 Pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021, this meeting will be conducted via remote means. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so in the following manner by emailing Steve McCarthy at McCarthyS at AmherstMA.gov that's M-C-C-A-R-T-H-Y-S at AmherstMA.gov. 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 proceedings in real time via technological means. In the event that we are unable to do so for reasons of economic hardship and despite best efforts, we will post on the town website an audio or video recording transcript or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting. And so let's take a roll call of attendance, Doug. Here. Hallie. Here. Gaston. Here. And I am here, Dylan is not. So we're four here with one absent. Okay. Number two, public comment. Is there anyone here for general public comment? Not specific public comment or public specific comment specific to something that comes later on the agenda. And let's see, if you have public comment raise your hand, hit the hand button. And I don't see anyone here with public comment. Okay. Number three licenses, a special short-term alcohol serving license applications. First up is SST dash 22 dash 67, Gabrielle Gould, Wine and malt, South Common October 1st, 12 to five. Gabrielle. Hi. Hi, welcome. How is everybody? Good, how are you? Thank you. Good. So this is the second annual we did this last year. It is the UMass Wind Ensemble. Believe it or not, there's like 75 to 100 of those kids and they all come with their wind instruments. We do not put up a stage. They play on the actual self comment on the grass. It will start at 2 p.m. and end at 5 p.m. And we have white lion brewery and artifact cider will be the two tents there that will be serving alcoholic libations. Again, everybody is tip certified, including us. We will do the same bracelets that we've done for this event last year and for the summer events for the last two years. And I think that that's pretty much all I have to say about it. Okay, great. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for Gabrielle? No. Is there a motion to approve SST dash 22 dash 67? Move. Thank you, Doug. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Gaston. Any further discussion? No. Let's take a vote. Doug. Aye. Ellie. Aye. Gaston. Aye. And I vote aye. That is four to zero with one absent. The short term alcohol license is approved. Thank you, Gabrielle. And I hope the event is a great success. Thank you. Have a great weekend. You too. Aye. Okay. Number two, SST dash 22 dash 53 Bill Peat top of the campus, Inc. Wine and malt Bowker Auditorium. Oh, next April, 2006-30. So this was part of the batch that we primarily reviewed last week, but this particular one just had a date error in the application. So it wasn't able to make it to the agenda. Okay. It's exactly the same as all the other Bowker Auditorium ones. Okay. So, and he's not here to. No, no, it's just we're just, okay, let's just sort of gone with the others. All right. I'm going to approve SST 22 53. Oh, did you have a question, Doug? No, I was going to move. Okay, great. I'll move to approve the license SST. All right. Thank you, Doug. Is there a second? I'll second. Thank you, Hallie. Any further discussion? But no. So let's vote Doug. Sorry. Gaston. Aye. Hallie. Aye. And I vote aye. That is four to zero with one absent. And that license is approved. Okay. Great. Onto the common pictures license applications. So the first one is Kenny's nutrition LLC, doing business as K's at 377 college street. And Mr. Keeney is here and everyone got a copy of the license application. And welcome Mr. Keeney. And so what is the, why don't you let us know what your business is like? Hello. So we're just a shake and tea and coffee cafe. That's kind of the easiest way to say it. Everything's powder and tea based and a lot of it's kind of takeout and we just serve drinks. That's kind of the quick synopsis of it. Okay. All right, thank you. Thanks. Does anyone have any questions about it or any questions about the application? Yes, Doug. I just have one in section more for Steve than the applicant. We're just noting on the sheet we were sent. We have the address on it. So we're looking for where it is in town. And so thank you for telling us it was 377 college street. But it wasn't on the application we were sent. So I didn't know if that was an artifact of the actual application process or not. I mean, this is the thing. Yeah, thanks for pointing that out. That's a specific button to press to include that on the export. And I must have missed that one on that one. So thank you for your reminder and I will be a bit more mindful next time. Yeah, I just want to make sure there wasn't something that was missed in the application which would cause us trouble later on, but. Yeah. Yeah, that did make that in there for the full application. So. Great. Thank you. Great. Any other discussions? I mean, questions. No, if there are a motion to approve the common Vic form. So move. Thank you, Doug. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Halle. Any further discussion? No. Okay. We'll take a vote. Doug. Hi. Halle. Hi. Gaston. Hi. And I vote aye. That is four to zero with one absent and the common victor's license is approved. Thank you so much for coming in, Mr. Keeney and hope that it goes well. Thank you. Have a nice one. You too. Okay. The next one up is ZNG restaurant incorporated doing business as Lao Hu Tong, 63 Main Street. Is someone here for that, Steve? Hi, this Sam might be. Oh, there he is. Sam, are you here to present this application? Yes. Can you guys hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Welcome. Okay, thank you. Because this is my first time using the Zoom meeting, so... Okay, so our restaurant is kind of, we want to make Chinese food faster. We don't want people kind of waiting so long, kind of. So every person coming to our restaurant, they just need kind of five to 10 minutes for all the food. That's the reason. That's the reason we don't want to kind of put any alcohol in our restaurant. We just sell some soda and the milk and the juice because right now it's kind of a little faster stuff. So that's our restaurant's opinions. Oh, that sounds great. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions about the new restaurant going in on Main Street, Lao Hu Tong? Or any questions about the application? Yes, Doug. I'm curious. Have they opened or when are they looking to open? No, we don't know. It's not open yet. No. Yes. I mean, what's the question about that? When would you like to open? When are you expecting to open? So our plans will be open around November. November? Yes. Okay, perfect. Thank you. If there are no other questions or comments about the application, I will entertain a motion to approve this common pictures license. Sam, could I just get your full name for the record in the minutes? Yes. What's your full name? Oh, my full name is Sam Dong. You mean my English name or Real's name? Sam Dong, that's fine. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. I'll make a motion to approve the application CV 101. Thank you, Doug. Is there a second? I'll second. Thank you, Hallie. Any further discussion about this application? If not, then we'll take a vote. Gaston. Hi. Hallie. Hi. Doug. Hi. And I vote, hi, four to zero with one absent. This application is approved. Thank you so much for coming in. Thank you. Thank you, guys. Good luck with everything. Have fun. Yes. Good luck, Sam. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Bye. The next one up is Ann King, doing businesses Amherst in 257 Main Street. So I don't believe these two businesses are owned by a husband and wife couple, actually. And they are long-term bed and breakfast in Amherst. And I think over COVID, there was some in our switch to open Gov, there was some miscommunication about whether they still need, whether they still need a common Vic license. And I think we thought they weren't in business anymore or it switched to Airbnb, but they had not. So they do. And they came in the other day and we stored that all out. So they are renewing their common Vic license for this year. Okay, great. Doug. Just a couple of questions. So given that, do they have, I presume that they're not an Airbnb, that they have an in-holders license and the other associated in-tendent licenses? Did they renew codes? I believe one of them has food service and that does have a bed and breakfast food license type from the health department. That's been in effect. And then the in-holders license is kind of integrated in the common Vic. That's another one of those things that's not really clear in chapter 140, but I think the common Vic license would suffice. I think we do have different language that prints out if it's an in-holder. So. Okay, great. Are they here tonight? It does not look like it. Okay. So any questions? We approve them together. Doug. I'll move to approve common Victor license 104 and common Victor license 105. Great. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Halle. Is there any further discussion? If not, we'll take a vote. Halle. Aye. Gaston. Aye. Doug. Aye. And I vote aye. Four to zero is one absent. The common Victor licenses are approved. Sorry, I flipped over into my friends of the library brain there for a second. Okay, great. So that's everything. And we have two discussion items. Everyone got the lunch cart regulations and the guidelines slash regulations for liquor licenses and they both look good. And why don't we start with the lunch carts, Steve? I noticed that you moved away from mobile food establishment and clearly more clearly defined what a lunch cart was and what a food truck was, which was great. Yeah, that's something that at least has been really haunting me a bit is how to define these God forsaken things. And I guess, you know, why not just call them what they are and it's a little bit cumbersome to kind of you have that dual terminology throughout the whole thing, but it's probably better than making up some kind of term or using old food as dialigent, which is confusing compared to health. So there weren't that many changes through this. It was just kind of some of that escalator thing. I think if everybody else agrees, a good plan would be to kind of wrap both of these up today and then hold a public hearing to approve them next week. I know Marion had been thinking we would hold just a meeting just focused on that because it would be back-to-back weeks because of the way there's five Thursdays in September and then that would be a short meeting and that would be out of the way and we could move on to our other projects. So anyway, without further ado, bunch of carts and food trucks, think that should cover it. I did add the suggestion for 80, for somebody suggested a reduced fee if the Apple can submit you a short-term license that year and so I figured knock 20 bucks off probably makes sense. They're adding food trucks there. This is just something, and actually I meant to change this, but there is no, if the chapter 130 is alcohol licensing, that wouldn't apply, but we would have just, this is just some boilerplate to make sure that it doesn't kind of redefine anything. That's similar to what we have in other regulations. I figured a lunch cart food truck license that does slightly roll off the tongue. So we would just call it that from now on. I do have a better definition for mobile food establishment. I got from the health department, which they use in the food code. I got that today, so I didn't have a chance to put it in, but I think I will plan on replacing that and making it a little bit tighter because Rob pointed out it's kind of a circular definition with these three. Some no one clay changes here. Kind of typography type things. I added this provision, that bits of the new municipal parking district can be administratively approved by the building commissioner. And I did like that. I do like the idea of doing some kind of posting there. So I figured 10 days would probably be adequate. And a manner prescribed by the board gives us a little bit of flexibility to figure out how exactly we would do that. But Rob was probably like that idea too, and maybe we can see if we can scrounge something together for that the people could borrow if they wanted to do it. And then I also added that the board can review or revoke the permission to other location in case there is some kind of big controversy or problem. It wouldn't just be ongoing forever. This is a little clarification from the collector's department just to make sure that it's clear that if they take up more than one space, they would have to pay for all the ones they're taking up. And this was actually an interesting question. I was going to add the, we have that kind of semi-standardized non-criminal disposition language we've used in other regulations. And I don't actually know if there are any fines or anything authorized. If you look in the general bylaws, authorizing some other types of licenses, they will have a provision for non-criminal disposition. But in the general bylaws, there actually isn't even anything authorizing the lunch cart license. The only reference to it is just the section setting the fees. And this is actually something that's kind of been confusing in other circumstances because a lot of the different license types in chapter 