 And welcome to the Monday, November 26th select board meeting. We are still at the middle school in our pre-town meetings, select board meeting mode. We have a number of things to deal with on our agenda tonight. I do want to mention that our final item, which was an executive session to consider strategy for collective bargaining has been postponed. We'll probably deal with that next Monday, but we won't be dealing with that tonight. So everything else we will be dealing with and make sure that we actually talk about next Monday's meeting before we leave here as well as the potential for Wednesday's meeting. So just make a little note to yourself to remind me of that. Okay, so without further ado, we are doing positions on the remaining town meeting warrant articles that we hadn't considered yet. You don't actually need to be that close. You could be a little bit further back as if you speak yet. That's perfect. If you speak directly to those mics, they will overwhelm them. So we have four petition articles that we have had initial presentations on several weeks ago, and we deferred taking positions on them at that time because they were still undergoing some review and negotiation with the planning board. The petitioners were making some revisions, et cetera. So we are now ready to do so. So we will have brief presentations on these primarily on the things that have changed since we had the full presentations a couple weeks ago. So we'll start with article 16, and who would like to speak to that? Is that it? Did you? Sure. Yeah, and Adam, please come to 10. I wasn't here at the beginning of the presentation, so I don't know how fully you've been briefed on the background. I don't know if you want me to say something about that or whether you really want me to just cut right to the chase and do the new language. So overall, we have the general sense of the articles, and we did get the presentation from, I believe it was Ms. Barborette the first time on article 16. So you can just speak, I mean, just sort of generally to the intent and what the revisions have been. So do you know that we've been working with the only subsequent planning board and that our intention is that our articles both are congruent with the planning board articles and so in some cases strengthen it. So that our changes to article 16 are primarily to include, to change the last sentence of the earlier article to read any renovation or expansion of or addition to an existing dwelling that results in the creation of a two-family dwelling shall be considered a converted dwelling and permitted under section 3.32.01. This is a more stringent approach to the duplex, to the two-family dwellings, whereas our understanding of the planning board article is that the planning board article considers a duplex, a building that has had substantial additions added to it and therefore those would go on the site plan review. We are arguing that anything other than a new dwelling, as a duplex, should be considered a conversion and go under special permit. We prefer the more stringent regulations that attach to the special permit because we believe that particularly what we have seen in our neighborhoods, which is in some cases additions to single-family houses that become duplexes and are turned into rentals that those really need to be examined in relationship to use of the neighborhood, the appropriateness of the neighborhood and the various considerations that go with special permit. So that's new that they just shrugged. And where is the planning board on this article now? I think that as soon as they come out of executive session, they will be hearing from two of our members about this. So we're having a simultaneous plan for it. Okay. May I add? I'm John Box. I'm a decreasing 10. I just emphasized that the concept here is that once you have created a commercial use, a rental in this area, that you're no longer just an owner occupant. You have a profit-making opportunity and we're saying that it's appropriate for the zoning board to take into account not only your interest in the property owner, but the interest of the neighbors. And that's what the special permit gives you where site time review is, as you know, is much more just looking at the exterior of the property. Questions or comments on article 16? I'm just going to say it's a little bit harder to do our work in terms of our position when we don't know what the planning board position is because we depend on the ins and outs of their discussion to a great deal. So it's going to be difficult for them. Other questions or comments? So I attended the planning board meeting when they originally considered this not in its revised form. But my understanding at that time was that there are that an unintended consequence of this is that it might, by creating very, very strict requirements on converted dwellings, and this is, if I understand this correctly, this is putting serious constrictions on what would otherwise be, it's making everything that would have been a duplex go through the converted dwelling process and which limits the amount of space and all kinds of things that you could add to the building. The concern, as I understood it, is that this might inadvertently encourage a property owner to demolish the building and start over because then they wouldn't have the same renovation constrictions. And so I wonder if you dealt with that. I think it's pretty clear. The cost of destroying a whole building is considerable. So although you could, I think for any bylaw, you can have unexpected developments that we think it's not going to be very common that somebody and owner would come in and destroy the entire building