 We are on a tight timeline. So, here we go. Seeing a presence of a quorum, I am calling this special meeting of the community resources committee of the town council to order on June 15, 2023 at 1131 p.m. Pursuant to. Chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 extended by chapter 22 and 107 of the acts of 2022 and extended by chapters two of the acts of 2023. This meeting will be conducted via 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, the meeting is being recorded and at this time I'm going to take a roll call attendance of both committee members and the applicants to make sure that everyone can hear and be heard. We're going to start with pat de Angelis. Present. Mandy, Joe Hanneke is present. Pam Rooney. Here. Jennifer Tom. Present. And Shalini ball mill. I'm present. And let's go through the applicants held a green bomb. Here. Sarah Marshall. Here. David Slaveter. Here. Phillip white. Here. And ever old Henry. And. Okay, so we've got everyone heard and be heard. So right now I'm going to go through what is going to happen today in terms of just the logistics of the interviews we are here for the group interviews. And then we will see when they end to see what else we will be doing or when we will be taking up the consideration of the. Recommendations and discussion of the recommendations depending on timing, but how the group interviews work is each of the. We do them as a group we have we've sent you the interview questions there's about 10 of them you'll have three minutes to answer basically each one. And then we will ask them 1 question at a time and then all 5 applicants will answer them and then we will move on to the next question at the end of all of the questions. I will give an opportunity for each committee member to ask any follow up questions they may have each committee member is able to ask 1 follow up question to each candidate. So we will just pick another random order of the candidates to go through and then see where the follow up questions are for that. The order of response. I have done randomly. Each person will get exactly 2 because there are 10 questions and 5 applicants to responses in each of the orders. So each person will answer each question. 2 questions 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th the order flips around so you're not always going behind or in front of the same person. The committee members have that order right now and each committee member will also ask. We'll switch which committee committee members asking the questions we will try to indicate the response order before we ask the question so that you kind of know where you are. Thank you for that question. Are there any questions before we actually get started by anyone. Pam. Thank you. I think it's not a question. It's a statement and I just want to express appreciation for everyone interested in participating in this and being willing to spend time. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you for that statement. Pam, you have taken over the doing of that for us committee and I appreciate it. I really do appreciate you doing that. So is trying to show. Are you trying to show something? No, I just can't control my paper. No, that's fine. I didn't know whether you couldn't hear or couldn't say anything. I will have a timer going. Hopefully we won't have to use it. If it goes off, I will try to have it near a speaker on my so that you'll hear it go off. And then I will kindly ask you to finish up your and for your response. So with that, seeing no other questions, we are going to move into the questions. I am going to ask the first question. The order of response. I'm very boring with the first one is always alphabetical order. And then it totally gets flipped up from that. So the order will be Hilda, then Everald, then Sarah, then David, then Phillip. Okay. And this question is, what do you feel you bring to the ZBA that can make it successful. Please include any experience you have appearing before the planning board or ZBA or watching one of their meetings and we will start with Hilda. Hilda is buying because I've been observing and writing about ZBA. At least over the last four years where there's been a crying need for people to help out, I've been hearing for the various 40B applications that are upcoming. I've served on at least five different 40B projects, either for the whole project from the beginning, or amendments to approve permits and these include Olympia Heights, Metals, Village Pots, Rotary Fields, Presidential Apartments. And I've been following the land use committees, particularly zoning and planning for more than 40 years, first for the legal and voters observer core and for the Amherst-Indy.org. And as I said, I have served eight years on the board already participating in many Met panels from the first year on. I know the bylaw very well as well as the geography of the town for having been an assessor for six years. I can read site plans and I understand architectural drawings I listen carefully, consider thoughtfully and impartially. And I know how to balance the impact of a decision or at least I think that's why of all three stakeholders, namely the applicant, the abutters and the town. And again, I am applying because you told me that you needed people. Thank you so much Hilda. Everall. Thank you guys. First of all, my name is Everald Henry. And I'm a local attorney in Amherst. I've lived here since 2016. And I think my family and I decided that, given that my partner is now a tenured professor at UMass, that this is going to be home. And I wanted an opportunity to actually serve the community. And so when I went on the website, I saw that their number of positions available and I thought how can I help. So as an attorney, what I do is I review a lot of legal language which I imagine the zoning ordinances are not very different from that. I know how to do research. I know how to collaborate with people. I do that on a daily basis. I've done that with people in formal work. I have not sat in on any zoning board hearings, but I've had clients who through meeting with them have had conversations about zoning and ordinances and navigated the system. And I thought this was been an opportunity to not only be part of any kind of solutions, but as well as to learn about what I'm what we're calling home. So I think that as a researcher, I add value in that sense as someone who knows laws and how to interpret laws and ordinances, I add value in that aspect as well. And as someone who has fostered collaboration with different people and actually can hear the problem, think about the problem and then render or make a decision in concert with other people. That is something that I would bring and that is, yeah, that is the fact that I think I would add. Thank you, everyone. Sarah. Thank you. You can hear me yes. Yes. All right. Well, I was appointed to the ZBA as an associate member just about a year ago. And for the past year, I was the only associate member on the board for about six months, I believe, and I was therefore involved in an in an unusually large number of hearings for special permits as an associate. I changed from simple extensions to an appeal of a decision of the building inspector to more complicated applications such as a battery energy storage facility, and in addition to a large apartment complex. Thus, even in just one year I've gained considerable experience with ZBA duties limits deliberations and practices. I've heard well for all these hearings for which I was a panel member attended the site visits have regularly raised questions about both smaller details and larger concerns about an application. I do not believe that my lack of formal training and architecture construction or planning has hindered my ability to understand the documents drawings or regulations. I think that the full members of the ZBA have appreciated and welcomed my involvement this past year. I also bring the willingness to work and protect the interests of the town within the legal constraints. Thank you. Thank you Sarah. David. Hello, thank you. I think in general what I bring to the committee is many years of experience in business, and a member of organizations, including leading a few of them. I'm currently an associate member of the ZBA. And I've attended a number of meetings, although I was only appointed in January so I have not been a member for that long. I've attended site visits, prepared well for every meeting and participated when I felt I could contribute. So I bring years of business experience organizational experience and even ZBA experience. I have testified before the ZBA and the planning board in the past when issues in Amherst came up that I in which I had interest. So I have observed the various town committees functioning and have participated when I felt I could make a contribution. Thank you David. Good morning everyone. My name is Philip white. I spent the majority of my life living in or around the city of Wilmington, North Carolina, which if you're not familiar with it is a city of approximately 120,000 residents have set on numerous boards committees. And in 2001 made the decision to run for a seat on the Wilmington City Council. I was successful in that bid, but one thing that motivated me out of that was to pursue a formal education, as I had little to none. I am currently a student at Amherst College, I just finished my first semester, and my desire is to be absurd. My majors are generally economics and political science, I bring a wealth of knowledge, desire to learn. And a passion for municipal governance. I have watched numerous meetings of the ZBA over the past few month. Try to familiarize myself with the kind of minute differences in phrasing from some of the things that I'm used to, such as like a special use permit, which may not which is not the same thing as you know just a special permit. That sort of thing but I'm happy to serve. Thank you for having me. Thank you Philip. I'm going to pass this off to Shalini. Thank you and thank you all again for being here and for your thoughtful responses. The question is, tell us about an experience you've had collaborating with a group, particularly where opinions conflicted, or the decision was controversial. The order would be Sarah, Hilda, Philip, Everold, and David. So we'll start with Sarah. Well, during my time so far on ZBA, there have been very few significant conflicts. Members have clearly had different opinions at times but these have been resolved in collegial fashion, and decisions have been almost always unanimous. In contrast, when I was a member of the Community Preservation Act Committee, no request triggered as much disagreement among committee members as an application from the Friends of the Jones Library for a million dollars, three and a half years ago. Of course, public comments were also strong on both sides. And despite extensive discussion of the committee, there was no meeting of the minds. Members disagreed, but everyone was civil and discussed the pros and cons in detail in detail. That particular request from the library was first approved and then withdrawn. And the library submitted a new proposal in the following year's grant round, which was approved. And we still received numerous comments from the public in writing and at the hearing, both supporting and objecting to the project. But as committee members, we kept our focus on the grant application and the purpose and the requirements of the CPA program and set aside comments that asked us to go beyond our authority or raised matters that were not for the committee to decide. Thank you. Thank you, Sarah. You're next. Are you waiting for me? Yes, it's yours. Did you have the question? I couldn't hear you. Yes. Okay, I have served as panelist or chair for many single or two family problematic conversions, particularly in the Lincoln Sunset neighborhood, where the room was packed with the butters. In one case, what appeared to be a single family home being rented out to seven tenants because there were seven locks on seven doors. And that sort of signifies to many of us, according to the law, being rented room by room, which really isn't a rental leasehold on the many laws and bylaws. In any event, there's a butters. We're not pleasant neighbors in many ways they had loud parties, especially on the weekends the usual behavior that I'm not going to repeat here the neighbors know what I'm talking about. This happening and there were many, many complaints about the noise in the parties and the litter and that the house wasn't being well maintained, etc. I was willing to go along with allowing to three bedroom units and limiting the number of tenants in the building to six where they currently had six that seven that we knew about trying to accommodate 250 butters in that room, I would go along with two three bedroom units and ran into plaque with the chair of the committee who said hello that's going to fail and then you're going to end up with nobody. There was no permit at all and no conditions on the permit and I had a cave to allow to four bedroom units or there would have been no nobody was willing to compromise and that particular situation. Another place I can come up with is there were three of us women on a permit for village park which was a 40 be permit given back in those 60s early 70s I guess. The siding on the building was seriously deteriorated they had a hired a contractor from South Hadley to recite all the buildings of village park, and he had already bought the material and paid for it so applied for the building permit to replace it and the then building inspector says no you have to have a permit from the zoning board of appeals because of the condition on the permit that changes to the exterior the building had to be come back to the board for their approval well to a rust thought it was the no brainer and the third woman on the board no longer lives in town so I can talk about it. I refuse to go along with changing the color from dark brown to light tan. And meanwhile here's the guy sitting on several hundred dollars worth of siding that