We are good then, right? This one, they were here. I'm here cutting out. Hold on. Hold on a minute. Okay, Jack. Amherst media is in the house. Okay. You are good to go. All right. Welcome to the Amherst Planet Board meeting of September 14th, 2021. My name is Jack Jumsick and as a chair of the planning board, I'm calling this meeting to order at 631 p.m. This meeting is being recorded and is available via Amherst media live stream. Minutes are being taken pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021. This planning board meeting, including public hearings, will be conducted via remote means using the Zoom platform. The Zoom meeting link is available on the meeting agenda posted on the town websites calendar, listening for this meeting or go to the planning board webpage and click on the most recent agenda, which lists the Zoom link at the top of the page. No one person attends to this public will be permitted. However, every effort will be made to ensure the public can adequately access the meeting in real time via technological means. In the event we are unable to do so for reasons of economic hardship. And despite best efforts, we will post an audio or video recording, transcript or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible at the meeting after the meeting on the town of Amherst website. Board members, I will take a roll call when I call your name, unmute yourself, answer affirmally, and then please place yourselves back on mute. Maria Chow. Tom Long. Present. Andrew McDougall. Present. Doug Marshall. Present. Janet McGowan. Here. Johanna Newman. Here. And myself, of course. So board members, technical issues rise, we may need to pause temporarily to fix the problem, then continue the meeting. If discussion needs to pause, it will be noted in the minutes. Please use the raise hand function to ask a question or make a comment. I will see your raised hand and call on you to speak. After speaking, remember to remute yourself. Opportunity for public comment will be provided during this general public comment period and reserve comments regarding items that are not on tonight's agenda. Public comment may also be heard at other appropriate times during the meeting. Please be aware the board will not respond to comments during the general public comment period. Please indicate you wish to make a comment by clicking the raise hand button when public comment is solicited. If you have joined the Zoom meeting, use a telephone. Please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star nine on your telephone. When called on, please identify yourself by stating your full name and address of put yourself back into mute with finished speaking. Residents can express our views for up to three minutes and at the discretion of the planning board chair. If a speaker does not comply with these guidelines or exceeds their a lot of time, their participation will be disconnected from the meeting. So the first item is the August 18th, 2021 minutes. And I don't know if there's any discussion or any motions for approval amongst the board and I got to get my participants here. OK, Chris. Janet McGowan sent in some edits and Pam has them. They're in red on the document that Pam will show you there on page six. And I think page eight of the of the draft minutes. So I don't know if if Janet wants to tell you about those comments. They kind of speak for themselves. So just sort of extra detail. You know, the one Nate had said that. We were talking about like the frontage on the mixed use buildings, and he was saying that if the spaces were too shallow, restaurants need deeper spaces. So I just thought that was an interesting fact. And so I pretty much just put in like facts. And then I did go back and look at some of the comments I made. In the video. And so I just I can't really actually I'm having trouble seeing this because it's so small for you, but you can go up top and and. Yes, let me try that one. Yeah, go to view options and then zoom ratio. This is reader digest big now for me. I'm using one hundred and fifty percent. So so I just I just was adding some more detail about mixed use buildings. You know, the high costs of rental new buildings, you know, and how that wouldn't, you know, there's such a demand in a market that I didn't think the mix adding increasing mixed use would make it worse. And then the study, the spending on how much money goes out of our town to local towns. And I thought, you know, so I just put those things. I thought they were helpful facts. You know, someone maybe looking could find that useful later. So that's it. And Janet, just clarify, you you stated this, these things. Yeah, I went back and these are not like exacto quotes, but that is the gist of it. I went back and listened. So OK. All right. Anyone want to make a motion to approve the minutes with the changes proposed by Janet Tom? So moved. OK. We got a second. I'll second. OK, Janet, any further discussion on these minutes? I see none. So let's do a roll call for approval of the minutes as modified. Maria. Rove. Andrew. I. Doug. I. Tom. I. Janet. I. Johanna. I. And I am I as well. So that's seven zero to prove the minutes as modified. All right. Now we have opportunity for public comment. And I see a few folks. Present in. As attendees and Susanna, most perhaps that your name and address, please. And then we have Pam Rooney and then Janet Keller. Susanna. Susanna must spread 38 North Prospect Street in Amherst. I just wanted to make a comment about the apartments amendment. I was at the CRC meeting this afternoon and they had a long discussion and I think have left some notes for you all to think about tonight, but it's not on your agenda. So I hope I can make this comment. I just want to encourage you to be thinking about the downtown BL districts. There was a lot of discussion about the desirability of having retail and commercial space on the ground floor in the BG and how to prevent that area from going heavily into apartments. And I think the same concerns need to be considered with regard to those two downtown BL districts. For whatever reason, Maureen's analysis did not look at those two districts. It's probably because the modifications to the dimensional table for those districts are still under active discussion. But whatever ends up happening there, there's really now if the cap on apartments is lifted, there's no disincentive for that. Those two areas to become nothing but apartments. And I want you to be thinking about whether you want that to be what happens to that part of downtown. I think we still want to have mixed use there so that there are some spaces for smaller businesses and services that residents are going to need, particularly if they live downtown and don't have cars. Thank you. Thank you, Susana. Next is Pam Rooney. Is that your name and address, Pam? Hi, Pam. Pam Rooney, 42 Cottage Street. I would second what Miss Muspratt just said. Currently, those BLs are very active commercial. And I think lifting the cap of 24 units per building is an incentive for development of those of those two BLs, especially along the Kendrick Park and I'll call it the Hennian Block. My real comment tonight, though, is my disappointment with the packing and processing of the parking bylaw. This has gone back and forth several times. And when I kept checking the packet for tonight's meeting, what were you talking about? And it was the old parking bylaw version that was discussed early on before the CRC got its hands on it. And then before the planning staff put theirs there to it as well. So it feels like we are out of order in that. You aren't really seeing this proposed amendment until, you know, a day or an evening before your meeting. And certainly the public has not had to. I finally saw your additional document number one, which shows the version that you've been talking about for, for, I think, with this with the CRC. I would just ask that that that this process start over that get republicized, renoticed and that we start with the actual document that you are talking about in everyone's hands before the meeting. Begins and I and I understand that town council thinks that's just a technicality and just a change of a slight change of scope. I think the version that you're talking about tonight is very different and a different approach to things. So I'll just go lodge my complaint and listen to you talk about it anyway and probably get ignored. But that's what I really wanted to say today. Thank you. Thank you, Pam. We have Janet and then Dorothy Pam, Janet Keller and then Dorothy Pam. Janet, state your name and address, please. Janet. Sorry. Janet Keller, 120 Pulpit Hill Road. I would also like to speak to quickly to two things. The first is lifting the cap on the apartments and a concern that I have from that others have pointed out that in lifting those, it's going to be a huge incentive. And the village, the impact on the village centers, each of those has a very distinct character, the three village centers and the impacts would be different in each of them. But it would tend to have the give the incentive to the apartments and to the detriment of the small businesses there, which are essential to people's daily lives. And, you know, we've got some good businesses, small businesses in North Amherst. The second is I would like to add my voice and respectfully ask you that since we haven't been able to access the materials for the parking that you reschedule so that people can participate in a parking proposal that will have a profound effect on people's lives. Thank you. Thank you, Janet. Dorothy Pam, please. OK, Dorothy Pam, 229 Amity Street. I agree. I did I have looked and looked, did not see this meeting. And I'm coming from a day in which I didn't have a minute teaching all day, then CRC meeting and then answering two emails and showing up here. So I don't even know what how the parking thing has changed since the last time I tuned in. I do know that at CRC, we thought that we did not want to look at the cap on apartment building in the BG because we wanted to really encourage mixed use and commercial uses. There was some talk of apartment houses at the back of the places. But I began to worry because where are people going to put their cars? Right now, Lincoln Avenue, the people are just up in arms. They cannot leave their driveways. They're feeling unsafe. They're cars parked over lawns all over the place. Just way more cars than I think they were before covid. So UMass says no more parking places for rent. Students on waiting lists, people are panicking. So all those new people coming into rent in the new apartments don't have a place to park because it's in a no parking district. I just think we're heading towards a really bad situation. When the planning board first presented many of its plans for the downtown, it talked about some really good ideas of shared parking to reduce the impact and costs on some of the builders and parking in back. Convenient yet not messing up the streetscape. So I really like parking. We need parking. People have cars. The students seem to have, as I say, more than ever. So the idea that students didn't need cars has not been proved to be true. OK, they think they need them and they have brought them back with a vengeance. So I guess I would join with the other speakers to say that because of the confusion about what was posted and the unusual day and whatever, that I guess I hope that we can put off that you can that you can put off this discussion to another day. It's been I know we're all trying to work and a big rush, but sometimes it gets to be just too much, too soon, too fast. Thank you. All right, thank you, Dorothy. So. I mean, I have to admit, I was not able to grab the material that was emailed today. So and I'm going to rely on what is presented by the planning staff. But I have some sentiments that I that was a lot late breaking, you know, changes on the parking. Kristi, you want to speak to that? I want to apologize to the planning board for not including the latest version of the zoning amendment in your packets. It was an oversight by me. I on Friday, when we were putting the packet together, I did send out the latest version to you yesterday during the day. So you would have had, you know, twenty four hours to look at it. I think it's worthwhile to at least hear a presentation about it tonight.  I think in any event that it's probably likely that you're going to have to have one more meeting in September in addition to the twenty ninth. So I'm going to make a plea about that later on. But I'd like to encourage you to hear the presentation about the new parking amendment tonight. And then, as I said, you can decide what to do about it. But I do apologize for not having gotten the correct information into the packet. So my understanding is that we definitely would hear it, but would we be, you know, in the majority of continuing the deliberation on this because of the new material? Janet, I've already raised this concern. I think I was the one who I couldn't on Monday, I couldn't figure out what amendment we were looking at the packet and the notice of the meeting was talking about the original zoning amendment. And so, you know, late yesterday, we got the. August fifth, I can't remember the right dates, August twenty fourth version. And then sometime today, we have a new version that's dated September 14th. And so I would see some use in going through that.  