and reconstruct from ground up this new building, this new duplex, as a profit-making enterprise. So we're not, we don't think that should drive what is the most common expectation here that simply the site plan review is inadequate to what is generally going on and 95% of the cases will be something other than somebody coming in and destroying the property and building it up. If I could add two points to that. One is although we clearly prefer the special permit as a process to protect the interests of the neighborhood, I don't think we consider it as onerous as you were suggesting in your description. I think that it should be perfectly plausible for an owner to have a good plan, easily develop a good plan that the zoning board of appeals would be glad to approve and would do so quickly. I think that the major difference between the two as we suggested earlier is that the zoning board of appeals with the special permit looks at use and neighborhood appropriateness. And I think that that is an important distinction for us as the neighbors who otherwise bear the abuse and the destruction of the fabric that the neighborhood occurs otherwise. So I don't think, although I'm arguing on behalf of the special permit instead of the site plan review, I don't think it's as onerous and difficult as possibly one might suggest. And in fact, I would be very concerned about someone who would want to avoid that kind of inquiry in building a duplex for commercial rental in a residential neighborhood. I think that they should be able to go through that kind of review. And finally, we do have a demolition article. I'm not certain about its status, but if that doesn't come before you tonight, we'll be asking the planning board to please take that up in time for spring. And if there are unintended consequences, those could be remedied as of spring time. Okay. Other questions or comments on 16? Mr. Heide. Yeah, I'm just just curious about, I'm sure you've read the planning board's discussion on the old article 16. It's not the current, not the way it's been currently amended. Correct. I'm wondering how much, I wonder what you think about that if it were applied to the currently amended language. Could you remind me of the key points because I've gone through so many. Yeah. Basically the article 13 and 14, which we're going to see beforehand, should they pass, make this moot? Except for the difference with two cases. That's why we hope it is on that point. Okay. In what remains of the article. Because that's the only remaining piece that we would like to strengthen. Okay. Mr. Walts. Sorry. Could you explain a little bit why you want to apply the design of your principle here? Why I want to. Apply the design of your principle to these other categories. I simply put in the terms for what the numbers represented. And I thought these were correct but there'd be a reason not to do that. I mean, we were, as you know, they kind of in our neighborhood were beginning to think about local historic districts. We're trying to think about the homogeneity, the, both the diversity and the homogeneity of historic districts that have different historic traditions. And I think would be quite appropriate to consider those when one is looking at a conversion. Particularly, we're thinking about some of the conversions in which the add-on building enormously towards the initial building is really quite ugly in the neighborhood. But you originally wanted to apply to renovations to change this one? Or make it better? We do want to apply this. Yes. But we're asking that this come in as part of the zoning board and appeal process. Is it your thought that that's unduly onerous? I'm just wondering about it. I wasn't sure because the changes in the language, again, as you said, so many back and forth revisions because the regional language applied to any construction, renovation or expansion in here. Any construction, reconstruction, or expansion. So the creation versus renovation. Yes. And there the attention was that you were honing in on the limitation of what a complex should be considered for the site planning deal. I'm wondering, did you consider, rather than having a special permit by the ZBA process, have it through the planning board process? Which would have sort of the double benefit of keeping all of the discussions within the same board that might come up about it if it's going to conversion or, you know, it's not, or whatever like that. They did come up and were discussed by the planning board and by us. There's an advantage to having the zoning board of appeals which hears all of these cases and can think about them in this much larger context. So the planning board might do a very fine job, but we thought it was preferable that the zoning board of appeals keep the responsibility since it sees a ton of cases that the planning board would only see a few cases here. And so we can have the same perspective. I think they might do a fine job. I think the ZBA we feel could do, is the more appropriate agency for reviewing this. We also had a question about whether those that design or, you know, plan the legislation should be the ones that implement it. So it was a jurisdiction issue. Okay. So I don't know where folks are on this. I find this one complicated. Discussing it within my household because we just need really a new hobby going on in my house. I couldn't even get a mind. That's exactly what I mean. I couldn't even understand the implications of it enough to be able to explain it well. So I think that the, not having the planning boards interpretation of this, and I appreciate the intent behind it very much. And I appreciate the revisions you've been trying to go