 Okay, we're recording. Thank you. I'm going to see if anyone joins us. Before I. Hi, Chris. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Can you hear us? I can't hear you. Why can't I hear you. You might be on mute. Maybe. Maybe I should go out and come back in again. I'm going to unplug my earphones and go out. So Nate, maybe like tell her to check her mute settings. Yeah, I'll text her. I'm not. You can just walk to the next room. While that, while that happens, I'm going to start the meeting. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. It is 431 on September 29th, 2022. And seeing a presence of a quorum, I'm calling this community resources committee meeting of the town council to order. Pursuant to chapter. 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended by chapter 22 of the acts of 22 and by chapter 107 of the acts of 22. This meeting will be conducted by remote means. I'm going to call the roll of those members present. To make sure that they can hear everyone and everyone can hear them. We're going to start with, I guess I'm the first one enough, but a border today. Mandy is present. Pam. And Jennifer. Pat and Shalini will not be joining us today. With that, we're going to go right into the meeting. I'm going to call the roll of those members present. To make sure that they can hear everyone and everyone can hear them. We're going to start with, I guess, I'm going to go right into our agenda. And the first item on the agenda is. Pam. Yes, I have a technical question. Sure. I'm on a Mac, a borrowed Mac. Is there a way to increase the sound. Coming from the computer itself. I don't know. But usually on a Mac. The up on like, what would be the function keys? Like, 10 at 11. Volume button. You might have to hold like the Apple key and then hit that volume up. But. Did that work? There's the button to turn it off. Okay. Okay. I got it. Okay. Are you good, Pam? Excellent. So it is now 432. And at 432, I don't know whether I always have to do the. Times, but at 432 PM, we are reopening the continued hearing on zoning by law, article two zoning districts, article three use regulations and article 16 female floodplain overlay districts. It's been continued from May 26, 2022 and September 8th, 2022. And this hearing is to see if the town will vote to add article 16 female floodplain overlay district to the zoning by law, amend article two zoning districts to add female floodplain overlay district and amend related sections of article three use regulations to regulate activities in the 100 year floodplain, as shown on the flood insurance rate maps issued by FEMA. For the administration of the national flood insurance program for maps indicate areas that have a 1% chance of flooding in a given year. The purpose of the floodplain management regulations is to protect the public health safety and general welfare and to protect the safety and general welfare of the community. And this is our third hearing on this. And I'm going to go to Chris or Nate for an update on whether we can potentially proceed to close this hearing or need to continue it. I can speak to that. I did speak to our. Contact at AECOM, our consultant. And there was some sort of glitch or delay in FEMA's review of the final maps. They are currently under that final review. And when I spoke to this fellow or emailed him a few, maybe it was last week, he said, within a few weeks, we will be getting the maps. So I'm very hopeful that we will be getting them within a few weeks. I have to apologize for all these delays. I just don't understand if it's COVID or what it is, but it's really not, it's not good, but we will get there in the end. So I would recommend that you continue this hearing to some time in November. I'm just going to jump in quickly. Hi, I'm Nate. For anyone who's watching or listening. We have a letter of final determination in six months from that we have to have our local regulations in place, which are what Mandy mentioned, the zoning and the overlay. And it's unclear if FEMA will extend that, even though it's taken so long to get to this point. So, you know, I think we're in a good position where, where we are with our draft language and our bylaw. And so it may be that, you know, come November, we have to, you know, act quickly in terms of getting it, you know, to the town council and to the process going just because. Typically we want to have the local regulations voted on a month before the actual deadline. So then we can send them to the state and FEMA for their one, you know, for their review, their, you know, they've already looked at it. The state likes it. So I feel like we're in a good position, but we, you know, it's unclear if we'll have an extended time at, you know, because of these delays. Thank you, Jennifer. And then Chris. So I just, so even if FEMA is causing the delay, they'll still, they won't extend it. Wow. We could ask. We could ask. No, I'm not saying we should, but we'll get it done. I just. Yeah. I just wanted to note that we need to refer to the maps in our text. So there's a place in the text where we have to put in the name of the new maps with a date. And since we don't have those new maps yet, it's hard to do that. We could put in the date of our old maps and get the text accepted, but then you'd have to go back and change that and do it again. And so I would say let's wait another few weeks and see if we can make this happen. So we have CRC meetings on October 13, 27, November 3, and November 17. Which date is recommended for us to continue this to. We could try October 27. Okay. With that recommendation, I'm going to make a motion to continue the hearing on zoning by law, by the way, the public hearing is on the third. Article two zoning districts, article three use regulations and article 16 female floodplain overlay district. To. October 27. At 430 PM. Second Rooney. Any discussion on that. Seeing none. Mandy is an I, Pam. I. And Jennifer. I. Moving on. And we are opening the continued hearing of zoning by law official zoning map female floodplain overlay district that has been continued from May 26, 2022 and September 8, 2022. Do we need a report or shall I just make the motion. I'm going to move to continue the zoning by law official zoning map female floodplain overlay district hearing to October 27 at 435 p.m. Okay, Rooney. Okay, any discussion. I'm seeing none we start with Pam. I, and Jennifer. I, and Mandy is an eye those are both unanimous votes. That means we will not be discussing action items 3a or 3b. It will be moved to our October 27 meeting. And before we move I'm going to switch the order of these action items, because we have staff here now. So, and Nate is here for the, what has been renamed but not on our agenda the zoning by law article 14 permanent proposal at the time I created the agenda I wasn't exactly sure what zoning by law articles it would be changing. But it is actually not anything related, not that there's nothing in article 14 changing it's article five, five, 1112 and the classification table which I think is article three that that has proposed amendments to it. And so since Nate is here we're going to deal with that one first. Before we move on to the other items on our agenda. So I think Nate had a presentation for us. I can, I can share my screen if that's all right and then I have a presentation and then. You know as Mandy mentioned there's, there's actually four sections of the bylaw that are changing so then I have those four sections we can walk through just to see, you know line by line what what it looks like. And it was updated in the packet. So that's when it changes last week due to the planning board comments and some public comments we received on this so the presentation has been updated a bit and the some of the language changed a little bit was highlighted in yellow in the packet just you know it was minor but just to keep everyone up to speed. So, we're calling this updating food and drink establishments in the zoning bylaw we're reframing it so it's really, we're not changing article 14 right so we're not going to try to go in there and change the language and article 14 and make that permanent. So article 14 is set to expire this year at the end of the year and it will so we're not, you know, necessarily recommending that it be be lengthened. So just for background, the food and drink classifications in the bylaw have been there for a while and so even before COVID staff had talked about updating those classifications those uses in part because the ZBA had developed a kind of set of conditions that were always applied to the to those uses and you know so we felt like wow we can manage this based on the permitting histories right 10 plus years of permitting history and enforcement we realize we could probably reclassify and update you know and just update it wasn't necessarily you know that it was a huge problem but we felt we could be more accurate and help with some permitting. And then with article 14. You know there was recommendations from from the CRC town staff in the in the Amherst business community to keep some aspects of article 14. You know that was adopted during the pandemic so we learned that administrative approval and enforcement by staff can be done we have the capacity. And so that was one of the negative impacts to this administrative approval process, which happens now, and we're trying to formalize that with the proposed amendments, and the businesses responded positively to article 14 so you know allowing outdoor dining through site plan review it's not a discretionary permit so you know it was it seemed like it was just more encouraging to businesses. And looking at kind of the purpose and goals were to have these new classifications that more closely corresponded to the uses that the food and drink establishments, you know, set up as in town. You know clarify and improve the permitting process encourage businesses to stay and expand and so we see it as you know both helping staff to administer the bylaw and it's encouraging businesses who want to stay here or relocate here. We are changing administrative approval process a bit to actually give it a little bit more more teeth if you want to say it that way so we can put conditions on through administrative approval in the in the bed in the Chamber of Commerce supports this. And so through article 14 I just want to say quickly that you know it's been in place for a while. There's been about 40 establishments that have gone through article 14. About 18 of those are restaurants related to restaurants or dining or food and drink establishments. And the ones that are shown here are things that have been permitted administratively through article 14 so the spoke expanded actually doubled in size to this other side of the building. Garcia is opened and added outdoor dining. The Drake opened and Mexico Lito opened and so these were approved administratively. And during using our 14 the applicants were made to submit, you know plans a management plan, a narrative. It wasn't as if they just had you know a little building permit. We set up an application process, and then the inspection services to the building commissioner wrote a decision that we would keep on file with the town clerk so it functions very much like a land use permit with the respect that you know we have plans we can reference. We have a management plan and then we have an approval with conditions. And so it's something that you know we have a record of which is new for article 14 and just we like that process and that's what we actually want to keep. In terms of what we're talking about where it applies it's in five zoning districts so it's in the, you know downtown the BG and the BL. It's in the village centers. It's in DC, in the commercial district and in the neighborhood business, really neighborhood businesses just around the train tracks near Dickinson and triangle street so you know BN isn't found anywhere else so it's a really limited geographic extent where this would apply so food and drink establishments, we're saying are only permitted in these areas so everything in white the residential zones or any other zones they're just not allowed. And this is a comparison of how it's approved now and what we're proposing and so right now there's three classifications there's class one class two and class three, and basically just say it's a class one restaurant. You can say it's a cafe lunchroom or cafeteria, it really what distinguishes that between a class two is the hours of operation so class two is open later. It also serves alcohol later, and so that's a special permit for class two class one is site plan review, which means it's a by right use and it would be, you know permitted through the planning board with conditions, and then there's a class three restaurant to my recollection has never been used, you know a drive up restaurant. I will say for class one we have this administrative approval which was new. If you had watched the planning board meeting on this and so really what happens is if a if a if a restaurant is proposing to go into a new space that's not a restaurant who would go through site plan review with the planning board and get a set of conditions. So