 All right, we're recording go ahead. Thank you. Thanks. Seeing a presence of the quorum of, of a quorum of community resources committee. I'm calling this meeting of the community resources committee of the town council to order at 432pm on May 12, 2022 pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended by chapter 22 of the acts of 2022. This meeting will be conducted by a remote means members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via zoom or telephone. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time. At this time I'm going to make sure that everyone can be heard and we can hear everyone so I'm going to call the roll Pat. Present. Shawnee. Present. Mandy is present. Pam. And Jennifer. Present. Thank you. We're all here we're going to move right into our agenda. Although Jane is not here yet. But Chris do you have any update on her I know she had wanted to attend. She in the audience maybe. Not yet. But I think we'll still continue with the agenda and just watch out to see if Jane shows up. So we're going to start with the proposed preservation of historic structures general bylaw. A new version was put in the packet both a clean and a marked up copy thank you Ben and Chris for that marked up copy that was very nice. Chris do you want to talk a little bit about the changes before we go into deliberation and making a recommendation to the council on it. I would call on Ben to make these make the announcement or make the presentation. I'm really here to answer questions thank you. Great thanks Chris and thanks Mandy. Okay, let's see I think the last time we spoke with the CRC about the bylaws April 14. I think I have in my calendar. And then on April 20. So about a week after at a historical commission meeting. And we at that meeting we kind of further discussed the bylaw there were some comments that we raised as staff of just about the volume of applications that the bylaw could bring about as written. Both with the age threshold staying at 50 years and with the this like part C of the definition of demolition that would focus on removal of minor or removal of important architectural features. And so we discussed that at the historical commission meeting about kind of other ways to explore, you know other tools that could be used for preservation outside of the preservation bylaw and kind of to kind of simplify the bylaw overall so we had that on April 20 and then the historical commission in, you know, trying to kind of expedite the process understanding we were up against deadline it's been referred basically formed a subcommittee of to meet with Chris Rob and I, and that subcommittee we met twice. I think it about, you know, back to back weeks and then we're able to come to some sort of resolution, kind of around changes to the bylaw so the what's presented to you today I guess is that is that version where we've made a few changes. In response to some concerns that we had and then agreed to by the historical commission and their and their subcommittee so I'll just quickly go through the kind of higher level changes that were made there was some kind of just minor in line changes in terms of grammar and stuff like that but the Chris I saw your hand up a second ago did you want to add anything. I wouldn't mind I just would be reluctant to call the two people who came together a subcommittee. They offered to do this and they met twice and so I wouldn't really characterize it as a subcommittee because then we get involved with posting and minutes and all of that. So that's my only caution. Okay. Yeah. So the, the changes that were made. The first one was to increase the age threshold from 50 to 75 years. So that's that initial threshold as to whether a building is subject to the bylaw or not. As of now, the current bylaw is a 50 year threshold so buildings constructed before 1972 are subject to the bylaw and or if they're proposed for demolition their first looked at to see whether they're significant or not and then whether there should be a one year delay placed on their demolition. So the new proposal is a 75 year threshold. So that would be doing my quick math 1948 I think. So that would be the initial threshold to, to, you know, if buildings are subject to the bylaw. And obviously, you know, as time goes on, you know, the 75, the target moves up so in a few years it'll be in 2025 it'll be buildings built before 1950. So the first change, the second change was the definition of demolition so what, what actual, what action like constitutes demolition right now in the current article 13 the definition is, you know, any active raising or modify or removing or portion there of, and it's been this really vague definition like what is a portion there of actually mean. So, a really important part of this bylaw was to, and welcome Jane. Hi, Jane. So part of this bylaw was to remove that vagueness and really be very explicit about what is the, what constitutes demolition so the initial proposal was to have a three part demo definition that was, you know, complete in total demolition so 100% demolition. Partial demolition so 25% or more of any facade was what we settled on so essentially, you know, if you're going to remove like an entire part of a wall or something to add a add an addition for example that would constitute demolition and I would say for the most part. You know that's, that's accepted by Mass Historical Commission there are numerous cities and towns that have that partial demolition definition, but the in our proposal as presented last time also included this third definition of demolition that included the removal of important architectural features. So that would be, you know, windows porches trim door chimneys. So getting even more smaller scale. And so we had just, we expressed some concern about how the actual implementation of that townwide and what that would, you know, do for our workload and you know how it would actually be implemented. And, and Jane also you spoke with a representative from Mass Historical Commission, who, you know, didn't. Sounds like she didn't recommend against it but didn't said that not many other communities or no few other communities do that and the bylaw isn't really meant to capture those minor feet removal minor features so we came to an agreement to drop that part C of the definition of demolition. You know, understanding that the part A and B will, you know, capture a lot of the projects that we want to so those were the two changes that were proposed from the from the previous version of the bylaw. Thank you Ben and welcome Jane thank you for attending to be able to answer any questions we have comments questions from CRC members. Jennifer. Yes well I did want to ask what was the font what was the ultimate resolution in terms of if the determination was initially going to be sent to a subcommittee but that was problematic with open meeting law. Yeah, so the way the bylaws written now it adds. It provides some flexibility so first of all it says the Commission may delegate authority to I'll just bring up the text just to make it clear. There's one here in the administration section so the Commission may delegate authority at a public meeting to make an initial determination of significance to one or more members of the commission or municipal employees. So, you're correct that if it's, if it's more than one. Then it would be a subcommittee and then subject to open meeting law and hosting the meeting so the bylaws as it's written now provides some flexibility so the Commission may choose not to delegate this authority they may choose to retain the ability to make the it could just be, you know there's one or more members of the Commission or municipal employees so they could just decide to have it be one staff person or one commission member making that determination, or it could be one or more members and then obviously it'd be subject to the open meeting law, but I think the language as written provides some flexibility in, in, in having these different, you know, options. Hello, Jennifer. Yeah, I do have some sort of. So the Commission could decide to refer it to a member, a town employee without any commission member involved. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. I'm just trying to wrap so then you miss kind of the expertise of someone on the Commission, but they would have to come back to the Commission and the Commission would ultimately vote on it. If the, in this example of the municipal employee finds it to be significant then it would go to a public hearing for it to be. But what if they find it not to be, would that go back with the Commission historical Commission members have any, would they be able to weigh in on it. Again, I mean they're going to refer it to a staff to, and then if the staff decides it's not historically significant, will that go back to the Commission so they can. There is a avenue for the staff person to seek input from historical Commission members in the same way that like, you know, I can email Commission members but have them like respond individually to me so it's not deliberation necessarily so the staff person could email Commission members for their input. And that would be in violation of the open meeting law because they would just be providing an opinion to the staff. Okay, so I guess you said it's not per application. So an application comes in, and then that application gets referred to the staff or the staff might decide it's not significant before it ever gets to the Commission. It's not on a per application basis so every, you know, I, you know, say it's every every few months the Commission might vote to, to, to change who they delegate authority to. So, yes, if, if, if the staff person finds it not significant it would not go back to the Commission, but everything will come to the Commission first. So a staff person might see an application decide it's not significant and the Commission never correct. Chris, think about that. So