 Okay. Great. Okay. So Athena, just whenever we're ready. We're on and we're recording. Okay. Great. So seeing the presence of a quorum, I am going to call the special meeting of the Committee on Outreach, Communications and Appointments to order at 7.35 p.m. on April 16, 2020. I want to give just the first a little bit of context for the public who is joining us tonight about what we're doing here and why we're doing it. And so the sole purpose of tonight's meeting is to consider candidates for appointment to the Zoning Board of Appeals. This process started back in September after the town council had appointed a full set of regular members and three associate members to the Zoning Board of Appeals last spring. There was a resignation of a regular member on September 10. On September 12, we posted a vacancy notice, but at the time the town council elected to hold off on filling that vacancy instead allowing the ZBA to use their associate members. We reposted that vacancy notice in February, expecting more vacancies. And in March, we had two additional vacancies, one of an associate member, one of a regular member, and then an additional resignation in April of a regular member. So at this point, the Zoning Board of Appeals has two regular members, two associate members. And so there are several regular, there are several vacancies, both for regular members and for associate members. And so this meeting tonight is to interview candidates who are interested in appointment to the Zoning Board of Appeals as either regular members or associate members. Prior to tonight's meeting, OCA developed interview questions and selection guidance, both of which were shared with the interviewees and publicly available on the town's website. Tonight's interviews will be used by OCA to make a recommendation to the town council, which will then vote on that recommendation and potentially appoint new members to the Zoning Board of Appeals or reappoint current members to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Regarding the format of tonight's interviews, all three, I mean, sorry, all seven applicants will be interviewed as a group. For an earlier vote of OCA, I as chair will ask all interview questions. My colleagues on the committee are all here tonight. They are here to listen. They will not be asking questions. After I ask a question of the group, each applicant will be given an opportunity to respond to that question. For an earlier vote by this committee, each applicant will have up to three minutes to respond to the question. If you start to go over three minutes, I'll just politely interject and ask you to wrap up. We will rotate the order of responses, so we will start with alphabetical order, but then we will rotate the responses for each question. At this point, are there any questions from the interviewees regarding this format? Seeing none, the first thing I want to do is I want to just go through and make sure that everyone can hear me and we can hear everyone. So I am just going to call through first the interviewees and then the members of the committee to ensure that everyone can be heard. So when you call your name, just yes. This is Keith. Hi Keith. I have two questions. Oh, go ahead. Given that this is a public meeting. Yep. Who are the two regular members who are no longer going to be on the ZBA? So there are three regular members who have resigned their positions since the initial appointment last year. Those people are Matthew Wilk, Mark Parrot, and Thomas Simpson. Okay. And who are the two associate members who left? So we had one resignation of an associate member, Aaron Arcello. We have two current associate members, both of whom are with us tonight, Tammy Parks and Sharon Waldman, who are up for reappointment. Okay. Now the next question is who in fact comprises the committee that we are talking to? So I can let them introduce themselves. In just a minute, this is a subcommittee of the council. So it's composed of five counselors. Okay. So why don't we go through and just make sure that we can hear every one of the interviewees and then I will let each member of the committee just briefly introduce themselves. So Peter Barak, can you just unmute so we can make sure we can hear you? Peter, you're muted right now. I want to press the space button. There we go. Okay. I thought you had muted me. And anyway, can you hear me now? Yes. Yes. And I can hear and see you and everyone else. Great. Thank you. Bob Greeny? Yep, here. Okay. Keith Langsdale? Yes. Dylan Maxfield? No sound. All right. Craig Meadows? You're there. You need to unmute. I am here. Okay. Tammy Parks? Here. And Sharon Waldman? I'm right here. Okay. Great. And thank you all for not only being interested in serving, joining us tonight, but also being understanding and patient as we navigate this new Zoom meeting reality. So I'm going to ask the members of this committee outreach communications and appointments just to introduce themselves or start with Councillor Brewer. So I'm Alyssa Brewer and I am a town counselor at large. I also just wanted to ask, Evan, you probably, I'm probably usurping something you were going to say later, but should we normally have everyone on mute and they should push to talk on their spacebar because I'm hearing a lot of background noise in some people's homes. Yes, I was going to say that. Yep. Councillor Dumont? Hi, I'm Darcy Dumont. I'm a counselor from District Five, which is South Amherst. Okay. I'm Evan Ross. I'm a counselor from District Four and chair of this committee. Councillor Ryan? Hi, George Ryan, representing District Three. And Councillor Schwartz? That's exactly right. Sarah Schwartz and I am a town counselor from District One. Okay, great. So we have everyone here. We can hear everyone. As Alyssa said, I'm going to ask that everyone stay muted except when it is time for you to talk just to cut down on background noise. So the format will be, I will ask a question and then I will call on each individual person to unmute themselves and answer the question. This is the first of two meetings tonight. This meeting will be for the interviews. The interviews will be the sole agenda item. After the interviews conclude, we will adjourn this meeting. We will take a short break and then the committee members will reconvene to delivery. So there are no questions. Then I will begin the interviews. Okay. So the first question is what is your understanding of the role of the ZBA? And I will ask first, Peter Barrick, please unmute. Okay, I think I'm unmuted. As I understand it, the Zoning Board of Appeals is governed by the town's Zoning Laws. And the role of the Board of Appeals is to deal with requests for exceptions from the Zoning Laws. And I assume that in making those judgments, the Board of Appeals is guided by the spirit of the laws on your website, their descriptions of circumstances such as the particular topography of the site or the particular needs of someone who's applying for waiver that have to be taken into consideration. And I assume the Board of Appeals tries to make decisions which serve the welfare of the town, the welfare of the neighbors of whoever is applying for an exception, and also to take an interest in the welfare of the person who is applying for the exception. Great. Thank you. We'll turn now to Bob Greeny. So the description I read and is confirmed to my understanding, it's a quasi-judicial body, and it makes judgments about our zoning laws. And there's some interesting language in the description that I read about protecting the health, safety, convenience, and general welfare of the citizens of Massachusetts. So anyway, that's my understanding. The zoning is written and in cases where it's not clear, we make judgments on what follows those laws. So I would guess in most cases, the law spells out pretty clearly what needs to be done. And it's up to us to interpret and make sure that law is followed or those bylaws have followed. And only in cases where there's some ambiguity, then we exercise our best judgment in the interest of the town, according to those guidelines. Great. Thank you. I'll turn to Keith Langstahel. You're still muted. Yep. Okay. Well, the ZBA, as someone mentioned, a quasi-judicial body. It means that we apply the laws, we don't make the laws. We have to follow the 10.38 from the bylaws in making the findings and to prepare for a vote. We have to listen to the comment of the public and provide the applicants the opportunity to respond if in fact, there are public comments. The ZBA, basically, I think, is a conduit from these laws from the town and the people who are the applicants. And it's very important that we understand these laws and how they can be applied in terms of bringing the applicant and the community together so that it all enhances the neighborhood and the master plan for the Amherst. Yeah. So that's what I would say. Great. Thank you, Keith. Dylan Maxfield. It's my understanding of the ZBA, yes, the quasi-judicial body. They don't make the zoning laws. And I think when our zoning laws are supposed to be in such a way that it's not so rigid that there are no exceptions. And if it was, we wouldn't have the ZBA. It's up to the ZBA when appeals come to us that we have to make decisions on a case-by-case basis of what the right course of action is and hearing from whoever the applicant is, also hearing from the public about what the impact is and then trying to make the right decision in that, in any particular instance, going forward, what is the best way that we can uphold our zoning laws, the spirit of our zoning laws, especially while still trying to accommodate applicants, while also especially accommodating the residents of Amherst. Great. Thank you, Dylan. Craig Meadows. I think everything that everyone said is certainly pertinent to what the ZBA stands for. It seems as though most of what the ZBA actions are for special permit applications for residents in commercial spaces and to deal with those gray areas that are not completely covered in the laws and bylaws of the town such that when there is not a distinct law that covers the instance of what's going to happen and that the ZBA is brought in to deal with those issues. Okay. Thank you, Craig. Timmy Parks. Hi. This is going to be repetitive, but it's to hold hearings for special permit applications for residential and business uses not allowed by right. And we operate under the Mass General Law chapter 40a and under the zoning bylaw 10.38 to promote health safety, convenience and general welfare of the habits of the town of Amherst. That's what I have to say. Thank you, Timmy. And Sharon. Some mute yourself. There we go. Alt A. I was wondering what that was. Okay. All right. So yeah, everyone did a really fabulous job. Really timmy like swooping in on there on the head. But you know, what I have learned through sitting through the meetings is we do an awful lot of education of the citizens of Amherst, particularly neighbors about and then and then we about what special conditions can do for them. And then we think about as a group and we about what special conditions may address some of the concerns that we hear either from the public either in person or in writing, you know, I think it's a tough road a hoe in Amherst. There's there's a really, there's a big population of long timers. And then we have this really large college and that's really where a lot of the conflict kind of lies. And I'm sad we lost Mark because I think he did a good job of educating people. And then I feel like we did a really good job as a board coming up with special conditions to address everyone's concerns and to kind of balance, you know, some of the reality of the neighborhoods changing from say single family homes into rentals, you know, and the concerns, I think in the legitimate concerns, a lot of times that those bring up. But then balancing, we kind of balance the public interest versus the property interest. Great. Thank you, Sharon. So our second question is, why are you interested in serving on the ZBA? And we'll start this question with Bob. I believe in democracy and citizen participation. And ever since I came to Amherst, I've been active in town governance. And so I consider this another way of contributing to the governance of our town. And I would be happy to do it. Thanks. Great. Thank you, Bob. Okay. Hello. I think working with on the ZBA is I think it's in a sense, it's being an advocate for the people of Amherst. I think we can help the people of Amherst by following the rules of zoning laid out in the bylaws and the master plan. I think it's also important to understand that as Mark Parent has said many times, we're not here to make the laws where to interpret them to put them into play. However, we need to do that in a way that is beneficial to both sides. And the more we make conditions, on each process that comes up, each application, the more we can control that without making new laws. Also, I find it educational and informative to work with this. And I've had seven years of service on the ZBA. And I think it's in it's a it's a very important aspect to the growth of Amherst. Hey, thank you, Keith. So in preparation for this, I had listened to the the audio recording and some of the ZBA meetings to make sure I was in fact interested in the work the ZBA would be doing. And it really stands out to me about the ZBA where, first of all, you know, I'd like to serve the town of Amherst and when trying to think what the best way to do that was the ZBA kind of jumps out at me because they aren't ones who make the laws. It's it's ones who has to hear cases and has to interpret the laws. And it's something that requires coming with an open mind and comes in with sound judgment and the ability to ask the right questions and to provide the town of Amherst in this way that I really find compelling. And in reading some of the the cases that have gone before the ZBA in the past, you know, I was looking at a case from 2002. So quite a while ago, but one where it was for low income housing 116 that the ZBA had voted unanimously to grant a comprehensive permit because of the need for low income housing where at the time it was 870 families on the waiting list. And it was a six year waiting period on average. This was something that had come before the ZBA. So not only is there the opportunity of the day to day that the ZBA deals with, but but sometimes very interesting. And in this case, you know, rewarding cases that can come before the ZBA that I find it a very compelling board to work with. Thank you, Dylan. Craig Meadows. As a one of those long term residents of Amherst, I've been on town meeting and chaired another committee here in town. And found that the ZBA is one of the more insightful, interesting and useful committees in town, one that has a great deal to do with with the way that the town moves forward and interacts with a lot of our business owners. In addition to the the university and the two colleges. It's a committee that I'd be very interested in being on because it has a lot to offer the town. And again, as was said, it doesn't interpret it's an interpretation of the law and a decision making body that that deals with again, those gray areas that are so often dominating the the commercial spaces that that are unfolding here in town and look like they're going to continue for some time. Thank you, Craig. Tammy. Alright, well, I'm interested because I think