that restaurant then went out of business three years later and a new restaurant came in, and they were proposing no changes to the exterior. So right so it's, you know, except for signs. It would be administratively approved, and that's already been in the bylaw so that's something that's been happening for years so the planning board honestly does not see many restaurant applications because most restaurants will go into a restaurant space, because it's very expensive to you know, a building or a space for with a kitchen right and you could be talking about a few hundred thousand dollars and improvements to get a kitchen to get ventilation and to make all those improvements so typically when a space has already been permitted as a restaurant it's reused as a restaurant. So then what we're proposing is to eliminate class one class to class three, and really we're saying we're going to have a restaurant cafe bar with food or other similar establishment. And that would be through site plan review or this administrative approval a bar with no food. And so that's a special permit, a nightclub, a special permit and then establishments with over an occupant load of 250. And so really a bar with no food we say no food because that's really what the state and local regulations how they how they describe that and in our bylaw we, we define a bar as the primary use of this of the space is consumption of alcoholic beverages where food is incidental and so you know someone on the planning board asked well what about moan and dub they serve peanuts and I said well that you can allow certain prepackaged or kind of simple foods and still be a bar you're not you're not going to become a restaurant and that's just by code definition. And by the ABCC the state's board right there also review any, any, any establishment that comes in and looking for a liquor license that's applies to the state it gets referred to the Amherst Board of License Commissioners. And then it has to be permitted both through the local and state regulations in addition to land use permits like site plan reviewer zoning board. So what we found is that between class one and class two most restaurants will, whether they're open later or not the standard set of conditions can manage it effectively, and then staff can enforce something if there's a problem so if it ends up becoming that, you know when people leave there's a complaint staff can follow up with the establishment and then can can you know can manage that there may be issues where their dumpsters are overflowing or they have, you know, they said they're going to keep trash inside but they end up keeping it outside and typically those are pieces that are required in the management plan and then there's something that you know that it can be enforced, and we can either have them amend their site planner special permit or we can, you know the town through an enforcement action has them, you know fix it. According to what was permitted. And so you know really class one and class two get combined into this this first one that site plan review and special for administrative approval. What's important here too is it's not a special permit so it's not discretionary. And so what happens really to Rob was explaining this last week it was interesting to hear that most restaurants will come in as a class one, because it's by site plan review, they say they're going to be open till 11. You know they're not going to stay open late, they get permitted as a class one and then immediately they once they get that approval and they get the space open they just immediately turn around and apply as a class to. And, you know they've already built out the space they have the seating, they have the special the site plan review and the ZBA really, you know, if they meet all their conditions of the bylaw there's really no way to deny them as a class to right they've already, and sometimes they might wait a few months sometimes it's almost like the next day, right so they'll outfit the space they'll do a really good job and then they'll just turn right around because they're already in the space they've already been permitted. Well, I'd like to stay open now a little later and serve alcohol later and it's, you know, and so it's interesting that it's not gaming the bylaw but that's just how it works and so we're saying well, why have this distinction we can have it right here. So if in so right now to with this use, these proposed uses. If there's a restaurant during the day and then they want to be a bar at night, they actually have to get two permits. Right so if they're going to be a restaurant during the day site plan review administrator approval, and if at nine o'clock they want to stop close their kitchen, and then just serve mostly alcohol, alcohol they're going to have to get a special permit from the ZBA so they actually have to get. So we're not necessarily making it easier to become a bar or nightclub or, you know, larger establishment so, for instance, Johnny's right now, you know, it's about 170 180 occupant load. And if they all of a sudden wanted to put on a, you know, an addition and have a huge banquet room and say, you know, after hours they become a place with over 250 they'd have to get a special permit to if they wanted to be open consistently and have that size establishment. So yeah, here's just some examples of how what would fit into these new categories. You know, Johnny's Tavern El Comolito pita pockets and house of teriyaki. You know be considered a restaurant cafe bar with food or other establishment so they would be through site plan review. You can see their occupant loads and so just to give you a sense of size, the pita pockets pretty small as 21, you know that's employees and and patrons. Typically this number would reflect both indoor and outdoor seating or space, as well as you know staff. You may some of those some of these numbers may not reflect out newer outdoor space but you know just to give a rough estimate a bar with no food is the moan and dove and so we're saying that would be a special permit. A nightclub is hazels. I think there's only one or two in town. And then a larger establishment like the hanger. You know it has almost 400 occupant capacity so that's a really big space. And then, as we are looking at this. It's a triple effect and so if we change the use categories what I just showed you in terms of the, you know the proposed uses in the permitting path that's that's really what that's a summary of table three. But then we realize it impacts article five, because accessory uses are referenced as part of restaurants. We want to formalize administrative approval which is already allowed as part of site plan review. That's article 11 and then we updated some definitions and article 12. So, although we're saying let's update food and drink establishments, it has this this impact of, you know, a few different sections of the bylaw. So I can stop there for now and take any questions or if you want me to just jump right into the language Mandy. Let's do some brief questions and then we can talk about language specific Pam. That'd be great. What is actually the definition of a nightclub just for my own edification. Yeah, so there's a building code definition. And you know we've thought about whether or not we put it in the zoning bylaw and so it says it's actually, it's funny. It's kind of funny just I think it's a that the building code is usually really strict and they say a nightclub is somewhere where there's crowded spaces there's loud music. There's an occupant capacity that's greater than the seating, limited food. And I think that's really it and it can be open late, low lighting, and low lighting and low lighting. Yes. So, I don't forbid it should be a light a brightly lit night. Right. So for instance, you know, and say like the hanger all of a sudden have they have a lot of space and say, you know, in one part of their space they're like okay we're going to remove all the seating. At some point, they would now be considered a nightclub space then so that would actually have you know trigger a new type of permit so no longer be a bar it could be a nightclub if they you know have like So does Bistro 63 qualify as sort of a split personality. Okay, okay, got that. I was really, I was really interested to hear the fact that that class one permittees, then turn around and go to class two and the question is, Okay, so what's so what's so much more attractive to be a class to it's because you can stay open later right. Right and serve alcohol later so when we come to the text. I want to focus on that just a little bit because I think that was that was one of the clear definitions between a class one and two was that they weren't allowed to do all that later. And so it feels like depending on where you are in town that may or may not be a good thing so we'll put that off to the wording conversation. Thank you. Thank you Pam Jennifer. I had a question, which I haven't thought about before when we reviewed this but on sunset and fearing there's a pizza parlor, I think it's, even though it's not, it's a residential must be grandfathered in from a long time ago. So, if they wanted to have outdoor seating or expand since it's already a restaurant. It sounds like that can be done administratively is so is it possible but that is right smack in the residential area so what could be done about that. Yeah, so in a, you know, without, you know, looking into it I would assume that that was a pre existing use and so it's a non conforming you so it actually have to get a permit through the ZBA. Whether it's interior exterior have to go through a special permit process so even if that pizza place leaves and a new place pizza place wants to come in it might actually have to go that have to get a special permit. So, you know, there's probably a number of instances where there's uses like that where it's pre existing non conforming, then it requires a special permit anytime there's a change. Yeah, although actually in that case the owner lives across the street so I don't think he'd allow. And I'm thinking kind of like with El Carmelito which there's residential. It's like a bus like townhouse and houses. Right. So, if that they wanted to open outdoors and be later at night what would happen with with that. I guess I'm asking is with the butters be notified. So, so this is the way staff sees it right so they were permitted right now to have indoor dining if they want to do outdoor dining that's a change the site so they'd have to go through a site plan review. And it would be you know public hearing through the planning board. And so the butters would be notified and so in say they did that and it was approved. And then two years later, they close in a new restaurant comes in through the land use permitting process, there's already a site plan review in an amended site plan review for a restaurant there without our dining so if a new restaurant was to come in and use exactly what was there in terms of the space and everything that could be administratively approved, it wouldn't have to go through a new site plan because it's already under a site plan review. So those conditions and everything all those standards would apply to the new use. And so, you know, if the new restaurant then wanted to stay open an hour later that might trigger site plan review or if they wanted to make outdoor dining bigger, or make any changes, you know, even if they if they wanted to make big changes to the exterior of the building so they wanted to write if there's only one entrance and they wanted to open it all up so it's sliding doors. So it might be a big enough change that that's actually site plan review now too. And so the way it work, the way it's word is has no changes to the building or site and so if they're making changes to the building, it triggers another, another permit. So, so the butters are notified with site plan review I can't remember that. Yeah, it's a public hearing with the planning board so. I think we can go on to wording now and I just want to for the attendees and then for us this is on the council agenda for this coming Monday for the formal referral for public hearing and recommendation to both the planning board and us so this is sort of our preview. So that when it comes to us the next time we've at least seen a little bit and have been thinking about it instead of it being brand new. I'll share my screen again then. So in terms of the use table. We're proposing a swap a delete everything that's there and replace it with a new 3.352 section. And so the only thing that actually remains from the current standards and conditions and the uses is what's in yellow here and so in the project. There's a limitation on the number of seats to 30 both indoor and outdoor alcohol needs to stop being served at nine. And, you know, from building to building so any outside wall of the building occupied by the establishment shall be located more than 100 feet from any residential building in a residential district. So that standard of condition is in the bylaw now and we're proposing just to keep it but everything else you see here is all new. So the sorry something popped up so you know