there's the opportunity for whoever the designee is to consult with another person. If the designee is a staff person, the designee can consult with the chair of the Commission, as long as that chair isn't designated by the Commission as part of a subcommittee. And likewise, if the of a member of the Commission is made to be the designee that designee can consult with staff members. So, there is an ability to have more than one person or more than one mind. In the process of determining whether something is significant or not so I think what's probably going to happen in practicality is that if there's any doubt of whether something is significant or not. The designee would bring it to either the Commission member or the staff person and say, you know, what do you think. The other thing is that if it's a Commission member, I think they would ordinarily be consulting with staff because a Commission member probably isn't going to have a lot of time to do a lot of research and the staff. You know, I'm not saying the staff is going to have a lot of time either but the staff is more likely to spend the time to do that research. I just wanted to say that that there's no that there it's not going to be one person always making the decision that person can consult with others to make that decision. Jane. I'm sorry about that I'm looking into the sun and I can't see whether I'm muted or not. So yeah, I just wanted to support what what Chris has said with a slight, a slight twist on it and that is that the flag that been referred to the flexibility of this language, so that the commission may make a different choice of who is designated at any time. So I think there's one other thing. I some of the discussion is seems like it's getting into procedures a little bit and which is fine, but I think with a bylaw like this the Commission may want to have some some written procedures that aren't that are a beginning place for us. Because this will, this is a different way of operating and we may want to, you know, see how it works in the first few months and then, and then come to an agreement on how we're going to, how we're going to treat, treat the applications and the process procedure aspects of it. Thank you Jane, Pam. I'll follow up on that a little bit where I was reading it was that a member of the commission and a member of the staff so you could have literally one from each organization essentially to work on a application without violating open meeting law. And that's how I understood it. That was the flexibility. Tell me if I'm reading that incorrectly that would make that would make somebody more comfortable I suppose if you had a essentially a designated tag team, one commissioner, one staff that does a first review. It didn't sound like the intention was necessarily to only have a staff person make the initial review for significance. If you can answer that then I'm going to go back to my original thought that I was going to share. Chris. So my understanding is that if the commission designates more than one person, whether or not those two people are one commission member and one staff member or two commission members that constitutes a subcommittee. The commission really needs to designate one person, and then authorize that person to consult with a counterpart on the in the other group. And if it's a commission member that's the designate that person would be authorized to consult with a staff person and vice versa. So that's how it would work in operation, because we are trying to avoid the mess necessity of posting all these meetings and keeping minutes. Thank you. And I can take with mine. So, in terms of generally, I did chuckle that, you know, the age, the age limit is now 75. So, you know, the closer to your own age that that antiquity comes, you know, the, you don't like to think that that 50 is is antique and you you know so 75 is a little farther out there for many people. I guess I'm only for some of us. I was waiting for that pat. Oh, I'm comfortable with the 75 year age. I also do like that the, that the commission or the designee can review for significance but they can also but someone else can can call it significant. If there's any contention about that, it can just be automatically named significant for purposes of the conversation, and that essentially any application could be considered for significance. So I think, I think it, it maintains some control for the commission with that array of options for designating significance, at least to start the conversation. I think I think I understood that properly. I raised my hand because I wanted to say, it sounds like the commission and Jane you can correct me on this that the commission is comfortable with the language regarding the significance determination and the flexibility it gives and, you know, anything that could happen with that one person one person with consulting two people an open meeting the full commission. And so I guess my thoughts are, whether or not I'm comfortable with it. The body that is going to be direct, you know, going to be, you know, compliant with this that is making that determination is tasked with that is comfortable with that language and the flexibility it gives. I'm going to trust that body that was one of the conversations we had about a month ago is where does that belong given the KP law opinion. If the commission itself says, you know, we're still comfortable with this knowing what happens if you designate more than two or if you can only designate one, then I think I'm okay with that language and so Jane is that a correct interpretation interpretation that the historical commission is okay with this language regarding the significance determination. Yes, I think so Mandy. Thanks for the question. We actually think this is an improvement in the language, because I think in the in our first pass at this it was more limited in how, how the review, how the reviewer was designated, but this gives us the flexibility for having a differently composed commission. You know, a differently composed commission might want to, you know, take back some more regular authority. So, you know, this gives some some wiggle room. And to, you know, as we've talked in this conversation about, you know, whether it's one staff person consulting with one commission member or one commission member consulting with one staff. Or some different composition, whether it's returned to the commission as a whole. So I think it's going to be important for a citizen of volunteer committee or commission to have these, you know, what's what's inside the bylaw and what's outside the bylaw. Thank you Jane any other comments or questions from CRC members. I mean, none I'm going to make a motion. And the motion is to recommend the town council adopt general bylaw preservation of historically significant buildings, as presented in the document titled Amherst historically significant buildings bylaw 05 May 2022 clean. PDF. Are there any comments or on that Jennifer. Yes, I'm, I agree that I have confidence in the commission that if they, this is what they recommended, you know, I'm going to vote to approve that I was just, I guess concerned because like you said you don't always know who's going to be in different positions, you know, staff and commission so I just wanted, you know, but I think I've been convinced that the protocols and protections are there that even as, you know, staff and commissioners, you know you don't know who's going to be in those positions, you know, for the next few years from now, but that that there are enough protections there for the historic, you know, buildings in Amherst, and I think it's a good move to increase the age to 75 years. Thank you. Thank you Jennifer anything else. Seeing none we're going to move to a vote Shalini. Yes. Pat. Mandy's an I Pam. I, and Jennifer. I, that is a unanimous endorsement. So, excellent. Thank you, Jane, for coming to be able to answer those questions and for Ben and Chris and Rob on your work and getting it to us. Chris, even though it's not referred to the planning board that the planning board is planning on reviewing this latest draft, is that correct. And the board will be reviewing this latest draft. They have it in their packet for next week. They're going to be voting on the rescission, but they will have an opportunity to review the latest draft. Thank you. And you'll let me know when they've finished with both sets and all so that we can let GOL and the council know. Thank you for that. We're going to move on. The next item on the. Oh, thank you, Jane. Yes. You're done for the, for the afternoon. Very much. The next item on the agenda is the residential rental bylaw before we move to that. I want to see who all is here. Rob, were you, do you know whether John Thompson was hoping to make today's meeting or not. I believe he was going to come. He told me he was going to join the meeting. Okay, because I know we're running a little ahead of schedule from what I had said so we'll move on to something else. I had planned for about five 20 for the residential bylaw. So if we think John will show up, we'll hold off on that one until we get to that. Estimated time and we'll move on to other things that don't require extra people. If that's okay with Robin Chris and then Ben I don't know whether you need to stick around for anything else on this agenda or not I don't know whether you're involved in this part or not so Ben might be free to go. Does that sound like a plan for everyone to make sure that since we're running a little ahead of schedule that we wait to do that part until we can see whether John can make it. Yep. Okay, so that means we're going to move on to planning board appointment recommendations interview questions. I'm going to see if I can. And for Athena's knowledge that update did work for me being able to pick one document. Thanks for letting me know. Because I was just able to do that. So on the screen is the interview questions that