it's important to do one civic duty whenever possible. And so I try to take on what I can manage. And I've enjoyed being on the ZBA. I do have an interest in a background in real estate. And I do like the intricacies of zoning law. I've been an alternate for the past year. And and it's always interesting. I always learn something new. There's so many expect unexpected incidents that come up. There's, you know, there's a lot that you need to know to do the job. But there's 10 times more that you don't know that you need to know that you find out later. I've been I think I've served on eight or nine of the meetings of the 17 sessions. But I learned a lot. One thing that Sharon brought up was about the special permit and in relation to rental properties and why that's so important and how we can use special permits to protect neighbors in ways that I don't know if that happened in the past. But the way that it's been happening at the for the last year has been really useful in getting rental properties, you know, to work in the neighborhoods that they're in. So for me, it's, believe it or not, it's fun for me. It's always interesting. And there's something to learn every day. Thank you, Timmy. And Sharon. Sorry. The hard way. I've really I came to the ZBA because I was originally interested in kind of the goings on with the schools and rebuilding schools. I have a couple kids school age. And so that's kind of how I ended up at the ZBA. I guess I went on the website and checked a bunch of boxes. And they called me and I was quite surprised. But I'm a lawyer by trade. So it's interesting to me for that reason, you know, in a way that you apply the laws, but I have really learned a lot over the last year about applying those laws fairly and in a way that you try to make it a win-win for everybody. That doesn't always happen, of course. But you know, and a lot of times the law is dealing with pretty negative circumstances or people reacting negatively to a situation. It's been really interesting to try to kind of ferret out answers to people's concerns, you know, before they've had a chance to talk to say the property owner. And I think sometimes when we get letters, like from community members, you know, I always try to make sure I go through those because I want those people's concerns addressed. So I think that's, it's a good way for people to feel like they've participated. And I hope even when neighbors are disappointed, perhaps, that we have decided that people are allowed to do permits that they may not want to have happen in their neighborhood. I do feel like we've given some protections and special permit conditions that will hopefully really assist the neighbors in the future and going forward. Because it is, it's a tough thing for people to have growth in their neighborhoods and feel a little tighter than they ever have. You know, but I feel it's really been interesting applying the laws that the town comes up with, you know, and people decide, well, this is what we're going to do. The master plan says we're going to do infill. So then we're there to try to make that as painless as possible. So that's been, it's been really interesting. Great. Thank you, Sharon. And Peter, don't make sure you're unmuted. Thank you. I'm interested in doing something to serve the town and try to be helpful to the town. I've lived in Amherst since 1997. I've lived in the Valley since 1990. I've known Amherst since I was an undergraduate at Amherst College in the late 1950s. And I'm very fond of the place. I have not served in town government before this. A couple of years ago, I got active in lobbying about the replacing the bridge on Station Road. I was doing something which served my own interest, though I also thought it was in the interest of the town to put in a temporary bridge. But that got me thinking that it was time for me to do something not for my own interest, but for the town's interest. I, during the course of my career, I've had lots of experience at working with small groups, chairing committees, as a college administrator and faculty member. I'm pretty good at it. I like working collaboratively with people. I like learning new things. So though I don't bring the specific experience with zoning issues that some other people in this group do, I think I have the kinds of skills that could help make the board work together more effectively and would welcome the opportunity to do that, the interest of helping the town. Great. Thank you, Peter. So our next question is, describe a situation where you disagreed with a rule or regulation that had to apply it or follow it. And for this question, we'll begin with Keith. Okay, am I on? Good. Thanks. When I was on the board, we heard a petition for a new restaurant that was going to inhabit the building where Batuchis had been. And they wanted to string several hundred bare bulbs over the patio areas. Well, I thought this was a violation of the downcast lights provision in the bylaws. I voted against the use of those lights. But I then ultimately voted for the permit. As the only board member who was opposed to those lights, I felt that I could not let that stand in the way of my voting for the permit. Evan, do you still see me? Evan, I'm looking at Peter. Yeah, sorry, my screen briefly froze, but I'm back. Okay. Have you heard what I said? Or should I go back? I heard, I think I probably missed just a few seconds of it. Okay. Well, on the board, we were dealing with the restaurant that was going to take over the Batuchis building, and they wanted to string it. I'm now looking at Sarah, who's not there. It's good. You can still hear you. Okay. Can you hear me? And can the members of the, can everyone hear me? Yes, I've been able to hear you. It's appearing, so I don't know who I'm talking to. And then I'm talking to Peter. If you go up into the upper right of your screen, you should be able to do gallery view. That should show you everyone. But we can hear you. Okay. It's just that if you keep disappearing, I don't know if I'm talking to you or not. Okay. Hopefully I'll, hopefully stay on your screen. Okay. I'm going to start again. That's okay. Okay. When I was on the board, we heard a petition for a new restaurant that to inhabit the building where Batuchis had been. And they wanted to string several hundred bear lights over the patio areas. I thought this to be a violation of the downcast lights provision in the bylaws. And I voted against the use of these lights. But I then voted for the permit. Because I was the only board member who was against the use of these lights. And I felt that I could not stand in the way of voting for the permit. The term downcast lights is a very vague one. I mean, flood lights have been allowed if they were trained toward the ground, but they're floodlights. And so there are many alternatives to this. This led me to making a full presentation at an executive meeting of the ZBA on the necessity and importance of dark sky compliant outdoor lighting for all future projects. It is, I believe, has been found into 10.38 that now all outdoor lighting for any application needs to be downcast and dark sky compliant lighting. It's very different from just downcast lighting. Anyway, so this is a point where I disagreed. But I went, I had along with the overarching permit. Great, thank you Keith. Dylan. So it came to mind for me reading this question was several years ago when I was working at a company that I won't mention the name of. When I first started there, one of the things that we would need to do is an IT role. And we had sales people who would work remote and like everybody else every four years, we replaced them with a new machine. And our policy for when setting up these new machines, we first had to log on as that person onto the machine to essentially set everything up for them. And the way that we were going about doing this is we would call that person, tell them we're setting up their machine and then ask them for what their password was. So we could log onto the machine as them on our network. Then an IT usually it's a big security risk to set the precedent that you ask someone for what their password is because you don't want that people giving that information out over the phone. There was a new person there. I decided I'd come and I'd go with that policy of how we were doing it. Really, while I was learning what was going on, while I was there and my time there and I learned more about what our systems were, how we did things, I had found a different way or a different approach that we could implement. And this was essentially by just resetting their password and then telling them, hey, we changed it. Here's your new password. And I had gone through to make sure that that would work. And I brought it to my manager to say, hey, I think the way we're doing it poses a security risk. Here's an alternative that gets the same effect but doesn't have that same security flaw. So in this way, when I came on, I had applied the rule and the method that we were using until I had a better understanding of the system and I had gone through the proper channels of going to my manager and saying, hey, here's a new way. I think we can implement it and then with that approval, we had that rule changed. Thank you, Dylan. Craig. Well, I unfortunately deal with this almost every day, primarily because we do work for the federal government and the number of things that I don't agree with are enormous. But sometimes very inane, but aside from that fact, we, I can give you an instance, we for many years, HUD has a regulation that when you do what's an energy performance contract for a housing authority, you cannot meld the housing authorities offices in with the residential spaces in reducing down their energy consumption. So for many years, what we did was we did not do that. We extracted the amount of use that was for the, even though the the offices might be in the same building, we discounted that use out of it. Only to find out later on that actually HUD doesn't follow their own rules and allows housing authorities to go ahead and and utilize the services for their administrative offices. So it's interesting to find out the federal government's lack of logic as they're doing things. I'm assuming that the town of Amherst certainly wouldn't do the same thing. Thank you, Craig. Tammy. All right. So this happens at work quite often. I can think of what I consider to be better ways to do things, but of course, you know, I just kind of, I'm always willing to try something new and I'm always willing to go along with someone else's way just to see if it works in regards to zoning, there's lots of issues that I am concerned about. And so I do tend to call the planning board a lot and I talk to Rob Morra a lot to kind of talk about what the history of the situation is or, you know, looking at weighing the alter alternatives. One issue was a curb cut that's being planned on route nine for Cooley Dickinson and I have a lot of concerns about a curb cut on route nine, you know, near University Drive. But I also understand the value of it. And so, you know, in our discussions, we came up with ways to prevent left turn left turns going out and right turn or whatever it is. You know, we were working on the traffic patterns. So I think that I will give my two cents, but I'm always willing to listen to what others have to say and kind of weigh what's going to work best in the end. Thank you, Tammy. Sharon? I can't hear you, Sharon. Taking the wrong button. Sorry. Thank you, Tammy. You know, I didn't think of a specific instance. I haven't been able to come up with one, but I think everyone gave really good answers. And I think during my life, I've definitely realized, you know, I think when you're younger, you want to follow rules less and I think that's pretty natural. And then I think as you get older, you start realizing the usefulness of rules and regulations, you know, because I think they can make communities work better and more smoothly as a group because you have to consider not either your self-interest or the interest of one particular group or another or even one particular property owner. You know, and I think the rules and regulations are supposed to be watching out for the health and safety of all the group and kind of the group interest. And it's true that sometimes that then kind of nips the more unique, you know, members of our community in the bud or interesting, you know, different interesting ideas that may kind of rub against the grain. But what I think has been really interesting and I have learned more to do this because one, because it's kind of required, that's how the meetings operate. You have to kind of hear what the proposal is and then listen to everybody's concerns and they all get a chance. And frankly, I haven't been to a really rowdy meeting. So, you know, I haven't got to watch that. But, you know, I think we've done a really good job of addressing those concerns that I, you know, so I think we kind of try to find that balance of of the unique interests, you know, versus the the public interest. So I think that's it makes it work better. Great. Thank you, Sharon. Peter, just I mute. I will do a better job unmuted than muted of giving you examples from my work life. I've been much involved as a department chair and dean and faculty member in faculty hiring. And when you're working with colleagues, interviewing, reading dossiers, interviewing candidates, making decisions about who to offer a job to, sometimes not everyone agrees. And I often found myself on the winning side and these, but sometimes on the losing side. And when that happens, if the department makes an offer and the person joins and becomes your colleague, your responsibility, my responsibility is to do everything I can to help that person succeed. And I think I have done that. The something similar happens in making tenure decisions, you know, the differ that's college faculty, if a person doesn't get tenure, they have to lead. If they do get tenure, they have virtually a lifetime appointment. So it's a very high stakes decision. And again, the groups making those decisions don't always agree. I have sometimes found myself on the losing side in this and you still have to continue to work with your colleagues for the future. And so you do it. It's that that's that's your job. Two more examples. One of the things that I have cared most about in my academic career is the available is need-minded missions. I've worked at expensive colleges where it seemed to me an ethical necessity to make admissions available to anyone, whether or not the families could afford to pay. When I came to Mount Holyoke, the college had need-blind admissions. When a new president came in, she felt the college's budgetary situation was such that the college couldn't afford to do it any longer. I was responsible at that point for overseeing the admissions office. It was my responsibility to make sure that a policy of need-sensitive admissions served, succeeded and worked for the college, even though it was not a policy that I myself would have chosen or approved of. So I've I've had a good deal of experience at working with people where sometimes my own duty didn't prevail, but nonetheless it was possible to continue on and trying to make the institution work. Thank you, Peter. And Bob. Whoops. You're muted. Here you go. There we go. So like Sharon, I couldn't think of anything