through to get it to a point that's kind of mutually acceptable to folks. But I just don't understand it well enough without their position and recommendation to take a position myself. Do other members of the select board feel differently? I think that the consequences issue and the consequences for what this does to potential changes of construction for duplexes. It's just, it's more complicated than unless I'm just too simple and not understanding this well. And I think it's more complicated than we might be grasping here for how it interacts with the rest of the zoning bylaw. So I just don't want to take personally a strong position on something that I don't understand when the indication to me is that there are potential negative consequences that aren't well thought out. Ms. Dunn. I think for me, the major thing is moving from SPR to SP. And I think that's appropriate. I think the planning board is not so much against it as for it because they're saying that if 13 of 14 get voted down they would support this. So I'm okay with it. So that was in a previous version. I'm not sure where they are in the current version of it. So I think you have to be careful of that recommendation also because it's sort of a moving target. Ms. Hayden. Yeah, I'm feeling a little bit of a disadvantage because I think about this as we haven't the benefit of a public hearing on the new version as we did with the old version. And sort of, I mean, that's helpful because there are more smart people there who are teasing the stuff out than I am on it. So I'm kind of, as I think about this I really would rather have been able to see that or at least get the results from it. And you've already described how this is different. I mean, we do have the results of a public hearing here but that was for something else which, you know, you've already pointed out. So. I wonder if I may, excuse me, make one other point that I would like to make that I think might inform you of the way. What we're asking for is there is a return to the situation prior to 2008 that in 2008, the special permit was required for two families to be punished. And that the change to zoning by law occurred in 2008. So I think that that would mean that this is not as speculative a situation as we've been considering. I had neglected to mention that to you. So I appreciate that point. I would rather, kind of as we did with them with the article, was it 12th that we decided not to take a position on it and hear kind of the full deliberation by the body and get the full benefit of the planning board's thoughts on it. We opted not to take a position. Does anybody want to do something other than that on this article? Mr. Adu. I would like to consider referring it. Recommending referring it for a couple of reasons. Two of which are that this seems to be an incredibly important thing that we're trying to get done here. And second, so it needs to be done. I mean something that, something has to be done about circumstance and this is a thing. But second, and you know, we knew about the 2008 because most of us were there at the time and recall a great deal of the conversation just as trying to undo and that's, we appreciate that as well. But the, what I would like to see done is sort of that discussion brought forward to add it to this discussion sort of now that we do have an understanding about you know the intended as well as the unintended consequences it picks. So it works. Mr. Hayden's interesting referral Mr. Wong. Industry for back to the old discussion. Part of the rationales that I called from the master planning committee plus that to address a larger price affordable in the non-technical housing and class discrimination because there's an attempt to keep duplexes and rentals out of neighborhoods. So the intention was honorable at least. Yeah. Okay, take no position or referral. Anyone, Ms. Stein? I was just going to speak against referring back because I think this is a matter of some urgency. The fact is that the number of properties that have changed to being LLCs and such has almost doubled just this year and I think that we need to sort of slow things down. So I think referring back is going to put an additional delay of several months and for that reason I wouldn't vote to support referral. Okay, Ms. Burke? So I'm not sure I'm adding anything to this confusion but the original planning board report talked about how if 13 and 14 had both failed often when we get to town meeting we have a couple of fairly clear decision trees. This one's way muddier than this because we have no idea what they're even deciding right now while they're off in another room and if that's still true or if there's yet another alternative here. So I'm not sure I don't see how we can conceivably take a position because if, for example, 13 and 14 pass then it sounds as though the petitioners are still going to go ahead and move 16 in which case there's just too many different ways that this could go so I feel comfortable saying no position. Okay, we're getting on with no position, Ms. Rain. I'm going to argue for the referral again. As a way to honor town meetings request from last time that this kind of thing get the time spent on it to make it correct and in order to get it behind the housing development study which is still not published I think it's too any second now because there was a ton of input that went into it. So a referral would allow us to honor that request. Would you like to make a motion Mr. Wall? Just going to sympathize with Mr. Hayden in general. I guess what makes me nervous is such a truncated process for such an important step. You know, I think if it were so urgent and so important I really wish it had come forward sooner and planning board had commented sooner on a final addition. I hate to feel pressured to act because other things aren't in place. Normally that'd be a reason not to act. Okay, so to be clear we're not deciding a bylaw change we're only deciding a position. We need a motion either to take no position or to refer. Mr. Hayden. I would like to make a motion and I'm not going to surprise you this evening and move that we recommend a town meeting to refer. Your motion is to refer. Back to the planning board, yes. Is there a second? Second. Move in the second for further discussion. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. Nay. Abstaining none so two in favor three opposed not taking position to refer. Okay. Mr. Hayden would like to make another motion. I would move that we take no position on this article for town meeting. Second. Further discussion. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. That was unanimous. Okay. No position on 16. Who would like to speak to no position? It's easy to use this today. We take no position. I can say that. Mr. Burr. Okay. Good. All right. 17. The only 17 started as a very long article. I do want to say what some of you already know that as a city petitioner article we need to have these in by the new day of September 19th while the planning board is going to submit their work so that while we were trying to work with them and coordinate our petitions with theirs there's work changing in discussion with them. And so that is I think the basic reason is the kind of the differential due dates for the two deliberative processes. I don't want us to seem lazy or sloppy. We're working with a system that we were given. The change in 17 is that 17 has been reduced to the first two sentences of article 17 paragraph 5. So it's a short proposal now with one additional and the additional language becomes a modifying clause to A in paragraph 5. So that A reads, let me read that second sentence, the conversion if in a residential district shall either be located in an area that is close to heavily traveled streets close to business, commercial and educational districts or already developed for multifamily use and the new language and shall require owner occupancy or a resident manager in one of the units or B which remains as it is in the current zone rival B from one to two units etc. etc. that already has the owner occupancy requirement. The reason for this is we were very moved by Professor Carlstrom's data which note that the nuisance houses are non-owner occupied and that none of the owner occupied houses in our residential areas are nuisance houses. Our own experience of us who work at the university and have taught there about the fact that the residents will all have adult supervision as well as peer supervision and that it was clear that having an owner occupant or we in fact relaxed by the bit by resident manager of one of the units means that there is the kind of adult supervision there to prevent some of the problems that we have found that students are, you know, at their wits end to control themselves or are unwilling to do so and also somebody who the neighbors can contact. So that's really the basic point there. Well, I think initially we said that there must be owner occupied one unit must be. It doesn't have meeting with two of the major landlords in town, owners of property and they said that they would accept this if we included as an alternative a resident manager. They felt it was reasonable to require some supervision on site. The problems that occur are between 10 and 3 in the morning. If you have offsite residential managers, you know they're not going to be there at 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning. So these two major owners said that a resident manager of the alternative would be an acceptable one. So that's why we modified it. And let me just also then add one other point which is a describes pretty clearly the residential general area which we noted that the original bylaw didn't control for resident for owner occupancy and so we were trying to bring the general residence area at least close to the protection of other residential areas. Thank you. And the planning board has voted to support this one. Is that right? So questions or comments about 17? Mr. Hayden. I just want to be clear the original article that we signed had 1, 2, 3 it had an additional sentence for other additions to section 3.3401. Are they all gone? They're all gone. Okay. And in the drawing again just to emphasize that we have to submit this to December 19th, we had no idea what the planning board was going to do. They were still in process so once we liked what they were going to do we felt just this needed to be strengthened. We just have left you with this very very limited revision. So this was responsive to the same issues that planning board was dealing with. Planning board has considered this themselves with these various revisions that they are also supporting this article. Ms. Burr. I just want to back up just for a moment talking about the differentiated deadlines. If anything I one of the things we'll do after town meetings we always have a debriefing on how things might work better and if anything one of the things I'm going to ask that we discuss is that citizen zoning petitions haven't even earlier deadline not changed the planning board deadline with the citizen zoning petitions because in fact the only way to get something looked at by the planning board is not to form a citizen petition. You can work with the planning board without paying a citizen petition so I don't want to imply that we never said you were lazy or