is. Well, we were able to reach a compromise after a long discussion and the buildings were cited with brown with the light tan but had some dark brown friend that they hadn't planned on so. That was that worked out. Otherwise, please finish. Otherwise, what what seems to be working very well right now on the several controversial permits that I have watched over the past year is if you can get the butter and the appellant to sit in the same room together, try to work out the issues and bring a condition back to the board the board has usually agreed with that it's worked out very well. Thank you, though. And slip your next. So I have to be honest with everyone when I read this question. I actually burst out loud. So, without being partisan whatsoever I will simply state that having spent the majority of my life in North Carolina, and operating as a liberal, I would say for roughly 95% of everything I've tried to do has been that would steep opposition. But no, I would say a perfect example of transitions that we tried to make in our community that were met with stiff opposition would be during my time serving on the new Hanover County Board of Directors for the parks. So we tried to make the transition from what are known as actively style parks to more passive style parks, and I'm happy to go as deep into detail with any of these things as you'd like. But very briefly, in the past for several hundred years, most public parks have been designed is an active style, meaning they glow in clear cut everything destroy all the indigenous plants wildlife and in the south they would lay down. Bermuda grass or Fescue Park looks just the same in Wilmington, North Carolina that would in Amherst, Massachusetts. What we've come to realize is that's completely detrimental to our environment to the experience and to the act of play, which is what you want your residents to utilize parks for. You would think that wouldn't really get much pushed back. But there was a immense amount. Still don't even remember why they were upset. We also were able to work on going from what you might more traditionally think of as a park which is just a large open area to what are called pocket parks, which are small parks in neighborhoods. That increases play increases access to people that may not have direct access to a vehicle. It opens up the park system to residents, instead of essentially expecting, you know residents to find a park and drive across tech. We've seen a lot of great success with that. And they will actually be opening a park hopefully in the next six to eight months the timeline is a little, which is going to be our first large massive passive design project. The only things that we clear cut we went in there where the areas for the children's play, the dog park, everything else we maintain the natural vegetation. And I think it's important to let people experience the outside, as opposed to experiencing sort of a cultured and manicured copy of any park anywhere else in the nation. Thank you for that. Next is ever experiences collaborating with a group. Currently serve on the board of a local school. And in that role, we control the board controls the fiscal budget that the decision to have how many kids to admit each year and how to pay the bills and things of that nature. And of course, sitting on a five person board, there is the ultimate goal is first for the school but then there is a bit of interest as to what each person thinks is the appropriate step to do. So in that arena, we have different, you know, opinions that the conflict. So the biggest one that I would say where the decision was controversial. Was extending classroom sizes, and that comes with, you know, budgetary questions but your concerns and making sure that you're still within the guidelines of being a nonprofit institution and things, you know, as well as adding staff and paying staff. And so there was a conversation where there are proponents who wanted to extend the class sizes. And of course, my position was of course in the opposite, because, again, trying to make sure that we are within fiscal responsibility, as well as making sure that our reserves are not overextended. And rather than extending class sizes and having to find FTEs to teach classes, why not do something with current staff, maybe we're in an inflation period, give some raises and things of that nature. And so we had those difficult conversations. And with that, I was able to convince my other board members to say this is a more seasoned and probably a better path to go that doesn't have too many unknowns attached to it. And with that, I was able to convince the board that my position was what will be most appropriate for the school at the time. Thank you very much. And David, your next. I could give you specific examples, but I won't because I really don't want to relive the traumas of being a synagogue president and the president of a condo homeowner association. So instead, I'll just tell you that I was the president of a synagogue in Philadelphia for three years. And as the president of an 18 member board, that means that if everyone was in attendance, there were at least 25 different opinions in the room. And everyone's a volunteer and everyone feels that everything they have to say is brilliant and vital and must be adopted. So dealing with those kinds of controversies that come up gave me a lot of experience in finding consensus. And since it was a one year term I kept getting reelected because I build consensus and deal respectfully with people. The condominium board, I was actually president for 20 years. I kept getting reelected for the same reason. I build consensus but the difference is that in a condominium board everyone has a financial involvement and everybody has their own agenda. They want to spend less money or more money or they want to improve something or they don't want to improve something. So it was necessary to work in those circumstances to find the best way forward while still maintaining the integrity of the condominium and the organization. It's those two extended experiences that that is where I got most of my experience dealing with differing opinions. Thanks. Thank you, David. Over to you Jennifer. And thank you. I'm riveted with your responses. So the order for that will request responses to my question is first Phillip, then David, then Everold, Hilda and Sarah. And the question is brief. Please explain the difference if you can between the role of the ZBA and the role of the planning board. Not that the response is brief, but the question is short. So again the difference between the role of the ZBA and the planning board and we'll start with Phillip. Well, actually, I mean, I'll try to make my answer fairly brief without going into, you know, the definite, you know, responses things like you know the planning committee the majority of things require simple majority to pass special permits take what is it three two thirds I believe without going into all that I would just broadly describe the difference as the planning are looking at exactly that planning for the future of Amherst making sure that people have their interest represented and setting the rules. The ZBA is their role primarily and once again painting with a broad brush is going to be in any situation where you have firm rules in order for any organization or organism to thrive there are going to be exceptions to those rules. And that in itself I see is the role of the ZBA. Thank you Phillip. And next to David. Really the fundamental difference between the two is that the ZBA is a quasi judicial board. It is there to interpret and apply set rules that have already been determined. And there is a limit to what we can create or change because we have to operate within rules that are set. So the planning board has their own function of creating situations and the ZBA has to apply the rules as they exist to the applications for exceptions. Thanks. Thank you. Everald. The planning board, you know, provides for and guides the growth of the community. I would say they set the terms so to speak, and then the ZBA is meant to regulate the use the placement of structures and other such requirements that the planning board has implemented. Yes, I do. I would say the ZBA is quasi judicial body that interprets what the language of the zoning ordinances are, and of course the planning board would have some input into what goes into those ordinances. Okay, thank you. Hilda. Oh, I think you're muted. You're muted Hilda. I agree with most of what's already been said, but maybe a little nuanced answer. Traditionally, the planning board wrote the bylaw, which was enforced by the zoning board of appeals, but gradually over the years. The state has streamlined the hearing process to allow planning boards to grant special permits where required in projects allowed by volume. It was felt at town meeting many times that that's to say 40 years ago that the chairman of the zoning board did not comment on zoning amendments at town meeting because she felt that was a conflict of interest. The principal difference between special permits that are granted by the zoning board of appeals is that they are discretionary. They're not allowed by right and any particular project must apply with all the provisions of the bylaw, as well as positive findings found on the 10.6 10.38, which is essentially determines that particular project. Is is would be an asset to particular neighborhood rather than have detrimental effects in terms of air pollution, groundwater pollution, noisy tenants, which can be handled by things like conditions on a special permit and it can be turned down. If it's determined that it's not a good use for particular neighborhood, the other difference with with the zoning board special permit is it is appealable to the housing court or superior court. If it a a bottom finds there is going to be serious damages to his property from a project he has standing to appeal anybody within 300 feet of a project is can appeal but they may not be judged to have standing by the court if the court doesn't feel that their damages are worthy of a trial. I guess that's particularly the big to this could be a 50 minute hour lecture, and I'll try to keep it short but special permits are appealable. They are not allowed by right. They must keep the town, the butters and the applicant all on the same wavelength. Thank you for an agreement or semi agreement. Thank you Hilda Sarah. Thank you. The spheres of action for the planning board and the zoning board of appeals are specified in the zoning bylaw, the ZBA regulations and our charter. And they are non overlapping, which is important to me because my husband serves on the planning board. Importantly, neither body interferes with or overseas the business of the other. The ZBA has been mentioned has been mentioned handles for types of actions. It hears appeals from property owners who are unhappy with either actions of the building commissioner, or who appeals certain provisions of the zoning bylaw. And the other two types of work for the ZBA are to develop and grant special permits and comprehensive permits for affordable housing projects. In contrast, the planning board but not the ZBA conduct site plan reviews, and why certain special permits are assigned to the ZBA, as opposed to the planning board I do not know. And I know that some shifting of duties is under discussion, and would require a vote of council. The area of activity for the planning board, and less so for the ZBA is to suggest or develop new bylaws ZBA may be asked for input, but it does not seem to be a primary responsibility for that, that board. Thank you. Okay. Thank you Sarah. And Pat, thank you for asking the next question. Thank you. And I also want to thank all of you for coming forward. I'm going to build a little bit on the last question basically, and the order will be ever all Hilda, David, Philip and then Sarah. Yes. And when interpreting a provision of the zoning bylaw, should the ZBA consider the intent of that provision. The common sense meaning, or some other factor. And ever old. I think the intent and the common sense meaning. And I say that because as an attorney, I think that the live in a place of gray versus black and white. Because there are times when the provision is there, but in its common sense implication, you may try to look at it and see, okay, something's a skew. And how do you make sure that you are doing what is within the provision, but at the same time, applying real world implications common sense to it. So I don't think we can just look at it and say, okay, the provision is this and that is that. I think we want to make sure that it's been interpreted that it's in a way that fosters the intent off the town, or fosters. It fosters the intent, but growth as well. And at the same time, not encroaching on whomever is before the ZBA trying to make sense of this provision. So if there is ever an avenue where you can see a provision, but in its common sense application, it doesn't really make sense, or it doesn't foster the intent of the town. And I think there's an opportunity here to say, okay, this is a provision. This is a common sense implication. What can we do to make sure that whatever decision is made is being is going towards something that benefits. Not really just the town itself but perhaps the people who are peeling said provision. So I try to look for what the actual language says, and then in interpreting that language, look at common sense implications as well by interpreting the language. Thank you. Thank you. I would just like to begin by making an addendum to Sarah's answer to the last question and it used to be that the zoning board did make recommendations to the planning board for changes that we found in the bylaw where there were inconsistencies and difficulties of interpretation. And so my answer to question three is it depends. And everything it depends. It's no black and white answer anything, but the first one I will give us an example of appeal of a decision made by former building inspector. There was a attorney on