the Community Resources Committee used last year last spring for the planting board planning board interviews. That generally CRC has used the prior years questions as a basis for determining whether we want to change them or add them or delete them or you know all of that. And so I thought I'd put it up and see what people thought about these questions and whether there were any thoughts on additional questions or not. So, and then what I'll do is I'll edit this document as we go through in hopes of being able to potentially adopt a set of interview questions Pam. I was going to ask Shalini, maybe in yourself, if you're, if you're recollection of last year's review process was comfortable if you felt that if you felt the questions. But listen to the good discussion. Shalini, would you like to start with that. No, you go. So, so what I will say Pam is this, this set of questions sort of evolved through three years of interviews with planning board and ZBA over a number of committees and members of CRC when we adopted these felt that I think most of these were used this 2021 set and some of them were used in 2020, and they felt that they gave the committee some, some valuable information regarding thought processes approaches to decision making and all in ways that were in some sense unexpected for some of the questions and, you know, when when we did these interviews today, I believe we had five or six totally different answers to say question number three about achieving the goals of the master plan. And, and similarly with collaborating with a group, you know, we found I think with many of these that the candidates the applicants took them and made their own out of each of them the applicants do get these questions beforehand. So some prepare their answers others kind of wing it on the fly. Others have absolute written others have a little outline and, and I think, at least I found that the variety of answers was helpful. Personally, I liked these questions we actually used a basis of these four. I think we got rid of number three and added a different one for the ZBA questions. In the fall because we liked them so much and the ZBA ones were very similar here but you know we've we did like them and we thought they were useful and when we had extra ZBA openings in the fall. I don't think we changed any of the questions, because we liked them so much so I hope that helps. When shall any if you want to add anything go for it. From my recollection I think they as manager was saying there was the questions really allowed us to see different people's perspectives and, and even amongst themselves, I think it was nice to see how we first thought it might be awkward for them to all be interviewed at the same time. But I think it's been really nice to see how people are responding to each other's responses and overall I don't see any problem with these questions. I'm just trying to remember if we got a criteria from the chair of the planning board. And if there was anything like what they are looking for. And if there was any other new or change information from them but they would like to see in the planning board, and if that needs to be reflected in the questions. So we did receive that input for the selection guidance. My, you know, that that input is in the prior packet that we passed. My recollection of that is the basic sort of selection criteria that we've heard before some experience in a variety of areas. Here's, you know, and of something related to sort of planning and zoning. And then good collaboration, you know, willing to commit to meetings hearing site visits and stuff like that so I think it was sort of typical of prior input we've received from chairs in the past. Jennifer, you're muted. I'm muted. Right. Sorry. I think these are excellent questions. But I'm wondering just so if there was for possible additional questions. So I've been told by a couple of people on different boards and committees that there were actually new members that would join who sometimes had never actually attended that body's meetings before. So I'm wondering if, you know, we might ask if, you know, they, you know, have been tuning into planning board meetings or that would be helpful. And the other question, although I know who's not going to give a mad man of a response, but maybe I am a little interested in, you know, what they think about public comment, but I wouldn't. Those would just be my two possible additional questions. Thank you. To answer the first one question number one, the question talks about what they bring, but then there's a little statement afterward, which was in some sense last year's CRC's compromise between asking a separate question about the experience you have serving and watching versus, you know, trying to combine something into two and so this one actually specifically says serving or watching one of their meetings, we could add attending at the time they'd been on zoom for a while and they still have so. I think to your question number one, we've attempted to include it in question number one in and hopefully the statement of interest that says that you're supposed to indicate why you want to serve and include experience will elicit that and if they do not mention it during an interview that is also then in some sense telling. Yeah, so maybe we should just be cognizant that this has happened that seems, you know, you wouldn't expect that but that that I've heard that a more than one occasion. Yep. Any other thoughts. Oh, and you had a second question which was, you know what maybe you think of the role of public comment or I have to tell you, I have found a problematic on this board, to be quite honest, I've been attending the meetings for the last couple of years, and I have been surprised at sometimes there. You know, I, I'll just say it I've heard one member said, say that she hopes the board is not going to be swayed by public comment and that's concerning. So I don't think anyone's going to say they would disregard public comment but you know if it was possible to ask a question because I think particularly on a planning board to get a lot of members of the public turning in tuning in. You know and they'd like to feel that they're, even if they're not agreed with that they're listened to and their comments are respected. Pam and then Shalini. Thanks. Yeah, we actually have question number six, which is a little bit redundant with one and maybe by the time we've asked five questions is like, Oh yeah, I remember something else I really want to say that's kind of the reasons perhaps for number six. But Jennifer brings up a really good point. The planning board is a quasi legal entity it, it, it brings bylaws to to bear it, you know, it creates bylaws, and they these bylaws have to improve the town so when you have when you have 40 people weighing in on something that appears to not benefit the town on it is it's important to listen to those concerns and to take them at least into consideration and discuss why they might be appropriate. So I, I would, I would agree with Jennifer that maybe we just think about eliminating that number six and just say, you know, what is, what is your, what has been your approach to either participating or contributing public input or being on the receiving end of public input that helps you be, you know, a better planning board member. Thanks. I haven't drafted that as a motion obviously but that that would be something that was good for my head. I'm writing down how you worded it and, at least in my notes and I will get it into this. It looks like I've got two more comments before I add it in so Shalini and then Pat. Yeah, I think that's a good point about including a question around public comment. I may not see see this in the same way as other members are seeing it I think I see value in how people listen to public comment and how they make sense of it, given the larger context of a community and an understanding of how our community works and when we hear from even maybe 50 people that's a lot and I think that needs to be heard and acknowledged and integrated into a decision making process, while also acknowledging that we still have 28,000 other residents or 30,000 other residents who haven't spoken on it, or they may be a specific community that's going to be impacted, and they have no way of knowing that we're making this decision so it's generally people of privilege that's the experience and that's a flaw that we haven't yet fixed in our community engagement I promise you I'm working on it. But we haven't yet fixed it how do we get more so I definitely appreciate the people who do make the time to come and speak. And at the same time we, we can't be under the illusion that that's speaking for the whole community and I'm not saying that that's what was I just want to clarify that. So I think it's a very nuanced thing, and I think it's a very good question just the fact that we are discussing it in all these different ways so I would like to see it included. Thank you. Thank you. I respectfully I need to disagree I don't think it's a strong question because it has a very specific answer that everyone will give the other piece for me is public comment I believe is critically important. But it, if I, if I make public comment, and a border committee or the council makes a decision that's different than my, what I want, doesn't mean I haven't been listened to. And so I really feel like this question feels like it would just waste committee time and what I know from my experience on other committees is this is very time consuming in a positive way, but I don't, I don't see value to the question. Before I go to Jennifer I forgot to raise my own hand so I'm going to say, in some sense I agree with Pat, but what I agree with what what I would say is I would disagree with getting rid of question six. Because what Pam actually said about the reason for it is exactly the reason people forget stuff all the time and so you know we