didn't get it done in time but you also weren't required to go about doing it this way. So it's a method it's a perfectly wonderful form of democracy but it's also an awkward method for all the reasons that it exists. Once you have something submitted then it's difficult to let it go until you can get everything scheduled in terms of the planning board's hearings. So it's not just that you have an earlier deadline there's a very good reason for that it's because it's the planning board's expertise area so I don't want to argue but I just don't want to make it seem like it's not an issue because it is an issue. And I don't want us to be suggesting in any way that it's unfair that we had to submit it or we accept that. The whole idea is that the planning board should be informed about what we're thinking about. So we were giving this as an explanation not a protest. Okay, so we've all acknowledged it's a complicated process for sure. It is what it is and here we are now but the process is working you know I mean it's feeding its way to get to town anything. Mr. Heaton. Actually I've realized this may not be quite the right time. I'll ask it as a question. The definition of residential manager requires that Article 15 pass where it's defined. I want to ask somebody, I'll just make a statement. That's the statement. Yes. Okay. Other questions or comments on 17th? I suppose by statement of responses that if 15 doesn't pass we need to amend this to have a definition of a residential manager. I'm actually reminding my colleagues of that interconnection as we make our decision about how we're going to recommend our recommendation. You're right. You reminded us as well. Okay. Other questions or comments on Article 17? Would someone like to take a motion? Okay. Sorry about that. I guess my role now is to make these motions. Yes. We recommend Article 17 to town meeting if Article 15 has passed. Do we want it otherwise? No. I'll just let that go and we'll decide if it's otherwise. Right. So maybe we just leave that to planning board. I mean they support this. They want it to pass. They obviously want Article 15 to pass. They depend on each other. I'll leave that as my recommendation. It's my motion as how we recommend this to town meeting. Okay. So I'm sorry. Please restate your motion. We recommend town meeting to support Article 17 if Article 15 has passed. For the discussion. I guess I'm fine with that. So if it doesn't pass then there's no recommendation. There's no I mean to add that I can say if it doesn't pass then we can't recommend this. Yeah, but amendment is not likely to be approved by Harrison because it's an expansion of the article. It's hard to know how that will go. Okay. Alright. So fine. So Article 17 if the 15 has passed. For the discussion. All in favor say aye. Aye. It's unanimous. Okay. 18. We folks speak 18 or no. Okay. 19. So no one's here for 18. Is that correct? Okay. So we don't know what the status is of 18. Last we heard it would it was going to be amended or it might be dismissed or referred. I would just add for the record we've received nothing from any of the petitioners including Mr. O'Connor and Article 18 since I believe the 19th there was some discussion about potential motions but we have not received any updates in the last week. Okay. So 18 we have no position on because it hasn't been presented to us so we don't even need to vote no position since we don't have a position because as opposed to not taking a position on the article we're just we have nothing to take position on. I guess I'd rather we went ahead we have no position because we did hear a brief sort of explanation of it at the November 5th meeting. But as far as we know it may well be recommended for dismissals. We just have no position at all. I just hate to just need to paint on it. Right. Well the other thing we could do is as was presented we could support or not support it as it was presented. As it ended up getting presented on it. I don't know. I would just leave it as no position. Okay. Ms. Brewer you want to make a formal vote? Yeah. Okay. Go ahead. We take no position on article 18. All right. We're moving to the second in front of the discussion. I would second it but I have to say. Go ahead. Which is that I think that I would want us to be clear that our lack of a position is because there's not an article there. Right. Not what we saw November 5th was not going to work and that would have developed a very strong recommendation not to accept. But the reason that we're taking no position is that we're expecting that there will be appropriate and acceptable modifications to it. That was how we left it. I'm in agreement with that. Does anybody? That makes sense. We would have said no the way it was before or some of us would have. Are we satisfied with Mr. Hayden's explanation there? And hence he'll probably want to speak to that. Okay. Further discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. That's unanimous. No position on 18 and Mr. Hayden. So Mr. Hayden will you reference that? I would. And did we assign 17? No we didn't. Who would like to speak to 17? All you have to say is we support it. Mr. Hayden you're going to just keep getting all the zoning articles. We'll find you 17. Fine. I appreciate it. Good. We'll be right along. 19. We've got a couple other things we have to do before we leave so we've got to jump in. Okay. 19. 