 We're going to wait. Once she starts, we're going to wait till we see people in the attendee list because it takes them a little bit of time to pop in. So we'll give it a little time before we start. It will be shocked if no one pops in, but that might be the case. We're all tuning into the RNC. Apparently. Either this or the RNC. You have an attendee now, but you're, you're all set. You're recording. Excellent. Thank you, Athena. And yes, we did at least get one. So I know people have been able to get in and join. So with that, at 505 p.m. on August 26, 2020, I am calling to order the special meeting of the community resources committee of the town council. We have a meeting to hold interviews for the vacancies upcoming vacancies on the planning board and pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, MGL chapter 30 a 30 a section 18. This meeting of the community resources committee is being conducted via remote participation. It is also being recorded for future broadcast. We will not be taking any votes during this meeting. So if we were, they would all be by roll call at this time I'm going to call on each committee member by name. And at that time I will confirm that you can hear me and we can hear you. I'm going to make sure to mute your mic after we do that. And after I call on the committee members by name. I will also call on the applicants by name. So that we can do the same check to make sure everyone can hear everyone. So committee members, we are starting with myself in alphabetical order. I am here. And then we go to Evan Ross. Here. Steve Schreiber. Here. And Sarah Swartz. So next item. And Mark Soot, please. I don't know why, but my name is Julie Balmille and is absent tonight. Candidates. Michael Burt whistle. I'm here. Robert greeny, please unmute Robert. Tom Long. I'm here. Andrew McDougal. Here. And Johanna Newman. I am here. There will be no public comment at this meeting for our rules of procedure in the council. We can choose to do that. Attendants attendees may note that we are missing a community resources committee member at this meeting. We made all effort to ensure that all members could be present at this meeting. And when we scheduled the interviews we believed everyone was able to be present and sometime between then and last week we realized one person could not be here. The committee as a whole discussed what to do. We tried to move the times of the meetings to accommodate and it was just not possible without seeking other days, but everything had already been there. So with agreement of that committee member, she will not be attending the interviews and she will also not be participating in the recommendation meeting after this. But I wanted to make that clear to everyone what happened there. You will also notice that the agenda for this meeting included six names but there are only five candidates here. Yesterday I received a request withdrawing from the candidate pool from Adrian Fabos so he is not attending tonight he has respectfully withdrawn from consideration for this vacancy. So that will hopefully clear up any confusion by people in the audience and others. What will happen at this meeting is we're doing interviews and so CRC members who have chosen to will take turns asking the six questions that were sent to all of the candidates last week. The candidates will each have two minutes to respond to each of the questions. The order of the response will change for each question in a random way, but each candidate will answer at least one question in each of the five spots of the order, first through fifth. After all the questions have been asked and answered the meeting will adjourn. And if it is after 6pm CRC will take a five minute break before the next meeting is called to order. If it is before 6pm, we will break until 6pm because that is the announced time of the next meeting where discussion potential vote on a recommendation will occur. I believe with that I have made all the announcements I need to do any committee members. Did I miss anything from those that have been through this before. I am seeing shaking of heads. No. So with that we're going to begin the questions and I will be asking the first question. And that question is, what do you feel you bring to the planning board that can make it successful, and I will list the order of the name so people know before we start. We will go Michael, Bob, Tom, Andrew and Johanna in this one I will call on you after each one, but the first to answer this will be Michael you have two minutes I'm going to try and time. If you go close to that I'll give you a warning. Thank you. First of all, I hope you will all understand that I have written out my answers to your questions tonight, because I want to be clear and precise. If you have attended recent planning board meetings you may know that I frequently compose written statements when complex and or controversial issues face the board. Now to answer your first question. In terms worth of planning board experience. I know my way around the zoning bylaw and the master plan. And I know how to read between the lines of site plan review and special permit requests. I have 40 years experience in stage direction architecture design and lighting. I have led design teams to build new and remodeled theaters. I have made working theaters out of deconstruct of out of a deconsecrated church warehouse and an abandoned shoe store. And I have produced theater in a wide variety of pre existing environments indoors and out. As a result of this I have a working knowledge of drafting and reading two and three dimensional plans and models, but most importantly, in this context, my experience has made me particularly aware of issues of scale in regard to the size and size of the buildings and the relationship of buildings to the people that interact with them. Additionally, my eight years of involvement in a variety of Amherst town government activities has made me sensitive to the needs and desires of the town residents to be sure the planning board is not a representative body. But I believe it's crucial that the opinions and desires of the taxpayers from all areas of the town, have a strong voice at the table, and I believe I can help to provide that. Thank you, Bob. There are three things I hope to bring to the planning board have selected. First, I think the town would benefit in a variety of ways. If, if we would more proactively encourage small scale incremental organic growth and development recent years we have done well in attracting large scale development projects. I would arguably argue that current zoning and a regulatory system does not adequately encourage a wider variety of small scale development projects, I would argue that encouraging a wider variety of small scale projects could help substantially in meeting our current need for diversified housing options. I would arguably adding a substantial level of revenue to our tax base and also adding diversity and variety to our architectural profile, enhancing the character and uniqueness of our town. Second, I believe I have the ability to help diverging points of view listen to each other, create options and outcomes, better than individual ideas. Third, I am a person of broad vision and high ideals, the bulk of the planning board work is nitty gritty detail, but that should not deter a certain level of visionary thinking, the character and uniqueness of Amherst will markedly benefit if we consciously and intentionally include our imagination and visions in our planning. Thank you Bob. Tom. Hi, thank you for having me. So I think to the for the planning board, I bring I would say the collection of experiences but also unique perspectives. I have a background 20 years as practicing architect, working on international memorials, local residential projects, additions, ground up buildings and so on, as well as working on our local businesses, organizations and to know quite a few members of our community, as well as a member of the academic community in the area, working with students at all the different campuses, teaching architecture, various forms of planning and design. And so I try to bring all those lenses. All those experiences to the planning board. And I think the real unique thing about me as a kind of perspective that I bring through 20 years of studying research. One of the things that's most, I think, important to me is an understanding that the built environment is a complex ecosystem and then we have to think about, in every decision we make everything from infrastructure to capital to education legislation, community programming, health care and access to food and these are all parts of this built ecosystem that we are making decisions about and we can't think about every decision in a vacuum. That's one perspective that I think I bring through my experience. I think the second is that most of my research. And my courses are entering around a principle that the built environment and pretty much all design must begin with the human experience. And so we must ask questions, engage with and understand what's going on with the individuals within those communities so we can understand how to make those changes and understand the impact of those changes have on every individual of this community from all diverse angles and not just from one particular angle. Thank you. Andrew. Yes, thank you for the opportunity. I feel that I bring a useful background that might reflect some additional perspectives to the board. So I have a bachelor's in landscape architecture. I have studied towards a master's in regional planning both from UMass Amherst, but maybe more relevantly I've been in the private sector for the last two decades, two plus decades, helping design retail distribution networks so essentially optimizing kind of a network from a geographic perspective. That work involves several things which I think would be useful for the board. One is just like a very comprehensive day to day use and understanding of demographics and trends, understanding of kind of retail phenomenon across the US and then also I've just, I've been to like every major metro area in the US, suburban areas, rural areas as well, I've been able to be on the ground and sort of closely examine phenomenon which I believe work relative to effective spaces that are places that people would like to be and spend time in. And I hope that, you know, this would help provide some ability for me to be an immediate and useful contributor to the board. Thanks. Thank you. And, you know, Hannah. Excellent. Thanks so much for the opportunity to interview and for us having such a great process. It's been really clear to navigate. So the question is, what do I feel I bring to the planning board that can help make it successful. And, you know, I think I basically just bring my life experience and my work experience. So for the past 20 years, I have worked as a community organizer and an advocate around environmental and public interest issues. And so that experience has, you know, I've been trained and I've lots of experience facilitating groups doing strategic planning, coalition building to bring together, you know, folks from kind of very different perspectives who agree on something to move the ball forward on that community outreach communication and a lot more. So, you know, I think all of those skills could help with the planning board and then I also bring some issue expertise in the fields of clean energy, as well as sustainable communities. I've helped draft policy, primarily at the state level. So even though I haven't really been in the weeds of local zoning laws. I have read the master plan. And I have kind of a track record of being able to get into the weeds on technical details, even if I haven't gone there quite yet. Thank you. That brings us to question number two, Evan, you get to run this question. Great. Thank you, Mandy. So our second question is, tell us about an experience you have had collaborating with a group, particularly where opinions conflicted, or the decision was controversial. And so for this question, we're going to go, Johanna, Tom, Michael, Bob and Andrew. And so we'll start with Johanna. This is a good question. I feel like this is the story of my life in a lot of ways. In my work, we often have to decide how we want to go about solving a particular problem. So for example, just last Friday, I had the experience of pitching a team of colleagues about a campaign that I'm trying to move forward to help electrify buildings across America and stop the direct burning of fossil fuels and homes. And there were, you know, many, many, many dissenting ideas about what kind of approach we should take to that. One was, no, we should incentivize the, you know, electric appliances, like heat pumps. Another was, no, we should just ban, you know, the most visible form of dirty energy, you know, electric or gas cook stoves and run a campaign around that. And there were four or five other dissenting views. So my general approach is to stay open to not judge to take disagreeing ideas at face value and genuinely consider them. You know, different ideas are just that they're different ideas and they have nothing to do with the kind of worth of that individual who's offering it. And then at the end of the day, even if the disagreement persists, I feel like if you stay open in that way, everyone feels like they've been heard and been part of the process. So that's one example, kind of internally and then I've definitely worked with lots of coalitions with many diverse players over the years on local state and national campaigns where there have been disagreements. You know, ultimately, I think functional coalitions and bodies don't ever agree on anything. I have kind of a spirit of no permanent friends, no permanent enemies. It's okay to disagree on some things, and then you find things you can't agree on. And really we all need to approach it with a, you know, not leaving behind salted earth approach. Great. Thank you, Hannah. We'll turn to Tom now. Thank you. So, like your honor, I think my entire life feels like a giant collaboration so try to pick a couple quick examples. One of the, I own a branding agency and when we sit down with either a board of trustees or a group of owners. The first thing we find out in our discussions and debates is that every person at that table has a different perspective with the vision values purpose and goals of their organization is. Then it becomes my job and my team's job to try to parse through that manage that process and basically help people find common ground and move forward. So I think that stand out from every one of these projects that I begin on a weekly basis are one to find common ground amongst the people at the table. The second is to build ownership and buy in with the ideas as they evolve and change to make sure that everybody feels like they're contributing something or playing a role in making and producing this thing. And then lastly is