until Peter just spoke. And so I have, I don't know, a small example the way into the in in Holyoke Community College where I work, the way the interview process is done for new hires I don't quite agree with it. I think it's way too strict. I understand why they do it that way, but I don't agree with it. But I obviously work within it. I think as I understand the spirit of this question is as a member of the CBA, we may deal with zoning bylaws we don't like, but have to abide by them because that's the law. I don't think I'll have a problem with that. Thank you, Bob. OK, our next question is tell us about an experience you have had collaborating with a group. And for this question, we'll begin with Dylan. So I think one of the biggest group projects I've ever done in my career. This was when I was working at a synovian pharmaceuticals a couple of years back. I'll keep my technical jargon here to to a minimum, but I had worked in a server room, which is. Those don't know a server room is essentially a giant temperature humidity controlled room where it stores these large computers called servers, which usually host a lot of the data companies used to their day to day. And what we were doing was as we were updating these servers, some of them the older ones were these giant machines that were way four hundred pounds to these smaller ones that maybe weighed 50 pounds over 10 times more powerful. We were consolidating the space to essentially make everything much smaller, much more compact so we could reuse that space. But in this project, we had all these different servers involve different departments that were utilizing them and we're utilizing them in the day to day. Some of these things weren't entirely sure what was on them, how they were being utilized. So for this project, what I really had to do was and I was lead on this project was first working with interdepartmental with an IT working with with my network team with my Windows team, trying to find out who manages what what's on what servers. And then from there, really having to work across departments of you, we find out what what servers being used for. Now we have to coordinate with with legal or with HR to see, hey, what's on here? Can we shut this down? Can we migrate you? What's the time that we can do this at? And this project really required a great deal of patience as coordinating over many months with many different people. Definitely took took a lot of time and a lot of a lot of effort to get that done in there. And then additionally in that. In the early stages of the planning phases, you know, one of the one of the big things we really had to deal with was what is the best approach for a lot of these things? I know one of the examples we had some of these old servers from when our company was a different company before it had been acquired and we had to try to make that decision. Is this something that we save indefinitely? Is this something that we make the decision on now of how we want to handle this whole data? Really what the way to do this was and it really required a lot of inter departmental discussion about how we want to to go about this. And I can't really say that that that process was contentious in any way, but it was definitely very thoughtful with different approaches of how we should do it that we really had to to sit and discuss what the best way forward was before moving forward in such a way that we could move fluidly and and smoothly throughout the whole process to actually actually get this process done. Thank you, Jared. Craig. Basically deal with groups every day. Our projects for the VA entail groups of 12 to 15 people who meet sometimes every two twice a week, sometimes once every other week. There it's a collaborative effort in which everybody has to get to the point where they're agreeing on what the next steps are going to be and how we're going to deal with the analysis, the construction, the hiring, etc. So there are collaborative efforts that I'm involved with constantly and I don't see anything reducing that in the future. Thank you, Craig. Tammy. All right. Well, at Hampshire College, I joined the community outreach group. It's a subset of Hampshire's revisioning group. I don't know if people know about Hampshire College, but we've had a very interesting couple of years there. Anyway, we had two factions on campus and it was quite contentious for a while. But our group was tasked with figuring out a way to bring the two sides together to help save Hampshire and to get on the same page. And so what we did was we had some forums where we were discussing different points of view, of course, diplomacy and tact are very important. We were focused on forgiving the past and trying to plan a future. Through that process, what I came to understand is it's really important to speak up, but to keep your comments brief and on point. It's important to listen with an open mind. And at Hampshire and in other places that I've worked, I've been on lots of different committees, employee searches and forums, precinct groups, division meetings and things like that. Thank you, Tammy. Karen. I'm just getting good at that, not. This is definitely an interesting new meeting format. So I work with I work now in child welfare law. I've also done criminal law and family law. And I really rely. We have a group of attorneys, all of us that kind of rotate through representing either a parent or a child or some other party in a child welfare case. And what's been really interesting is there are definitely some very strong personalities. But I've really learned by listening to all the different sides. Like I've learned a lot from different people that have different levels of experience. And now I'm becoming a little more of one of the more experienced ones. So people are coming to me to find really interesting. I'm not used to that. But I find that that kind of the other interesting thing in part is that any given on any given day in any given case, we may represent either a parent or a child or say grandparent or guardian, someone with a different interest. And I may in any given day have 10 cases on. So I could I could be many have many hats on, you know, given given whatever cases I'm on that particular day. And what's to me what's really interesting is that I have really learned that my perspective can shift from case to case to case. But I've really learned also some to like I think soften the strength of some of my opinions because I may have one case where I represent a parent and I don't like what's happening to them. And then in the very next case, you know, within the hour, I go in a different case where I represent the child. And that same thing is happening to the other parent and I don't represent that parent. So. But like it's just been really interesting with that to temper kind of the that everything is one way all the time thinking that I think can sometimes crop up. And then it's just really useful to collaborate even with people who are I are very difficult to along with for a lot of people. I have learned to kind of make peace with them and because I learned so much from them, even if they have a difficult personality. Like I'm thinking of one attorney in general in specific who who has a very difficult personality, but is sharp as a whip. So I love to go ask her questions, even though I may have to deal with some challenging personality types from her and from plenty of others, trust me, we're all pretty colorful group. But I really find that I learn a lot and whether or not I use every single piece of what everybody told me, it's definitely interesting to get kind of a wide variety of perspectives and then remembering all the different roles I've had in different cases to kind of move forward and in a, you know, balanced in fair ways best I can. Thank you, Sharon. Peter. I want congratulations for remembering to unmute myself without being reminded. I spent my career as a teacher and scholar and academic administrator. And the teacher scholar part of that work is pretty solitary. I mean, it sounds like a strange thing to say about teaching because you're with students, but you were making all the decisions about what happens in that classroom. I was drawn to administrative work because I like working collaboratively. I like thinking something through in conversation with other people. I like finding out what someone else thinks and letting that modify my own thinking. And I've done that in many, many settings as as a committee member and committee chair. In the course of my teaching work as Dean of Faculty and Provost at Mount Holyoke. Academic decision making is is rarely top down. It's it's it's almost always collegial. And I take great pleasure in helping a group find a consensus and reach agreement about a subject, not necessarily coming out exactly where I would have often coming out someplace better than I would have by myself. And to me, it's it's really satisfying to feel that I have helped people use their best selves to collectively achieve something that they might not have been able to achieve individually. Thank you, Peter. Bob. Yeah, so I'm another academic and so I'm on all kinds of committees all the time. I think the biggest split that in my experience in academia is the division between administration faculty and it's always been my goal to make that work as good as possible because we're all part of the same community and it just makes us more effective and productive and improves the quality of everyone's life. We get along with each other, listen to each other and collaborate well with each other. So I like being on committees that are well balanced between administrators and faculty. Thank you, Bob. And Keith, sorry, Keith. Okay. I've been a professional actor and director for over 40 years and they are very collaborative arts. They in fact do not thrive without collaboration and especially as a director I'm in charge of the overall aspects of the production and I have to incorporate and collaborate with scenic, lighting, costume, sound, properties, designers, as well as working with the actors on the performance and then as a member of the board of the ZBA I served as an alternate alternate excuse me and then as a full member and I chaired several meetings and hearings including the one with the Aspen apartments which took four months of meetings to reach the vote to permit and I worked hard to make sure that the project met our standards of the town of Amherst and was acceptable to the abutting public, those people who live around that project and among other measures that we got we had over like 120 conditions on that project we got it from a four-story building down to a two-story building I think it's important to understand that the ZBA has a responsibility and a mission to make sure that whatever application we're dealing with stands by and lives by the rules of the town of Amherst and the state and that it can integrate into the surrounding neighborhoods we have some glaring examples in this town where that didn't happen but we have many more over the last several years where it has happened and I think that's important to make sure that we understand that that's I think the thrust of the ZBA is to make sure that that happens Thank you Keith and so we have one final question which is what else would you like us to know about you that makes you a strong candidate for the ZBA and for this one we will start with Craig For the last 50 years that I've been in town I've seen the transitions that have taken place not just as far as the buildings are concerned but in the attitudes in town that have resulted in a number of changes that one wouldn't have expected 45 or 50 years ago and it's interesting to me that in many regards the ZBA reflects the changes in attitudes at the same time there may not have in many regards been significant changes in the zoning there may not have been significant changes in what the town plans have done there have been minor maneuvers that's not appropriate minor variations on what a lot of what has occurred in town but attitudes have changed considerably and the reflection of that is something that needs to be taken into account whenever you're examining and need to examine some of the things that the ZBA does as a consequence my children have got different who grew up here went to school here and live here now and their children have got different attitudes differently and I hear those things from them that I may not agree with but realize that not only do I have to change but the town is changing in conjunction with them so I see all of our gray here here yours is not but it's reflected elsewhere and I think we have to reflect as we move along on what the younger and non-gray-haired people really want for the town going forward thank you Craig Tammy I'm currently serving as an alternate and I've had fun with that I was a town meeting member I participated in the master plan focus groups I'm also a voting warden I'm a member of the legal women voters and I have gone to a lot of town committee meetings my husband Philip and I have bought and or sold six properties and we've done a lot of modifications which means that we've done a lot of zoning law research he is a real estate attorney and I've taken real estate courses I am in politics and I'm not aligned with any particular agenda and I'm comfortable with the open meeting format although I don't love public speaking I don't mind the discussion part of it and I'm just happy to continue serving on the committee thank you Tammy Sharon dang I got beat by all the gray hairs on unmuting before getting reminded so me is that during my tenure as an associate member my family and I moved into kind of a historic neighborhood that hugs right up against UMass so that's kind of an interesting it's been an interesting change I used to live in South Amers far away from the matting crowds of downtown and UMass and now we're just right in the thick of it so certainly it's a pretty active neighborhood that I live in I get there's a monthly brunch and lots of folks will come around and well before the social distancing and I don't know we get little newsy emails and it is really interesting to kind of watch a neighborhood you know I don't think I had as much information before but watch a neighborhood kind of squirm in the right in the sights of something that one brings the town a lot of revenue but also can create a lot of friction so it's been interesting to me to try to help soften the blow and soften that friction at least as best as we can as the ZBA by coming up with creative special permit conditions and it's certainly not like much of the law it's not particularly positive although I must say one recently that we said I sat on all the comments were positive I was just about shocked I had to scoop my chin up off before but I very much enjoyed that but what was interesting about it is as much as I loved all the positive comments they did they came in person we had some negative comments by letter and that was kind of the one that I was referring to before where I brought up her concerns but it was it was interesting and I think we got her concerns we don't have a lot of what's interesting is we don't have a lot of collaboration when we're doing this work I mean it's pretty individual we don't have a lot of we don't have any time to talk about our ideas about things until we're sitting right there