Notting Avenue owned two buildings, one in which they occupied the other one that they rented out. And they happened to rent it out to a fraternity that was, I was a chair of that one went to the site visit alone and the house was immaculate really nice kids. There was fraternity that build ramps for handicapped people in town and planted. Many of the death bill bubbles that we see come up in the spring time well anyway the building inspector said that use wasn't allowed that it was a sorority building that there's a difference between fraternity and sorority buildings. The second place on the bylaw is this fraternity or sorority, and then another place in the use table of the bylaw with that section three, another place itself sorority and fraternity and this building inspector said there was a difference. After listening to what everybody had to say, we went along with the building inspector and said that this was a different use and fraternity sound allowed in a building that's a sorority, I felt that that was discrimination but in any event, I went along and and and we approved it but they, the fraternity went to court, they won and subsequently bought the building so that's one answer to the question. And the, the other thing is that the bylaw has the same bylaw has been interpreted very differently over the past 40 years. I can say, at the time in the 80s when Tom was going very fast amity place sale in place for all coming before the board developers knew they were going to get caught. So they came in with many more units and they got cut in half. And that was to balance the, the, the opinions of what's best for the time what's best for the butters what's everybody cut cut and developers knew that and compensated for that and coming in with more than they wanted. And one example of that is Mill Valley. The states came in as a 40 be that that's down on on in South Amherst. No value states came in asking for 200 units under a 40 be where provisions of the bylaw can be waged. Okay, oh so they got cut from 208 to 180 by the zoning board went to housing court and ended up with 134 that they have today where mill site they crammed that was on 34 acres and the mill site north Amherst has 130 units just as many on five acres so that's why I say the answer depends on how you enter it's what the needs are at the time. Thank you. Okay, let's move to David. Um, okay well of the way the question is phrase of common sense or intent. I think both of those and any other reasonable question should all be considered. We are not unthinking robots, nor does anyone know everything. We bring experience and knowledge that informs our views of issues. We should not leave out common sense or a healthy skepticism when considering a proposal before the board. That said, our primary mandate is to follow and interpret set rules. If we're asked to consider exceptions to rules we must use a lot of common sense and consider everything that is presented and then in the end, make a properly qualified and considered decision. Thanks. Thank you. Philip. First of all I apologize for bringing my secret weapon. I don't know if you saw that my dog decided she wanted to be on the call for a second. Sorry. But no, as with regards to this question, like everyone who's replied so far I would agree that we're dealing with situations of greyer. However, I believe the primary thing that we should be looking at is the intent. However, another thing is was the third part of this question that has been absolutely marvelous for me with watching all of these previous ZBA me is seeing the precedent that's been established by previous members and I don't necessarily mean legal precedent. But what I mean by that statement is seeing things that I've been discussing for years and talk about the importance of them things like dark sky lighting on the importance of indigenous pollinating, you know, plants be discussed at pretty much every meeting. I would be happy to hold in every opportunity. Every time that I hear it mentioned it tickles my little heart a little bit, but thank you. Thank you. And Sarah. Well the question suggests that intent may conflict with common sense meaning. And I don't know from experience of any such case so I've tried to imagine example and example. Maybe there is a provision in the bylaw about where or how vehicles can be stored, which assumed that the vehicles would use gasoline or diesel fuels. The property owner in 2023 will only have electric vehicles which were not even envisioned when the bylaw was written. Common sense might tell us that the provision is not needed in such case, but whether legally the ZBA has the authority to wave or modify that provision is a different matter. And the board might need to consult with the town attorneys conflict like that could prompt changes to the regulations to reflect changes in our in the way we live. But in any case how could the ZBA know the intent of a provision, if that is not spelled out in the bylaw. And it seems to me it would be mind reading unless there is a record of the discussions that led to the to the bylaw. But in any case, members are always going to need to use their judgment. So in addition to the common sense versus versus the literal reading there is always judgment because language is imperfect imperfect incomplete, and we need to judge as a board what is significant perhaps or what is consistent in that case. Past decisions don't settle those questions once and for all time, but can be helpful in illuminating the thinking board. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all a lot passive to Pam. Thank you. So this question will be Sarah first, then David held off Philip and ever old. So the question is in considering those with an interest in a special permit should the interest of one party be given greater significance than another party. We'll start with Sarah. Collaboration between applicants and the butters or others in the neighborhood is a good thing and can resolve objections or matters of concern before the ZBA even opens a hearing. I would expect that sometimes and a butters concerns are not resolved, but are not reasonable, and I would not want the a butter to effectively have veto power over someone else's property, because in this country are in, in the end our country is in a state of crisis and enforces strong property rights. The zoning by law and regulations define the extent of the public's control over private property and those limits must not be exceeded less the ZBA on the taxpayers time faced legal challenge. It is impossible to satisfy all parties desires, but an application can be reasonably said to meet the legal requirements, then I think I would weigh the interests of the property owner most highly in such a case. Thank you. That goes to David please. In this case, I think that actually no party has an inherently greater significance than any other party, except perhaps a butters whose immediate concerns should be should be taken into consideration they are the ones who maybe will be most affected. The interests of the town in general the greater good also deserve full consideration. I don't think that the applicant has an inherent enhanced right just because they are applying, especially if it's in the case of a developer. So I, I don't think that any specific party has a greater significance than any other party, and that the, the applicant for a special permit needs to make a compelling case for it to be approved. Thanks. Thank you. We go to Hilda please. I interpreted this question a little differently. And my answer is never escalation escalation. The board members must be in partial and no matter the needs of the town. Board members must act in an unbiased manner. Listen carefully and judge with your best judgment from the facts, not from emotions. Thank you. Philip. I would agree with the response from Hilba. I do believe that it's very important for any governmental entity to work as impartial as is possible. When you're looking at the rights of a budding property owners of the interests of the town of property owners. Sometimes they can conflict. I think in that situation, and as I've said from watching so many of these meetings, the one that I watched the other day it was actually I think the most recent meeting. One thing that I saw which is I think an excellent example of compromise between the ZBA and a property owner looking for a special permit. This was the property on I believe it's pine street. And they were discussing parking for it. The ZBA and the property owner were able to work at planting trees. In front of the designated parking area so that the headlights wouldn't possibly shine into the abutting or the neighbors proper. That sort of compromise I think is going to be essential so that as many parties as possible hopefully all feel that they're having their interests represented. Thank you very much. You're muted everyone. I'm sorry. While I agree that the board has to be neutral. My answer is, it depends. If, if it is. One question, if one party is a resident and the other party is the town, then my response is. We should apply the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling government interest. So, essentially, if the other party is the town and you know, we should do. I, it is the position that I've always had that we shouldn't be as restrictive with members of the community to achieve a compelling, you know, town interest. If it's neighbor to neighbor, then I do not believe that we should give. The significance from one person to the next based on their issue. We're talking about people that are appropriately assessed taxes and. And that's what gives them equal voice here. So to say that your interest is, you know, is greater than that of your neighbor. That's not the position that I would take. The other point I would like to make is. I like the greater good position where if the other pop, you know, is what is this, what is the significance of this request. How does it benefit the community as a whole. How does that being considered. And so in that scenario, I would apply arguably a different standard. And so again, my answer is, it depends. Thank you. Thank you all. I'm going to pass this now to Jennifer. Okay, my question, the order of response would be David, then Philip, then ever all Sarah and Hilda. And the question is, what's your opinion of waivers, exceptions, dimensional special permits in the zoning bylaw so your opinion of in the zoning bylaw waivers except exceptions, and dimensional special permits within the bylaw, when should they be used and when should they probably not be used. And we'll start with David. I think all of these are useful tools to address legitimate special and unforeseen circumstances. I think they should be applied fairly and impartially. I don't think that the granting of waivers should at all be automatic or expected they need to be fully, the requests need to be substantiated and and justified. I, I would be guided in almost all of these, or all of these I can't think of an exception with a compelling public interest. If the if the public interest, if the public has no interest in whether a garden shed is eight feet from the property line versus 10 feet from the property line. Again, it doesn't matter so much. But I think the, the well being and the future of the town of Amherst is the most compelled compelling criteria to be applied in these, and that these legitimate tools should be applied with that in mind. Thank you. Thank you. And next is Philip. Once again, I'm going to agree with the statement that the previous person speaker said, I do believe in examples that they should be used, giving the example of dimensional special permits. If you're looking to increase affordable housing looking at things like increasing zoning densities is a viable way to utilize that tool. However, on the flip side of that I would never want to utilize something like that if, as David was saying, we feel that the interests of the people are not being served by you know increasing zoning density or whatever the situation before us maybe. I believe that they're all valuable tools to have in our tool belt. However, you wouldn't use a hammer to put in a screw. Thank you. Thank you. And ever old. I think it goes back to part of my previous answer. So, it's, if the waiver is the exceptions are clearly spelled out in bylaws to say, for this situation, there's a waiver, or it tells you what the waiver is. And then we should apply that standard, because it is already defined, and we know what it is. If it is something that is out of the norm, and it is not defined, then my position would be that these are necessary to address the issues as they emerge. If, how do they foster the growth of the community as a whole, how do they benefit the community as a whole, and understanding that the positions or decisions you make may not be acceptable to everyone. But if the decision on the waiver and the exceptions and especially permits are being made, not just for individuals, but to advance the growth or, or, you know, fix something that we the town thinks needs fixing, then I would support that as well. So, it's, if it's clearly defined in the bylaws, then we act with that understanding, if it is something that requires consideration, then the position would be, how does it advance the community as a whole, and how does it benefit the town as a whole. And based on those arguments presented and made decisionally made with that. Thank you. Sarah, please. Thanks. Excuse me. It is sensible for a zoning bylaw to allow for waivers and exceptions and to require special permits, because the bylaw cannot foresee or efficiently spell out every possible real world zoning land use for construction issue, or how to resolve each one. But it is also smart for the Z, excuse me the zoning bylaw to be quite specific about when an owner can apply for a waiver or exception, what can be waived, and to be specific about the limits of the ZBA's power to grant those exceptions. And where the bylaw does not spell out decision criteria for the board, the decision still must