to find a way to produce meaningful implementation or realization of those ideas without too much compromise right so how do we maintain our values through that process. In many ways it's listening discussion you're the right attitude as well as a lot of times rejecting ego. So outside of that there's another example I'd say if I had a minute left is that over the last year to during Hampshire's presidential and partnership controversy. I was nominated to be on the crisis committee, which was nicely positioned between faculty staff students administrators board of trustees and the president herself. I was speaking to the person who was one of a group that were with mediating those discussions and trying to move that process forward. I think the value I had there was that I was able to garner and maintain trust of all those parties throughout the process. I was able to keep my values and my integrity in that process, and they were able to actually make meaningful strides forward before everything exploded. But anyway, so that was a complex relationship but you know, I think it shows my capacity to be in a role that's quite complex. Thank you Tom. Next turn to Michael. I went to a Quaker school where I learned the value of decision making by consensus. I still believe in that. During my career, a wide sharing a wide variety of academic departments and committees. I practiced consensus building to the greatest extent possible. But in all forms of government, there are times when votes have to be taken there and there are winners and losers. That's the way the planning board operates much of what we do is done by consensus. But sometimes there is disagreement and consensus is elusive or even impossible to achieve. Then votes are necessary. When I'm on the losing side of such votes which happens sometimes I respect the procedures of the board, accept its decision and move on to the next issue. And in terms of our specifics. That's what happened at the recent discussion of site plan review voting requirements. I was against the proposal and voiced my dissent disagreement, then sensing that the sentiment of the board was for the proposal. I offered a compromise amendment. When my amendment failed, I felt the need to vote against the proposal. And I was in the minority. So be it. I think that's the appropriate process, but I strongly believe that raising and advocating the opposing point of view was and often is a valuable sometimes necessary part of the planning board process. Thank you, Michael. Next up we have Bob reading off my screen. We are conflicting and controversial issues, be it work, family or government is a necessary skill and an ongoing practice. This should be our way of life for all group work, listening thoughtfully with respect and an open mind to the opinions expressed by others, expressing our own opinions with humility and openness to alteration. This is based on constructive comments and criticism. This skill is never permanently learned, but must consistently constantly be renewed and refreshed. When all group members behave this way it works well and is relatively easy. When some members become derisive divisive or dismissive, it takes great effort, not to become that way yourself. In this controversial meeting, I try to think of the importance of strong community, making good quality of life, be it work, family or government. With that thought in mind, it makes it much easier to summons the motivation to sow seeds of unity inclusion and respect. With this experience, it is better to confront fire with water, not more fire. Thank you Bob and Andrew. Thanks. Thanks Evan. So my line of work, as with with most of the folks on the phone. One of the common occurrence as well. One of the, one of the tasks that I have at my current job, which is with Capital One Bank, is to determine where we decide to make branch closure decisions. This involves working with 11 lines of business, as well as two regulatory bodies. And you know, not surprising that there are competing priorities across the lot. As a process person, I find that if you don't agree on something, it's generally one of, for one of three reasons. One is like, we're going into a decision process with incomplete data. Right. Our process may be inconsistent, or maybe neither of those are the case and we just have different opinions, different opinions right again that the notion of competing priorities and as would, as was said by other applicants. That's, that's perfectly fine intelligent minds can disagree. When that does happen. And we should support that right I mean like diversity of opinion is a good thing it helps us to make better decisions more robust decisions but if we don't agree. What we have what we did in this process and what I would recommend as well as just, we need to size the overall risks of, of the outcomes here so what's the cost of doing the, the item or what's the cost of not doing in this case for us that the branch closures. That can sometimes be a driving factor in helping us determine what the conflict was for my situation and my job that is often one of the cases. Every one of these decisions though is going to, to require some level of compromise. Right. We go with consensus for the most part as does the planning board. When you get to a point when you really do agree to disagree. And this happened to me in the situation what I would do is, you know, basically raise my objections, take notes of the different opinions, and, and move forward right at some point you've got to salute the flag right. I think critical to the process. Pardon, please begin to wrap up. Oh yeah I'm just saying that it's important for people to that we need to make sure that people feel heard, but also to hear them right not just play pay lip service. Thank you. Thank you Andrew. So I'm going to hand it over to Steve now. Sorry candidates I took some of your time. So, the order for my question will be the order of your responses will be Bob, Andrew, Johanna, Michael, and then Tom. So my question is, describe how the planning board can help achieve the goals of the master plan. Bob, the master plan is a planning board document initiated approved and implemented by the planning board. Really, it should guide and inform all decision making and activity of the planning board. First and foremost, as stated in master plan, it should be a living document that reflects well, the best current collective vision of our community. Otherwise, the document becomes even more peripheral than it already is. It is more common for documents like master plans to be used to justify actions taken, rather than drive actions. The fact that 10 years after the adoption of the master plan, the master plan implementation committee has not been established. The year review of that plan has yet to be done is an indication that our master plan does not have the active central role in our planning that it should. I do not say this in criticism of the planning board or the planning department, but only to make the point that the implementation of the goals of the plan should include those aspects as well. As a planning board member, I would be committed to ensuring the master plan is reflective of our current collective communal ideals and a central source of guidance in the work of the planning board. Done. Thank you. Andrew. I think the best way for the board to help achieve the goals of the master plan is to make sure that we follow it, right? The master plan is essentially a how to manual. We've got clear goals, objectives and policies within there. I love the way the document is laid out in terms of the chapters focusing on land use and open space, et cetera, et cetera. The board's decisions and recommendations can help raise awareness of this comprehensive vision while also helping to ensure consistency and overall fidelity to the plan, which is paramount. Thank you. Thank you, Andrew. Yojana. Thanks. So, the planning board is integral to achieving the goals of the master plan. And in preparation for this interview, I, you know, took a look at the roles and responsibilities of the planning board and I really think it's baked into the job description. So, specifically, the planning board, you know, can study the resources and needs of our community and then prep plans. I think a lot of that work has been done. Certainly one role the planning board plays. The second is reviewing and proposing amendments to the zoning bylaw and then really engaging the public around those potential changes. The third is, you know, if new subdivisions are proposed, the planning board has a, you know, role in informing that and potentially approving those. The planning board would approve site plans for cluster development and inform what that looks like. And the planning board also advises the town council for just general use of land in town. And so, you know, through all those functions, we would help achieve the goals of the master plan. And I say we as if I were on the board because I think it's important to visualize actually doing that. So forgive me for being, I don't want to be presumptuous. That's not my point. Oh, okay. Michael, you're on mute, Michael. Sorry. We set the clock. Okay, thank you. Chapter 10 of the master plan is called implementation. And it lays out a process for evaluating the degree to which the master plans goals and objectives are being carried out. The fifth process is appendix a chart called the implementation matrix. It lists in the left hand column all the objectives and strategies described in chapters three through nine. To the right is a column headed responsible entities, and then another headed timeframe. At present 10 years after the master plans publication, these columns are still unfilled. It proposes the establishment of a master plan implementation committee MPIC. It is charged to work with the appropriate town boards committees and departments and identify the responsible entities and projected timeframes for for specific strategies. In other words to fill in the empty implementation matrix columns. Since the planning board by state statute is responsible for the master plan. I believe this mandated implementation committee should logically be constituted as a planning board subcommittee. And as its initial responsibility the subcommittee should fill in the responsible entity and timeframe columns at least to the extent possible. While doing this work it'll become apparent that some of the master plans objectives and strategies have been accomplished already. Some of them are being addressed and some have been ignored. The MPIC must then work where necessary to encourage the relevant bodies to more actively address the plans objectives. It may turn out that the work of this MPIC will be too large for a subcommittee of the planning board and that a townwide MPIC will be necessary to carry out the master plans objectives. In that case the planning board should propose to town council that it immediately establish and charge such group as a standing master plan implementation committee. But I believe that the planning board can and should initiate this activity as soon as possible. Thank you. Thank you so much. And Tom. Thank you. I have the privilege of going last on this wonderful question. So, I, you know, I second everything that everybody said, I'm going through my notes thinking wow what's unique that I can say no. You know, I believe that part of our role is being a steward of the master plan right and that doesn't mean just what our tactics are for implementation and also means really understanding its values and objectives and finding creative ways to implement those I think as mentioned one of our key roles should be that of evaluation. Here we are 10 years later, making sure that we really understand that our document truly reflects who we are as a community and how our community is positioned within the world. A simple example of that would be considering probably problematic language in the master plans such as maintaining community character that exists in that document that can be an inter, let's call it interpreted in a lot of different ways that could be problematic across the world. So, and then we want to be clear about how this document evolves and be play an active role in making sure that it's up to date and I think in doing so, we can bring innovative opportunities for new business I think we can, you know, push social and environmental sustainability through our decisions and through our planning. I think we can make public spaces more broadly accessible and useful to different kinds of communities than the ones that traditionally we find in Amherst. And I think we can find new sources of revenue through the same kind of process in becoming more innovative and becoming more aware of our role in contemporary society. And I also think that lastly, this is a good question that we might want to bring to the community. What role should the planning board play in relationship to the master plan and not so much to take it upon ourselves to make that decision. Thank you. Thank you so much. We are passing back to Evan back to me. So, question four, which I think we will acknowledge is an intense question for two minutes is what interconnections, if any, do you see between climate action, economic vitality, housing affordability and racial equity. And so for this question, we'll start with Tom, then Johanna, then Andrew, then Bob, then Michael. So we'll start with you, Tom. All right, lucky me. No, I began my dissertation this afternoon and I didn't quite complete it. No, this is a massive question. I think that my, my first answer to the first question kind of reflects it. So I think this is an ecosystem right I don't think that these are independent things and I think they exist within a community and build environment ecosystem. In each one of these things from climate action to racial equity, we see both opportunities and challenges, and we should be finding creative ways to leverage the opportunities are presented within those to solve the challenges within others and vice versa. One quick example is just riffing off is that they're interconnected in a lot of different ways, such as we've seen around the world that climate action can lead to economic opportunities at multiple levels which can reinvest in your community, and so on and so forth. We can bring higher density housing to different places which can be more affordable but also become have an impact on climate change, which we've seen higher density to elsewhere that we can improve access to housing and public space within our three, three quarter mile sectors that might improve economic vitality within those communities that might reach a broader audience than our downtown commercial does now. And I think we also have an opportunity to leverage our connection to nature and the nature based experiences around us for educational economic and even equity opportunities that exist within the communities directly around us