here's the three before new categories restaurant cafe bar with food bar with no food nightclub and a larger establishment and we're saying that, you know, here the zoning districts they apply in site plan review for the first one special permit for the rest. What is new is, you know, through the through the I'm trying to get a little bigger. Be great if you could increase the. Yeah, you know it wasn't it's not letting me. It is in the packet so if you've got the packet. You're right. It is in the packet. I'll try a little bit though. Yeah, here we are. That did get it a little bigger. So what we you know what we have now to with restaurants and certain times in the bylaw we have a set of standards and conditions that because it's in the bylaw then we say as applicable every applicant has to meet this and so we're saying that as applicable everyone needs approval by the Board of Licensing Commissioner. They need subject they're subject to other state and local codes and regulations. And this is where we reference accessory uses. You know so outdoor dining live or prerecorded music or, or, you know, a drive through facility to be considered accessory to the restaurant or bar use. We're saying that the establishment has to operate, you know, shall operate and be maintained in accordance with plans and so we're saying that applicants have to submit a site plan floor plan. A layout plan with occupying capacity for indoor and outdoor dining, a patron management plan, you know how you're going to manage patrons. A general management plan, which deals with everything from noise trash removal to snow removal to lighting, a parking management plan and a traffic impact statement. We actually define the management plan down here so it lists a number of things hours of operation outdoor dining deliveries noise control. You know, response to complaints employee parking. And so, you know when things are administratively approved they still have to submit all these plans. And so, you know, putting this in the bylaw now requires even something that is going to an existing space to submit plan to submit something that satisfy the box satisfies this bylaw. If alcohol you need electronic ID verification on site training and certifications including crowd control and tips. That's like for larger uses or bars reusable tableware for outdoor service. Outdoor furniture needs to be placed to meet you know clearances and egress requirements. And so, you know, the building commissioner staff feels that these set of conditions provide enough information that whether it's administrative approval or through site plan review or we can generate conditions that are required in the permit that an applicant, you know, has to meet meet this right so if they in their management plan say it for instance that trash is going to be stored indoors and it'll be collected daily. And they put a dumpster outside we can say well you didn't have a dumpster so either you have to reapply through site plan review or a special permit or we're going to make you remove that dumpster. So if you expand your outdoor dining more than you outlined on your plan that's a change the site plan you'll have to comply with, you know, with what the enforcement action is and so, you know we feel like these standards and conditions which aren't in the bylaw now, provide enough information to, to help an app, you know, it's guidance for the applicant is also guidance for for staff. I can stop here if you'd like. That sounds good pan. So Mandy you have your hand up do you want to ask first. Sure, I can go first. So, so one basic thing and then a couple of questions the first one is the sub numbers on this one got inverted. So, so they all say 3.325 instead of 3.352. Oh, yes, I, right. That's a really simple one, but I change that I thought I changed that but yes I see that. Okay, a couple of questions I think you answered my first one which was condition six and sort of seven that all deal with tips is my understanding deals with actual alcohol but I could be wrong and condition six as you said deals with alcohol, because it is it because it says as applicable at the top that means if they're not going to get that license they don't have to deal with those conditions or they still going to have to buy an electronic ID verifier even if they're not serving alcohol because it's written in No, because it says as applicable they'd have to make a statement that they're not serving alcohol, right so then they would have to say that, you know, in their application or somewhere that they, you know, explain why this isn't applicable so, you know, it's in here so then someone say oh well we're not serving any alcohol we don't need that. And so they'd have you know that would become, you know, a reference point in the future if they want to then serve alcohol they have to do that. So my next question with that is and then I have another one but I'll let Pam go before I ask my second set. On this condition is, doesn't the Board of License Commissioners have the ability to make those requirements and if so why would we be putting it in a zoning bylaw when to me it seems more like a board of license commissioners requirement, more logically with them before the Board of License to serve alcohol. Which, which, which item, electronic ID verification in particular. Yeah, and maybe seven two. Well I think I think it's both that I think it's good to have it reinforced and so we could, you know, make this language a little bit more generic and say, you know, ID verification, you know, instead of electronic but I think, you know, it's somewhat redundant but at the same time it's something the ZBA typically ask for so they include this in their permits because, you know, if somehow there's a lapse or there's something we want to be able to say this is also required from a building inspection standpoint, permitting standpoint, so we can, we can act on it. Okay. Thank you. Pam, do you want to go or do you want me to go to my next question. Go ahead. My next one is with condition 10, which is apparently the only one that's been left from the current bylaw. I don't understand why we need a seat restriction and BN. If you look at the Hope and Feather site the old VFW building BN is so small there's not many sites there but those two sites in particular seem to me that they'd be big enough for more than 30 seats, at even on one floor let alone if you did a two floor split like some do in the BG. So, what's the purpose of a 30 seat restriction because it doesn't seem it borders on a BVC district if you know it, it seems a little bit heavy handed, and then along with that is the 100 foot requirement only applicable to the BN district and also why. Again, why it almost seems like it might actually limit the plots that you could put a cafe on in the BN, even though it's so small, you know, because of that 100 foot requirement the BN site doesn't require any particular top frontage for non residential uses, according to my reading of the table, and side setbacks and rear setbacks are only 10 feet, but if it setbacks to a residential building, you might not be able to put any building on that site for cafe and so I'm looking for why we need this and what, what benefit it does to diversify our food and drink establishments throughout town. Right. And so yeah so condition 10, you know is just for the BN so all those clauses and everything it only applies in the BN. And so, you know, agree with Mandy that it's, it is restrictive. Staff feels when the BN was adopted it really is transitional area, you know it's not BBC it's BN. There are probably about six properties seven properties that this could apply to so the BN is a very small district it's only in that one area right so it's 321 319 321 Main Street is the Amherst media lots is the VFW. It's a few, few other properties in that area. But it is surrounded by residential areas, typically with buildings closer than, you know, other commercial or BG areas. And so, you know, when, you know, these conditions are put in there, kind of as a safeguard to the neighborhood. And so, you know, we're proposing to leave them in. It is a discussion point. So you know I think that's really, you know why they're there. So you know, some of it is they're smaller building smaller uses so we're you know we're thinking. You know you could be under 30 seats right so the idea is that a small establishment could be allowed. There is this 100 foot buffer. But you know what I thought was to try to have, you know smaller, you know, uses that aren't open too late in the BN. The lumber yard was that the BN. Yeah, yes, it's across the street so that's BBC as business Village Center. It's not on the map I was looking at it looked like it would be part of BN, but maybe not. I can. The yard was on the west side of Dickinson Street right. The right so the lumber yard is on the south side of of the street, but the west side of Dickinson. The right side. Yes, so the that whole area, that whole area is business Village Center to the train tracks and so not on the zoning map. I'm online right now and I can I can share my screen if you wanted the zoning map I downloaded said it was BN, that one parcel was BN. So, so depending on if you look at it. So this is the towns online mapper so BN is here. We're saying that this area right here is all business Village Center so you know the lumberyard here is Bruno's here's an apartment building on the corner. This is all BBC. BN is north of the street. This is the lumberyard this one spot. Yes. The lumberyard is this one BN spot on the west side that's where the lumberyard was. I'm afraid not lumberyard is south of Main Street and it's where you say that's right that plot where your, your, no, no, that's not the lumberyard. This is 319 321 Main Street this is where the the frame shop is where the dog washes right here. This is where you see a dance studio so the lumberyard was over here. Yeah. Oh, yeah, you're right. Okay, I thought there was a restaurant in that BN section at one point. It was still thought it was okay that's good clarity I still thought that was BN, but the industry. Yeah, but it means this BN section where the center dance studio is in the frame shop is could basically never be a restaurant. If you draw a measured length, you could say, right, so it's 40 feet. Yeah, between the building. And then you're this is this these are John Roblesky and this is being redeveloped with housing this you know this building was preserved so this, not that it couldn't become a mixed use building but these are now residential uses. You know, this is pretty close to the property line so, you know, you can see 100 feet. But the VFW then could also basically never be a max used for a restaurant. Not that building. You can see where 100 about 100 feet is from that building. And then I guess this is a another 100 feet. So yeah so there's a pretty small area where you could develop or you have those uses. I'd like to see that the 9pm thing is fine for me on that one because that makes sense in a residential neighborhood but the 100 foot I'm struggling with. Okay. In particular and the 30 seat one. Right. Pam. Okay, so to build on that one a little bit in just thinking about the Amherst media site which is BN. You don't want something that's that's contrary to the historical site I guess surrounding it and as well as the clearly residential aspect of the north side of Main Street so that's that's of interest. If we were to go back to. Again though but I want to I want to build I'm not sure exactly how to set up on condition 10. I see that as as I think Nate said as a safeguard to the residential areas around it. There's sort of a similar scenario playing through my head that we have other other business districts that in fact are also surrounded fairly closely by residential districts. So we have perhaps the, the need and or whatever we end up determining with the BN. We have some similar concerns I think about what actually goes into some of the spaces. So, one of the things that comes to mind is the fact that we've, we've done away with or you're proposing to do away with the closing time. And I can share a story about the BL primo pizza has tried twice to actually expand their hours of operation. And they back up, even though it's more than 100 feet, they back up to residential including me. And a lot of the neighbors on cottage street who can clearly hear all the car noise all the, you know, the, the Bank of America pin pad beeps, and the, and clearly people coming and going out of the stores there, or Primo's. When Primo wanted to go past 1130, it was, it was not, it was not conducive to a residential setting the way the way it actually functions. So, I want to make sure that we, that we are able to maintain some control over hours of operation. And so when you said that you know a lot of people would come in for a class one permit. If you go to class two. There was a reason I think for having that class one classification. So I, I want to see if you could give some real good thought to how we can maybe that becomes a condition that if music isn't as is involved, or if there are hours of past 1130 that that perhaps there needs to be a stronger review