get to that question and some people are like, no I think I said everything I want and other people are like you know I forgot something and so this is sort of that one last chance to say, did you remember something did you forget something and so I would, I would not want to eliminate that chance from the interview. So I would, I would oppose removing question six even though it appears very redundant. Yeah, I mean part of my question I mean the idea that people that go to meetings and make public comment are in a position of privilege is really the problem. I mean people if if an issue affects the community, no matter whether it zoning or community safety, the people that are affected by the agenda items on a committee will usually come to the committee and that doesn't mean their privilege. So with the people. I mean I thought so I take offense at that and I feel like when particularly often because I go to the planning board so that's when I'll speak to I don't go to regularly every board and commission, but to have your public comment dismissed because what you're perceived as being privileged or elitist, you know frankly when you live on a tiny house on a tiny lot as many, you know whatever I mean it's just, it's, it's kind of, it's a mischaracterization and I think, because there's that position. Often people making comments before this board are dismissed and I know the question to ask a candidate, you know what do you think about public comment I know who's going to say they don't respect public comment. But I think that, you know what I was getting at frankly was just illustrated. I'm thinking about the wording I thanks for for showing it on the screen here. If we if we said something like, you know what's been your experience in offering public comment for being on the receiving end of public comment and how do you, you know how do you incorporate that into your decision making. That's something very different than, you know, do you prove a public comment or not. I mean we don't want to be so, so, you know, drive where you know what the right answer is going to be I'm really, I'm really interested in, especially know what Charlie just said if there are folks who have have not felt listened to, for instance, as as a minority person or something like that. It's either they they understand what it feels like to be on the giving end but but I'm not being heard. So I, it just feels to me like it might be actually a very, a very valuable conversation similar to how that, you know, opinion of waivers exemptions and dimensional requirements I mean, that's a pretty nuanced and very detailed very much pro army in the weeds kind of a question. So, how, how do you all feel about, you know what's been your experience and offering comment and receiving comment. I'm Shawnee. I just want to clarify that my statement that people of privilege are the ones who mostly are able to attend does not mean we don't listen to them because they're people of privilege. I'm just saying that that is one a subset of a community that's coming and we should not make the assumption that is the larger community. And, and, and you're absolutely right we should not disregard what they have to say just because they have privilege, and my statement was just to say that. And we have 50 I have made that mistake or error, assuming that when they're 50 or even 100 people coming I think what it conveys to me. I mean, I'm acting like I'm the participant of, and on the, you know, being asked that question. So what it means to me is that I think this is a very important issue because 100 people have shown up and I'm hearing how it's impacting them. And this is a very important thing to hear so just because I'm saying that people of privilege, I am a person of privilege to, and at the same time I'm a minority so anyway, we are all in different places. But my point is that we have to hear how it's impacting people no matter whether they're privileged or not. The reason I use the word privileges only to make the statement that even if they're 100 people, it does not mean that that's reflective So as long as we're not making that assumption that this is the town has spoken or, and we're clear about that. That's all I was trying to say. And that being said, I think this is really becoming a very interesting discussion. And even though I'm hearing what Pat said that we may not get the answers that we want to get to really reflect on that I'm also hearing what Pat said and I think it may be a question worth putting in to see the diversity it brings from the perspective of people who've been at the receiving end and not have not felt heard, or you know without people's different experiences around this question so I think it's a word valid question. Melanie Jennifer. I still have to say the, the idea that even the word privilege would come into the conversation of people making public comment. I mean, everybody makes public comment I that that. You know, how do you define privilege but if, if somebody, I mean we're the people privileged you were, you know came to talk about the solar bylaw moratorium on one side or the other I mean, I just, I have to tell you that's why people who are in no way privileged, however we define that feel that they are being dismissed just because they may have a different perspective so I don't even know how that word even have that even applies to making public comment before body like the planning board, people make people come to meetings all the time and are not privileged by virtue of the fact that they come that they tune into a public meeting. Particularly now that you know people can tune in from home you don't have to, you know retain a babysitter to go to a meeting I mean I just think that any assumption that people who come to meetings and make public comment are privileged and their comments should be looked at in that light is very troublesome. Pat. I'm not completely sure how to respond to you Jennifer, but you are privileged, I'm privileged everybody who is the best meeting is privileged we live in a white supremacist society. And it affects every action that we take as a citizen. And it doesn't mean that you're doing something wrong because I'm talking about myself. Let, let Pat. It does not mean that one is doing something wrong, because they're able to make public comment. And to dismiss the idea of privilege as something that needs to be looked at is is, I'm trying to find a word that is not dramatic but it's very much white fragility that you're responding with. You know you don't want to hear that and it and I would love because I would love to sit with you and have this conversation in a way that where we can really talk to one another. But to dismiss privilege as, yeah I've done, I've made some dumb remarks around privilege, because I get angry. When it's not seen, but you're making, I believe, assumptions that you're not listened to, because you're assumed to have privilege. I own my own home you own your own home we're privileged. Yeah, I, you know, I'd love to have a conversation with you. So, I'm going to let Jennifer respond but then I want to move to the point of whether to ask the question or not and this might be require a vote on whether to include it on this list or not but I will let Jennifer respond and then we'll talk about the question. Yeah, I'm not talking about myself. I mean yes I am privileged I felt I wasn't being listened to so I ran for counsel, but I'm not talking about myself there are many people the diversity that's Amherst that come to meetings and offer public comment and the assumption that they're privileged I don't understand because many, many people are not I'm not talking about myself I can, you know, I understand but so I just don't even understand how that word applies to public comment and I, it seems to be assuming that the people that make public comment are just from one, you know, sector or whatever of Amherst, many people come and make public comment at all kinds of public bodies. And I don't. So my concern is that people, you know whether they're privileged or not privileged. I mean that their dismissed is being privileged when you certainly you know you don't even know personally the people that may be offering that are there and offering public comment so to me I just don't. It seems like a non sequitur. I'm not saying you that a board has to make its decision based on the comments that were made but they shouldn't be dismissed or the people should feel heard, and they certainly, you know I know people that feel like they have been dismissed as being privileged when they're, you know, truly wouldn't, when they're not. So I don't think the word applies to making public comment at meetings. There's some language on the screen for a potential for adding a question regarding public input or public comment. I haven't heard any recent suggestions to change that language. So we're going to have some suggestions. I can have a suggestion and that was what has been, if any, your experience in either receiving in offering or receiving public comment and how does that. How might that approach to incorporating public comment and decision making. Andy Joe, you were much faster than I am. How might that, how might that affect your approach. And that could be good positive it could be negative, it could, it could reveal, you know, a lot about how they think about the public comment process. How might that be reflected. I was going to support the sentence as it was written, and I can accept it as it's written now. So I think the simpler version is fine it's you're not leading anybody there you don't know where they're going to go you're just going to listen. And I think people weave their experiences and differences into their responses so I think it's too much. Some people may not have ever been on the receiving end of public comment so they may not have actually incorporated it into their thinking I don't know. So then they haven't been affected