and further away. We need to be open minded and we need to incentivize creative engagement and solutions so we need to find ways to to activate our community in this process as well. Thank you. Thank you Tom will turn to your honor. Awesome thanks. I appreciate the ecosystem analogy, because these issues are interconnected and inadvertently when you act on one, it can have ripple effects and repercussions and other arenas and so I do think you can prioritize one kind of approach to make progress in that arena, but then you, you have to understand the potential impacts that it could have in other ways and yeah the challenges and opportunities that come from that. So, you know, I think one example is, you know, to act on climate, we have to stop burning fossil fuels. So that means less driving more walking and biking. And when we're driving ideally it's an electric vehicle that's charged through distributed solar on our rooftops and maybe battery packs in our garages or basements. And, you know, that seems great from a climate perspective but a lot of those technologies have historically been available primarily to those with the luxury to afford them. You know, so that's a problem from an equity standpoint. So we have to be conscious of that and then, you know, I think it's great that costs are falling on those technologies and so they're increasingly available to everybody but there might still be targeted incentives that you need to make sure that they truly are accessible to everyone. And then I do think that there are also tremendous opportunities here. You know, I spent the last year living in downtown Munich and was just blown away by how much a robust walkable, bikeable urban center with quality public parks improved the quality of life for everybody who lived in that space. You know, the park was used by everyone. And I think as long as we kind of move towards density in our village centers with an eye on housing affordability and equity, moving towards smart growth development really can be a win win win. You know, it's a win for the climate. It's a win for our town and our tax base. And then it's also just a win because it increases the availability of services and kind of the public infrastructure for everyone. Thank you. So we'll turn to Andrew. Thank you. I see such a clear connection between these as well and not to pile on but Tom I did love love your choice of the word of ecosystem for this. The first reaction when I saw the word was imagine this linear process right of housing affordability driving racial equity racial equity driving economic vitality economic vitality maybe driving climate action. You know, I think we could argue whether that's the right flow, or whether there's different options, whether there's like strong cause effects for some of these or whether there's just correlations but there's clearly a huge interconnection here. You know, I speak to in some manner like fairness justice stewardship. And I like that just that's super exciting like I love the idea that that as a, you can be part of an organization that can have influence over such critical issues for our time. I love the fact that it can actually be done in an operational way right. These aren't just broad concepts we talk about the planning board can make decisions from a bottoms up perspective that can really make some impacts to these issues at a local level. And that is one of the things that I really just love about about the, the opportunity to be part of the board and affect these positive changes and critical times. Thanks. Thank you, Andrew. Next we have Bob. All for our important concerns that overlap to varying degrees depending on the situation from a planning board point of view is worth noting that buildings along an account for one third to one half of our energy use and carbon emissions it is important that we consider this in our zoning regulation. From economic vitality it is often used as a pseudonym for more tax revenue. Both are important but not synonymous economic activity is a measurable quantity whereas economic vitality is a much more subjective term. It is useful to recognize that those terms are also not synonymous. Racial equity should be considered in all areas of human activity by all means that should be considered in all planning board activity. Of all four issues housing affordability is decidedly the area where the planning board can have an important impact. The zoning regulation that supports and encourages small and medium scale development projects, especially by private individuals has great potential for impacting our housing needs. It seems that recent housing developments have driven up the cost of rents in perhaps all areas. Recently I met a moderate income person who could not renew his lease on a moderately placed unit because the 50% rent increase made it no longer affordable. It seems the notion that more housing will relieve the pressure on housing and keep middle income units affordable has not occurred. In addition to managing small scale incremental growth additions supplemental units owner occupied duplexes and triplexes has the potential to create a wide variety of affordable units, especially in the middle range of affordability. In addition to occupying duplexes or multi family units has the potential to make living in Amherst affordable to a much wider range of moderate income persons over a wide range of professions. Thank you Bob, and Michael. Climate action done right promotes job growth, and that in terms helped creates an economic vitality. But I think that happens primarily on a regional and national level. To be sure more green building is to be strongly encouraged by all certainly including by the Amherst planning board, but I don't see that as having a great impact on local economic development. However, a housing affordability and racial equity are strongly interconnected and are more directly the purview of the planning board I think the board must make sure that people's of color. Are fully supported and fully represented in all stages of planning as more housing is developed in all categories, and in all areas of the town. Beyond that, I think there's not a great deal to different to disagree with what the other applicants have been discussing I agree with most of it. Thank you Michael. So I think we're going back to Steve now. Yes, we are. Question number five. Please describe the considerations and objectives you'll use for considering proposed provisions to the zoning bylaws in our order will be Andrew, Michael, Johanna, Tom and Bob Andrew you're on the air. Thanks Steve. I've been around for a long time and they reflect long standing concerns and beliefs of the citizenry. So, I would not be eager to radically redesign them. That said, you know times change pandemics happen. And we need to be responsive to involve in world. Let's think about how I might consider revisions I imagine, like a test that I could apply to any of these scenarios. And they would ask questions such as like, is this consistent with the master plan. Does it have precedence. Is it something that's sustainable. Is it safe. And doesn't have broad support. I think I think the notion of whether or not something is safe is one that is probably more likely to drive some consideration as we move forward to try to imagine a world where we do face pandemics and need the flexibility to be able to allow local businesses to survive in situations where they may not be able to normally operate. Thank you. Thank you, Michael. Thanks. Having spent four years now on the planning board working with the zoning with the zoning by law fairly directly. I see three principal problems with it. First, it's organization and language are overly complex. It applies too much on imprecise terms such as compatible with or significant impact terms with which lack real definition and therefore require subjective interpretation over and over again. Third, it offers too many opportunities for waivers and thereby encourages too many requests for them. I would support zoning. I would support changes in the zoning bylaw which address these particular shortfalls. I understand that the building commissioner is currently working on a proposed revision of the bylaw. I would hope that his work and any other bylaw change which might come before the planning board would include graphic illustrations to exemplify the written passages. I would support changes which serve to clarify and simplify the zoning bylaw, which would in turn make it simpler and more fair to administer. Thank you, Johanna. Thank you. I think there are two primary considerations that I would use for considering proposed revisions to the zoning bylaw. So the first would be how well does the proposed revision align with the goals outlined in the master plan. You know, I, for me, part of the, this is a, it's fundamentally a question of our local democracy. And I think the master plan is really a document that was arrived at through a highly democratic process with hundreds of people weighing in and making their goals heard. And, you know, we are stewards of that document and I think making sure that proposed alterations align with the principles and goals of that document is in the spirit of following the will of the people in town. So that would be kind of the first criteria. The second criteria is, you know, is the proposed revision consistent with the future that we need to be building. And, you know, for me, I think about this primarily from a climate change perspective, you know, we are in the next few generations if we keep on the track facing an existential crisis as humanity and we have to stop digging the hole and start building the future we need. And so, you know, I think Amherst has historically been a leader in this front. Certainly I think the net zero bylaw that was passed by town meeting for public buildings reflects that spirit. And I think that there are ways that we can point our community in a direction of climate leadership through the built environment. And that can can really work and deliver tremendous benefits. So that would be the kind of second criteria that I would apply. Thank you so much, Tom. Yeah, I was thinking about this question a lot. And I went back and forth and I think that my conclusion was that there's a certain amount of vagueness in the question and leaves me uneasy about coming up with one specific group of values or decisions that might allow me to evaluate this change or that change. What I really found was that each individual change that we might make those bylaws has a unique set of challenges but also impacts a unique subset of groups and individuals within our community. And so they're, you know, different short term and long term effects that come from those changes and I think we want to be cognizant of making those decisions. More specifically, then generally so my considerations aren't necessarily about having a set of rules or values by which I make those changes but actually considering them an individual level. I think we, as I mentioned earlier, I think we need to be able to evaluate, you know, whether those have an impact on our ethics or economics, the aesthetics of our city, as well as equity and making sure that there's balance in those decisions. And I think, first and foremost, you know, making some progress on performing some evaluation of the existing bylaws and what their impact is directly on those communities will help us have a better sense more specifically about what things need to change. And whether that document has been created and I missed it, and I'd love to say it, but I think that those kinds of things need to happen before we can consider changes to the such a document. Thank you. Thank you so much. Bob, you have to unmute Bob. Okay. Yep, we'll reset the clock. Okay, I should be fine on this one anyway. This is my home community. My most general guideline would be do these zoning revisions contribute to the vitality and well being of our community. I think we can all agree with that statement, but in practice, we often disagree on whether or not the particular action policy or zoning revision will in fact contribute to our collective well being. That is why it is beneficial to the community building to be considerate compromising inclusive in all our deliberations. That is why the master plan should be a living document continuously refreshed by broad community input inclusive of all major perspectives. It is a mistake to put too much emphasis on professional expertise. We have town professional planners for that. In the end, since strong community is my guideline, I will make judgments based on what I think is beneficial to the community informed by the master plan informed by fellow board members informed by the town's professional planners informed by what I am hearing from the community at large. Finally, as I have mentioned previously, the planning board should be crafting and revising zoning bylaw to encourage small and medium scale development projects, especially by private individuals and homeowners. I think this is an area of unrecognized large resource for affordable housing tax revenue and architectural diversity. Thank you. Thank you so much. I'm going to turn it over to Mandy to bring it home. We've made it to the last question. Question six, the order of answering read the questions my timer goes off will be Tom, then Andrew, then Bob, then Johanna and Michael. The question is, what else would you like us to know about you that makes you a strong candidate for the planning board. Tom. Thank you. I actually just really wanted to close out by saying that I come to the opportunity to be a part of this committee with no agenda or set of expected outcomes. I'm actually really looking forward to an opportunity to be involved in what to play, you know, a significant role in the evolution of our community, you know, through a role on the town planning board. And I believe we'll have a huge effect on the future of my family and the rest of our community. I'm just looking forward to the opportunity but that's really all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you, Tom. Andrew. Thank you. Yeah, not a ton to add on my perspective as well I just would love folks to know that I'm a lifetime volunteer I'm a longtime resident. I have kids who are in the school system here. I've been here long enough to say that I've got a historical perspective into how some of the town was developed. And I have, because of all those reasons really invested interest in making the town successful and I'm excited to even be considered to be a candidate to help us try to do that. So thank you and thanks for your time. Thank you Andrew Bob. I have a long history of working collaboratively and creatively on a wide diversity of committees at Holyoke Community College over the past 27 years. I am good at leading. I'm good at following and good at knowing which role to take depending on circumstances. I am full of ideas and good at long