that for me, instead of continuing to discuss each item, and I saw that in the packet, there was also like 10 motions. If we wanted to adopt different parts of the proposal. And that's what I'm. I'm not comfortable with because I don't. You know, the piecemeal, I'm just not sure how they're all going to fit together. But I'm not really concerned. About unintended consequence. If we look at that motion sheet. And start approving some summer, all of it. So I would personally feel more better, more comfortable having. The planning board and the planning department. You know, looking at the whole package, not the whole package, but the whole just looking at what is how, how are we going to achieve more housing?  The approach that they suggested that they do, they need. Yeah. Because so, because that's another question we have those. That's in the packet. There's. Like, I think there's 10 motions. And I. Yeah, I don't know. I, so we could go through those, but I'm, I would not feel comfortable deciding, you know, voting. You know, for each one kind of an isolation and piecemeal without really. Knowing, you know, if we support one without the other, what the impacts are going to be. Mandy and then I, and then I want to weigh in. And he's muted. Sorry. A couple of things that that what the motions that are in the packet were something that I drafted because the planning board. And I was wondering if they could vote. At their prior hearings were wondering whether they could vote things piecemeal and what that would look like. And should they vote things piecemeal and all of that. So I thought that it would be helpful for them to see what a piecemeal sort of vote would be based on. Not their hearing from last night, but, but the month before. So I drafted something of like, here's how I could envision. A potential piecemeal vote going.  There's, there's all sorts of ways to do it. But I thought I'd put that out there as to why that was there. As just a potential help if a committee wanted to vote something piecemeal instead of all at once. And the planning board certainly was discussing that. A month ago. My thoughts. Obviously I'm a sponsor. I just asked something, was that in the planning board packet? Yeah, I think it was. We sent it to Chris. And told her to do what she wanted with it. Obviously I'm a sponsor. So I want to see this pass. And I want to see it recommended one thing that struck me though, at the planning board was. I guess where I am is. There was nothing really bad to say about the current proposal. There weren't necessarily anything in particular that I've heard from the planning board that Pat and I haven't addressed that says, this is why we can't support it. Other than a vague, it's complex or a vague. It's not how we would do it or a vague. There's other ways. Right. And that. I will say frustrates me. Because. I don't think it's the right thing to do. I don't think it's the right thing to do. I look at zoning. I look at zoning. I look at legislation. I look at our housing crisis in particular and say, we can't wait for the perfect. We can't wait for. The exact thing one person would do over something else. I think Pat and I have been very. Open and saying, this isn't the only possible solution. This is not the only thing and that it will solve all problems. I think it's the right thing to do. I think it's the right thing to do. And even many of the planning board members have said, there are parts of it. Part of their vote was that there are parts of it we like. Yet they didn't want to go on record saying, here's what we can support. And that frustrates me because if there are parts we like that work and from what I've heard from Chris Brestrup and the department and all of the work we've done, they are okay with this proposal. I think they might think it might not do what we hope it would do. But it might. And so they're not against the proposal. And we've got, and some of the proposal actually came from them. Pat and I would have never proposed to delete subdividable dwellings if not Rob Moore are saying, hey, delete subdividable dwellings. So some of this directly came from them. And if I'm looking at our housing crisis and looking at what the planning board motion was and what Jennifer, you just proposed, which I don't necessarily oppose. In terms of look at more things to do, right? Yes, we need to look at more things to do. We need to figure out how to do this. We need to find ways to build more housing for low and moderate income. Exactly what you said, Jennifer, right? But do we wait two years? Do we wait three years? Do we wait a year and a half while doing nothing? Or do we do this that is proposed or parts of this that are proposed, whether it be only the townhouse part, which is actually quite small, only the converted dwelling, only the duplex, only the triplex, although I'm not sure the triplex would do much at all. I will admit that that was more of create a category because people have said we want a category so that in the future, we might be able to craft that one better than apartments in general, right? Do we do that now and continue working towards other things and say, you know, this might help. And it's worth doing something that might help instead of doing nothing while we wait six months to determine what we might be able to do another year to craft the bylaw that would do what we might think about doing because I can tell you it'll take about a year to craft the bylaw once you decide what you want to do. And then another six months for hearing and we're looking at two years. Jennifer, I think you even said 18 months, two years out of that or Pam, right? One of you guys just said up to two years. While we sit here. While we have two years at the planning board before we get any proposals while we sit here still ringing our hands about the housing crisis. Or do we try to do something now while continuing to always do something more? And so my position on legislation has always been keep moving forward. It doesn't have to be perfect. It doesn't have to be exactly what you want or exactly what you think it might do. But if you're moving forward, do it. And so I would vote to recommend we as a council adopt whether piece mail or not adopt the proposal. And yet I would also vote to recommend that the planning board continue planning and the planning department plan. So I wouldn't. I wouldn't say no while we plan. I would say yes and plan. Thank you. Jennifer. I'm sorry. Okay. There are things that. When you say we don't. If we do nothing. I mean, there are things in the proposal. That could actually. Send us in the wrong direction that could. So I'll just say. If. Do if foot no damn doesn't apply to triplexes. That will, that will have an impact. And it will have a really. Adverse impact for the neighborhoods in which that happens. So, you know, that's. You know, all progress. All change isn't the change that we want. So that's what we want. So that concerns me the attitude of it's better to do something than nothing because we could. There could be adverse impacts of what we do. So that's, you know, that's my concern. I mean, there's. So that's one thing I could not. Vote for this. I guess I feel like now. You know that. So it's, it's definitely now that there cannot be triplexes. Or 10. Houses in the RN neighborhoods. That, you know, that's probably something that would be very. Residents that live there would be very receptive to. And that more is by special permit in those areas, but there's some zoning districts in which. There, there will, the way it is now that, that would not. It just wouldn't really be acceptable. You know, and there continues to be the concern about.  