by their experiences that they've never dealt with public comment. I mean, I think the simpler question will give more of a range of answers than the way it's gotten rewritten that your last rewriting, I think was better. I can live with that. I think that was the last one. Chris has a hand up. Chris is this related to the interview questions. It is, but you've changed it to to go along with what I was going to say I was going to say change the word to is instead of has been. Thank you. And Pam, you have given what Pat just said you have no other. So the question I have is does this addition of this question need to go to a vote of this committee. Or has has the committee reached consensus in adding it into the document. I'm good with it. And so we will add this in. We do need to vote on the final list. It includes a response of three minutes to everything but the last one that's basically a yes or no question. And we want to indicate that it is a yes or no question. We don't want people to expound on their time. And so that would be if we have six people apply a maximum of 21 minutes per each person if they use all three minutes. We are looking at two hours of interviews is that a comfortable limit for people or would we like to change the number of minutes before we vote on this document. Pam. I'm actually going to respond to the comment below. If you just said up to, you know, up to two minutes, probably would be fine. I think most people can get their thoughts across two minutes. I sort of bristle that that you have you will have 15 seconds to answer questions, a, or whatever you know it's just like a yes or no answer is is expected for for number eight. You know, I don't like rules that are too tight. No one better. Yeah. Okay, so is the committee okay with two minutes then that that saves seven times seven about 40 minutes of time. Pat, you look like you want to say something but you're muted. I guess I guess I'd like us to be flexible because I want to hear three minutes of the same stuff over and over again. I think that two minutes can be too short and I so when we're taught I think that we have to have flexibility. So I would say two to three minutes to give a feel for that and then be pretty clear that you've they've reached their limit. I could say two to three minutes and then what I can do before we get to the interviews is sort of plan which ones might get about what one depending on where we are in timing. You know, start with three maybe and then see if we're see if people use the three or not. And where we're going. Yeah, thank you back for bringing that up because I did remember myself making that statement and I've struggled with it and I know people sometimes because of diversity of whether it's how we think or translation second language. Some people may need a little more time to articulate even though I think we're getting the questions ahead of time so that does help a lot overcome that challenge but still I think just. I like the suggestion that has a two to three minutes but and just all of us being a little cognizant of that the different people may have different speaking styles, and they're, yeah. Okay. So, I'm going to make the motion to adopt the interview questions for the June 2 2022 planning board interviews as amended at today's meeting is there a second. Second meeting. We're going to move to a vote we start with Pat. Mandy's an I Pam. Hi, Jennifer. Hi, and Shawnee. Yes. They are adopted unanimously. Thank you for that. And we have a shell. And do we have john to we do excellent so sorry to keep you guys waiting we were waiting for you and so we were trying to get something else done. So we are now going to go back to the residential rental bylaw draft language. So I'm going to put that on the screen. Actually, yeah, I'll put it on the screen unless people want to comment and all before we put it on the screen I think on the screen is probably easier and so that people can see what we're referring to. And this is, and I want to thank Pam. I know I was the one that took on this drafting, and then I realized, I didn't have as much time as I thought last week so I emailed Pam and said hey do you want to do a first draft. Um, and so she she kindly did that for me, got it to me I made some changes and this is the result of that. And so, again, we're going to be adding to this document as we go through this is sort of what was based this is the creation based on our last discussion two weeks ago on on particularly permit requirements and any exemptions and it focused more on exemptions than the permit requirements and then there are some notes later on about inspections, because we thought about some changes related to inspections and all and other things so that we don't lose them and then Pam included nicely sort of a summary of the discussion at the end of the document so that we can sort of keep track of things. And so, in that we also started the definition section for anything that was defined. I've tried to put it into the definition so that that was sort of integral in some sense from what I heard from Rob and john about what is a dwelling unit what is a rooming unit. And so we need those definitions in order to deal with the rest of the bylaw so those are in there too. But before I go to you Shalini I wondered if Rob or john had any comments on this first before we open it up to sort of full discussion is to thoughts on all of it. Rob or john. Rob. I'm just curious in the proposed bylaw. It doesn't carry over the term local agent that we use in our current bylaw. It does use person in charge. I just, you know I just wanted to mention, you know, maybe when we get into inspections or further along into the bylaw that we would want to define one or both of those. You know one of the things that we would have liked what we'd like to see after using the current bylaw for so many years is that as an enforcement tool or a remedy to a situation being able to have a professionally managed property be, you know required for properties that are not performing well. And whether that's local agent or some other term just bringing that definition into the bylaw somehow. So I just want to kind of place that in there for maybe continued discussion. So I'm going to try and keep notes along the side here so that we don't lose them from this draft. So anything at this point that you'd like to start with before we go into full discussion. I don't think so let me just confirm that we're talking about sections, C and D this time. So BC and D in general yeah. Yeah, the definitions that are in be applied to C and D. I've got some thoughts about exemptions and in section D so I'll wait till we get there. Thank you. Shalini. Yeah, concerning definitions. I was looking at Salem, Lynn and Boston bylaws. And they all include a definition for chronic offender and problem property we may choose different words but they all three had the same names. So what I will say is this definition section is not complete. It is solely the ones that were used in section C and D and so as as Rob mentioned, when we get into inspections or when we get into length of licenses and it's like that will be adding in definitions and I think that's where that will come in but again I'm making the note here to make that sure that's part of those conversations as we get there. Right. Thank you. So let's start with instead of the definitions, let's start with section C and then section D and we can probably discuss C and D together because they kind of relate to each other, right. D says here's the places people or properties that don't need to get a permit at all. And C says what a permit what this bylaw essentially applies to which is the dwelling units and rooming units and and all which are all different. And C says what a permit what this bylaw essentially applies to which is the dwelling units and rooming units and and all which is where the definitions come in. And so, john, do you want to start with your thoughts on exemptions. Sure. Thank you. Two things that I've got highlighted here. Item C under section D dwelling zone and operated by the Amherst Housing Authority we currently permit those properties. So that would be something new we'd be excluding them. And the second one is item E dormitories, sorority houses and fraternity houses we don't permit dormitories but certainly do sorority houses and fraternity houses people pay rent to live there, their rental units. I think john, you're looking probably at the working draft on the screen is the most recent and I think we've exempted dormitories. But if I did the definition right, we have not exempted sorority or fraternity houses from that Rob. I think unless sorority and fraternity houses are permitted under section 3.326, which I do not believe they are of the zoning bylaw is that correct. I think he's looking something up. Yeah, I think you're the revised version captures both changes that john recommended that we talked about last week I think maybe he, he had to leave the meeting early when we discuss both of these things so I think, I think we haven't covered down the new version. I just wanted to make sure that that the sororities and fraternities I think they're defined differently than dormitories in the zoning bylaw and since we've used the zoning bylaw definition if they're not then we need to rethink that but I think they are. So, okay. Pam, I was going to go back to a definition but I think I'll hold on it and just for Rob's benefit I was, I really am trying to get my mind around the room and unit definition but let's come back to that after we have a better conversation about the rest of it. Yeah, Jennifer. I was just going to ask. I think with some of the other housing developments if the town. I do think it's good for them to be permitted, as john said but I think maybe it. I don't know if it's confusing that but they're not, they're not inspected by the town is that correct. So I think that's the section we haven't