140 and there's all kinds of crazy different obscure things. I mean, just a few way back there as licenses covering certain types of nightclub entertainment that allows under 18 but over 14 in after six o'clock on a Sunday and all kinds of different things like that. And a lot of them are only in effect if the town chooses to adopt them. But I don't know if there's any real centralized registry of what the town's chosen to adopt. You'd probably just have to go through every town meeting record ever and see what is or isn't adopted. I think it's probably a safe bet that the town did adopt this type of licensing but whether or not we could actually issue fees or fines without some kind of different action from the town council is an interesting question. So I think we're gonna have to get in touch with Brian Riley and see what he thinks about that. Okay, Doug? Just a couple of things. I think on that last point relative to whether the town has adopted or not adopted certain kinds of mass general law. I think when the charter was revised and people were going through the bylaws and reviewing, they made it a point to look at any and all action of town meeting and adoption of those kind of things. So I think there's a kind of a laundry list of those at the very beginning of the new charter or of the bylaws. So that's just an FYI. The other thing, just a typo type thing in section seven, the second paragraph and rear bumper of other vehicles. So there's two others in the hair. If we're on either side of that thing. And then I think the other thing I wanted to just ask about a little bit where it says short term license applications within the municipal parking district, maybe administratively approved by the building picture. I don't know, the only concern I have there, we've sort of seated our authority there. Maybe it should have, and I'm just posing this as a question for the group to think about is if there isn't a license commission meeting scheduled to be able to rule on or grant the license. Because what would happen is that they may be administratively approved, which means I think our intention was is that if we're not meeting, we wouldn't want to hold somebody up from getting approval. But as this currently is written, it gives building picture our authority to make all these decisions. And I don't know if that's what we intended or not. So I mean, I think it's a question for the board, just are we okay with that, that he makes all those decisions within that municipal parking district? Because that gives him a lot of authority to grant those without consideration, without us having a conversation. If we have a meeting scheduled, then we can obviously make our judgment known. So I just posed a question to the group about their comfort or discomfort with that particular line in the racks. It's a good question, Doug. I guess that the municipal parking district seems kind of fairly up for grabs and not controversial. I wonder if what we can do is add a proviso at the end of this sentence that says subject to the authority of the board to review such approvals. Yeah, I think that would be helpful because I think our intention with this was, oh, we're having a meeting in two weeks, only wants to do a thing on a weekend in between one of our meetings, we wanna grant the authority of the commissioner to sort of make a choice, right? At the same time, I'm not sure we wanted to do every single one, right? So I think that's right. So we don't wanna create a loophole where it's like the recess appointments that if you know to go administratively, then we can never review it, but it could be approved and we could get complaints or something from a restaurant owner there and then maybe go back and revisit it. So I would be comfortable as long as we can go back and review those approvals from my standpoint. Yeah. Steve, what do you think? Yeah, I think that's a good point and also maybe something in about notice. I mean, I think at least what was in my head with this is that there's just gonna be a lot of, if we have the Rotary Club fair coming in, there might be three or four that are just trucks parked there or there might be any kind of festival or things like that. There might be a little bit of volume coming in, but I think that would be good to include some kind of review or notification or both. This would be just short term, which I think is restricted to 72 hours. Yes, yeah, it's three days. And it's just, so you're thinking like that there's, like somebody comes in on a Thursday and wants to set up, or a Friday morning and wants to set up on Saturday and what they need. Which does happen all the time. Right, right. Because this wasn't really fully enforced with struggle to even get them through health too. And there was no chance they'd ever make it to a licensed commission meeting if they had to. Right, so this is for the, like you said the, what is that thing called? The farmer's market on the weekend. The farmer's market is a good example. They should be licensed, but they're currently not. Is that correct? Yeah, yeah. Okay. All right. Well, I think I would be fine with that language and everyone else seems to, yeah. Yeah, what were you envisioning for, for the notice or review language guest on? Well, just to double check here, if these are only short term licenses, then what does it mean to be able to review? It would be that we get notice, like an email from you that this has been approved and then we've got whatever days between then to organize and review. Is that the only space of action? I mean, you could certainly review it after the fact or you know, some people would get it in ahead of time. Yeah, I mean, review after the fact of the license being approved administratively or after the fact of the day of the short term? I guess it depends on what the timing is. And it's also an interesting suggestion from Doug of whether this would be the defaults or whether this would be only if there isn't enough time. I mean, I'm fine. I think that it really does make sense if a food truck has the initiative to show up at Town Hall that they're one and done. They don't have to have the weight and think that something is up for grabs when it would really be approved as a matter of course. So I think that if we say that subject to notification of the board and its authority to review, we leave open the possibility of action. It might be that after the fact, we actually instruct the town that this particular block is one where we actually want it to come to us because there have been issues or something like that. Yeah. Yeah, I think that's fine. Is everybody else? Okay. Yeah, if I may. Yes. A couple things. I think on the, to go back