of it than than maybe just site plan review. I don't want to, I don't want to shut the door to opportunities for new establishments, but I think each and every one of them, unfortunately needs to get reviewed in the context of its setting. And how do we keep that protection, especially for music, and especially for closing hours and if the closing hours are later and the alcohol is later. We who live right next door to these things understand what that actually means. You know quickly. So the BN, as many pointed out is really flexible in terms of its dimensional standards and other requirements, unlike other zoning districts and so that's why you know some of these conditions were put in here for the BN specifically in terms of size and location from buildings. In terms of the hours of operation you know what staff found is that the ZBA would almost always approve a class two restaurant with conditions and those that became a standard set of conditions that would manage a location and then can be used by inspection services and so if we're proposing here with these, you know one through nine, especially with number four and five, you know we'd be asking someone to explain how they're going to manage closing hours or late hours and so, you know, the building commissioner and staff thinks that that could be handled without necessarily a special permit. And so, you know, if they propose in their management plan to be open late. So typically, you know we in the bylaw already we have a decibel level if there's music. You know we have not followed. Sorry. But we do so there are things in the bylaw that already regulate this so you know the thought is that what we're asking someone to submit here is enough to put conditions on something to try to manage that and if there's problems then it becomes, you know, it might be that they trigger a new permit right if there's chronically issues even after enforcement actions, then you know then there has then there may be some other way to resolve it but Could we could we at least include the words music in the management plan shell. Number number five. It says noise containment but I really like to have them, because if it's going to go to. I mean the abutters should be aware if the abutters are a series of student rental units. Maybe they don't care but maybe the student unit, you know rental units will. You know if my dream comes true they'll turn back into single family homes that are occupied by families with kids so I would like to include music as a component of consideration just like everything else is a component of consideration. So music is more offensive to me than signage for instance that that kind of thing. And we also have live or pre recorded music is an accessory use so if a use doesn't have music now, and they're proposing to add it that already that automatically triggers a special permit or site plan review. So that couldn't be approved administratively. If someone applies for section 5.041 it automatically triggers a special permit will get to that but we're saying that it would be permitted as the same way the principal use would be permitted and so if, if there was already for instance, a site plan review that allowed outdoor dining or pre recorded music. Then that could carry but if it was a new, you know, say a place that you know a restaurant that never had music before now wants to add music that would trigger depending on you know site plan review or special permit trigger a permitting process. Okay, what about the what about the hours of operation then and and serving of alcohol because again the the issue with Primo's was that that activity around the around the building. I mean, in the summertime, you can hear it going on. And, and I like to try to go to bed by 11. I don't get there very often, but I certainly would not want that noise level to continue past 1130. It doesn't matter what so BL BL is one of these zones like BL BVG. VVC there, you know there is there is adjacent neighborhood activity. Yeah, so as you're speaking and we think you know whether it's in the management plan or somewhere else we could have some language about, you know, location to a budding uses or you know have and have the applicant described you know what they're doing. You know to mitigate any any impacts to budding properties or something so we could, you know, you know we could try to have some language in there. I think we we asked for that but we could try to have it you know in a standard of condition here so whether it's part of the management plan or becomes great. It becomes just another, another bullet under four, or something I don't know. So yeah, it's interesting I think we could maybe have get some language in there. Yep. Thank you, Jennifer. I'm kind of covered what I was going to say. Yeah, I was just concerned, particularly with BL and village centers. So now karma leader I guess to be an example where it seems to be on a busy street it's on 116. But then it actually, you know, a butts. I know when I park there at night, you know the townhouses are right there. So just that it seems with the village centers and then some of the BL that they, you know, they really a but they're like a house, a backyard or driveway will be on one side of it so just to be able to provide protections for the residential neighborhood that is sometimes literally right there in the parking lot. Right. And so it's, yeah, I think, right. So, you know, typically staff or the, or, you know, the building commissioner staff, you know, or the permitting boards would always ask for, you know, an explanation of that. And, you know, I think, like I said, if we can have language here to check, you know, also indicate to the applicant that we're always looking for that, you know, whether or not it's site plan review or administrative approval just to have them start considering that so, you know, you know, I see this as, like I said, this is guidance for an applicant, and it's guidance for staff. And so right now we don't, we don't, you know, when someone applies that Jen Mullins, the permanent administrator will say, Oh, here's what you need. You need to submit these plans, but if we have it in the bylaw, it becomes, you know, it's it becomes a requirement. And so, and it's out, it's out there right someone can say, Oh, I, you know, I don't know I needed to submit it a site plan. You know, where do you say a site plan and now we're saying it's right here, you know, it can just, yeah. Hi. Um, so I'm going to, I'm going to take a different tact than Pam and Jennifer and say I would be concerned about adding too many conditions regarding a budding to residential neighborhoods. The entire BL abuts to a residential neighborhood up the back. Right. Because it's supposed to be a transition zone. But I guess that means to me that the residences that a but to the BL have to recognize that they about to a transition zone and may not have full quiet because they're in a transition zone, you know, they but to that transition zone and so I think we have to consider both sides of this and I worry that maybe we go too far to not to refusing to acknowledge or being unable to acknowledge that a BL is supposed to have commercial activity in it and that might mean food and drink established events, maybe not past 1130 and you know, you know what I mean, you know, give me give me time Pam, you know, but but I would worry that that any conditions added to this like I said, for a BN, I'm fine with the 9pm, right, you know, like that that one didn't necessarily worry me as much as the 100 foot limit worried me and so I would I would be really, I would caution against putting too many restrictions in there and and too much things in there, but before I say I couldn't get behind it I need to see what's proposed but but I guess I take the we have to recognize that the people that buy on property that a buts a business district should recognize that they a but a business district and they won't have the quiet environment and just like if you buy on a property that that borders route nine, you're going to have truck traffic all night, and you're not going to be able to stop that you know you, you have to recognize there's there's this pool and there's this tension right and and I worry any conditions will go too far one way to the point where we lose the ability to have businesses in those areas and so I really want to see what the conditions come up to show before I go one way or another that that's all I want to say. So quickly, for instance, I'm going to interrupt just for a second Nate. So the transition zone is absolutely the key word, because you have the, you have the late nights you have the, you have the large venues in the BG. The transition zones are tapering down to normal business hours, you know the banks close at five the the pizza place stays open till 1130, but you don't have. You don't have the one and two o'clock am closing times in the limited business district in the BG. I mean in those transitional zones that that's what they're there for. That's why I said I'd want to see what's written first. Before I say yes or no to whether my concerns are. So I didn't I didn't ask I didn't ask for a, like a separation distance for the BL. I, you know I didn't bring that up I just said, but what we can control is the activity timing the hours of operation and the noise. So I would rather push for that kind of thing then saying oh you can't build within you know 50 feet of of my neighbor's house. So yeah, so quickly, right now the management plan what we're saying here is we're asking for this information, and we say any other requested information. The hours of operation or the trash. I mean those aren't, that's not a condition but what we do is we turn that into into a condition right so they tell us they're an open nine to nine. The condition is you have to operate nine to nine if you say your trash is going to be inside your trash has to be inside and so in terms of what Pam was saying you know we could say, again it's as applicable, we could add something here. Like just a generic language like, you know, measures or strategies to buffer a budding properties right and, and it's not it doesn't it's not a condition but basically the applicant is in after respond to that with a statement and then that becomes something we can put as a condition okay they say they're going to have crowd control or they say they're going to put up a fence or they're going to have screening or whatever right lights going to be dimmed at 10 o'clock and you know they're you know so it would just be, to me it's a, it's a, it's like an indicator for an applicant and staff to start thinking about it, and maybe turn it into a condition. And so, to me it would just be like some generic language here. After employee parking it wouldn't be, you can't do this it would you know or something would just be like supply information about this so then that that we can staff can make it a condition or the board can make it a condition. Okay, thank you. And then, I think we'll try to move on to the next article. That's good. So one quick, one quick example we lived at 188 Sunderland road we rented a house for seven years there. And diagonally across the road was now the harp. It was Mike's West view Mike's West view is notoriously poorly managed. So we had the, the urination on the lawns etc etc up the bad parking etc the trash. So the, they brought they asked they requested to have outdoor music, and it went to the slack board and the few, the few neighbors that were there were just really clear that they were already a nuisance they were already poorly managed. And to think of the, the decibels that they would not manage well either was really detrimental to that little, that little cluster of homes. Thing that, you know, and now but now the harp does have outdoor space they do have outdoor music. They happen to be better run. But it's, it was just a matter of luck that it was a good manager as opposed to the really bad one. So you don't know when you're permitting something, ultimately how well they're going to follow your, your guidelines so I just want to Yeah, let's, let's get it going but it but it needs to have some teeth in it. Right now, you know back to that location I will say staff, you know both from town hall you know police fire, whomever public works even has met many times with those managers and owners to make sure that that this space works and so some of it was, you know staff, with an applicant and you know an owner so it's it's been that's become a you know it's a good success story. We move on so this is article three the use chart the next one we're just going to go in, in order is the accessory uses. And this is shown as you know what's proposed is in bold italics and what's being removed is in the red straight through. So right now this is you know for accessory uses only for retail and business and consumer services so you know it's not all of article five it's just this one 5.04. Right now we have that outdoor dining is allowed as an accessory use to a restaurant cafe lunchroom cafeteria refreshment stand drive through fast food eatery, or a bakery gallery other similar establishment for the production