totally got to where we noted down here in inspections that for future discussion which of the ones like Amherst housing authority should we exempt from inspections even though we want them to receive the permit and so that will be a further discussion. When we get to inspections I believe but Rob. I was actually going to go back to the last point. Yep. So looking at the definition of dormitory and referencing the zoning bylaw section that section of bylaw is a use classification not a definition it's a use classification that includes fraternity sorority social dormitory and similar use. And these are, these are all uses that are, you know, according to your exemption. They're located in an educational district and operated by the educational institution so that that would not exempt sororities and fraternities that are, you know, in the RG district where our 11. You know buildings exist currently. Okay. So, and if it wasn't low if we didn't have that note down here in the RG district where you were using located in the ED, that's important in order to ensure that sororities and fraternities in the, in the RG are not exempted right. And dormitories that are privately owned. We don't want to exempt those either. I think, I think because you connect to the definition if they're happened to someday be sorority fraternities that are owned operated by the university and in the ED district those would then be, I think we would say those would be exempt by this language. I just want to ask a question as I think through what UMass is doing now now that you said that which is, I think Pam was thinking the same thing. They are in a public private partnership to build dorms that will be in the ED district but will my understanding be operated by a private entity. Is that something Rob you would want to be captured as requiring a permit, or would you be okay without that particular one being exempted from a permit. So, you know that particular situation is not resolved because you know there's a possibility that it should fall under our jurisdiction being privately owned buildings. So we're trying to work out Dave Zomek and others are trying to work out that that question with the university. So I think we want to be consistent, you know if we, if we're doing annual inspections of those buildings, the, you know, due to building code and other, you know codes and regulations we enforce we also want to do that for rental regulations but likewise if we didn't, we would probably exempt them so I think that just not resolved yet. So that's something that in the next couple months we'll have to revisit maybe. Pam. I was going to ask Rob, if, if he could actually clarify the definition of dormitory because I didn't realize that, I mean, and Chris breast strip is probably in this, you know, thinking the same way is that we have, we have mixed use that are essentially dormitories, but have a commercial component we have apartment that are primarily filled with students, and they serve as a dormitory but they're off campus and privately owned. I didn't realize that that Rob had a definition of a privately owned dormitory, and I'm curious if he could give an example of maybe what one of those privately owned dormitories is. Just to clarify, we actually don't have a definition of the term dormitory, what we have is a use classification and the zoning bylaw that describes it as a dormitory and other similar uses that are in some way connected to the university or college. The purpose of that use classification is to determine where a building with that use could be located. The one example that we have of that right now is Olympia Place, owned by Archipelago on Olympia Drive, and I believe they're beginning the process to permit another similar building privately owned dormitory next door to that where the sword used to, where the sword used to be. Sorry, I want to go to Pam's question because this is one that I think both Pam and I were cognizant of as this was getting drafted, the comment Rob had about rooming unit and how the current bylaw, exempted from rooming essentially the exempted from required permitting someone renting out a room in their home, but did not exempt some sort of rooming lodging, because I think we still have one like rooming house. And, well, exempted the current bylaw exempted someone renting out a room in their home but the draft working draft that that john has referenced today actually included the rental of a room in someone's single family building as requiring a permit and Rob you recommended that not be the case and so I tried to make the definitions and and the terms I went back to the current bylaw to add the rooming unit in this permit required rooming unit in a lodging or boarding house being operated as a principal zoning use, and then we. I'm not sure either Pam or I, I struggle with the definition of rooming unit here. Did it did those two together capture Rob what you want the permit to be required to obtain but not what we were trying to exempt which is rent the renting of one bedroom in a single family home by someone who was living in that home. That's probably Pam's question to. But she can add to it if I didn't capture at all. Rob. Yeah, so the definition looks good and in the permit requirement you've added being operated as a principal zoning use which is exactly what we have in the current regulation so by doing that. Those that are not operated as principal zoning uses, therefore accessory uses, like the renting of the rooms in your home would not be subject to the permit so I think it, I think it ends up with the same language that we have today. Okay, so that that accomplishment we were trying to do, based on your recommendations two weeks ago I believe then. It does. Okay. Do you have any other questions regarding rooming units. Now I'm just still trying to work my way through that through the logic of it. So renting one room in a primary use home does not require a permit. Yeah, and so our zoning bylaw authorizes the, the letting of rooms to three individuals by right. Up to three then yeah up to three so that's that's permitted by rate doesn't require a special permit. So, you know we don't want to create a conflict with that. Right. Sorry, go Pam. Sorry. When it becomes a, a rooming house. We actually have a clear definition of a rooming house. I mean there used to be rooming houses in Amherst to house college students I mean that was sort of an industry. There's only one now and it's, it still exists because it's grandfathered non conforming use. Which one is that it's on South prospect street. Yes, language of rooming unit in a lodging or boarding house being operated as a principal zoning use capture that one non conforming use rooming house. I believe it does yes and I believe just having the definition of rooming unit. You know the rooming unit is what would be what would make up either the boarding house of a lodging house by definition so I, I'm not sure we need a definition of rooming house lodging house boarding house the rooming unit seems to capture it, you know rooming unit dwelling unit or the, the two different definitions that we need. Jennifer. Yeah, I just wanted to ask if there was a concern so you can have up to, you know, three people living and renting a room in your house and you're the owner also living in the house so that that's fine. In terms of, I mean, I'm not even saying one would need a permit but how do you ensure for the sake of the people renting that the dwelling is safe enough to code. Or is it just, you know, like we should all be keeping our home safe enough to code but it seems like if you're renting you should have a special protection. So I, yeah, I think we'll agree with you when we get to that section so right now, the protections are that we're available for anybody renting a unit to call us. And, you know, and I think that's, you know, something we, we would, you know, we, we respond to every complaint or every request that's something that john does regularly. If you move into the discussions about inspections, you'll probably hear us supporting the idea of getting a look occasionally at these units to do exactly what you just mentioned. Okay, thank you. Okay, I'll note that down and inspections. So I have another question which which I put in here. Our definition of residential rental property as proposed in this draft says the definition does not include mobile homes hotels motels bed and breakfast establishments operated as principal uses, and then we go down to exemptions and we say lodging facilities hotels motels in hostels and bed and breakfast. And so I guess my question is, do we need that in both places. And if we don't, where is it better located, should we not put that sentence in the definitions and then just use it as an exemption. So should we have it is that more clear than if we left it in the definition and got rid of the exemption, or are they not. Are those two actually not equal to each other. Rob. Yeah, I would suggest leaving it in the definite and I'm sorry in the exemptions and removing it from the definition. You know if you want to take it away from one of the locations I think people will look and find the exemptions easier than they would by reading the last, you know, the last part of a definition. Okay. Thank you. Any, I think that. Let's see. Were there other questions with the clarity issue there. Oh, and Pam you asked about the calling out a rooming unit and a lodging or boarding house but I think we addressed that question. Just recently. And then there was a question here about the notwithstanding comply with inspections below and so that goes to I think Rob one of the things you just said about inspections. Bylaw capture more inspecting more units than a permit is then units that are required to obtain a permit. And so it goes to this halfway houses and group homes thing if we don't require them to obtain a permit. Do they can we still say you need an inspection. It goes