 Okay, we're recording. Go ahead. Thank you. Seeing a presence of a quorum, I am calling the November 3rd, 2022 regular meeting of the Community Resources Committee of the Town Council to order at 431 p.m. Pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended by chapters 22 and 107 of the acts of 2022. This meeting will be conducted by a remote means member of the public, 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 via technological means. At this time, I'm going to call the role of the committee to make sure we can hear everyone and they can hear us. So I'm going to start with, I'll go with Pat first, since Shalini just logged on. President, present. She wants to be president too. No, I don't, but I hope you'll introduce Elena at some point. I will. Shalini? Present. Good. Mandy is present. Pam? Present. And Jennifer? Present. So we have our entire committee here. The first order on our agenda is a public hearing and we have to do that first. But before I get into that public hearing, I want to say welcome to Elena Tomescu. We will not probably reach your part of the agenda, Elena, for like another hour. So you feel free to turn off your video and kind of pay attention. We'll make sure we have to do a public hearing first. But Elena is one of the, is a UMass student who helped Shalini work on the summary and the reporting out and that was in the packet regarding all of the surveys that we have received responses to. So she was here today to help answer any questions. And I want to just say a big thank you to her. I'll say it again when we get there, but we're thrilled that you could join us today to help explain the work and all of that too. But feel free to take like an hour long break or so before we get to your part. Thank you guys for having me. With that, we're going to start our hearing. And so I need to go through that public, that that sort of stuff too. So it is now 433 p.m. And in accordance with the provisions of MGL Chapter 40A, this public hearing of the Community Resources Committee of the Amherstown Council has been duly advertised and noticed there have has been posted. And the hearing is being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity for interested residents to be heard regarding the following proposed amendment to the zoning amendments to the zoning bylaw. Pardon me while I read the very long paragraph zoning bylaw food and drink establishments article three use regulations article five accessory uses article 11 administration and enforcement and article 12 definitions. To see if the town will vote to amend article three use regulations to delete existing use categories in section 3.352.0 class one restaurant cafe lunchroom cafeteria or similar place section 3.352.1 class two restaurant or bar and section 3.352.2 class three drive up restaurant. And to add the following use categories sections 3.352.0 restaurant cafe bar with food or other similar food beverage establishment where food is available at all times section 3.352.1 bar with no food served section 3.352.2 nightclub. And section 3.352.3 any of the above food and drink establishments with occupant capacity of more than 250 occupants and to add standards and conditions for these uses. And to amend article five accessory uses sections 5.041 5.042 and 5.043 to allow seasonal outdoor dining as an accessory used to a principal use authorized by section 3.3. To allow outdoor furnishings associated with such use to remain in place between November one and April one as long as the use is active and operational. To remove the prohibition on outdoor heating and cooling devices and to allow live or prerecorded entertainment as an accessory used to a principal use authorized by section 3.3. And to delete reference to drive in restaurants and to amend article 11 administration enforcement to rearrange the paragraphs describing when site plan review is not required. And to clarify the requirements and process for granted administrative approval and to amend article 12 definitions by clarifying section 12.05 bar and by deleting section 12.11 drive up restaurant and any associated renumbering that may be necessary. Last night at the planning board Doug Marshall said that was the longest sentence he'd ever read. It's a long one. So that is the hearing that is opened, as I said, it opened at 433pm even though it took me three minutes to get through all of that. We will be running this public hearing as we run every public hearing, we will start with disclosures of committee members and then we'll move to the presentation by the planning staff. And then we'll have questions from the committee and then questions from the public and then public comment on the proposal and then any response from the planning staff and then further questions from the board or committee. I do want to say that at last night's planning board meeting. The planning board opened their hearing on this matter and held a lengthy discussion. They did not make a recommendation nor close their hearing last night and they continued their hearing until November 16th. So with that, do any committee members need to make any disclosures? Seeing none, we're going to move to the planning staff presentation. I believe Nate is doing that for those in the audience. We currently have two attendees in case they are interested. We will be doing food and drinks probably for an hour is sort of my estimate, but that's just an estimate and then we will be moving on to the rest of our agenda. Okay, so Pam, before we go to Nate. Great. Thank you. It would be very helpful. I think for the rest of you, if Nate and or Christine could describe a little bit why the hearing didn't close last night and why there was a continued conversation about it. Thank you. Thank you. So if you could do that as part of your presentation, Nate or Chris, that