a bit, I think the food service as part of the farmer's market, I think once upon a time, they did actually get perhaps a license from the select board, but I don't recall exactly. I know we've got liquor licenses for the people that are doing service there, but can't remember the food. That's just an aside. The other thing I was going to say about it is that I think the open meeting law will limit our ability to do review, in other words, if it's Wednesday, they drop it off and we find out about a Thursday, we won't have a meeting if it's on Saturday, right? So we'll have to do that fraction kind of thing, but that's okay. I think it still gives us the opportunity to provide feedback to the building commissioner about, hey, under these circumstances, we're going to give you advice about how you administratively approve these. So I think we still have that option. It's just the open meeting law will limit our timeframes that we can operate in. But, and I think, again, the intention here is not to create more hoops for people unnecessarily. And I think that kind of guidance does have precedence. I mean, article 14 in the zoning bylaw, which if you're not familiar is a provision that some certain things, I mean, even them opening a restaurant would all have to go to planning board for site plan review, which is a pretty big burden actually for people trying to start up something. And article 14 allows that, I think of that a food, a restaurant service retail and there's a third minor one too. Those three categories to be administratively approved by the building commissioner and he's taken kind of guides from the ZBA, not to go to certain, not to approve a restaurant to be open until 4 a.m. or something without actually going to them. So. Okay, great. So, did we go through the whole thing then? Was there any other questions that anyone had about, oh, we have, here's our pre-approved locations. Thanks, Steve. Yeah, it's kind of. And then the 10 day, the 10 day notice or notification location ability, parking fees, we talked about availability. Let's see. I'm gonna have to go through this again to. Sure. Yeah. 10 foot separation. Any other questions? Was there anything else we didn't cover, Steve? I think that's about it for this one. I think this will be the question. I guess one question I would pose to you is if this, if I don't hear back from council or if it's, if it seems some kind of complicated thing what the board wants to still adopt the regulations in these form and maybe come back and edit it with more detail in here or just hold off on the whole thing? I think we can probably approve it and then go back. Is that all right? Just so that we get them, I'm happy to just get them done and that, yeah, revoke a renew failure to comply. Yeah, I mean, I think we've got time. We've only got one lunch cart, really. So our food truck, whatever. So yeah, let's just do that. And you will email the council tomorrow or soon? Yeah, I will email him. Okay, great. Or tomorrow, yeah, and try to see what he thinks. And that thanks to that tip, Doug, about it potentially being in the beginning of the charter because that would save me or somebody else a lot of research. Okay, that's great. So we can, oh yeah, sorry, Doug, go ahead. It's gonna make a motion to adopt the regulations for the operations of lunch carts and food trucks in public way as a minute of meeting of September 29th, 2022. Oh, right. Can we do that? I do think we have to have a public hearing officially. Oh, do we? Oh, okay. So we'll notice that for next time. Next time. Bye-bye. And I have to fix all those missing food trucks at the beginning. Okay. All right, great. Well, that'll be something to put on the calendar. So hold that thought, Doug. I can save it for next time. Save it for next time. All right, guidelines for, and know the questions about lunch cart slash food trucks, guidelines, regulations, slash regulations for liquor license, liquor licenses. Yes, so. The licensee of alcoholic beverages. Okay. So one thing I left open was the definition of acting manager because I was hoping- Oh, right, we talked about that last time. Yeah, I actually mentioned this because Dylan called me about an hour ago saying he might be later, might not be able to make it. And I was hoping to get a little bit of his insight because I have never worked in this industry. But I get the impression at certain places. It can often be a little bit flexible who is the manager and if there's actually a titled position. So I guess we'll come back to that anyway and we'll go through the rest of this. Okay. Any changes? Really not much. Doug has his hand up. Doug and then Gaston. I was gonna suggest that just the following is that there's the manager as opposed to on the license. That's obviously someone we hope is regularly there but I think acting management, but they're not gonna work every hour the place is open. So I think what we can do with acting managers is just indicate that someone should be designated as the sort of lead person, the manager of the facility at any given time. And so that's really all we're trying to identify there. So I think we keep the definition of that fairly simple and say, and so when push comes to shove, there are two people working and they're both capable of, they're both capable of being titled a manager. They may not either one really be sort of the lead person or not more often than not. If you have more than a couple of people, somebody's gonna be the senior most in person but it's really about them identifying at any given time, who that active person is on a given shift. And it may be that what we should be doing is saying someone must be designated in that role. If the manager of record on the license is not there, someone should be designated as an acting manager and carry the responsibilities of that person. Cause I think that was our intent with that acting managers. Someone's got to kind of hold the responsibility. Somebody's got the keys to the store to lock it up when it's done, you know, and that may be. Yeah, I definitely, yeah, wrap my reminder on that concept but how to describe it, you know, you could say, you know, whoever the employee is who is, you know, the highest ranking there, but we wouldn't want to necessarily wrap in like a silent partner who happens to be there that day or something. I guess you could call it the employee, you know, actively supervising the service of alcoholic beverages on. Where does the term show up in the regulation or in the guidelines? I think we were putting, I don't know if it's actually in here, I think we were kind of. I think we say under employee, the manager of record, sorry. Yeah, this is, I think this