to the Rob what you were saying about some other things about rooming units in single family homes if we don't require them to have a permit can we still require a regular inspection under this bylaw. I would suggest we don't want to do that. The rooming houses, the motels the hotels, you know those other types of uses other than the single family homes fall into a different inspection program periodic inspection program that the building inspectors manage. So periodically the hotel would get inspected anyway. So I don't think it needs to the question would come down to the properties that wouldn't be subject to any other inspection program that we operate and that's a single family home. That or to fit single or two family home that is owner occupied and rooms are being rented as an accessory use my opinion is we don't we don't want to inspect those properties we don't want to expand the program to that point. The rooming three units or larger already gets an inspection by john, every two years. That's just looking at the common spaces low hallways stairways fire escapes, making sure fire alarm sprinklers are operating. This bylaw, if it's a rent a permit of property with a permit would allow the inspection of the dwelling unit as well. That would be the logical next step, but not trying to capture some of those other properties. So does that mean we should be deleting this notwithstanding shall comply with inspections below Rob, since they're exempt from obtaining a permit. While he thinks on that, if you're ready. Yeah, no I think so I don't want to create confusion, you know, those those those group homes are going to be inspected. They're going to be managed by the in most cases managed by the state, either Department of Mental Health or some other organization that's doing inspections so I don't think we need to make make those part of the inspection program. Pam, you're muted. I'm not sure I understood what Robinson. So, I didn't realize that three units or larger gets inspected every two years. Anyway, so I think what we're, I'm falling between the cracks when I'm talking about who gets a permit and then the exemption. So, something with three units or larger does get a permit. And it gets inspection. Do we do we include those in our exemption list. So I think Rob said they get inspected every two years only the common areas not the units themselves. Yeah, so if we're looking to look at units, we need to call that out because all I'm doing is walking through the hallways. You know I'm not going in any units. And John, would you like the ability to go in units for those places that have three or more units for health and safety reasons. Like, is it, do you think we should include those in this bylaw permitting bylaw. I think it's, it's, it's a complicated answer. I, I have a full time job right now, and I'm not going in, you know, 5000 rental units in the town of Amherst. And I'm not going to be able to so Rob and then Pam, and then Shawnee. I appreciate John's response but you know I don't think we need to be concerned about that at this point on how we're going to, you know, manage the workload will be a discussion that we'll have later on once we decide what we want the bylaw to be. I think in fact we do want the ability to inspect the dwelling units or in larger properties at least a certain percentage of the dwelling units to represent their condition so I think as we, you know, move on inspections we are. Looking to capture that and I think this the way you know the form of this bylaw is doing so. Thank you. Shawnee you on raised your hand. Yeah I think Rob and said what I was going to say. Okay, and Pam you also on raised your hand so you're good. Are there any other thoughts. Questions, requested changes. Obviously this is not set in stone right this is a working document this is just these definitions these these drafts based on a first conversation that any further conversation might actually affect some of these sections to. But, but before we end this discussion today are there any thoughts or requests for changes. Regarding whatever's written here in this particular document and I can scroll to wherever anyone wants. I'm not seeing any Rob at this point you and john are fairly comfortable with what's been written here based on your desires regarding rental permitting. Yes, for permit required and exemptions I am. I think, you know, as mentioned will be continuing to come back to definitions as we develop the rest of the bylaw. Okay, Pam. Yeah that sums up what I was hoping to hear that as we move forward, we can at least keep referring back to the expectations of the town staff of what we've seen are the issues and does this tool give them the, or does this document give them the tools they need to do right there. So if you know when we get out of line with that. I'm hoping to hear from Rob and john. Excellent, I think that means you know I will clean this document up. And make some of those changes I was doing for our next draft the next draft won't probably be seen until the next time on our work schedule we are looking at draft language, which on the current plan, if all goes well and I'm not sure it will. The current plan is draft language, June 9. We'll see how we go with our discussion on May 26. But you know it's sort of discussion then draft discussion then draft was the way I set up the draft plan, so that we could have an open discussion and then draft the language based on that discussion. So the next revision will come out on June 9 or whenever that next draft language comes out based on the next discussion. Any questions concerns or comments. Before we move on on our agenda from this Pam. Yeah, just since you've got your document right there, can you remind us which section you were targeting next. Yes, so. For May 26. The goal is to discuss application process and requirements, along with the sustainability lens. And then so that would be what do we put, what do we require property owners to disclose and provide in an application. And then, and, and that's where I put sustainability lens because I had heard that ECAC wanted to potentially add some questions into an applications in order to gain some data. It might not, it's probably not going to be the only place that sustainability comes in but that's where I put it initially I am in contact with Steve Roof of ECAC who Laura Drucker the chair has told me to contact to figure out how how ECAC can best contribute to those conversations. And I have also been in contact with the board of licensed commissioners and as I get their feedback they I believe had a meeting on Tuesday I'm not sure they got to this. But I'm in contact with the chair of the board of licensed commissioners to make sure that we get their feedback and all they have the draft that was in the packet today. And I'll keep them up to date on the drafts as we go to. And the ninth in addition to the application process and requirements and sustainability lens which is section F of the working draft and I haven't come up with which sections of the current bylaw that is yet. We would add in the fee authority regulation authority and transfer of license license. So types of sections to the bylaw. You know, those are sort of basic sections that probably don't need a lot of discussion before they get to a draft stage. So, I will put another. The work plan is in the packet today I believe I think I put one in every week so that's there and I list the sections in the in the agenda that is in the the referred draft in the current bylaw. So that people can refer to both of those drafts to see what we're discussing. Any other questions Pam. I would love to ask if Rob and john could also bring perhaps the somebody or folks from from the IT department who actually manage the applications. I think I had heard at some point that, you know, whatever we develop has to be workable by them what is their programming allow and I think that would be very helpful to actually hear directly from them the kind of things that they, they can manage. And then what, you know, if we if we start stretching things. Is that possible. I would, I would request that we get some feedback from them. That is a great idea I put that onto my list for things to. So I will try and touch base with that. Any other thoughts. Yeah, I've started to put together some sort of in community engagement plan, keeping this particular bylaw in mind, and I was wondering how to go about like should I talk to you about it, because what I'm thinking is like, who all are affected like definitely residents, neighborhoods, the residents but then students and then the landlords or, and then apartment building and then the tenants and so there are all these different people who are impacted and so at what point are we planning to get their feedback or just even let them know that we're discussing this so they can start sending us feedback, or yeah so things like that. Thank you for that question. That reminds me. Last week it was requested to have a sooner rather than later. Where is it on this draft. A public form of some sort. And looking at the work plan that form would probably not be able to be held during a seven. We don't. We don't have any because everything just froze. I can hear you. You didn't wake up for a little bit. Can you repeat. So we don't. Okay, yeah. So. You're breaking up. So people wanted to know when we could have a public forum, which probably cannot be held during public during CRC meetings just because of the time of everything. So in looking at the draft work plan, there are a couple of meetings where we could potentially do that. We had put in a May 23rd, which is a Monday night catch up or extended public input meeting that would be in about a week and a half. So we had one in July, July 11th as a potential for one. And July 25th was a potential Monday night one there was not a potential Monday in June. But if the council, the council meets to has three of the four Mondays