And then maybe talking about, I think I have an amendment and then Doug has one. I also think that we didn't really notify the public in the way that we need to to say what we're discussing. And so I have two concerns like the notice wasn't proper. We didn't get they didn't have a chance to look at it. But I don't think we've actually had a look chance to look at things and digest them. I know most of us have jobs and, you know, this is legislative language and it has a lot of nuance to it. So I would I would not feel comfortable voting on this or even discussing it in depth. I was kind of, you know, I know I don't have a paid job, but I've spent hours this afternoon going over this. And it, you know, as an attorney, that is the beginning of my process. And I am very nervous about not looking at something a second time or are considering how the language works. I do appreciate Janet and Doug providing detailed comments. I certainly wasn't able to, you know, the schedule I had. And I just are Chris, I wanted to speak to the issue of what the public hearing notice says versus what ends up at the town council. What's on your agenda is verbatim with the public hearing notice. What the public hearing notice said for the July 21 public hearing. Rob, Maura, and I have spoken with Joel Bard, our town attorney from KP law. And he has assured us that the zoning amendments may change over time. They may continue to evolve until the town council actually takes its vote. And so the advertisement here is, you know, what we originally started out with, which was what the public hearing was held on. And we do acknowledge that the zoning amendment has changed, but I do not see any issue with not talking about it because the agenda doesn't exactly track what is currently being proposed. Again, Rob and I have spoken with the town council about this and we feel comfortable with the way things are proceeding. I understand that you may not want to vote on this tonight and that's perfectly reasonable, but the notice, I think, has been done improperly. Yeah, I mean, I'm definitely in agreement with you on that, Chris. Just a couple of other things that came up, or is the BL apartment bylaw thing that the CRC discussed, is that going to come up later in your CRC report? We'll report on that in the CRC report, yeah. Okay, thank you. And then one other fact-checking, is it true that the UMass parking is at maximum capacity? Can anybody confirm? Because I had no idea that it was in that situation. Chris. I've heard that from at least two sources, so I believe it's true. Okay, all right, interesting. So with regard to the next item, we'll go into the zoning amendment that we're going to be reviewing. It's a zoning bylaw Article 7, parking and access regulation discussion and vote on recommendation to town council to see if the town will vote to amend Article 7, parking and access regulation by amending Section 7.000 to separate the residential uses into two categories, one of which would require two parking places per dwelling unit, one family detached dwellings, comma, two family detached dwellings, and comma, townhouses and subdivided, subdividable converted dwellings. And one of which would require adequate parking for apartments, mixed use buildings and accessory dwelling units and to provide arteria for their permit granting authority to determine what would be considered adequate parking. So we have an updated presentation by Maureen. Hi, everyone. Hi. Yes. Thanks, Jack. Thanks for having me tonight. Before I get into the proposed language, I just wanted to say that, you know, the planning department is listening to members of the public, the planning board, the CRC, the town council, et cetera, about all these zoning amendment proposals. And I'm here to speak about the revised parking proposal. I did some deep dive research in parking.  It's not Minneapolis, Minnesota, where there are parking regulations that say you don't need to provide it for multiple uses. Those are cities that have, you know, rapid transit and the like. And so we have modified our proposal to still require that two parking spaces be provided for all dwelling units and that we want to provide an opportunity and flexibility for applicants if they so choose to request an alternative ratio. So firstly, or I'd like just to say now, well, you know, parking space requirements are generally based on the Institute of Transportation Engineering parking generation handbooks. And so parking space requirements.  And so it's not of a particular city or town or demographics. So those parking space requirements from the ITA, ITE handbook are based on unit size, bedroom counts, square footage, sometimes. And so those are sort of, you know, yeah, factors that that are considered other factors are sometimes demographic factors such as age and income of tenants. But the ITE handbook was always intended to be used in conjunction with information about local conditions. So, so generic standards, you know, sometimes don't grasp what are the local needs. Because again, the ITE handbook is sort of a generic snapshot of what our parking needs across the country and and probably around the world. I'm sure the ITE handbook is international. So one way to improve on these sort of generic parking requirements is to allow flexibility based on certain considerations, such as locational factors. And that's what this proposal really gets into. And I'll, I don't need to go through the list now. I will once we get to the actual proposal. But the intention of the proposed language is to handle parking space requirements for now is for all dwelling units.  So, you know, we can this this proposal does does look at them all and the rationale behind this proposed language under 7.40 is that it sets forth the parking space requirements and specific criteria required for considering parking space. Alternative ratio proposed in that same section. So we have that subsection gets into parking requirements for residential uses and then continues on to other uses. So we wanted to have that criteria specified there opposed to having to jump to the last subsection 7.91 to ask for a waiver request. You know, one thing about section 7.91 is that it doesn't provide a complete criteria for evaluation of parking modifications or waiver requests. And, you know, after speaking with multiple developers about this, it's often seen as deterrents and gamble like a variance request for potential developers. So, you know, sometimes here we, we see the sort of the same developers make their proposals to the ZBA, the planning board, but there are other developers that are regional or national or international. There are just actually just thumbing through different zoning bylaws in different regions and cities.  And to them, when they see that there needs to be this added waiver request or modification, it, that's sort of, I don't want to say it's a red flag, but it adds this sort of layer of unpredictable, unpredictable outcomes. And so the proposal, again, is in the same section that gets into parking space requirements, and it specifies the specific criteria that the board may, you know, want to consider and have the, and, and, and it gives guidance for the developer for that particular application to know, oh, okay, this is the criteria. This is what I need to provide evidence and submit to this board for their consideration. And it would be up to the permit granting authorities discretion to hear that evidence and make their, you know, their consideration and vote as a, as a board or at hand. And so with this as a framework. Let me jump to the, the proposal itself so one second. Can folks see this? Yes. Okay, so I will say the September 1 zoning bylaw language is very similar to this, which is dated September 14, and the planning board member had reached out with some comments. And so the planning department felt, oh, we can, we can tweak this a little more. And perhaps we should have just held off and and pitch and discuss them at tonight's meeting. But so the proposal I'll just get into what is new. The end of August. So, so, let's see here so in this first paragraph which is the beginning of section 7.0 which is about general requirements for parking. We wanted to get rid of this mention of this last line of the paragraph which is you know the, you know the permit granting. I don't hear you Maureen. Yeah, okay. We can't hear you Maureen. Oh, there you are. We didn't hear the last few sentences Maureen. That's okay. Can you hear me now. Yeah. Okay. All right, well, that's fine. So the last sentence of this paragraph gets into, you know, parking spaces shall be provided. In at least the following minimum amounts we actually wanted to modify that a little bit to get rid of where it says minimum, because the proposal as revised is to still require two parking spaces for each dwelling unit. And so that is saying that is both representing the minimum and the maximum requirement for parking spaces. But it continues to say, you know, that shall be provided unless the permit granting authority determines that an alternative ratio ensuring, ensuring adequate parking for the proposed use will be provided. The special, the permit granting authority shall approve a parking management plan and determine the adequate number number of off street parking spaces based on specific criteria. And that is listed here and I could go to a clean copy if that's easier. So that criteria is bedroom count. I'd flip it over to a clean. Okay, sure. No problem. For this, for this section. Good. So, so, whoops. So, okay. So again, two spaces required for each dwelling unit, but you know, if the applicant wants to propose alternative ratio. They can, if the board, you know, finds adequate. And so what I'm about to get into is the specific factors that the permit granting authority would require that the applicant submit as evidence for their consideration. So bedroom count. Traffic impact identified in the traffic reports. This was a reworked language today. Parking utilization is documented through surveys of public or private on or off street parking within 800 feet of the proposed use. Peak parking needs generated by onsite uses proximity to downtown public transit public parking availability of alternative modes of transportation, tenant lease restrictions relative to relative to parking and shared or leased parking. So this is not limited to this list. You know, if the permit granting authority has other criteria that they think is of interest, the permit granting authority has the discretion to add other factors. And so that would be part of that public hearing process. Mark, I'm sorry, Marine. Jack, I'm not sure why we left the corrected draft because that's just for this section here. I think I think it's easier in a way because there's been edits to the edits. And so and some of them are quite significant so I find that easier to see the changes than than to just look at it as text. I'm not alone in this because I, like, I think if I was a person who was trying to follow this as a person who is myself but also a member of the public it would be easier to see what's been changed since the last change, you know, which I guess not even sure they ever got so. But this is this is helpful to me. Okay, we can leave this one. That's fine. Yeah, so the, the all the three changes that were provided in this version of the proposal is the criteria so the first one traffic impact. That's the criteria. So, you know, the permit granting authority would want to know what what is the traffic happening to the adjacent streets or that, you know, block that within the vicinity of the proposed development and the product is the traffic report. But the analysis is looking at the traffic impact. And so that was a good suggestion by a planning board member to sort of clarify that. And then the other one was parking utilization as documented through surveys of public or private on or off street parking with 800 feet of the proposed use. And this is just sort of tinkering with the wording a little bit. And so right now if you're wondering, well, why 800 feet of so in the zoning bylaw current as is development may propose on site parking or provide parking with a within 800 feet of the proposed development. And so that's why that that language is here. And so, you know, a parking utilization study would be looking at again, would be going out. There would be a, you know, there would be a parking consultant that would go out in different times of, you know, the morning, midday at night, and probably for a couple days or dates that they would go out and record what is what is the real parking situation in real time. And seeing, you know, looking at, they probably would, they would be doing that within with 800 feet of that proposed use. And, and so that would be helpful in determining, are there actually available parking spaces, either on street or off street. And what would that study