 The meeting is called to order at 631. And welcome to the May 14th Select Board meeting. We are still at the middle school, where town meetings continues following this meeting. And we have a bunch of things on our agenda tonight, as well as a couple of things that have been added since this was printed. So we are going to get started. Unfortunately, the attorney for our first item stepped out of the room, so we will take this time to do a couple of untimed items. Ms. Stein, would you like to do the parking and street closure request for a piece of amour? I move that the Select Board approve the following street closing slash parking request from the Amherst Area Chamber of Commerce for the annual taste of Amherst event. Place new parking bags on parking meters around the perimeter of the town common, including the north and south sides of the Spring Street lot. Getting Thursday, June 14th, 2012, from noon to 9 p.m., Friday, June 15th, 2012, from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m., Saturday, June 16th, 2012, from noon to 10 p.m., and Sunday, June 17th, 2012, noon to 4 p.m., to accommodate taste vendor parking. Close boltwood avenue between Spring Street and Route 9, on Friday, June 14th, 2012, and Saturday, June 16th, 2012, from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., peak pedestrian crossing times for the beer and wine to a stand. Greatly done. Second. All right, Ms. Musanti notes that Type O should be Thursday, June 15th. I'm sorry, Friday, June 15th. The bottom bullet. Oh, yeah. All right, it's been moved. Been seconded for the discussion. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Mr. Waldo, say no. That is foreign favor, one absent. All right, take care of that item. All right, next up, we've got our public hearing. This is for Lit, the nightclub that backs on, or fronts on the boltwood garage. This public hearing is called to order at 6.34 p.m., and we have a bunch of information in our packets about this. I'll do my usual little preamble to this. This is an existing all liquor license in downtown Amherst, because the select board has to approve very specific details about the liquor license. Any change to that requires coming before us for approval. This is an alteration of premises. They are looking to expand to outdoor seating. This request has already gone through and been approved by the zoning board of appeals. So if anybody has any concerns about the outdoor dining part of it, it's kind of too late for that. That can already happen. Our consideration is only about whether we grant them a liquor license to enjoy with their dining. So with that, I welcome the attorney to talk and introduce yourself. So please take them. Good evening, attorney Tom Reedy from Bacon Wilson on behalf of Modi One, doing business as Lit. As Madam Chairman noted, it's an application for expansion of an annual all alcohol restaurant license to include an outdoor patio. The outdoor patio is gonna consist of approximately 406 square feet for service and consumption. Lit is the current licensee. They've been in business since about 2011. There have been no issues. They've never been in front of me for any disciplinary action or any violations. As you'll see in your packet, we did go in front of the MRZ zoning board of appeals and there were certain parameters that they set for the special permit. I'm gonna go through a few of them and I hope you've had the opportunity to read the packet, so I hope I'm not wasting time but I'd like to point out a few. They have approved outdoor dining of a patio consisting of four and six square feet, no more than 30 seats and or patrons and five tables. Outdoor dining fence, a minimum of six feet, six inches, provided between the outdoor dining fence and the Knights of Columbus property line. The fencing shall be no higher than four feet. Hours of operation, 11 a.m. to 11 p.m., seven days a week. All patrons must be out of the outdoor dining area by 11 p.m. And there's kind of a unique setup, the outdoor dining furniture, including all the fencing tables and chairs. From November 1st to March 1st, they're gonna keep it off-premises but every night they're also going to remove and store it so it won't stay in the same place. Alcohol will only be served to those seated for the purpose of dining and shall be served in accordance with all applicable requirements that you may put on it. If you have the opportunity to look at the plans, there is an individual bar in the outdoor patio area. One of our concerns, and I'll get to this when we go through the guidelines that the ABCC has promulgated in order to allow for such expansion to patio and outdoor areas. We wanted to make sure that there wasn't any traffic between the physical building and this outdoor patio and something we thought, okay, how do we do that? And it was to make sure not only to have security and staff sufficient to ensure such, but also we put a bar outside so that when the bar is outside, people in that area can get their beverage and stay in the area, not to leave it to walk to, they can leave to help them leave the drink there and go to the other area. So I think that was one of our greatest concerns and I think it's been addressed adequately in the plans. There's also management plan attached to the application. I hope you have the chance to review it's very detailed and I think you can see from it that there's a lot of thought that has gone into this application as far as certain senses of emergencies or just ensuring that public safety is upheld to the maximum. Four employees will be employed in the outdoor dining. Holsters will be stationed at the entrance that a waiter or waitress will serve patients in the outside. Servers will use the side door along the west side of the building to transfer food to the outdoor patio and all the food will be prepared in the current lit kitchen. And like I said, all issues with regard to access and emergency egress were discussed with the fire department and the issues were pretty much vetted out with the zoning board of appeals process. As far as there's, you know, there is seven guidelines that the ABCC has put forward. You need to apply for a license which we're doing currently. We've got a detailed plan for outdoor patio area, square footage, four and six square feet, five tables, six chairs per table, total seating of 30 patients. We've got a 30 as the occupancy figure and it's an