enhance public welfare and, excuse me, public health and welfare, and cannot conflict with the general goals of the bylaw. The ZBA should require and that they're a clear demonstration that the owner would be significantly burdened without the exception being granted an exception or waiver. In this case, the concerns of the butters in the public would be even more important, perhaps, since a sense of bylaws being perhaps waived. Thank you. And Hilda. Here. We got a situation of it depends. It depends on the facts of the case. One must be a little bit careful here about where a waiver or exception, or a dimensional variation would be really asking for variance from the bylaw and grants can only be granted by a zoning board of appeals in the case of serious hardship like this rock in the middle of the property, and you have to build on the setback because that's the only place. What would would find that the variance is appropriate for the most part they're very, very hard to determine and and the definitions of the law of when a variance can be granted is specified. In chapter 40 the applications in order to allow more, more affordable housing units to be built allows all sections of the bylaw to be waived. It allows exceptions on waivers from the parking bylaw. For example, if a business and I say on the corner of High Street Main Street there are little businesses there on a very small parking lot. Parking can be waived there because the business, the conditions under the bylaw would would allow where it's a walkable business it's on a bus route. If you want to be a detriment to the neighborhood that that would allow on the 10.38 the findings can be found to allow waivers or acceptance of the bylaw there. In any case, any decision that's made has to come have findings that are positive on the 10.38 that it is compatible and not a detriment to the neighborhood. Thank you and thank you all for those really thoughtful responses and Pat. So handed over to you. You're muted. You still worry about that. We're going to go in the following order Hilda will be responding first than ever all Sarah, David and Philip. And the question is, what is your approach to incorporating public input into your decision making. Hilda. First of all, I would listen very carefully to both sides. Secondly, when especially when I'm chair, I let everyone in the room speak especially when you have a huge neighborhood outpouring to a bad landlord and a neighborhood who wants to make a bad situation worse. And listen to everybody go roll by roll, let everybody talk who wants to talk of course with the, with the proviso please not to repeat what's already been said, but try to give us new information and allow everybody to know that you're listening. Both sides. And then you have the applicant to rebut and then you determine from everything that you've heard whether the problems that the voters are telling you about about a particular landlord whether they can be fixed with enforceable conditions or whether it's a case where you want to deny to permit. That's how I listen. Thank you. The board would be serving the public so it's absolutely important that the public has a voice, whether it is a neighbor to remember for the boarding, you know, trying to get something done in their neighborhood. Whatever you do sets a precedent and therefore somebody else might say, but you did this for this such and such, you know, therefore, you have to have the public way in. Now, anyone knows that with the public way in, you are going to have competing interests and many, many different competing interests. And so the important thing is making sure that everyone feels heard has their, you know, has a voice. At the same time, my approach is to never like making promises to anyone because again, you still have guidelines that you have to abide by and follow through. When it comes to public inputs in decision making, the main focus is openness, transparency, and making sure people understand that while we are listening to your concerns which are valid concerns, the decision that we make at times may not be the right decision, but regardless, whether it is a public decision or not, you have to understand that your voice was heard, your position was considered, and in the end, the decision was made that we thought was most appropriate. Thank you very much. Thank you. Sarah. I hope that I have an open mind and I'm willing to take to heart the concerns and arguments made by the public. In my experience on ZBA the board does respond to comments, even if dialogue is not permitted. In the case of specific applications in which I've been involved, public comments have been useful in adding information and perspectives about the pros and cons of the applicants proposal, and have suggested new issues to discuss with the applicants. In fact, these comments from the public can and do result in conditions attached to a permit. Thank you, Sarah. Well, the short answer is that generally speaking, all input should be considered. If it is fair and appropriate, we should listen and incorporate it in our decision. If it is foolish or self serving, we can view it as such. There are various ways to submit input from the public. Letters, petitions, public participation at hearings. And all of these are appropriate ways to give input and, and we should consider all of it so that everyone knows that they were heard, and that the resulting decision included any, every idea that anybody had. Thank you. Thank you, David. Philip. I believe that public input constructive criticism are. Well, for lack of a better way of putting it, a gift. All of us I believe having served on boards before can tell you, as everyone here knows that sometimes that gift can feel a little bit like giving someone a set of tires that doesn't have a car, but it's still a gift. No. I believe that engaging the public getting the public involved is of the utmost importance. I also believe that you should live your beliefs. An example of me doing that is whenever I am in an open meeting. I try my best to not use abbreviations. The logic behind that is if we're trying to engage the public and get the public more involved in their own communities. We're dealing with a lot of niche terminology, and I believe that by using a lot of abbreviations we lose the majority of the population in a way at disenfranchisism from their own communities because they grow tired, and they just simply have no idea what's going on so they stop showing up. I think that is a disservice to the community. Thank you. And I will pass it on to Pam. Thank you. This is a little more general and it's, it's going to start with Phillip, then Sarah, then David, Pilda, and ever old. And the question is, is there anything else you would like to share with us that makes you a strong candidate for the VBA. I think we've forgotten in the first in the first round. I will absolutely go first on a short question. No, as I said before, my passion for service. I was writing economic development plans, working on land development codes with only a high school diploma. And at 41, as I said have made the decision to go back to pursue a formal education. I am a lifelong learner. I am the sort of person who if I do not know the answer right off the top of my head. My response is always going to be I apologize. I don't have the finite answer for that but can I email it to you. Because I believe that that's how people in public service should operate. I'm just thankful for the opportunity to speak to you and hope to see you all in the future. Thank you. We go to Sarah. Thanks. Well, I've enjoyed my year so far on the ZBA I found the work interesting and I hope to deepen my understanding of the bylaw and the master plan and how these play out for the benefit of our community. I would add that my professional training and work as a scientist, teacher and consultant always centered attention to detail objectivity questioning and weighing of the evidence and careful listening. And these habits of mine have been useful to me in a role where so much critical review and thoroughness are needed. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you to David, please. I moved to Amherst about 15 years ago by choice because I'd like the idea of living here. I'd like with the town offered. And I believe in participating I believe in public service. I've been doing a lot of experience in different disciplines, real estate, business nonprofits, and as an associate member of the ZBA. So, I've seen the ZBA, how it works. And it's a, it's an appropriate arm of town government for me to participate in with my background there are other areas that are of interest to me for which I believe I'm not qualified. In this case, I believe I am well qualified and that's why I'm applying for this position. Thank you. Thank you, David. We go to Hilda, please. Hilda has the wisdom of age. I've been, I've been a resident of this valley since 1954 I've watched us grow from a very small college very quaint college town to what we are now a big city that ain't so quaint no more. I've been trained as a scholar. I think logically I think I can write reasonably well I've had a lot of practice writing and editing. I have a learning curve that's minimal I will only have to catch up with all of the new changes of the bylaw that came in in February of I think 2021 of when it was owning bylaw which is to try to accommodate more housing and towns that don't want it, particularly in the metropolitan Boston area and otherwise I think I demonstrated over these many years that I got the skills to do the job and the time and the ability. Thank you Hilda. And we go finally to everyone. I think you're muted. As a person, I care. I care about people. I like people. I think that I have been fortunate throughout my life. And so services important to me. I have done even in high school and college a lot of volunteer work and that has never left me. I continue to do so even now a big part of what I do is I take cases for people who cannot afford attorneys and one of the things that I see is people who feel that they don't have a voice in the place that they call home and the place that they live so doing this allows me to be more of service and help my community as a whole. I like the law. The zoning appeal board does a lot with regulations. I know how to read and interpret laws. I write, I think I write wall. And with all that said, I'm also not afraid to say I don't know. Because there is a lot of things that I don't know and won't know. But what, but that's only a temporary situation. I always come prepared. I always make sure that whatever I don't know, I will say, I don't know right now versus I don't know. And the next time you see me, I promise that I will have a better response for you. Maybe not the answer that you want, but I'll be able to better answer your concerns in your question. And that's why I think that I'm suited for this board. Right. Thank you so much. We go to shall and a please. Yes. So almost there hanging. So the order would be ever old Philip holder, Sarah and David. And the question is, please confirm you have the time to commit to meetings hearings and side visits. Do you currently serve on any town boards or committees. Do you see any conflicts with serving on multiple boards. And can you manage the time commitment for all to starting with you ever old. So I do have time to commit to meetings hearings and side visits. I do not currently serve on any town boards, but full disclosure, I have applied to be in a few additional boards because as I said, I am interested in this place we, we call home. And there may be times do I see any conflicts with serving multiple boards. I don't the ones that have applied for I don't think so. I do not believe that there are any conflicts, but if there are conflicts. I do know how to get out of, you know, get out of conflict so I do not imagine that being an issue, but I am available. I wouldn't have applied if I didn't think I could be of service. Thank you. Next is Philip. Thank you for the question. I am not on any other boards or committees. So I would see obviously no conflict of interest there however I would say that in the future, if I were to be appointed to additional boards, then I think it's simple. If you see that there's any sort of conflict of interest. I always kind of opt on the side when it comes to politics and public service if you have to question if there's a conflict of interest there probably is. So I would err on the side of recusing myself or removing myself from whatever the issue may be. Like I said I am currently right now a full time student at Amherst College. I'm not working. Thankfully we're in a financial position where that's possible so literally it would be this board and still at school. Thank you. Thank you fellow and held out. I am ready and available if you need my help. If there's a conflict would be the coverage of the ZBA meetings for the Amherst Indie.org I could refrain from doing so on panels I am not serving if you feel it is still a conflict. I will not report on on panels on which I am serving. I will find somebody to cover it, but you can decide whether. I'm not going to publish the meetings. Anyway, if I'm not appointed and you'll hear all about it in the Amherst Indie.org another plug. Thank you. Sarah. Yes, I have the time, and I don't serve on any other town boards or committees. David. Yes, I have the time and the flexibility and I don't serve on any other boards and don't foresee applying to any other boards. So I, I have the time. Yes. Thank you very much. Mandy last question. I think this one, I don't know whether it will be the easiest one you faced or not today. It's where we have as, as we have said, there are openings for three year what we call full members there are full three year term. And they are the default panelists on any application. And we have openings for an associate member which is a one year term. And they are sort of the members who if a full member if another member cannot make a panel, the associate members step up and serve on that panel until that panel