and sale of food or beverages, or to a retail store or convenience store selling prepared or packed food or beverages under a special permission to interview whichever is required for the principal use and so now that we're redefining proposing to redefine restaurant and the fact that this this is somewhat. You know, staff was saying well, can we just say a principal use authorized by section three and subject to the same review as the required for the principal use and so. What this does is in the be it bgbl dvc you know it's only those five districts be in and calm. Outdoor dining could be allowed. You know if it's you know if it's accessory to any use in the use chart, and so there was some concern this as well so that means a gas station could have outdoor dining. Yes, maybe elsewhere in article five we say the accessory use has to be customary in Hampshire County, so can't just be some kind of one off and the way we define accessory is it has to support the principal use. And so, you know, right I mean sometimes a gas station does have a dumping donuts next to it they might have a small coffee shop that serves coffee to their customers, and it could be accessory. They might have an accessory bakery or something. We're not talking about that we're talking about our dining so it would be hard for businesses in these districts, you know, other than say a food establishment to say okay well outdoor dining is accessory to our use. You know, a retail store can't really say outdoor dining is accessory, you know they have to they have to really prove that to staff into the border building commissioner. And so that's, you know that's what that change. So let's scroll down. In 5.041. What it really had said was that, you know the accessory outdoor dining had to be taken or closed between November and April, and we learned that it can operate during those times. And so we're proposing to say that any structure now in the outdoor dining area. We're proposing as that accessory uses active and operational. And so if someone wants to have outdoor dining year round and clear snow and provide heaters. Before they wouldn't be able to do that. But now now it could happen. Further down in the section, originally said no such facility so the outdoor dining area couldn't be equipped with free standing heaters or coolers are served by an HVAC system from a neighboring building. In the pandemic, you know we allowed the heaters and realize you know it extends the dining right it actually keeps people downtown longer so. So we deleted this to, you know, go with these changes up above for live or prerecorded music. Again we say to any principle use in section three, we remove the restaurant bar or in. So now live or prerecorded music is can be accessory to any principle use through the same permitting special permit or site plan or view. So that means is if someone you know if it's a special permit use it's a bar and they want to go to music then that accessory use is a special permit accessory use. And I think those are the changes in this drive through facility because we're not we're deleting a drive in restaurant. We're deleting it from the definitions in Article 12 and so we're deleting this reference here just or saying up above now is that it can be accessory so we really don't have a drive in as a principle. It could be a restaurant now but we no longer have this kind of this use in section 3.352 so we are proposing to remove it so we're proposing to delete it here. Questions. Pam. Can you go back to the bottom there where you just left off, Nate. Yeah, so drive in. Do we think that we just won't have any more drive in uses or was there was there a reason to actually eliminate that. So you know I talked to the building commissioner so he was saying you know it's interesting that typically we would say a drive in would be a restaurant and then the drive in part would be accessory and so you know the way we were defining a drive in or a drive through was literally you only have a takeout window you know it's like a small little shack and you're serving coffee out the window and there's really no seating no patrons ever use the inside of the building. And even that the building commissioner saying it could still be a restaurant, we call you know our cafe with with an accessory drive through. And so, it's just kind of the way it was permitted we never, we never really permitted a drive in restaurant as a principle use. It was always a restaurant with a drive through as an accessory. And so it's got it. So you're excellent. If you go back up to the top the exclamation of the fact that you're really dealing with the principle use authorized by section 3.3. Right. Remind me is three, I could look it up but I three. That's the use chart so like for instance in the BG. I know it's 3.3 specifically retail businesses and consumer services. No. Okay, so it really, it really. You're just saying that if there is an accessory activity requested. It has to be relative to the principle use. I, when I went to definitions though I didn't actually see a definition for accessory use. Yeah. So, unfortunately, I, it's, it's mentioned in the earlier sections of article five. And so, you know, I'm only showing the one. Okay. It is clearly defined somewhere. So, you know, I, this was asked as well. So wait, so you, you know, and the planning board is saying what so now, like the funeral home could have outdoor dining. And, you know, Douglas funeral home and we're saying well, the way the ball is written yes through, you know, through permitting at the same time, you know the way the building commissioner explained it. You know to have outdoor dining you have to go and get a food license you have to have a kitchen, you know which might cost $100,000 you have to go through board of health you have to go through a set of inspections and you spend a lot of money to actually have outdoor dining so it's not going to, it's not going to be taken lightly by an applicant or property owner so, you know, I think at the planning board meeting someone said wow this is really opening up too much right but I think in reality, someone is not going to undertake the expense or the time to have outdoor dining knowing that you know if they, if they come to the town, you know, you know right say Zana came to the town said I'd love to set up outdoor you say okay well how is accessory and then you know to do that you need to go through here are your steps and they might say wow okay I'm willing to spend a lot of money and time and hire and go through the board of health and license commissioners and do this or they might say okay it's really not worth it but so we're saying well if they actually want to do it. And we think it is accessory to their store what if they want to have like, you know, you know something that we can't conceive of right now. Let's let's say it is accessory and get them a shot. Otherwise, you know, it wouldn't be possible in the way it's currently written. Okay, so I feel I feel comfortable leaving it like this, given that it's very, very unlikely. And with something that has to go through a permitting process anyway it'd be very unlikely that you wouldn't get a food or drink related accessory use. Right. Okay. Question on the paragraph. Let's see. It's part of 5.041. Oh yeah right there it's in residential districts, seasonal outdoor dining may be permitted as accessories to a farm stand restaurant. First of all, do we have restaurants in residential districts to begin with. No. It's, we allow a farm stand where a certain you know 25% of what's grown on the property can be at the farm stand and so, you know what we're saying then is that if they wanted to have some dining associated with it can be accessory but I think that there's a better. Yeah, I think some of it was we're calling it a farm stand restaurant and it may just be that that's not great language. Well, an example of a farm stand restaurant is Maplewood farms that operated for a certain number of years and then it went out of business. They could have had an accessory use of outdoor dining under this bylaw here, but as I said they went out of business but they are in a residential district there in the R and zoning district they were allowed to operate that because they were saying that they were serving a certain amount of produce that was grown on their farm or grown in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It didn't work out as a business model but nonetheless, they did operate for a while. I'm going to, I'm going to segue just for a second. That's probably another zoning section that we should be looking at which is the farm stand, because it's, it's again it's class one and class two are pretty, you know, iffy. Yeah, so the differentiation I don't want to, I don't want to get off on that but that's so that answers the question there really aren't any food and drink uses. So the question that I did have though is, how do we look at this or any other zoning article to allow or encourage event events, public events or private events on venues such as a farm. And with some sort of protection of neighbors, you know, due to traffic noise and music kind of thing. Does, does this do these changes allow for any of that. Not, not really. And so, you know the town is working with the Pioneer Value Planning Commission through a technical assistance grant to look at temporary uses and events, and you know what you're describing him would be more relevant to that. And so this isn't, you know, taking, you know, events or other uses, it's really, you know, these three accessory uses outdoor dining, drive thruers or live or pre recorded music so it's not talking about, you know, having a farm, you know, having a wedding. This doesn't deal with that at all. Right now we are working on it so even staff is also looking at, you know, some, you know, some things from article 14 what we learned during COVID, you know, also looking at, in addition to temporary uses you know what our outdoor dining and some other things how can we make that update that including the farm standpiece and so we're looking at that but it's not being addressed at all in these changes. So in number 5.042, we talked about the live and pre recorded entertainment. Again, I understand that I don't know if music, if music is a little different than than outdoor dining. It feels like that could be applied to more principal uses than just food and food and business, I mean food and drink establishments. So, maybe 5.042 really wants to reflect food and drink related businesses rather than opening up to the whole kit and caboodle, because you know I was sort of thinking so maybe there's a marijuana shop that wants to have an outdoor event, and they've got, you know, party space maybe it's not outdoor dining but it's outdoor party. It means we also have these other pieces of the bylaw so if it's, you know, 150 feet or less from a residential district. It's a special permit, and we also have these other conditions already in the bylaw as the clearly accessory incidentals of the principal use. And then we have, you know, a sound level at the boundary of the property. And so, you know, staff has found that these, these standards that are in the bylaw work really well to manage something that wants to do this and so. And so that again that back to Mandy's point about the transition zones, if we follow through with those conditions, which are pretty specific, I think we're okay. Now we go to, I guess article 11 is next. Sure, article 11. This is this. So our in article 11, it's administration and enforcement and so this is a, we're talking about site plan review and what can happen administratively. And so again, what we're doing. We're changing 11.21. It really is just applicability now and we're calling it administration and applicability. And, you know, there, we have a different version that would be referred to the council because this is somewhat misleading but what's shown here in red. These three first bullets are already in the bylaw, why the red here is with track changes. They're renumbered, and they're nested now we're creating a new 11.211 saying site interview shall not be required when and we're just listing these changes out in a little different order so it's clearer for both applicants and staff. And we change the language slightly. So this, you know, these, these conditions are already in the bylaw if there's no physical change to the exterior of either the building or the site. The only change to the exterior of a building or site includes the installation of signs in compliance with article eight of the zoning bylaw. A change of use is proposed and no physical changes to the exterior of a building or site will occur. The building commissioner determines that the change will not conflict with the purpose of the bylaw and finds that the proposed use will not result in the need for further review under section 11.243 which is below. So we're just we're moving these around these are already in the bylaw. So this is an alteration for a building to exterior site we were right here currently says administrative approval for minor alteration and now we're we're nesting this under when no site interviews