in the public so that's been an interesting lesson you don't sit behind we certainly do not sit behind closed doors and even talk about things or even out in public when we're getting tours of places and we have to remember to ask our questions right then and there and then try to remember them later the questions that we ask and have all your discussion right there for everyone to see it's been really interesting thank you Sharon Peter let me try to make two different points one which I've made before is that I think what I have to offer to the ZBA is an ability to help groups work together and reach a common goal in a collaborative way this is something that I've done through a long career I'm good at it and I think I could play that role constructively on the ZBA as I learned some of the things that other people in this I was going to say in this room other people in this Zoom know from their own experience having already served on the board the other thing is to say that as I listen to our conversation tonight it sounds as though one of the things that the ZBA does is to try to strike a kind of balance between the past and the future as the town evolves that's also something that I take some pride in having done in the course of my career in the early 1960s I was involved in bringing the study of film into the Williams College Curriculum which had never been there before I taught also in the late 1960s the first course in African American literature at Williams College this is something that was just merely becoming a subject of academic study it's now a field so important that my younger colleagues can scarcely imagine that there was a time when it wasn't important similarly I remade myself as a feminist critic in the late 1980s and 1990s as I realized the power of gender to shape the way we study literature my point being not to pat myself on the back for what I have done in my career as a teacher and scholar but just to say that part of what I've relished in that career is helping along a steady evolution from the way things were to the way things should be in the future and that strikes me as something that being on the ZBA might help me do for the town great, thank you Peter Bob? so I don't have the gray hair problem I have a no hair problem so I'm in a category by myself here I'm going to unmute myself and say that you should not take so much pride in having no hair you've got company also with the gray hair side of it anyway I think I would be a good candidate for the ZBA but truthfully I have to say this maybe a little I hope it's not out of water I think everyone here is well qualified and I don't feel like so needed here and I'm really also as you know Evan and others on the committee I'm interested in the planning board and I feel like if I get appointed to the ZBA I think I'm going to withdraw my application and save that to be able to apply to the planning board because I'm quite impressed with all the candidates here and I think there's more than enough qualified candidates for the positions that are needed so thank you thank you Bob Keith you know what's interesting to me is that a lot of the not a lot but a couple of the questions that have been asked of all of us are about collaboration how good are we at collaboration when in fact when you're on the ZBA you are not allowed to speak to anybody else on the ZBA board about anything that's coming up you you can only show up at the public hearings and or meetings and then through your understanding of what's in front of you and the bylaws come to an agreement with those on the board and one of the things that I've learned over the period of time is that there is a huge there can be a huge volume of material that one has to go through to not only understand the bylaws and the 10.38 but the many possibilities of what can be done within those bylaws and you have to understand that when you walk in that room given what the proposals are in front of you which means being on the ZBA is about doing a lot of research I personally like to do research I mean it's one of the aspects I like most about acting and directing as an example the last play I directed was The Diary of Anna Frank with Silverthorne Theatre in Greenfield I spent four months researching all the aspects of the lies of those in that annex in Amsterdam the war years the outside events and how they impacted the people in there the customs, the religious ceremonies of the Jewish faith and much more it's all this work supported my collaboration with the designers and actors but on the ZBA you have to walk into the room with all of that you can't do it with them except in executive meetings and in my experience that happens once or maybe twice a year so I think that's incredibly important to understand that that is an aspect that is demanded of you if you are a member of the ZBA and as I said I spent some years on the board and I've done that with Mark Parent who and he has taught me to further the value of the qualities that he outlined in his email under the selection guide that was sent to us I believe they're incredibly important and my time with him was invaluable for me and I think that he has given us a roadmap for the path for the ZBA there we go and finally Dylan so I I've lived in a lot of different places especially in Massachusetts I've lived all over Metro West Hoppington, Framingham, Millison a few recently I was even living in a college town outside of Cincinnati in Oxford, Ohio and something that I've realized is Amherst is really a special place I think everybody here would probably agree with that and I also think that what that specialness is is going to be different for different people and I think coming to the ZBA and as Amherst is changing over the years trying to really strike a balance to keep Amherst and what it is people love about Amherst to keep that intact is something important to do and as far as the ZBA is concerned that kind of attitude that kind of open mindedness that thoughtfulness is something that I want to bring to the Zoning Board of Appeals I furthermore I'm somebody who has been very interested in local government I ran for council a few years ago I think I've demonstrated that I am very comfortable speaking and working in front of the public I'm familiar with our zoning bylaws or open meeting laws I've read through the master plan I know a little bit about the process that went into that and I'm somebody who is comfortable being able to rely on the expertise of our staff we're also being comfortable to ask good questions of our staff when it comes up and I think that I bring a good temperament and bring good judgment to the ZBA as well Thank you Dylan So that is all of our questions I just thank all of you for being here with us tonight I want to thank you for accommodating this new public meeting via Zoom reality which is not without complication and I want to thank you for your willingness to serve our community on the ZBA I am going to adjourn this meeting the members of VOCA will take a brief break and then this committee will convene if any of the interviewees want to stick around I will be moving you from panelists to attendees but you are also welcome to recognize that it's nearly nine o'clock and perhaps you want to do other things with your night So with that I am going to adjourn this meeting and I am going to call VOCA back to order at 9pm Thank you Thank you Are we here I see George I should probably all say that we are here Darcy is not here George is here Yeah I am here George is eating his orange too I almost grabbed one but I didn't want to get juice all over my face as I am on public at 9pm I am not sure where Darcy was I don't know if she left I was only paying attention to the interviewees so I wasn't watching no offense to y'all but I wasn't watching any of y'all's pictures during that meeting I was just trying to focus on the interviews that she was there for the whole time It looks like she disconnected or shut down or left the meeting Do you think she was thinking she had to come in on a different meeting if there was a difference I am going to just share a little text Alrighty I have texted her to ask her if she intends to participate but we do have a quorum So I think that hopefully she will respond and ideally join us but I am going to move forward the discussion So seeing the presence of a quorum I am going to call this special meeting of the committee on outreach communications and appointments to order at 9.02pm I am going to first just call the role of the councillors here to make sure that everyone is listening and we can hear you So start with Alyssa Alyssa Brewer is present Alyssa Brewer is in I am getting late Alyssa is here I I am here George I am here, I can hear you all Okay and Sarah I am here and present Okay Darcy has texted me back She said that she is planning on joining but now I have the little dots so she is currently texting So just to just to structure this meeting I would like to do this the same way we did our deliberation meeting after the planning board which is to say I would like us to start by looking at the selection guidance and I would like us to talk about what we heard from candidates that we feel aligns with our selection guidance so at this point I do not want to hear advocacy for any individual candidate or candidates I think that this committee can follow that rule and so instead of naming names of who you would like to see I would like us to just talk about candidates with respect to the selection guidance so I am going to put that on our screen so we can all view it so you all should be seeing my screen right now and should be seeing the selection guidance Sarah Sorry Evan I just wanted to ask a clarifying question so with reading over people's applications I am wondering if the two people that are members right now one of them I believe clearly stated that they were interested in being a full member but I am not sure about the other and I am not sure if there is a good way to answer that Actually I am so glad you asked that because there were two pieces of information that I thought were pertinent to this conversation that I made sure to ascertain before this meeting so one is I spoke individually to both parks and to Sharon Waldman both of whom are current associate members Tammy Parks is very interested in moving up to a regular membership Sharon Waldman is not at this point in time so she said that she loves her work on the ZBA she would like to continue on the ZBA and that she would she thinks in the future she might want to be a regular member but at this time she would prefer remaining as an associate member Thank you And then the right I should have said that at the outset so thank you for asking that and then the second pertinent piece of information is we all received literally like 10 minutes before the start of this meeting memo from the town manager regarding his board of license commissioner appointments and you will have noticed that Dylan Maxfield has been appointed to the board of license commissioners pending council approval I reached out to Dylan literally minutes before the interview started after I read the town manager's memo and asked him if given his appointment to board of license commissioners he was still interested in serving on the ZBA and he said that he is interested in serving on the ZBA and does believe that he can have that he has the capacity and the time to serve on both bodies and so not I think he is hoping not to be disqualified from this body because of his appointment to board of license commissioner so I think those are two pertinent pieces of information so what we have for the selection guidance is our criteria for a healthy multiple member body in this case I do think that there is some relevance to this in that we do have two members who have been serving who are up for reappointment and as we do have in 1C generally if a person is serving a first term they are giving preference for a second I think we should also recognize that Keith Langsdale had served on the ZBA for some period of time although this would not necessarily this would not be a continuous reappointment but I do think there is still a lens to be applied there we are also looking at 1D which is characteristics of effective ZBA members we are looking for people who are open minded, able to work in a collaborative spirit openness to compromise understanding the judicial function of the body and then we have this fairly lengthy list of characteristics from the now former chair of the ZBA but chair at the time that we asked for the input Mark Parent which is the same list that we also received last spring we are going through these appointments regarding different characteristics and qualities that he believes you would be looking for in a ZBA member so the first conversation I would like to have is given what we heard in the interviews and given what we have voted on and adopted as our selection guidance where did you see candidate statements or candidates say that you felt aligned with the selection guidance so I will open the floor if you are interested in talking just raise your hand Darcy Darcy you are muted I just have a process question about how we are going to how the voting is going to work that is a very good question so my hope is that we can have this conversation and perhaps come to some consensus about where we want to put at least some of the candidates I would like to be able to vote this as a package that we send to the council if we can come to consensus on which candidates to appoint and to which slots if we cannot get to that point then we will have individual votes on individual appointments and we will have a broader conversation about who we saw aligning with the selection guidance and perhaps have a discussion that we can bring to consensus around who we might be interested in appointing into where George? Just in general again I felt the CAFs were not all that helpful to me I gleaned a few things about the willingness of all these folks to go through this process the interview process this evening I think was valuable and I think I did learn I certainly learned a lot more from listening to them respond to our questions I thought our questions were generally effective I am sure we will talk about this later in regular session this evening in broad sense fit the criteria that we are looking for particularly those listed under the input from the body's chair but also our own notion they seemed open minded the idea of collaboration something everyone seemed to pick up on I thought an excellent point was made that I want to keep in the back of my mind is the degree to which work on the ZBA does require a fairly heavy amount of research a fairly heavy amount of looking at detailed materials everyone seemed open to the spirit of compromise and everyone seemed quite aware of the judicial function of the body so I personally did not hear anything from the candidates and what they said this evening that raised any flags in those areas at all Thank you Other comments on things that we have aligned or I suppose also conflicted with our selection guidance Sarah I would say I agree with George I thought that everybody really meant our general criteria as far as then talking about the balance of new people and experienced people so I feel like we had a nice amount surprisingly a nice amount of people who have had experience and or who have served