term imaginative thinking. I am good also at getting day to day work done on time. I have a long record of civic engagement and service to our community. I believe that participation, engagement and inclusion are important characteristics of a strong community. It is that spirit that brings me here tonight. Thank you to consider that the planning board will benefit more from a broad diversity of views than from deep technical expertise. Thank you for hosting this public event. This very process is a good example of an activity that fosters engagement and community building. Thank you. Thank you Bob. Donna. Thanks so much. Let's see. More about me that would make me a strong candidate for the planning board. So, I do think I bring a unique perspective. I'm a mom. I have two elementary age kids, a seven year old and a 10 year old who both attend Fort River. I really love nature. I am so thrilled that, you know, 4050 years ago, our town had the foresight to set about a side about a third of open space in this town for nature and conservation land and I just I cherish that it's part of what makes living here really great. I really love living here. I've lived a lot of different places but my husband grew up in Leverett and, you know, we chose Amherst. We love it here because of the diversity, the complexity, the nature. You know, it's already a great place to live and I really believe in engaging in local government to make it even better. As a person, I'm goal oriented and I'm pretty ambitious and I'm really excited to learn more. So thanks for the opportunity to interview. Thank you, Johanna. Michael. Well, thank you. First of all, many thanks to the CRC for your work as a committee to review these applications. It's clearly a real service to the town and it's a very important, very important board to be talking about. I don't have much to say in closing, but I hope you will can decide that the independence and occasionally skepticism I have brought to the board in my first term makes me a good candidate for reappointment. So thank you all very much. Thank you, Michael. We are now done with the questions. So back to our agenda. Our agenda after the interviews is items not anticipated by the chair. I do not have any. I'm going to ask if there are any counselors, CRC members that have any items unanticipated. Raise your hand if you do. I haven't seen any hands. I want to thank all of the candidates that have submitted statements of interest. This is the first process for planning board or ZBA to use this the finance committee appointments recently used this process that included statement of interest. So we appreciate all the extra work that went into completing all of that on time and all the emails I sent you to make sure you knew the deadlines. But I appreciate you taking the time to put yourself out here to not only put that statement of interest that became a public document out here but also to attend these interviews and answer these questions. We hope you enjoyed answering the questions and found them useful. I will. Even though CRC hasn't talked about it, I would, I will take feedback from candidates on this process since it is the very first time CRC has implemented this particular process on not only the questions but the whole process is it in general. Feel free to send me an email with that later and I will ask for that not before next Monday. Because next Monday is when we hope as a council to vote on these recommendations that we hope as a CRC committee to make at the next meeting tonight. What will happen after this I'm going to adjourn this meeting and just two minutes after I explain this it is after six we will then take a five minute break. The candidates are welcome to stay on the meeting if you do stay since you have a panelist link I as host will actually move you to the attendee side to remove you from the panelist side and sort of participant side for the next meeting but you don't have to resign on to the link that was provided in an agenda. I will do that manually if you choose to say there is no need for you to stay if you don't want to I'm not going to force anyone to and we will not consider it at all as we move into discussions in terms of whether you stay or not. If a vote is taken tonight and even if a vote is not taken tonight, I will contact every candidate tonight with those results. After I have myself had dinner on so won't be immediately after the meeting ends, but you will get an email from me tonight with some indication of that. If there are any questions in the meantime send me an email I will try to to answer them as I get to them at the time but at this time I'm going to it is 605. So I will adjourn the 5pm special meeting of the Community Resources Committee of the town council. We will take a five minute break and come back at 610 to call to order the 5pm meeting special meeting of the Community Resources Committee. I'm going to leave the recording recording but I recommend that everyone staying on. Turn off their video in the meantime, and mute themselves if they're going to stay on. And so we will see everyone for community resources committee members around 610. For those committee members that have rejoined. Can you please on will turn on your video so that I know you are here before we call this meeting to order. Lindsay, are you back. Yes, I'm back. Okay, just wanted to confirm it would be bad to start the meeting without our minute taker. So that's the Community Resources Committee has a quorum at 612pm I am calling this special meeting of the Community Resources Committee to order. I just had to pause to make sure I was still recording. The meeting is being held pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12 2020 order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law mgl chapter 30 a section 18. We are allowed to do that by remote participation so that is what we are doing. At this time, I'm going to do a roll call of members to ensure that they can hear me and we can, and I can hear them, so that we make sure everyone is on board. I will start with we're going to start with Evan at this time. I'm here. And Steve. Here. And Sarah. I'm here. I was like, you turned yourself off right as I started the roll call. And Mandy is here. Shalini ball mill will not be in attendance today. This is a special meeting of the Community Resources Committee so there will be no public comment at this meeting pursuant to the allowance allowed in our town council rules procedure. And I do not have any other. I don't have any announcements to make right now do any counselors committee members have any announcements before we move on to the main part of this agenda. Seeing none. I actually do have a question. We should do disclosures at some point. Yes. As we move into discussions. Our presentation and discussion items and action items are actually kind of the same thing they might meld into each other. And, but I wanted to put them second separately. They are discussion of the interviews and applications for the vacancies to the planning board we just held the interviews that meeting occurred at 5pm. And then if we are able to, we will vote on a recommendation to the town council for planning board appointments for upcoming vacancies if we are not, we will schedule a new meeting to be able to do so if we are unable to vote tonight. So, first thing is Steve asked is, are there any disclosures that need to be made before we really get into any discussion of interviews and applicants and vacancies. I just note that Tom Long and I are both part of the five college architectural studies community so there's no direct supervisory role between us in fact there's no, but his primary appointments at Hampshire my appointment is at UMass but we are connected through that. So, other than that, I, I served with Michael Bergwassel on the planning board for three years, I think, other than that I don't have connections. Thank you. Anyone else need to make any disclosures. Seeing none, I believe, and I'm going to seek help from Evan and Sarah on sort of the running of this discussion, because you guys have done it before. I believe the first thing we started with or we should start with is reviewing our selection guidance. And so we had put forth selection guidance for these vacancies. The first part of that guidance is from the committee itself and that includes what CRC considers to be important factors for a multiple member body to be help healthy. That includes a strong base of seasoned members who have completed or nearly completed one term as a member. Those members bring an understanding of process institutional knowledge and can mentor new members and take on leadership roles. The second one is newer members who have served fewer than one term these members bring new energy outlooks and ideas to the body and ensure that the body will continue to have a strong base of seasoned members in the future. And the third criteria there were that CRC believes a healthy and effective multiple member body should include a mix of seasoned members and new members. CRC will treat every opening whether a seat is held by a current member who seeks reappointment or not as a vacant position. Residents seeking reappointment will have their current service and experience on the body considered as part of the process for making a recommendation to the council. And then there was the input from the body's chair which was put forth on the document directly from an email copied verbatim per our process from that email from the at the time planning board chair. I believe at this point she has ended her service or indicated that she will not be attending any other planning board meetings so has effectively ended her service on the planning board. I don't believe I'm going to read that because it's fairly long. But we should keep in mind she did list some skills and characteristics for a successful planning board member. And then the knowledge or expertise related to the work of the planning board and the preferred knowledge and expertise to meet the current needs of the planning board the one thing I will say on that is the planning board bring expertise in architects hydrology scientists and law, because they have two architects of hydrology scientists and a lawyer on it and I thought I'd just point that out in terms of as we start thinking about potentially three coming vacancies one candidate is seeking reappointment and there are two vacancies without candidates seeking reappointment at this time. And any comments on that selection guidance and as a general rule and then I think we move into worth relating that to the candidates themselves is that accurate Evan and Sarah yeah. And let's try and use our raise hand so I can try and keep track of people. So I guess we'll move to the next question. You're a very silent crew. So it sounds seems like we don't have any comments specifically on the selection guidance. So I guess we will move directly to any comments on the candidates. Thank you for your interview and their responses as it relates to the selection guidance. I guess I should ask would it help the committee members if I attempted to put the selection guidance on the screen. Not yet. Because it makes it difficult for us to maybe not maybe. Actually, what do you mind doing that just briefly. I will see if I can let me see. I just got out of a class where my students asked me to stop sharing because they couldn't see each other. Let me see. Think. Let's try this I'm using two screens and I've never tried to share screen with two screens before. So did that share. Yeah. The selection guidance. Well that's Christine's. Yeah so let me let me double page it. Let me double page it all now. Because I can't see what you're looking at. So this is all Christine's opinion, basically. Per our process, I asked for input from the chairs bought the planning chair. And this is what she wrote back. Yes, so in some sense is her opinion. So I'm going to bring this to a conversation to the planning board this time around I do not know. I know Evan and Sarah have dealt with planning board openings for the last year. I don't know whether in previous rounds she indicated whether that guidance came from a conversation from the planning board or not. And this was slightly more detailed than that. Open with some thoughts on. So I'm going to go ahead and take a look at some of the candidates and their responses and written statements as it relates to this selection guidance or on the selection guidance itself. Evan. So I'll start since we're, we're being a little quiet tonight. So the first thing I actually want to say. Is that we as a committee spent a lot of time on those questions pretty much almost two full meetings on those questions. And you never know how useful a question will be until you actually ask it. And I found the questions that we asked actually to be pretty useful, because I gleaned a lot of information about people that I don't think came through. And much of which I don't think came through in the SOIs. I was particularly impressed with they think all of the answers to our second question about work collaborating together. I think that that that's certainly something that we have valued and is in chair Gray Mullins. I was, I will say, particularly impressed by Johannes answer to that one. Because it spoke to coalition building. And I thought that was a really interesting take to bring to a question about collaboration, because it's not just about working with the people who you're at the table with but it's also about working amongst different groups and building a coalition of people with different interests. So I thought that was interesting. One of the things I think we have to recognize is that we're losing. Christine Gray Mullins who has the longest experience who or at least had the longest experience on the board. We're also losing David Levenstein who had a full term of service. Compared to that we lost another member who had had at least one time service and one who had quite a bit of service and so the body of the planning board is very young at this point and so I put a lot of stock in chair Gray Mullins guidance that we look for people who bring to the table some professional experience so they can get up to speed faster given that the current members of this body are largely very new. And with regard to that, I was particularly impressed by Tom long and his background in in architecture and design and I'll save some of my other comments on some stuff he said later, and also the reason that Andrew stood out to me is that he has the larger regional planning but also experience in landscape architecture. And I think my right now landscape architecture is a discipline that's sort of missing from the board not saying it's vital to have a landscape architect but if you're at one point in the selection guidance. She says a broad relevant work expertise is essential and so I thought bringing a landscape architect on board sort of met that goal