is what I put in kind of with that question, but we could certainly rephrase it. Okay, well, I guess if a sentence like this is fine, then we don't need the definition. Yeah, that's also true. So I think that we avoid issues trying to define it tightly. I mean, what we're saying is that somebody who's there and is quote unquote a manager has this training, right? Right. So I mean, I think that that is pretty much what we're concerned with. And I'm not sure we need to try to be more technical about that acceptable to everybody. Yeah. So can you go back up to, we did define manager in here or is that not necessary? Is that what you're saying Gaston? Like there's manager of record and then there's manager, which is just the employee who happens to be in charge, right? Right. I mean, in that usage, it was a lower case and. Oh, a lower case. So I don't. Not in the term and I don't know if. So that's not necessary. I don't think so. And I guess manager of record kind of pulls in the law that's applicable, right? Yeah, I don't know if that actually is officially called a manager of record, but I think we define it. Okay. Oh, there we go. Manager of record, a full-time manager. Right. And it has to be approved. I mean, I, you know, there it is. I guess what is maybe confusing is using the term manager here. I think maybe we should define it as manager of record in here and so it's vague elsewhere. There it's okay. It's the, you know, an authority as approved by the board. Maybe you could put that in that first sentence and then define it. So at the end of that first sentence as approved by the board, right? You know, one can get a license without having us approve a manager. Is that right? Right. Yeah. And then what you can do is just do a parent's quote manager of record. And then above in the, if you want to have the definition you can just say manager of record as defined in section 5.01. This is why we have multiple lawyers on this. Hey Dylan. Hey everybody. Sorry I'm late. That shows that problem nicely. Great. So I am going to, I guess this was just a change from what was in there to what was already approved on the license text. I guess Dylan, now that you're here does that last sentence in 5.02? Does that mean something in a bar setting? Such a training course. Hold on. Is this referring to? Well, I guess we're not saying tips. You're not saying tips certified specifically. But I guess maybe after that first sentence, Steve it could say like server training course such as tips. We want to define this maybe because we have server training certificate here alcohol management or server training course. Is this ambiguous? Would this be, you know I went to the school where they taught me to hold three silver platters in my hand. Yes, yeah, it is. So can you just take server training course out maybe? And, because that's what we're... Is there, it's got to be some kind of trade name or not a trade name but some specific name for those types of courses. Is it alcohol service certificate or something like that? I'm going to Google tips really quickly and see what they... Probably not treasury inflated protection securities, but... I mean, I think we're fine. I saying like tip certification or similar... Or equivalent. Yeah, or equivalent, something like that. That way specific but not, you know constraining it to specifically be tip certification. I think, yeah, the word that the language they use is alcohol training and certification program. Do we want to be the ones who say that it's equivalent? I guess. Could we could say recognized by the board? Or recognized by the... I mean, I'd throw it off to the ABCC almost recognize. Yeah. Do they recognize those things? I don't know. I don't know. I feel like the manager of record has to have a tip certification, but maybe that's us but I thought that that was a requirement. I think tips is... I know we put it in some... I think we put it in the short-term, the short-term language. But I did, I think we tried to write it to not make it only tips because I think that is a private corporation. So I'm sure there's some kind of other competitor they have. Yes, tips is according to their website, the global leader in alcohol, server and seller training. But interestingly on their Massachusetts page, they actually have the state of shield. So there's a certain level of state acknowledgement of them. Okay, are we... Yeah. Okay. So training and certification program, alcohol training and certification program. How is that? I guess if it comes up, if it ever comes up, we'll judge it when it comes up. Yeah, that sounds good. So I'm going to approve these assertions so we can just see how it reads, it's a bit crowded now and I want to make sure that I reflected what you guys were looking for. Okay, I think that looks good. Did everybody read it? Oh, manager of record, you can capitalize. Yes. How would we define who the principal representative is? Principal representative of the licensee. Well, what does that mean? Is that the owner or the applicant? I mean, I can't think of any liquor license we have that's not issued to a corporation and certainly there'd be some of those silent partners who don't have anything to do with it, really. Or, well, agent of the licensee. Well, that could be like an attorney or something at the... Right, I think we define licensee above and it's sort of any and all that, you know, part and parcel of the owner of the license, maybe the individual licensee, maybe we're a partnership licensee and each officer, director, manager, et cetera, et cetera, there. So, okay. So it's got to be someone who's listed on the license so it can't see, they can't appoint a representative and say, right? This would mean that for... Someone who's on the application. For the Drake, every member of the Chamber of Commerce would have to get a tip certificate. Right, that's what I'm thinking about is that this now includes everybody and I'm not sure we need to have everybody but we certainly need some of them. Maybe just the manager of record and any managers of alcohol service. Yeah, I came in a little late. We defined acting manager, what was the... Oh, you have to see section 5.01, it's defined there. So acting manager, we ended up bypassing because we ended up using that just some, at least one manager on duty has to have completed it. We have the manager of record and that's how we have traditionally been using the term manager, am I correct about that? So that's the official ABCC defined manager. And we don't define manager just like under managers. Outside of that, we just use the term manager and we all know what that means or... I think it's sort of kept deliberately ambiguous and flexible. We