which I think would be helpful to the ZBA right now as it stands and doesn't have a lot of experience and so I felt good about that and then definitely the people who I was also really impressed by their qualifications so I feel like I sort of got a feeling of general qualifications then us thinking about who would serve another term, who would be experienced and then newer faces so that definitely made sense to me and I felt like we had a good representation there Sorry my screen shifted I couldn't find my mute, great thank you Sarah Alyssa Darcy Any comments with regard to selection guidance Darcy Yes I guess I would agree with Sarah and George that I felt like everybody I could envision all of the interviewees as members of the board that they met our qualifications I do have a question am I still unmuted I do have a question about the assumption of a second term for someone who is an associate member I assume that the assumption is for the same position so the fact that Tammy wants to move to the board I'm just interested to know what people think the assumption means for her she obviously has gained experience over the year but does she get assumption points when she's moving up to from associate to the board I'm just wondering if anybody has ideas about that Okay I'll go to Alyssa first then George I don't know if this answers your question Darcy in terms of what you mean by points because I think people sometimes read the assumption about a next term as a negative versus a positive versus just a piece of information but having previously been part of the body for 12 years that appointed ZBA what we always worked with then was that when we had associates we often we had the same associate get reappointed for several one year terms in a row and eventually they rose to be a full member just depending on who came and who went as we've seen there's been a huge turnover in the ZBA here that has not always been true right it's like every other committee had ebbs and flows so it was very traditional to keep reappointing people to one year terms basically until they got to the point of saying oh look there's now there's an opening for a full member and then they'd start getting three year terms but again you know that was then this is now and I think and the other piece of information that you might remember me bringing up at OCA was asking Evan to again do some legwork for us to find out if Tami and Sharon had actually had a chance to serve on any panels and we found out tonight based on both their really excellent answers to questions that they have in fact both done that whereas in the past if we found people who'd literally never served it didn't make any sense to move them up to full member even if maybe they'd been doing it longer if they hadn't really been on any panels and had any experience with it but on the other hand since we do now have associates who have had experience it wouldn't make any sense to me if any of them are interested in continuing and we think that they're good candidates that we wouldn't promote them to full because they actually have had the experience whereas if we still had an associate who hadn't had any experience then I would think that that would be roughly comparable to just the new person off the street who hadn't had any experience. Thank you Alyssa. George. I have to agree with Alyssa in the sense of the notion that that fact that one is an associate let's be honest here we're looking at a body that's basically reduced now to two full members and that's Alyssa can speak to this she has the experience maybe that's happened in the past with the ZBA and and that's they dealt with it but this strikes me as obviously a very unusual situation and if we have someone who has served already for a year who expresses an interest in moving up and meets our other qualifications that would seem to be a strong case for moving that person along. If we had a full body of five full members and this were shall we say a more normal if there was such a thing a more normal situation then that person would probably be easily renewed as an associate but this is not a normal situation unless we're prepared to I mean we have to find some full members for this body where it can't function and it seems like we have thankfully a number of seemingly solid candidates and the question I think for us tonight is how you know how we're going to place them and certainly someone who has already served for a year and you know seems more than willing to move along move up is a positive in this unusual circumstance. Other comments with regard to yet Darcy? I just have another am I unmuted? Yes. I just have another question about the does any whether anyone is aware of when Keith Langstahl served and because that was a little revelation when he said he had served for seven years so I just am interested to know if anyone knows any more about that. I don't know the exact dates and I did look at his CAF to see if they would be on there and it was not I don't know if Alyssa has more information. Sarah? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know if you want to because I remembered when Keith was on CBA as a remembrance as opposed to a specific number of years and I figured anybody that wanted to know that would just look it up. Sorry it wasn't again perhaps this is a reason why we need to ask more specific questions in a writing sample. Sarah? So I'm the one who was the first time and he was serving then and I believe he I'm spitballing this but I believe he had served like three years at that time consecutively and then I think that he had had like a year or two off and then it served previous to that. He was very interested in continuing to serve although at that time he had said he would be willing to step down because he was a younger person who wanted to come in but I do know that he had worked very closely with Mark parent and Mark parent himself and said that he felt like Keith should be a person that was on as a full member so that's just he's got a lot of recent experience and he seems to be very well respected on the CBA. Other thoughts or comments with regard to the selection guidance that were aligned well with the selection guidance? Okay. So seeing none we will go to the trickier part I think of the evening which would be how to put this puzzle together. So you all have you should be seeing my screen now you all have in your packet this document you had a CBA that looked slightly different because this document changed mid-week and so this shows us the current landscape of the CBA and so of course yes Elisa. I'm sorry apparently I clicked too many times I am not raising my hand. Okay. So this shows the current landscape of the CBA so our CBA has five regular seats three associate seats. Last spring we appointed five people as full members and we appointed three people as associate members we left one associate seat vacant and my understanding is that that has even though we technically allow up to four associates we have historically only appointed three associates. And so we currently have continuing on the CBA both of them their terms are not up until 2022 but we do have these three vacancies of full members and then of course we have both Tammy and Sharon as associate members who are practically up for reappointment at the end of June and then we have these two vacant ones and so I think where I would like to begin the conversation is here with the three vacant members and so I'd like to open the floor to discussion about which of the candidates you heard that you think would be suitable to put into one of these full member roles and you can why don't we you can talk about all three or if you just say this is definitely one person. So we'll start with Sarah. Sorry it seems to be hard for me to find that I'm mute. So I'm going to give you three and if that's okay and why so Keith Langsdale I think I already said how I felt about how long he has served and how well respected he is. So I would definitely put Keith in as a full member. Tammy Parks I have been impressed with from the get-go from when I met her last year I think she's works well with people I think she's an independent thinker but has a lot of flexibility so I would also put her in as a full member and as a third full member I would pick Dylan Maxfield because I think he had all the qualifications we were looking for he is someone who's new right now to serving on boards here and he's also a younger person and we talked about the gray hairs and the non-gray hairs and I just think that that's a voice that I would like to see as a full member okay thank you sir and I'm glad that this camera doesn't fully show my gray hairs which are increasing in number I wonder why Evan George your hand is up you are muted currently how's that much better for some reason the space bar didn't work I don't know why because I was I keep wanting to thank Alyssa for mentioning that a number of meetings ago because it's made my life much simpler but there for some reason didn't work I apologize I'd like to present also three candidates I agree with Sarah about Keith for the reasons that she stated I agree with her very much about Tammy Parks for all the reasons that she stated I too found her impressive this evening I'm a little less enthusiastic about Dylan not because he doesn't have the qualifications by any means by all means he does but as we learn from Evan this evening he is going to be put forward for the Board of Licensed Commissioners and I just personally have given the demands the ZBA can put on people and given that this is a full member position I have some serious concerns about anyone I don't care how young or how old or how enthusiastic carrying on two fairly demanding positions Board of Licensed Commissioners also has some serious duties it has to deal with so I would be open to Dylan as an associate member but I would be a little less excited about him as a full member because of simply the sheer workload despite his obviously enthusiasm and saying that he thinks it can handle it I would be reluctant to vote for that but I do support Keith for his experience and that he would bring to a body that's now basically reduced to two and I think that Tammy looks like she would be an excellent addition to this body my third suggestion I'm not as strong about I'm open to other ideas but I think we're looking for someone who's willing to do research someone who's willing to dig into a problem and I thought that maybe Peter Eric might fit that qualification of course he doesn't bring youth that's for sure but anyway so those are my three at the moment two of them I'm very strong on the third I'm willing to hear other arguments okay Darcy or Alyssa do you have thoughts on candidates that you think you would support filling these three vacant full member roles? Yeah I can go next I do feel like that it isn't really I support Dylan Maxfield partly because he is represents youth and he's the only representative of youth in the whole group and he's supplied for a lot of different positions and I think that if he feels that he can handle too then we should honor that and especially if he would prefer to do this I don't know that for a fact but I think he should be given the choice so I tend to not want to even though Keith Langstahl has a lot of experience the fact that he's already served seven years and we have a whole list of other people who are really interested in serving I am not really considering him because of that and I also think that Tammy Parks would be good because of her experience and the fact that she's already done a year and she would make sense if she wants to move up to move her up because she sounds like she is very knowledgeable and thirdly I would yeah I'm sort of torn between two for the third position but I think that I would also go with Peter Barrack because he seems like he is very you know he would be very collaborative it seems like he would help a lot he would be a quick study and be able to do a lot of the reading and research that's required and be up to speed very quickly so I would say those three okay thank you and I'm stalling because I'm uncomfortable I think my support for Tammy is absolutely unequivocal so that's great that's easy I hear the concerns and I figured it would come up but I think that's what I'm going to do is I'm going to deal with Keith's service and the fact that he's already served for several years so therefore do we need him at this particular moment right I mean it's never about not wanting someone it's given what the particular circumstances were in at any particular moment is this person the best fit at this time and is that because we have lost so many people off of the ZBA recently and Steve and Joan who are remaining thank goodness have not been there forever you know it's not one of those committees where you have a couple people who've been there forever and so I think it might actually be helpful to them to have Keith back in a full member position so that was kind of you know going with our initial assumptions here right before we're changing our minds so definitely Tammy probably Keith for the third position the reason I'm struggling is with between Dylan and Peter associated with that one of the things that stands out for me about Dylan beyond his obvious youth is that and the fact that he chose to move back here is that he actually has been much more engaged recently than some of the other applicants have been in terms of like what kinds of things are people saying I mean he just ran for office and he's been coming to recent meetings of various different bodies listen to the audio you know and just really felt like he really dived in to this and at the same time I also hear the concern about having people serve on two committees in the olden days that was much more common that people served on two or three committees I think one of the things we're always trying to look at here is whether or not that's you know the best idea in the world yet at the same time if someone says they can handle the workload we all know how you get something done is you ask a busy person to do it so I'm struggling with this I think that but in terms of full membership I think for me it's between those four I wouldn't want Dylan to be disqualified simply because he's being put forward for the board of license commissioners because I do think the roles are significantly different with different amounts of workload I don't think it's like putting somebody on ZBA and planning board at the same time which would be weird and not really workable or you know some of our but board of license commissioners is still a fairly new body but there are five people spread the work across one of the things I think makes it our job a little less general is when we get to figuring out the associates is that we get to keep more people than we usually do when we interview people and so that's giving me some confidence that it's going to work out one way or another George I see your hand up I just Alyssa could you just repeat who your three people are because I didn't quite get that well I can't because I have four I had Keith, Tammy and then Dylan or Peter yes okay George your hand was up yeah I think this is obvious to listen to everyone I'll just say it but it seems that one way out of this is to offer Dylan an associate membership as opposed to full I'm just as I said very uncomfortable with