So are those no longer. By right. And that's a question I have. Since it was just changed. So. Under the proposal. Owner occupied duplexes. The first two units built on any parcel would be a yes. So building commission or building permit only. So there's a concern. And that's anywhere in the residential, the first two units. In the RO and RLD, once you're above two units, it would be a special permit. Immediately. For three and above units in the RO and RLD on one parcel in the RN, RG, and RVC. Units three and four on a parcel. Would be site plan review. And units five and above would be special permit, which is actually. For owner occupied duplexes. More strict. Than the current bylaw. So in the RN now you can have. Can you multiple owner occupied duplexes? No. Yes. You can't have the non owner occupied. No, you can have non owner occupied. There are all special permits in the RN right now. Only affordables or site plan review on the RN, but right now any number of duplexes on a property can be built under special permit. And so what our proposal is for those permitting requirements in the RN. Is to change that special permit for three and four. Units. So one for two buildings. To the site plan review and for the first building to a yes. But there is concern that. If well, I think that's a concern. I think that's a concern. People want. A special permit for even the first unit. Because it might not always stay. Owner occupied and that that could have. So I think they're. You know, definitely residents who would say that they're not comfortable. You know, that's a change that. They're not objecting to the duplexes, but they would like it. To be. Not by right. So I'm saying there's, there's, there's substantive parts of the by law of the proposal as it is now. That. People don't think. Doing that is better than doing nothing. I'm going to go to Pat. And then I forgot to weigh in. You never forget. First of all, there were, we, if you read the proposal and it surprises me that you. There's still confusion about it on the planning board. And here. Because. People don't think. Doing that is better than doing nothing. I'm going to go to Pat and then I forgot to weigh in. You never forget. No.  I'm going to go to Pat about it on the planning board, and here. Because we have been looking at it for so long, but we're proposing deed restriction on owner occupied duplexes. Not just affordable ones. No, I'm glad you had a turn my turn. So I, And you keep people keep talking about adverse impacts. Yeah. to some of the decisions, and I don't know what they are, that the planning board might make. So will you vote against planning board or planning department decisions that will carry adverse consequences? Or not, we just, you know, but the reason that I want to break this up into sections is because I think that there are aspects of this that we can support or I can support, I really can only speak for myself. But our job as a community resource committee is to take responsibility for our own decisions, which means if you don't like one of the suggestions during the breakdown of the, then you vote no. If you like it, you vote yes. But that's, you can't decide, or I think it's irresponsible to decide to hand your responsibility as a community resource member to the planning board and the planning department. We're here to make a decision. I would love it if you made the decision I want. You're probably not going to, but what is the harm of looking at this in sections and discussing it and allowing our views to be heard and known? So don't step aside. I don't think your intention is to step aside from responsibility, I really don't. So, but that's what this would be. Oh, we're going to do what the planning board did. So let's take some responsibility here. Okay. Thank you, Pam. I thought very carefully about the breaking it down into part and I am not going to be able to do that. I think I am still uncomfortable with a couple of the aspects of, first of all, it was really, I think we haven't finished our business here. And there, I think there are some aspects of development in the RN, which really need more attention and they haven't gotten it. I think that there are RN areas that front on fairly busy streets that are on major bus routes that need some additional consideration for what might be allowed there rather than say no to something maybe a special permit would allow something in the RN that we're not thinking about. The RN, again, is a blanket with lots and lots of different characteristics unlike the RG, which is pretty consistently dense neighborhoods. I'm still uncomfortable with the triplex. If we create the triplex, we also need to address triplex in combination with any other building type. So we already know that in the RG, we have single families, we have duplexes, we already have three families, we have four families. And given interpretation of zoning these days, we understand that compatible use designation will allow or determination would allow a triplex to be added to some other combination of things. And so I am uncomfortable with the cutoff between where something is like plan review versus site special permit that the number should be lower. I think that, for instance, the number of units on a site should cut off at three. Anything over three automatically requires a site of special permit. And we haven't addressed that. So it's a consequence of changing one item, creating an item, and yet not addressing it throughout the bylaw. If we do anything to create a triplex, we need to add triplex to footnote M. And again, if it's everything that we're doing is in combination with other uses on the site, and therefore I actually started sketching out the various combinations and permutations of unit counts and where a cutoff could occur or should occur. So I have a really hard time breaking this into pieces and saying, this piece feels pretty good, this piece doesn't. I actually appreciate the conversations that the planning board has had, and they've been many, that I mean, again, I don't think we haven't addressed the gamut. And so I would like to not break it down into parts and pieces. And I'm not abrogating my responsibility. I think it's not there yet. Jennifer. Yeah, I mean, if we want to take, if the CRC wants to take this on in combination with the planning board on our own, I mean, my concern with the package of proposed zoning revisions is that nothing in them incentivizes or requires anyone to build more housing or create, you know, turn their house into a duplex and rent or sell those new units at below market rate. So we know, you can laugh, that's, market rate is very high and- I'm just laughing at zoning doesn't affect selling prices of houses, that's not what it's about. So it doesn't- So this is not, there are things- I just want to say that, that's what I'm laughing at. I'm not laughing- No, there is zoning, there are some college towns, this is just one, you've heard me say this before, it's part of their zoning that they have minimal distance requirements. So- But that's not, that is not dealing with the cost of things, the prices that people charge and it's not under control and it's, yeah. But it is, if you have a house here and you rent it to students, there's a house next door and the third house, you would not in those towns, if the houses are within 500 feet of each other, be able to rent every house to a student. So if you wanted to rent the middle house, you would have to rent it at a price that maybe a non-student household could afford. I'm not saying that that's what we're gonna do, but that's part of zoning. But that is why when people say, they think that this set of proposals is going to the end result will be more housing rented to the student market in more neighborhoods in town. I have, there were a lot of students live where I live. So that's, but I think that's been part of the concern for people who are now not living where that's a reality all around them. So that I just don't, I would like to see. And if, so if we, if we are not going to incentivize or have requirements or somehow build in and maybe it's impossible, maybe it is housing that is then I don't see what these, then we are just making it easier for developers and investors to build more units to rent at the highest rate, the market will bear to students. Personally, I think that duplexes owner occupied or non-owner occupied, the first unit should be by site plan review. I just don't, I don't think a site plan review having to do, having to notify about others is onerous. So, you know, that's, you know, what I would like that's what I would support. So, you know, that's one part of it. The most basic part that I'm not comfortable with is the first two duplexes by right. I think that, you know, I would support a butter notification. And again, I don't, I don't think our permitting process is onerous. So that's just, so I'm not abrogating my responsibility. There's just actual parts of the proposal that I don't support. Mandy. So much. To Pam's point about the development in the RN needs more attention because it's such a big district with a lot of different