show, and what would that evidence show to help support, you know, some applicants proposal. The next revision is peak parking needs generated by on street uses. So that speaks to, you know, if are there multiple uses on a property, if there's let's just pretend there's a coffee, there's a mixed use building with a eye doctor on the first floor, and all residential above, you know, is the, you know, perhaps a study at looking at the different hours of needs of those two different uses, do they complement each other in a way that could, you know, provide or have a consideration of providing shared or least parking between the two uses. And so that would then trigger this section which is shared or at least parking as regulated in accordance with section 7.2. So, I don't know if you saw this before, but we just tweaked this saying in addition to the amount of parking spaces provided for each dwelling unit shell satisfy the provisions of section 10.38 and 11.24 as applicable. If we scroll down to waivers. And so this under 7.91, which is the specific section that currently permit granting authority would would be reviewing a parking reduction or modification request for the amount of parking spaces. Here we're saying, you know, if you want to, you want the board to consider an alternative ratio, you'll have to do that under 7.40s for dwelling units, but for the other uses specified in in these in these sections here listed, they would still have to go through this requirement. Largely because we're not looking at other uses and and that I think might be a whole other can of worms of of looking at, you know, industrial and office uses and sort of things like churches and those sorts of things so that would take considerable more time. And so I think I captured everything and scroll up. And again, this proposal clarifies that that that the parking space requirements. Now, and with this proposal, do not address the municipal parking district. Thank you, Marie. Yeah, Chris has her hand raised. Okay, Chris. I just wanted to reiterate what Maureen just said. This section that's. Can't hear you. Body. Anybody else getting that. No, I can't see anyone's video. Wow. Everyone's back. Everyone's back. Okay, I just wanted to reiterate what Maureen just said, which is that the first section that we're changing. This seven and four zeros deals with residential parking. And now 7.91 deals with everything else, everything that's not residential just to make that perfectly clear because I think that was unclear previously to me as well as others. So thank you. Okay. Can you say that one more time. Yeah. Yeah, this section that we're changing here that is highlighted that Maureen just went through that all has to do with residential parking. And that's why it includes language that talks about modifying the requirement. This section here section 7.91 with these numbers here that are highlighted those numbers all referred to non residential uses. Or uses that don't have dwelling units probably things like hotels and things like that, but they're not the dwelling unit residential types of uses. So I just wanted to make that clear because otherwise it seems like we have redundant language in here. That's all actually don't understand it still so you're saying that this part of the waiver doesn't apply to. Would you like me to recognize you. Yes, yes, thank you.  Thank you. Thank you. So you're saying that this section of the waiver will no longer apply to veterinary establishments day nurseries farm stands open lots office park professional research park light industrial districts. So you're pulling this waiver section away from those three sections that are in 7.1. Just to clarify. So good question. So the proposal is removing the waiver modification request under 7.91 for all dwelling units and putting it under 7.40. And so that is captured in within that section, the waiver and modification requirement or opportunity for other uses such as frat houses, religious and educational uses public assemblies, libraries, gyms, the list that that offices the list goes on. Those uses, which are under 7.001, the 7.002, the three and the four would still have to if that applicant would like to request a modification or waiver of the parking space requirement, they would still have to go under 7.1 7.91. So we're not removing any sort of opportunity from anyone to ask for either a waiver request for these different uses, or asking for alternative ratio of parking spaces for the dwelling units. Yeah, I'm having trouble kind of seeing how 7.00 is residential, just looking at 7.00. It's not very. So it's, it's just listed. So I'm looking at I'm sorry I'm looking at an old copy. All right. Okay, I'm going to close this copy I'm looking at. I have again I did not get the the last email I wasn't able to download it so I'm sorry.  I just wanted to say everything under 7.000 which is three zeros is dwelling units. Everything else is not dwelling units. Okay, so all we're dealing with tonight and changing is dwelling units. We're not changing all of the other things. Okay. Andrew and then Doug. Thanks. Thanks, Maureen. Yeah, quick question, which is just if, you know, I guess, do we have or will the permit granting authority have a good record of how many waivers have been issued. And I'm just thinking of a situation where you have like four or five houses in a row. You know, somebody applies for waiver they get it two or three years later someone else applies for waiver they get it, you know, two years after that and then all of a sudden you've got like five adjacent houses which all have permits to have parking on the street. Do we have a sense of how many cars actually could be in the street through these waivers and the system that's easy to reference or would be easy to reference. Yeah, good question Andrew. So currently, you know, through our rental permit registration requirement where you have if there's a rental for instance property they need they need to renew their rental permit on an annual basis. And that includes a parking plan. And so that records their parking spaces and luckily we're now going electronic. So that information actually can be exported it into Excel which then can be exported into GIS so you can, we can currently begin to do sort of data data analysis. So we currently have that. And we could. So that's that's real raw data that we're aware of now. Another thing just to point out is the permit the proposal says the permit granting authority shall approve a parking management plan. And I just wanted to point this out a little bit. So a parking management plan would be under this proposal a requirement for all parking regardless if they provide two parking spaces per dwelling unit or let's say 1.5 parking spaces or whatever the ratio is. And so this is very important. It's important for inspection services to to enforce and let me just sort of outline what does a parking management plan mean. It gets into it's approval of the permit becomes a condition. So that gives inspection services teeth to use if needed. It lays out the approved parking plan. The approved lease that gets into the parking and which can get into, you know, how many parking spaces are required or allowed for the for the unit. Are there any parking restrictions that would be spelled out in the lease. It also gets into what's the approved. How does that development designate those parking spaces is it with parking decals or parking signage. We would what would be a condition of that approval would be those specific like stock photo of a sticker or construction drawing of the parking sign. And that would have to be part of it. It also part of the approved parking management plan gets into a written narrative of specifying all this sorts of stuff how many parking spaces are provided for the property. How many are for the residential uses, or if it's a mixed use building, you know how many parking spaces are for the retail shop, the coffee shop. It gets into a whole host of different criterias. One largely being how, how are the developer enforcing these sort of these details. And it also gets into how is the developer going to to propose or encourage their residents to, you know, maybe consider carpooling or having a bike share located at their property. How are they're going to keep keep implement that in the future and that would be something for them to seek out. And the permit granting authority could make an additional condition saying you know what we want you to come back next year and maybe every five years. And that would show us how you are actually encouraging your residents to reduce the need for parking and reduce the traffic impact to the surrounding neighborhoods. And so there's a lot of information. And there's a lot of power that both the zoning board of appeals and planning board can do to provide safeguards for ensuring that there is that the applicant or the developer is doing what they they told in in the public hearing process and making conditions that will, you know, keep, keep, keep them at good faith. So quick fast follow jack. Yeah, sure. So I love hearing how thorough that is. I guess from a data perspective makes me a little nervous but you know in terms of how we capture I guess that the question I'm trying to get the answer for is like, we've heard some folks talk about specific streets with parking issues. Do we have an easy mechanism to say that you know there are 20 cars that can park off street on Lincoln Road right now like can can you get that type of answer quickly because as we think about moving forward if somebody else brings a new proposal. It would be really useful to understand what's currently in play that I think that would cause it to be a good question and you know, I think that, you know, the town can do a lot of stuff the town can do its own parking study town has done previous parking studies town probably will do future parking studies, but it's important to put it back on on the applicant to pay for a parking study. To do their work to show their evidence to prove that there is maybe enough off on street or off street parking spaces in the vicinity of that proposed development and maybe other other criteria listed here. And have them do the due diligence that's required. And you know if the permanent granting authority does not believe that developer they have the discretion under I think MGL chapter 53 G to do a peer review. And so what a peer review does is that you know the applicant would then say alright, we will give the town money. We will give the town money to pay for the peer review, and the town then hires a third party consultant to then review their work to prove or disprove that if their, if their evidence is correct. And so those are things that that the board, you know, either board can use that any, you know, any public hearing process. I agree that they should do it I guess it still comes back to do we do we have an inventory of what's there so they could do a study and say hey we only need four. But if their neighbor and the next neighbor has already accounted for for all those spaces then, even though they think they can do it, there's just not enough room for the books. So, anyhow, that that's where my head is on this now thanks for providing additional detail. Thank you, Andrew. Chris every hand up and then Doug and Janet. So I just wanted to remind the board that I think Andrew's question is really good. What Mr Roblesky. No, it wasn't Mr Roblesky, it was Amherst media. Amherst media provided documentation through their engineer about on street and off street parking, and they took photographs of this. You know at different times of the day and different times of the week, etc, to show that if they weren't able to meet their parking requirements on site, which they, they had asked for a waiver. There was adequate space offsite for parking so what I'm trying to say is that they provided, you know, empirical evidence that yes there were unused parking spaces along Gray Street that could be used in the event of the need for overflow parking. If you had a situation where all the parking spaces were already taken up by other users, then you wouldn't have been able to provide that information so I think that's the kind of information that the planning board or the zoning board of I'm going to ask for, you know, either have a parking consultant or, you know, an engineer or somebody go out and do a study to find out how are they on street parking spaces being used to find out if they're available for use by a particular applicant. Thank you Chris, Doug. So I had two things I was going to say but I'm going to start with the third one, which was as I sat here and listened to Maureen reel off the requirements that someone might have to do and associated with proving to the board or the whatever authority and how their parking plan is adequate and studies and leases and permits and all that stuff. I'm thinking about accessory dwelling units, and I'm thinking we are not making it user friendly for people like me to build an accessory dwelling unit and have a couple of extra or one or more cars, you know, at park on my yard. It sounds like it's onerous. And, you know, I think what we're describing is, is onerous enough that we're not, we're still going to be discouraging small operators from doing development in our town. I think it's onerous enough that we're still going to have the larger players who are better capitalized and want to do bigger projects where they can spread those costs over multiple units. So that was not on my mind to say but it certainly went through my head. So the second thing I wanted to ask is sort of picking up on something Janet said. I'm not sure I agree with Chris that the changes to 7.91 only affect residential because 7.9. 