so I have other comments but I'll save them from now I just wanted to get us started. Thank you Evan. Anyone else. Steve. So thank you Evan for breaking the ice but I actually am quite proud of us for the questions also because I actually think it covered kind of almost everything that I was interested in but also thank you to all of the panelists that are still on the line, or who are watching us later for your answers because I thought the answers were incredibly thorough. And quite frankly I think that you know the group. You know anyone the group has met the minimum qualifications for being on the planning board, but some of the ones that really struck me were. The ones that had to do with the amount of flexibility or the kind of the interpretation of, of bylaws. And I think that I believe that that one was on the zoning bylaws specifically. And I thought that Michael Burt whistle gave a really interesting answer response to that one. And I'm going to paraphrase him and, and Michael let me know somehow whether or not I how close I came to this. I wanted to do with ambiguity and flexibility within the bylaw, like are there too many waivers. Are there too many things that have to be interpreted by the planning board itself. So these are really good points and in a way you have to then go to back to what the intent is of a zoning bylaw or in fact any bylaw. Do you want your laws to be really strictly constructed so they can only be interpreted one way, or do you want them loosely constructed so that a body of seven or previously a body of nine can use its discussions and its own judgment to interpret that and I don't remember what the specific example was maybe compatibility. There are lots of things like that where basically the body is forced to discuss whether or not they believe that it meets these. So that the way that I don't remember if Michael was first on that one but that particular answer I found very striking. I also found some of the responses about how the candidates work in groups and how they see, you know, once a group makes a decision, what happens after that to be very instructive. And then also we got a lot more clarity on people's occupations or what they what their experiences that they're bringing to the table. So I think that Evan might have just hit upon this one but Andrew being educated as an landscape architect with some planning background, but then being working for Capital One I think it is basically in doing location selection and you know sort of, I'm not going to explain it well very well. I thought that that was kind of an interesting range of experiences that hasn't really been on the planning board on the time that I was involved in the planning board. So, you know, Hannah's work as a environmentalist, I thought was really interesting. Actually all of the occupations I thought, I thought were great but those were a couple that I that were really stood out for for me. So of course, as was said in Christine's letter, a performing arts professor for many years at Amos College. That's also a good interesting experience. Bob's a teacher, Tom's a designer. Thank you. Sarah? I could anticipate it I saw you reaching. Thanks. I'm blue and I'm finding the fact that my face is blue and I can think about it in a red room is very and I looked. Yeah, I'm gonna take my glasses off to me that's a little less distracting or I could just turn off my picture. So I want to say congratulations to CRC for finding such an amazing pool. So those of you who when Mandy Jo in the beginning said I think CRC can do this and maybe having different people got to hear to go out and recruit people I think we can see that whatever recruitment we were working. We got a fantastic crew of people. I'm very impressed with all of them. Because I'm going last I think I'm going to try to hit a little bit on what things I found most striking. Michael of course if I'm going by our guidelines obviously he's returning member I think he's a strong member I really liked what he had to say about dissenting views and it being okay to be a minority and then if you don't win something you drop it and you're just still part of the team and you keep going because I think that's very important and obviously I would want to keep him on for the experience that he already has. Johanna I I think that the sustainability aspect of her work is very important because we know that that's one of the leading principles of the council and also I'm going to agree with I think it was Evan who said I work with bringing all sorts of different people together and outreach, which outreach is a really difficult thing. And I find that very important. I was very impressed. And then I would say Tom incredibly well spoken in addition to having professional experience. I think that he spoke clearly and concisely and I think that's something that's really important. When you're serving on a committee so that's going to say about that. Probably my turn to go. I would echo I think what everyone said. I think we have to take seriously our consideration of a good group of returning members experienced members and new members. As Evan said we have a very new planning board at this point with some members who's I think the longest serving member might have four maybe five years at most. And so, experience either on a planning board that Michael has or like Tom and Andrew have as architects and so have been through planning board processes, I think is extremely important. I really like Johannes environmental work, given that we have climate action goals in this town. Someone who is sort of steeped in that work to be able to ask in site plan reviews and and press on some of those issues to try and maybe get more climate action and and sustainability measures into developments I think would be really important. I really liked Tom's answer to the revision of the bylaws. Actually, I liked almost everyone's answers to the revision of the bylaws but but his his answer of each individual one needs its own considerations you know I did like all the others answers to how do they align with the master plan as Johannes said, Andrew is responsive to a evolving world but Tom's with each one how does it affect individual areas of this town and individual sort of impacts and subsets of this this town I think it's an important consideration to look for to the landscape architecture experience. You know, and, you know, I think that's, that's Andrew, you know, I, you know, and, you know, all of them. You know, so I, that's sort of where I stand. I don't know who yet. But I did. I applaud all the candidates because we have a really strong pool. This is I think where we, I rely on Evan and Sarah for how do we do we keep, you know, get to a recommendation or vote. I've heard some, some things but no potential consensus but you know I can't say it's a consensus at all yet at this point. So, Evan. Steve. I was gonna say this is where we need rank choice voting. Evan. So, I do have a couple more things I wanted to say but I guess from a process perspective, how Oka typically did this, and by typically I mean when we did it once for Planning Board and once for ZBA is we chatted for a little bit started to notice names that popped up amongst all people and then people where we saw names popping up we said okay now let's talk this person seems to be we agree about this person we sort of narrowed down we worked from people we all agree on down. Selection guidance Oka chose the word guidance over criteria and that was a very deliberate choice for Oka, because we didn't want to be bound exclusively by the selection guidance they were just there to guide us. And I, and I say that because I want to make two comments that don't fall within the selection guidance. One is regarding the gender ratio of members of the planning board. So exactly one year ago, the planning board was composed of four women and three men. We lost one of the women and replaced her with a man. So it was then for men three women. We've now lost one of those women in chair Gray Mullen. So, I think that Johanna brings a lot to the table with regard to perspective and experience, but I also do think that we need to keep that the gender balance on the board in mind. This is very feels very delicate to talk about. I think that that but so I'm going to put that out there. The second thing that I wanted to just say is the fourth question we asked about the interconnections was was in some ways of values based question, and it was also sort of a priorities question. And for those who are in the attendees and who are watching at home, who are questioning how we chose the four categories of climate action, economic vitality housing affordability and racial equity. So those are likely the four of the categories of the town council goals that will be up for discussion. And so, and so those were never woven into our selection guidance. And yet we asked the question anyway, and it ended up being one of my favorite questions, and I thought we got really interesting answers. But one of the things that I want to say is I found Tom's answer on that to be incredibly impressive talking about the interconnections in the ecosystem, and how higher density leads to both affordability and climate action. So really appreciated from a racial equity standpoint as this becomes a bigger focus nationally statewide and certainly within our town on him calling out the phrase community character as something that has often been problematically used. So those are not within our selection guidance but they're to me definitely weighing in on my decision making. Thank you Evan, Steve. And I actually, I'm going to start off with a comment one thing we did not ask but I think it's presumed that everyone that has applied is ready willing and able to meet twice a week on Wednesdays 12 months a year so that that's just something that across my mind that we may have to reinforce but I was going to make a modest proposal here. Then, and this has to do with listening to the really preliminary discussion but I was going to make a modest proposal that we just go ahead. Well, I'm wondering if we would agree to that Johanna would make sense for one of the slots. So then we could focus our discussion on the remaining two slots. Maybe if there might be consensus to move ahead that way. And that would help us focus the discussion, but every comment that I've heard has been positive about Johanna as a member of this board. Sarah. I would agree with that. The next person that I would want to talk to if we reach consensus on Johanna would be Michael. Evan, is there a consensus on Johanna as one of the three slots. Yes, for me. And I would say yes for me. So, I hear you, Sarah. I was actually going to also bring up Tom because I'm looking through my notes here. And I think everyone has spoken about Tom positively too. And so we, we, if we're on a consensus with Johanna, we still have two remaining slots, one of which is one that's seeking a reimport appointment and one that doesn't necessarily have a reappointment is sort of fully open if you want to consider that as one. And so I'm wondering if we as a committee, I, you know, we've got that reappointment one with Michael I don't know whether we as a committee are ready to do that with Michael at this point I, I, my notes aren't necessarily always mentioning Michael whereas it seems everyone seemed impressed by Tom on the two of them and if we are ready to move on one of them as a consensus. I agree on Tom. Evan. Yeah, so Tom, Michael and Andrew sort of are like, Sarah will remember our ZBA discussion we were like, oh, like all these people and, and then you're trying to find like little reasons why okay he goes anyways. I think of those three, the one that in my mind, based on experience and also some of the answers to the question that we're about values and goals. Tom would edge above the other two for me and so I would support the consensus of our Tom. Sarah. Yep, for all the reasons that Evan just said, yep. I will mark a consensus for Tom. That leaves the last one that was mentioned I want to come back to Michael, we have three candidates we have Michael we have Andrew, and we have Bob. I did forget to mention Bob is currently on our ZBA as an associate member. So I, it was in his statement of interest and all but I thought I would put that out there. Now, as a I don't want to necessarily bring anything in terms of that that's a negative to his application to the planning board. But at the same time, if we do appoint him to the planning board we now have an opening on the CBA. In a way, but I don't think that should affect it in any way but I did want to at least note that he is a current volunteer in one of the two permit granting bodies. Evan. So just, just a clarification, because obviously as chair you were the one communicating to hear anytime indicate an interest in serving on both or ask him. So, so I guess he could keep he could keep both. That's true. He never indicated whether he would leave one for the other or he would serve on both. He did not. I think that would be a good suggestion because that that would be possible we have many members actually serving on multiple regulatory boards at this point. So that would be something if we did appoint him, I would certainly ask Steve, you've been waving your hand around. Yeah, yeah. So, and I realize that I, you know, I sort of been rambling here but I do want to say some, you know, very positive things about Bob that one is he is deeply committed to living downtown, you know, through this many, many activities. I'm glad that he's on the ZBA. You know that I've had good conversations with Bob when the days we could actually meet somebody for coffee about his ideas about He's the one person in the pool that is committed to living right downtown. So he and his family live very close to the central business district and are completely as far as I can tell because I see them see them walking everywhere but it's completely committed to, you know, living a compact sustainable life. So I think that that's something that he brings to this to you know, he basically lives in the shadows of the new buildings that are being built in the central business district. And I would, in terms of Bob because we haven't said much about him. So the answer to the answer to the connection answer, you know, where he pretty much said racial equity is an overarching application to everything I think is something that we need to point out because he's absolutely right on that that it, it's there, no matter what you're looking at, you have to be looking at racial equity, and especially as it relates to housing affordability and all. So we're left with three. What are committee members thinking. So I will fully admit that I thought I knew who my three candidates were going to be coming in. And one of the people I did not know and do not know is Andrew, but I was very impressed by his breath of knowledge and his breath of knowledge, basically