are fired. So essentially the building commissioner would say that the work we proceed if you know these conditions are met and this is already in the bylaw. The really big change to the section 11 is this administrative approval process in instances where site plan review is not required. And so this is what we've kind of adapted from article 14. And so this administrative approval is really, you know nested under this section only when site plan review is not required. So we're just saying that no work shall commence until the building commissioner has authorized the work or the use to proceed. The building commissioner may approve approve with conditions. Page break here, or deny the proposal decisions shall be made in writing filed with the town clerk and kept on record, you know in the conservation and development department and town hall. Here in consultation with the planning director shall be authorized to apply any design review review criteria found in article three section 3.204 the design review principles and standards. And so currently this one section here. This administrative approval. The building commissioner kind of does this already but the bylaw isn't really allowing the building commissioner that position to approve or approve of conditions are denied. You know, we found that through article 14. We actually want the building commissioner things are approved administratively to be able to put conditions on it. And so what's happened in the past the building commissioner might say yes, document it with an email but really it's not formalized. And so by putting it in the bylaw it becomes something where there is this written decision that's filed with the town clerk. You know we we actually would have an application process for this through our permitting software and so now even if it's administratively approved we have, you know they have to submit a management plan a site plan a floor plans we have all these documents that are part of a record. Currently, it really isn't formalized we may ask for it, but an applicant could say, well, I meet this condition up here. I'm not making any changes to the exterior. I don't need to do anything except for apply for a building permit, right because this this. You know they meet these conditions which are already in the bylaw. And the building commissioner typically will say no let's wait we want to see these things but really the bylaw isn't asking for it. And so we just want to make sure the bylaw is giving, you know, giving applicants and staff enough information so we can make a decision. And so I had a couple of questions, which is why raise my hand. And the first one is with this. Well the first one's more. The first one's sort of easy this 11.211 when you added the subsections. When I read site plan review when I read it in conjunction with 2113 site plan review shall not be required when minor alteration to building exterior site semi colon. Yeah. It, it reads weird. But when you, I like how you changed the other three and I did, I like that you kept in the comments that deleted so I could see that they did match. So maybe some sort of rephrasing so that it reads similar to right. Zero one and two which actually read like a sentence you know not required when there is no physical change when the only changes to you know so that's just a minor thing. My bigger concern is with actually the language that's in. Highlighted in yellow found an article three section 3.204 design review principles and standards. If I've read the design review section correctly. It only applies that section itself in theory only applies to the bgbl areas within 150 feet of the common and town owned buildings. If we have this language in here, are we now basically saying oh we're going to add it so that it can apply to be and bvc, calm, all these other areas in town that it wasn't really originally written to apply to. And so, am I reading that right that it essentially means that now design criteria will be applied outside of what the DRB's limited purview was. Yes, and no. So, currently in the bylaw we still say other review, the building commissioner may seek guidance in reviewing, you know, criteria from town staff or designer view board or circle commission. And so, you're right in the sense that the building commissioner may now apply design review principles outside of the designer view district. And that the building commissioner is already authorized to do so sometimes if say a restaurant's going into North Amherst. It's not in the designer view district and it could be administratively approved because going into a current restaurant space, the building commissioner often just sends the applicant to the designer view board. Anyways, if they're proposing a lot of changes. And so, you know what we're saying here now is the building commissioner in consultation with the plan director, you know, shall be authorized to apply so we're not saying that they shall apply we're giving the building commissioner the authorization to apply them. Because you know again, if the building commissioner right now was to tell an applicant that, you know, or in a in the building permit refers to design review principles, an applicant could try to argue that that's not really applicable. And so we actually do want the building commissioner through administrative approval to be able to apply these. And so, it's only for administrative approval right this is only if there's no site plan review required if site plan review is required. The designer view board is often used as an advisory recommendations to the planning board for a project. And so, any time, you know in any instance the ZBA or planning board can ask the designer view board for assistance reviewing a project, whether or not it's in the design review district. And this just authorizes that authorizes him to go seek that advice. Or no it also it authorizes the building commissioner to apply to actually apply them not just like require things be complied with, instead of seeking the advice. But this other review is currently in the by a lot and remains. So, for instance, guidance. Yeah, as guidance. Yeah. But the first the first one with the in yellow is shall be authorized to apply apply is different than guidance right. You know, guidance is well we can seek guidance we can seek suggestions but we can't force apply is you can force. So I agree so it's you know it is saying that we could the building commissioner could apply the design principles outside the area but you know because there's no site plan review here. You know what if it's just a terrible design, you know, I mean I mean I have the beholder right. What if they're saying that is, you know what you're proposing there is something that so if the building commissioner thinks that it. So anyways if there's a big change to the exterior, then it triggers site plan review. So, in very few instances. Are there much in the design review principles that the building commissioner could apply because if there's changes it automatically trigger site plan review. But what it is doing is this saying okay say there's minor changes. They still could use the design review principles. I don't know about that one. But thank I'm understanding that a little better but I'm going to Jennifer. Yeah, I just for my, what just want some clarification because I may not be understanding this maybe clear to everybody is. So right now, are there instances when a butters are notified that they won't be. If this is adopted. Right now under administrative approval. If we go back up. Although it's read here these are already in the bylaw. So, if for instance, you know 10 years ago, a use was permitted. And they, they, you know, they stop operation and a new use comes in and they're not changing the physical building or site or they meet these, these conditions. They're not actively approved right now. It doesn't go to a public hearing, and we're not necessarily changing that. And so, in that instance, the butters are not notified. And so typically the planning board, you know with a class one restaurant, because of the expense and the time to actually outfit a space as a restaurant. You know, say like tie corner is a bad example it's downtown but say where tie corner is it's now. It's delicious but I'm not sure that's right. Anyways, it was permitted as a as a restaurant, the restaurant goes out of business, a new restaurant comes in and occupies a space that make no changes at all to this song to the site except for a new sign. Right here, that new restaurant is administratively approved and actually never goes through site plan review. If they want to add outdoor dining, all of a sudden that outdoor dining is not part of the original site plan that triggers a public hearing. And so, you know, we're not changing that, but what we are changing is when it is administratively approved we're now allowing, or you were proposing that the building commissioner could approve approval conditions or even deny that administrative approval. And right now the bylaw isn't isn't clear on that. Essentially it says if there are no changes, it's basically a building permit. And through article 14 we found that the administrative approval process works really well. You know we asked for plans, there's a written decision, it has conditions, and you know, there's a record and so right now they're really that isn't necessarily happening for administrative approval. And so we're actually making administrative approval, a little stronger. Thank you. Pam. On that last also on that same paragraph. I like the fact that the, the, the person is going to consult with the planning director, I think that's a good thing. And it's good to put it in writing. I also would like to, to apply any design review criteria found and include in the record so I would like to, I would like to require that those design guidelines that were considered and applied be noted as part of that. I'll say the congressional record for that permit. Well, I'm sorry, I'm essentially, I'm supporting this, but I'd like to see that, that record that says, we considered this this and this and understanding that in general these are cases where very very few physical changes are being made to a site. But I think it's still, I think it's still appropriate. If you're if they're if he or she whoever is the, you know, the building commissioner. They still have to look at all of our essentially design guidelines that are in the bylaw now, and it'd be good to document them. Thank you. I'm seeing nothing else. I think we can move to article 12. Really simple. In articles 12, we have, you know, currently, the only changes are in bolder a talus in bold and italics or the red so we have a definition for bar is a food and drink establishment or a part of such establishment devoted primarily to the service and consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises. And it says and in which service service of food is only incidental. We're proposing a change that to say maybe incidental. We are proposing to delete a drive up restaurant. Just, you know, as mentioned before, it's something that really wasn't permitted, you know, we didn't consider accessories so we never actually really had a need for this definition and and I guess I'll say that a bar is used a few places in the bylaw not where as a drive up restaurant previously was only used in the use table so if we remove it from the use table. It's not referenced anywhere else in the bylaw and so this just becomes kind of an irrelevant definition because it's not found anywhere else. So if we remove it from accessory uses in that table three then it's nowhere else in the bylaw. And after that, all the numbering changes. So, you know, because we're removing one one definition the rest of the numbers, you know, instead of this dwelling on being 12.12 is now 12.11. Yeah. So those are the only changes in in article 12. There is a definition for a restaurant which remains unchanged. And so really that those are the only changes. So my only question is with the renumbering because we were shown not full renumbering and I wasn't sure whether you were planning on renumbering I always get worried when you renumber an entire section in such a big document. Because what if you referenced that definition by number. Would it be better to just not renumber, delete, drive in restaurant or whatever it's called drive through restaurant drive up restaurant and leave 12.11 there with the word reserved. So, sort of like a blank number without renumbering anything else. Or some other definition beginning with D. I know. Yeah, potentially right. Staff talk about that so I you know what was what was what was developed for the council package packet was all renumbering. But it could be that it just has that reserve so that way we're preserving. We had discussed that and we hadn't really come up with an answer but I mean, I don't want to search the whole bylaw but I worry that somewhere in the bylaw 12.18 is referenced that now we'll have to change to 12.17. Right yeah we had when we when the bio was updated with staff we tried to refer to the defined term, not the number but you could be some some places where that is the