outdoor bar as provided on the plane. In accordance with the management plan, the licensee will also have four staff members servicing the outdoor patio. We'll have fencing according to the plan that was provided to the ZBA and the special permit fencing cannot be higher than four feet and the exact type of fencing must be in accordance with the types of fencing that were provided to the zoning board of appeals and the application to them. The staff members will ensure that no alcohol is passed over the fence to any individuals outside of the licensed area. And like I highlighted, the one concern would be all, what about people carrying drinks and I think we've addressed that as far as sufficient staffing to ensure that if you're inside drinks and you stay inside, if you're outside, you may stay outside for servicing consumption. The fire department has indicated that all emergency egress requirements have been met. The licensing authority should consider the type of neighborhood and the ZBA addressed those concerns with regard to military level, outdoor music and lighting. And I'll prefer by the ABCC or outdoor areas where alcohol is served to patients who are seated at tables. And I think as you'll see the applicant has proposed that there will be tables, it's not gonna be that people are gonna be standing out, hanging out, it's for the tables to have outdoor dining and it seems like a well thought out plan. So if you've got any questions, I'd be happy to answer them for you. Thank you. Questions and comments from select board? Ms. Raten. Is the full menu available outside as well? From the inside? I don't have to check with, I said I'm full service. I just full service. I would imagine it's the full menu available outside as well. I'm sorry. It's the same kitchen, I understand. But yeah, that's the thing. As far as I understand it, it should pull me in. Okay. And it is specific that it's only for folks who are dining. Right. Yep, really. Other questions from select board? All right. Questions or comments from the public? Yes, sir. I present the Amherst Knights of Columbus, Bill Hutchinson and all my comment is one is if they keep the area as neat as they have since they've done the inside business, it will be an improvement over what it's been in the past. And I also want to note that the graffiti on the alleyway has diminished somewhat because of the coming and going and with the outside, hopefully even more. Thank you very much. Other questions or comments from the public about this application? All right. I will note that it is an extremely detailed packet of information that was provided. The zoning board of appeals process per usual was extremely thorough. So like for members, I'll note that the original plans were changed to accommodate the number of inches that were necessary to satisfy inspections and fire for emergency situations. So I think that all that information is extremely thorough and complete and appreciated, Mr. Haley. And along those lines, I just noticed the number of tables was reduced for the same reason. To fit the bar, I assume. Correct. All right. Going once, twice, three times on public comment on this. I'll close the public hearing. All right, then. I would move to close the public hearing. Thank you. Move to close the public hearing at 642. Is there a second? Second to close the public hearing? Yes, thank you. So I hear a second. I have a second from Nancy Rand. Did you want to ask Mr. Romani, who is a manager and owner of the establishment, your question, did you want to offer any comment on this? Your attorney has represented you well. Okay. No, Mr. President, I don't want to say these things. Please say that. Ms. Stein. Well, one question was, will you serve a full menu outside? And then my question is, are you the manager? I was hoping to put it on the motion. Sure, yes. I will be the operating manager. Okay. And it will be full menu outside. Okay. Thank you. All right. We'll try again for closing the public hearing. Motion to close the public hearing at 643. Without objection. Then we'll close the public hearing at 643. All right. Public hearing is closed. Deliberation by the select board on this application. Anyone? Mr. Walb? It's a great place and it's a very thorough plan. It's also very nice to have a mix of Columbus here. We appreciate when the butters come forward to say positive things as well as negative things. It's a sign that things are working well. Thank you very much. Other questions or comments from select board? Comments? I'll just note that I think that it's a tremendous way of investing in that area, which with the new apartment building and other things that are going on there is just really kind of getting to be more and more vibrant and nothing says vibrancy like outdoor dining, I think. So I think it's a wonderful addition. All right. So Ms. Stone, that's with motion. I moved at the select board approved the application of Moody 1 Incorporated Doing Business at Slit. 41 Boltwood Walk, Hermos MA, ABCC license number 002400109 relative to alteration of premises to include an outdoor patio consisting of approximately more than 16 feet. With no more than five tables and 30 seats available between the hours of 11 a.m. to 11 p.m., seven days a week in accordance with special permit by 2012-0001. The outdoor seating management plan revised January 12th, 2012, and guidelines for extension of premises for patio and outdoor areas issued by Massachusetts Alcoholic Fairbridge Commission, Manager Risa Ramani. Second. Thank you. I wish there's been movement. Seconded. There's further discussion. Famer say aye. Aye. Thank you very much. Congratulations. Thank you for coming in. Any idea when this might open? I don't know yet. Nice weather's coming. Yes, yes. Thank you. All right, Ben, moving right along. We're now taking positions on warrant articles and our first one is article one of the special town meeting that happens tonight. This is not something we've had the opportunity to discuss at Select Board. We have referred to it. In a nutshell, we know that this is a technicality, the vote that was taken last November on War Memorial Pool included reference to mass general law about the grant that we hope to receive to cover 75% of its funding. And inadvertently, it had a typo in that mass general law reference. The folks of the state will not let us proceed without fixing this before June 30th. And because a great