from geography, you know, basically the lay of the land is involvement in a private business, which is actually something that we really do not have. You know, we have not had many. Well, we've had the attorneys that and okay, we have attorneys we have environmental. But we have not had someone that involved in kind of the development world so as I understand his position for capital one that he's involved in really business development so helping capital one select sites that are strategic sites so he's he's or helps the banking industry that way. And I think that that's an experience and an approach that's very useful for the planning board. I also think that his education of landscape architecture there hasn't been a landscape architect on the planning board in years, not in the time that I was involved with it. And then also some graduate work in regional planning. I think is useful so I think that that's an interesting range of experiences plus I thought that his connected his answers to the questions really demonstrated a kind of a flexibility and a willingness to learn and a willingness to work as a team that I thought is important. Sarah you had originally brought up Michael's potentially consensus one would you like to speak to that. So, um, we get back to looking at the basics of selection guidance. One of the things that is important to a committee is to have some people that have served. It's not just your education. Or your outlook it's also knowing how to be on a board or committee and how a board or committee works and some knowledge of that process it's mentoring and I, I think this is really. I think we've got a very young planning board and I, I feel like that his experience is important right now I would keep him on for another term, and not that I didn't think other people were great. But for me I think that we need to still have some veteran members. So Sarah you're speaking. Reminded me that I had promised a counselor who wrote me to mention some of the things she wrote me in terms of terms. So I need to find her email. That's the wrong one. So counselor Brewer wrote about some things to consider as we went through this and I know you and Evan have probably heard many of these issues before having served on with counselor Brewer but I had told her I would bring some of this up. And most of it talked about staggering of terms and terms in general, which is why why what Sarah just said reminded me of this email. And, and she she said, you know, while planning board by charter requires three year terms, we have three openings coming up. And so the current members that are there to terms expire next June and two terms expire the June after. And so if we appoint we could potentially consider appointing two members to three year terms and then potentially another member to either a one or two or three year terms because it would equate to similar staggering anyway. Because there's always going to be one set of terms that's three years. You know what she said is clear support by all CRC members for one to two candidates but the third more mixed give that person a shorter term, a candidate might have already stated that they plan to retire or move away or go on spatical. So that could be considered giving that person a shorter term. She went through all sorts of things if someone's already served six years but we need to carry out over maybe a shorter term to do that carry over to create that sort of continuity and all. And all so then she also wanted us to consider the very real fact that town council elections are being held next November. And so a three year term put forth this year expires in 2023, which is the very end of the next council's term, whereas a one or two year term, a one year term. A two year term would expire at the beginning, sort of, of the next council's term, allowing them to potentially shape the planning board considering that this some counselors believe this is more of a political appointment than a non political appointment so that was one thing that Butler Brewer talked about in terms of looking at the staggering as it relates to council terms and when those appointments will come do in a council's two year term cycle. For thinking in one sense that any three year term appointed now becomes comes up at the very end of the last six months of the next council's term, three year terms appointed next year, when we will still be here as CRC appointing to three year terms for anyone to come up. Don't come up at all during the next council's term. And so she wanted that pointed out as potential consideration for when we might appoint terms for and so I just thought I would mention some of that because I know it's been a discussion at OCA in terms of when terms come up what to do right now we are actually facing expired terms, not vacant terms in the middle of quote a term that was three years long and someone vacated it in the middle of that term, where it might become more important than a discussion here but I did think I would, I thought I would mention some of that for those of us who have not had those discussions later as in the past as we get towards the motion we're going to have to make in terms of a recommendation. Steve. If you were to add another question I wish we could ask that question would you be willing to be considered for because I believe that everybody applied for a three year term. And I wish that we had asked the question would you be willing to be considered for a shorter term. And we have very limited experience doing this but we have had experience recently, where we appointed people for two month terms, which was basically an emergency appointment and we were told by a couple of those that they have not applied for a two month term. So they didn't understand why they were being appointed to a two month term. Yes, but I wish. I must wonder if we can punt that question to the full council that we determine the most qualified and you know that we reach either a vote or whatever who we think the most qualified are then have the terms be a decision of the council. Evan, I don't believe you have spoken on since we've reached consensus on two candidates. Put you on the spot. Why we got elected right um. This is a harder decision for me, because I hear both of Sarah and Steve's arguments. I have continuously expressed concern about the loss of experience from the board over just the past year and a half. So I am attracted to Michael's experience actually on the board. It's one thing to have professional experience in the fields that the comprised the board or comprised the responsibilities of the board. I have actual experience on the board itself and so I think that's valuable. I also, one of the reasons I've been a little bit quiet as I was for the second time today quickly reading through each of the statements of interest, because I think they provided again, just I can express how thankful I am that we switched from collecting information on caps to switch collecting them on statements of interest because these are so much more interesting and useful. And as I'm rereading them I'm finding reasons to support literally anyone who applied in this round. I found that I'm Michael's was very strong and that he showed his deep knowledge of what the board does that is born of his experience on the board. I'm also really attracted to a couple aspects of Andrew's experience and his, and his SOI. And one of them that I think is important is one of the things that in the various iterations of discussions with the planning board specifically the now former chair of the planning board, that I've heard would be a really useful asset to the board is someone who has some experience with real estate. It's one thing to be able to design a building, but also being able to understand functionally how real estate works and also the financial aspects of real estate has always been identified as sort of a missing component of the board and as I'm reading through Andrew's materials and seeing, you know, working with the private sector to help retailers determine geographic distribution talking about real estate. And that's, and that's really attractive to me. And I think the background in that and being able to understand some of the financial implications financial and real estate implications of the board's decisions are also really important to on the ground stuff what we heard tonight. In some ways, we heard a lot of sort of philosophical or theoretical things which I think provided really great insight into how people thought, but at some point, these decisions and these thoughts are actually operationalized and I think that having someone who understands real estate and who understands the finances behind real estate development is actually really useful to the board. And I'm also in the last thing I want to say is looking at, I just wanted to read one line of Andrew so I that struck me which was, I have been able to be an outside observer of planning boards from coast to coast. As each of our new locations is reviewed and reviewed and scrutinized by the local municipality and I thought that was such an interesting perspective. We have a lot of people who have deep connections with this community. But the fact that Andrew has experience with planning boards and with regulatory bodies in municipalities all over the place as we're looking at zoning reform as we're looking at ways that we can do it better here. I find that to be just an incredibly attractive experience. And so at this point, I could make an easy argument for either candidate, but I am probably leaning slightly more towards Andrew. I will take my turn now. I agree with Sarah and Evan on the experience that Michael brings. We have heard continuously for the last year, year and a half that we have an extremely young planning board. But I think the actual experience in planning board operations in this town is something that we have heard is extremely important and Michael brings that, and he is the only candidate that brings that because he is the candidate for planning. And even though Tom and Andrew have architecture experience, experience with working with planning boards and all they've never sat on the planning board side. So while they could probably get up to speed quickly as our selection guidance indicates people with experience in this reason could Michael's already up to speed. And so I don't, I can't discount that at all. And I have to give huge amounts of weight to that. Many people know I have run on a platform of diversity of views in areas. And for council I believe very strongly that boards work better when there are different opinions there. And I don't think given our experience with Michael's voting on the planning board, we can argue that he does bring that diversity of experience, but I think we can also say he recognizes the role of a regulatory body and recognizes the role of a site plan review and and what the purpose of a planning board is, even if he disagrees with the zoning or the plan or the, the item that was in front of the planning board. So, in that sense, I think Michael's a very good choice. Yet, I also really like Andrew, I'm going to go back to his SOI to as as Evan did his experience working throughout the US in banks and getting banks in locations and pulling banks out of locations, banks are required to serve everywhere. And the one line or lines that struck me in his SOI was that this experience has helped him understand the significant challenges, some of our fellow citizens face every day to live safe and healthy lives. And I hope to share some of those observations with the board as it considers the issues of social justice and inequality, which are finally getting their due attention. And given that racial equity is looking like it's going to be a policy goal for the council in its town manager objectives. I can't discount the recognition that Andrew brought to the interviews that this is a big issue and also the experience he may have with how the built environment affects racial equity, inequality, social justice, and be able to look at that from the other side, the regulatory side when he's voting on stuff or when he's looking at revisions to zoning, that experience might be able to, you know, give weight to or, you know, some consideration to what those issues that might come forward where revisions are needed, even if they're not proposed, reading that bylaw and saying hey, this, this part of the bylaw is actually exacerbating inequality potentially he might have a better way of recognizing had to build and go into all sorts of communities. So I don't know which way I'm leaning right now. But those are sort of the two issues or reasons I like each of those two candidates at this point. And I don't, I haven't reached a conclusion as to which one is more important to me at this point. Steve. So we've agreed on two candidates, Johanna and Tom largely based on their SOIs and on their interviews. I have no clue what, you know, whether or not they will be a minority voice or majority voice or I don't know what, you know, on the planning board but basically, we basically went on trust that they will do what they said, you know, involve the community, be flexible, etc, etc. So I think it's a kind of a, there's always, any group that ever meets, that any group that I've ever been involved with, there's always a majority and a minority voices, you know, unless it's so obvious like the day of the week, you know, what's the day of the week or something like that. So what you do with that I think is, is really critical and I think that Michael hit right on it, that if you don't win something you drop it and you move on. And quite frankly, that's also a concern I have about that particular issue. If you don't win something you drop it and you move on. So, I think the risk of, I don't know, the experience issue I fully agree with that, that where we, there's the prospect of losing four years of experience because Michael was sort of, I believe is appointed originally for a one year appointment after that, then a two month appointment after that. So, but the risk of losing that I think is significant. But then the risk of also losing another candidate who brings this incredible wealth of experience, you know, is also great. So I feel very uncomfortable because I'm, Michael to be sort of an ally of former planning board colleague. I think that what Andrew is is bringing is is so great at this particular moment, but I would love to see that on the planning board. So that's the way that I am leaning is in supporting Andrew for this remaining slot. I, because I can see that I still have the yellow box around me, I get really frustrated when people say that we should support somebody because they're bringing a minority view. All seven of those people on the planning board are bringing a minority view to it. And what happens is that when the planning board meets and when they deliberate and oftentimes it takes. Look at how long it