7.91 used to refer to 7.0. And now it has the four specific subsections, but now 7.005 7.01 and 7.02 are not mentioned in any place. There's really no, you know, 7.9 waivers doesn't seem to directly apply to that. And maybe I'm wrong. So Chris maybe, or Maureen you can, you can tell me how I'm, how I'm wrong. And then I guess the last thing I'll say is I have no qualms with the substance of this amendment, but I don't agree with the way it's being structured. You know, if you're going to talk about the waiver process for different types of uses, then you structure it according to the uses and as you go through each use you talk about the waiver process. You know, you set the requirements up front for each use. And then at the end you have a waiver section that talks about all the waivers. So we've got kind of two different things going on in terms of the structure of the of the bylaw. And, you know, it's not the way I would write it but but I don't disagree with the substance. Thanks. Thank you Doug. Maureen, did you want to respond in any way, or you can wait. So, I guess real real quick about the ADU.  And so the types of information that you know the permit granting authority would need for that is just going to be is going to be concentrated on just that you know that that's small request. So, you know, I don't feel that that that it would take a whole lot of information or time for them to provide and we probably would come up with some sort of formalized some sort of standardized form of information that they would need to submit and probably could be a page or two and and certainly they would still need to continue to submit their parking plan, but they would need to say, you know, we have this kind of these, you know, two spaces and for their tenants and here is the lease and these parking spaces will be maintained. And, and so it probably would be sort of focused on those sort of basic questions, as I think the density of residential use increases, sort of the level of detail and impact that it could have to the site and to the surrounding neighborhood increases and so I would, you know, I would recommend that a permit granting authority, you know, increase the sort of amount of evidence that would need to be submitted as the density does increase about the uses under let's see here 7.00. I kind of lost track of all the uses that you had mentioned of your confusion, but perhaps Chris caught a better grasp. You want me to repeat them. Yeah, that would be great. All right, so it looks to me like we've left out 7.005 7.01 and 7.02. So, okay, so I made a little note in my bylaw. Okay, so, so let's see here. So, so, okay, so 7.001 it is listed and that's for looks like it looks like sort of boarding rooms lodging. No, no, no, that was not one of them. 7.005. Oh, okay. Yeah, we'll start with that. Sure. You had. Okay, 7.005. Oh, okay. For all other uses. Oh, you're right. We could. Yep. No, thank you. 7.01. Yeah, I won't do this actually. Yeah. And then 7.02. So, I see where you're saying about five, one and two are listed. And can you see that on your screen. No, because what's on the screen has too many zeros. Maybe that's, is that the confusion? Isn't there two zeros and then I'm talking about 7.01. 7.01. 7.01. 7.02. Give me permission to help out with this. All right, Chris. Yeah, I mean, I'm still lost because I don't have a copy that everybody's looking at and looking at the zoning bylaw. So those aren't uses under 7.01 or 7.02. I believe except for the. So, right, you're they're not really uses under those two numbers but 7.005 is a category of uses, but what it says is adequate parking spaces to accommodate under normal conditions. It pretty much has a waiver built into it. The provide the information to the permit granting board. And then the permit granting board would decide whether they were providing adequate spaces or not. So there's really no opportunity to waiver modify anything. It's just, it is what it is. The second, the one 7.01 allows shared parking spaces to be provided within 800 feet in certain zoning districts. So that's not really something that would come under the provision to be waived. Previously it would have like right now under under the current bylaw that references 7.0. That that could be waived. Yes. Chris, can I help. Yes, please. So, yeah, Jack, thanks. So all of the these three sections that Doug has mentioned can still be waived under 7.9 for reasons of safety and site design. So the section we've been looking at and focused on a 7.91 having to do its parking space requirements. So we identified the sections that have a value for a parking count. 7.9 still exists and can can modify any section of 7. Okay, all right. Thanks for that explanation, Rob. Great. Chris, did you want to. No, I have no further comments. Janet. So, I, I think Doug's questions are a good segue. And I know, I know we're trying not to discuss it, but just to understand what the provisions are, or the revision, the revisions and provisions are saying. And so I wonder if it, if we can put my, if it's time to put my amendment up and I could, people could look at it and then I could explain what I was thinking with it. And then I don't know if we're going to, we're trying not to, we're trying to understand the change language and the amendments but not discuss them in terms of like I like it I don't like it or something like that. That's my understanding. So I wonder if it's a moment for the amendment.  Yeah, I don't think we said that we weren't going to discuss this. I said that the main goal of tonight was to present it and have you understand it that doesn't prevent you from discussing it if you want to discuss it so. Okay. So I thought, I thought, okay, I had the, I had the impression we were just going to look at the language, try to understand it and then discuss it at a next meeting and, you know, maybe vote on it. Is that to other members feel that way or did they understand that that way. I actually have a lot of comments I could make about this but to me it moves into, like, I like this about this I don't understand this about this, you know, are we, are we doing that for an amendment a lot of us haven't looked at for much time or but it doesn't seem super useful to me. But I thought maybe if we can present my amendment. I could say that that has been distributed so let's look at your amendment I think that's be appropriate.  It is up. I don't see why you can't discuss it even though not everybody has had an opportunity to really study it I think you can put off your vote but I think this is a good opportunity to discuss it because you're all here and meeting so I wouldn't hold yourselves back from discussing it just because some of you haven't had time to really look at it. I don't know if anybody has a different opinion but it seems like this is an opportunity to ask questions, discuss it, not vote, but really try to understand it and if you have questions ask your questions. I agree. I agree. So. Are you have that. Yeah, we can. I believe so Jack hold on I have a lot of things. Can you remind me how you sent it did it come as a PDF. My guess it was included in the previous discussion when we discussed this article previously, which may have been, or we were going to discuss it on September 1, but we didn't get to it. So it's, it could be in that packet. Pam, I think it's in, I think it's in the packet for tonight. I think I did include it in the packet for tonight. Okay, hold on it will just take me like minutes to find it hold on. It says from Janet McGowan nine slash nine slash 21. It starts off with existing language. Yeah page 39 in the packet. Hi guys home. Okay. We're getting there. This is the packet, the seven, the nine 14 packet. Here we are. Here we are. My mom and a fame. Sorry, I'm so sorry there's so many. Okay. So this is the waiver section that Doug was talking about 7.9. And the first section allows you to wave, you know, parking requirements regulations for compelling reasons of safety aesthetics or site design. And then 7.91 is the rest that's the only thing and so it says that the parking space required under 7.0. The parking space required when one or more of the following conditions are met. And so that would include all the condition, all the different circumstances and uses and residential uses and light industrial in section 7.0. And so the first subsection says peak parking needs generated by on site uses occur at different times so you know, your health club is only open at night or early in the morning, you know your lunch rush is at a different time. So 7.911 a significant number of employees tenants patrons, or other parking users the site are common to and shared by more than one use at the site so you know that circumstance. And then 7.912 talks about. So is is sorry Pam just to interrupt. Do you do you have the highlighted language one where it's in red. Keep going. Yeah, I think. Oh, thank you. Okay, good. There you go. And if you can get it all in one screen that'd be fantastic I think we're like people could just read the entire 7.912, like pull it up a little bit. That's it. So what I did with this section was, I put all, you know, to one of the issues I have with the other zoning amendments is that issue that you're talking about what are really zoning waivers in a different part and we already have a waiver section. So I tried to pull all that in into the waiver section. The basic, you know, basic gist was to avoid creating confusion and conflicts with on how the new language and 7.9 will work together. This, you know, 7.912 references a parking management plan and has specific requirements for that plan that are talking about reduction in vehicle use. And Maureen was just talking about a different parking management plan or more and I was completely confused about when I read the original marking parking management language and this I was like, are these two different plans so I'm like put it all in one spot. And so that's one of the reasons to do it. I did add criteria and new language. And the point to me was to reconfirm that the parking needs of the tenants must be met. They can be by a van pool, some kind of reduction in need, but always focusing on what the tenants need. You know, for example, Aspen Heights has a daily van that runs from 7am to 7pm weekdays, and it just continuously circles from Aspen Heights on route nine to town center to the campus center. And sometimes it also, it goes to target. And so, you know, on alternate trips and so that's an example of a apartment use, a large apartment building that has reduced the need for parking by providing its students for access to campus downtown and shopping. And so, and then I listed criteria that says, who has to provide, you know what, you know, the shared lease spaces, I've listed all the different criteria here. The factors to demonstrate the parking needs the tenants may include shared or lease parking, shared lease spaces, bedroom count, number of tenants, local parking studies, local studies of mass transit and basically use proximity to downtown employment medical services, food stores, you know, retail shopping and bus stops year round bus schedules and maps and available off street parking. And then I added, you know, different things in the parking management plan that would help make sure people could get to the places they needed to go. And I also added a contingency plan.  A contingency plan to make sure that, you know, you in some way in the future you can provide parking and so that's that's the language. So, my focus, I also like, you know, there's a difference between mass transit use or bicycle use and availability. You know, so one hand you might have everybody can get on a bicycle and go somewhere, but actually very few people do it and almost nobody does in the winter. And so that that's, that's the focus of my criteria what people are actually doing, not what we wish they were doing or they could be doing. So, that's a that's not not saying it's available but people are using it and, you know, the PVTA reports to, you know, the transportation department. And there is a bit of reduction, even before co it about four or 5% a year of use of the local buses, despite the fact that we have more students. There's a reduced use and so that's an interesting that's a fact that's important to know not that there's a bus there, but no one's getting on it, and they have a car instead. So it's just, it's just focusing on use. I did not include the lease restriction language because not providing a parking space doesn't address the parking needs the tenants. And it's sort of like, you know, the tenants will have cars that we've seen by photograph to photograph, and the least, having a lease restriction and saying well I have a lease restriction no one's going to need to park is really only pushing the parking burden somewhere else. And I just I just think it's sort of, I think that's a very big move.  