All right, Mandy, we're open and we're recording. Thank you. Welcome. I am seeing the presence of a quorum. I am calling this May 25th, 2023, regular meeting of the Community Resources Committee of the Town Council to order at 431 p.m. Pursuant to chapters 20 of the Acts of 2021 and extended by chapters 22 and 107 of the Acts of 2022 and extended again by Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2023, this meeting will be conducted by remote means, members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via Zoom or telephone. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time. I am also announcing that this meeting is being video and audio recorded. With that, I'm going to check to make sure that everyone can hear and be heard. So the easiest way to do that is to take a roll call on attendance. Pat. Present. Mandy is present. Pam. Jennifer. Present. And Shalini Balmilne is absent right now. We'll keep a lookout for her to see if she makes an appearance. We are not necessarily expecting anyone else today. Although I had heard Rob Mora might show up for a short amount of time. So bear with me as I am the host so anytime people need to talk or anything, I'm the one that has to do it. So bear with me as I work on that if that happens. With that, we're going to take the agenda in the order it is listed, which means I am passing this over to Pam for the public hearing to preside over that until we have finished with that for the day. Great. Thank you. It is 433 in accordance with the provisions of MGL. The next 40 a this public hearing. The resource committee of the Amherst town council has been duly advertised. And notice thereof has been posted and is being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity for interested residents to be heard regarding the following proposed amendments to the zoning bylaw. methods. Article nine, non-conforming lots, uses and structures and Article 12 definitions. To see if the town will vote to amend Article 3 use regulations to change the permitting requirements for owner occupied duplexes, affordable duplexes, non-owner occupied duplexes, converted dwellings and townhouses to create more streamlined permitting pathways for these uses. To remove the use category, subdividable dwellings. To add a use category, three-family detached dwelling or triplex. To add a permitting pathway and standards and conditions for triplexes. To modify standards and conditions other housing use categories. To amend permit requirements for housing use categories in the aqua for recharge protection overlay district. To amend Article 4 development methods. To add three-family dwelling where appropriate to amend Article 9, non-conforming lots, uses and structures. To add a reference to three-family dwelling. To amend Article 12 definitions. To add three-family detached dwelling unit, triplex and delete subdividable dwelling. I do not see any staff. I see Shalini Balmilna. She might want to let us know if she is can hear us. I'm here. Thank you. Thank you. The order of the order of business, so I don't see any staff here. I do see two of the sponsors and if you want to add any comments from the sponsors, this would be a good time to do it. Andy. Yeah, I don't have comments specifically to this. I just wanted to let you know that staff is all busy so we will not have staff today unless Rob decides to make an appearance but he also has ZBA or Board of License. One of them too that conflicts. And we knew that Chris wouldn't be here. I have told Dave Zomek that I will take notes if there are any questions that Pat or I cannot answer during today's hearing. I also wanted to update on the planning board continued their public hearing to June 21st, I believe it was. So we won't at minimum have any information on what their recommendation is until the 21st of June at the earliest. So I think that's everything from me, Pat. Pat, anything else as a sponsor? No. Okay. Thank you. We talked last time about delving into some of the details as the planning board has done sort of in the structure of the little memo from Rick Holdum. And I thought before we did that that I would ask if any of the other counselors, the non-sponsors would want to make any kind of statement. I would like to make actually make a statement before we delve into the details. But I want to ask the other two Shalini or Jennifer, if you have any general comments at this time, Jennifer?  Do you want any general statement? Yeah, my general statement is that we've been discussing this for a while and there are some pieces of what's being proposed that in my mind seem ready, like are more ready for discussion and action. And so I'm hoping that we can look at specific recommendations and maybe break them each, you know, either taking Bruce's recommendation or just taking those suggestions and going down each one of them and like really going into the having a deeper discussion and deciding what action we want to take around that. Do we need more information? Do we can we vote on it? So I'm hoping to get some structure where we move the discussion in a very concrete way forward. Okay. Okay, Jennifer. Yeah, I just have a little concern and that's why it's, you know, we're a little hobbled by staff not being here. You know, I, you know, sitting and even on the zoning board meetings, you know, that if we're doing it piecemeal, then we don't know what we're going to kind of have at the end. But I guess, you know, maybe we do that and then we see what we have at the end, but I get concern that, you know, we're going to have a hodgepodge that doesn't really hold together. I mean, if I were to, I don't know, I mean, I have my own set of sort of responses to this, I don't, you know, which is that I don't, I mean, if I'm just going to get into it, I don't see that our zoning is keeping new units from being built. You know, I think that and what it seems to be coming out of the, the discussions, you know, with all that in public comments, and then the discussions certainly in the planning border that they really don't want to see more density in the ROs and the RL districts. And they're very concerned, you know, probably rightfully so about more development in the aquifer recharge protection district, because that's where our drinking water comes from. And I think, and we've had a lot of development in Amherst, you know, over the last seven to eight years, I mean, we, I think we actually got finally the numbers when we met with the affordable housing trust, that's something like 862 new units have been built, 666 of them are multifamily units, many have multiple bedrooms. So our permitting system is not a disincentive to developers building here, they're clamoring to build here. So I think our permitting system is not broken, and we don't need to fix it. And I don't think it's our zoning that is keeping development. And what I think did come up through this discussion, and I remember in Mandy's first presentation, I was actually surprised to learn I probably should have known this, but like puffed in villages in a residential neighborhood in our district. So what I do think is maybe, and I think this might be the planning department or the planning board to look at maybe the RN is too big. I mean, it includes, you know, so many neighborhoods that are different than a puffed in village and maybe those large department complexes should be in their own new zoning district. And that's something that the planning board and the planning department could look at. But I think that in the residential neighborhood districts, so we've already, I thought it was great, I think everybody was really supportive of when the last council adopted the ADUs. And that allows for, you know, more dwellings in pretty much every zoning district. So all through the residential neighborhood districts now, you can have two units on a lot. I don't know, I don't live in a residential neighborhood in our end district, but I just wonder how many residents who aren't following this is, you know, as I always say people that aren't sort of town nerds the way all of us are, how they would feel, you know, to find out that they could have a non-owner-occupied duplex or two next door to them. Because if you have two non-owner-occupied duplexes and they each have four bedrooms, that's 16, frankly, students that are living next door to you. And I don't know, I don't live in an RN. Most of you represent districts that have a lot of RN. I don't know how what you've heard from your constituents, if that's something that they would like to see happen. I do think in the general residence districts where we're already zoned for every kind of housing that where we can have nine units on an acre now that we cannot have anymore. So there's so, you know, of triplexes, which were formally apartments that were came under footnote M. We have to ensure that triplexes continue to be have footnote M protections. But the RG districts are so dense that any more density would just kill them. So I'm just, that's where I am, to be honest. I don't think that our zoning has kept new units from being built. And I think with the ADUs, we can now have multifamily dwellings. You know, again, we could always have them in the general residence districts. We can now have them in the RN districts. And there doesn't seem to be, I don't live anywhere near an RO or an RL or an Aquifer overlay recharge district, but there doesn't seem to be an appetite from what I'm hearing to densify there. So that's my feeling. I've shared my cards. And again, I feel like the zoning, I feel like the permitting process hasn't, doesn't is not keeping anyone away. You know, developers are clamoring to come here. Thank you. I was going to, I was going to go next, but Shalini put her hand up. So let's do Shalini and then Mandy, Joe and Pat, and then Pam. I actually would like you to go before Mandy and I go. I think that's a reasonable thing to do. The response is to respond. Like maybe if you had specific responses to Jennifer, and I'm happy to go after. I think it would be appropriate for Shalini and Pam to go first. Yeah. Okay. So there's so many different things going through. I'm going to try and organize my thoughts. I think to make a statement that zoning has not been a problem is based on our personal individual experience and not based on research and statistics or from what I read in strong towns, what I read in zoning and generally nationally zoning is a, is a very important, a very important factor in determining housing. And just as an example of even opening out 80s, I was one of the most skeptical, like what is an 80 you're going to do? And already spoke to one person who chose to be an Amherst rather than go to East Hampton because we opened up our ADU zoning. So zoning does make a difference. And the second thing is that instead of, if you think of it generally and Jennifer, you gave examples like opening it in RO, I live in, I think in RO or RLD, I don't know, one of those.  So like we're getting like all over the place. And that's why I'm recommending we do one thing at a time. Let's talk about one owner occupied duplex. And then how do we feel about that? And then keep adding on or have some structure because I know that we have a lot of land. We have a national problem in housing. And yes, I love the open space, which is why I chose to be here and not downtown. And yet I recognize that people who don't have housing. And so I'm willing to open up some of this conversation in the RO and RLD where we can have a little more density than and just going maybe one step higher than what we have. But we need to start making these small shifts across the board so that the pressure is not only on downtown areas and the, you know, village centers, it needs to be across the board. So that's those are the two things that I'm feeling right now. Yeah, I'll just say that for now. Great. Thank you, Shalini. So I was I was going to try to summarize my thoughts. And I and I sort of looked at the the current status, and I think that everyone should be certainly aware of the fact that the ZBA is now finding that it can allow a sort of mix and match of housing types, which is the primary uses listed in article three, and they're being they're being considered as complimentary use. So this allows multiple units beyond any one basic unit type on a parcel. That's kind of a premise that that these are already acceptable. The number of allowable units, unfortunately, does not take into consideration the bedroom count in a unit. So you get a four bedroom, which could actually be two to four times as many people as a one one four bedroom houses two to two to four times as many as a one bedroom or two bedroom. That's pretty easy math. But they're all treated the same across the board. More than four units on a general residence lot, given that they're generally smaller lot sizes, becomes pretty quickly a complex site. So you've got parking, you've got you've got screening, you've got runoff, you've got trash containers, et cetera, with with four units. I looked at the numbers that we got from staff, and we have over 300 multi unit properties in town, not including not including the big complexes of 10 10 dwelling units more. So I'm sort of going to echo what what Jennifer just said that um the freeing up of the permitting process doesn't seem to be an obvious problem that we need to solve that I'm going to say solve and quote. And again, hundreds of new units have been built in the last decade, but most are priced for student tenants, unless they're specifically