case so. I'm fine with renumbering I would just ask that you check to make sure we don't have to change anything else. I can go back to section article 11 I forgot one of my questions. In section, sorry my lights getting my lights getting bad. 11211 in that in that section we use that we use the term change of use a lot. And I just want to make sure that we are using it consistently or that we're all thinking about it in the same way when when in building construction there are there are uses there's there's there's commercial use there's residential use. And so that's a that's a use category or a use group, or you've got you've got residential or assembly is another use group. So when we talk about change of use. That's where my mind always goes, rather than change of user. Change user. In this case it is a change of. It's not really a change of use if you're going from one restaurant to another restaurant. In my mind that is not a change of use. It's a change of user. How can we be. How can we be clear how the words being used. I mean up above we say uses for which type of interviews are fired, you know is based on table three so I think in terms of land use permitting a use is what those use classifications are. It's not the user I think it's pretty, it's understood that you know change of use would be, you know there's a retail space and now it's going to a restaurant space and that's a change in use it's not really a change of use right. Yeah. But I think what Pam saying is restaurant to restaurant is not a change in use it's a change in user but sometimes it still requires a plan new site plan review. Only if there are certain changes here so non minor. Right. Significant. So you know if so I think what Pam wants is clarification when using the term change of use that it could mean restaurant to retail, but it could also mean restaurant to restaurant. If the restaurant seek if the new owner seeking different hours, say, right. Even though the use classification is not changing. Thank you. That was much more clearly said that I said it. I'm glad I understood it Pam. Anything else. Thank you. We will see this and as part of my next agenda preview, I think I'm going to try and get the notices out quick enough so that we can have a hearing on this on the 27th. So that it'll be a here a long hearing day on the 27th where we'll just go through lots of hearings since we already have to. But I'll think about that schedule more. Just for clarification clarification so CRC has talked about this planning board has talked about this. It goes to count town council for the what referral back to us for an official hearing. Even though we've all talked about it about 10 times. And then it gets back to town council with a recommendation. Yes, so it'll the referral on Monday is for referral to both us in the planning board for formal hearing the required hearing under state law and our recommendations. And then from there it would go to GOL after those recommendations are made for the final, you know, legal review type thing and then back to council for the two readings and vote on it. So this was the sort of preview so that hopefully that system moves a little more smoothly that doesn't mean we won't be asking for more changes when we see it at the hearing right we might hear from more people we might hear from that but but we have found in the past I think Chris and Nate will agree with this that both planning board and CRC seeing some of this stuff before formal approval, formal referral makes the process go a little more smoothly, just in terms of even knowledge of what we're talking about right. Not that we're not going to change things or come in with other recommendations or questions and stuff. Can I explain it. Yeah, thank you. It is 605 we have 25 minutes left in our meeting. I did not ever think we'd get through our whole agenda I will just say that right now and it's clear we will not. But we're going to talk briefly about associate member vacancies and then move on to the nuisance house bylaw and leave residential rental bylaw for another time. As you can see it members vacancies there is no different status than two weeks ago. That's why there's nothing else in the packet. No different status. So we do have to decide potentially whether we're just going to let it hang out there. We obviously can let it hang out there we could make a recommendation to say you know we're not going to try and fill these. It's clear no one's interested or not enough people are interested or, you know, that's one weird thing and I did not say that correctly because we do have potentially for people that have applied right that doesn't mean no one's interested. We don't know whether they'd all go through the system but or we could say you know let's see what we move forward with and and make decisions based on that you know those are sort of or we could just punt it again for another one or two meetings thoughts Jennifer. What were we aiming for in terms of a date to have the interviews. Did we get that far. We never set dates because we don't set dates till we declare a pool sufficient. I don't. Yeah, I mean I made an announcement at our district meeting. I'm still reaching out. There wouldn't be interviews until November at this point I always assume the interviews are a good month from when we declare the pool sufficient. Mainly because it probably takes me about a week to pull to find a date at this point we can have another couple of weeks to try and get. One option is to declare the pool sufficient with four potential applicants and three openings and revisit it later but in order to try and set an interview date and aim as this as CRC sort of talk about what type of interview date we're going to seek we could potentially declare it sufficient see who spiles SOIs and not put the SOI deadline close to an interview date so that we can actually talk about whether after we get SOIs and before they're published potentially do we have a sufficient pool to go to interviews you know we could sort of take an interim step in there there's all sorts of options probably Pam. So, I printed out the spreadsheet and sense within the two year timeframe of people submitting caps. There are currently 12 people that, you know, have submitted a calf in the past, only four or five of them. I can't really do it, I can't read this. There are only four or five of them that have submitted something since May. So, the question being, if, if I were to go back to each and every one of those folks who submitted something who I reached out to many of them because they were interested in the planning board or ZBA. I think that maybe some or or equally negative responses from from those folks again, but that's in hand, at least 12 people who have submitted a calf in the past. Is that is that something that people feel I should take the time to do. I think we should require that we should have been reaching out to everyone in the past two years before we declare the pool sufficient. So, if that hasn't been done we should do that and encourage people that that had a calf submitted before May of this year right but within the last two years from when the bulletin board notice went out which was August one. You know that that group needs reached out to and asked to resubmit a calf to become an active applicant right because they've expressed interest in the past. We should certainly do that. I will say I'm not hugely positive and optimistic that we will get caps from anyone on that list. Because we all reached out to them as Pam you know you reached out to them in March. And we really didn't get caps from them on that list already, you know, other than the ones that we've appointed. So, so that's why I guess I'm not quite optimistic that that those numbers will rise by doing that outreach but the rules are policy requires that we do have to do it. Okay, so I will just so. I will reach out to all on that list again. And I think, given the fact that it's a ZBA alternate position, it is quite a bit less than the, than the time commitment for planning board or full ZBA. Maybe there's some response there because I think a couple of people were concerned about the amount of time. So, given that it's a different position, essentially that work that we're talking about. We'll see if we get some additional activity that way. Okay. And so maybe we put this back on for the 13th to potentially have. See, see if we got any response from those, those other 12 and maybe make a decision then as to what we're going to do. That sounds like a plan, Jennifer. October 13, that's the one that you're not going to be there. That's the one that you're running whether or not I'm actually in attendance. Okay. Okay, yes. And I will talk to you Pam about obviously the setting for that. Jennifer sound like a good plan. Yes, I have a hard stop on the 13th for TSO. Yes. Oh, because there's that other hearing. Yeah. Okay. With that, we're going to move on to the nuisance house by law. And so the reason this is on here is we had a referral from the council, right. And a little bit of background. And I don't think we'll take too much time on this today. But back when the new council was sworn in, the charter required a full by law review. And the by law review committee did that review, made the changes that needed to be made to conform to the new form of government, but then also had a whole lot of comments on other things. So I think we're going to get this in here in GOL, we're going through it, right. And the nuisance house ones dealt with a lot of definitions and so GOL referred it to CRC because they felt some of those definitions might be issues with the permitting by law we're working on the residential permitting by law we're working on and that we might want to with those two bylaws actually match definitions instead of how, for example, a property owner defined one way in nuisance house and another way in rental permitting. And so today, we're not going to get to the residential rental by law but I put it on this one because we're now sort of into that looking at the definitions of the permitting by law and so I thought it was good for us to bring that nuisance house in, look at that see what the definitions are see which one you know there was a legal review that we got about a recommended definition. We can look at that definition and say, hey, is that what we want for both of these bylaws do we want them separate do we not and then we can look at doing stuff with other things. And so let me see what I have open I don't even know what I have open as it relates to this. But, yeah so I'm going to try and pull up. I closed it but I'm going to pull up the memo that I included in this. Actually the memo might not be the best thing to pull up, but let me pull up the nuisance house bylaw itself. I don't want to get it open. But first, I'll do the memo since the other ones not, not opening at this point. It was, I just want to make a comment about this bylaw article. Yeah, just leaving us. Or did she just disappear and I don't know whether she's fully leaving Chris are you still there Pam might have a question for you on the. I just wanted to say thank you. I'm still here. Thank you. Yeah, so, so this is the legal opinion in a sense that said we shouldn't change the alcohol definition that the alcohol definition was sufficient. We were told to look at the definition of property owner alcohol definition and enforcement section. The legal opinion said the alcohol definition was sufficient in enforcement, it answered the questions as to whether you could get response costs under non criminal disposition but then made a recommendation to potentially add the phrase any means available in law or equity, so that you could charge the response costs but you'd have to go to superior court to enforce it, but it wouldn't prohibit then asking for them. And then it talked about property owner and the legal opinion actually gave us a recommended property owner definition. And let me see if I can pull up something else because I prepared, but it's not on a document so let me see if I can get it on a document first. I'm sorry, while you're doing that, it occurred to me that it's it's interesting because it talks about nuisance house talks about alcohol and gatherings, but nowhere in there does it actually say if you accrue or if you get a first or second response, you will be considered a nuisance house or if you have a third response from the authorities, you'll be a really bad nuisance house. So yeah, we might want to talk about some of that right. It does not link the categories to any. It just doesn't link it. Or real concern in the neighborhood that a house that is a nuisance. There doesn't seem to be any consequence they keep, you know, getting their permit renewed and so what's showing on the screen now and we'll get to that part because I do want to talk about whether we'd like to look at other revisions to it. But this, this definition is the one from the legal opinion as to that how they would define it. The second one is how our current draft working draft of the permitting bylaw has defined owner. And so one of the things I'd like to hear is, is there one we particularly want to go with and would we want them to match. We would want one and not to. That's my assumption that we want to go with what the lawyer said and we'd want it in both, right. I don't think the lawyers probably got a pretty good handle on what you should say. And we'll put it in both. So that I changed the residential one to in the next draft. And, and so then I thought I looked at the rest of the definitions in the nuisance bylaw and they had a definition of premises. And I said I wonder what we did with premises and the property in the permitting bylaw, but we don't define premises we define property and so that's what's down here. So premises and obviously the lawyer was not asked about this one but premises in the nuisance bylaw is defined that way and we define property in the permitting bylaw, potentially, maybe even a little I'm not sure which one's more expansive actually. I was wondering if people think we should have them agree. In terms of their definitions, even if we refer to one is premises. 