deal of money is at stake, we have to make sure we correct this. Mr. Musanti, is there anything else to note about this? No, that's exactly it. This is a unfortunate but necessary special town meeting article to correct a typo. So it's a housekeeping issue more than anything. This time we'd like to make a motion to recommend article one. I move that the Select Board recommend to the May 14th, 2012 special town meeting, article one, capital program War Memorial Pool. Second. For the discussion. In favor say aye. Aye. Aye. That's unanimous. Who would like to speak to this? I am speaking to this, it's programmed. Oh great. And I'm ready. Excellent. Okay. We're in a group. Next up. This is my pool. Next up, we have article 29. This is a continuing discussion about the petition article originally proposed as a bylaw for sharing information with federal agencies. We have talked several times here at this meeting with the petitioners about turning this into a resolution rather than a bylaw because Select Board Town Council, Chief Police and others had expressed concerns about the ability to actually be able to enforce this as a bylaw and hence that affected the Select Board's ability to support it. We all wanted to support it. Mr. Musanti, Town Council and others have been working with the petitioners to put together language that hopefully is acceptable to all. We did receive the draft language in our packets. It is on the web if folks are interested and Mr. Musanti more would like to say about that. Sure. Just very briefly, as you indicated at your April 30th meeting, you asked me to pursue with the petitioners in Town Council and Chief Livingstone the prospects for modifying the petition in the form of a motion so that it becomes a resolution as opposed to a bylaw. You did develop a draft that was shared with Ruth Hook and the other petitioners late last week. They have indicated to me their support for a resolution form did offer one suggested addition that's in your packet from today to add an additional sentence to the extent permissible bylaw immigration detainee requests will not be honored by the Amherst Police Department. I did review that with Chief Livingstone and Town Council. We are totally fine with that addition. And have presented a draft resolution that incorporates that and you may want to hear from the petitioners but it's something that I know I can speak favorably on tonight in that town meeting. All right, Ms. Hook as a lead petitioner would you like to speak to how you feel about the compromise in the resolution? Yes, I'm very satisfied and I really appreciate the town manager's effort in this behalf. Thank you very much. Thank you. Select Board members have any questions or comments about this? Mr. Hayden. No, I'm particularly grateful to the extra effort that was made to get it to work. Because I mean I think it does reflect what Amherst is about and certainly as the website for the police department demonstrates. Thank you. Anyone else like Ms. Burke? And so just to be sure I'm clear of the final version does include the bolding sentence on one of our handouts to the extent permissible by law. Immigration detainer requests will not be honored by the Amherst Office Department. Yes. That's right. Further question or comment from Select Board? All right, from the public, please introduce yourself for folks that want to take some time. Hi, Ben Grosskopf, Pre-State 9. I've been working along with Ruth and some of the other petitioners and I have a question for Mr. Lewdenstone. I was wondering if you could explain just sort of how the Amherst Police Department currently deals with detainers and given what the statement from DHS is that as of tomorrow, secure communities will become mandatory in Massachusetts. I guess I have a two-part question. Number one, do you think that it's likely that the town of Amherst will be starting to get detainer requests from DHS? And if it does start happening, how will the Amherst Police Department respond to that given if this resolution passes? Thank you. Just to make sure folks can hear you. If you wouldn't mind coming up to the seats. So the mic's captured. First of all, as far as detainers, none of us could recall myself included having ever been served a detainer before. So that being said, we haven't had to deal with the issue before but the wording in this resolution is actually pretty consistent with the Department of Policy and Procedure. So we don't anticipate there being this huge influx of detainers all of a sudden. The fact that the governor had opted out of the original secure communities didn't really have a lot of weight with the Homeland Security and ICE, the way they did business. So just because he had opted out now that they had changed their protocol, we really don't expect to see this massive, all of a sudden, influx of detainers. So we will abide by the resolution and detainers are just that, their request. So we'll see how it plays out. Thank you. Welcome to our poll, if I may reassure you. I'm wondering if, like what kind of public reporting process there could be put in place so that if the situation changes with respect to DHS as it pursues secure communities, detainers are the main way that the program works to detain immigrants, to put them into federal custody. I was wondering like how you see the possibility for that to be disclosed, like whether the Amherst Police Department is receiving the kind of requests? Again, you know, we haven't, I spoke with the representative for the state of Massachusetts, the ICE representative today, and we discussed that possibility of detainers coming through, and he really didn't think the team would, if requested, probably wouldn't impact the local law enforcement agency as much as it would the local jail. And he felt that it would become more of an issue with the local sheriff and that sort of thing. Because, you know, they just don't really, they don't, in Massachusetts in ways, issue detainers for simple misdemeanors and that sort of thing. He kind of reassured me that their goal, their vision, the process of which they would issue detainers would be more geared towards criminal offenders and not misdemeanor type offenses. At least that was the reassurance that he made there. Thanks for that. So I'm afraid you can't follow up. This is about the select board taking a position to recommend this or not as a resolution versus a bylaw. And so