someone serving on both of these bodies as a full member given the demands that I assume both of those bodies place on their members and there are no associates on the board of license commissioners it's all five of them that's true but there's also five here so again I'm not going to fall on my sword over this but I just have great concern no matter who the person is and I think Dylan is very well qualified and so if the majority do you want to offer them a full membership I would suggest an associate membership would be appropriate but I also understand that then raises well then who would be the fifth candidate but anyway that's my thought okay so watching um okay so hold on I'm taking lots of notes so the one thing that there seems to be complete agreement on is moving Tammy up so I am going can I actually edit this I'm going to actually open if you all bear with me for just a minute I am going to actually edit this document so we can see our decision since we have so many choices in front of us their screen okay you should all be seeing this word document now um so the one thing that I'm hearing definite consensus on is Tammy parks into one of the associate memberships and we'll talk about terms later um which now leaves this vacant so that one was easy and then I am hearing Keith Peter and Dylan so there seems to be consensus at least among uh those three so we had three for Keith three for Dylan and three for Peter only because Alyssa voted for four candidates so um I will add I kept my mouth shut because I wanted to hear from you all first um I would of course agree with Tammy um so that was easy I would also be supportive of putting Keith back onto the body um the reason for doing so were twofold one is what we did hear from um all of the current members and even former members that we spoke to tonight um was that the loss of Mark Parent is going to be a great loss to this body and one thing that we know and Sarah mentioned this earlier um is that Mark was very supportive of putting Keith back onto the body he came and spoke to our committee at one point um about his feelings about losing Keith from the body and so um I think there was a feeling from him as though Keith could really bring needed skills the other thing as as was pointed out is this is a body that has lost quite a few people just over the past um seven months and Joan and Steve I'm very thankful they're still there uh they were initially appointed as associate members in 2017 and appointed full members in 2019 and so they are also still relatively new to the body and that they have only been full members of the body for just over a year I don't necessarily know how often they were utilized as associates in those two years prior perhaps a lot perhaps not I don't know um but this isn't a situation where uh Steve or Joan have six years of experience on the body um they're still I think fairly new members and I so I think that bringing Keith's experience back to the body um especially coming out of what has been a fairly turbulent time for this body taking everything else that's going on in the world out of the equation would be really useful and then as for the third person um I was going also going back and forth between Dylan and Peter I think that Dylan brings a really really important valuable perspective not just as a young person um but also as someone who is a renter who you know we heard a lot tonight about um you know a lot of debates on the ZBA that have to do with thinking about rentals versus non-rentals and so I think having that perspective is really important and I think that he brings a really underrepresented voice I do share some of George's concerns that um I'm so happy that Dylan has moved back to our community and I don't want to welcome him back by crushing him with two very uh heavy workload committees that involve a lot of research I trust his ability to do them um but I also don't want to burn him out just as he has uh re-entered our community and so I would perhaps lean a little bit more towards Peter for that so I want to throw it back to you given out all that we have we have somewhat equal votes for Peter Dylan and Keith um we can take a vote but I would really rather us talk through it for a little bit first and try to come to some type of consensus yes George I'm wondering if um it's permissible or sensible or appropriate to offer uh Dylan the full membership but I don't know that we can set conditions but maybe with the understanding that if he were to accept it um that he would have to withdraw is that just just not appropriate is that um um that's I'd be open to his uh my resistance here is just that this is more than that a you should ask of anyone um and b no matter how much they say they can do it I don't think that's wise um so maybe it would be a question of which would he prefer but perhaps that's just not appropriate we can't do that we can't set conditions we either have to recommend someone or we don't um so maybe my suggestion is is foolish but that would be something I'd be open to if that were possible if not um uh it would be with a heavy heart but I would say that I couldn't vote for full membership simply because I don't think these are positions that one person no matter how much they are committed uh can or should take on okay uh Alyssa and then Sarah I just want to be clear that I given that they are two different appointing authorities with different approval processes I don't think we can horse trade like that in a way that we could if we were the direct appointing authority which we are not and in either case so I don't think we can make that conditional I think that they're definitely going to be other people on the town council who share both the view that one if somebody signs up for two and feels they can do to more power to them and others who are going to say exactly what George and Evan have just said so from the standpoint of perhaps not overly complicating our recommendation to town council given that a recommendation is going to be coming before town council not from OCA anymore but from TSO associated with the board of license commissioners I would not want TSO to be looking at Dillon's board of license commissioner appointment a scant because of what as it turns out the majority of us are on both of those bodies so it's awkward beyond belief but I guess if it is of deep concern to people then the solution is either one which I briefly entertained and then dismissed for the reasons that I said which was to put Keith as an associate instead of as a full member but then I realized now I really agree with what other people have said about needing him back there the other is to put Dillon then in the associate position purely because of his other commitment to the board of license commissioners which we assume we don't know because we're not there yet at TSO we'll be evaluating and then the town council will be evaluating Sarah so I would say in giving this thought I still really want to have Keith on because I don't want the ZBA to fall apart and I don't want people on the ZBA to feel like they are rudderless and that they're also burnt out and I really think we need to have at least one more person who has experience and that's why I really want to hold on to Keith I'm hearing what everybody is saying about you know Dillon maybe being you know that it would be overwhelming and that we would burn him out and you know I guess in the respect that when I ran for town council I knew it would be really hard and I knew it would be a lot of work I had no idea until I was on town council how much work there was so in that respect I could see I would agree with other people that Peter is would be my second choice so I am willing to put Peter in as a full member and Dillon as an associate associate member and then just see how things work out for him that's fine with me okay Darcy I am sad that people are changing their votes about Dillon I think that our committee boards and committee handbook is very clear that people can be on two committees and that it isn't up to us to decide that if he went forward with the interview today and he still wants to do it I don't and we think that he is fulfills the qualifications then I don't think it's our role on his behalf that he's going to be burned out because our town allows people to be on two committees so anyway I feel pretty strongly that we need youth on this committee we're constantly saying we need more diversity and so I think that he and he is applied for several different committees and he has complained about the fact that we need more diversity and we need more people who are working class and so I feel strongly that we should be appointing Dillon and I feel like like well I've already said that I think it's less important than that we have Keith on the committee because of the fact that he's already had seven years and we have this whole big group of people that are anxious to serve and we should let them have a chance I think this is why I'm going to miss you all this committee I think Darcy makes a very very good point and others of you made this point as well and I'm the one who started with the idea I think Darcy's right she makes a very good point that why am I or us why are we deciding it is allowed I have concerns I have reservations but I also hear the argument of youth and diversity and so I find Darcy's argument is actually pretty compelling I know I'm arguing against myself but that's okay I think that's part of what we're trying to do we're thinking this out and Evan has asked us to do that and in the end we'll decide what we decide but I hear very much Darcy's point of youth others of you made it diversity and I think she does make a very good point that who are we or I to decide if it's allowed and it is maybe we should just do it and we'll see how it works out we have a very strong candidate we have two strong candidates but this one brings also youth and something that's been sadly missing and some other appointments we've had to make nobody's fault so I hear what she's saying and I am willing to change my vote for that reason despite what I said earlier I still have reservations but I think she's right who am I or we to decide if it's allowed it's up to the candidate and maybe he'll decide in the end we'll see I think we should do what we think is best given the arguments I'm hearing from some of the others and from Darcy his youth and his passion and put him in a very strong place so I'm open to him as a full member I hope it doesn't create total chaos here but that's we love chaos here I just think she makes two really good points I agree and I think what I'm struggling with is the feeling of if I was appointing from this body in sort of a vacuum I would definitely put him on this body and it's just this other consideration but perhaps that is not a good way to look at things one other thing that I am also thinking and this is inspired by something Alyssa said when she voted for the amendment to the open containers bylaw where she said if it doesn't work we can just change it and there is a thought I have of we're speculating about this but if it gets to a point where he does come to us and say and we all know Dylan because he ran and some of us know him personally and he says this is real tough I don't know if I can do this because we have actually a decent number of candidates we will likely have a full associate pool and as the appointing authority we could always move one of those associates so I'm also hearing Darcy's argument and willing to consider it. Alyssa you've had your hand up I want to give you a chance to speak thank you I was actually hoping you were going to speak before I did so this is why deliberation and open meeting law is really hard but it's also really valuable as George points out because we tease out each other's arguments right we hear how it's sounding you know I was worried at the beginning that I was like you know we have this we have Dylan be great but are we going to have any trouble convincing the rest of the council about the same argument we're having here and maybe it just simplifies everybody's life including Dylan's right because he's going to get talked about a lot just like he's getting talked about now if we just simplify and then the longer the conversation went on and Darcy expressed again so clearly why we've been looking for different points of view and we have all interacted with Dylan is that when based on his and it's become really obvious to me that I was trying to simplify perhaps at the expense of doing actually the best thing and I still stand by the fact that Dylan of all the rest not looking at Sharon because she said she wants to stay associate but of the rest of the candidates that aren't Tammy and Keith Dylan I feel like is the most qualified to be the full member in terms of the homework he's done in terms of figuring out what the ZBA does in terms of his recent engagement in community you know interaction and so the other thing that I think it just expands a little on what Evan said about if it doesn't work out then you know whatever we have options it's also true that if it in the short run if it's a problem for any of these new full members to actually make the commitment then that's when they call the associate right like they're running into some sort of problem in their lives that's when staff calls for an associate to serve on the next panel instead of that full member so we wouldn't be leaving what I'm saying is we wouldn't be leaving applicants or the ZBA in the search it seems unlikely that that would be a problem so I think that I'm starting to hear us move more towards putting Dylan to a full membership we know Darcy definitely supports it we know that Sarah and I'm hearing me George and Alyssa starting to lean in that direction would we say that's an accurate George yes okay so I'm gonna throw his name in there then it's very exciting for me to get the majority of people to agree with me you made a very compelling argument you made a very compelling argument so here's where I'm going to disagree with you Darcy so now we have a question about this third seat if I had to choose now between Peter and Keith who both were originally in my top three I would lean towards Keith so it sounds like it's between Keith and Peter so I'd like us to have that conversation everyone has stated their preference if people feel like they've said their piece we can actually vote on this one individually or much like we did with Dylan we can see if we can come to some consensus between Keith and Peter it looks like I'm the only person who has Peter on my list so George originally did and I originally did and Alyssa gave us four originally and so Peter was on it so so I think that the seat is really between Peter and Keith my preference is for Keith I know that Sarah is because Peter wasn't on her original top three if others want to speak otherwise I think that the value that Peter brings is I'm sorry well I think the value that Peter brings should be really important but I think that the experience that Keith brings would really be invaluable at this point George I'm repeating I think what I said and I apologize to everyone but I think yes the experience is needed we've got a body that's down to two and he brings really invaluable experience and if we were in different circumstances I think I would think about it very differently so Keith is