designated for affordable. And yet the rental prices continue to rise. So again, we're not creating more affordable units. What I would actually like to see out of all this discussion is I think I would like to see this proposal withdrawn. And I would like to see this topic referred to the planning board with and the planning department, so that a thorough review and analysis of our residential zoning bylaws can be completed. And that would include reorganizing the bylaw, in fact, to base the permit process on the number of units rather than on the housing type. So we start talking about what to four units, five units, three units, rather than naming them something. The name really is immaterial. It's the unit count that counts. I'm I am convinced by thinking through all of these proposals that all units of three or more on a parcel should be treated like we would have treated a townhouse or apartment or converted dwelling. And the triplex triplex is being considered to be treated in that in that way as a special permit. And I think that's perfectly valid. But I think it's the total number of units on a property, not just the addition of a triplex that needs to be considered. So my gut feeling is that we need special permit oversight on any project, regardless of the proposal type, that puts three or more total units on a parcel, including in multiple buildings of different types of different primary uses. That includes a duplex added to a single family home and any on any parcel. We have heard from a number of people that in all likelihood, an owner occupied duplex will eventually convert to a non owner occupied duplex. So let's treat it in a similar manner. In the RG, a density of three or more units on a parcel again, needs special permit, but in any configuration of uses, it should trigger footnote M just as just as an apartment or townhouse did and does. So that requires an additional 4,000 square feet of land area for each dwelling unit that's added. That is the density that we see at Tanbrook. I can see Tanbrook Apartments from my back window and Spruce Ridge, and those are at approximately 10 dwelling units an acre. They're pretty dense. They are dense. They are in the RG. They are already allowed. So that's my overview. I have some specifics if we go of going line by line. But I would really, I would like to see the sponsors withdraw this for the CRC to recommend to Town Council that it just be simply referred as a topic of interest to the planning board and the planning department. Thank you. Nancy. Thank you. I appreciate Jennifer's comments regarding density, except I don't agree with them. Because when you look at our master plan, it says we should be putting density and infill in our downtown and village centers. And the RG is our downtown residential area. And our village centers have not just RBC, but a lot of RN. And what I hear from Jennifer is the downtown and village centers are already, and particularly the downtown, are already too dense. And so we should be densifying the non-downtown areas. And while I don't necessarily disagree with dense of tying the RORLD, you should look at our original proposal in terms of slightly more dense, like Shalini has said, our master plan has said infill and density in our downtown. And if we're going to take a tact that our current zoning is already so dense we can't add density, how are we ever going to fulfill the master plan that says densify our downtown and village centers? So that's in some sense a confusion as to where are we going with a master plan if we can't add density to our downtown and village centers or add density into our zoning in those areas. Jennifer talked a lot about non-owner occupied duplexes, except our proposal has no changes proposed to non-owner occupied duplexes in terms of their permitting other than the aquifer recharge protection district, which would be by special permit. And so I get confused when Jennifer talks a lot about, well, this proposal would be problematic because how people would feel that they, how would they feel if a non-owner occupied duplex gets built next to them? Well, that happens now and we're not changing the permitting request on how that permitting would happen. So I don't know how or why that part of the conversation is even part of this hearing because we haven't proposed changes to that other than in the aquifer recharge protection district. We've proposed changes to duplexes in the owner occupied category and the affordable duplex category in duplexes in terms of how to permit them. Two categories that in my four years, almost five years on this council now, I have heard we need more housing for. So I struggle with people in town saying we need more owner occupied housing. We need more affordable housing. And then when a proposal comes up saying, well, we can't do it because we get non-owner occupied duplexes. But that's not what our proposal talks about. It talks about owner occupied duplexes and affordable duplexes. It also talks about some townhome issues, although the townhome one is is now almost no changes at all to the permitting requirements, except in the RN area and the BG and no one's mentioned the BG because, well, we're proposing to make it a little stricter. So presumably everyone loves that. It proposes this new category of a triplex which for years I've heard since I joined this council, we need a triplex category. So I'm confused as to why this is a problem to propose a triplex category that nearly matches the non-owner occupied duplex permitting requirements and is actually more strict in some of these areas than the apartment and townhome permitting requirements that triplexes are currently permitted under. Converted buildings are infill. Okay. I'm just going to respond. I wanted and then yes, I wanted just one more thing. We have had building in town. As Jennifer said, it's been about a thousand units in the last decade. But a decade ago, it said we needed, we had reports that said we needed a minimum of 1500 to 2000 units backlogged and then another couple hundred a year on top of that just to keep up with demand. So while we've had a lot of building, it in no way has kept up with the demand in town. And so maybe there is a bigger conversation to be held outside of this hearing about where we want our town to go in terms of how many dwelling units we actually want to see in town. But that's not what this hearing is about. This hearing is about the proposal on the table, many of which proposals I have heard since I joined this council are absolutely needed in this town to help build more affordable, more attainable housing in town. And Jennifer said there's three, Pam said there were about 300 multifamily units in complexes between two and nine units in a town that has, I believe, how many 9000 dwelling units. No, those are 300 parcels that have 300 parcels that have two. Okay. And we have about 2000 3000 parcels. I'm not sure how many parcels we have. We have maybe two to 3000 parcels 10% 10 to 15% are two to nine units. That means we have a lot of single family home parcels that are just out of reach. And just not what people want to be living in right now. And I think that's the conversation we need to be having here about our proposal, not about non owner occupied duplexes. Thank you, Mandy. I was going to say one thing. I don't, I've not yet heard anybody say that we shouldn't have a triple X category. I just haven't heard anybody say that. Pat, Jennifer, then Shalini. I really want to thank you, Mandy, for many of the things that you said. So I'm not going to repeat some of the things. I'm still, I'm interested in and I hope I understood it correctly. Jennifer, you were saying that we should have special zoning for large apartment complexes, a special zoning area. I want to tell you about some of the people. I think you said that if I'm wrong, I was actually responding to Mandy Joe who said in her initial presentation that it didn't seem to make sense that a puffed in village and Blue Hills Lane or something were in the same zoning district. That's all I was responding to. Okay. Well, the way I heard it was you wanted a special district for complexes. And I'm really concerned that it probably shouldn't be subject to the same. We should look at them differently. I'm just going to say that I'm whether however you meant it or whatever. I'm really feeling very much like that's really working against the master plan and the comprehensive housing policy which talks about diverse neighborhoods, socioeconomically diverse neighborhoods. You mentioned, I think it was you mentioned that duplexes will have four bedrooms and they'll be rented to students. That's what's happening to our single family homes. And I don't see our zoning, which you think is fine protecting single family homes from being converted to student dwellings. And so again, I feel like there's this resistance to any change. The other thing that I find really interesting is right now in order to make a lot of money, developers are developing single family, large single family homes. Okay. One of the things that's true about development with duplexes is that it becomes cheaper to build their environmentally more sound. And it's helpful to developers who are trying to make a profit. And they can be sold for less. The other thing that I want to say about owner occupied duplexes, because as Mandy said, we haven't changed anything else there. Owner occupied duplexes, Jonathan Swain, I think you all know who he is, John Hornick, who you know, together built a home in Pelham that was a large duplex. They lived there for years and years and years with growing their families there. They then sold the house to a man whose name I don't know, who wanted his sons and his son's family to live in one of the duplexes. And they weren't there that long, maybe probably only five years or so. Then it was sold to two friends of mine, two families that I happened to know in different ways. Both families raised their children and in fact made a combined room in the center of their duplex that could be used by any of the members of the family. They're there, their children have gone through college, they're aging there. And it's beautiful. It rivals any of the single family homes that get worshiped here in Amherst. So I'm really confused by the resistance to owner occupied duplexes, because there is a trend to build smaller. There is a trend for younger people not to want the single family homes that have taken over so much property. Those are real trends. You can read about them in strong towns. You can read about them in all kinds of areas. The ADU, that was wonderful. 12 families have come forward and used that so far in a very short period of time. It would be amazing to me if we had 12 owner occupied duplexes available, because I have a feeling that some working class people, middle class people could afford to buy one of those units. And so you might have two distinct families who both own their unit, or you might have one family who is surviving by working like crazy the way we have to do in our society and who are able to rent part of their duplex out to another family or to students. And there's a great deal of denial about the limits of the zoning that we have. The limits, the zoning that we currently have works against the master plan. The planning board and the planning department have been working against the master plan. And I don't mean that, gee, they're nasty people and they're not doing what they're supposed to be doing, but they're equally perturbed and afraid by change. The only way Amherst is really going to survive as a healthy community is if we expand housing. And we stop this worship of single family homes. We really need to expand village centers. And some of the planning board has been talking about that. Some of the planning department has been talking about that, to moving the boundaries out so those areas could be more dense. And I want to really, really go back to the apartment complexes because with my work with the food policy council and my work with the Amherst mobile market, the majority of people who are in need, who are paying high rents because of students are people who have families with their children in their apartments and they're working like crazy and trying to survive. But it becomes a socioeconomic ghetto. So the idea that you can build some more or like Doug Marshall has said, well, we need a student overlay district. That's really a kind of discrimination that is appalling and great. You agree with me, fabulous, wonderful. But the idea that we should hand over to a committee and a department that haven't been really addressing these issues and who are panicked in some ways or ego driven in some ways because that's their job. The very fact that an ordinary citizen comes forward and offers a solution to a problem is an important aspect of democracy and it's an important aspect of municipal health. And I really, really think I'm so tired of the four bedroom fear flag. You don't care, you know, that's not true. You do care if a family home gets sold for students, but that's happened all over my neighborhood. So none of your zoning, none of your zoning that you're worshiping and want to keep in place has stopped that transition.  