19 is what you saw earlier. We've made only one minor change in the 19 that you've seen before. That minor change was to change the responsibility for notifying owners or managers with the police department rather than with the town managers office. This was after the discussion with the town manager and with the chief police. Otherwise the warrant itself I mean the I'm sorry the article itself has several component parts. As you saw I knew they don't. It identifies the Amherst police department at the department responsible for notifying owners and management companies. It names managers and management companies as responsible agents together with owners of record properties for the purposes of general responsibility as well as fines and response costs. I should note by the way that we have a definition of record property managers or management organization in 19. So there we go thought of everything somewhere and that we ask that on the third violation the owners managers and management companies cover the response costs that otherwise accrue to the town via the tax payers and I don't know if you want to speak to that point Yes I think we've stayed with Shell in all instances because the alternative language was leading the responsibility with the police department to determine reasonable effort on the part of a property owner or management company in managing their property and we felt that two warnings was sufficient notice to the people involved that this responsibility was going to be coming up admitted by the census area to provide yet another option for them at the last minute two more more than I get for a scheme I think that's the right way so I think there's plenty of time for them to to really make adjustments to their property to get security guards if that's necessary to get some mediation which both of which have been tried and what in some instances and also find some other means of enforcing their basis so that they they could control Mr. Museum, I know that you've been in discussion with these folks along with the chief of police on this article Sure and I I want to say publicly how much I and the staff appreciate what really has been in is an ongoing good faith effort to move this process forward and it really is an attempt at a stronger partnership between the town and agencies within the town government and with neighborhoods and other institutions in town to make progress so there's a lot to like quite frankly in this article and I said as much in our meetings I really believe that the principle of having the police department as they do in many day-to-day situations in the nature of their work retain some discretion when so that it's not a one-size-fits-all imposition of the fine in every single instance which is the implication of the wording particularly on the so-called third strike you know the third violation so well I think there's a lot to like I want to suggest for consideration one potential amendment now this is a petitioner article so I'm not prepared to offer an amendment but I wanted to throw out some language for consideration on paragraph 7 which is some language that we discussed in our meeting with the chief and I last week that talks about on that third case that response costs shall be assessed except when the party to be assessed establishes to the satisfaction of the police department that it exercised reasonable effort to prevent the most recent public nuisance from occurring that makes explicit in the language this discretionary ability is part of the enforcement agency when there isn't in its judgment a really good faith effort going on and I know we've talked about that there's been some progress in that area on a case-by-case basis whether it's the code enforcement officer police or health or the building department etc this is an extension of that principle while still strengthening the existing nuisance house bylaw the other thing that I might suggest and we get into at this town meeting that we also talked about at this meeting was working together in the months ahead to further strengthen the nuisance house bylaw so that it talks about multiple violations at the same property even if there's some turnover in the tenants in a calendar year period in the nature of our rental market it occurs so that the problem really is there's some sympathy if the problem really is a particular property that there's a consequence related to the property and the property owner so that's not within the scope of this petition article but I think it's something we've expressed wanting to work together on the months ahead the chief has also agreed which I think is something that we don't have is yet even though it was asked for in the 2005 yeah we've agreed we've come up with some sort of reasonable formulaic calculation that's that one three comment I think of this as sort of the same sort of thing as the argument over taxes in the top 2% who carries the burden in this case the town has always run one public news two public news three, four we've never assessed the owners with the response cost so as I think of it well I understand very well what you're suggesting every landlord knows they can build into their leases that the tenants will reimburse them for any response cost landlords know how to build in uncertain possible fines in the rest of their budget but really should the neighbors who've been awakened to 3 in the morning two times and now the third time should they help bear the cost the response cost here because on their property taxes they're they're bearing some of that or should finally we say no to the owner even if you've tried three times you've got to do it and build it into your cost and you bear the expense don't make the neighbors bear the expense nor the rest of the town so you're saying this wording that you've only seen now for the first time we've actually we've had a great deal of discussion about this it's one of those cases where we can see the virtue of both sides