would be great. So Nate or Chris. What isn't Nate take it away and if this is anything I'll fill in. Okay. Sure. Thanks everyone. Nate Maloya planner with the town. I'll share my screen I have a presentation and then I'll walk through the sections of the bylaw. And so, you know, the CRC had seen this previously and there's been some slight changes. And there may be some more depending on comments. So let's do we'll start here. If the screen is visible for everyone. May I just say one thing which is that the town council referred this to the CRC and the planning department planning board on October 3rd I just wanted to put that out there because it was not completely clear at the planning board meeting last night that that had occurred. Thank you. So this is the presentation that was given to the planning board last night so we're really calling this updating the food and drink establishment section in the zoning bylaw it had been previously article 14 with those a bit of a misnomer. The background is that planning staff had thought about changing food and drink classifications prior to the pandemic and then with the pandemic. We had the capacity and the ability to issue conditions and manage it, both administratively and through permitting and so some of it was to capture the uses we're actually seeing being applied for. And now we have 20 years of standards and conditions that we can place in the bylaw. Additionally, the, you know, the Community Resources Committee and the Amherst business community had asked that parts of article 14 that were used during the pandemic be made permanent. And some of that was administrative approval for minor changes, and also just having what seemed to be a more encouraging environment around businesses business approval and working with businesses. The purpose and goals and so, you know, in 2001, the current classifications were added and that was an update on, you know, what had been in place for almost 30 years and so I see this as another update right so it's, we have 20 years of experience using the current bylaw and really we'd like to update it with new classifications. We can verify the permitting process while doing that, improve the standards and conditions. We can apply lessons from article 14. And some of that is, you know, trying to encourage businesses to stay and expand and attract new businesses. It's really also with article 11 is strengthening the administrative approval process that's already in place and happening. And through article 14 we realized that we can, we can actually have conditions and plans submitted through administrative approval. And just a quick run through of what article 14 is done. It's permitted the opening of a few restaurants and expansions so the spoke doubled in space. It now occupies this whole building so it moved from one side to the other or combined sides. And it's also included with article 14 as a nexicalito and the Drake. And so when these were permitted administratively, you know, there was plans submitted there's a management plan by the applicant and then there was a decision written by the building commissioner that's recorded with the town and so that was new with article 14 and realize it's nice to have this written record, and we can require plans even if things are administratively approved, as opposed to just having, you know, an email saying yes we can formalize this and so that's what we're proposing with the article 11 changes. Where this applies it's five zoning districts throughout town. You know it's what's shown here in the pink red or the cross hatching it's in, you know, downtown and the BG and limited business so general business and limited business. It's in the neighborhood business the commercial and the business Village Center. And where, you know, where it currently applies and where it would apply would be just these areas. Just to reference that the in the neighborhood business there's about six properties and it's right around, you know, near the depot on Main Street near Dickinson and triangle Street and it's, you know, it's a very small district whereas you know commercial and North Amherst is much bigger. And that's what we have and what we're proposing so currently there's three use classifications for food and drink establishments class one two and three. And so class one is a restaurant cafe lunchroom cafeteria or similar place it closes before 1130 that site plan review so it's a by right use through the planning board and administrative approval and administrative review that happens when there's already been a site plan review for that use and then something, you know, there could be a new restaurant coming in, or some minor changes that don't change the exterior very much, and the building commissioner can approve it administratively. And so that's been in the bylaw for a while now class two is a restaurant or bar that's open after 1130. That's by special permit, and then a drive up restaurant is also by special permit. Other categories, conditions in the bylaw in terms of distance from residential and the serving of alcohol that figures class one or class two. What we're proposing though is, you know, for four categories. So a restaurant cafe a bar with food or other similar food and beverage establishment. So a bar with food is a bar with a kitchen. So like the monkey bar is a restaurant. It's also a bar, a bar with no food is the next category and so the moan and dove or something that doesn't have a kitchen, you know, it can serve pre package food or, you know pretzels or peanuts but that's, that's not considered food that's that's a bar with food and that's by special permit. There's a nightclub, and then an establishment with occupancy of more than 250. That's a occupant load so that's both staff and anyone in the restaurant so that's not seating