don't have a definition. I don't know if there's a legal definition and so that's why we were wondering based on your experience, if that sentence is clear enough what it means. Okay, so yeah, that's... Yeah, I think that works. I don't think we need to define manager beyond that. I think we probably benefit as a board and as a community by keeping it a little bit big. So on this question, so I guess at the... So this section is that when you're applying the individual licensee or the principal representative of the licensee as well as the manager of record have to complete that before they apply. So, or before coming to the board for anything really. Would we wanna clarify that should just be for a new application? I mean, if somebody's just changing a DBA or something, would we wanna get tips from everybody involved? I think it's fair to say a new license. The only other case might, well, this is for employees, so never mind. I was just gonna say that the thing I might suggest in there is new applicants transfer, I think if you have a change in manager, but I don't know that that necessarily needs to apply in this circumstance, this particular paragraph. So I don't think you need to because it says manager of record there. Actually, just on the topic of manager of record, if I may, I was rereading the very personal line where it says, shall point maintain a full-time manager. We may need to define full-time. Because we have a circumstance where somebody is, the manager of record in two different places. And so that would, the strict reading of that would be 80 hours a week, 40 at one and 40 at the other. So I don't know how we resolve that. I think our intention with putting that is that we want them to be, that managing this particular license is their primary job and that they're on those locations and doing that management of the alcohol license. I think to say full-time, unless we define it or express some framework for that, I think we kind of invite some questions and some pushback. Yeah, I think that came up last time too and we, and Dev kind of just moving on, but it's a good question. Yeah, because isn't the new places, isn't, aren't they the managers splitting time between both of them? What is that oyster bar and protocol? Are those the new two new ones? And so is it defined as 40 hours a week? Definitely, or? I mean, that's a generic definition in, if you look at like the bureau labor statistics and that sort of thing, it's a 40 hour week and eight hour work. 40 hour, okay. They're oddly defined. But I mean, there are other definitions of full-time. And so we could, instead of saying full-time, but we could say something like 20 or more hours a week or 25 hours, I mean, we could set some threshold if we wanted to. Because I think our intention with this, if you recall the discussion, is just that it's that their primary sort of work or a significant amount of work is dedicated to being the manager of this license. And that you didn't wanna, we don't want a situation where somebody comes in and they've got 15 places that they own throughout Western Mass and they got one person that's managed on every single license. Because the reality is they're not gonna manage in the way we're expecting them to 15 different places. They're gonna delegate that to 14 other people. And we'd rather have those other 14 people's names on the license. So I think we may wanna set some sort of threshold here. I'm not sure what or how we do that. But I mean, I think we were in a bit of a bind on trying to approve the license for those two places. And so, it prompted the conversation, but we didn't put them to sort of specifics for that case. But I think it prompted this conversation. So I'm not sure what people's thoughts are. I mean, that's just the sense of it I have. And I think the intention behind the regulation that ABCC has around noting and defining a manager is that that's the person that is actively spending their working time managing the details of the license. So... Right. Why don't we just delete full-time? I mean, when we approve them, we can find out what the arrangement is. I mean... Yeah, that might be the best. I mean, it's a little open-ended in some ways, but I don't wanna, we can perhaps continue this conversation. So I think through that a little bit more after the fact, because I think we wanna kill ourselves here with this nuance that it's gonna come up once every so often. Right. So flipping through the ABCC FAQs, I found the statutory reference to where the manager comes from. Okay. Yeah, so it's really about responsibility, not work hours. Right. Okay. Okay, I could have sworn seeing something that it has to be there for a certain, maybe I mentioned that up with something else out of doubt. I just flipped through the FAQs and there was nothing, so. Anyway. Okay. So did we get through all of it? Or, oh no, we're still screen-sharing. What else? Yeah, I was just switching back and forth to show you guys that. Okay. One of the issues that was a policy question was this police detail and who should pay and so on. I guess my thought was, why not think of police detail as a kind of punishment? And so it's like in lieu of paying a fine, they have to pay the police detail. If we would never ask for police detail unless there have been problems, right? Right. Yep. I don't know if that makes sense, is within our authority or fits the need here, but that was my thought. Yeah, I kind of agree with that. That's something Rob flagged when I went over it with him yesterday too. I mean, we could say that in lieu of fines, or I don't know. I mean, we need something that's gonna impose the equivalent of a fine. I mean, I guess we don't need that. We don't need, we just say that a condition on the licenses is a posting of a detail as, but it's pursuant to a violation that we want to enforce that way. Yes. The other thing I would mention that, and this in some ways happens in our downtown now is that we might put something in that's like under advisement of public safety, because sometimes the need for those detail officers is not about sort of fistfights, but just numbers of people and traffic safety. And so that again is a burden to think bear. So we may want to put something to the effect that like, if under the advisement of public safety in the town of Amherst, the board reserves the right to impose, the posting of detail officers and that expense will be carried by the license holder. Because I think as much as there may be certain instances where fights are breaking out or some that kind of thing. I think when I think about downtown and the fact that our police go out and put up barricades and that's more about just general