Zoning does not affect rental property costs. So let's stop pretending that's true too that somehow my wife is looking through the window making faces at me. That's probably a good thing because I need it. I don't mean to be on a high horse. I really don't because I am. But what I see is a holding on to exclusivity, to the detriment of the people of this town, to the detriment of people who would like to live here, to the detriment of working families and young families and young professionals. And that's enough for now. There were other things but I'll stop there for now. Thank you, Pat. Jennifer then, Shalini. Okay. I don't even know where to start because first of all, you're preaching to the converted. I chose to live in the one neighborhood in town that has very, very small lot requirements per house. I have a tiny lot that has is zoned already for every kind of multifamily housing. We have lots of students more than any other district. We have lots of renters. We don't even know in terms of renters and homeowners who we are very dense. So to say that I'm afraid of change, the change you're talking about, Pam and I in our districts were already living that change. Okay. So in terms of what was being talked about in terms of non-owner occupied duplexes and maybe it's more in the RO areas where I don't live anywhere near one. So I have no skin in that game. But that you could then start to build more, I guess that was why Chris wanted to keep it to special permit, Chris Breastrop. The concern was that you would have an owner occupied duplex and then they could build other units. And that the planning board even I think saw that as problematic. So when I talk about the RNs, I don't live in an RN again, but that if owner occupied duplexes become non-owner occupied, again, it's really your constituents. But that's another story. So where I live it's zoned for all of this. Now, when I'm really struck when Mandy Jo says the general residence districts are downtown, to me that says that you need to come downtown or to our neighborhood more often because we are not downtown and we are not a village center. No, we are a general residence district. We're not the BL. We're not the BG. We live near downtown, but we are not in the central business district. We are a residential neighborhood. That's why we're called general residents. We're zoned for every kind of housing. You only need 12,000 square feet as opposed to your 20,000 to build a house. With another 4,000 square feet, you can build another dwelling as many property owners have done. You need 40,000 square feet in your neighborhood for two dwellings. I have heard the planning board say that they do not want, and this is, I haven't said it, they have said this, that they don't want to see any more density. They have said that in the aquifer protection area. I have to tell you from where I sit, already walking the walk, that when all this is said and done in the aquifer over recharge, overlay protection district, there may be zero change because it will be decided that they don't want more density that close to the aquifer. Then nothing will change where you live. Where I live, the idea that you would say that we need to densify the densest areas so that the other areas can stay the way they are, or if they densify somewhat, you're never going to have 12,000 square feet for a dwelling in the neighborhood residence districts. The general residence districts, which are not we can walk to downtown, and that's how we're environmentally responsible. We all walk downtown probably every day, several times a day, but we are not downtown, and we are allowed to have a small front yard and a small backyard, and nine dwellings per acre is enough no more. I guess I was responding to the initial presentation where it was talked about, that it didn't make sense that a puffed-in village was in the same district as Amherst Woods. I think they have the same zoning that maybe we needed to look at the zone, because you're never going to have, again, Amherst Woods and puffed-in village are never going to look the same, so maybe it's problematic that they're in the same zoning district. I'm not a planner, so I don't know. I would leave that to someone else, but that was my response. Again, if the ROs and the RLs, if there's an appetite for densifying them, I don't have a problem with that, but I'm hearing that the planning board very much doesn't want to go in that direction, so what it's feeling like in the general residence neighborhoods is that all the changes, there's some appetite for all the changes to happen where we are, and very little of any in the other zoning districts, and that is problematic for my constituents who are already walking the walk. Thank you. I also want to add, though, that because I live in a district where all this is going on, when houses are made into duplexes or triplexes and new and densification happens, and townhouse developments are built, it is, unless there's been two condominium developments in the RG that are condos that are owned, the owner occupied, so those do not have student residents, but in all the rental units, which is most of what's built, the developers are very clear that they're for students, and that's who they're for and that's who they're priced for, so we're not just, we're not besmirching anyone, that's just the reality. It has not provided more housing for, quote, regular people. I hope that it does, but it hasn't so far. Could I hear, Mandy Jo, I think you wanted to respond to something. I mean, my response is about when you look at the conceptual land use maps from the master plan, they circle the quarter mile from village centers in downtown and the half mile circle from village centers in downtown, and nearly the entire RG is in one of those half mile circles, and so when I look at, when you're talking about village centers and infill and development in village centers, I'm looking at the quarter mile and half mile circles, the walking distances to those village centers, and the RG is in those circles, that's all I wanted to say. We may disagree about that, but we are as dense as we can be, you need to ask someone else to take on some of this responsibility. But I think that's what, so what I'm hearing you Jennifer say is that it's not about the downtown, I think what Mandy's and Pat's proposal is to make it easier to have the duplexes in the RO and RLD. So that's what we're talking about, so that's where I'm getting confused is like you're saying all of this, but it's not really about, we're talking, and that's why I want each proposal to be, rather than confusing everything, let's take each proposal and see the pros or cons of that, because it does affect the neighborhood that I'm living in, and I do feel that we have, you know. I don't think it's going to affect your neighborhood very much, but anyway, I also want to say that circle, I think that circle is kind of informal, but go on. Yeah, I mean, if you look at the zoning, the RG does say it's the resident of medium or high density in areas, so it is supposed to be the most dense. That's why we already are, but we think you already are. Exactly, and you already are, and what I want to pay attention to really is about the opening of the housing possibilities in other districts like ours, where it is harder to densify, and I think the idea, just one second, I want to pull up and read my notes here, my comments. I think, yeah, the idea that we've had a lot, many buildings and apartments is one type of units that we need and are happening, but what we also heard from even the guest we had from New Hampshire is that there is this problem of the missing middle, which is the duplexes, and Pat already spoke about that, that that's the potential of inviting more families to come in, especially if it's owner-occupied duplexes like in our neighborhoods, which have a lot of land around, allowing for owner-occupied duplexes makes it possible for families to move in. So I really do think making that incremental, I'm not talking about the whole plan now, I'm just talking about the one that right now speaks to me a lot, is the potential of opening up the housing, making it easier. It is a problem. We keep saying that, oh, that's not what's the difference between SPR and SP. It doesn't make a difference. It does make a difference. When you have, wait, have you done research on it? Can you share the research with me then if you have? Maybe you have done the research, because I have done the research. I've shared it with everyone, and all of the research shows that zoning does create these obstacles. It involves hiring lawyers. It involves paying money to lawyers. It involves time, and what that means is only the big developers can afford that. So the smaller families shy away from it because of all the obstacles, and whether it happens or not, we don't know. But at least what we know from trends from research around the country based on strong downs, based on all the research that I've done, I've shared with you all the 20 articles there, which do show that opening up zoning in a way that it's just incremental. It's not radical. It's just incremental changes changes does slowly start opening up housing possibilities for families. And so that's one thing. The other thing we're not talking about is dimensional requirements. So even though we're opening up the possibility of duplexes, we still at least what I'm reading is 15% maximum lot coverage is 15%. That means you still have a lot of land around, right? So I mean, I don't know if everyone's familiar with all of these aspects of zoning. So the dimensional requirements are that only 15% manage on my correct about that. It depends on which zone you're talking about, Jolani. The residential RO and RLD. Those are about 15%. Yeah. So what he's saying is that only 15% of the land maximum lot coverage can be 15% of the zone land. So that's a lot of open space around which I love. And at the same time, can we allow for a little more dense? Again, I'm not talking about your district, Jennifer. I'm talking about RO and RLD. And can we make it a little more dense here? Because that is a huge problem, which makes houses more expensive, because there's so much land that's needed to build a small home in that. So those are the kind of things that I want us to go into in depth, but not, I think we need to move away from this larger general discussion and go into line by line each proposal and start looking at what is agreeable to us. Because I feel behind all of this discussion, we are agreeing on certain things. So I'd like to see us moving in that direction. So I'm going to add my two cents and then we can step back, actually step down into the details if you want to do that. A couple thoughts and reflect a little bit what Jennifer said earlier is the RG, it is possible to put nine units, nine to 10 units per acre in the RG right now. And I think what I'm aiming for is that we use triggers of the total number of dwelling units on a property as the trigger for what permitting process is required. And I'll say if there is an owner-occupied dwelling unit or an owner-occupied duplex, that's one thing, but if an owner-occupied duplex is added to an existing building on the site, now you have three units and now you're starting to talk about complexity that really requires the site plan, requires a special permit for just the management of three units or more on a property. So I don't know that we're all that off base, but I think our residential bylaw actually needs an overhaul and a review. And I'm not sure that trying to do this incremental raising of the cap or raising of the process accomplishes what you really want. So, Shalini, you've said a couple times that you would like to do specific.  I would love to do specific. Start with 3.321, just the conditions that are proposed and then move on to affordable or owner-occupied and then affordable. We can do that, but I just want to talk to what Pam is proposing. I don't think it belongs necessarily in this hearing because that proposal is not in front of us. This is the proposal that's in front of us. That doesn't mean I disagree with the potential need to completely rewrite our zoning bylaw, but that's not the proposal that's on the table. If that's a desire, I would encourage Pam to propose something to the council during town manager goals or during something else. But as we've seen when rewrites happen, it takes five or 10 years for that to happen. I mean, we're looking at design guidelines that were funded for an RFP like two years ago and the RFP, I'm not even sure, has gone out. We don't have 10 years to wait and this proposal is on the table. So, wanting to do something like a full rewrite is great, but that doesn't mean we should not do anything else in the meantime. And so, we have a proposal on the table. Let's talk about this proposal and then once this proposal is off the table because we've made recommendations and the council's voted on it, let's see what else we should be doing and talk about that, but that's not this hearing. Okay. So, one of the issues that I have with this kind of a walk, you know, detail by detail is that we don't know when we talk about 3.321. We don't really know how that affects 3.325 or seven. And it's doing this incrementally that I don't think anyone has actually sat back and looked at the interchange between the microscopic changes here and there. And I would like this to be more holistic, so it makes it very difficult for me to say, well, I like the word with in the second paragraph, but maybe we should change it to without. That's not what we're talking about, Julie, not that way. I think we're being asked right now to go through and let's talk about 3.321 and all the changes that have been suggested. And we're looking at it paragraph by paragraph rather