is done. So that could be multiple meetings or not. And so our question is, are you interested in being the full considered for a full membership the three year term associate membership one year term or either. And we will start with David. I am applying to be a full member. And I am currently an associate member. And if I am not chosen to be a full member. I would be willing to continue as an associate member. Thank you. Sarah. I would like to serve as a full member and believe I climbed the learning curve pretty quickly in this past year, and that I'm ready to move into that role, but I would be happy to serve again as an associate if that's what you need. Thank you Sarah Philip. Sorry I had to unmute myself. My desire is to serve as a full member. However, I would definitely be open to being an associate member if that's what the committee filled with me the best fit. As I said my desire is simply to be of service however okay. Thank you Philip everyone. I'm applying to be a full member, but I'm also open to serving as an associate member as well. Thank you. And Hilda. I'll leave it up to your discretion to do what you feel is most appropriate to cover your need the needs of the zoning board in terms of particularly the 40B applications which I know are problematic. Thank you Hilda. With that we have made it through the interviews. What will happen next is we're almost at one. We have follow up questions. I almost forgot. So we have to go through the follow up questions I apologize for that so we're not quite complete with the interviews yet. I'm going to go just for ease of everything in alphabetical order because that's the first response order I've got on my list here. And so are there any follow up questions for Hilda from committee members. Please raise your hand either visually or not if you have any follow up questions or through the raise hand button or visually I'll catch both. I'm not seeing any hands for Hilda for ever all does anyone have any follow up questions for ever all. I am not seeing any any for Sarah. You guys did a really good job apparently. I'm not seeing any hands for follow up questions for Sarah, any hands for follow up questions for David. Follow up questions for Phillip. See no hands I must say you guys all and oh wait one Pat snuck in there Pat. You're muted Pat. It's not a question Phillip I just want you to know that I also went to college in my 40s and graduated from Smith at 50 and got my master's at 51 so right on. Good job. Thank you everyone for taking the time out to come to submit your statements of interest to come here and answer all of the questions. This was I think the longest set of questions we've had for ZBA interviews since I've been doing these on the council. And and everything so what's going to happen now is we're going to once I've confirmed that the applicants don't have any questions for us in terms of process after I explain everything we're going to move all of the applicants into the attendee section. As we move into discussions of applications. We will discuss the interviews the all of the applicants the interviews the statements of interest everything. Look at our selection guidance and then if we have time today get to potentially voting on recommendations that we would forward to the council. The recommendations. If we don't get to them today we will we will take them up next Thursday on the 22nd. Whenever they are taken up and whenever votes are made either myself or Pam Rooney the vice chair will contact you after that time with been like a day or so to let you know what those recommendations are as it relates to your application. And it's just so you know, recommendations will be heard at the council meeting on June 26 is the plan appointments are aimed to start July one. But if there are votes on the 26 to make appointments, you will hear from someone I'm not sure who does that formally it might be our clerk it might be our president I'm not exactly sure who does the formal notification. That that you have been appointed and for what term and everything and then your term will begin July one. Did I cover everything. I think I may have did I miss anything it's been a long week. Um, so, oh, Sarah. Yeah, are there any questions Sarah. Yeah, thank you, because I won't be staying in this meeting after you just miss us. If you do not reach decisions today, could you just let us know that so we want to end next Thursday or whenever you continue. Thank you. We will make sure one of us sends out a notice if we don't make recommendations today. Any other questions about the process going forward. Um, for, um, Well, yeah, so I think I think that's it, unless there's any Sarah your hand is still up is that just lingering. Okay. Um, with that then I'm going to ask our clerk to start moving our applicants into the attendee section we will wait for that to happen before we begin our deliberations. Thank you all for all of your time you're welcome to stay or if you don't like hearing about us talk about you can leave and watch it later it's recorded. Thank you again everyone. Lisa, can I request a two minute break. Go take your two minutes while we're moving. Thank you. Thank you. As people get back, please turn on your videos so that we know everyone has returned. We're missing just one person once Shalini is back. We will start I have a couple of update one update I think it is basically. But we're waiting for Shalini. When you return, please turn on your video. Okay, so as we move into this, you will have noticed that the, that one part of our agenda talked about extensions of terms I mentioned last week or the week before one of our updates. That we were waiting to figure out who the panel for the June 22nd CBA hearing that is going on that day is I got that information yesterday Pam was CC'd on that. They were still being told that we expect it could potentially not go past the 22nd so whatever we do with it might get pulled from the council agenda if it does not extend but the panel includes three people that we need to consider. In terms of extending, but our job might be made easier. One of them is Dylan maxfield, who has not reapplied so no matter what we do today, we should potentially vote that extension. The other two panelists that have terms expiring our Sarah Marshall and David Slavittor. Depending on what we do today which might make things easier, we might not have to extend their terms depending on our recommendation. And I say things might be easier because we can make a recommendation for no more than four associate members and two full members. And depending on what we do with our applicant pool is being five for six slots, and one, it might make it easier to deal with everything so that's all I'm going to say but so the names the other two names that were on that list as potentials. Jordan Helzer and Vince O'Connor are not serving on that pool so we don't have to. Those will not be considered for extensions. So I wanted to make that update. Before we get started into discussing the current candidate pool as you know, we have two impending vacancies for three year terms and four impending vacancies for one year terms to talk about today are motion on the efficiency of the applicant pool in included that we would definitely make recommendations as to the two three year terms with the possibility of continuing and deciding to make recommendations on the one year terms. And as I did last Monday, I will go through some of the selection criteria just to remind everyone it's in a packet but the council selection criteria generally includes a good mix of new and returning members and pool in a variety that reflects the diversity of the town in a wide variety of areas. The ZBA chairs selection criteria included a number of diversity of things along with a relevant background and understanding of the quasi judicial nature of the ZBA and previous service on boards and committees and I just summarized that very little bit more specifics are, are in the packet I just trying to get out there, but quickly. So with that, I think it's still best, you know, I will go through the members and I'm going to leave it up to people to decide who they want to talk to talk about necessarily instead of picking one and going through each one, let each person decide what they'd like to say about each one and then we can, we can talk about what we're going to do. So Pam. I am, I am very pleased with the group of people that came forward to offer their services on the ZBA I'm just, I'm very comfortable with the range of skills we have, we have backgrounds in law we also have some construction background that's not a primary capability necessarily, but we have, you know, backgrounds in, in zoning. Lots of experience, lots of experience on many boards, not necessarily in Amherst, but those skills serve wherever they infer are inferred. And I got a sense from, from every single candidate that there is a very strong emphasis on listening, and the impartial listening came through loud and clear in in everybody. I'm going to stop there just because let other people talk and then I have some ideas about how I'd like to proceed. Jennifer. Yeah, I feel like I was seeing they're going I'm trying to think the glass half empty or half full that the half empty is there also good but we, you know, we have to make some decisions. The half full is that we do have five openings. We have six openings for five applicants so, but it's so we can, you know, find a place for everybody but it's really a hard, you know, if they were just, it was a very strong applicant pool. Thank you. I thought I have to say. I will add my two cents since I don't see pattern shall in his hand I agree with what Pam and Jennifer said yeah that half glass glass half empty and full I was thinking the same thing as as all the answers were coming in like, oh this is going to be tough to figure out three year term recommendations and one year term recommendations. Yeah, and basically what Pam said right. We, we have, you know, some with zoning board of appeals experience some that have watched a lot but might not have served, but also skills that, you know, some with skills that are ZBA chair talked about potentially needing or wanting and part of the criteria and also so I think we do have that that mix and and all of the I thought all of the answers and responses to the questions about waivers and differences and how you interpret bylaws and all of that were just fantastic. In terms of how how this set of candidates would approach. Looking at the applications that are coming and and all of us know some of what's coming including some 40 bees it's not, you know, it's not unknown that there's at least 140 be potentially coming soon. In terms of the North Amherst ball lane project because it's already sort of started part of that process. And so, yeah, I think it's, I'm not sure where I am yet, but I'll let others talk about sort of the, the pool itself and then maybe we can get into figuring out recommendations. Pat or Shalini would you like to add anything. I'm excited about this pool of people. There's nobody I agree with 100% and there's nobody I disagree with 100% that I feel like each person is bringing something that leaves me thinking and think in terms of what the ZBA would be doing how how they would handle something like a large proposal say like 132 North Hampton Road or. So I'm excited. I don't think that we can lose with this group of people whether they're experienced or newly approaching this work. Thanks Pat. Do you have anything to add at this time. Nothing to add just very impressed with the pool and grateful for the pool we have. Thank you. So, if we've got nothing else to add, we'll talk about, you know, let's start maybe hearing some impressions of potential combinations. Because I think that's how we'll all be looking at it as, as potentially two three year appointments and and three one year appointments. And Pam you said you had some so. Yeah, if you'd like to go first you can. I'll put the idea out there. And as we all said I think, I think there's some there are five great people that could step up and, you know, and climb learning, learning her quickly. I, I would be supportive of advancing the two current associate members who have done a good job they've done their homework. They, they come to the table prepared, and both have indicated that they're interested in in the full membership that allows them to fully develop there on as a consistent member. And that leaves three people who some of whom have not served in Amherst before it gives them exposure, and perhaps the third person in that group who brings a wealth of experience to the table but in fact has already had an opportunity to serve for five or six years and that would be Hilda. That's, that's my gut feeling is that the two current associates get get promoted, I guess, into fall and the three associates. We could have three wonderful associates who would be ready to go, you know, at a moment's notice. So just my thoughts. I have my own but I'm willing to defer to others if others would like to make thoughts. I will put mine out there which which right now are still forming. I think, given what Pam said there's definitely some support for going that direction. So I, I go back to our selection criteria, and that's where then I start struggling because, you know, given, you know, Pam I would agree in some sense that it's the most logical decision on what you what you just mentioned and this is why I start struggling because I go back to our selection criteria. And one of the things is reflecting the diversity of the town on many different levels. But you know, diversity of the town geographic diversity, diversity, residency, length, all sorts of things. And then I look at, and then I look at, you know, our chairs items that talked about the relevant background. And our current membership that's continuing on the three full members that are continuing on all live in district four. And then I start struggling because the two associates also live in district four. And so if we go with the most logical