took us to come up with five, six questions for this. Two full nights for this but that was hard work. So, but, but there is no, it's really kind of a false impression to say that the planning board needs a minority view. There is no majority view. There is no preexisting majority view. Evan then Sarah. I actually did want to just second what Steve just said. Oka very often discussed diversity of opinions and whether or not that would be part of the selection guidance and one of the reasons we never included it and got there is. What does that mean. Right. And so within this body, there have been times within just the members of this by there's been times that town council when Sarah and I have voted together, and we voted opposite and there have been times when Steve and I voted together and times when he was the most vocal opponent of something that I was proposing right and so coalition shift constantly depending on the issue and it's rare that we had we don't these are partisan positions. But one thing I wanted to say is, you know, I do know where Michael stands on some issues because she's been on the planning board. I have literally no idea where Tom or Johanna or Andrew stand on almost any of the past projects on on projects that are coming before the board I have never met the majority of these people I don't know them personally. So I am a little uncomfortable saying, well, Michael represents a minority view or diversity of opinion because I don't actually know where the opinions of Andrew and Tom line so it's hard for me to consider that as a as a factor. Sarah. So, on Oka, Evans right, we, we just absolutely beat this issue to death. And while in a committee when I'm serving on a committee, I am very grateful for opinions that are different because it gives me something to think about and maybe I could change my mind and I think it's fantastic people some people think of something at a time that I never even thought of. So I agree with Evan and that I also do not think there's no way that how could I fight anyone I think I've already told you that when we talked I didn't want any questions to reveal anybody's bias that's not I'm looking for someone who brings excellent education that brings excellent skills and that at least from the way they're answering the question I think that they could sit in a room with other people and talk about things and not bonk somebody over the head with a book or right. So I don't think I don't think that we should be talking about diversity I agree with everything that Evan said and also with a lot of what Steve said. One thing that I have to say is that because I'm the original person in defending when we first started doing planning board and zoning Board of Appeals, I had to sit down and look at why I was choosing people which is where I started coming up with these ideas. And when I first was trying this. I kept the majority of people on those boards that had experience and only changed one person effectively, and the entire council was very upset with me. And for me, it really taught me that I have to be careful with how much new I put in and how the historical knowledge and just the working of a board and so I just would like to manage it because I think that maybe I don't have grass right now. If, if Michael were not reappointed, I just was wondering if you could tell me how many people that would out of the seven that would remain that had experience and then when their terms expire. So the other four on the board that are currently on the board. Two of their terms expire in one year and two in two years, I can look that up quickly as to which ones actually I have that let me, let me pull that up. I'm pretty sure I have that somewhere else. So Doug Marshall expires next year and he was just appointed in January. And Janet McGowan expires next year and she was appointed last year to a two year term I guess she was appointed to. She was appointed approximately a year ago. Maria chow and Jack gem six turns terms expire two years from now in 2022. I think I'm not sure which one of those is the most senior member of the planning board once Christine Gray Mullen leaves. It might be Jack, I could be wrong on that but I think it's Jack, and then Michael is more senior than whoever the other one of those is Michael at this point with Christine gone I believe is the second senior member of the planning board if I am remembering my conversations with Christine accurately because he has been on the board at least four years at this point because he had a one year term and then a three year term. And so he's he's right in there with Maria and Jack but I think he's between those two and so would be second most senior on the board if he was reappointed and is currently I believe second most senior on the board with Christine having left. Does that I think I think this as far as like serving at least three years or more if if so we would have Jack and Maria Jack and Maria are the only individuals who have anywhere close to three years of service at this point. So there would really be our two out of seven would be six months and Janet at one year at this point. So for me I just I for me it has nothing to do with diversity of opinion, not nothing. I think that he's qualified. I think he's shown up I think he's you know done his homework, you know when he served. And I just for me, we've had people that we'd appointed, you know, that have left after a few months. I just don't feel comfortable losing that experience right now if there was some way that you know, I don't know how we don't lose Andrew because I don't want to lose Andrew but for the health of the committee I just, I don't. I don't feel comfortable giving up that experience right now. Any other thoughts. So I have a question for Evan and Sarah in terms of their prior votes. We have reached consensus on two vacancies. So is OCA in the past ever taken separate votes. In terms of vacancy appointments, such that and here's, here's one thing I'm thinking I don't know whether we will reach consensus on vacancy number three. One of the things I'm thinking is a vote on two of the vacancies that could potentially be unanimous with one absent, and then a vote on the third vacancy and I have no idea what that one would look like right now I'm just, I'm just wondering that is something that OCA had has considered in the past. Whether that is something we should consider as we move forward and I'm not making the suggestion to be able to punt the third vote to a different day I'm going to tell you that right now. Because we have terms expiring Monday and a council meeting on Monday. I what what I'm doing is I fear there's a possibility given that we only have four members here that any vote we take might end up tied on that third vacancy and I see that as a potential real possibility at this point I don't know whether that would actually happen but we have four members not five. And so it's it's entirely possible that a vote might be tied. So that's why I'm bringing forth the potential idea to take two separate votes. Sarah, you're muted. So I want Evan to back me up on this because as far as I remember we have we did not but we never discussed doing it separately but I think that in discussions later in OCA meetings. We did discuss if if somebody had put that idea out that most of us would have been receptive to it I myself I don't have an issue with it and I would then defer to Evan about what he remembers. Yeah, so we never had to do that planning board we had one vacancy. So we were voting on one position and we have someone make a motion ZBA we were voting on seven spots. Three of which were regular and forward associate and so it was a pretty complex thing. We were able to negotiate I will say because there was disagreement but we were able to sort of negotiate a compromise that allowed us to go on a package. I will say is when I went into at the time I was chairing OCA, and when I went into the ZBA meeting, I was prepared to vote on individual spots, just because there were so many and it was so complex and I thought we might not have agreement. So OCA never did it, but I don't necessarily see an issue with it, because the other the other thing, not to further complicate, but the process says that we can recommend, we cannot recommend, we can recommend fewer seats. And so, in theory, if we really cannot come to some agreement on that third seat on, we could just make two recommendations, and then say we have no recommendation on the third seat. Here are the arguments that were made in favor of the various candidates. I don't particularly like that option. I think that we're charged with making a recommendation. It looks like it might be, and because it means the counselors, you know, they have, I don't know, some of them are attendees right now but others aren't and so they'll be, they have different amounts of information. So I think it's tricky if we can't get to a recommendation. I mean, we do have to, I will say, no, don't hate me. Because we're having this conversation. And as I'm hearing arguments for people. There is also another part of me that I would like to see Andrew on the board is what I'll say, based on some of the conversations we've had, and I think that I have made this point my position for be the appointments with Tom and Andrew, if it does not look like it's going that way, I might want to reopen the consensus around Tom and have a discussion about Tom and Andrew. So I'm just going to put that out there if we cannot come to a consensus on this third seat. I was going to ask her a point of order because as far as I'm concerned, the first two seats are locked up. So really we're only talking about the third seat and I think reopening it is hard. In that case, we should reopen the whole thing. It's hard because we really haven't talked about those two others that we thought that were finished much. So I really am torn by all of this, in part because I am coming from, you know, I'm the one person on this group that is a former planning board member and one that has served with one of the candidates on the planning board. And I can say in that Michael was a really fast learn so he's not coming from a land use background. In fact, he's coming from, you know, he's coming from the arts. He was an incredibly fast learn I think everything that he said in his SOI is true, you know that he's not anti development not pro development, you know, in other words, I think that he really tries to be fair. It may personally be different on the strict reading of the bylaw and what a bylaw means and why there are things like so many waivers. So one of the problems is that if you're, if you're an elected official you have a record. Right. And so, so if you're not elected official you sometimes you become can become president because you don't have a record to run on. If you're an elected official once you're a public official then you have a record. And I do think that Michael brings a ton to the planning board, and I will just tell one anecdote here that I don't follow the planning board. Much, but the planning board was in the newspaper recently for an issue that I was not even aware of. I read what Michael said and I completely agreed what he said about that particular issue. And I did think exactly what Sarah is saying that if he had not had that experience, then that the than his. Speaking at this issue from experience, and I think that that experience was helpful for the board at that, that particular issue so. So I do agree that experience helps. I also do agree that Andrew's experience with many planning boards is incredibly useful. I don't know what to say except that my inclination still is to support Andrew for for the open slot with a recognition that Michael also brings an incredible wealth of experience, not coming from a land use point of view. Not coming from a land use education experience. I'm just staring at me. Sometimes it's nice not to have to to run the meeting because you can try not to say anything. You got to vote to. Yeah, Sarah, you going through whose terms expire when right is extremely illuminating. I don't have experience with this because I know you got the council came down hard on you a year ago. Very hard on you for for getting for record making a recommendation that removed one of the most experienced members of the planning board. And, and so a vote, not to recommend Michael would do the same thing. That's one of the most experienced members of a planning board and a planning board that really hasn't changed much an experience since last year when we were having this exact conversation in a council. You know, for two of the members plus Michael have one more year to make them a little less young. Janet has only that year, and Doug is even less. It's a very, very compelling argument in favor of supporting Michael's reappointment. Yet. Andrew is very impressive. The landscape architecture when we're looking at built environment human centered design, all of that. And then, and then his experience with many different planning boards. Regional planning, regional planning. While our zoning is not necessarily regional, having an experience of regional planning, I think would help this board. We've got Jack who is now on the executive board, I believe, of the Pioneer Valley regional planning. I don't even know the name of it. But, but he is he is getting a lot of experience in regional planning but I don't think it hurts to have more. I, I liked in terms of revisions to the bylaws, both Michael's specificity to some of the issues he sees with the bylaws and that shows to his experience with interpreting bylaws that it's really hard to interpret imprecise terms. And in fact, it's one of the issues I have with some of the demolition delay bylaw that sits in zoning right now that planning board doesn't deal with but that the terms are very imprecise and therefore are open to wide interpretation. But Andrew talked about responsive to an evolving world, sustainability, safeness, broad support for changes precedent so that that, you know, what, what's a best practice that's sort of how I read the precedent thing and I feel like this council has sought to support best practices, especially as it relates to zoning. I personally really liked the need to be responsive to an evolving world when we were talking about a discussion and a question about considerations one of the initial forms of that question was strict interpretation or liberal interpretation I think is Steve worded it right like what kind of constructionist are you. And what are we you know this this goes back to how much of these appointments, do we support because of things we support and I know you guys don't want to hear things about diverse opinions or things that we support but you know I, I support a construction of a bylaw that is responsive and does consider an evolving changing world. You know we always talk about the Second Amendment and how do we like the right to bear arms and