15. Yeah, Chris, likely to be, you know, interpreting some of this stuff. Well, to me property means the parcel of land on which something exists and premises could mean someone's unit on that parcel of land. So that's the distinction that I would make these two words. So what you're saying is if it's a multifamily dwelling or multi unit and one unit is the nuisance versus the whole building. Yes, and then that the property owners still responsible for that. Yeah. So, so we actually need to perhaps to with premises being the residents, the dwelling unit. Hmm. So we might want to try and come up with a different definition for premises for an ad property in for nuisance. And. Yeah. Yeah, Jennifer. I think we hear from this may not be the time or place to address this but we hear from landlords that they shouldn't or their be held responsible for the behavior of the tenant. So is this part of where we're addressing that. So let me see if I can get my version of the actual bylaw to open, and then I'll share that and and that's the next. Clearly they, you know, a nuisance house the property owner, the landlord has to be responsible for it. And that's where I wanted to talk a little briefly about this we've got about five more minutes before we, we go on. And more because I wanted to see how far into nuisance house bylaw we wanted to get right in terms of enforcement and definitions we were told to look at enforcement and definitions basically and so enforcement's very expansive right into basically the whole bylaw. Let me see. And so the bylaw here. Section be basically says, you can't consume an underage person can't consume alcohol, which I'm not even sure why we would need that in nuisance but seems. That's what I'm saying is that it doesn't, it doesn't link. It doesn't link to anything right at all. But then it's the hosting permitting or allowing a public nuisance or party and so the question is, is underage drinking considered a public nuisance right like again there's no linking here. And then the hosting is you can't host the gathering could be a public nuisance it goes on. So the next page is the notice of response to the gathering is mailed to a property owner and maybe the management company. But it doesn't say whether that's the on the first response or the second response but it says that it advises them that a third response could result in liability. It feels like if we're considering a point system for good and bad behavior in the in the permitting bylaw that it feels like many of these elements are cause for points to accrue. And it feels like that's perhaps if we folded these, these practices and these people liable and the data that that I think we are also trying to grapple with and cover in the, in the rental permitting. So, but the question, but the point being now that I'm talking out loud which helps. It occurs to me that maybe we, we don't want to limit it to rental housing. Well what I was going to say is nuisance is not limited to rental housing so it's right and that's that's what I just realized as I spoke through that that I hate being I hate being redundant but maybe we could refer, you know one way or the other to some of these definitions. The nuisance isn't just alcohol will let you know, it's noise, it's noise, it can be mostly right. Yeah, I mean like I just somebody not even in my district just said there was an issue with a bonfire on the front lawn, you know, which is, there may have been alcohol involved but alcohol one is number one, the underage drinking it's not even. It's just underage drinking is number one number two is just public nuisance but I don't think we ever define public nuisance, despite it being capitalized just like gathering is never defined despite it being capitalized. Gathering gathering was, I did a note was described up above. Oh it is described I missed that one up the own public nuisance is okay so I missed them. Gathering that constitutes a violation of law or creates a substantial disturbance. Noise traffic straight urination fights disturbances littering. But it doesn't say if you have one transgression, you are a nuisance house or if you have three transgressions you are now a nuisance house. So, so the person for first and second response, and it's always associated with a gathering that's the other thing. Right, a house with trash and you know we're flowing trash with that doesn't that isn't as a result of a party ground or right. To me, nuisance is repeated behavior. Anybody. You could go away for a weekend and your God forbid your teenage daughter as a party but you're not a nuisance house that's like a one off. You know I think it's the houses that have just. Yeah. Yeah, so I think that's where there's that first and second response and then the third and subsequent where it's really the third one is what gets the owner in trouble. I agree it could be more clear the whole thing of Chris, do you have any thoughts on this as we start looking at this I know you're more planning and zoning but I don't I really haven't looked at this yet. This is the first time I'm really looking at it with you. Yeah, and I know it's pretty much outside of your purview it's more of a chiefs purview or even Rob. I only have Rob. But it sounds like from the three of us that we'd like to take a deeper dive into new sense just address. The two things that you know some of it change. Right. And I've also just because some of it is also activity that could happen in the backyard versus a front yard. I don't know if they're in the back yard. Nobody's but you know it's when they become a staple of the front yard it gets. The back it's because the backyard is full of cars for the too many people that live there. Okay so I'll make those notes that means I'll probably report back to the council that this I don't know whether we had a I'd have to look whether our review of this had a deadline. I'll report back to the council that we're going to take a deeper dive and take more time to get back to them. As a result of the referral we're not going outside of our referral but that referral and really looking at it has shown that that enforcement section needs a lot of beefing up in and discussion. Yeah. This is a real townwide concern. Yeah, and so we might not I might not get this back on the agenda for a couple months. Till after we finished permitting but we can think about the permitting and that point system when we get to permitting with respect to there will be you know there is a nuisance by law and if we're fixing it like how do those they need to be they need to be thought of simultaneously simultaneously even if we can amend simultaneously. Exactly, because I'm not sure we can amend simultaneously in that. It'll be too hard I think to work on them together although we might request, you know, don't deal with rental until we've brought nuisance to. Okay. So that general public comment, I think all the public has left. So, we bored them today. I didn't, I don't think they were expecting a discussion on temporary zoning that we were discussing Chris. I just wanted to let you know and Janet has left but we did spend considerable time. Rob Mara Nate Malloy and myself, meeting with Janet McGowan and Janet Keller. I think it was earlier this week I can't quite remember all the days are coming together but anyway, we did have a very fruitful discussion and we made changes to the document that you saw today. That are reflected in what you saw today based on our discussion with them I thought it was a really good discussion and they came in with a lot of concerns I can't read their minds about how they left but it seemed like they appreciated the meeting so I just wanted to let you know that. Great. Thank you for that Chris and thank you for all your work on this one. Jennifer before I go into minutes. Yeah, I just also want to thank Chris because I think people have started to meet with you one on one from the community and they find that very helpful. So, you're busy, you're very busy so it's appreciated. So, I'm just going to move to minutes and I'm just going to move to adopt the September 820 22 minutes meeting minutes as presented is there a second. You guys can fight it out. Yeah. Any discussion. What was the date again, September 8. So Jennifer we start with you. I. Mandy's an I Pam. I, they are adopted unanimously announcements so the 24th at 7pm, which is month October 24th at 7pm is when our next community forum is going to be. So my plan right now is to set a rental permitting rental permitting community forum yeah it's a Monday night. We do have a meeting the 27th it's when we're going to have all these hearings. But the plan is to run it similarly to where we ran it last time but I'm going to have a grid. We're obviously not done with the bylaw right it's still a working draft we haven't discussed half of it. I'm converting what is in the current draft now regarding regulations to what regulations would look like actual language, even though we haven't discussed any of it. To put out for the community forum so people can see and start a discussion with clear clarity that none of that has been discussed right. It is what we where things might go. Hopefully we'll have a draft fee schedule by then based on the conversations we're going to have on this coming Monday at the council. We'll have the council discussion on the 17th I will produce a slightly modified version of the rental registration working draft for all of those discussions. The 17th and the 24th along with that translation of what's been listed as potential regulations into what the language would look like so it looks more like a regulation than just a listing of thoughts, without having deleted anything in there. And then so I'm hoping and then I'll produce a sort of compare contrast between the current register permitting bylaw and what's in the draft. And then I hope to run that forum to sort of section not quite section by section but sections of big changes and thoughts on the actual language that we're working on right now. So the direction it is going the direction the fee schedule is going based on conversations coming up based on conversations that the council had and all of that it's not fully formed in my head, but that's sort of the plan where, and we go until everyone is talked out. So it could be another long night depending on who shows up but I really hope that we'll get some feedback on instead of broad concepts concepts we've actually put into the bylaw concepts we've talked about putting into regulations, which is why I've tried to take that point system idea and put it into some sort of regulation, and even though we haven't talked about what would accrue points, there's a lot of stuff in there right but so that we can get some feedback on those specific concepts. So I'm going to try and see if it's logical to put the what we just spent an hour discussing a little over an hour and a half today discussing the food and drink establishments on to getting a hearing notice for the 27th I'll talk to Chris, you and Nate about that potential date, and whether that works and all, or whether we should look at November 3, which is our other really close option. So that's what else goes on the 13th, I haven't talked really about the 13th at all. Rental registration will be on the 13th, but Pam you and I need to get together soon to, I'll send you a draft agenda, ZBA will be on it again. At this point that's all I'm thinking of putting on it. But Pam you and I should get together since you'll be running that meeting. Any other thoughts for agendas or announcements for anything. Seeing none I'm going to thank Chris again, thank Nate because he popped off before I always remember to thank people which is at the end after everyone's popped off for the excellent presentation. And, and you know your whole staffs work on getting this so that we don't have to extend the temporary zoning yet another extension that we can just make it make the changes that need to be made to get that benefit that that you guys have liked so much and that has worked well. So, thank you for your work on that. If there's nothing else I'm going to adjourn us at 634pm. Thank you. Bye bye. Thanks. Bye bye. Thank you, Christine.