where I start struggling is we would be appointing a board that all lives in the same district and we have heard from our chair. That that geographic diversity can be very helpful on the ZBA. And so I'm struggling with that part of it given, especially given the fact that we see qualified other applicants that are just as qualified for various reasons to the two associate current associate members that are seeking to move up. And so, so that's one of my struggles. And that's actually one of the more and then, you know, I will say, I was very impressed with Everold and Philip and Hilda and everyone. Everold's legal background on a committee that is quasi judicial is is one thing that I'm not sure any of the other current members have that legal background. I don't know all of them. But I don't think any of them have the legal background. And so, when looking at other things in terms of trying to figure out what the right mix for this body is what the right or when they are also qualified. What what we consider, you know, his legal background. I keep coming back to as is this important and and is it important to have to have that as sort of one of the standard members we know that associate members as as we heard both Sarah and David say today are put on a lot of panels. Yeah, and so I suspect that whichever way we go today, all five will serve on a number of panels. But to think about which appointments we would have is sort of the default panelists which is how I'm starting to think of as the full members are the panelists we go to first. The legal background just keeps coming back to me as saying, is that important enough to make a recommendation for a three year term for him. Just to then provide some of that geographic diversity that that the, the membership as a whole would not have if all we went with was the moving up the associate members and the way Pam said so I don't know what the right answer is but that's some of the things I'm thinking about in terms of where Jennifer then shall I have a quick clarification I'm sorry. Can you tell me the districts of the other candidates. And so ever all this district five Philip is district three and Hilda is district one. Okay, thank you that's helpful. You're welcome. Jennifer. Just to give some clarification at the moment, the two alternates live in different council districts. David's in district three and Sarah's in district four. Our districts have already changed. And we voted in those districts. Yeah, but Sarah. They, they, they live in just, they voted differently. They had different representatives on their ballot last time I'm just saying they don't live next door they actually do live. And they just want to clarify that that they're you know, for whatever that I'm not even putting I'm just saying just for clarification they don't live in the same neighborhood and, you know, at the current time they don't, I will say, I feel like they, I don't think Sarah considers me her council representative, because I was, you know, not on the ballot in her district so yes going forward they will be but they don't, they're not neighbors and they technically don't live in the same district because they don't want to throw that out. They technically do because we've already had an election and a ballot voting on the new district. So just that they don't is they both live in district four those are the districts even if they have four years ago. So I guess they have four council representatives. No, you despite living in district four represent council district three, even though you were one of the alternates lives. So I'll just leave it at that. Yeah, I was thinking of the same thing, which you said manager to not the residential side but I think the less messy path seems what Pam just suggested it's like cleaner. It just seems easier to do that. However, especially bringing out the point that you did about rise I was just thinking of diversity in general also to, you know, it becomes a little more awkward like, but doesn't have to be I think it, we're all doing this to bring more diversity on our CB and I think everyone who applied today with also appreciate that and I think we should move forward with a more awkward conversation of what you know who and I think I would support your recommendation with April. I'm sorry. Yeah, I would support his being a full. Thank you shall any path. Yeah, I'm still trying to figure this out. I feel Philip is bringing some real experience around the land development use parks. I've got more experience I've got it written down that and it's I feel like it's a fresh voice. Ever all brings an incredible amount of information about the law and less experience yet around zoning so for me I see him. I really want him as an associate for a year and then to apply for a full membership. A full member not a full membership, a full member of or permanent member however we're defining it, or a three year for a three year term after a year I think that would be critical for him. I really want to see him on the ZBA and I really, really. Right now my top top choices for the three year positions are Sarah Marshall and Philip. Everyone's quiet so Pam. Just thinking about back to the criteria. You know for if we're looking to all just say for looking to sort of mix it up. One of the other criteria was experience and and the chairs interest in. I said replacing current members who are just completing their first term with fresh members is counterproductive and impairs the work of the board so he, he the chair appreciates the some experience. Some experience in going through the routines and the processes of what the DBA deals with, and if, and if folks are for some reason looking for regional distribution. I would say then that that Hilda is the only other person that brings that experience in the zoning board and its applications and processes to the to the front. Thank you, Pam. Yeah, I would support Pat's recommendation then in terms of bringing diversity of ways and having, and he seems to have like Philip has the. A lot, a lot of experience. So yeah, I would definitely support that. Jennifer. Yeah, I mean I, I'm really torn, because I, you know, could live with not live with I mean they're all really good candidates it's just it's. So I, um, yeah, I, if we were, I mean I, so my instinct is to go with Pam suggestion and maybe that's almost, you know, because it, it takes it having to accept or reject. So it sort of makes it a process and it does, I think make sense to me that, you know, they both, it seems like a logical progression to have alternates, you know, who serve in good stead, if they want to move up to permanent to do that so I'm totally comfortable with the two current alternates moving up to the two current positions. But I, yeah, I'm so I'm torn because I, I know I'm just floating around because there's, you know, I think they're all good. I, you know, I wouldn't want to be seen as rejecting anyone for the permanent positions. So, I also, you know, do agree with Mandy that I think, you know, the candidate who has the legal background that that, you know, made an impression for me as well. No, I don't know what, you know, I don't know. I almost don't want to pick out two people aside from the logical step, because I do think that the associates, as you said, do, they've been active I think every associate has served it, you know, for one application. Because if a full member, the way I understand it is if they can't. You know, there's an applicant, an application opens, and if a full time member can't be at that meeting, and an associate sits in then they follow that full application. Is that correct. Yes. Yeah. So, so the associates are active members. We currently have four and what Sarah disclosed that she served on a whole bunch, she was the only associate for about six months and then we were able to appoint three others. And David disclosed he has in that six months sat on three. I don't know whether that third counts the one he'll be sitting on on the 22nd or not. There's either three or four, and the other two I do know have both served on, at least one of them has served on at least one panel, if not more. And I think the other one has to. I mean, do we, would we vote on whether we wanted to go, you know, do the process of it of sort of advancing the two associates before getting to like that principle. You know, the individuals. So not necessarily because we have the council policy. We do just make recommendations to the council, and then I just meant internally for us. We have to follow the council policy and that one has indications on reappointments that all, all are up and open, and that the experience goes into the consideration as to what to recommend. And that's, that's, I don't know which number of the policy it is, but it's under reappointments of the policy so that that's the town council policy that's been adopted. So I'm again in complete agreement, because everyone is so great here that I would have liked to follow the natural progression that people who've already served other than the fact then that they're all in one district and that is very worrisome to me, not being a member. I mean, even if I was a member they were all from my district I would still be saying the same thing I think we want people who. And that's the only reason and then if you have to follow the order of progression then Sarah who's been there longer can be and then in the next round, we could have, you know. So it, I would like to propose Sarah's name forward and then one other person who who adds to the continues to add to the diversity factor that we're looking for. So in terms of economic age employment renter home owner diversity. Do we look at all of these criteria I think. In my opinion, both Philip, Philip, and a road would meet those criteria. They bring different their newer they bring a fresh perspective. Just just what we heard, I think they would add more diversity. Thank you, Jennifer. So if we were going to look at the new district, you know, if we were going to not. You know, progress the two alternates. I would be like Shalini. You know, comfortable with any of the other three. I would, you know, like to get I would vote for for David as the alternate to advance to the full position. You know, it's not yet. I think he's had, you know, a lot of experience. I think, you know, the fact that he, you know, he didn't. Most of the alternates, you know, didn't get voted on. I wouldn't want to penalize him for having joined in December. I really liked his, I mean, I liked all the responses, but the response that, you know, no one party, you know, necessarily should have precedence over another. I was a little uncomfortable with, as I was last time with Sarah's response to that, that the, the property owner should have precedence I think, you know, as most of the respondents said, that that's you, you, no one really has precedence over the other you look at the whole situation. So that's just my opinion. Thank you, Jennifer. So, I am, I haven't said much since my first one so I'm going to take an opportunity. I think Pat made a very good argument for Phillip. And, and, you know, Shalini has, and I have, have, have made some good arguments for Everald, I could support either one of them. I think if we were going to make a recommendation for either one of them for three year terms, I would probably support Sarah over David for the other three year term. But I think there's much more experience, much more experience than David, particularly with a wide range of applications. I was impressed when Sarah talked about in just a year. She's seen appeals from building commissioner decisions, as well as many other things. And I, I, I, her response to the conflict question, particularly with her experience on the CPA committee, and keeping the committee to discussing the issue at hand and not other issues related to the library construction or the library project. That was a very important answer and perspective and, and how you approach decision making, particularly in a ZBA when you have to stick to the law, and you're not supposed to consider anything else. And so that experience that she had with that is one of the things that would have me favoring her over David, although he has a lot of experience with conflict. There's not as much in the municipal decision making realm. So that's where I would go. I'm going to have to switch my login to a different one as I have to start moving to do some child carpooling right now so bear with me as I switch to a phone interface as we continue this conversation I know Jennifer has to leave by to So hopefully it sounds like we might be getting a little closer which is why I think we should continue the conversation as long as we can to see if we can get to a recommendation. While I switch, I would ask Pam if you can take over facilitating. I know I put some draft motions in there I won't have them in front of me for the continuing part of our meeting. So the people can pull up draft motions for at least giving us language if we get to that point there would be language available. I can put them up on the screen to if that's helpful Pam just let me know. That would be great I was just going to go look for them. Just, yeah just let me know when you're ready for them and I'll pull them up. I'm not sure we're there yet but I just thought I'm not going to have them on my screen so I thought I'd tell others so bear with me as I switch items and Pam please thank you for taking over facilitating. Jennifer. Yeah, I was just, you know, I, for what ever it's worth. I tune into a lot of ZBA meetings and I know that even when I just wanted for people to know this in terms of, you know, whether whether an associate was paneled or not for how many meetings, ZBA meetings that David as an associate even if he wasn't a voting member of the panel, because he but he sat in on almost every meeting. So when I would zoom in I would see him, they still let him be a panelist, even if. So I could see he was there even if he wasn't the alternate that was voting. And again when I look back at my