characteristics. That's what a special permit is for. To allow that discretion for a board to stay, a townhouse is okay in this part of the RN, but it's not okay in that part. That is the point of a special permit. To say in this district, there are parts of the district that that type of building is appropriate and there are parts that it is not. And so for a townhouse, which our proposal does go to a special permit, not a site plan review anymore, that's exactly what our ZBA would be doing. And if they said, and if a person came in with a townhouse development in a part, the ZBA said, you know, that's not appropriate at all. It's in the back of a development, not near anything on wetlands or practically near wetlands. The ZBA has the discretion to say, no, we're not gonna allow it there. But if that townhouse proposal is in an RN that's on a major road right next to a bus stop, the ZBA can say, that's an exact spot we want that townhouse. That's why we put a special permit on these things instead of say, no, that's exactly why we do it. And that's what a lot of our proposal does. To the concern that nothing incentivizes or requires someone to build or convert and then rent or sell at below market rate or market rate. Our state does not allow rent control. We can't force someone to sell below market rate if they don't want to, except in terms of renting below market rate or selling below market weight when they are designated state housing inventory affordable projects. And what does our duplex affordable duplex part of this proposal do? Require that they be on the state housing inventory for below market rate for those up to 80 or 50 or 30, whatever the developer wants. We as a town in zoning, zoning does not say you have to sell, you can't sell. You have to sell to someone who's gonna owner occupy it. You don't accept where we've actually said owner occupied duplexes with the deed restriction. Isn't that the type of building we want? And to talk about your minimal distance, you've had a year and a half on the council and you've been talking about minimal distance the whole time. I haven't seen a proposal yet. If you propose it, I will look at it just as closely as I looked at this one. But needing that minimal distance, they don't have to be tied. I don't know why you want them tied, but you can do one thing and then do another thing two months later or three months later. But what I'm hearing from you saying, well, if it's not gonna do what I want it to do, we can't do it at all. Or if we're not gonna tie them together, we can't do it. The only way to tie below market rate to zoning, like force below market rate, housing sales or rents to zoning is through affordable duplexes in our bylaw or writing another one. Because you know what? A minimal distance thing, which we're not really here to talk about does create winners and losers. The person who rents to the person who rents to the, to go with what your example was, Jennifer, the person who rents to the students will get huge profits according to what you say. And the person next door that didn't happen to be the person renting to the students first and wants to sell suddenly has a value of a house a whole lot lower than someone else.  Whether that's good or not, whether that's what we wanna do, I don't know, but that proposal is not in front of us. Someone write it, you write it. You've been talking about it for a year and a half. Write the proposal. You've been talking about state colleges.  But to say you won't even consider this one because it doesn't have that one attached to it, to me, is just not the way legislation works necessarily. So I don't get the, well, if we're not gonna incentivize something and we don't actually know what that incentivization might look like or whether we could even do it, I won't even consider a proposal or I can't vote for the proposal because it doesn't do that, even though I don't know whether it's legal, that I look at the federal government when people vote for or against something like the debt ceiling and say, well, it wasn't my proposal, so I'm gonna vote no. And it just frustrates me at the federal level. It frustrates me here too. Thank you, Mandy. Jennifer, you've got your hand up. Yes, so I never ever said I wasn't gonna vote for it because I didn't have minimal distance. I was responding to what a counselor said that zoning cannot deal with renting it below the top of the market. And I would say that is an example of a zoning. That's part of the zoning in the towns that have it. So that's all I was saying. I had never talked about it having, we have to do this or I'm not gonna vote for that. There are, and yes, you have said, affordable duplexes will be permitted by right. Our planning department said it is highly unlikely that we will see affordable duplexes, that people who have the money, they either are gonna buy or they own a house and they're gonna go to the expense. There may be a couple of people that will, but our planning department said that's very unlikely. So we can be aspirational, but if we're being realistic, the chances that we are going to see a lot of duplexes, owner-occupied duplexes that are then rented out at a rate that the government would recognize as affordable housing is slim to nil, that's the reality. So, and I don't think that we need to change, and I've said this before and I know you totally disagree with me, but I don't think we need to change our zoning bylaws to incentivize more housing, market rate housing, which in this town is for students. We have been building hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of units with multiple bedrooms for the last seven to eight years with the zoning and the permitting process that we have. And I believe that if you want to have more, I think it's great to have more owner-occupied and more duplexes, but I think that they should, there should be a butter notification. That's just what I think and it should not be for right. And I think that in the RGs, where we already can have nine units on an acre with multiple bedrooms, that's 36 students, because that's who they're rented to, that we don't need to, Pat, in the RN district, you just said that where you live, there's no longer gonna be townhouses or triplexes where I live, I think 36 students. I didn't say that. Well, that's what, last night, I mean, that's what you said, that there wouldn't be in the RN, there are not gonna be triplexes and duplex and townhouses. Did I understand that correctly? I mean, if I did correct me, because that's what I heard, that there'll be no triplex in the APR and RN and no townhouses. APR. APR. So are there gonna continue to be townhouses and triplexes in the RN? Right now, townhouses and triplexes right now, if we do not change zoning, do not allow triplexes or townhouses or apartments. Right, so no, I'm just asking for clarification. At the beginning of last night's planning board meeting, Pat expressed, she presented two changes that the sponsors had made since the last planning board meeting. So that was the first time I heard it. And what are you? They refer to the aquifer recharge regions. Which is a very small portion of the RN. Okay, well, that's what it sounded like. I didn't hear it that way last night. And Doug made sure that was said. Okay, so no, I appreciate that clarification because what I heard last night was in the whole RN. So that change didn't happen. No, that change would be no change to the current bylaw. The current bylaw does not allow apartments or townhouses in the RN at all. So if we stick with the current bylaw, you're not getting apartments. No, I know, but I heard that last night I thought you were going back to that. That's how I heard it. Just in the ARP. Just in the ARP. And the RN is very small. Okay. And the same with triplexes. So they can still be in the RN, just not in the ARP. Correct. Okay. All under special permit. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Which is great. I'm not allowed. You know, I still, in the RG districts, we, there is in the current zoning, there is a great deal of densification there. So that is why I could only support triplexes, which now are considered apartments and a fall under foot no dam. Since triplexes are now their own category, I would need to see that as continuing as they are now to be under foot no dam. So this raises a good point. And that is that if additional modifications were to be made to specifically that item. And I would share that concern that we would need to adjust wording for foot no dam in order to create the triplex category. And we would need to modify the, we would need to modify the, I'm trying to think which section it is. Is it 3.3 point? Is it 3.3213? That's the triplex section. Where did I make my note? And part of it, frankly, is that it changes each time and for somebody who doesn't look at her computer every single day, because this is really only a part-time job, not a full-time job. I dislike seeing the surprises. Sorry. I'm trying to think what I'm, where I was going with that. Oh, I know what it was. It was, it's actually in the prelude under 3.321 where the suggestion was made, excuse me, 3.3210, where in fact, the suggestion was made by the planning staff that any development in the RGRVC and RN districts, any development with more than two, but not more than four dwelling units on a single parcel shall require site plan review. And any development with more than four dwelling units on a single parcel shall require a special permit. I would need to see that ratcheted down to with more than two, but not more than three would get site plan review and any development with more than three would go directly to special permit. And part of that is the fact that we have, we have the and-ands that are occurring because of the interpretation of compatible uses, complimentary uses, excuse me, that's the ZBA recommend. And if we can change footnote M, if we can, if we can ratchet this down to anything more than three dwelling units, goes to site, goes to special permit, then I finally become more, more comfortable with adding triplex to this. All right, because triplex shows up in so many different combinations across town. That would be the only way that I could ever even support it. The one thing I can support is I like the fact that we call an apartment and a townhouse willing as starting with the count of four units. And that makes sense. Yay, I'm supporting it. Andy. So in order to support the change for townhouses and apartments to four, you have to create a triplex section. I just said, if we create- Yeah, so to do that, those two go together, right? Because otherwise you don't have a three family at all in the bylaw. And the footnote M could easily be modified if this committee wants that recommendation. What it would be is splitting these votes, right? And making some votes with recommendations that say to recommend the triplex going back to that motion of possible motions or whatever, right? The one that talks about the triplex's type thing. I think it's the one on top of page two. Would also say, and modified by that, that thing I added to the end of everything and modified by, although it would be revision 12A now but and modified by adding two footnote M of the dimensional table, a reference to section 3.3213, I believe this is what it is, triplex's, right? And that would be just, the way footnote M is written, that's all you'd have to do is add that little one section into footnote M if that's a recommendation this committee would want, that one's easy. In terms of your other thing about special permit PEM for owner occupied duplexes. So here's the thing, I talk a lot, well, I think a lot about compromises and legislation where no one's happy, right? And they say this at the federal level, no one's happy or at the state level. If no one's happy, it's a good compromise, right? Especially with legislation. So look at what is allowed for an owner occupied duplex, the permitting pathway right now for an owner occupied duplex in the RG. It is site plan review. You can put in the RG, those, Chris put a thing up of, I don't know how many duplexes it was, it was like nine buildings on your sample thing, I think, right? I'd have to go back to Chris's memo where she picked out of almost two acre plot of land and drew some duplexes and all. Right now, that could be done by site plan review. If we don't change anything at all. And you know what, hold on, Jennifer, you know what? I'm good with that. I'm trying to get to yes for some of it, but I'm totally good within the RG and RVC. Duplexes at site plan review, no matter how many are on a parcel. But in an attempt to reach a compromise in trying to get that yes for the first one so that our currently exclusionary zoning policies treat that second unit on a property for a one building, new building duplex, exactly the same as now we treat ADUs and exactly the same as we treat single family homes. I'm willing to say when you get to that third building, we're gonna actually turn back the zoning. Although- Third building or third building or third dwelling unit? Third building, the fifth dwelling unit. Right now, the third dwelling unit gets a site plan review. The fifth dwelling unit gets a site plan review. The 18th dwelling unit gets a site plan review under our current zoning in the RVC and RG for an owner-occupied duplex. And so for me to try and get that yes for the first and second dwelling unit, I'm willing to, and this goes against everything I think about for zoning, make the zoning stricter to give you that fifth and up as a special permit. I'm willing- Because of what things have taught. I'm not willing to do it for third and up because you know what? Compromise. I'd rather have the current zoning of site plan review for the RG and RVC and not get my yes than to make the third building a special permit, the third unit a special permit. I would rather keep the current zoning than do that. And what I'm asking this committee to do is compromise. Is the current zoning of site plan review for the 18th dwelling unit on that parcel in the RG if they're all duplexes? I don't agree with the parcels in the RG, but- But Chris proposed one that had nearly 18 units on it. It was partially in the RN too. RN is also site, the RN is special permit right now, but the RVC and RG are that for the eighth, ninth, 10th you name it in the RG and RVC for that number. I'm good with the site plan review. If you want a special permit for those higher ones, I'm asking you to keep the site plan review for the third and fourth building, which is what our current zoning is and to change it to a yes for the first and second dwelling unit. That to me is what compromise looks like. And actually what I said was for the fourth building and fourth unit and up. You said the third unit and up. I meant the fourth. Cause right now it's the fifth unit, the third building. It really needs a proposal. Because you can- That's the second building though. So that's the second building. What I said at the beginning was that you could have a four family, you could have a four unit building on a site and you add one owner occupied duplex, you're now at six units on a site. And it needs to be a special permit if you hit the fourth building, the fourth dwelling unit on a site. And Chris has her hand up. Are you recognizing me? Yes, I am. Okay, so I just wanted to point out that the sketch that I made that showed 16 units on a property is the result of two things that town meeting did. One was to accept owner occupied duplexes by site plan review. So that's one thing that town meeting did. The other thing was actually something that the building commissioner did. The building commissioner now recognizes the ability to put more than one use category on a single parcel if those uses are considered to be complimentary. So when you put those two things together that allows up to 16 units on this particular parcel, but that was an unintended consequence. And what I wanted to do was correct that what I consider is a problem. And so that's why I made that sketch to point out, this is possible now, wouldn't we like to change that? So that's all I have to say, thank you. And excuse me, so just to finish that part. So that was your, that's why you had a recommendation of having only one additional duplex before it went to special permit. And I was suggesting because the same concept also applies to a triplex being added to a single family.  