definitely the candidate that I would support Other thoughts Alyssa I know you said we'd talk about term length and I know that I never actually follow directions when you say we can talk about things at certain points in time because to me as always they're connected and so one of the things I wonder if I mean we obviously will have the vote that we have but one of the things that I think we need to consider is we've currently got two full members who are expiring 22 so that would be like a two-year term and so we would want to have some combination of one and three-year terms amongst our three new people so to speak are three new even though Tammy's not really a new person and so I would be open to the argument that Keith would only get a one-year term even though I know we talked about the things that he's going to bring but if that makes people feel more comfortable with the fact that he's served in the past and helped us through this next period it does not mean he could not get reappointed he absolutely could get reappointed after the one-year term I mean there's not like a clock that that ticks away from but that might help people feel more balanced if we ended up giving Tammy and Dylan three-year terms right because we've already got two people with two-year terms and then give Keith a one maybe would that address some of the concern about the length of time he's been on yes it would so that's that's something to consider I'm not sure I'm completely on board with that but um as you always do a little aside try and lay out some ground rules and then you tell me you show me why those ground rules and always make sense because it might not make sense to consider some of these outside the context of term length so Darcy do you do you would prefer Peter to Keith yes but are you open to Keith if it was a one-year term yes okay so I'm going to put Keith in here and we're not voting on anything yet so all this could still change the capitals Langsdale okay so that's our full member so now we have associate members now historically we've only appointed three but we do have the option of doing up to four Alyssa is this a new hat now okay um and so yes it is go ahead Alyssa I know I'm just torturing you I realized it was still on and I was like no wait but what do I do now um actually to be fair we have in the longer ago past had four associate members we realized when we changed from a three-member board to a five-member board that it was going to be harder because as we all found when we tried to recruit for this position people said zoning um but we are it is it has been four members it has been three members it can be two men it has been two members if enough people leave and or get moved up so it's just a very variable number and the thing that's always so confusing to of course not to us because we've been studying this is that although I know they use the term alternate they are alternates from the standpoint of yes if one person that's normally one of the five can't serve for either a conflict of interest or a scheduling conflict that they ask one of the other people to serve it's not like you're an alternate juror like you see on TV where they impanel 15 people but only let 12 of them vote right so mostly everyone can show up to the other panels unless they're actually on them so it's good to have as big pool as you can for associates it's been we haven't yet had enough of a pool to fill all four since we moved to a five member body um this is what I'm saying okay so I want to just throw something out there to see if this would simplify this so um we have my from what I heard in the answer to the very last question it sounded as though Bob Greeny was withdrawing his application for ZBA so that he could be considered for planning board in a future round of appointments um and if I misheard that then someone please correct me but if that is the case then we have three names left Peter Barrick Craig Meadows and then Sharon and so I guess the way I'd like to do this which is different from what we just did is I would like to ask if there is anyone who has a reason or a thought on just on not appointing one of those three people to the associate membership because otherwise I think there's an argument to make that if we didn't see anyone who said anything we thought was in conflict with the selection guidance and we have four associate member slots we could put them in unless someone has a reason not to Darcy I see your hand up um yeah I I don't have any um objection to any of them and I I'm not clear on what Bob said um I would I would be willing to and advocate for giving him the fourth position because um if he doesn't want it he can decline it um and I know that he has applied for a number of different positions and uh I just think it would be very respectful of him to offer him that position um so I advocate for filling all the positions with the people that we have um I you know I think they're and one question I do have is how how do how do the how are the associate members chosen to serve when someone is absent or they don't have a quorum or whatever how how do how do they choose to serve and how do the associate members do that uh I don't know that answer I don't know if it's if it's I assume it's staff but if Alyssa has a better answer I would once again defer to her knowledge okay this one's out of date knowledge so I will just say out of date knowledge is a couple of things that I think people were like and so like if somebody was always away at a certain time of year or whatever then they wouldn't call them if something came up during that particular time but it they partly they traditionally have tried to rotate people through so that you don't run into the problem I mentioned hours ago of the idea of an associate being on there for a couple of years but maybe never again it's just a matter of commitment and so it's really just a matter traditionally it's just been a matter of juggling okay so it goes George then Sarah I'm wondering if I should let Sarah speak first can I you can if you want no I just not fear I should say what I think like again I'm hearing Darcy's argument over again and perhaps we should you know reward him for his persistence he certainly in his written and spoken comments he's expressed a desire to to he understands the body I think maybe well I don't want to speculate as to you know what he might be thinking that's not fair but I would be open to offering him the fourth position um Sarah so from what I heard from what Bob said was that he felt very comfortable with the other people who were running and because he would rather be on planning board he would he was withdrawing because he didn't want this to hinder him from the possibility of being on planning board that said I don't have any problem you know putting him in as an associate associate member but I do think we should definitely check with him about what he wants because if it's his preference to not take this either that or we talk about you know planning board and whether or not this would hinder him and his application for planning board so I think we should just check with him first but I don't we can always you know change that I don't mind putting him in a second. I think this is where it gets complicated because of the transition we're about to undergo right from Okka to TSO associated from Okka to CRC in this case as to the future planning board appointments so while technically we have every intention as Okka of finishing the planning board from the standpoint of the terms that are expiring June 30th knows what the pool is going to be that no matter how much Bob might want it that he will necessarily get that position nor can we guarantee it will happen a year from now because a different body will be decided a year from now and people could resign in the meantime etc. just like unfortunately they've done associated with ZBA. So I guess my assumption is to offer the associate position to Bob with the under and explain to him that it would have which I assuming we all agree on this that it would have zero impact on his ability to be fully considered for planning board because we would assume because I don't really think you can serve on both of those we would assume that he would resign from ZBA if in fact he got appointed to planning board and so this is not the Dylan situation we were talking about this is two different zoning things that I don't really think you can serve on both and I don't think he's any intention of serving on both but we do have and have had people in the past serve on the ZBA first get kind of get their feet wet with the zoning bylaw and then end up serving on the planning board at a later time so it's not an unusual trajectory to move from ZBA to planning board it's definitely not usual to try and serve on both he clearly doesn't want to serve on both but to offer him the opportunity because we can't guarantee him he's going to get a seat on planning board but I think we can guarantee him since it's the five of us that we will not hold it in any way shape or fashion against him if he chooses to apply for planning board again George is this a new hand or an old hand this is a new hand okay go on again I think I'm back to Darcy's argument earlier that we shouldn't be making these decisions for the candidates they really are if this is permissible or basically if we feel that he is qualified or as qualified as the other three members that we're putting as associates and I think that is a fair statement then we should go the position is vacant he meets the qualifications I heard nothing from him tonight that would would disqualify him and so I guess we shouldn't try to you know do his thinking for him I think Sarah's correct that what I heard is pretty much what she heard but our decision you know he did not withdraw and so he is a candidate and unless someone has a real concrete reason for saying he's not qualified and there is a position open I like the idea of us filling all all the slots so I think we should put him as the fourth at least offer him the fourth position okay so the last piece of this and then we can all go to bed is terminates so Alyssa put forth an idea earlier of because Keith has been there for a while and because Darcy had some discomfort with Keith being here of giving Keith a one-year term and giving Tammy and Dylan two-year term sorry three-year terms and so we would have staggered reappointments in 21 22 and 23 so that's one suggestion on the table I was actually going to say something different which was given the conversation we had around the workload that Dylan faced perhaps he would be a good candidate to give the one-year term to he would obviously be right for reappointment at the end of that one year because he would only have served one year but then we could say so was that manageable and he says yes there's of course a preference for reappointment and so it would be sort of makes you know first step so I think there's a couple different options here I personally would like to see at the very least Tammy Park's get a three-year term so my preference would be Tammy and Keith three-year terms and Dylan a one-year term but I'm open to suggestions I see George's hand that was my thinking that it would seem given the situation that Dylan would get the one-year term and then he would be open for reappointment if everything works out and he wants to do it and Keith we get the three and Tammy would get the three okay the thoughts Alyssa I see your hand I disagree I want I Tammy's so easy for us tonight right so three-year term for Tammy for sure I would have been happy to give either Keith or Dylan two-year terms rather than one-year term except for the fact that we already have two others expiring in 2022 and that based on experience is a horrible idea to have a whole bunch of people expiring at once we could actually give all three of them three-year terms and just not have anybody expire next year but again not a great idea with a body of five it's usually good to have a change I feel more comfortable saying I feel like we're giving I feel like I'm giving Keith a year because of we need you back Keith we had you for a long time I'm not sure I'm ready to commit to three years at this point given his length of service in the past and the fact that we're hoping other leaders develop continue to develop on this body and we've got Tammy who's only been there a year and Dylan who will also be new and as you said Joan and Steve haven't been there forever so I'm less comfortable with that I understand why people are saying that a year for Dylan but I'm not thrilled about it okay Sarah so I'm gonna pretty much echo what Alyssa just said I I would it so for two reasons all the reasons that Alyssa said and then also the fact that I think that Okka really tries to work together and I saw a really just a really great compromise being made that that Darcy was willing to do and I think that's important for this committee even if we're you know dissolving in a couple months so I think it would be more appropriate to give Keith the one year knowing that you know if he could be you know just reappointed again okay Darcy I see your hand up I'm happy to hear Alyssa and Sarah agreeing that on a one-year term for Keith and I just want to point out that your reasons for wanting to check in with Dylan after a year are exactly the same there you know somehow being concerned about Dylan's workload and it doesn't make any sense as far as I'm concerned that that should be a reason for giving someone a one-year term to check in with them you know they're there he's he's a grown-up now he can figure it out but anyway I I you know I think it would be nice if we all agreed and could go to bed on the one year term that is for Keith George your hand is up I would like that to be true but I really can't agree to that I think I think that Keith is unlikely to get another appointment and a one-year appointment given what we need and given the situation on the body and that's what you know it's I think we should really think hard about what we're asking him to do and under these conditions I agree with Darcy that you know the Dylan Maxfield one year but we need someone with one year to balance out the the appointments and I really think that that we need to give Keith more than a year if we're really serious about putting someone on here who has experience on a body that is could really use it I wish two years were an option I'd be open to that and I certainly would be open to the thought that given the length of service that he's already had that this would be the last time that he would be serving but so I can't unfortunately for us all I can't agree to a one-year term for Keith I think I just can't do that I think he's needed and I do think that this would be the whatever service he provides us this is the last time he's going to do it and I think we need more than one year is there so I mean Alyson made the statement that we could give them all three years but then we have three members of the body in theory potentially turning over at once and that could be detrimental to the body and that could also be detrimental to the counselors in 2023 who have to deal with it but I guess I I am in Georgia's camp of I don't have a strong opinion on Dylan get so one two or three a term to be honest it was just if we have to get someone a one year that would be my preference and Keith