further information on how this would play out would be a great conversation to have with the chief in or at town meeting. But in the interest of doing the rest of our business tonight, I need for us to move on from this. So does select board have any other questions or comments about the resolution as proposed? Anyone else in the public have any questions or comments about the resolution? All right then. Ms. Dine would like to make a motion. I move that the select board recommend to the April 30th, 2012 annual town meeting, article 29 regarding sharing of information with federal agencies as an amended resolution upon the recommendation of town manager, John Peely-Santi and petitioners. Second. For the discussion, all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye, that is unanimous. From a technical standpoint, how do you envision this working? Do you plan to move the amended motion? I'm going to move and tell the amended item. Okay. Okay, terrific. So do we have to somehow get a copy of the amended article for everybody? No. But how should we do that? So we should probably make sure that there are copies. We can make sure that happens. And I can work with you in any interaction with the moderator to make sure the motion language itself is appropriate. You can be sure it won't come up tonight. So I think we're confident in that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. All right. Who would like to speak to that? Anyone else to go? I would be happy to speak to it. I think I would be happy to speak to it. Either way, I won't find you. Okay. Thank you. All right, thank you very much. And thank you for their cooperation with coming to a compromised resolution that we could all support. All that you do. Thank you. All right. Next up. You don't have to. Next up, we have other logistical issues related to town meeting. And tonight, our issue is an amendment that's going to be proposed for Article 25, the North Amherst re-zoning. And we received a copy of the wording of the amendment earlier today. And we also have that in front of us, along with a map. And we have several folks here to talk to us about this. Mr. Anaya, would you like to come forward and talk about your amendment? And if you can come up to the table and introduce yourself. Oh, and it's in 7-up data. Yeah, part of the packet. I'm Nolan Anaya, precinct 2. Thank you. I've been a long-term resident in Amherst. I've been following this zoning change for a long time. And recently, after joining the town meeting, I decided, having known a lot of people on both sides, that I would search to try to come up with a solution that might help change things a little bit. So the amendment is basically twofold. I went to the community. I talked to a lot of people around the community about why this was such an uncomfortable zoning thing and contentious amongst the people in the community. And what I found is that two things stood out. One was that the overall scope of this development was potentially too big for the rest of the community. So what I was proposing to do is to remove everything from the west side of Sunmilen Road and north of the Mill River to drop the zoning proposal to a much smaller denser population that's more in keeping with the rest of the community. The other major thing I heard from people in the community was to keep the integrity of Montague Road and allow the residential buffer from any potential development to keep from sort of getting altered. And so what we came up with, and again, I went then to met with a number of landowners and developers in the community. And we came up with removing these two pieces of property that are on that map and return them to residential. And that would be keeping the houses as a buffer between this and the potential zoning area. I was very lucky to have a couple of the people from the direct houses across the way to work with me on this. Valerie Cooley who's a precinct one who lives directly across the street from one of these houses who's been having difficulty with this in her neighborhood is now giving us support and saying that she supports Article 25 because of some of the things that we've been able to do. And I do believe that we have a fairly good support of them. Okay, thank you. Mr. Michante, you wanted to mention that something has been further revised? The map that Mr. Tucker handed out reflects the most recent version that was discussed this afternoon. So I just wanted to make that clear to the select board. Excuse me. And I would just offer that I think these suggestions have some potential to be positively received. And I wanted to point out that we have staff as well as two members of the planning board here. Tonight you might want to ask them thoughts. Just to clarify. So the map we just got, the difference I'm seeing is this section. Is there another difference that I've not perceived? Versus what I had on the table versus what Mr. Tucker just did. It adds the ROV. It's four o'clock instead of two o'clock. It's not the same formula as before. There was part of the difference. The correct one is the one that doesn't have anything on the other side of it because it's Mr. Tucker's side. Yes. Yes, thank you. All right, so planning board folks, comment on this at all? Mr. Robert, please come forward so folks can hear you. You can pull up another chair. You can do whatever you want to. So you're closer to these mics. Whatever works. Hi, David Webber, planning board chair. For the planning board, when we considered this article 25, we opted not to propose any amendments or changes to it to present as is to town meeting. And obviously, without a full plan, we're being weak and express opinion on it. Would you care to comment on what the implications are of doing this, kind of the technical parts of how this changes the proposal? So this is more or less of what for folks at home? Well, it would for one leave a portion of commercial zoning to the west of Sunderland Road. That's the existing zoning. That's the area where the survival centers and Amherst Point, as well as the North Amherst borders, I believe, are all in that strip of land. The two pieces along Mind You Road currently are RN. Under the amendment, those would be changed to RVC. Is that the other way around? It would be kind of. The down zoning. It would go from RVC to RN. Well, no, it would stay the same. I mean, it would stay the same as RN instead of RVC. That