notes, you know I mean, David are both immensely qualified and I think they've been terrific associates and when they're, you know, a voting member of the panel. You know so I'm not disparaging anyone's participation or tenure they've been to both been terrific members, but I guess for me personally when I look at my notes, you know, Sarah said, and we all have different opinions about this, you know David said that no party has a greater interest, you know the applicant or the the and you know Sarah, what I wrote jot it down is that she feels that the butters shouldn't have a say over the property owner and that's just, and I think if I have to decide I would I would vote for Sarah and David to both be advanced if we were going to do that route. But if I had to choose one. I think it's on that that was approach that I would be, you know, that I would vote for David. Thank you, Shalini. I just want to clarify what I heard of Sarah's answer because she didn't lead with. I know you're focusing on that aspect Jennifer that she said it's a property on and that was like her last point that if nothing you know worked out. I think she led with the idea her first point was collaboration can address concerns, and I think that's what I want to hear is neither, because what, you know what David definitely did say no party has a greater significance except butters. So you can, you can take either of them and see as you know one leaning, both of them, I think, are talking about no party and talking about collaboration. There was a personal leaning that they have you can see that they're on the other ends. So you can hold and so yeah so you can hold so I don't think we should hold one way or the other because I think both of them did not just focus on one narrow aspect. They talked about all parties and, and yet focusing a little bit more on one side or the other. So, right. So that's why I don't want to have to choose between the two. If I do I guess I would have to go that way we all have to go one way. Pat, any, any thoughts. Many, and none. I guess the thing that David said was no party has greater significance except a butters. And that is a critical statement to me particularly from district. District three and four, because perhaps I'm scarred by freezing. I'm scarred in the sense of my first experience on the council was 132 North Hampton Road, which is now East Gables. And the butters, and I was going to do this as a follow up question to David and then I didn't think it was necessary but I guess I should have. The butters were totally opposed to the problem project, totally 100%. One of the things that I watched is my idea of Amherst as progressive being destroyed by people who were saying, Oh, we have to watch out for the young women at Norris College. We, I don't want those people walking up my street as a shortcut to the bus stop. And because, and for people who don't know who are listening 132 North Hampton Road was an affordable housing project in current which 28 25 or 28 studio apartments for people coming out of homelessness, addiction, people of low income, etc. So I listened, and if, if the butters voices were listened to the way or given greater significance that project wouldn't exist. Now what happened, and this is important to me is the, we, the town went, we went forward we had public forums we had everything and I watched the re the butters change. They started wearing I support affordable housing buttons, even though they didn't in their neighborhood, but they also offered some damn good ideas around support, having support on the property for the residents. And those some of the conditions that they started to get to once they got rid of their, or they realized their assumptions were failing them. They, they made the project in many ways better. But I'm concerned when anyone says to me they should have more significance this is the way that I'm scarred because if that's true. I would not have happened. It was a battle, and it was a, it was an intense battle, and it was a battle for the heart and soul of this community. And it's going to happen. And that's, that's really important. And I don't know where Sarah Marshall was or David was or Hilda was on on that I don't know. But I do know what the butters were like, and the intensity of their rejection of a project. So that so. So it makes me really uncomfortable to have four people from any if they were all from district to. I would not want four people, because the zoning board has to represent think about the common good, the community, and what might be uncomfortable for one district might be life saving for another or one area of our community or a different area of our community enough I talked too much. Yeah. No, I don't mean yes, I don't mean yes yes you talked to what I said. Jennifer. Yeah, no I agree that they usually when the butters and the property owners and the ZBA work together they come to a better project. Just for whatever it means. I don't think that the community to North Hampton Road I don't think anybody who's applying had was involved in that at all because it was a totally different. And I'm not saying they were. Yeah, yeah, I know and you know because I always talk about the sunset fearing townhouse development which the community never objected to but or the butters never objected to but just wanted some input, and they did the developer was really you always get a better. You know, when everyone's working together, I mean I think we're, I think we're nitpicking because everyone's. They're very close but I guess we can only vote for two people so that's where. And you know I don't, that's where we find ourselves, and I don't, I don't, I know that the fact that I am taking into consideration I just want to point out that they're in different districts now but I understand that. And if they go forward, they'll be in one district and that that's a consideration. I was just saying that I don't they live far enough apart I don't think they see themselves as neighbors but I still get get it. We haven't heard from Mandy we don't know if she is in her automobile traveling that she will, I guess, call in and Athena is listening for the call I'm guessing so she can patch her in. She's here and should be able to unmute but I think she's driving so it might be difficult. I wasn't sure if she was simply not going to be able to hear and speak, or if she was. Obviously, not signed out. Do you have a do you have a sense that she's going to try to to call in and be present. Mandy, if you can hear us. Please unmute Mandy is this your number calling ending in 8352. I think this is me. Okay. You're still trying to figure out how to do it. You're still connected the other way. Okay. Yeah, I didn't know if I unconnected that way if it would throw off my phone. So sorry about that. No worries. So I left that one connected and when the meeting ended along connect. But I am here I am listening and if I don't have to use the phone to unmute if I stay this way. I can participate. Okay. Good. Well, I was, I was going to add, you know, the, the conversation about the factors that keep coming back to my head are the whole time members that I'm feeling it would be appropriate to have the, the actual experience. I know, I know a lot of people get on the ZBA or on the planning board who in fact don't have prior experience so it's, it's not that it's just that, you know, given the fact that we have people that have prior experience, it seems to me reasonable to, to acknowledge that experience. I was, I was also thinking a little bit about Sarah's comment about the property owner having essentially the final word, and we, I think we have to remember that we're talking about special permits and we're talking about the fact that the only reason that the special permit is that it doesn't really fall within our rules so it's, it's a discretionary opportunity for somebody who wants to make a change on, on their property to be able to do so if, you know, if appropriate. So, I'm, I'm actually not sure that I would support the fact that the, that the property owner is has the priority as, as Sarah ended up with her conversation with, and I remember she said that last time as well. And simply because it's no one is asking for a property owner to, to put forward something that doesn't follow the law doesn't doesn't follow the current bylaws. It's, it's to me it's, it's, it's not a given that they should that they should necessarily. Most projects are great most projects are sculpted in a way that, that finally do meet a butter and an owner and town needs. Anyway, if I if I had to put someone forward I think I, I too would support David. As a whole member, and then look to someone from another district. And if I had to pick I would probably go with Hilda because of her vast experience and understanding of zoning. She's, she's a wealth of knowledge. That's where I would start Jennifer. And this is more just generally, because I do, I, you know, again, I understand that. I think we should look at it less. I'm just saying, as we go forward, maybe less district than geographically spread out because like the new district five goes from Amherst Woods, it actually includes like it goes to downtown. And if we had it, if there were two applicants technique from district five and one lived downtown and one lived all the way in South Amherst I don't, I'm just saying I don't kind of going forward that maybe we should talk about geographically and not in terms of council districts because they sometimes geographically don't make sense. That's all I want to say. Melanie or Pat and he is a collaborative process. Hilda does bring a wealth of experience. She also brings positions that are important to her. And I, I feel like, I think there's a kind of rigidity there embedded in the experience. And I must admit, I'm concerned about that. I'm knowledgeable. Absolutely. And I would, I would like to have her utilize that knowledge as an associate member, possibly as a way of allaying my concerns. I, we're talking about people who work for a year and then are reappointed. And I would like to see whether my assumption is accurate or hopefully inaccurate into in regard to Hilda. Because I do value her experience. I really feel like the two people I most want to see are Sarah and Phillip. And, and, and to counter the, the, you know, 1954 was when Hilda came to Amherst, and I'm afraid that there's less. My assumption and Hilda, I apologize because I can be wrong, but I feel like there's an Amherst that she holds and, and, and once. And then there's Phillip who's coming in and I don't agree with everything he said, which is, you know, I really didn't. But I got intrigued about the different ways that I saw him thinking pocket parks and seeing what the benefit is for families. You know, something I never thought of other things in terms of social justice issue and environmental issue he's really the only candidate who spoke about climate and mitigating climate. I mean, he didn't say that specifically but when you're talking about pollinator gardens and so I feel like he's bringing fresh energy and experience. I remember from a say an encyclopedic memory of the zoning bylaws in Wilmington that, well, I think that will help him to review and understand and hold the quirkiness of our unclear and unsimple zoning bylaws. And I, I, what I feel in there is a kind of layered compassion that I would like to see in public figures and people participating on committees. So I'm still holding to Sarah and Phillip. Thank you. You got your hand up. Yeah, I think I would add to the diversity factor that most of the people who run for council not just okay sorry who joined committees are retired people and here we have an opportunity to bring in younger people or have a fresh perspective and so institutional knowledge and history is an asset but as Pat pointed out, I think we need a balance of both we need that, as well as we need people who don't have as much history and are bringing fresh like what is needed now in terms of building communities that provide equity social justice that are looking at climate change that is at the front and center I know most of his responses included some element of sustainability and or social justice and community. And so I would totally support Phillip white in as a, as bringing in that fresh perspective to our ZBA and Sarah as I've already said, and can I still be heard. Yes, you can be heard. Sure. Okay, I thought I might still be able to is it okay if I make a comment. So, I've been listening with, with quite big interest and, and Shalini and Pat have been making a huge impression on me for Phillip as an appointment, especially the climate action as I think about the zoning bylaw and how a lot of our bylaw requires a lot of unbuilt space and how that unbuilt spaces landscapes. I think Phillip could bring a fresh new great perspective, especially with how he talked about the pocket parts and all of that so, so I'm getting more and more excited about Phillip as a three year potential recommendation in listening to everything else I still not. I would still, I think, favor ever old and so I'm almost moving to potentially ever old and fill up as as my, my leaning for three year appointments that legal background I, I still think is necessary and then when we talk about we've heard, you know, when we talk about a good mix of new versus returning are three current members that will continue on have been there for a fairly long time I think Steve judges near his sixth or maybe even seventh year as chair and, and Craig Meadows is in his second term. And john Gilbert might be in his first term but he has that that architectural or engineering I'm not sure which experience and background. And so, you know, I think two individuals who have not lived in Amherst for very long and so bring that very long I think ever old said, five or six years or seven years that's still decently long time but compared to others. I think they would bring some wonderful experience wonderful new perspective to us. And, and I wonder if that is a recommendation that we could all