and we feel that we want to stay with a stronger language now if this were to be made from the floor I think the town meeting with itself have an opportunity to discuss it I think we helped with the crafting of this language but we after some discussion felt that it was too big a loophole that we really wanted to have a more serious commendation to the bylaw that we really wanted to get people's attention yeah and for years we have not had anybody assessed in any way Ms. Burr is we should have a separate conversation after town meeting about how and things like the 2008 town meeting article passed and it said that a schedule was going to be developed and it was and you know who tracks that sort of thing besides the neighbors to say oh you know I really wanted that piece in there and anybody done it yet because it did happen and so we should have some method of follow up on that that I'm just not sure what that would look like for the future thing in terms of the current thing I'm wondering and maybe it would be helpful to hear from the police chief I'm not sure I'm almost wondering about although I appreciate the discretion I also worry about the pressure that that puts on the police to say oh come on we've tried you know how noxious these guys are we've done our best and I'm not sure it doesn't just take us right back to May again just make the point that there's a lot of discretion exercised today in police enforcement including when nuisance house violation fines are issued currently and the police chief and his men and women have used their discretion out in the field that they're trained to be able to use on a daily basis there's kind of a recurring problem area where there's been frequent prior warnings there's less discretion quite frankly used before the issuance of a ticket so I think that's true today this is an extension of that principle and I'm not going to apologize for the last 25 years of history but it is a new day we are putting new tools into the mix here and new people at the beginning stages of seeing some positive progress although there's still quite a ways to go so I'm offering all this with the intention of getting to the promised land which is we don't spend all entire town meetings talking about these issues because there's been material progress made on the ground out in the neighborhoods I think I agree with what Alyssa said which leads me to support the motion as it is and perhaps with the second fine send out a warning that next time in addition to the mine administrative costs and response costs will be assessed on top of the $300 fine so that obviously we can't add to this but that's why I think I would stick with the original I think we have had the maze and I would like to see it be really strong other questions? just two one do I understand correctly and I think that's not what was said but I want to the yellowed section that was inadvertently this is our penultimate the yellow section was language that somehow got dropped from the type script got recouped, is back in we're stipulating I just want to be clear on that because I understand and agree the value and I will say that when I rise before I make the motion because it's not in the black and white version alright so it's seven o'clock folks what are we doing? second I wanted to support this amendment with the article with the amendment and not otherwise because we've seen how well three strikes are out to work in more stringent cases this allows us to relocalize the adjudication at least the first step of adjudication of this process okay so we can't really take a vote that says we're only going to do it if somebody makes that motion it seems to me that we can vote on this article and then we can also have a separate position on that amendment but we have no idea at this point that's going to happen okay so it's now seven o'clock we're not going to get to article 19 tonight as much as I might wish that we would suppose we meet Wednesday which I had hoped we didn't need to do but we finish this on Wednesday because I think it is more complicated than just we can vote a position but now we're just going to be hasty instead of why not just vote to support this article and if an amendment comes to the floor then we can have a position of how many choose to support the amendment so that would be an option the other thing is we have a whole bunch of other things we haven't done tonight that we can't do now because it's after seven o'clock so we have to meet Wednesday anyway so I think since we already have to meet Wednesday none of those things are tonight there's one event on Wednesday special license so we're going to meet Wednesday because we're going to do a couple of things we're going to postpone this until then and we are going to do the one license right now so thank you for coming we're going to take this up on it's entirely up to you I move that the select board approve a special all-out license for TOC we're ready for reception to be held on Wednesday, November 28th from 5 to 6.30pm in the UMass School of Management between the two of you so there's a discussion I don't think we're saying can we quickly move the other one to just get it done because it's over I move that the select board approve a special wine and mold license for TOC excuse me we're doing work here please for reception to be held on Thursday, November 29th, 2012 from 4 to 6pm in the Guinness Student Center UMass Amherst University Bardwell clerk for the discussion do you need the taxing license or should we just no we just we got to stop okay so then without objection adjourns that's at no for thank you very much see you here on Wednesday be there or be here or be square