And that should also trigger special permit. So it does because any triplex under our proposal is a special permit, except now with the triplex, if you counted it as an apartment building in the RBC, it would be a site plan review because apartments in the RBC are site plan review. But if you have a single family home under our proposal and you want to put a triplex on that same parcel, the triplex is a special permit. So it's already there under our proposal. If you have a single family home and you want to put one duplex on, you'd need a site plan review because that would be the third, that would be the second and third dwelling unit. And the way this is written, it's not building. We talked to Chris about that, it's dwelling units. So the third dwelling unit is a site plan review. The fourth dwelling unit is a site plan review. So if you have a triplex already on the property and you want a duplex, you're actually into the fifth dwelling unit. So you're at special permit under our proposal. If you have two single family homes and you want a duplex, you're at the fourth dwelling unit, you're at site plan review, you're not at a yes with that duplex. If you have a single family home and you want to add one duplex, you're at site plan review, you're not at the yes because it would be three dwelling units on that property. That's what this proposal says for owner occupied. Now, if it's not owner occupied, if it's not owner occupied, you're at special permit completely. Because no matter whether it's the first duplex, the first building, the second unit on the property or above with a duplex, it's special permit, once you're in duplexes under non-owner occupied. But we're talking about owner occupied duplexes here. Deed restricted owner occupied duplexes where each building must be owner occupied because that's in the proposal. So that second building must also have an owner in one of those two units. If you put four duplex units on the property, which would be two buildings, each building must have an owner in the building, not just one of those buildings, both under this proposal, which happens to actually be different than the current bylaw. Under the current bylaw owner occupied, you could actually interpret it as only one of those buildings, only one of those four units needs an owner occupant, not two of those four, just one of those units. There's a lot of good about this proposal. And yes, we can pick it to death with all of these things, but if you're concerned about that under Chris's the ninth and 10th duplex needing a special permit, this proposal gets you there. Turning this proposal down and not recommending it to the council, that ninth and 10th duplex on that property is a site plan review. Pat had her hand up. No, I was just gonna say one of the, something that has been proposed by Valley CDC, which is Ball Lane, I think everybody here is in support of. And that is the creation of a series of owner occupied duplexes. And in this instance, both sides would be owner occupied, but there are restraints and that when an owner is living in the same space as a renter, be they student, be they firefighter, be they formerly homeless, there's restraint because you know, you have your landlord right there. So I'm really confused by the opposition around this particular issue. I think the opposition is that we have seen case after case come back to the ZVA saying, I bought it as an owner. I'm very happy, but my job is now in San Francisco and I have to go there. And this has to be, it has to be non-owner occupied. No, there is such a thing as deets restriction that would protect us. So. Christine, you've got your hand up. Yeah, the deed restriction is only good as long as the owner agrees to it. If the owner decides to take off the deed restriction and do something different with the property then the deed restriction can go away. I didn't know that.  Lots of compelling argument. I am not able to support what is currently on the page today. A, it's still, you know, it's inserts, new stuff, old stuff changes. If we can have a clean copy for our next discussion and I will also add wording that I suggest for the triple X so that that, and that has to do with footnote M because my feeling is that when we hit the third unit, anything over three units, we are now into the category of townhouse and apartment and that the fourth unit on any parcel, whether it's a townhouse apartment or a second duplex or part of a triple X is the same consideration of where we started and where you have recommended, where the sponsors have recommended that apartments and townhouses start at that dwelling unit number four. And dwelling unit number four has been recognized as the, in my mind, the bare minimum of where special permit should start. And that's why I am pushing really hard to have special permit kick in with the fourth unit because it would reflect the same as apartments. It would reflect the same as townhouses. And that was one of the considerations that we went into this with Jennifer. Yeah, I mean, also, which is getting us in a different place, but to consider is, for those of us who live in a totally different part of, it's a different Amherst than other, Amherst is very different in different parts of town, but the issue of bedrooms is really almost more important than units. So there's currently a proposal for a property on really what's just a single, it's not a particularly large lot.  So if it was, it's a triplex and then two dwellings, each of which have two units. So it's three, it's seven, it's seven units. But because of the bedroom configuration, I mean, if it was seven units with 14 bedrooms it would be very different than seven units with, it's not 36, it's, I can go through it. I think it's 74. 24, yeah, yeah, and 21 parking spaces being, you know. So that's the reality on the ground. And I would like to see, you know, in our zoning bylaw address that. Because I think bedrooms and number of occupants is as much, should be as much a consideration as actual number of units. I know we're not going to get into that conversation now, but that's the reality on the ground for a lot of people in different neighborhoods, not all neighborhoods. Mandy. So one building with five units or four units is much different than four single family homes. Yet I hear Pam, you conflating the two and saying on a parcel four single family homes is just as problematic as one building with four units. That's what I'm hearing. So I wanna, when you say anything with four units on a parcel is an apartment and needs apartment restrictions. Well, four single family homes is a lot different in use than a building with four units inside of it. And so I don't quite understand what you're getting at by saying no matter how, you know, once you get to four units, no matter how those four units are constructed on a property, you need special permit. Well, let me finish because in the BG right now, a townhouse up to 10 units is a site plan review. In the RVC, an apartment up to 24 units in one building is a site plan review, not four units, 24. You can build a 24 unit apartment building under site plan review right now in the RVC. That's what our zoning says. And so it's not always about the number of units per se. It's not always about how those units are constructed because four units to me in one building is a completely different type of building than four single family homes or even then two duplexes, they're just different. They're different uses, they're different looks, they're different everything. And so I don't think we should be equating two duplexes, two buildings, each of which is a duplex on a unit with needing the same type of permit automatically in a zone as an apartment because it's got four units and an apartment is four units or more because they're different. The size of the buildings are different. The types of sewer and utilities that are needed are different. We're looking at a two family or one family building just because there's two on a parcel doesn't mean it equates to an apartment complex. And so I don't quite understand where you're coming from from that and saying, well, once you're at four units you're in an apartment complex, even if it's two buildings. I just don't, I'm struggling with understanding that. I'm talking about the when town meeting passed the definition of an apartment or a townhouse. It started with anything with three units or more. For whatever reason, the complications, the amount of parking, the orientation on the site becomes more complicated after that third unit. That's what the modules looked at. When I think of the various combinations that are possible and the fact that because we are really only making market rate housing in Amherst today and that market rate