get behind it sounding like there are potential concerns about both David and Sarah that that make us as a body in hesitant to go with one or the other so so I'm just putting that out there is maybe just the three year terms ever old and fill up and everyone. Thank you. Any thoughts on Mandy's position. Sorry, I thought I was unmuted. I could support Mandy suggestion of ever old and fill up. Yeah, I do like that third solution. I just have a question for all of you who means, you know, who are following CB and more carefully than I have. If there is enough experience already, and I think what I did here from Phillip was that he has been, you know, watching and with his experience with other cities that he probably is coming in with some amount of good experience but how do people feel about the existing pool of experience. May I, Pam. Yep, yep. I couldn't hear the last one of what she said. So one of the things I thought about when making the suggestion Shawnee was asking about the existing full of experience. If we if we go with this suggestion as a recommendation ever old and fill up for three year term, all of the associates will have some experience on the ZBA, whether it be a while ago or just recently as associates and therefore any associate meeting to be used because someone can't attend is is someone with experience and a decent amount of experience or shallow experience depending on, you know, six months or a year, you're just getting into it right. But if if we swap and go with Pam's original suggestion and say the three other regular members could not be there and we ended up with a panel that we interviewed today we would have very little experience on the board. And so, in some sense, I also like the possibility that the associates all have some experience because it would balance out nearly every panel between some experience and a little, you know, a great deal of experience and a little less experience. Thank you. And if I can summarize that so because the if you if you went with your suggestion and and that any panel that would be comprised that might need a an associate on it. And because it in your scenario, those three scenario, those three associates, all have some experience that you would essentially keep the pool of experience in the associate team, rather than, rather than having them as full members, just because the panel might be comprised of, I guess, too many inexperienced people on the primary membership. I guess, not quite. So, so here's what I'm thinking. If we go with your suggestion, your original suggestion, Pam, of, of recommending David and Sarah for the three year term, they have a little experience but not a lot right less than a year. And say our chair or Craig Meadows, some of our most experienced had to not be on a panel and the two people that were picked were ever old and Philip, we would have a very inexperienced panel for that panel. And that's a very possibility whereas with my potential compromise. Recommendations that I threw out there. If ever old and Philip are on the panel and Craig and Steve judge can't be on it. The two people who would replace them on the panel would both have some experience. So, you know, it would still be a somewhat inexperienced board, but it might balance itself out because you could, I don't know, I could be completely wrong in how I'm thinking about this, but that was one of my thoughts is that you would have a panel that has a good mix. You would be more likely to have a panel with a good mix of both experience and less experience with this suggestion, maybe others might think differently. Yeah, I don't, I'm not really so much following the logic of that because alternates aren't associates aren't always called. So, you're, I don't know how many so is it Jordan held sir who we who's been on since December or January I don't know how many times he's been called to serve. I would feel uncomfortable. I mean, I could support Philip or ever old, but I would like to see one of the experienced, you know, one of the current alternates advance and you know, I would be. I think that that I don't, I know that the ZBA chair really, you know, values that experience. And I think, you know, Amherst is a complicated town I think we definitely need new ways of, you know, we need fresh eyes, but also, you know, an understanding of the history. So, it's, thank you. It's two o'clock and I think we are we Jennifer you were the one with the two o'clock deadline. Are you at all flexible. It's not I can go to 215 but then I have to stop. Okay. Okay. Yeah, and I actually I do too. Thank you for reminding me. So I'm hearing more consensus for Philip that that Philip is perhaps someone that brings a good deal of experience on boards and committees and in his in his approach to environmental environmental concerns that that perhaps as as one of the two full members. You know, is there anyone that wouldn't be able to support Philip, we can work sort of backwards. We can we raise our hands if we could support Philip. I could also support ever old. Are you going to get to that. Yeah. Well, it's okay. Yeah. Andy or she's calling you. No, I. Oops. There was a bunch of noise so I muted Mandy Mandy you can push star six to unmute sorry about that. I thought it was just background noise. No, that was just me. I'm trying to transfer. Can you hear me. Yes. You heard the question. I did. I could support ever all. No, sorry, Philip for a three year term. Right. That was the question. Yeah. Yes, I could do that. So that feels like a consensus at least on one of the three positions. I mean, excuse me, one of the three year positions. We have a, we have a wild canary or something out there. Jennifer, I see your hand up. Um, yeah, so I guess it for, you know, when I said I could support both. So I'll just, you know, my hand would be, I think I, I, I would like, I'm going to vote. That would be one of my selections. And I think, although, you know, that because Everald brings that attorney background, and it really seemed to, you know, inform a lot of his responses. Those would be my, you know, that's where I would be going. You know, as much as I think Hilda, you know, they're all terrific, but, you know, for going through the list, I guess if you were just going through the list and you said who could I support for full I would say everyone, but I can't vote for everyone. So, but I would, I think if I had to pick between Everald and Philip, I would, and I was only picking one for the full term I would probably lean towards Everall because he's an attorney. Pam or Mandy, would it make it easier to do these to vote the two, three or terms separately in two separate motions, rather than trying to pick a pair. Well, it's the pair that matters, right. I mean, that's, that's what it's boiling down to. So, if we all raise their hand for Philip White, and but I'm hearing Jennifer that if you could pick just one of the two that you would actually vote for ever instead of Philip. Yeah, I mean if I had to but I'm not being very helpful. I'm just being wishy-washy. I know it's how do you pick. Yeah, yeah, I know this is, this is not. I think we need more. We need. Oh, Athena is prompting us here. No pressure. No pressure. I know we'll be here till tomorrow morning. Well, can I speak her. Yes, Pat, sorry, I was reading and seeing hands. I, I get tired of the Amherst culture wars. You know, and I really feel like David and Sarah and Hilda bring baggage for that that's of different size and imp and baggage that impacts different people and I would love to get to fresh voices. Knowing that I would have the backup of David and I have the backup of Sarah and the backup of Hilda experience. So I really, really would like to see Philip and ever all voted and moved independently, you know, separately or together. But I, I don't know. Yeah, Shalini. Oh, Mandy is Mandy. Okay, yeah, Shalini. I was just going to say that I was going to propose to move to propose David and follow up for these positions full time positions with Mandy what did you want to say. Who were you going to propose Shalini. David and follow up. All right, no, no, no, I, I lied. Sorry. Let me get the names right. Everald and Phillips are. Oh my God, that would have been a bit of a problem. Okay, no. First time I ever initiated to move something it was wrong. Okay, okay. Everald and Philip. Second. Thank you. But was that a motion being made. Yes. That was suggested by Pat, Mandy, you have your hand up. Yeah, no, I was before Shalini made that motion I was going to support what Pat said in nearly its entire entirety it's one of the reasons I proposed. David, sorry, not David Everald and Philip with three associates being David Sarah and Hilda. Shalini was your motion for Everald and Philip for. So the recommend the council appoint presidents, Everald Henry and Philip white as members of the ZBA for terms effective July one 2023 and ending June 30, 2026. Yes. Okay, and I heard, I heard Jennifer say that she could support Philip and ever old. And if that is the, that is the leaning of the of the CRC. I am not opposed, obviously to either of those candidates. I was hoping for more experience and a logical promotion of and recognition of people's contributions that they deserve to move, you know, into into the full role. I think, you know, if I were in anyone's shoes, I would certainly feel that way. So I, I could support ever old and Philip. At the expense, I, I'm feeling of, of some folks that have already contributed so I, I would, you know, I'll step off my block and, and be happy to do this unanimously if that works. I'm going to talk me out of it. And his hand is up. Maybe maybe your hand still up, I don't know that it is because it shows that it's like that I press it. Oh, there you go. Oh, weird. Okay, sorry. Want to add anything. No, I'm just figuring out my zoom on the phone. How to use it apparently. If you want to take back the cheering, I don't know if that's Jennifer and then, and then maybe we go to a vote. Yeah, I was just picking up on a little what you said Pam I'm just, you know, wondering what message. You know, I almost feel like we're penalizing a bit those who have have served and have some experience. This is fresh eyes. So I just, you know, I, you know, I almost want to say to those associates that are willing to step, you know, step up for the three year term. You know, I, because I think that we're not. You know, just like I said, kind of, they're being a little penalized for their experience. I just want to make that comment, you know, that that it could be interpreted that way. Thank you. I think how people interpreted of course they will have their own interpretations but I think it's what we are bringing forward as our intentions collectively as as a committee is that you know we have seen and I think the people who've been here long enough also know that it's very hard to get different people from different neighborhoods different age groups and different, you know, personal backgrounds to participate in town government and if that is the reason why we are proposing the two younger candidates or newer candidates and if they can see that I'm really sincerely hoping that our more experienced applicants will recognize that that yay we have newer people who are willing to serve. And I think that, if you can all hold that at the forefront, while also acknowledging the years of service and institutional knowledge and respect that completely. And just hope that, even though they're not going to be in the full position that they will still continue to contribute to the process. And I think it's a big win if we can get newer people with diverse backgrounds to participate and not just. So that's where I think we can emphasize that as a narrative. Thanks. Jennifer last comment I think it sounds like I just want to say I agree with what Charlie said to. I don't disagree. I do agree. Okay, so I'm going to call for a vote then. And we're going for. Let's see. Okay, for the not more than to move to recommend the town council points residents, Phillip white and ever old Henry as members to the zoning board of appeals to terms effective July one 2023 ending July 30, June 30, 2026. All those in favor, let's see, hold on got to do this alphabetically. Please. Yes. Pat. Hi, Mandy. Hi, Jennifer. Hi, and Pam I. So that's unanimous. No absences. Second one motion for associate members. It seems we're a man you have your hand up. I was just going to move on to the next motion. Okay, I was just reading it. Okay. That the town council appoint residents. Hill the green bone, David Sloveter and Sarah Marshall as associate members to the zoning board of appeals for terms effective July one 2023 and ending June 30, 2024. Let's mix it up. We'll start from the top. Second second second. Thank you, Jennifer. Yes. Pam is a yes, Mandy. You're muted Mandy. She's trying to figure it out. Sorry, I, the audio cut out for a while. Is it my turn. Yes. Hi. Pat. Hi. And Shalini. Yes. And then unanimous. Okay. So I'm going to vote on motions to extend term for members and associate members not continuing to have one more motion we need to make. Yes. The one at the bottom of the page. Yes, with just Dylan. Yes. So it would read as, as on the screen, it would just be Dylan Maxfield extension of term to complete hearing on which the members are serving. I'm going to turn it over to you, Mandy, to extend if needed, Dylan Maxfield term to complete a panel. I'm going to turn it over to you, Mandy, but I think the meeting is adjourned. If you, unless you will, I will write up the note. So my audio cutting. Okay. I'm going to, I'm going to write up the notes as requested. The report to town council. We do not need to cover this topic in the 22nd. And we'll discuss it or we'll present it at least on the, on the 26th to town council. Wow. Yeah, yes. Yeah, we did. And thank you to all the people watching and participants and, and all the applicants. Yes. I have no disrespect for David or Sarah, or he'll. Absolutely. Absolutely. And I want to thank Pam for taking over for me. Oh, yeah. Thank you, Ben. I'm going to leave. Bye.