safety of people who may be in various states of intoxication and just enough to not be, and they're walking, there's no, it's illegal to operate the motor vehicle under the influence, but you can walk down the street under the influence to a large degree. And if a number of people are in a state of intoxication that makes public safety dangerous, whether it be for drivers or for the pedestrians, we want to be able to step in and ask them to help out with that situation. Now one wrinkle in this is that I don't, I believe it's the chief's policy not to allow officers to do details at Amherst businesses or at least Amherst bars. Oh, really? So I guess it might be Mascop or something, but. Or even private security. I mean, it doesn't have to be maybe a police detail. Well, I would think in the circumstance of detail officers, I think about in the circumstance where, I mean, we may be thinking about different things. I'm thinking about a circumstance where they're uniformed and they have, you know, they're not on duty per se, but they're being paid as if they were. You know, if you have an event in town that might need support around traffic. So, you know, many years ago, we did a charity event in downtown Holland at Amherst College, but the parking was across the street. And so we had a detail officer to, you know, make sure people were crossing the street there, crossing route nine safely throughout the evening. And that's typically the same kind of detail officer that, you know, is at, you know, the utility companies working on a light pole and they need people to direct traffic, that kind of thing. It's not necessarily always a full-fledged, you know, officer, but I think that that I think in terms of that kind of a circumstance. So it's not quite like they're getting, they're not going to get a paycheck from the company. They're going to get their pay from the town of Amherst. We're just asking the, you know, license holder to reimburse the town for that cost. So I don't think it's quite the same, you know, circumstance that might be what the chief has a concern about. Yeah, that's a good point. I'm not sure how, what the extent of his opinion is on that, but could we, could you ask him about that or shoot a quick email and just say, you're thinking like there are a hundred people in a bar, they all come streaming out across the street and the police have to set up something to keep them, everybody safe. And that should be, the cost of that should be borne in part by the business who's, is that the kind of thing? That's what I'm thinking. He's got the hundred people on the bar in the first place. Yeah, if there, if there's circumstance, it's not that, you know, the police detail is, is necessarily, you know, providing bouncer service. It's more, I think that they're, you know, intervening before fights break out, or more importantly, probably just keeping people safe relative to traffic and, you know, navigating sidewalks and that kind of what I'm thinking about, but it would be interesting to hear what the chief has to say and, you know, there's a nuance there that he's probably out that we don't understand, which would be helpful to know. Okay. Colleagues, now that Dylan is here, I wonder if I might tap out to go to the high school open house. Oh, sure. I mean, with respect to this document, I mean, this idea of putting this issue here makes sense to me and otherwise I would be, you know, I would be fine putting this up to a vote if that's what you all conclude. All right. Yeah. Thank you so much. Thanks, Gaston. Bye. Bye. Yeah, I mean, I think we can keep this simple. I mean, I can't imagine this ever really happening. Right. They haven't even had the barricades out in probably 10, 15 years and. When the drink gets really going, it's gonna be a good thing. I just think about, you know, the more likely circumstance where we're gonna ask of, you know, a licensee is gonna be around, you know, sort of traffic and sidewalk safety, probably more than the other, because I think if people are doing the right thing with their alcohol service, people aren't getting intoxicated at the point where the sort of physical altercations are happening. You know, I think it's more likely to come up in a circumstance where it's like, ooh, there's a lot of people on the sidewalk. What's the right? And is it particularly a business or a couple of businesses that need that need and probably want some support around some of that stuff? So I think that's, you know, so it's, and it's, I think it's gonna be driven by, you know, something that the police department notices and says, hey, we really need to do something here. That's where I think this is gonna come, you know, originate from, but. Okay. Okay. Now is this, do we wanna keep, kind of keep it a little bit blurry? Requiring detailed posting, please. I have the cost of this. The other thing I would say, I think that reads fine. I think the other thing I'd say is if we're thinking about a sort of punitive component to it, you know, I think we just, if there's violations where they're not taking care of, you know, sort of safety that we think of police details needed, I think we suspend the license or we revoke the license. I mean, you know, that's the other way to sort of, you know, solve that problem without it. Yeah, yeah, that's, yeah. All right. We kind of jumped around a little bit. We're near the end. Let's just kind of go through from the beginning and target everything. I don't think there's that much more, but we were on the same page with deleting acting manager. Manager of record, we like that. We like that. So, yeah, so this for applicants for a newer transfer license, we wanna just make it the manager, the manager of record. I can't see any way to divine who a principal representative is. I mean, it's obvious, like using the Drake as an example, it's obvious that Gabrielle is, but she doesn't really officially have any particular role anymore than the other, the board of directors who are silent partners. Right. I think we can take that out. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, sorry, that makes sense. Got a little bit more definition being this. This was the one thing offenses, for the purposes of first offense, is this incidents or counts or charges? I would say incidences, but... Yeah, I would lean that way as well. Yeah, me too. I think that identifies, we had questions about their seriousness in how they manage their license. So, we may not have dropped the hammer on them, but I think we wanna keep in mind that they may have had a question before. Yeah. And I guess if it's some ridiculously egregious thing that we can always exceed the guidelines anyway, so. Yeah, we don't have to do that. Yeah, Hal, you got this guidance from KP Law, right of the date range, because I was just surprised with both this and with Porta, how conservative they are with this when the ABCC just dropped an eight day on Hazel's Blue Lagoon, a big one. Yeah, I mean, he sent me a couple towns to pick and choose from. So. Yeah, I mean, I was curious. I guess there's really not really concerned. And I did remove that they can, that the board has to approve them to keep serving food. I've never heard of that and I don't really see what the issue is as long as they've got the big red sign up in the door that says cannot serve alcohol. I think they'd probably prefer to be closed anyway. I don't know, does that make sense to everybody? I think we kind of touched with that last time. All right, I think that about does it. Great. Go through for proofreading and stuff. Okay. All right. And then we can, should we put this on the schedule of public hearing for next time too? Are you ready for that or is there? I think we're ready for that. I mean, I can send, I can try to send around a, I guess it's next week. Yeah, but I can try to send a draft around Monday or Tuesday and any last comments. But I think we're pretty much there. I think it's pretty much just proofreading I think it was the KP law, the fines and penalties for the lunch carts. I don't know if we'll get back to that, but I do think it'd be good to just get it over with in a minute later. I agree. Yeah, definitely. Yeah. Okay. So nothing else on guidelines for good license decisions? All right, great. So topics not anticipated. So next, actually first let's go back to something. The bar formerly known as Kaizu, which is now known as the archives. And Steven, I talked a little bit about this and this is something that you said that there's an official form that they have to fill out. Their website is working now. So let's see. So apparently the bar Kaizu is not Kaizu anymore and is now something else. And I just wasn't sure if that is something that they could just file like a change of DBA with the clerk or if it had to come before the BLC and Steve wasn't sure. Yeah, it looks like there is a change of DBA. So I'll reach out to them and let them know they got to do that. Okay, that would be great. Yeah, Doug? I would just suggest is if it's purely just a change of DBA and all the factors related to the license and hopefully the state regulations this way as well, they can just notify us it's good enough. I don't know that we need to drag somebody in front of us to, you know. Once upon a time when it was Select Board meetings, we did it as sort of an opportunity for people to advertise their new business. But we have a lot of smaller audience with the Board of License Commissures. Not that Select Board ever had much audience, but still, but I mean, I think that's again, a sort of sort of misstraved thing more than anything else. Okay. That would be my suggestion about that, but. Okay, super. Steve, when you reach out to them, do you want to just make sure we have an updated manager of record? Yes. Yeah, I believe that's the owner, but I'll definitely double check with them. And I don't really think we have much, I think it's a state requirement that they have to update it, but thankfully as I'm looking at the application, they don't have to pay the $200 for that. So it'll be much less annoying and it's really just two pages. So thankfully, I don't think that'll be much of a headache for them. Okay, great. Thanks for doing that. And then we have a meeting. So we're scheduled, we've been doing the first and third Thursdays. And so since there were three, but for extra Thursdays in September, our next meeting is the sixth. We were going to do a short meeting to approve lunch carts and guidelines for liquor license decisions. Is that fine with everybody? Doug. I have another meeting at five. Oh, okay. It's, you know, normally I wouldn't, but I happen to, you know, it's a work related thing that I was trying to schedule with about 15 other people to do this thing. Okay. Hopefully it only, we'll take about an hour. Okay. But at the same time, you know, if there could be, you know, the three of you could be at that meeting. You know, I can miss one. Okay. So it might be simpler that way. And if something happens while I'm meeting or if it ends early or something like that, I can join in. Okay. With that, is that okay with Dylan and Hallie? Is that all right? Yeah. Okay. If that's all right with you, Doug, we can schedule up for the six and just do something. Yeah. And I think Gaston has indicated that that's okay with him too. Yeah. Okay. All right. Great. And then we'll meet. If Steve gets his copies of the sort of final drafts. Okay. You know, I'll look them over and if there's any comment, I'll send it out. Okay. I mean, just to you and to him because, you know, don't want to violate open meeting, but open meeting law. But I can review that before that so that you guys have any thoughts I might have. Okay. And so then we'd be meeting on the sixth and the 20th of October. And that keeps us on schedule. And Steve, that's fine. You don't have any huge things. I know renewals are coming up. The sixth and the 20th, I think that should probably work. And then that would put us in November. Oh. November is a more important one. Yeah. That's November 3rd and 17th. Does that work? Oh, because Thanksgiving is the 24th. So that would. So we could probably, if we needed to. Well, yeah, we'll, we'll, we'll circle back. We're going to be meeting in a week anyway. So we'll circle back. I think I wasn't really, my head was not quite in renewal schedule mode, but I think December is generally more important because things have to be voted. Yeah. They have to get the applications and they have to be signed in November. Okay. God help you if you sign in October, not valid actual state law, but December is when we have to improve it. And sometimes people can be late getting us things back. So I will, we'll see, I will think about that for next time. I'm going to be meeting with Susan on Tuesday to go over the renewal schedule of everything. So. Okay, great. Is there anything else? Any other topics? No? If none, is there a motion to adjourn? Moved. Thank you, Doug. Is there a second? Second. Thanks Dylan. Let's take a roll call out of here. Dylan. Hi. Doug. Hi. Kelly. Hi. And I vote aye. Four to zero with one absent. We're adjourned at 611 p.m. Thank you. And Dylan, when did you come in for the record? I think I missed a minute. I think it was 630. Six. That's right. Five 30. Five 30. Alrighty. Thank you. All right. Thanks everybody. Bye. Thanks everybody. We'll see you next week. See you.