housing is primarily going to four students at a minimum because they're all bringing in their goat. We all went to the seminar. They're all bringing in their ghost friends. We're talking lots and lots of people on small properties. Jennifer just gave a very good example of, I don't even know the size of that parcel but it is not an over-large parcel. If we were to implement footnote M, so the interesting thing is that two, four units are being built in addition to a triplex. Four units would have automatically been, I mean, it is going to the ZVA. It is going through special permit review which is the saving grace, right? But the complexity goes up after the third unit. That's why I am focusing on that. Whatever configuration, whether it's a story and a half or a two-story house, a townhouse is a story and a half or two-story house too. So we're really just talking about the number of dwelling, the number of occupants, the complexity of the site. So I need to just see how triplex plays out and how we protect the, the density on a parcel because that's what impacts everything. Mandy, and then we need to look at the time because it's now almost six o'clock. So that site at 98 Fearing is 0.85 acres, a 10th of an acre larger than my house. Just to give people more than a 10th of an acre larger than my lot in Amherst Woods. Just to give people an idea of what you're saying is not overly large. It's larger than my plot of land. Can I say something? I have to say, I'm sorry. Yeah, Jennifer. That's the point. You have a single family living, they want to have 24 people living on a space that's only one 10th bigger than where your family lives. The idea that we don't think that's enough and we need more is absurd. I mean, it's just not, that is a lot of people to be living on a lot that size and it's their narrow lots. So the houses around them are much closer to that property than when your neighbors are to you. It's just not okay to ask people that live in a much denser place than your neighborhood will ever be zoned for to accept greater density and that it's problematic if they won't. It's just, that's extremely, it seems inherently problematic. But I think you said it all by saying they want to have 24 different people and 21 space parking lot on a space that's not very much bigger than where your single family lives and where only single family live on your block and in your neighborhood. So we have some options. We could take a vote, we could make a motion right now so we could take a vote. I am feeling a split jury here and I don't know that, I'm happy to make a motion. I am personally not willing to go item by item and break it down into the pieces at this time. I need to see everything that I've been talking about in terms of triplexes and footnote M in place before I agree to anything and if I couldn't move forward on that, I would probably want to second the planning board's recommendation that we not recommend to Town Council. So we can either spend another hour going back and forth. It doesn't sound like we will get very far and I'm not sure what would break the stalemate. It will be a split vote. Mandy, thoughts? I actually wanted to respond to Jennifer. So the point of zoning and having different zones, is to pick different densities for different areas and I guess one thing I'm feeling from a lot of the comments made is that there's a resentment that part of our town is zoned low density and that that low density stays low density and that part of our town is zoned at a higher density and that it's being turned into a higher density because it's zoned that way. That's what zoning has done with our dimensional tables with the dimensional table that has a minimum lot size. The minimum lot size where I live by zone in Amherst Woods is 30,000 square feet, almost three quarters of an acre. My plot of land is barely the minimum zone. That's what the town by zoning has chosen and to continue to say, well, you don't want density in your area. Well, sure, I would say make a proposal to change the RO zone to higher density and see what goes. You know what? We tried that with this proposal and you know what the planning board said? You can't do that, that's too dense. But in the RG, the minimum lot size is 12,000 square feet, nearly a two thirds less than ours. To then say, well, it's already too dense is to ignore that's what this town has chosen as density. That's what they've done to say those 25 units is too dense. They meet the dimensional table that this town has chosen for the density for that area, for that lot size. You could split that 0.85 acre lot into three different lots and have a lot less density if the person chose to to subdivide it into three separate lots if it met the rest of the dimensional table requirements. Unfortunately, it probably wouldn't because as you say, it's long and narrow, right? And we also have minimum frontage requirements that it wouldn't meet if you tried to split it into three lots. But that's what zoning does. And to then say, when our master plan along with the zoning has said density in the downtown and village centers and outlying areas less dense and then to condemn the outlying areas for being less dense I just don't understand it because this is, you know that 24 units or it's not even 24 units. You're saying it's 24 beds. That seven units is below the density that our zoning by law allows in the area per acre. We're not trying to increase the density per acre. We haven't touched the dimensional table at all other than what you say with the triplex but the proposal you have has one triplex and the rest are duplexes. And I don't think Pat or I has said anything about the potential problem with adding triplexes into footnote M. That's a great thing you guys pointed out that maybe we hadn't seen. We haven't said you can't do that and then that wouldn't change the density allowed at all. I guess I just don't understand the hatred for the outlying areas for not being dense and then saying your single family home can't have anything else. Well, we proposed more stuff. And then everyone said don't. Thank you. You put even words in my mouth. I am not, I don't do not want to see where I'm not never I'm the one who said I think our current zoning is when we have the ADUs are allowed all over town. So we've allowed for more. I have never criticized your zoning but you have repeatedly said where I live should be denser. You advocated for lifting footnote M for a long time. And when I have, I've mentioned, I'm not asking for where I live to be less dense. I chose to live here. I don't want it to be more dense. And you have many times pushed back when I have said I don't want to see that in the RG we shouldn't have greater density. This is the first time this meeting that you haven't pushed back against that. I have never advocated changing the zoning anywhere in town or where you live. But when you say that single family housing that neighborhoods designed for single family housing are discriminatory. Well, I don't live in that kind of a neighborhood. And I've never said that, you know, I've never accused said that to anybody who lives there but you, so that's it. I don't like to have words put in my mouth. I'm not asking for my neighborhood to become less dense. I'm just saying I don't want to see it zoned for greater density. And you have stated in many meetings that you think that my neighborhood, that the RG neighborhood should be denser. The last one couple of meetings ago you said because it was downtown, we're not downtown. There's the general residence and there's limited business. Then there's the general business district. So, you know, I just, I have my concern is when someone who, when you say that, you know, again, that, you know, 24 units, but it's a whole 10th larger than yours. I'm saying it's dense enough. I just don't want greater density. I've never asked anybody to rezone to make the RG districts less dense. But I don't want to be told I'm adverse to change when, where I live has the change that these owning bylaws are proposing, but in greater density in those districts.  