would get a three I I'm also open to giving all three of him three especially since we have four associate members who will be up in 2021 and that would be a lot too. Alyssa sorry I didn't see your hand up. Yeah I appreciate that I mean there's not a perfect answer here there's no question but I I'm gonna push back a little bit on on something George said associated with Keith not getting another term after this I don't know why I'd be second-guessing CRC on that I don't think it matters how many times you appoint someone I think it matters the length of service that they have overall and I'm not eager to give three more years to someone who's already served seven years on a body that seems like a lot that's why I'm saying in a year that's why I'm not saying that's why I'm saying go ahead and appoint him right we need him for a year but we agreed to appoint Mark for a year even though he'd serve a good length of time because we wanted him to help them through a year but what I have kept Mark longer given the choice if he'd asked to stay yet another year rather than having to actually leave I probably would have gone another year I don't understand why CRC in the future wouldn't say you know well Keith we really appreciate we done for this for the past year would you go ahead and do it for another two or three years or one more year I think that would be a reasonable expectation to have of CRC. Go ahead. Oh Alyssa makes good arguments Darcy makes I mean these are these are good arguments I just really feel the need for some continuity and I'm worried about a one-year appointment being interpreted in a way that it's not intended just because why because well I mean the reason that Alyssa's giving is a strong one and the others which is that he's already had seven years and now it would be ten years and I think that in normal circumstances that would be that would be it you wouldn't we wouldn't consider it and I guess the rest of you don't see the situation quite as in the way I do and maybe I'm just wrong here but I wish we could do two years I just would like to have the benefit of his experience and I mean the man has cheered this body and we're having two people come up in 2022 who knows if they'll continue so I guess I would go with Evan's idea of three years for all three but I hear obviously the concern of many of you that that's that seems to be just too much given the idea of term limits and I would agree with you in most circumstances but here I really am concerned about having some stability and some experience this is correct I that doesn't mean he can't be get another term after three years I think that would be extremely unlikely but she's right I can't predict the future so sorry so I'm gonna say that I don't feel like I want to move on that one-year term for Keith I would like to keep that that being said I'm also on CRC and I could also see myself in the year taking a look at this the configuration of the ZBA and definitely you know if it's appropriate I would not I would totally give Keith another term I mean I think what all of this is about is that we have guidelines we have ideas about how long people serve and and making sure that we have senior members making sure that we have new voices if in a year's time we find that we still don't have you know people that could step up and that Keith is really you know kept this entire you know board together then I don't see why CRC wouldn't say these are this is where the board is at right now ZBA and definitely we would need to keep Keith on so I'm gonna stay firm in my one year for Keith so I'm gonna throw something out there that I expect will fail but why not so George and I I think have spoken pretty clearly that we would like to see Keith get a three-year term Sarah Darcy and Alyssa are advocating for one year we could certainly vote on this it's a vote I expect that George and I would be in the minority and we would lose and that would be okay and we could move on the one the one number that hasn't been thrown out is two right I mean if it was a three-year term there be three people expiring in 2023 if there is a two-year term there'd be three people expiring in 2022 I'm less concerned about that is there any appetite for meeting in the middle and doing a two-year term especially because the thing I'm also hearing is we can give him a one-year term and yeah he could be reappointed so if that's sort of the attitude is it is it possible to to meet in the middle and do a two-year Sarah so I want to stay with the one year and I'm going to back that up by saying I well I wouldn't automatically just give Keith another year I think that what Oka has talked about is looking at the health of the entire committee and I can't say what this is that what you know ZBA is going to look like in another year so I just would want to take a look in another year I just I I'm not willing to bludge on that George pick one last effort this is someone who has served for seven years he's clearly passionate about it and enjoys it and has given a great deal to the town and I also feel there's maybe just a matter and maybe this will not go over well but just a matter of respect he did not apply for this position with the thought I mean I assume he applied with the thought that it would be a multi-year commitment I understand the reasons for offering one but I'm I'm also concerned about just the you know just showing some level of what appreciation respect for service people have given if you're going to put him on the body you should put him on the body the situation with mark parent was special mark stayed on as really almost a courtesy for a year and it was understood from the beginning here I think if I were mr. Langsdale if I were anyone who had served as much as he's has and then is appointed to a one-year position I would probably be a little bit offended now maybe out so that's another concern I have just a matter of respect for people who have done service okay goes Darcy and Alyssa I think I'm ready to make a motion um is there any problem with that you can always make a motion um I would like to move that Oka recommend to the town council the appointment of Keith Langsdale for a term of one year to the zoning board of appeals as full member Dylan maxfield and Tammy Parks for term expiring in 2023 in other words term of three years also as full members to the CBA that was a little convoluted but I think you got the meaning okay is there a second second was that Sarah Alyssa sorry it was Alyssa okay I could see Sarah's face and I heard Alyssa's voice and it it get very confusing you've had your your hand up yes I did about the recent so speaking as someone who's been around for a while I don't know why we keep hearing that weird noise in the back that's the train that's going to buy my house I'm about to eat myself awesome um is that's a good noise is I am sorry that it feels to George like a lack of respect because I do not mean it that way at all I respect the seven years that he's already devoted to the ZBA and I respect that Mark and others have so much respect for him that they really feel like it's important to bring him back and whereas you know a lot of other people you'd say six years bye-bye thanks for that and so I would be I like to think that my ego which is somewhat of a real thing too would say great they want me back for a year to see what I can do and if I don't think I can get done what I need to get done in a year that I'm gonna say you know what you need to keep me for longer I would not say you wouldn't appoint me for three years well forget you I just I just can't understand unless we tell him that we're doing it to insult him which is not why we're doing it we're doing it because we want his expertise back for a year and to see where we're at at the end of that year because we value the experiences he brings George I don't know if Evan agrees with me on this but I think it's important on a decision like this that we we reach consensus and I can see which way the wind is blowing and it's not blowing in my direction so I would prefer that personally and I can't speak for Evan that if this seems to be the consensus so the majority position is one year I'd rather have his vote as a full body five zero with what we're going to put forward to the to the council I know I would not before the council make a passionate argument over term limits the term length even though I personally don't agree with some of the things we said tonight that's not something I would do so I would it seems to be clear that there's a majority for one year for Keith I prefer that we do this by consensus or a vote of five zero but I obviously can't vote for Evan I can't speak for him but I'm not going to vote against the motion simply because I really would like the council to have a sense that that we were broadly speaking and I think we are broadly speaking in agreement so I'm not going to vote against this motion even though I don't agree about the term limits because I'd like us to have consensus or at least as close to consensus as we can get so George invoked my name I'll speak I'm sorry Evan I apologize Melissa you have your hand up nope okay I feel actually very uncomfortable with the one-year term I think that Keith brings a lot of experience he he brings a lot to the table and I I don't want to give Keith a one-year term I don't want I actually feel sort of uncomfortable with one-year terms in general with the exception at the very start of a body makes sense when a body is first started such as when e-cac was started that some people got one-year terms so that you could start the initial staggering I'm really uncomfortable with one-year terms just generally actually and so we gave Mark parent a one-year term because he asked for it right I mean that wasn't actually a decision it was a decision we made but in part it was because he asked for only one more year and the finance committee we gave Mary Lou a one-year term because she had served for so long for over a decade but I think that broadly speaking one-year terms are a bad idea and I think that I would prefer to give him at least a two-year term I also share George's feelings that I'm not going to vote against the entire suite of appointments over that one little thing but it does make me feel very uncomfortable giving out a one-year term and even though I sort of recommended it for Dylan as I talked through it more and thought more about it I actually thought I wouldn't even want to give Dylan a one-year term and that was only out of the feeling that we had to do a one-year term but as I've moved a lot away from this feeling that someone has to get a one-year term I actually don't think anyone of the full men version get a one-year term what I'd like to do and I'm fine with this going down in flames but I'd like it at least to be on the record is I'd like to offer an amendment to the motion to amend Keith Langstail's term to 2022 is there a second a second okay is there discussion on this amendment to move Keith Langstail's term from 2021 to 2022 Thursday I see your hand up yeah I think that to some extent we lost sight of the fact that we would have that we that we put Keith Langstail's name as a full member on the basis that that I said that I would agree if he had a one-year term so if we're not if he isn't going to have if we aren't all agreed that he's going to have a one-year term or if we can't vote to do that then we need to vote on that third position because I don't agree that he should be a full member I would put Peter Barrick there so it's a bigger issue than just I mean we haven't all agreed that these are our three full members I haven't agreed on Keith unless he has a one-year term any further discussion on the amendment okay then I'm going to call you a question so again the amendment is to amend Keith amend the motion to strike 2021 and replace it with 2022 for Keith Langstail's appointment I will go in alphabetical order a list of Brewer no Darcy Dumont no sorry I haven't do the alphabet in my head it's getting late Evan Ross is yes George Ryan yes and Sarah Swartz no okay the motion fails to in favor three opposed so now we're back to the main motion which I'm not going to write the motion out on this so let me just type that out for my own record so I would like to actually amend the motion that is on the table a different amendment because Darcy's amendment only encompassed the full members and I would like to do this as one package of all the members and so I would like to offer an amendment to the motion to add on to the motion that we recommend the appointment of Bob Greeny Sharon Waldman Peter Barrick and Craig Meadows as associate members for terms expiring June 30th 2021 is there a second second so again this is the first vote will be on the amendment just to add the associate appointments on to the original motion which was only the three full members is there any discussion okay then I will call the question my hand is raised for real I didn't see it I'm sorry Alyssa totally okay we're exhausted I would just ask you're gonna kill me but when we when you put the chart together because it's so pretty when you later will you put people in alphabetical order or date it when it comes to the bottom yeah because it just hurts my head I will I will make it look better okay any other discussion apologies to Alyssa okay so I'm sorry I don't remember if I already start calling it so the amendment is just to add the associate members do you want yes Ross's yes Ryan yes Swartz aye and brewer aye okay so we're now to the amended motion which is to recommend that the town council appoint to the zoning board of appeals of appeals Tammy Parks and Dylan Maxfield for terms expiring June 30th 2023 Keith Langsdale for a term expiring June 30th 2021 and Bob Greeny Sharon Waldman Peter Barrick and Craig Meadows as associate members for terms expiring June 30th 2021 that's the motion that we're voting on is there any further discussion okay so I'll start with Ross's yes Ryan yes Swartz yes aye brewer aye and Dumont yes okay so that is unanimous the motion carries we have our ZBA appointments so I am going to not tonight but soon write this up into a report and it will go to the council and I will request that this is on the town council's agenda for our next meeting which I believe is April 27th are there any questions Alyssa I just want to thank you for getting us through this Evan because it was such a it was a long night starting late etc. after a really busy town council week we had an insane week and so thank you for getting us through this and and moving the interviews along and having everything work thank you to staff for being here the other thing I just want to mention is I know that you'll write us a beautiful report and you know I assume you'll touch on the length of Keith's appointment so that it's clear we're not the different viewpoints we had on that yes other questions or comments Sarah you are amazing Evan thank you so much for all your hard work and for you for refereeing that you were awesome thank you sir when social distancing is over we're gonna get some love and bars you betcha any other questions save one for me all right so Oka's next meeting is on April 27th at 9 30 in the morning and I will see you all then and so I will adjourn us at 10 39 p.m. thank you all thank you everyone good night thank you so much Athena you know Angela as well and Angela God