than having the analysis that I would like the planning board and the planning department to run through and look at it more holistically. So, it's a very awkward conundrum to be trying to do this, you know, piece by piece. That said, Shalini, and I would like to keep an eye on the time because it's now 5.30 and I would actually like, maybe before we do this, I would like to hear from the public. So, we have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven folks. Oh, we have a staff person, Rob Mora, in the audience. We have six folks in the audience. And I would actually like to hear from them before we delve into those. Can I just offer? Hopefully, and then Jennifer. So, I was just going to offer, say, to bring Rob in, maybe. I just want to, okay. So, what I was going to say is that it doesn't have to be either or I just feel that we need to get into a deeper discussion of one because we keep bringing in different pieces in different districts and different zones and we're not going anywhere. So, if we just start discussing one piece and go through the pros and cons, and then we can see at that point, how do we feel about it? And if you still feel like, oh, I want to see how this affects 3.25, we can pause and move to that three, like look at, it can be a reiterative process. It does not have to be. And also, I mean, if you want, I'm not entirely clear what you mean, how the, how one is going to affect the other necessarily, I don't know if you want to give an example, because I'm not entirely clear, like how owner occupied duplex and discussing that, how would that affect, let's say, a triplex or an affordable duplex? How would a discussion over here affect that? I think what goes through my head is that it's one thing to have an owner occupied duplex. If someone were to come forward and say, I'd like to add an owner occupied duplex to my property, the property happens to have a three family already on it. We know that the ZBA is considering that a complimentary use. And therefore, it's very likely that it could be built, which is okay. But to, because it's an owner occupied duplex, it would go straight to the building commissioner with no public input, with no, a butter notice. And you end up with five units on the site, even if one of them is owner occupied. And if it's a very different ball of work, and that is possible, that is possible today with that change. Not with the proposal that is on the table that says in those districts, if there are more than two dwelling units on a single parcel, not per duplex or triplex, the minute you go over two dwelling units, no matter the development, right, that in RGRVC and RN, you would go to site plan review, Chris has had a different proposal for more than four dwelling units on a parcel. In RORLD, once you get over two, so if you're adding, trying to add a duplex to something that already exists, even a single family home and you want another duplex under our proposal, it would go to special permit in the RORLD. So what you just said, Pam, is not correct of the current proposal. Hence, we need to talk about one thing, because I think reading so much, we're kind of confusing things, or at least I am. And I'm hearing that a lot, which is why I think if we give attention to just one thing and really go deep into it and really understand the pros and cons, this conversation in my mind would be more constructive. Chalani, why don't you bring up your points of concern or go through and start with start with 3.321, two and three family duplexes, detached dwellings, duplexes and duplexes. Wait, were we going to do public comment or? Yes, yes, yes. I'm not seeing any hands. Go ahead then. I'm waiting for hands to show up. Oh, I'm sorry, muted. I just wanted to ask. So all those, what you just, the scenario you just outlined, Pam, has to go to special permit. But I don't know that that scenario is even allowed currently, and it may be allowed, that may be a different, that that development could happen may be different than what's happening now, even if it's special permit. I'm asking. So currently, if there's a three family on the property and someone wants to build a two family owner occupied in addition to that three family, right now it would be, depending on the district, it would be site plan review in the RGRVC and RN. If there are five duplexes on the property and someone wants to build an owner occupied duplex, it would be site plan review in the RG and RVC. Right, but what if you're building that in an RO? Like can't you now? In the RO would be special permit right now. Right. But can you even do that in the RO now with or without a special permit? Yeah. No, you need a special permit. But you could do it. Yeah. I just wanted to add or whatever that some of my comments that I said here, this is again, we can go through it, but I'm also, because the planning board is doing this also, some of what I've shared is my response to what I've heard in the planning board. So when I come into this discussion, since I go to all the planning board meetings, I'm also taking in what they're doing, which is maybe confusing things a bit. You know, you literally have two different bodies on parallel tracks and it's hard not to also take into consideration what they're saying. So some of what I said was a response to what I'm hearing in the planning board. That's it. Okay. I do see someone in the audience. Can Janet Keller please get coming in? Janet should be able to unmute right now. Janet, can you unmute and give us your name and location? Sure. Janet Keller, Pulpit Hill Road, North Amherst. I'm obviously very much in the camp of this feeling that strongly, that this needs to go back to the drawing board, that focusing on my new little bits at a time takes our focus off the big picture and that the threats in the RO and RLD, which are different from the threats in the RN, are real and that this piece-by-piece proposal, as well as the removal of and it's very hard for a lay person to track these things as well as the removal of a butter's notices and hearings, really disenfranchises people and leaves them helpless to speak, to even get a chance to speak to a proposal in their neighborhood. And that seems profoundly undemocratic to me. I said in my comments to you, in addition to I think it needs a redo, that the most damaging provisions to my mind in the proposal are rezoning residential areas, so from no, which RLD has typically been, to SP or SP or SPR to yes, really takes away resonance rights to speak to something that's going to affect them every day of the week and affect their economic well-being and they can't even speak to it, they don't even know about it, it just pops up next door. So the main thing I was talking about was things that do work and actually do produce, instead of hoping that we make a zoning change and that that produces more units. And I'm listening to Pat on the duplexes, but we have even a zoning by-law, inclusionary zoning, and I know Mandy Gerald will say, well, we're not talking about that right now, but we know that that actually does result in new units. And we have a possibility of changing the zoning by-law, so that it's more like what is in Hadley right now. Now, providing affordable units only comes when a developer has more than 10 units, we could reduce that to six, like it's in Hadley, and we could have the developer provide 15% instead of 12%. And we could find ways to support more CDC projects, wayfinders is going to put 110 units in on East Street School and Route 9. That to me, we can see the tangible units and they're going to low-income and moderate-income people, and that's not happening now. And if we do more of the same, which to me, this proposal is, we'll get more of the same and that isn't working. Thank you. Thank you, Julie Keller. I see Renata Shepard. Can you join us and give us your name and location? Renata Shepard, Amherst, South Amherst. I think you're going about this kind of backwards and trying to kind of reinvent the wheel. I really liked Pat's comments in the beginning, that I myself believe the way to create affordable housing is for the government, federal, city, state, to be involved directly or through partnership in building or converting units to create affordable housing, either renting or selling. So those would compete with what's on the private market now. Also, government should incentivize builders and landlords to provide affordable housing instead of creating obstacles or forcing the passing of unpopular laws, for example, like too many regulations, rent control, etc., which can for sure cause the opposite effect and reduced high quality affordable housing for those who actually need it. Thank you. Thank you, Renata. Would anyone else in the audience like to take an opportunity to speak? I don't see any other hands. If there's something that maybe at the end we get a chance to do this again, we'll take it on the board. Okay, Pat. I need to pause because I was going to comment on something that was said in public comment and I'm not supposed to do that. So I'm going to take my hand down. Sorry. Well, can you make a general statement that perhaps addresses what that person said? I'll wait. Okay, I'm not opposed to that. Okay, Shalini. Val is in your court and we have talked about either structuring this in the conversation that the planning department, again, we're being a little redundant with what the planning board is discussing. Thank you, Mandy, for putting your copious notes here that are not legible if you could enlarge them, please. So this is the proposal that's redlined and what would change and not change, right? Okay, and I'm actually going to complain that it's been tough to follow the various iterations of this document. I have one that I marked up, but it does not appear to be the same one that you have on the screen. And this is revision 11 on the screen that has been the same thing in the packet for the last month and a half. Okay, can you please enlarge it so people can read it? I was trying to keep all of 3.321 on the screen, which includes BC and D down on the second page, which is why I enlarged it as the general requirements. There's four of them and if I enlarge like this, you're missing three of them. So, but we can start here. This is the proposal for all what's listed here is changes to the general requirements right now that apply to all duplexes, whether they're owner-occupied, non-owner-occupied or affordable. They would actually apply to all duplexes and triplexes, including owner-occupied duplexes, non-owner-occupied duplexes, affordable duplexes, and all triplexes, is what we're looking at right here. It would apply, everything written here would apply to all four of those types of developments, no matter how they are permitted, whether they're permitted through special permit site plan review or a yes, these conditions would apply to all four of those types of developments. Okay, so I have a question and that is, why bother to describe how the duplexes or triplexes are attached or share common walls or doors or floors when it really doesn't matter? We are allowing everything. Why, why, why spell that out? It's really, the current my law spells it out. It seems very immaterial. Well, so I think and I'd have to go to the definitions and I don't want to scroll down here to create scroll craziness, but give me a second to check out the actual definitions of duplexes and triplexes. It could be because that's where we define what constitutes a duplex versus two single-family homes that are two units on a property. So that's why, that's why I go back to that statement. I think we should be organizing our residential zoning by number of units. So we already allow attached and detached ABUs. We already allow converted dwellings. The configuration is the material. So the definition, but, but in this zoning bylaw, how we operate now, that's, that the configuration, it is essentially, so the zoning bylaw definition of duplex is in definitions on page 113 of the bylaw, a single residential building containing two dwelling units arranged vertically one above the other or horizontally side by side with each with a separate entrance. So if that's the definition, we likely could get rid of that sort of repeated definition within these general conditions of the use table. The proposed definition for triplex is a single residential building containing three dwelling units. So if people are okay with un-repeating those definitions in here, I'm not sure Pat and I would have a problem deleting it, we were trying to change as little as possible to the current conditions in the bylaw. Like everything in black is currently written in the bylaw. Everything crossed out is currently written in the bylaw. So we were just modifying what's currently there for that part of it. That's why, that's why I would like the planning board, the planning department to kind of go through this and, and leave this junk out if it's no longer, if it's no longer important. Okay. So am I, am I hearing you right, Pam, that you would propose to Well, let's, let's, let's talk about this for a second. So Pat is interested in, in tiny, tiny homes. Shalini has brought up, you know, little, little Just the correction. I haven't talked about tiny homes. Okay. I thought you were a proponent of it. I like the idea, but only in certain situations. And it's not what we're talking about right now. Right. But the point being is that you could have, if you had, if you had small homes on a parcel, people have been promoting that you could have