is somewhat down zone from the village centers, allows a slightly denser residential development that is residential goods centers, so even more against the neighborhood residents. So they're both residential zones. Correct. Question or comments from Slothman? Mr. Hayden. A comment, I want to appreciate Mr. Nye's efforts at keeping this alive. I think this is an important step for Amherst to take. I'm not sure though how I would ask my colleagues on the select board to consider this. I mean, we usually consider two choices, yes or no, support or inviting town meeting to support it or not. I don't know, is there a third way saying that we like this a lot and we urge you to vote on it? We don't exactly have a third option. So I think what you're saying is a little bit like, well, I'll see. I like what I'm thinking about this, which is I also greatly appreciate the efforts to try and bring some compromise and to try and make this work. At the same time, I have a lot of concern process-wise. I hate the idea that this is now considered like the grand compromise, when in fact this has been going on for a year. This is the process of starting with everything that's possible and then turning it into what is most in keeping with the master plan and what is the best compromise as expressed by all the various stakeholders at this great series of public meetings, coming to town meeting, getting a whole bunch of feedback when it almost passed before in a much larger form. I feel like what has been presented to town meeting by the planning board right now as article 25 is the compromise. So this is getting the deal done potentially as opposed to being in compromise. And from a process standpoint, I have a lot of concerns about that. I don't like the idea that you come to town meeting and it's almost like the thing that it reminded me of is when you put your house on the market and so if you put your house on the market for $400,000 and you think that that's more than you'll probably get. And so the seller offers 350 because they figure you don't think you're really gonna get forward. And then you're meeting in the middle. I don't want that to be how zoning stuff is perceived as though you just give it a little trim at town meeting and because it really came in more grand or intense than it needed to be. So I don't like that part of it at all. I don't like the fact that the planning board and zoning subcommittee who own this have not had the chance to consider it. And yet they really have considered all of these questions already and essentially rejected them. That's why the proposal is what it is. All that being said, I have a hard time opposing this because I would also like to get the deal done. So it is kind of a complicated bunch of circumstances here. Mr. Hayden, you're going to find that. Well, just to continue the conversation and the dialogue in a way. Yes, that's not quite what I was thinking but it's very, very close. The other thing that I see as I look at this I went to a lot of these meetings and so I have a very good idea of what you're responding to and I appreciate that. The other thing that I see though is that this is completely within sort of the standard operating procedure of town meeting to chop away stuff. We do it in budgets. There's no reason at all that Harrison that I can think I could imagine that Harrison could not allow this. Oh, I'm not saying it's viable. So once it comes, yeah. And so I appreciate sort of under a comprehension whether it's intentional or not of that sense of how town meeting is allowed or encouraged to deal with articles. So, well, that's all I want to add. Thank you, Mr. Walts. Two questions. Do you want comments about the substance or is the process right now? Anything. I mean, again, I appreciate the efforts of Mr. and I and other people that's been a long, hard process. I know that there's a lot of ill will and so the more that we can do to compromise the better as a general principle. I suppose part of the problem for us is that just coming to us now hot off the copier, it's hard to take a stance. So I suppose, I mean, it is possible to vote not to take a position, right? In other words, we wouldn't be opposing it, but we simply have not had time to study it. Because one of the things that strikes me, again, it's interesting because it does seem to respond further to what residents wanted. I'm not sure to what extent, given your comments about the process, it refers to what the town wanted and sort of planning principles. For example, one of the objections to the previous plan, that is the one that's normally before us at town meeting tonight, is that some of these areas it said in one of the letters from Ms. Cooley, which misinterprets the master plan numerous places, it says, for example, proposed NABC boundaries include undeveloped areas in the butt conservation, recreation, agriculture land. What we're doing right here is taking those NABC areas back to commercial, which in fact allows for a lot more rough, abusive and unpleasant uses. So now they're not maybe on that land, but they're on the land as well. It's actually worse in some ways with the standpoint of environment sustainability. So, and it's perfectly possible to change it some later date. We should simply be aware that it's a complicated fix that's being proposed here. On this side of the table, it's perfect. Beyond agreeing with everything else already said is that I would like it to be really clear and I'm not sure, and I mean, we can make it clear amongst ourselves. I'm not sure town meeting will understand that it is the compromise after many previous compromises. And perhaps compromise isn't even the right word because it's just scaled back. It's not like there was really a trade off. It's a matter of getting the deal done, as you say. I totally appreciate that it didn't wait till the floor though. I think there's points for that. And I think there's a huge point to not letting this get defeated and perhaps even worse, getting it referred back to the planning board again. I really would hate to see that. So all things considered, I would be, I certainly will support it without maybe being thrilled about it, but I'll support it because I feel it's really important to do something and to start with form-based code to show people that it's not something terrifying. And I also, I mean, obviously it's up to us as a board what we wanna do, but I