And we all understand that the ADUs could be built. I could build one in my little barn, historic barn out in back of my house, but we need to be able in the residential, general residential district to be able to say enough is enough at some point and that is no more than the nine or 10 units per acre that footnote M protects. And that's what it allows. It allows a tanbrook apartment. It allows Bruce Ridge apartment complex or hometown complex. It is, it's possible. It's possible in, on Main Street, but again, there are lots of streets in the RG that are our backgrounds. And they are, what we're saying is, special permit is not an onerous thing in dealing with density in close proximity to other people. So again, we have come to the end of another hour. And if I were to take a straw poll on how to proceed, it would probably be a split vote. If there is a suggestion that we continue conversation we have not, we will not be continuing the public hearing, but we would continue the conversation on this to our next meeting or to the next appropriate meeting, at which time we have some of the safeguards in place that include adding triplex two footnote M. Is there any other suggestions beyond that? I'm looking at Pat. He doesn't know it, but I am. Pat's muted. I'm looking back at you. Andy. Practical question. I know we're missing a fifth member. So if we vote an entire proposal today it's going to be a two-two lock. So it'll just be tied. But my practical question is, I've heard from both Pam and Jennifer that they don't want to split the proposal into multiple recommendations. But if we wait till next time and potentially move the meeting, so we have five members instead of four, although I don't know because Shalini's still not here to determine. And I know I have to make the meeting. I can't have it on the sixth. But if we were to split this into potential things and we haven't spent a lot of time talking about some of the other portions of the proposal. Are Pam and Jennifer up for potentially actually voting yes to recommend certain parts of this proposal, particularly the triplex with the additional footnote M, converted dwellings, subdividable dwellings, townhouses and portions of duplexes, I don't know. But my question is, is it worth waiting or should we just make the vote now and send a split vote to the council? Or might some parts get recommended if Pam and Jennifer are willing to vote yes to certain parts of it, even though they've said they don't want to split the motions at all. Jennifer. Pam, you had requested a little while ago in the meeting having everything written out if there's any changes been made. I mean, I just actually saw this today about an hour before the meeting, the motion sheet. Yeah. Yeah, so I would need a little more time. Yeah. I would feel very uncomfortable as it is to be able to accept one chunk at a time just because I think there are some that are linked, as I said before, and so I am not ready to chunk it into pieces yet. And I understand if we wait for Shalini, there's much greater likelihood that it would be a three-two vote in support of all of these changes. Sandy. I'll let Pat go first.  I was just gonna make a motion then, but I don't know what you're thinking, Pat. Go ahead, I have a feeling it's the same thing. I move that the town council, I move to recommend the town council adopt the proposed revisions as presented in the document titled Duplex and Town Home Proposed By-law Revision 12A-2023-06-21 as modified by adding to table three-dimensional table regulations footnote M, the phrase triplexes per end section 3.3213 after the reference to townhouses in footnote M. Second. Would you mind reading the motion once more so I make sure I get it down? I will do my best. I move to recommend the town council adopt the proposed revisions as presented in the document titled Duplex and Town Home Proposed By-law Revision 12A-2023-06-2023 and modified by revising table three-dimensional regulations footnote M to add the phrase triplex per ends three point section 3.3213 and per ends after the reference to townhouses. It should actually come before townhouses. Do you want it before, before the reference to townhouses? The number of the number comes. If you want the numbers in number order. So before townhouses, Kelly. My apologies. I got a little bit lost. Could you read just the part after by revising table? Yeah. By revising table three-dimensional regulations footnote M to add the phrase triplex per ends 3.321 section 3.3213 and per ends before the reference to townhouses. Excellent. Thank you. I got it. Thank you, Kelly. You are welcome. Is there a second? I already seconded it. Okay, I missed that. Now let's take a vote. Pat. Hi. Mandy. Hi. Amazon know because there are still other elements that are in the rest of the document that refer back to triplex and this element. And I'm not clear that they're all settled. So at this point, I have to say no. Jennifer. No, I would need to go through everything again. But I like the way that went because I think that's what is needed. And I'm guessing that this isn't the end of the conversation just because it's a stalled vote. If it were a three two vote in favor of it or if it were three two and not in favor of it, we would say that was our recommendation to town council with this one modification. But sadly, to spend more time on this, it looks like we need clean copies of this. Pat. Yeah, I'm not, go ahead, Jennifer. No, Pat first and then Jennifer. I don't see why it doesn't come to the council with the split vote of the four members who are present. I think that's honest and that's direct. And I'm not trying to manipulate the vote one way or the other, nor are you. Particularly since you know it would go against you. So having Chalene here doesn't change what this vote is really about. And we've made it and this recommendation should go to the council and the full council will deal with it. I think anything else is, you know, if we council passes it, great. If council doesn't pass it, great. But it sounds like you and other people have work to do on these issues that you'll carry on hopefully and do. Whether it passes or it doesn't pass. So I think we should move forward. Jennifer. Could we still get a copy of the most recent proposed changes? Like I feel, I really didn't understand what Pat said at the beginning. I misunderstood that. So that's where I don't totally, what you said last night about it in the aquifer, I heard it in the, so that's why I'd like to maybe see it in writing and I guess I think it's... So revision 12A is the most recent. The only change that would be made would be remove the comment that we're willing to remove it because it didn't seem to, that one section for removal didn't seem to go anywhere. So it's not proposed for removal anymore. I'd remove that comment and I'd remove all the highlights and there would be nothing else changed. The highlights were simply to highlight what changed between versions. That's the only thing, you know, so that was so you could track different versions. But I can produce a new revision that doesn't have those highlights, a new document that doesn't have the highlights, but that's the only difference from what is 12A in the packet today. Okay, thank you. I wouldn't mind making a motion and having it voted on to any final wording include the motion that was just, or the text that was just made and that anything that goes to town council as a final product has the words that we heard just recently. So I would make a motion that we vote on that right now to accept or not accept that clause that was changed. Is there a second? So to attempt to avoid a motion, I will create a new draft that says 13A that adds that language in. That's okay with everyone, even though it was a split vote. And I will keep that draft language as a separate highlight in a different color. And you also take the triplex and apart, no triplex in townhouse from the aquifer. It's not in the aquifer, that's the current draft. Right, so Pat's changed. So you were just saying you were going. No. Pat, can you just explain to me, because I'm sorry to be confused. Pat, would you said at the beginning of the planning board meeting last night? I don't remember specifically what I said. I'm not gonna repeat it now. It was clarified that it was about. Right, so I guess I'm just saying it's in the draft now. Yes, right here is the draft that says no. Yeah, no, no, I didn't understand if Pat was just proposing that to the planning board, but it's already in the draft. It's in the draft. Got it. Right here. That's why they're highlighting. That's why it's valuable, even if it's color coded and crazy to spend time on it and it was available. So. So. Yeah, I