four or five units on a parcel. And none of them would touch each other. So what we're really talking about is two units, three units on a parcel. And not under our current bylaw. Five units that are tiny homes that don't touch each other would be considered five single family homes. Right. Which, which are, which our ZBA might find as complementary uses, but it's not part of our proposal. So I'm not sure why it's being brought up with regard to duplexes. Yeah. Well, so Mandy, this is the, this is the issue is if, you know, if we're going to spread this and clean this and make a new bylaw or revise the bylaw, it's very difficult for me to accept, you know, this stuff when I really want to just take it apart and put it back together in a more logical manner. So it's very hard for me to accept any of this, which is why as much as folks want to go detail by detail, it doesn't make sense to me. It seems like a, it seems like not a good use of everyone's time. That's the point I'm trying to make. Shalini. So I think that having tiny homes is a different solution, a different type of proposal, which I'm very much in favor of. And, and at the same time, I think this is where all of us here, we seem to be pushing for one kind or the other, and we need a multi prong strategy here. We do need the apartments and, and much as you don't agree, Pat, I do still think like a gateway, which would be more for student housing, we do need that too. So we are all coming in with different ideas and all. But what I do believe is we need a multi prong strategy. So what we have here is focusing in on just one aspect of the solution, which is how to make it easier for family housing that around duplexes. So I think what would be really helpful to me and the public, Mandi Jo and Pat would be maybe to talk about what is being changed, what what I'm hearing you say with respect to family owned duplexes for RBC and RG districts, there is no change. Am I right? So I'd have to page down to get to that. Wait, it's. So I have my this right here is one family. So we haven't proposed any changes to single family homes, and they're permitting pathways, which by the way, is a yes across all residential districts without any a butter notice whatsoever, no matter how ugly and a butter might think it is or no matter. Okay, whether they like where the driveway is placed or not. Okay, so let's go to the tuplex one, right family? What is it? It's this is this is where we are. Is that where we are? What we're looking at is conditions, the changes that would apply to the conditions that would apply to all duplexes, no matter owner occupied, non owner occupied, affordable and all triplexes if the triplex category is created. Can you can you can you read the section that's in yellow please? Yeah, so what these changes would do the yellow is the most recent change, although it's been there for over a month right now is it would require design review principles to be applied. Those principles under section 3.204 of the bylaw, but then in yellow a new thing it would also permit the building commissioner, the planning board and the ZBA to adopt in their rules and regulations additional design standards for two and three family detached dwellings. So duplexes and triplexes that relate to height, roof slope, facade planes, overhangs, placement of windows and doors and other architectural and site features. So it would allow them to regulate through their rules and regulations, not the zoning bylaw itself with a bylaw change more design standards. Not in yellow are other conditions that would would apply to all duplexes and triplexes that's you know, complying with street numbering of buildings zoning bylaw article seven is the parking part of zoning bylaw, the exterior lighting dark sky compliant, if in the aquifer recharge protection district it would have to comply with that part of the zoning bylaw and all units needed to be conduct connected to sewer and there would have to be a written decision issued for any land use permit. So that would apply to all duplexes and triplexes, regardless of how they were permitted or whether they for duplexes were affordable owner occupied or non owner occupied that's the proposal for general requirements. If people have questions about that we can talk about that otherwise we can move into owner occupied duplexes. I'm just trying to think that what are the concerns that people have in terms of what the changes are going to bring because going into the technicalities I'm hearing people getting confused and feeling it's not a democratic process because we can't understand it and of course zoning is very technical and hard to understand. So if we can focus a conversation around what what is the impact going to be of the proposed changes so for are we on the single which one are we on owner occupied duplexes? We're not on there yet we're only on general two and three family dwelling units. Okay and so with right now what I'm hearing you say is there will be strict design standards there is all of this that homes have to adhere to. So what are the concerns that people may have at this point about this? I'm probably I was actually responding Pam to something you said a little earlier which is you know in terms of if we can you know when we maybe discuss it with Kris Breastrop if we can make the language simpler where possible and I think that's really helps transparency because I know when members of the public have been trying I mean it's hard for us you know to get into the weeds and I think it is clear as it can be so if members of the public just ever go to our zoning bylaws and certainly if they're trying to follow this as this package of proposed zoning revisions makes it way through the process the simpler the language can possibly be the better for transparency and comprehensibility and I also think we're trying to avoid unintended consequences which is why we have to look at different sections together I mean you know Pam and I them well we've all been playing really close attention but maybe to some extent you know I've been looking at you know also being conscious of the changes in the RG and it took me a while before I realized that by triplex is no longer being apartments that that really changed you know the dimensional requirements so we have to make sure I don't know if that was an intended that was probably or unintended consequence but for me it would have been unintended if I hadn't caught it so you know that's that's why it's hard to just go line by line without revert you know referring to what's come before after so that's my comment thank you and I would just say that in in in establishing or reflecting referring to design guidelines in other places we refer to section 3.2040 and 20401 and if we want to you got it up there okay so we we kept that so I took out the point zero and point one to just say 204 again that simplification so I went to the one higher level instead of yeah okay so you had it you had initially taken it out you put it back in I appreciate that yeah okay let's go to let's go to the general requirements ABC and D so those ABC and D are street numbering of buildings and zoning by article seven which is parking let exterior lighting is dark sky compliant in the ARP you have to be public sewer connected and you have to comply with section 3.25 which is the section that talks about ARP standards the aquifer recharge protection district standards and a written decision in accordance with sections 10 or 11 so I saw Jennifer kind of shaken her head on ARP so I just want to talk a little bit I don't know whether your thoughts are that but I want to talk right now that standard doesn't exist for duplexes at all so in theory you can build duplex in the ARP in certain types of duplexes owner occupied duplexes and affordable duplexes are currently allowed in ARP by various standards without it ever saying you have to comply with section 3.25 and so we're actually saying oh hey you should so in some sense that standard is adding protections in that currently aren't there for buildings that are allowed by either site plan review or special permit now depending on the duplex category so I just wanted to talk about that just a little bit there. Can I just make one quick statement that I just want to say thank you for that clarification Madi June I'm hoping for more of those type of things that we're not catching and the public is definitely not catching because I heard people's concerns about the aquifer region and what you just said is oh actually right now you can do anything and we are actually correcting that situation so that's why I want us to go through and we can decide as we move forward we can keep coming back and see the consequences and how they're connected but we ourselves need to go do a deeper dive I've tried to do it on my own but this is definitely helpful when you can point those out to us that what is the implication of this pros and cons thank you. Thank you and I would point out that that owner occupied duplexes and affordable duplexes are already are already possible by site plan review and special permit so I'm not sure why no they're possible but they don't have this requirement to be on public sewer or to comply with section 3.25 okay and so we're adding so even though they're already possible what I'm saying is they're possible now without that requirement and so this proposal is adding that requirement in even if we weren't to change the current permitting pathway which is different than the general requirements and just just like right now no duplexes have a dark sky requirement for lighting and so this condition is an added a new condition that would apply to all duplexes it's not in our bylaw at all dark sky compliant lighting except in certain specific instances where it's been written in in this language and so we're trying to add it to all duplexes and triplexes it is it is included in both the planning board reviews and their standards and conditions so they might ask for it but it's not technically required under the bylaw right now at least that I could find because we don't have a lighting section but but but everything has to be down light and that's part of that's a very very standard part of an SPR it's a standard thing they do now but it could be challenged is not required as part of the bylaw is what I'm saying until we add it in so it's an extra protection that isn't necessarily in there right now okay Jennifer and then let's go to B or C okay so again um this is because I'm referring back to the planning board so the planning board including the chair expressed concern about allowing more different kinds of development in the APR was that related to whether or not it was on um the town sewer or not I don't know that it was but was it so I think part of it was about runoff into the aquifer so I don't know whether it's on the and this is you know again their concern I don't know if the um I mean it's my concern too but if the if the concern was whether the development happens in a property that's on the town sewer or not or if it was just having it so close to the aquifer and that's just a question though it's both right um the planning board had some concerns or some some members of the planning board had some concerns related to the aquifer recharge protection district with developments because of things like runoff and all and and additional lot coverage and impervious surface coverage that that was certainly some of it but other of it goes to things like what if the septic system fails right and and this prevents the septic system from failing because it says you couldn't build one with a septic system you'd have to be on public sewer but I have a feeling that this isn't going to satisfy their concerns no it might not but what I'm saying is right now certain duplexes are already allowed to be built in the ARP with right now and and we can get to that when we move down to owner occupied to talk a little bit more about that and so this condition actually if if even if other changes were not adopted I guess what I'm saying is this condition would improve the protection of our ARP for any duplexes that might be built in ARP under the current permitting pathways that are allowed okay so I do have a question just to get really on the ground um our duplexes right now are not allowed everywhere in the aquifer like I know when you turn in yes they are I'll show you owner occupied duplexes right now are not allowed but right affordable duplexes are allowed by special permit in the ARP right now they are the only type of duplex right there's no conditions like right so when you um when you go into Amherst Woods there's uh they're sort of red they're duplexes they're some of them are red wood you know when you turn in from what road from route nine on to Larkspur or on what do you old farm road at the light road when you turn on to old farm road before you get to the single family houses you pass some duplexes so you you pass actually pine grove neighborhood that is a condo association and they are I think there's sometimes two three or four units within that name within each building they are all condoed and it is part of a planned unit residential development under the purt I believe it's under the purd or cluster development sections and that's on town sewer or on the sewer not septic problem I believe it is okay and is there any place else where you now see duplexes in that Amherst Woods development um or townhouses or in Amherst Woods itself no near Amherst Woods there are a couple