think that we could easily say that we still maintain our original position that we want the original, but just as we would say, I'm sure that if somebody said, well, what is the select board think of referral? I'm sure we'd say no, we don't agree with referral. I think we could say that we do support this. That's where I think I would be. I'd prefer the original proposed zoning, but I would like this as a full-back position. So I don't know how we put that in a resolution except to say, I don't wanna be to say that, I don't know, it's a little, it's a weird motion. So it does, it puts us in kind of a funny position when we would like to give it its best chance of passage in the article 25 form. And unfortunately, just the way town meeting works, you have to put the amendment out there and the amendment has to pass or fail first when it almost feels like article 25 should pass or fail first and then say, okay, if that didn't work, then how about with this? But that's not how it works. So it sort of feels like giving away a bunch of what's good about the article and you don't even know if that's gonna be enough to get it passed. Absolute respect to everything that's happened up to now. I feel extremely satisfied knowing that there has been a huge amount of compromise and a huge amount of effort that's gone in for all along to get to here. And I'm not suggesting I'm stepping in and changing the bi-am, but. Here's not to be suggested yet. But what I was feeling and starting to understand is that there was a very good chance that 25 would fail and that in the understanding that if 25 failed, it would have a much, much worse repercussion to have to go through and do it all again. And that with that on the table and with the number of people feeling uncomfortable about that, we were able to reach some understanding of people that I don't think we have. I have felt and was there with fear. And so, absolutely, this is a jump from the head, shoot from the head thing and I understand your concerns. It makes perfect sense and I sure hope that next time you don't see the same thing happening. But if this is what helps pass what we've all been working to do in our community and my community, then that is what I'm trying to do. Whoever you had great experience with. Oh, yes, thank you. I also appreciate your efforts and wanted to find out what they wanted. I mean, that was working, that playing board and something supplemented with all of our I think involved the community and with respect to the parcels of the long line you wrote about the Z-Precels that we think was our end. That was the among the possibilities that the playing board is there. I mean, then we decided to move to that but it was a question that we had to say. We didn't consider leaving out the area that was the sun when we were up. But I would say that, looking at these changes, there's substantially more than half all of the left application that you guys made. So I'd like to maybe suggest three things. First of all, this is clearly compromise. And I think that we accept this as a compromise. Second, I'd like to make today the first day that I start the campaign to occupy the word compromise. It's not always a bad thing. I mean, it used to mean that it was working to try to figure out the way that everybody could accept it as working. Modern politics being what they are, the word compromise has become very dirty and I think we can end that, we should end that. And third, I remember my, maybe Mr. Tupper will remember this. It might have been my third planning board meeting as chair when we stumbled across the idea that we might defer to town meeting, the decision, sort of without compromise one, without, I guess that's the word, I compromise one way or another. And I don't know if we can do that here on the selected. I haven't said all of that, but it's not the depreciation. So I just want to respectfully reject the most of compromise. Okay. Because really the compromise has to be among all parties, all stakeholders involved in a way where they can all give legitimate input. And that has been meetings two Wednesday nights a month for many months now. This is a last minute, here I can get some people maybe to change their vote if we do this. That's not exactly compromise, it's more like, I don't know what it means. And it's interesting because I share the sense of wanting to get something done here. At the same time, I'm like a process of heat here. If you can tell. I really feel like the body, the town should bear the consequences of the decisions of the body. So if the decision of the body is, you know what, it's not ready in its final form, it needs more process than all right, then that's what we need to do. This is a funny way of kind of doing a little bit of that. And again, I'm really concerned about what it means kind of the next time. What it means for people participating in the process it's so difficult to get people to participate in the process except for those who hate everybody. But what does it mean at the end of that process that you say, oh yeah, the process we're kind of throwing that out the window and now we're gonna kind of do some quick and dirty thing to get it done at the end. I think it goes poorly for the public processes that we want people to be involved in. All this being said, I'm not going to accuse this. I think that a position of support from the select board isn't exactly what we're doing. I think we're saying, well, if this is what it takes, then there you go, but our support is rather difficult. I think that the sense that I have can also just to address the internal question, we did go up unanimously and very enthusiastically I don't have to deal with everything that you're talking about. There's no reason to be afraid of it. It's good. Sharing almost as much some of what we should have about the process from our point is much harder. I would suggest that we not have this. From that standpoint, the amendment comes up because I do think that process question is just too complicated from the standpoint of people tuning out about the process. I'm totally agree with what you said in the same time. I'm not sure it's the tactical power. One thing I would like to mention is that I think the way and I'm glad that you said it in the body sense is not that confidential. Processes come to me, we talk about compromise. I took a bunch of other reasons out. And process is actually