in June held for council meetings. So whether the last Monday in June, June 27th will actually be used for a council meeting. If it's not, that might be a possibility. But it was held for a council meeting. So that's another possibility for when to have sort of an initial extended public input forum. So I think that we could discuss in more detail. I cannot attend a May 23rd meeting. I don't know whether others can but since there was nothing scheduled I scheduled other stuff that night. So it's also a very quick timeframe to turn around to get the word out. So we might be aiming for maybe one of the Mondays in June that might not have a council meeting. So those are the June, we have a council meeting on June 6 and June 13 June 20 is a holiday, which is why there is no council meeting. And it would probably not be a wise idea to hold a public forum that day. And then June 27th is held for a council meeting. I don't know whether there is going to be one that night or not. So we could aim for June 27th if that is not turned into a council meeting. Shawnee. I think I'd stated to you in a survey that Tuesdays are locked out but they've opened up for me. So if at any point we need to do a schedule a meeting on Tuesday evening, I have opened up for that. So let me send out a survey regarding potential public forum nights. Pam. I was just going to say if it seems like the 27th is a much better date than trying. I mean, I'm advocating to have a public forum sooner rather than later before we have things, you know, sort of appearing to be locked in, because I really think it's important that people do get a chance to weigh in. And that said, it's been so preliminary now that the 27 seems like the earliest good opportunity that said I am not going to be here on that day, but you can still go ahead without me. Other thoughts on that. So, can I reach out to you to go through the plan the rest of it. Yes, let's schedule a meeting to talk to talk through some stuff. Okay. Thank you. Seeing no other comments on this agenda item, we're going to move to the ZBA appointment process. Before I left it on to before I always forget to thank Rob and John and all three guys that leaves. Thank you Rob thank you John and thank you if Chris is still here Chris for coming and offering your input. We look forward to hearing more of it as we move through this process for that but thank you for taking the time out today to to review that with us and give us your input. Thank you Michelle to I know you were quiet the whole time. So ZBA appointment recommendations. I left this on the agenda, sufficiency of the applicant pool. I did not put, and I didn't have Pam put any documents in the packet regarding ZBA. As we all know it still stands at the same number Pam, your thoughts on that it's still three right. You're muted. Pam you're muted. Sorry. I'm counting up for four or five people that also said they were applying for both the planning board and ZBA. And I am not trying to push the ZBA back but there seems to be a larger pool of people that have an interest in both. We only have two positions available on the planning board. It may mean that there are some people who find themselves without a planning board appointment and I would love to consider any and all of them as part of an applicant pool for the ZBA. Jennifer was actually going to say the same thing as it if we are, you know, we have some really strong planning board candidates, but we don't have enough spots on the planning board, would it be appropriate to ask them if they would consider ZBA. So we have done that in the past. Unless they submit a CAF they're technically not an applicant for the ZBA and then unless they submit a separate statement of interest. Once we move forward they are not an applicant. We do have to start moving forward on a process if we want to start scheduling interviews and dealing with selection guidance interview questions and all we can't do the selection guidance until we've declared the pool sufficient. We can ask for statements of interest until we've declared a pool sufficient. And so, you know, while we may not feel we have a sufficient pool right now. Planning board interviews have been scheduled for June 2. We could go ahead and try and find a date for ZBA interviews that is a week or well that is more than a week later than that. And I say that because statements of interest have to be posted a week before interviews. And so at that posting things close and so if we only have it a week later, we can't get people who we've not recommended into a ZBA pool. So maybe what we should do in order to start moving this process forward is potentially declare the pool sufficient for the purposes of moving forward with revisiting that pool at a later time. That would allow Pam to start sending the emails to for us to start finding interview dates for us to start getting all that other process going. So we're concerned that it is not a large enough pool at this time. Thoughts on that. Pam. I would like to lean in that direction so that we have some target dates. And I don't think it, I don't think with precluded, precluded from setting some tentative interview dates for ZBA even if we have an official official eyes. The pool. Okay, Jennifer. So if we move ahead, applications could still come in and be considered if they come in. Yes, the applicant pool does not close and I've turned off my video because my internet's just going kind of crazy right now and I feel like I can hear better without the video so I apologize to people trying to watch. The applicant pool remains open until the statements of interest are posted on the website for the interviews. And so moving forward just says hey, we think we have enough. We can always revisit it and the applicant pool is not closed at all depending on this decision that we make even if we say we're going to move forward on stuff. People can still apply and frankly we would encourage people to apply. Thank you. So even what I've heard, I guess I'm going to make a motion to declare the applicant pool for zoning Board of Appeals appointment recommendations sufficient to move forward in the process. At this time. Is there a second. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Shawnee. Further conversation. Seeing none, I think we're up to Pam. Right. I'm starting the vote. Oh, sure. Yes. Jennifer. Yes. Shawnee. Yes. Pat. And Mandy is an I. So Pam, let's touch base on next steps. And with that, we are on to general public comment. And so at this time, public comments on matters within the jurisdiction of the CRC will be accepted residents are welcome to express their views for one to three minutes. Up to three minutes. CRC will not engage in a dialogue or comment on a matter raised during public comments. So if you would like to make public comment at this time please use the raise hand button to raise your hand and I will recognize you in turn. Seeing no hands raised, we will close public comment and move on to minutes. Are there any requested changes to the April 28, 2022 meeting minutes. Seeing none I'll make the motion to adopt the April 28, 2022 meeting minutes as presented is there a second second. Thank you Jennifer. Any comments. Seeing none we'll move to a vote Jennifer. Yes. Shalini. Yes. Pat. Hi. Mandy is an eye Pam. We are on to announcements. I don't really have any announcements per se other than what's also on the next couple agendas so they kind of go hand in hand. The public hearing for flood maps and zoning overlay district as well as any discussion related to the recommendation to adopt the firm maps and whatever all those referrals were there was like four things we have to do but only two of them are for public hearing is on May 26 that is our next meeting the public hearings will be at 430 and 445 they're actually two separate public hearings, one for the zoning overlay district, the zoning changes and one for the zoning map the change to the zoning map. It is the way the planning department recommended we hold the hearings. So that's why they're hard to they came to me with two hearings that's how the planning board is doing it too. So those will start at 430 when the hearings are closed we'll move into discussion and recommendation on all four of those items. And then we will move on from there into as much time as we have for discussion of rental registration those parts I talked about earlier today that that will be the agenda. Along with I guess some ZBA recommendation, so the selection guidance for ZBA will be on that agenda. And so June 2 at 430pm are the applicant interviews for the planning board and then immediately following that the agenda will include making a recommendation to the Council for Planning Board appointments. So if we can get to a recommendation that evening, which this meeting given the number of questions depending on how many applicants we have may go past 630. I will warn people if it does I may not be able to do the whole meeting I will figure something out with some transportation issues. I'll figure it out, but it may go past 630 depending on the length of the interviews but if we can get those recommendations done the Council will be able to take them up on June 6 at its June 6 meeting so they will not be sort of hanging out there in limbo for very long if we're able to make recommendations that day. And that will be the only thing on that meeting because I expect it to take enough time that we wouldn't put anything it will be a special meeting. And so, yeah, those are the next two meetings. And then we have one scheduled for June 9, which is a regular meeting. So we're going to have a busy June, because we still have to schedule ZBA interviews somewhere in that timeframe to. So, any questions thoughts on next agendas or agendas in general, before I adjourn the meeting. I don't have any items unanticipated by myself. And so I'm going to adjourn the meeting at 620pm. Thank you all so much, and have a nice evening. Thank you.