of multifamily houses that that planned unit development which is just outside of Amherst Woods itself right that's kind of east Amherst off of research drive I forget what what how what road next to it is I believe there's a couple of duplexes there and some other multifamily and then yeah I believe that's it for duplexes yeah okay thanks are we moving on to owner occupied let's make sure we did okay you you just covered C how about D D is the written decision yeah good okay any other comments on that section if not please do go to 3.3210 1 0 is owner occupied duplexes so if you're looking at this condition section the black is the only condition that's required right now in owner occupied duplexes which is that that um one or both of the dwelling units serve as the principal residence of an owner that's the only condition required for owner occupied duplexes right now um beyond some of the general conditions that that were listed above um and so beyond what we just talked about we would actually um add conditions that each building must have a dwelling unit occupied by an owner for an owner occupied duplex so you could actually read the current bylaw as as we talk about multiple buildings on properties you could actually read the current bylaw that is allows owner occupied duplexes in rg and rvc by site plan review and rn and rorld by special permit and not in occupy arps you could read that as saying well one unit of one building is owner occupied but i'm going to build four buildings so it all gets built under owner occupied duplexes and so one of the things in blue is is clarifying that no an owner occupied duplexes requires an owner to occupy each building not just one of four or five on a parcel so if you built four or five units four or five you know take a big number four four duplexes on a parcel each of those duplexes would have to have an owner occupant not just one so you would have to have essentially four owner occupants on that parsley mandy how how on earth would you ever accomplish that well so so you could condo it the the condos the biggest the biggest option um if that would happen you know and and what chris would say is that's that's how you would get more units on more than one owner occupied building duplex building on a parcel would probably most likely need condoing i think bruce colton talked about a worst case scenario of some figuring out of how to sell shares in an llc to renters that make them technically owners of a building that he talked about that as as as some way to potentially get around it but anyway some of this is now trying to make sure each building has an owner occupant in it the deed restriction is copied directly from our adu changes where we put that deed restriction in with the adu changes we did that everyone has liked so much so that that deed restriction was put into the adu we moved it here too for the owner occupied and then the stuff in blue is is what we've been talking about that multiple buildings on a parcel the the potential unintended consequences of moving to yes because the permit pathway we are proposing and this proposal has is a move to yes in all residential districts we'll talk about arp next but outside of the arp a move to yes for owner occupied duplexes but essentially that yes given what's in teal would be the first building only once that first owner occupied duplex is built you wouldn't have a yes anymore what the teal proposes and i'll start with the ro and rld because it's easier is that in ro and rld once you get above that one building of duplexes that gets by yes the same way you build the single family home in an rl you now need that special permit meaning you're now back to where we are now so basically what this proposal is chain is proposing in the ro and rld is no change above one building of duplexes but that first building no change in the permitting requirements above one building okay commanding right now a special permit and we're proposing special permit for two or more buildings three or more dwelling units on a parcel but that first duplex could be built the same way a single family home is with a yes so mandy yeah when you talk about two dwelling units that is that could be a single family and a second unit to create a duplex that is that is dwelling units yes so the minute you hit the second dwelling unit you go to sp once you hit the third you go to site you go to special permit in in the ro rld that's our proposal once you hit the third so if you have a single family building already there and you want to build another building that is a duplex you would be at special permit in ro rld just like you are now so essentially only if you're going from a single family and adding on to it to create a duplex would you be a yes or if you've got an empty parcel and you're building one duplex would you be a yes once you get above an ro rld that second unit on the parcel not in in a duplex unit on the parcel no matter how that second unit is there you would be at special permit which is where we are now in our zoning special permit for all duplexes so basically the only change in ro rld in terms of permitting that we're proposing is that first two units become a yes now let's talk about rg rvc and rn because it's gets a little more complicated and chris isn't here so i want to cover chris's proposal too our proposal is again when you get above two units you're not at special permit you're at site plan review which matches where you are right now in rg and rvc so our proposal our patinized proposal for rg and rvc is to only go to yes for that first two units otherwise keep it where it is now for any number other number of units for rn we are actually proposing go to yes for that first two units but change it from special permit to site plan review for everything else that's our proposal um by because of this teal what chris would like to see what chris's proposal is from the planning staff is that third and fourth unit would be site plan review in these three districts and when you get above four units or if it's easy you know i i like to think of it as more than two buildings but it might not be you might have a triplex on there um or you might have a quadplex already on there who knows what what you're looking at right we as everyone has said there's many different development types and all once you hit that fifth unit on the property you'd be at special permit in rn rvc and rg which for rvc and rg is more strict than current because currently no matter the number of duplex units proposed you're at site plan review right now chris's proposal is above four to make it stricter and go to site special permit our proposal is to stay at site plan review i hope that was as i that i i tried to make that as clear as i could so that yes is really you know people look at the yes but because of the conditions the yes really only applies to the first two units on the parcel so i'm i'm gonna comment on that and i think i appreciate i appreciate the planning department's statement that that when you hit the fifth unit it goes to special permit i'm going to suggest and what i could support is that when it hits the third unit it goes to special permit and that is because um just because we have the opportunity now to do to do so many different units on a parcel so so my my addition is to is to make that cutoff point at the third unit it goes to special permit any other comments of shallownay sorry man did you can you explain the dimensional requirements how do those work like do they still apply in the same way and can you give an example of what it might look like if there was an owner occupied duplex and we built another unit then yeah how do the like we said we we can only build 15 does that still apply is it per unit how does that work so the dimensional requirements change depending on the district you're in the rg has a different dimensional requirement than the ro and then the rld because they're meant to be different densities um but that is an overall parcel requirement no matter how many buildings so so for example in the rg there is a maximum building coverage of 25 percent um and so if you've got a 12 000 square foot parcel which is the minimum size you can have an rg to build a dwelling unit um you have you can only put no matter how many units you put on that parcel you can only have building coverage of 3000 square feet so that's if that's two buildings with four two duplexes with four units it still can all those buildings still can only cover 3000 square feet the maximum lot coverage is 40 percent so that's buildings so that's those those two buildings say if we're talking about two duplexes in an rg it's those two buildings but it's also all of the impervious surfaces so that's all of the all of the driveway and parkings and that can only be 40 percent the maximum it can be is 40 percent so in an rg that would be um well 24 for 4800 square feet of the 12 000 square feet is the maximum number if the lot is 12 000 square feet 4800 square feet is the maximum number of lot coverage that includes all the buildings and all of the driveways and parking areas and anything impervious surface walkways and stuff like that um the other um 60 percent so what was i i said 48 so the other 60 percent of 672 is not covered at all it would be grass would be bushes might be trees is not covered with impervious surface so that that's how dimensional regulations work it's on a per parcel basis no matter how many units you put on that parcel there's other things about um additional lot area per family jennifer talked about that today too about and that's how you get to maximum number of units per yeah so and what would the coverage be in an rn in the rn um the maximum building coverage is 20 percent you need a a minimum lot of 20 000 and so your maximum building coverage can be 4 000 of if you're if you're at minimum lot size your maximum building coverage can be 4 000 square feet of a 20 000 square foot um lot so your buildings can't cover more than 4 000 square feet and 16 000 can't have buildings on it your maximum lot coverage is 30 so of a 20 000 square foot lot in rn you can have up to 4 000 covered in buildings and a total of up to 6 000 covered in buildings plus driveway parking walkways and all of that which means if your lot is exactly the minimum of 20 000 square feet in rn no matter how many units you put on that and there's also additional lot area that maximize you know that that so it's considerably to have at least um 14 000 square feet not covered at all right so it's much less dense if it's 30 percent versus it's much less dense in the rg and in the rg you can build an additional building with only 4 000 square feet so so there's no comparison basically so well but that's the intention of those zones mm-hmm i'm sorry are you saying no because i muted so i'm just saying you you can build you could you can already have a lot more lot coverage or a lot less that's covered in the rg which i know is the intent but that's how it it is so we don't need to change that i mean i'm just we didn't propose any dimensional changes right yeah no no no i'm just saying the way my using the rg was saying but you all you still have 60 percent but it's a small size i mean so i just i just want to i just want to keep keeping in mind because we keep coming back to like densifying the rg that let's keep in mind have the rg compares to the rn because i haven't you know i just have to say that yeah thank you shalini yeah i think i just want to do be clear and have the people watching be clear that we still have all these other protections in place around how much we can build even though we're allowing multiple units and of course it varies across ro and rld versus rg however that's not changing so we still have a lot i mean based on what's been decided um we all of that is still in place so that's an important point to me at least for me as long as the triplexes have the protections of a department right right exactly thank you um andy joe i i'm looking at the time so i'm going to make a motion because we have a couple other things i think we need to get done today um what's up i i hope that's okay pam yes i i'm happy to transfer out of this topic so i'm going to make a motion to continue the public hearing to june 22nd at 4 30 p.m second 4 35 i said 4 30 i don't think it matters much okay fine second all those uh all those in favor let's see uh pat please um i uh jennifer i shalini yes mandy i am yeah good so we will continue the public hearing so june 22nd at 4 30 p.m can i say a quick thing pardon can i just say a quick thing really quick thing it's the correct shalini saying i actually support the gateway project i'm just not sure i want to have a student district that isolates students in another part of town uh where i see student i would rather see students and families and stuff living together that's all but i support the gateway project in my neighborhood i have to see that yeah right like in your neighborhood so i like my neighborhood i'd like to see faculty housing there i think that'd be a great place for faculty housing okay we don't want to get too far field thank you pat what thank you mandy andy your your your baton is back thank you um we are going to move on to planning board and zba appointment recommendations we have two things to do and then we need public comment and then we can do minutes it looks like we'll go over maybe by about five minutes depending on how quick we can get through some of this we already had public comment we had public comment