didn't go through the planning board packet before I came into the meeting. It's in this packet too. Yeah, no, but I just, I just missed. Well, you need to. No, I'm not blaming you. I'm just saying I misheard you, but you're right. You're right. I should have, I didn't realize it was already in the packet. Okay. So I will create that. I would say with next steps, it goes off to, as chair, I would send this off to GLL for clarity, consistency, actionability, and legal review. I think it's kind of had a legal review. I'm not sure, but it will go for full legal review, including determination is devoting quantum's and it will go to the council with the split tide vote on recommending or not recommending with one absent. That does not necessarily stop this committee, given that there's timings from discussing potentially further recommendations. If councilor, if committee members would like to discuss potentially further recommendations, I urge them to get in touch with me on whether to put it on future agendas. But, but with that vote on a recommendation or frankly a non recommendation, it's not, it's neither yes or no on the recommendation. I will consider most of this work done, unless I hear from any member that wants to add this to an agenda for a specific particular discussion. Chris has her hand up. Yeah, I know that. I was waiting for me. Sorry, you're still chairing. I mean, Christine. So I just wanted to confirm that the planning department has not discussed this draft with, or any draft of this proposal with KP law. We haven't sent it to them and we haven't discussed it with them. Thank you. So that'll be GOL's job. There's the chair and GOL thrilled to hear that. Mandy, before we turn over the meeting to up in the five minutes we have left, the earliest that this, given that it's going to GOL, given that it's probably gonna get KP law review, what is the timeframe for this to come to council? I can't answer that right now. I have to do my 90-day limits on how late things can go. I will create that timeline, send it off to the president and the GOL chair, and I can send it off to this committee too, so that they have an idea. There's time limits to vote at council. I haven't calculated them. I don't calculate that until the hearing is closed. And now that the hearing is closed and this planning board hearing is closed, those can be calculated. But I haven't done that yet.  Thank you. I'm turning over the meeting to Mandy Geohannity. Thank you. Seeing the time, we will not be doing residential bylaw review today. I apologize, John, if you've been here the whole time for that, that will be next meeting pretty much the whole time. General public comment, we're gonna open up general public comment right now to anyone to make a public comment on matters within the jurisdiction of CRC. Residents are welcome to express their views up to three minutes. If you would like to make a public comment right now, please raise your hand. Seeing no hands raised, public comment is now closed. With that, we have the minutes. Are there any requested changes to the June 8th, June 12th, or June 15th meeting minutes? I think they might not have all been in the packet, actually. In fact, none of them might have been in the packet. Jennifer, is that what you're saying? No, I did have, I think for the June 15th minutes, I did have a request for a little change I wanted to request. Okay, so I think if I read it correctly, it said that Pam had suggested that the two members of the two associate members of the ZBA, Sarah Marshall and David Sloveter be advanced to the two three year terms. And then I think later on it said that I suggested might've been Mr. Henry and Mr. Sloveter. But I did concur with Pam's recommendation. So I just wanted it there that my first choice was for the two associates to advance to full-time and then the new applicants to be associates. So I didn't want it to appear that I opposed the two current associates advancing to full-time. Okay, Pam, are you able to make that change or get the gist of that change for that change? Yeah. And that was in the June 15th minutes. Any other changes? Seeing none, I'm gonna make a motion to adopt the June 8th, 2023 meeting minutes as presented, the June 12th, 2023 special meeting minutes as presented and the June 15th, 2023 special meeting minutes as amended, is there a second? Second. Pam, Rooney seconds. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll vote. Jennifer. Yes. Pam. Yeah. Mandy's an iPad. That is four to zero unanimous with one absent. I don't have announcements. We were going to talk in next agenda preview about the next meeting. I cannot make the meeting scheduled for the sixth. We were hoping to have Shalini here to discuss whether we should move it or not. I don't have a, I can make the next week. So if we move it, I know I can make it on the 13th but I don't have a preference one way or the other. If people want to go forward with the sixth instead of the 13th, that's fine. I just did wanted to make sure there was a quorum for the sixth. If Pam doesn't want to run a meeting, we can move it to the 13th. Jennifer. So I'm sorry I had to miss the GOL meeting this week but I thought in GOL, they agreed we'd be nice to give staff July 4th. So I'd be happy to move it to the 13th for that reason. I could go with that. Yeah, I think it's unanimous. We'll move that meeting to July 13th. It will be on rental registration. John, I know John's already gone. It will be on rental registration. Pam and I were, I think the whole thing unless as I said, I hear from any member that wants to continue discussion on the zoning bylaws that has the neutral recommendation basically with a tide split vote to potentially change that recommendation but I'm going to forward that off. But if I hear, I will add some of that on but the goal is rental registration. Pam and I did receive from Paul today or yesterday late. I haven't looked at it. KP law review of the regular draft regulations. So that was not on today's agenda because I didn't expect to get that KP law today even if we got to stuff. So we'll have that to review next meeting along with the final revisions that were made based on a cleaner copy based on KP law is the review that we did last time of the KP law stuff for the bylaw and a better draft of the fees. Oh, I'm the meeting. Carol March is here. Hold on. We muted you, Pat. Sorry. Thank you. I have not looked at the KP law review either but can that be put in the next packet ASAP so people have some actual time to read it? Yeah, I will create that packet on SharePoint tomorrow. Sometime tomorrow I'll create it instead of tonight but you have it. I think Paul asked us whether we should send it to the whole council. He sent the initial review to the whole council so I'll have him just send this one out to the whole council too even if it's not in the packet. All the other documents are in today's packet other than that KP law review because I had that on the agenda. Chris, are you asking to get a copy of it too? No, I wanted to go back to the issue of what CRC recommended for planning board and zoning board of appeals. And the question is, is town council going to make appointments on Monday? The votes are on the agenda for Monday. Thank you. So I will make sure the regulation KP law review gets out somehow. I will try to create the full packet tomorrow. I don't think Athena will get it posted online though until sometime next week. We know the agenda so I can send the agenda out for the 13th and get it up. But it might take Athena a couple of days to actually post it on the website but I'll put it in SharePoint. And at this point, the meeting to discuss it is on the 13th of July. Yes. So that gives us some time to read it. Gives us a lot of time. Okay. Any other requests for the next agenda? Any items not anticipated, 48 hours in advance? Any other problems with me just adjourning the meeting? I thank Chris for staying and listening and for her report on the planning board's actions last night and through all of this. I thank Dave for being here. He was quiet the whole time but thank you for sitting and being here, Dave. We will see you, but we might not see Chris at the next meeting. She doesn't really do the rental range. It might be a little bit chilly, see Chris. But thank you. I'm sure you'll miss us. Take care everyone. Yep. Thank you. We're adjourned at 6.34. Thank Kelly.