So we're going to need four spaces, or is it really more important who's in the spaces or the age of this age of the tenants or they students. So like how do you apply how would the board apply that information saying, Okay, we have 10 three bedroom units. That means they need X spaces and like so how are they going to do that calculation. By making it flexible. It gives the board flexibility to consider all these different factors but the question is how does the board do that. Most places just sort of pick square footage unit count, you know what zoning district you're in and then give you a number. And so I just, I just wondered about that. I wondered about what factors actually in Amherst effect, effect parking need is the type of tenant the age the income, you know, undergraduate versus graduate family size, you know what I don't know. I really think we need to do parking studies before we make the changes so we know what our community needs are. It's important to give us time to see how the recent parking waivers have been work because six out of the six buildings that have gotten parking waivers only to have been built so I think that data would be help inform what the real criteria the important criteria is for Amherst. And I think that's it. I just wondered if we should add criteria about like rentals on our occupied students unrelated adults on things like that so that's my my thing but I do. You know I do feel like the amendments that are being proposed really conflict with this parking waiver, and all that information can go in here. So anybody reading the bylaws like okay, I'm required to two parking spaces per unit, and then but there's a waiver at the end and here's how the waiver works right now I think it's sort of a conflict of language and confusing. And certainly, it's been confusing to me. So that's a lot of information. And Chris or anyone from the town Rob want to respond any of Janet's points at this time. Okay, Maria. I just want to take a step back about. What was the spirit of this parking amendment and it was basically to not do a parking waiver we're trying to avoid having the four hour long meetings we're having before this board, this current board. And this is just saying literally the factors that marine listed, as far as deciding what was adequate parking. And so and that was because we're getting all these parking waivers coming to us for these mixed use projects. So the spirit of the, the sort of big push for this amendment was to not have a parking waiver hurdle but to actually embed in the zoning Bible requirement for now it's all residential instead of leaving out the one family to family townhouse dwellings. And just to say, Okay, if you want to do something with housing here is how we're going to judge whether you are providing adequate parking embedded in section 7.40 and put it all there. Because the planning board I don't know about the zoning board but the planning board was having. The mixed use projects come back to us for five meetings, four hour meetings each discussing a waiver and so I don't know why we're going back to that I thought the whole spirit of this push was to actually, you know, put in the zoning. So let's use the criteria that the planning board has been discussing and show the potential developers, landowners, what they need to provide if they want to provide less than the two parking spaces per dwelling unit. So here are the factors and marine listed all of them and I agree I think the substance is great. I did not come through the way Doug did as far as you know, 7.001 or 701 and, but I agree that the substance is there, and I understand the spirit of it. But I don't think the parking waiver was the spirit of the whole reason this amendment was studied I thought we're trying to move away from that so so I don't have any comments about what Janet presented but I just. I wonder if that is true what I'm saying or or has a diverse from that original sentiment and now it's back to. Maybe we want a waiver so. Yeah, thank you. Chris. I agree with what Maria said we're trying to get away from the waiver we're trying to give information upfront about what might be required for developer to justify the number of parking spaces that he's providing.  So that is, that is huge to have them know that they're going to need to do a parking study and provide the information, you know, first from the get go. Janet and then Maria. Um, you know, in terms of links of meetings, I think with Michi at the Southeast Commons, it took four or five times, mostly, you know, for a bunch of reasons a lot of times he didn't have the information we wanted and we had to come back. We did spend a long time talking about parking but it wasn't like 20 or 25 hours. I think, you know, adding more criteria addresses this to some extent. I actually do think this is really calls, you know, having each developer come in and do a parking study of local needs in 800, you know, foot area, and, you know, it. It's I don't think that's going to save time I actually think if we had more widespread studies of parking studies done of apartment complexes, you know, low income senior versus student versus, you know, regular families. You know, as a college base as a as boards to basically make the evaluation, you know, you have to bring two parking spaces per unit that's been working really well. Somebody wants a waiver. And we could look at the project and say yeah you could wave it, or let's do the Aspen Heights have a van pool that's also in the waiver. I don't, I don't know that going, you know, project by project, always doing separate studies and talking about it like what's more important bedroom count versus, you know, whatever is going to really slow things down. I do see the need for clarity but I think actually I'm trying to do is clarify in the context of the waiver the factors to be considered for a reduction in parking need. I think it's, you know, so, you know, I don't want to beat that point home but right now we have something at the front of the part the parking by law and something at the back and the language does not particularly agree for make that much sense together. Thank you, Maria. I forgot to add that another point, a big picture reason for the amendment was also because we thought that the two spaces per unit was in some instances not appropriate and that it should be less. It should be more but that that was another, it wasn't just to get rid of the parking waiver but also that we were, we wanted to know that two spaces per unit wasn't working for a lot of projects. And so, having the criteria prepares potential developers and property owners to know what to present and I like that statement that I think it was marine and said you know, the evidence needed changes per size of project in other words, you know an ad you are one family falling is not going to be looking to do a traffic impact reports but then obviously an apartment complex would mix this project would. So, I like the substance how it's upfront and saying you know here are the factors you need to provide if you want to provide 1.5 or one unit of parking space per unit. It doesn't look like a waiver it looks like it's like, here are your options, and I like that about that because one of the things was I personally didn't think the two spaces per unit was fair for the entire entirety of the town I felt like different neighborhoods different density areas needed to be studied and not be held to the same two units per year and. And I can't say what it is, it's different for every town is different for every street and every neighborhood, but that what's here the substance provides that sort of flexibility so. I don't honestly I don't know what I would change or improve I know that Doug had a lot of specific things obviously got picked up but um. Yeah, I kind of like the spirit of this because it's doing what we would hope which is provide flexibility, not make it seem like an onerous thing for developers to come here because like oh no I have to fly for parking waiver immediately and that's another hoop so. And the criteria you know maybe as time goes we can change it when we realize. There are other factors that we would like to see or some of these factors never get presented so again that kind of like what was been saying for all these article amendments, you know over time. Ideally, these are evolving and changing to how you know it works as far as the planning staff what they come across so. So yeah that my guess my long story short is that I forgot that another point of this amendment was that the two spaces per dwelling unit was something that was always a difficulty in the projects, at least for the planning board that was on I can't speak for the zoning board so. I agree Maria Tom. I was actually just my comments were almost identical to what Maria was just saying I was going to raise the fact that I think there were issues with the fact that certain sites made it virtually impossible to be developed with two parking spots per. unit and I think the same might even go for commercial in some places based on what we have but but I mean then the nature of it was to put the onus on the developer to give proof upfront as to what number of parking spots they should have and why. Rather than it be something that and again and the reason I think Janet yeah I do agree that we can do some studies now but I think there's also a lot of conditions that we haven't examined yet, and I think we want to put that burden on the. developer to say okay well here's this condition it's this wide it's you know fronting downtown or it's in a more residential area that we haven't really looked at in terms of scale before or size of property or access points so I think you know each one's going to be unique and I think we are upfront about asking the developer to show us that data. A we have that data we have all that that we can collect and using the future. But it's also something that we can ask of them really simply upfront without asking them to provide a waiver. You know what what is. The answer to me is I is this is this recent revelation that you mass parking is is maxed out because I always thought like. That was always underutilized versus maxed out and I just for me that's a game changer in terms of our parking situation in this town. I saw all the photos I know around my house, you know there's this, there's this, you know, eight cars and a driveway. It's kind of, it's just it's kind of. It's kind of crazy and I think, you know, sometimes we want to solve all our parking problems with this bylaw, and probably, you know that's not going to happen. But I did have one question for Rob. With regard to we got some comments. I try to get some information from the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, but with regard to the type of parking and and the surface. Is there a missed opportunity here to encourage like a low impact development. You know parking surfaces parking lots if they become that that large is this is something that the town, you know in terms of a sustainable sort of thing stormwater management. Is that an opportunity that we're missing here. So I think that's something we're definitely interested in but we are at this point not looking at the design standards of sections, article seven. And that's where we would be addressing that type of those types of issues. But yeah, we're, we're absolutely interested in that. Okay. All right. Janet. I want to address some of Tom's concerns. I don't, I think I might have muddied the waters by, you know, like my basic feeling is, we need more information before we make changes to the parking bylaw, but let's push that aside. And I think that that kind of information about what the developer needs to provide is in this language my my red language because it's it's listing the factors I just have actually added some factors and taken some out of the things and I think I'm putting it in a place that it's easy for people to see it's all in one spot. So it is, it is providing flexibility and kind of information of like hey this is what the board will be looking at. So in terms of like the complexity applying for a parking waiver it's like when you fill out your, it's like just saying, it is like a check and you're just seeking you know what waivers you're seeking you check parking, and then you would provide the information so it's not like a big, crazy administrative procedure or special permit so I think what I'm trying to do is just sort of clarify. Here's the rule, and then here's, you can you don't, you can get a waiver to the rule, and there's three or four reasons, you know it's not just 7.912 there's other earlier ones, they're all in one place, and they cover all parking. There's not like this kind of parking versus that so I'm trying to make it sort of simple, but also laying out the criteria that developers will know when to apply things, you know, and what what the board will be looking at. You know personally I'm not I'm a little confused about what the criteria means and what the studies would show what the impacts would be I'm not sure the board. As they apply these will have any more clarity than what one of the chair said it had 462 Main Street we're basically guessing here, you know and stuff so but part of the clarity we're going to get is when the four buildings are built, which have reduced you know southeast street Commons was what less than one parking space per unit. How did that work out and we'll be able to know and look at that. We're not there yet, but I'm trying to do is keep the bylaws sort of coherent and have the sections kind of work together and not against each other for in a confusing way, and I'm hoping that I'm incorporating those criteria and concerns and helping developers see you know the path forward. Yeah, Tom. Hey Dan, I'm actually against your language I think it's the fact that the default is still two parking spaces per unit, which is something that over the years we've prior to myself being on this. You know from what I've gathered and also from recent projects to is not the answer. So it doesn't really work in small conditions and it doesn't really work in urban downtown conditions and it doesn't work in backyard lots right so to is just not working so let's actually go to a criteria. It's going to fit, you know so we're not saying do this or get a waiver we're just saying the rule is this because two doesn't work no matter how you cut it. So I think it's just simplifies the process because it's not an either or. I looked at other towns like Northampton and you know Summerville, you know which I still have a leg in.  