from the hearing related to the hearing so so planning board interview questions in the packet was the questions we used last year as well as questions we received from counselors as potential um potential editions or changes um um are there thoughts on these pam oh i didn't mean to have my hand up but i do have thoughts um and that some suggestions that were made by other counselors were great and so it looks like there was a question a suggestion made by a counselor to question number five that reads what's your opinion of waivers exceptions dimensional special permits in the zoning bylaw when should they be used and when should they not be used and there was a request to delete the word dimensional so it just says waivers exceptions special permits right of waivers exceptions exceptions i guess were at special permits in the zoning bylaw and would insert the word and um what are people's thoughts on that request let me put this one up um pam what did you say i didn't quite hear it i'm sorry sounded like a good suggestion so that's what it would look like and the next one was um um a question that let me just put it so that it's on this screen and we can discuss whether i'd fix things but that's what it is we can discuss whether to add it delete it reword it but that was the suggestion ham um it seems a little extraneous i don't know that we really need to have this is a formal question um i think in the process of inviting people to an interview they're probably likely to tell us that they would rather be on the planning board and zoning board definitely you know i've only known one example of someone saying on a different committee and as long as their schedules don't conflict i think that's fine so i will disclose that i'm the one that proposed this question and one of the reasons i've proposed it is because we have had candidates that have not mentioned that they are serving on related boards and committees and then have after we've appointed them sought reappointment or have not resigned from those other related committees we currently have two planning board members that are also serving on the local historic district commission which whether or not we believe it as a conflict i think should be disclosed i'm not saying by by requesting this question i'm not saying that their answer will automatically disqualify them from appointment or not but i think it would be good it would have helped me to know first of all that they were on those boards because you know they did not disclose they were some of them did not um or that they were going to plan on continuing on them because it may have changed my view as to whether they should be appointed to that committee yet we also have zba members that serve on the board of license commission whether some people may think that that shouldn't happen either because that's too many boards too but i think we should know that i think and and if we don't ask it we haven't been getting disclosures related to things like that um and so i would like to keep it in i don't know whether this is the right wording but i think it's important to know the answer to it because we haven't been getting disclosures as to what boards and committees people are currently serving on got it uh jennifer yeah i i it seems a little extraneous to me too so i have to say with i know who the two members of the planning board who were on the local historic district commission they actually both did disclose it because when they were asked to describe you know how they reconcile different points of view i think there was a question about that and they actually both pointed to the same um you know sort of experience on the local historic district commission and i think you actually objected to how that was handled so you know i don't know if that's where this is coming from but um and one of the two members is now actually off the local historic district commission he's going off but it wasn't so easy for him to resign because there has to be an architect and they've been very challenged actually right now they're looking for an architect to replace him and it's not easy to get one so um anyway i i i don't that wouldn't add a lot to me i think you know when we ask somebody i think one of the questions we usually do ask is if they're um you know what they're how they've participated in you know town affairs you know what you know to share a volunteer experience um so i mean i'm not gonna you know i'll go along with that the majority wants but i will correct they may have disclosed they have served on it i must not have been clear that they were currently on it and i do know i will say i did know that one after looking at it was on it but their term was expiring on june 30 and so my assumption and it was my bad assumption was that they would not seek reappointment to that one if appointed to the planning board yet they did and they were um and so i'm trying to get more information to help me make decisions and i haven't always had complete information in the past um shalini so when i first read that question i was like yeah why are we asking that but manager you pointing out how that could happen uh but if there isn't like i'm trying to understand because i have never been in the history commission um is there a potential like what is the reason why we would not want the same person in the planning board what i simply i'm not saying this applies to these particular people but just generally speaking what are the scenarios under which that would be a problem to have the same person in the planning board and the historic commission for example so and and i want to be clear i'm not saying it's a disqualification if they are i think knowing and having the information gives us more information to think about as we think about qualifications um the local historic district commission must um i don't know what the wording is but they see all building projects in that district before those building projects go for a land use permit at either the planning board or the zba and so if that permit goes to the planning board the land use permit goes the people who sit on both boards see the project twice so many of the things are different but site plan review and local historic district commission review are kind of overlap and kind of don't and so you know one thing to consider and this is why i say it's not necessarily disqualification is i don't know how many people sit on the local historic district commission i think it's five but i'm not sure the planning board has seven do we want overlap when some of the things they're considering are the same thing or do we want more diverse people considering those things in those districts it's just another to me another point of information as we're thinking about appointments in a potentially holistic manner since we don't control the appointments to the local historic district commission we only control planning board and zba can i just respond to that so if it's just a piece of information but there is no real policy or any reasoning then it's doesn't feel like it's like i don't know what to do with that information now now that i know they're what do you do with the information about collaborating right what do we do with any of the information we get from the questions would be my question like hard i mean it's really hard but at least with the others i have okay if i find they're not collaborative then i am less inclined to vote for them but if they're in both and they're wanting to volunteer in both thank you so much for volunteering in your time but other than that i can't think of a reason why that would be other than we want diversity of thought for sure that's true so if there was somebody additional there okay all right okay if they're additional people and we want more diversity of thought in different boards and people then that could be a just a point of uh that could help me decide okay okay i can see that how it it might be helpful okay fam um i think i i would look at this and say you know if you if you feel really strongly about asking this question perhaps we could just say um do you currently serve if so which one can you manage do you do you feel that there are any conflicts and can you manage the time commitment for two committees i mean to me that's much more valuable than than um um do you plan it's just i mean i'd like we don't have that many people and and i think it's i think it's terrific if they i think there's somebody on the the finance committee one of the resident members is also another committee members somewhere else and um okay we would love to have you know a hundred different unique people but frankly not that many people are stepping up so it feels more like an exclusionary statement rather than a fact finding did i word your second part to it as you intended pam i just was going to say that i agree with uh pam on this um i think she's right um so i actually think on on boards the more diverse um you can get so if someone is coming from the historical commission or we have somebody on the planning board who is into climate change and energy and all this other stuff and that doesn't seem to disqualify that person but actually fuels some of their work on the planning board and hopefully reverses it to ecac with the rewarding how are people feeling about the question or not pam i got a thumbs up from pat i got a nod from shalini pam i i would say um if you currently serve on other town boards or committees do you do you see any conflicts uh and can you manage the time commitment i mean just really simplify it it's just i mean they'll tell right they'll tell us which ones presumably they will if not one of us will ask a follow-up question hopefully about that um yeah again i i don't feel that we need this question but if i get outvoted i would live with it with this wording so we could add it to number i guess it's number 10 now possibly as as sort of an addendum to that one that's confirming time commitment to for hearings meetings and site visits um you know please confirm i don't know why that's a question but um can you manage time for both i think we've got some people on more than two so that's what i said for all jennifer i know this is just to close the circle on the local historic district commission and the planning board i think it was asked before we voted on the other two members because paul said yeah you're allowed to serve on both it came up in town council that for the most part what goes before the local historic district commission is i want to change this window and then the building permit after it gets get just gets a permit from the building commissioner when it has to go beyond the building commissioner it almost always goes to zba so rarely if ever does something go before the historical commission and the planning board so maybe the greater concern for that would be a you know if you're on the local historic commission and the zba but the planning board really isn't a conflict that's it thank you for that thoughts on this i have no idea why the numbers are kind of weird but i'll fix it you can clean that up later any any other thoughts questions if not i'll take a motion to adopt these as amended because it sounds like people are okay with this and i thank you for all of your comments and humoring me in a sense with that too i had a question mark at the end of eight right yeah i oh wait this one does get a question mark yep anyone want to make a motion so moved that is a motion to adopt these interview questions um as amended as amended oh wait not the 14 is there someone seconded that right was there a second i think jennifer might have i thought i did no i didn't i'll second it i seconded it is there any more discussion all in favor see none um i'm just going to go down my list here i'm an ipam hi jennifer hi pat hi shalani yes that motion is adopted five zero um next up apologize for the lateness of this is sufficiency of the applicant pool for zba okay so i have a quick update on that let me see if i can find my note um we have right now we have five people that put in a a calf um six with someone that put in for for planning board as well and these yeah so five people that that i think are interested in zba um so they haven't been queried if they're still interested because they were recent and and or have replied um four people have said no and i have not gotten these supplies at all from a responses at all from another three people so we have at the moment five potentially six because of the the duplicated um interest in planning board the zba also um just like also um the uh the chair of the department said my concerns my my deliberation is the same as last year and i think what i will do is rather attach you know two emails and you know whatever is i'm going to clean it up and just say here is the recommendation from the from the chair i'll send it by him one more time but um rather than the convoluted doing like it was last year so i just have a question do we have fewer zba applications than spots yes at the moment correct so we have two we have two full-time members who are not interested in renewing and we have the four associate positions that are an annual annual appointment andy is there an opportunity to um interview for the full positions instead of trying to fill um the four associates so i think we could declare the pool sufficient and move to interviews for full for the fulls um or we could declare the pool sufficient and move to interviews for everything and decide whether we're going to fill the associates