one of those too because I hear a lot about we don't have a very good process. But what the first match on me says, we didn't agree with you. And when they say, you didn't listen to us for what they mean is, you listened to us a lot, just don't agree with us. And so I think that's the kind of report you've been going through to recognize that not only were there all those meetings, it wasn't just like, I'm losing it on a day, I don't know, whatever. It was, there was actual back and forth and saying, you know, I fear what you're saying, but I still think this is what makes sense for everything. And they're obviously, you're not like, we're suddenly gonna get the votes for those compromise because there are still people who are gonna say, I don't know what you got, I don't know what type of thing this is, I've never worked for this thing. This one, this thing, you know, that we should be like, excuse me? Yeah, I'm just gonna say a couple more things. I share the concerns that have been expressed about process, but the legislative process, which in our town, the legislature is town meeting, the ability to move amendments and consider amendments is a part of the town meeting. I also agree and have expressed this before in the act town meeting that the recommended proposal put forth by the planning board was something I strongly support. And I think that is in my opinion the best way to move forward. But I also think that coming out of this town meeting with no changes, you know, we have more with the likelihood of a lot more process. And no movement whatsoever on the zoning changes. To me, it's the ultimate process, which is improving the village center in Marquans. In the last two years, we have taken action steps as a town to begin to address a multi-million dollar backlog of road repair, including many in Marquans, and then a street paving and the improvement of sidewalks and bug planes. The intersection with 116 has been upgraded by the state, the capital article that's already been voted for roads and includes monies for this year, where we be paid a sundown road from the more famous library all the way out for 116. And we repair and actually connect the sidewalk to the north end of the library of the Coal's Road. We will be attempting a second trial at a very large state branch of about 20 million to finally fix Pine Street, but at the same time be able to install bike lanes as well as new sidewalk improvements in the cases of some sections installing a sidewalk. The state, in a very competitive grant program last year, thought our proposal was very, very strong, but they were quite candid with us that the biggest impediment to securing $4.8 million of state economic development funds to do the work is that we couldn't explicitly link it to a vision that was firm for North Amherst, but we were able to say is that we're actively working on a zoning proposal last year at this time that wasn't ready yet and that was pending county review and approval. So to the extent we want to make North Amherst Village Center more robust and walkable, livable, I would love to do it with a lot of help from the state and federal government financial because we've got another $15 million to go on town roads and I prefer to get some help to pay for the rail and attack pairs at this time. So one way to get Pine Street and the Village Center more walkable is to be able to get this grant and one way to be able to get the grant is to have some progress on Village Center rezoning and all of the back and forth, I think there's been relatively speaking more conceptual support for redevelopment in the so-called triangle area, the area surrounded by Sun One Road, Mount Monoghi Road and Coles Road and that's what this scaled down version of the zoning would still accomplish and so I think on that basis we're able to make some progress, see some redevelopment that we hope is attractive, consistent with the zoning and then we go from there. Thank you. I just want to emphasize that I don't think if anything remotely illegitimate about making an amendment to the zoning proposal, I mean that's exactly what I'm meaning it for. My concern is only the position it puts the select word in as far as making a recommendation on that, so. Mr. Huthin. I'd like to sound up, maybe a slightly different note. I don't know how much you enjoy sausage but we really appreciate you coming to us beforehand and allowing us to think about this out loud and sort of, you know, get the reference to up in Sinclair and so. Thank you. I just wanted to say thank you for that. Yes, it really does help to kind of flesh out the ideas and all of the kind of the context in which all of these decisions get. And it may not have been that much fun. Much appreciated. All right, select word, what are we going to do? Are we taking no position? We're not opposing this. We strongly endorse Article 25 and we don't oppose the amendment of this board. I'm not sure what we would just vote to say that this is the amendment we would. Just because there might be other amendments, I would rather say that we'll live with this amendment. It seems unlikely that there are any others that come up with more that would be able to take a position on this one. You can actually enter. Is our grudging support? Yes. This doesn't work like money does. It's not like we do the bigger first. You know, that's the amendment first, which is weird. It really seems like it should go the other way. All right, Mr. Wild is speaking to this on our behalf. Do you think you can capture more or less? You can tell me what to say. So are we going to say that our position is still, we have our original vote in favor of Article 25. We do not take a position on this amendment. However, having seen this amendment, we would find that preferable to any of this that might conceivably in the universe to possibly raise your right. It comes with the ball down the field. Right. Mr. Webber. Can I make a suggestion? Sure. You might say that even if the amendment passes, you're still supportive. And but under the consideration of the amendment, we really want to be saying very strongly that it's Article 25 that we think should pass, considering the circumstances of the amendment. It's as good as it gets or something like that. I mean, we're not urging anybody to oppose the amendment, but. Worst things could happen to you. That was good. That was good. Mr. Niding, do you want to