They do pick a number, and it could be based on square footage, and they pick a number and then they tell you how many spaces, you know, you required for your square foot. So today we're trying to have the everything, and then you know most places literally have a number tied to some factor, and probably have a waiver requirement right and so, you know, we pick two spaces per unit that maybe the wrong number used to be 1.5. That's two, and you know people living next to a student house would say it should be four per unit right. And so that's information that we could look at and gather and say okay, have we picked the right number have we picked the right factor. We haven't done that work, but most communities don't say, you know, here's a here's a smaller board of factors. Tell us what would you like to build and we'll see how it goes. I haven't seen that flexibility. It's a collection right so we can't make those decisions or predictions about the future without that collection and so the process is trying to do that. Yeah, and I think you know I think most communities, they, you know they have been revising them but it's based on data, but they do pick a number and they tie it to some factor. You know, unit square footage, number of beds, you know the location in the downtown core versus the outer core. It's, it, they can be quite extensive but they're picking a number and sticking with it most of times and it gives developers clarity. Yeah, I'm wondering like if we're kind of pulling away from prescribed numbers and then is this like a form based approach to, to our parking solution, which again, I'm intrigued by that concept but that the form base I always look to Maria for. What, you know, is this analogous to what a, you know, form based sort of, you know, architectural sort of design standard would be. Is it kind of embedded in this approach that we're trying to take. Maria then Maureen. Maureen should talk, she's the expert. Okay, yeah she is. So yes, actually this is, this is the planning department's proposal is based on principles, such as form based code, Congress for new urbanism, as well as many other smart growth toolkits out there. So I actually turned to MAPC, the regional planning agency for the Boston area, which got into a lot of the concepts that I used as the framework for this revised proposal. And a lot of different states sort of toolkits for looking at parking requirements, and they all have a very common thread is thinking about providing it, I think it's a new it's going to be a new term, providing flexible parking requirements. And when you are permit granting authorities are thinking about that or considering. What is that that what is that that sweet spot what is that number for development. It's site specific, it's neighbor specific. It's not static. It's not based on some parking study that was done three years ago. It's based on real live data that's in real time. And this is where the real common theme is, is that they put in considerations that are that are specific to locational factors, and sometimes democrat demographic, demographic factors. And so I went through the bulleted list in our proposed revision one by one. And they're all our locational factors, looking at, you know, access to public transit, the proximity and connectivity to downtown and public transit. And looking at parking studies to see, you know, what is what is in real time, what is the parking reality on private lots on public lots on streets parking spaces within the vicinity of that development.  That parking study is going to capture that information in real time. And the one kind of if you actually want to zoom out even more if you want to zoom out slightly. You could think about these individual developments that would have a parking study study required and and maybe a traffic impact report is that it's giving you a glimpse of what is, you know, what is what is the conditions and boards can reference it and the in the planning department, the town can reference it and sort of piece together what is what is the situation that would be something outside of the public hearing process, but it's something that I think is valuable information. And I do believe that, you know, in addition to, you know, public parking studies and traffic impact reports that would be part of a public hearing process. You know, I think that it is, you know, a point well taken the town should should continue doing parking studies in the downtown and village centers and wherever, you know, is deemed appropriate for our own, you know, data and an analysis. But these requests would be would be specific to that to that development, and would be timely to that development, and something that you know another condition that board could put on is to revisit the parking needs. And Janet did touch upon something that I liked, which I forgot what you what you called it, but but what I would prefer to it is shadow parking I can't recall if I've mentioned it in this forum or if in just CRC meetings. But shadow parking or another term for is called landscape reserves, where, you know, the permit granting authority could say, Oh, we'll grant you that reduced amount of parking. But you know, let's do a safe to fail method. Let's still require you to provide, you know, this amount of parking spaces that you don't need to develop. And you'll have to make that sort of a grassy area or maybe a gravel area, maybe it's ground cover. And in the event for the entire life of that development. If we feel as a board or inspection services finds out that there's actually a parking issue. The board would say you will have to go back to the planning board or you'll have to go back to the ZBA and revisit this and, you know, based on that meeting and in the conversations, you know, the board could say you know what actually that shadow parking, we want you to build it you're going to build that parking lot because the parking need is has changed and we need you to do that. And so that's something that, you know, currently you could do that as is right now with your discretionary power. So, I just wanted to say that. Very good thank you marine those excellent Maria then Janet. I don't think I could have said any better but I actually learned quite a bit from what marine just said and I think that's great that using smart growth sort of the latest studies and the latest sort of ways to tackle this really complicated problem and I think exactly that it needs to be parcel by parcel I think a blanket statement, especially for parking just wasn't working and as far as the shadow and all these things I think like I was saying, I think this viral could definitely evolve and grow and change as we see needs. You know, show up more and more in certain neighborhoods or streets, but I think it's a good start and yeah thanks for that marine that was really great really educational. Janet. I have a question about, you know, the parking study. So, when I was thinking about the parking study I was going to, I was focusing on use. And so, not just like how many cars are, you know, in the neighborhood but how many people are in the neighborhood and so if I was doing my 800 square foot area, which, you know, so some of it will be residential homes and might be families and might be single people and might be group home, you know, unrelated individuals. And so is that part of the survey, you know, like there's a there's a sixplex on Main Street, you know, there's six units there's 12 cars in the parking lot, it will you will be studying like how many people there are and how many cars they are, or just when you're starting to look at types of people we're seeing that students have more cars than most families or per person I don't think that I don't think you could say, you know, you can do the numbers of how many cars are in Amherst if you could find that information but I'm just wondering, are you also going house to house saying this house has four cars and two units, or this house has, you know, four people living there and four cars this this house has three people in one car is that part of the data collection. So, you know, as I mentioned before about the rental permit process. You know, part of the data collection for that for the annual renewal of the rental permit gets into how many tenants and how many units and how many parking spaces are provided. So, you know, that's certainly something attainable to provide if that's, you know, of interest of the board that, you know, that permit granting authority that would want that part of the study. And so again, that's part of the dialogue between the permit granting authority and that developer is what what do you, you know, we can, we can provide you general guidance tonight about what is part of a parking study, but you know, you could provide specific, you know, request of that developer to get into that nitty gritty. And you could do that today. So not with even the proposal, you could, if you are proposing, you know, requiring a parking study of a developer, you could make those requests to the developer. All right. Any other comments because we do have clarification and I, you know, we certainly can. We now know that we can, you know, accept public comment on these bylaws during this during the public hearing regarding zoning bylaw, as we're deliberating. So if there's any objection, I'd like to see if there's some public comment out there that we could listen to. All right. All right, so the public attendees are seven. If anyone would like to provide public comment on this. I see Pam Rooney. Pam, I can't hear anyone. Hi, Pam Rooney. I was waiting for my unmute blue button. Thank you. I would support starting with the premise of two parking spaces per dwelling unit. And then with your ability to modify that given the various circumstances, to me that erased all of the confusion that was, that was, you know, why, why were we differentiating between apartments versus duplex versus townhouses versus, and I think having that basis of two, a starting point of two per dwelling unit is, it's sort of clean, and you better, you better be sure that if, if they don't want to build that much they will, they will let you know, but starting at that point makes sense to me. Thank you. Thank you. Dorothy pan please. Dorothy. Hi. I agree with that I do. We have to know that people things change, buildings change, and you have to be prepared, which is why what Janet talked about shadow parking, which is definitely required at the 132 North Hampton project. The ability to expand if needed. That would relate to the question about the ad use. Yes, you might have somebody who is in your, your backyard unit, who only who needs no parking or need has only one car. But you have to have a plan for the future because someone else in the future could be a couple with two cars because they have to go to two different jobs and public transportation would take two and a half hours each way, as opposed to 20 minutes by car. So that means you don't pave over everything for the for the parking, but that you are prepared to deal with things as they come up. I think we have to not just think about inconvenience for builders we have to think about convenience for people who are going to come and live in these apartments we want people to want to live downtown. We want them to be successful, and to be able to do what they need to do. So we have to think about their needs, as well as the needs of developers so I think there's an equitable way to do it. I think it's important to be evidence based. Okay, and not, as Janet said, talk about what people do, not what you wish they do. And of course people's behavior can change over time, our public transportation can improve over time. There are other things and better ways of moving people around, besides just private cars, but right now we're dealing with how where people are now. And when in terms of Jack's question about the UMass parking when this was brought up at a meeting town council I think yesterday. Somebody Googled it. Okay Steve Schreiber Googled it, and he confirmed the letters we'd received. Yes, it is all sold out.  