or not um after the interviews um we could also declare the pool insufficient if we did that i would recommend given the timing um i don't think we would have any opportunity to actually interview candidates before the end of june and get appointments in if we don't declare the pool sufficient today so that if that happened i think we would need to seek extensions for all candidates all current members and associate members through june july 30 um i caution against that one because there is an expectation from the z from the planning staff that a number of zba applications that might take months to get through will start their hearings in july and so i fear that if we ask current members who don't want to continue to extend for a month they might get assigned to cases to matters that might require them to extend well beyond the month and i wouldn't necessarily feel comfortable without that um disclosure to them and if that's the case they might not agree to extend and then we're in really big problems um so so i i you know i we're up against a wall i think shalini did did anyone send that email that we were planning to send to tony marules and to steve sharber if not can you just send me the write up and i will do that right now please do that it got i did not and i don't know whether pam did you please do that all you have to do is take the write up from the in the news thing or from our bulletin board posting which is still up okay yeah i'm gonna do that right now um you know i it's really hard i've been really trying i mean i in some sense i want to say let's declare it sufficient for the full members and not the associates but yet we might want to appoint some as associates and we don't want to have to re-interview right um you know we could say sufficient for the full members with the possibility of deciding to recommend associate appointments too something like that um and that we make that clear to the candidates too that that we're aiming to maybe we're aiming to make we will definitely make recommendations for the full membership and we may during deliberations decide to make recommendations for associate memberships too i don't know if people's thoughts on that i would support that does that sound like a plan yeah yeah so i'll make a motion to declare the zba pool sufficient to move to interviews to make recommendations for full membership with a the possibility of making recommendations for associate members also really could i do that wording one more time sure kelly that was a move a motion to declare the applicant pool well the to declare sufficient the applicant pool for the zoning board of appeals to move to interviews for the purpose of making recommendations for full membership with the possibility of making recommendations for associate membership thank you you're welcome kelly jennifer the june 12th date we have for interviews would that be for zba and planning board that is just for planning board once we do this vote i will explain what's going on with that any uh pam so we have to vote right yes okay somebody second i did okay thank you didn't see no other comments um shalini yes pat pat i mandy's and i pam yeah jennifer yes that is five zero the pool is declared sufficient for that um if there are no pam you said you'd clean up are people comfortable voting the selection criteria now so we can get those emails out to the current applicants to start the soi process with the expectation that the the document will be cleaned up so it's not email after email after email it hasn't changed in like a year and a half right so um what would be sent out to these folks is the the write up about the zba the the chairs selection criteria and our questions actually um not the interview questions we'll do that next meeting we only did planning board interview questions i'll put interview questions for zba at the next meeting so it would be zba selection guidance base the document off of the one that's in the packet the june the may 26 2022 one um but clean it up and update the dates and all um but yeah selection interview questions go out once adopted um i did not put them on this one they're slightly different um so i'll create a new document and we have to send out to council for any options on those interview questions too because i only did zba so pam you and i can coordinate who's going to send that request out to council for next meeting um so i'll make a motion to adopt the zba selection guidance as presented with amendments to clean it up essentially any other discussion seen none jennifer yes mandy's and i pam yeah pat all right solani yes that's adopted 502 so quick and then we'll go to public comment um and then minutes so june 12th will be the at 4 30 p.m will be the interviews for the planning board i will pull unless pam wants to i will immediately tonight or tomorrow pull for interview dates for the zba current zba applicants um you you guys all saw how many dates i put out there june 12th was exactly the only date that our now currently more applicants for planning board were all available of everything i put out that was the only one i did not have any choices um we cannot there's a council meeting that night i have gotten word from athena that we cannot if we would to make a recommendation on the 12th it cannot be acted on that night unless the entire set of interviews is done during a council meeting i am i am um recommending i recommended to athena and lin against that and here's the reason i did my hope is because we do have a couple candidates and maybe if we get some applicants in the future that our applicants for both that we would conduct both sets of interviews and after the zba one or whatever one is the later one which will probably be the zba one at this point we then discuss both sets of appointments to make recommendations um because of that there are some overlapping candidates um that was my thinking and then all recommendations would go to the council for the meeting on june 26th um is is the is my thinking right now about how that recommendation so the meeting on the 12th would solely be the interviews it would not be discussion of the candidates after the interviews is the plan right now um my one concern is how long do we have enough time to do all the interviews and have a discussion uh before 6 30 when the council meets well so we won't be having the discussion okay all right that that was the thought is is the council can't act that night so if they can't act that night we don't have to make a recommendation after the interviews so we wouldn't be um we did just postpone the hearing to the 22nd i wasn't quite thinking that is the day we will probably be discussing the candidates for all the boards and committees but it might not be um i might need to add another meeting once we know when the zba interviews are my hope is that all five of us will be able to attend the zba interviews and that right after those interviews assuming they take place after the 12th that we will discuss all and make recommendations at whatever that meeting is for those interviews for all both committees i just don't know when those zba interviews will be um but we will figure something out um andy i would i would appreciate actually if you did the polling because you've got that software and you've already i will do that but that's sort of the plan right now um i'm hoping to have more choices and and i think it was jennifer that's not able to make the 12th at 4 30 i know there was one committee member that it indicated no i can't you can maybe i read something wrong i thought there was one committee the member that that did and and so this plan will actually also allow if someone can't make the planning board interviews to watch them before we get to discussions and hopefully all five of us can be part of the recommendation phase does that sound like a good plan yeah because i think i did ham and i could actually get down to get to 10 that's true yeah i might have collected things wrong so yeah um and if people want to attend the council meeting in person on the 12th they can attend the um committee meeting at 4 30 from the town room athena will operate that meeting from the town room with audio there i have not decided lin has given me permission to operate that meeting fully hybrid half hybrid i haven't figured out how i'm going to notice it yet um in terms of if audience can be in the town room during the interviews or not or if candidates i i have been telling candidates they will be zoom only i am tempted to keep that that way even if committee members show up to the town room just to make sure that all candidates that no one's there in the room with the committee members so it's as equal as possible um and so that is the other thing i'm thinking but i haven't figured out whether what to do about the audience potentially in the town room i'll think through logistics and all later on that but if people want to already be there for the council meeting they'll be able to connect to the audio in the town room for the interview portion for the interview see what's he mean that's like simplify yeah i got that confirmation it's where a female be so um any other questions on that see none we're moving to general public comment if there are public comments on matters within the jurisdiction of crc residents are welcome to express their views for three minutes please raise your hand if you would like to make a general public comment seeing no hands general public comment is closed i'm going to make the motion to adopt the 20 2023 special meeting minutes as presented the may 11 2023 meeting minutes as presented and the may 18 2023 special meeting minutes as presented which are edited but they were presented as edited um is there a second second thank you pam the edits to this may 18th 2023 special meeting minutes are all in red or they should be in red they are literally just to conform how george does his minutes to how afina and kelly do their minutes um that was basically the only edits i did i will send if we adopt them i will i will pam can use if we adopt them today as edited can you send the ed i've already sent the edited version but can you send that again to the chairs of the trust and george ryan who took them and indicate that we have adopted them in this form hopefully they will adopt the same do we need do we need to wait for response from them to adopt them fully so normally one committee adopts first and then the other committee kind of adopts whatever the first committee adopted our meeting was first so um i have not heard that they object to any of the changes they already have them and i told them what they were and i have not received any response that the chairs at least object to any of them okay denifer i don't mean to say it's all about me because nobody really cares but me but i think on the 18th minutes as long as we're there on page three it says number six determining who implements the approaches i don't know if you see that uh i got to open it first oh sorry i'm really sorry i don't want to take up our time now no okay item six yeah yeah so two lines above that where it says tab said can we bring in the 20 to 40 demographic i thought i said like the 30 to 50 or the 25 to 40 anyway if you could just maybe make it the 25 to 50 because we already have the 20 that's that just sounds a little ridiculous we were talking about you know keeping people who graduate on to when they're so you'd like to amend the number 20 to 25 yeah that basically would do it thank you 25 no i would say 25 the number 20 to the number 25 so read 25 to 40 to 50 oh and so you wanted to read 25 to 50 yeah yeah that's you that's the other part just a second so shalini the next comment was shalini saying contact marula some buffoons at the masses possible way to reach this demographic so i don't i don't think marula should be reaching the 20 to 50 i think they would be talking about the 20 to 25 no i think shalini's comment related to the workers it because because at that point um it was talking about who how can we figure out what people want and so i think it was see if oh oh the workforce of umass yeah if tony and nancy can help with contacting umass staff well i guess when shalini reaches out about zba applicants you could cover that too sorry just to confirm though so it would be 25 to 50 that is the demographic that jennifer yeah yeah so okay so the motion is is to adopt we're going to change kelly we're going to change that motion for the may 18th minutes to adopt as amended not as presented got it and pam's okay with that change is the second yeah okay any other comments seeing none we're going to vote shalini yes jennifer yes pam yeah mandy's and i pat that is those three are adopted unanimously um pam as i said just for the the joint meeting if you could send the amended ones out and and just note that they actually have an amendment to that one section to to fix that number to the chairs and george ryan who took who thankfully took the minutes so that athena and kelly did not have to rewrite we rewatch the video to take the minutes so that was very helpful of george um i have no other announcements other than that may june 12th is the interviews for the planning board um anything else items not anticipated thank you all we went way longer than i normally do i'm sorry about that i lost track of time and we kept talking so so i i meant to stop to to try and close that hearing and first move it on and six and kind of lost track of time so sorry about that we are adjourned at 6 57 p.m thank you thank you