say something else? Hi, all. I just wanted to say that if you felt like this amendment occurred 25, I'd be happy to tell you that we thought we had the votes passed 25. If we think this is the best way to pass 25, then we'll all agree with you. If only we had a crystal ball, you know? That's my hope. Thank you. I appreciate that. And I do respect the process. And the concept of making sure I talk to John and whoever else I can get to right away is what I was trying to say. And we appreciate that very much. And I hope that it's very clear to you that what you've done, we appreciate the idea behind it, the process behind it. It's kind of in the greater scheme of things. We're sort of looking at what this means in the future as well as now. Please, Bruce. It might sound a little sarcastic, but if there are any town meeting members who think they're only job is to just read the material when we have a new town meeting member who runs a business and has run around talking to all these people to try and make this work over the last several days, I think there needs to be like a special allowed applause. There's that. Do you happen to know, Ms. O'Keefe? I think I would remember by now. But if a motion to refer back comes up, which one takes precedence? Because a lot of this is timing. Right on the move. Okay. Okay. So I think we're sort of clear. Thank you very much for coming in. Thank you for all your effort on this. Thank you so much. Okay, select board. We do have, if we can bear it, just a couple more tiny things to do if you don't mind, which is better than the meeting of this day. Making a pass. Made or rushed? Okay. Yes, please. This is all it has. I move that the select board will move the special online and more with the license for Amherst area, Chamber of Commerce, the year in which I tasted the Amherst College property on boldly to cross from the common for the tasting matters on the following debates. June 14th, 2012, from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. June 15th, 2012, from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m. June 16th, 2012, from 12 p.m. to 10 p.m. June 17th, 2012, from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m. Second. It's on the discussion. It's a great event. Say hi. Hi. I move that the side board approve the reservation of four parking spaces on the west side of the Spring Street parking lot, as shown on the GIS map and title, Tapestry Mobile Health Band, from 3 p.m. to 9 p.m. on Thursday, June 7th, 2012, for the mobile health band to provide access to rapid HIV testing in the Amherst community. Second. Move to discussion. My own favor, say hi. Hi. Were you raising your hand before? Yep. Yeah, I think you're out of time, so I won't answer anything, but I just wanted to make you aware if you're worried already that there are going to be probably two amendments. Article 17 comes up to reduce the amount of budget, one by $40,000 and one by $80,000. They're going to probably, from our understanding, have an argument to do with planning positions and just in case you have the ability to take a position or not, I'm just going to make sure it's here. Thank you very much. All right, in response to reunion. I move that the select board approve the use of available town center permit parking on Sealy, Spring and Church Street on Thursday, May 24th, 2012, and Friday, May 25th, 2012 for Amherst alumni with a numbered 2012 reunion parking permit and hang tags displayed on the rear view center. Second. It's for the discussion, Mr. Ian. Have we ever seen a request like this? No, no, no, so I had a bunch of problems with people getting ticketed last year. This is kind of part of a bigger discussion about why we're continuing to have town center parking in effect through the end of May, but this is sort of the quick and easy way around it right now, so people don't get tickets unnecessarily. Yes, and our parking people are in the loop on this and they're good. Further discussion. Favor, say hi. Hi. Hi, unanimous. Okay, folks get a chance to read that letter to ACPB that I sent out earlier. This is a topic that's not anticipated 48 hours. It's just a simple letter saying, they're wonderful, they're wonderful, dude, we all mind signing it. Okay, good. Thank you, we approve signing it. So Article 17, we don't really have no ability to deal with that right now. Anybody else have anything else in the screw? I didn't know this, so the, so the, oh, sorry, what were we supposed to know this? Actually, Mr. Oldham had given us a slip of paper that we passed down the row the other day. Yeah, and I think maybe Mr. O'Connor maybe has the other one, that one didn't actually come to our table, but there have been rum ones. I mean, I know there have been rum ones, but there's been rum ones. I'm prepared to speak to that. Hopefully answer those questions satisfactorily, if you count me. I only have a question before I send this. Do we need to meet Wednesday? I don't think we do, because we dealt with all of these things. Right. So we're good, Mr. Wally. Can I just ask Mr. Steinberg a quick question about that? Sure. Dude, I know what some of those are about. Do they bear on the zoning article that we were trying to tell us that, because I know some people were saying Article 25 shouldn't go forward if we don't do the traffic and housing study first. I think that I'd have to prove that, since Ms. Nancy has been for a better answer on that, there were two studies that we talked about, one was to do with North Amherst traffic, and the other was to do with KLA and housing and nothing. The notice that we were given said that there were going to be motions to amend, so it was only in verbal statements outside of the motions that we were on, but the understanding I had is that that was the arguments that were going to be made, that that's why it should be reduced. I also note that motions to reduce our motions to reduce the amount of the appropriation of the bottom line, but it is truly not a town meeting action to deal with the specific. All right, so we're not going to meet Wednesday, we've done all that we can each night, am I missing something? I thought we had something else. No, that's all right. You've passed everything for tonight, I just thought we had an agenda for you. We had created one, but it's just on spec in case you can't hear me. All right then, second. The objection is meeting adjourned at 7.32 p.m. Thank you.