So it is a problem. And I think that Jennifer Taub took a lot of pictures of crazy parking all over Lincoln Avenue today, where they're just parking in every spot they can find. And Steve Schreiber also said cars were parked in bizarre places on campus, places where he didn't used to see cars. So we have a problem. And we increase our density increase our population downtown we have to increase parking in many different ways. But I like it to be unobtrusive I agree with some of the plans that Christine talked about much earlier in our zoning process of parking in the back, but having parking and shared parking wherever possible. So that's my thoughts. Thank you, Dorothy. Okay, thank you. So, you know, it's a 23. I like to have this meeting include and I'm wondering if we're okay with the continuance and, and do we really need another meeting or if we just get a fresh document that we all can see. Really, can we not fit it into the next meeting, Chris, or try to anyway. Yeah, so we have two things that we need to deal with one is actually we might have three but anyway, the one thing is this this parking issue. Another thing is the mixed use building standards. The housing department has come up with a modification to allow more flexibility as to where the non residential use can be and we wanted to present it to you and have you decide whether you wanted to recommend it to town council or not. And then the other thing is that the apartments. Underwent some change of the apartment zoning amendment underwent some change at CRC and we wanted to present that to you and have you have an opportunity to vote on that so I was going to propose that you have an extra meeting. It's Tuesday, which would be the 21st. I know Janet said that she couldn't be available for a planning board meeting on the 22nd, but I wondered what the availability for the 21st would be, and it would involve further discussion about this parking issue and voting on whether you wanted to recommend the parking zoning amendment or not. So if you didn't want to get to mixed use buildings tonight you could deal with that then, as well as dealing with the change that the CRC has put into the apartments bylaw. So, are you willing to meet on the 21st, and the reason that I'm pushing this is because there, the clock is ticking, and the planning board held for public hearings, along with CRC on July 21. There was mixed use buildings, apartments, parking and accessory dwelling units. The Town Council has 90 days after the close of the public hearing to vote on these zoning amendments, otherwise you have to go back and have another public hearing. So, in order to have the Town Council be able to vote 90 days, they would have to vote by October 18. So if we want to have a first reading and a second reading, they would need to have their first reading on October 4, and then their second reading on October 18. So if we have, if we want to have a chance of getting these amendments to Town Council and have them vote on them this fall without having to go back to have another public hearing. So, kind of, there's a need or sort of a pressure to complete this work before the end of September. And then we need to write the planning board reports I've written one of them and I've sent it out to you already on mixed use buildings but that one's not quite done. I want to consider this, this tweak that we've made to the mixed use building so anyway, I would like you to be able to meet on the 21st or possibly. I don't want to have you meet twice in one week but you couldn't meet on the 28th, you already have a meeting on the 29th but it's got a lot of material in it and I'm afraid that there wouldn't be enough time to really handle zoning bylaws because you wouldn't have the bandwidth for it on that night. So, are there any takers for the 21st. I know I'm okay with that show of hands. Tom, you're if you, Johanna, if he my husband has a board meeting that night for Emerson baseball from seven to eight and Andrews if he I have a conflict and I would have to decide which organization I want to support. Okay. Yeah, I mean I I'm not going to discount anyone's effort. These past six months nine months year we've been meeting like crazy and doing a lot.  And sort of, you know, it's just, it's like we normally we do a normal the process that I'm used to is having this planning board work, the planning department on different versions and raise questions, the zoning subcommittee doing all that work. We've received these amendments as kind of born documents, and had a public hearing really quickly and now we're doing all that footwork and I think we're doing good work on these amendments. And now now we're on a time crunch and I wonder is, you know, is it, you know, is there a priority to the parking amendment could we just keep working on it maybe in a smaller group and kind of keep tweaking it because it, you know, we've had some really major changes and I don't think it's close. Is that a problem really not to bring that to town council by mid October could we do another public hearing that kind of thing it's like. But I think, you know, in a way, we've been given a huge thing and we've worked really hard towards it. And I think it's sort of unachievable to do it all by wrap it up by October 15. I actually was going to ask, like, how would I get specific comments on language to the board in a way that is, you know, doesn't we don't have to sit as seven people and listen to it but read it maybe before a meeting. There's more work to be done on the parking amendment. And I think the mixed use we've already voted on, and then George Ryan and Evan Ross had this idea, this different idea and so I feel like we keep on getting all this stuff and we're, you know, I don't know how many times we can meet in a month or how many months we can keep this up and I'm not even quite sure why we're on this push the town council could vote on things in November or December, or January, you know, there's no. There's no urgency with like five amendments. Is there some priority list that we could focus on just a few. Well, I think we, you have four amendments. I'm sorry for budding in. I should go ahead.  You have four amendments before you apartments mixed use buildings parking and accessory dwelling units you've done a lot of work on all four of them. I would be disappointed to see those fall off the wagon, but I suppose if one of them needed to fall off. It could be parking. That's probably the least. The least crucial, but I would certainly urge you to try to get as many of them done as possible. So any chance you could meet on Monday the 20th of September. Everybody look at their schedule. I think I'd rather meet at the end of the month myself. I just, I'm sort of exhausted by this weekly pace. And I feel like I'm not getting stuff done. The 20th would work for me. Same. 20th is good for me show hands for the 20th. Where's my hand. There it is. Good, good, good. Iffy for Andrew. And where did Janet go. Janet is here, but she might be checking her calendar. I have designed review board at five to 630. And there's quite a few things on that agenda. So my, I don't know what that's going to happen with that. You might know more than I would, but yeah, we do. I was about to chime in say, oh, we have a DRB meeting on the 20th. We could start later. We could start later. Yeah, that way. And we do end the DRB meetings at 630 and it would be nice to have a 30 minutes. So seven o'clock option. Janet, how do you. Tom is fine with it. I just don't want to keep meeting every week and going faster and faster. Like I feel like I'm not, you know, I mean, we've done this for months and I feel like we're skimming through things. I think we ran through apartments. You know, without even some build out diagrams or any owners, you know, we didn't look at ownership or consolidation or impact.  I think we need some time to reflect and work on it. You know, this parking amendment, every time we see it has major changes in it and what's it going to look like on Monday, I don't know, but I haven't. There are some housekeeping things that we can, like Chris said, I mean the parking maybe, maybe not, but the other stuff seems, you know, low hanging fruit for us to approve. So please make a recommendation. So Monday would be covering what then mixed use and excuse and apartments and then parking if you could get to it. And there've been changes to the apartments that we don't know about. There's one change. And the one change I'll report on it now if it's okay with Jack. The idea is to keep the cap on in the BG district. So in other words, you wouldn't be able to build an apartment building with more than 24 minutes in the BG and that is kind of a holding pattern. Because we otherwise weren't able to really come up with a good solution for how to keep apartment buildings from overtaking the BG. So that was the change in apartments. The change in mixed use buildings, as I said before has to do with giving some flexibility as to where the 40% of the ground floor area of a mixed use building could occur, could it occur on another floor. Could you have part of the 40% on the ground floor and have part of the 40% elsewhere in the building. So that's what that's about. And then you have, you already approved ADUs. So I don't think we have to go back to that. And then you have this parking issue. So it'll be those three things mixed use. So Doug, please. Yeah, I guess, I guess I want to just reflect that at the beginning of this meeting, we had some public comment and comment from people on the board and staff that, you know, maybe we wanted to delay the vote on the parking to a later meeting. But it seems like the way the conversation went, you know, we kind of ran out of things to say, you know, around quarter after eight. You know, Janet had put an amendment out. You know, I heard a couple of people say they, they kind of liked what the planning department had proposed. I guess I'm just kind of wondering how much more do we really have to say about it. You know, if we came, you know, either first, at some point in the next meeting had a fairly quick vote on on Janet's amendment, and then went on into a vote. Because it just felt like we kind of had run out of things to say and we got very few public comment. So I'm not sure how time consuming it would be to finish this one off. Yeah, for me, it's just a clerical thing in terms of getting the information. You know, just looking at it on the screen, it's not. So, but I think if, if we get, you know, copies and that and a fresh PDF that, you know, it make, you know, huge difference to me but I do agree dog, Janet. So the comments were that people hadn't seen it, and they wanted to see it and participate. And the fact that people didn't have detailed comments and something that was shown on the screen doesn't surprise me. I do have detailed comments that would go line by line, not every line. And I, before I was just asking like how would I get those, you know, like if I got this recent, the September fourth draft as a word document, I could do the track changes or I could do the comments on the side, and get that to the planning board members and the planning staff so they could see that so I did, I do have much more I thought we weren't going to go into super deep stuff. And so I, there is more to say that on this, you know, this seems so rough to me, I don't know, like, it's not a priority. It's there's not a big push on it.  