what an arm is and all of that you know I mean I'm kind of rambling here but not I think it goes to in terms of applying the bylaw I really liked Andrew's answer of needing to be responsive to an evolving bylaw I think, even though he was talking about revisions, it goes to the application of a bylaw to. I mean still despite all of that ramble, don't know which one I favor, which does not help this committee at all, because if I favor Michael we clearly have a to to tie. At least that's what I'm seeing here and if I favor Andrew, we have a resolution to that tie. I don't know why the Charter Commission moved the ZBA from three to five members, so there wasn't so much pressure on one member. And so I, I can't make, I'm not quite ready to make a decision yet. Maybe some arguments from you guys can help sway me one way or the other, or maybe some things will sway others I don't know. That's the best I can do right now. No, it was a, I feel like I've made my, I mean I share your conflict and this is really hard and in some ways. OKA was privileged in its last appointment to have seven applicants for seven vacancies, which is not to say that we would always appoint in that situation but in that case we had seven strong candidates, and we had seven vacancies. In this case I think that we have several strong candidates, but fewer vacancies and it's, and it's really difficult. I think that as this discussion has evolved, my support for Andrews appointment has solidified, because, you know, I think there's, there's new perspectives to the board in that people who haven't been on the board, but there's also new perspectives in people who bring sort of outside Amherst because I think we get in this little bubble in Amherst and we get so bogged down in the debates about one particular project or one particular building or one thing and and we get that, God, sometimes it's exhausting, right? And so what struck me about two of the candidates, you know, Johanna talking about her experience living in Munich and what she saw and the benefits of how public space could be used struck me because it thought, right, that that's not just about what I've seen in Amherst and these age old debates and Amherst, that's bringing this other perspective from some other experience. And I think I, and I'm getting that from Andrew as well, because of that line that I read aloud and the fact that he has worked all over the place in with real estate and with other projects and has experience with these other bodies. I just think it's not just about bringing a new perspective to the board but it's about bringing a perspective that is broader than just this community or even this region and I think that that's going to be really useful because I think that no matter who you talk to, no one is going to tell you that our zoning bylaw is perfect right now, right? We may disagree on what needs to change about it, but I think there's broad agreement that there needs to be some changes. And I think that having that experience of being able to see things more broadly is important. I think one of the things I think we're all really suffering from right now is the absence of our fifth member who one would provide us an odd number of people which would ensure we avoid any tie votes. And I have no idea where Shalini would fall and I don't want to speak for her, but I do want to recognize that that absence is being felt right now because she also does usually bring an incredibly useful perspective. But one of the things we have heard from her is wanting someone who does have someone of a business perspective. And so I do think that that that's one part of Andrew's what he brings to the table is he is able to look at these things from a business perspective that I do think is useful and understanding, not just to design decisions but some of the real estate finance and business decisions that that are involved in these I think is a useful perspective. Sarah. So, my decision in valuing keeping it will end up being a minority really of people who have served on this committee to keeping that institutional knowledge and not having a board that is is just completely green. I guess I respect everything that everyone's saying and I like Andrew for all the same reasons that you do. I think when I comes back to who I am as a counselor, because I think as a counselor, I strive for consistency. And I also try very hard. When I make up my mind about something. I really try to take into consideration the voices of the rest of the people on the council. The three of you are actually some of the biggest supporters of institutional knowledge you were the three biggest people that just hammered home to me what a huge mistake I would make and for me it's really confusing to have the people that really hammered home to me why we need institutional knowledge and really a majority of it. And why that was so important to not be telling me that it isn't so I just really feel sort of confused about as a counselor how I fit into the council and how how valuable are the lessons that I've learned from the majority of you. So I just feel confused by it. Because I feel like the decision that I'm making comes from trying to figure it out for myself and also really really listening to the rest of you. And now I feel like I'm hearing something completely different and it just it doesn't. It doesn't make sense to me. I mean I think, you know, if we don't want to lose this person, you know, I'm, I'm totally against, you know, extra associates when there isn't anything right. But I, you know, I don't know I want to, I see the value in what you were saying about Andrew and I would not want to lose him. And at the same time it has come. I really had to think about this institutional knowledge thing. So, you know, maybe this isn't a discussion for now. Maybe we agree that, you know, this would be an easier discussion if we had Shawnee here, and that we have to, you know, maybe leave it to the rest of the council telling them the discussion that we had. In that case, I really will want to listen very earnestly to what the rest of my fellow counselors say, because somewhere, obviously, I haven't made the right connection. So that's, um, that's where I'm at in truly trying to understand, you know, just really trying to understand so I wouldn't be opposed, you know, if Evan said we wanted to, you know, recommend to. Um, that's perfectly fine. We do have to recommend. And then leave the rest of the council I just I want you guys to know where I stand as far as this and then a further discussion. Thank you. Steve. I think for a public figure, the way you voted and the way you acted before can be becomes fair game and I think that's a completely fair comment, Sarah, and that was the discussion of the planning board. A year ago, our first effort in doing this, and I definitely remember that struggle and I definitely remember being saying exactly what you, you say, and that was the case of the chair that was being replaced. I have a circumstance where the chair was replaced a new chair came in. That chair has resigned. So, in a way, so I'm trying to I'm trying to sort of explain how I might be taking different positions at two different times. But for me, there was a loss of that particular chair at that particular time, and also quite frankly the newness of our process. I think that that's probably an explanation for why I seem to be taking a different position now. And I think that the panic about losing that experience that I had at that moment is less because I realized that the board is seems to be functioning fine with despite my pleas to do something differently. So that that's where that's where I'm coming. Everything that you've done to help this process get underway is really deeply appreciated. But, and I know that what I had the position I seem to be leaning towards now seems to be different from a general position that I was taking a year ago, but I think for me it had to do with loss, the loss of the chair. That leaves me again, I guess, um, Evan spoke, and I was like, Oh, I'll vote for Andrew. And I said her spoke. Seriously, this this was what was going through my head. I, last year, I actually supported and in the end voted in the same way Sarah that you recommended on the planning board I do want to clarify that I in the end, even though I struggled with the decision about as much as I struggled with this one struggling with this one. In the end I supported your recommendation. And all. And so, I'm not sure whatever way I vote today is contradictory to whatever I said, last year. I think though, at this point I'm leaning for you know like the millionth time. Oh, on either side. Andrew. I am concerned about the loss of experience, I really am. But again, Steve made a point. We had a huge loss last year. The board seems to have recovered from that loss and has operated and functioned well in that year, despite all of the huge concern last year about that experiential loss. And so given that, while I do have a lot of concern about losing that experience. I think the experience and perspective that Andrew brings from what we saw in his answers to the interview, and in his statement of interest. Outweighs that potential loss or what it wouldn't be potential if if the way I lean is toward Andrew the loss of experience. Of course, by the time I get to the meeting on Monday, if that's how I vote tonight, I have no idea whether I'll have rethink that. And all because I do take the concerns that were expressed last year and as chair of the planning board that has actually been expressed to me through the former chair of it's a very young board. Seriously, you know, I, in speaking with the, I guess former chair because she's, she's done now, she has regularly expressed the newness of the board. And so it's one of the reasons I have such a concern, but given that Andrew has experience on the other side of the table. I think if we were dealing with a decision that Andrew brought everything that that a candidate brings almost everything Andrew did, but didn't have any experience on the other side of the table, working with planning boards and and all. I, I would probably favor Michael but I have to consider that while he hasn't been on a planning board. He has been in front of planning boards. And has that experience even if it's not voting from the other side. And so at this point, my, if we had to come to a vote, my vote would be for Andrew, I believe, Steve. I'll make that emotion. I move that we appoint Andrew McDougal for the third position. I'm sorry move that we. Before you make a motion, Sarah had her hand up. I'm sorry. And I will read the language of any motion we should be making so that we make it appropriately for what goes on the motion sheet, sort of what goes on the motion sheet to Sarah did you want to speak. Yeah, I just so, and now I'm completely dark. This has been the craziest lighting and the shadows anymore. I feel like, yeah, like, yeah, yeah, okay, so anyway, I. So, I think that this council also has some experience on when we don't reappoint people, we often never see them again. This is something that I, you know, I had brought up like, well, you know, we probably, you know, could do somebody could reapply. They could take a brief break and come back. It doesn't happen. And so I guess, and I know that nobody agrees to me, I'm just going to put it out there is that, you know, we keep Michael on you want to try to, you know, do a shorter, you know, two years or one year or we don't lose that experience, you know, and Andrew could come back on in a year or two years. And I know that that doesn't. I've already sort of lost this vote but I just wanted to put that out there is something I guess either we think about now or maybe the next time we're in this position we think about so that that's all. Steve, do you have a comment or are you aiming to make a motion. I'll make a motion. So, the motion that has been used in the past is to recommend the town council appoint to the planning board effective immediately. And for terms expiring June 30, and I'm just going to throw out there that all of them would be 2023 right now we can talk about that once a motion to be made, and then the names. Can I do what you said, can I just say what she said. And then just read the names. Sure. Okay, what you said, and you know how to new man. Tom long in Andrew McDougal. I'm just typing it here for my own benefit to so that if Lindsay didn't catch it I'll read it again for Lindsay to so Steve makes the motion. Evan seconded. For, and Steve your motion is for three year terms for all three. Yes. I just wanted to confirm that. Is there any discussion on this motion which I will read for the for our minute takers help to it's to recommend the town council appoint to the planning board effective immediately for terms expiring June 30 2023. I'm just going to go ahead and read the names. I'm just going to go ahead and read the names. I'm just going to go ahead and read the names. Tom long and Andrew McDougal. Those are not in any way in any medical order at all. But that that is the motion. Any further discussion. I have a feeling Sarah is trying to fix her blackness on the lack of lighting. I'm not being antisocial. It's just so freaky that I it there was freaking me out. So that's figure that was why he did that. If there is no other discussion. We will move to a roll call vote since all votes on a virtual meeting must be by roll call. I believe when I did the checking. I started with Evan so at this point I would start with Steve. Yes. Sarah. No. Mandy is a yes. Evan. Yes. Sarah, I have taken extensive notes and I will be writing a report tonight and tomorrow morning to get out to the council as soon as possible. I will try to send it to you to make sure encompasses your vote and opinion as accurately as possible. Thank you. Thank you. I think at this time. We have been through three a and four a with a vote. Is there anything else that counselors would like to say or any items not anticipated by me. I don't have any items. Is there anything anyone would like to say before I adjourn the meeting. Seeing none and with nothing else on our agenda. I will adjourn. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. At times at 747 p.m. I want to thank all the counselors and the applicants for I know a number of them are still on the line for interviewing. I will be in touch with every applicant later tonight. Thank you. I have a report out to the council out to our clerk for tomorrow so that it can be distributed to the council in time for the meeting. I want to thank everyone for all of their time the counselors for their time. Because it's a lot of extra meetings to do this. And so with that, I am adjourning the meeting at 748 p.m. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Do you need an email with it Lindsay? No, I think I got it. You read it perfectly the second time like slow enough. I think I got it. Okay. Okay. Thanks. Have a good night.