So I don't know if we want to just rush through it and, you know, do it do that, I guess we could do that but I do have more to say and it's sort of detailed. Okay, yeah I mean some at some point we just have to go with the information we have I mean it's I understand. I understand your point Janet but Chris you have your hand up. Yeah I wanted to say that Janet could send her comments to me, and we could forward them to the rest of the planning board members in advance of the meeting on the 20th. So that's a way of Janet getting her comments into the record, and then you could choose to discuss them or not discuss them on the 20th. Well, I would think like similar to the comments you got from Doug the ones you like. You'll recommend, you know, if you like any of them, but so are we Doug. I guess I will say from personal experience that when I sent my email into the planning board last night with some comments on the, the bylaw proposal and you know I was pretty surprised that they took them to heart and thought about them today and we're able within 24 hours to come back with some adjustments. I didn't expect that. And, you know I simply thought they would be distributed to the board for discussion tonight so you know that that approach is available to all of us. Yeah. We want to give them, give them more than 24 hours. That's amazing. So are we meeting on Monday at seven. Let's do a show of hands. I'm good. Good good Tom. Good. John is good. Andrew's a maybe and Janet. No. I can try but I just don't feel like we can prepare or do a good job. I'm just. They don't care. They don't care. How'd that happen. Okay, so you know I hate not to have all of us there. So we're meet, you know the proposals and meet the 20th and then the next time would be was it. 29th. 29th. Okay. Well personally. I'm at a little bit of a. I'm not sure where to go from here. If anyone has thoughts. We power through on this on Monday or not. Okay. What about the 28th? That gives some time. I feel like I'd be better prepared. You want to meet two nights in a row, the 28th and the 29th. As long as they're not four hours. That would be good for me. So. Any thoughts on the 28th and 29th. That's tough. Works for me. I could do the 20th or I could do the 28th. Okay. So we're meeting as much, you know, this fall. And we're just kind of like. Doing our good work, but show of hands for the 28th. I'm free. Andrew. Andrew. I just, I've got, I've got to get other schedules and look to see what, what I can and can't do. I just, I can't react this quickly. I didn't think I could make it today. Okay. Okay. Doug. How about Maria? She was good. Yeah. And Jack. Yeah. I'm a, yeah. So. All right. So let's go ahead and meet on the 28th. And have it a short meeting. Short as possible. And maybe put the parking item last. Okay. Make sure we get through the other stuff. You want to meet at 630. Oh yeah, should work. Andrew just had his hand up. It was just to ask for the time. So 630. Yeah. Okay. So I'm just plugging that in my phone here. Okay. All right. So I think we've decided that. And we can move on to the next item. Are you good Chris with the plan? Yeah. Okay. So next item. Oh, are we, this is the item be here. We. I think you're going to put that off until the 28th. Okay. Okay. All right. So let's do the election of officers and planning board reorganization.  You know, I, I think. I have, you know, a slate of people I would recommend. And I can do that now. I'd recommend. Doug Marshall. As the chair of Tom long as a vice chair and Maria to continue as a clerk. We can do it individually, but that's my recommendation. Someone else. Has other, you know, thoughts on the matter. We can certainly discuss. I mean, I, I have. I'm not, I'm just one person on the board here. So. Maria. I think those sound great, but if someone else wants to be clerk, and my term is up next year. So someone else wants to step up. I think that's my recommendation. I'm happy to not be clerk as well, but I agree. I support Doug as chair and Tom long as vice chair. Love that. Okay. Good. Good. Andrew. Janet. So you'd need to nominate and then have a vote on each one. Okay. Someone would need to nominate. All right. So I nominate Doug. Is there a second. Doug for a chair. Yeah. Okay. And any discussion. Oh, Andrew. Does Doug want to be chair. Good question. Andrew, I can say this was not on my bucket list. It's more that I'm willing rather than that I want. So happy. I'm, you know, I'm quite willing to do it. Thank you. Yeah. Any other further discussion on, on Doug for, for chair. I see none. Let's do a roll call on Maria. Yes. Okay. Andrew. I. Doug. I probably should. Okay. Tom. Yes. Janet. Hi.  Yes. And I'm an eye too. So it's a six. With one abstain. And. Pardon me. Tom. Yes. He was. He was yes. Right. And. Then I'd like to nominate Tom long as the vice chair. Andrew. I will be seconding, but just real quick before that, do we have any new members coming on the board? Or is anybody, anybody. I think, I think that Maria and I are, are. At the end of our appointment next summer. Okay. Yeah. So we're all solid for the next year. And I guess with regard to you. Andrew. Janet and I were the newly appointed members this. For this. New term. Andrew. Did I say Andrew? It was Janet and me. Janet and I were that were newly appointed. Very good. Thanks. I'll second the motion. Okay. And then discussion. I'd like to, as Andrew asked Tom, do you want to be vice chair? Are you good with that? I'm, I'm okay with that. I've seen the burden put on Doug Marshall over the last. That incident when he may have had to run a meeting. So yeah, I'm happy to take that role. Okay. So any other discussion on the nomination for Tom as vice chair. I see none. Okay. Let's do roll call Maria. Hi. Andrew. Hi, Doug. Hi, Tom. Okay, Janet. Hi. Johanna. Hi. And I'm an eye as well. And Maria offered up the clerk. I don't know that the clerk. What are the duties of the clerk, Maria? To show up. The thing is, we have Pam. That takes all the pressure off the clerk, basically. Correct. I think my term is coming up. Yeah. So does anyone have a burning desire to be clerk? And do we, do we need to have that position? If it doesn't really do anything. Can we just leave it unfilled or is it a requirement? It doesn't seem like. Yeah. Chris, what do you say? I'd say you need it because if the chair and the vice chair are not available, the clerk would step in and chair the meeting. Regulations read. Well, no, no, no one's going to nominate themselves, but. I'm happy to do it again. My very tasking. Of being there. I nominate Maria again. Okay. And I'll second. All right. Any discussion. I see none. Okay. Let's do a real call. Maria. Same. All right, Andrew. Hi. Doug. Hi. Tom. Hi. Janet. Hi. Yohana. Hi. And I am an eye as well. So that's that. And then we have our planning board. Committee position. Position. Sorry. I'm at the pioneer of land. Excuse me. Pioneer Valley planning commission. You know, I'd like to, I'd like to stay on there. I'm on the executive committee. I've been to every meeting. So. That's that. I don't, I guess. Since I wanted, I'll nominate myself. I'll second that. All right. Thank you. Any discussion. We're doing this the right way, right? We just got to do one by one. Okay. So. Yes. Any discussion. Nope. Okay. Take a roll call Maria. Hi. Andrew. Hi, Doug. Hi. Hi. Janet. Hi. Yohana. Hi. And even though I nominated myself. I'll abstain. Okay. So the CPA committee, we have Andrew. Certainly. If you, I know your schedule is different. It's, yeah, I think same as what Maria said, if there's anybody who has interest in, in this. I, I can step side. I enjoyed it. It was sort of a big push. Kind of from now until January. And then you're pretty slow for most of the rest of the year. If you wanted to know that, but it is one. I think. I think a very exciting part of this is that your work is very tangible. Right. Part that just opened downtown. It's, it's a way to have a really positive direct. In, in. Packed on things that are happening in the community. So that's a happy to do it. Unless someone has a strong desire to. I nominate Andrew. Okay. He's trying to wiggle out of it. I know. I can see. He wants. He wants. All right. Is there a second. For Andrew. All right. Any discussion? Yeah. I was going to ask. Can I ask Andrew. You know, you had said you would do this last year because you weren't traveling very much. And I, I get the sense that has ramped back up. Are you confident you can contribute to that group? Probably. Yes. So the. Yeah. Yeah, I was going to ask, can I ask Andrew. You know, you had said you would do this last year because you weren't traveling very much. Probably. Yes. So the. I would say so. I mean, they'll be called probably from the train. I don't know how that one went when I was on the last time, whether he found it was workable or not, but. I'm certainly hopeful to be able to make all. Okay. That's, that's good. Any other discussion. Okay. Okay. Let's go ahead and say hi to Andrew. Okay. Let's do a roll call then. Maria. Andrew. Yeah, Andrew. No, I mean, I'm staying. All right, Doug. Hi. Tom. Skip Tom. I just said Tom. Tom. I said, I. Oh, okay. Janet. Hi. Okay. You on him. And I'm an eye. So that's six zero one. And the ad commission, Doug.  So I'm fine with being the designated appointee for when it resumes. Assuming it does. Yeah. Yeah, sounds doable. So. All right. So. I'll nominate Doug. Okay. All right. Tom Andrew. And I was just going to ask if anybody who wasn't on a committee wanted to, to get on one, especially since it's so demanding. I know it's been a motion on the floor, but. Run it out there. Doug's going to be running the show here. Yeah. Well, I'm happy to step aside. Oh, all right. So without. Other discussion with the roll call. Doug for ad commission, Maria. Hi, Andrew. Hi. Doug. Tom. Hi. Janet. Hi. Johanna. Right. And myself as an eyes at six zero one. The next is the design review board. Tom long is our current rep. I would nominate him again. I second. All right. Any discussion? Are you okay with that? Me. Okay. Good, good. So let's get into it. Roll call here, Maria. Hi. Andrew. Hi, Doug. Hi, Tom. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. And myself as an eyes another six zero one. For Tom as our design review board rep. And then it. Okay. And then that's it. So. You know, report of the chair. I'm, you know, I thank you all. I think we've done a lot over this last year. And. We get another year together. And. I look forward to it should be very interesting. Report of staff. Thank you for all the work you're doing. And thank you for putting up with having so many meetings. I really appreciate it. Yeah. Actually, I forgot about any liaison reports. In the Pioneer Valley planning commission, the executive committee met. Oh, we did is approved money. You know, basically. Nothing or a shattering CPA. What's going on there, Andrew. We. Cameraman gave this update or not. We had a meeting in August, I think, which is the kickoff and sort of setting up some of the ground rules and. Not a, not a touch report. I unfortunately was only able to stay for part of the call. Okay. And then at commission is dormant. Design and review board your meeting next Tuesday, right? Okay. Nothing new to report. Okay. And the CRC, you've kind of served up a little bit already. Yes. We talked about the first hour was really taken up with the comprehensive housing policy. And the CRC is ready. The first part of it is the actual policy. And then there are three. Appendices. And I don't think I can recall what they are right now. But if you stop. Like on page eight, and then the next three things are the appendices. So you can take that. In the CRC packet. So they are recommending that. Brands of housing policy to town council for a vote. To adopt it. And the three appendices are going to be referred or the hope is that they will be referred to the CRC. And the town manager for implementation. So the first part sets forth the policy and the second three things. Set for. Yeah, John. Hornick and Nate. I've done really. A great job. Yeah. Setting that out. And then the second part of the CRC meeting was all about. Apartments. And as I said, we had a lot, a lot of discussion about that. I think we talked about it. For at least an hour. And the end result was to not propose. Lifting the cap on the number of units in apartment buildings in the BG district. And as I said, that's really a kind of a holding pattern.  In the future, but they didn't want to hold up the apartments. Zoning and then in order to have that taken care of. So that's what we'll be bringing to you. On the 28th. Okay. Thank you. And your report of staff. And my report of staff was to thank everybody for. Okay. Thanks. Jack, thank you for all your work. It's been even done a ton of work in a. Super busy year. So, well, no, I mean. I've done. There's so many people on here have been doing a lot. A lot more than I have. That's for sure. But thank you. I appreciate that. It's hard to. You've done a good job. Yeah. Handling, handling unruly people in every area. Thank you, sir. I think there's more unruly. That's, I think there's more unruly. We've had decorum here, which I really appreciate. You know, In Amherst here. So. With a lot of differing opinions.  So it's. Christine used to say that we had planning board light, you know, leading up to. You know, when you're working on a project.  It's going to be a lot more heavy lifting. And it certainly is. It's given all of us a run for our money. But I think hopefully, you know, good work has become of it. So with that, I think we can adjourn. I did. I think I skipped over sections, but. I don't know what your hurry was, Jack. Thank you, Jack. Great job. Thank you. Thank you. I just wanted to get to that, you know, nominating Doug. I jumped a couple of sections. I don't know what your hurry was. Thank you, Jack. You did a great job. Thank you. Thank you. Is Doug's effective immediately? Or do you have like a swan song? The public can be aware of.  I would think you'd be ready to hit the ground running. So. Yeah. It'll be Doug next meeting. Yeah. All right. Well, good night, everyone. All right. See you soon. Bye everyone.