it's the total occupant capacity based on code. And so you know that's that's everyone in a in a space. Just some examples of how current restaurants would fall under the proposal. You know, Johnny's Tavern El Comolito pita pockets and house of teriyaki would be considered that first use a restaurant cafe or bar with food and they'd be site plan review. What's also shown is their occupant capacity. So Johnny's is fairly large at 174. This is both indoor and outdoor. So when it's the occupant capacity at staff is also indoor and outdoor dining and seating. So that would still be a special permit process. There is a nightclub or two and Amherst one is Hazel's blue lagoon, and that's, you know, a special permit. There is a definition in the state building code for nightclub. It's an area that has, you know, fewer seats than capacity, loud music dim lighting and, you know, there's some other conditions and so, you know, in in the use chart we're saying parenthetically the nightclub as defined by state building code. So it's not, you know, we're not making up a definition. And then we have this fourth category, any establishment with more than 250 occupant capacity. And so, you know, the hanger is an example with almost 400. There's not many in Amherst that are this large. And so one of the discussions last night was is 250 the right size, you know, could it be smaller, could it be 200 or 175. And, you know, I recommended staff recommended 200. The planning board had asked if 175 would work. The difficulty is that there is probably a number of establishments that are between 175 and 200 now that really would be a site plan review use and if you dropped it to 175 they would all of a sudden become a special permit use for no other reason than that they have an existing occupant capacity of more than that threshold we determined. And so the restaurants that have been operating just fine. And so, you know, staff thinks 200 could be a threshold to use. And so with the recommended changes to the, the use chart to those establishments classifications there's changes associated changes and article five accessory uses. Like I said we're trying to strengthen article 11 administrative approval, and then there's minor changes to definitions and article 12, and I'll just walk through those sections. So ironically article 11 could almost be a standalone change it's not just for restaurants it's you know administrative approval for any use, just to clarify that when we discuss it. And just to show you the use chart so currently, and 3.352 there's the three classifications class one class two and class three. And what's shown is that essentially all of this would be removed it's in red and strike through what would remain is this condition in the bn that an establishment have no more than 30 seats indoor and outdoor that serving alcohol will close at 9pm. And that any wall of an establishment couldn't be located more than 100 feet from a residential use in a residential district. So we're proposing that that condition remain in the bn zoning area. And essentially that limits, you know, the bn district to about just, you know, two properties that could actually have a restaurant. You know when the bn was was developed they put these these kind of protections in and we're proposing to keep that. So what's being proposed is a whole new section 3.352 with the proposed for uses a restaurant cafe bar with food or other similar food and establishment where food is served at all times. So, and then there's a bar with no food served. And so the monkey bar is an example I mentioned that is a restaurant for most of its operation but then later in the evening it becomes a bar with no food. And so what would happen in that instance it actually have to apply for two permits would have to apply for a special permit and a site plan review to operate as both a restaurant for a bar with food and then a bar with no food. Well you can see here is you know in the zoning districts, you know we have site plan review or special permit so kind of you know we're just we're, we have you know that one classification is site plan review across the five zoning districts. So then there's a bar with food nightclub. What's in blue was what's added parenthetically. Since the last time this was presented to both the CRC and planning board so now it says as defined by the state building code, and then a larger establishment. So here in, in the next section these applicable. If applicable these standards and conditions. This is what you know we staff has developed over the last 20 years administering the bylaw is the zoning board typically approves every request for a class two restaurant, and they've developed you know kind of a boiler plate of standards and conditions and so what with these 10 things do here is get staff to be able to and the boards to be able to issue those conditions so anytime someone's applying for these uses whether it becomes administratively approved or to the planning they need to submit information to these 10 conditions. So, you know they have to be reviewed reviewed and approved by the board of licensing commissioners if applicable. Other local state codes and regulations so Board of Health is a really big one if you're having a kitchen, accessory uses of seasonal outdoor dining, live or pre recorded music, or drive through facilities is regulated in article five which we've proposed to update to accommodate some of these these changes. You know the next few are really important that the establishment shall operate be maintained in accordance with an approved site plan floor plan a layout plan with occupant capacity for indoor and outdoor patron management plan. A general management plan, a parking management plan and traffic impact statement so anytime someone is proposing a restaurant even if it's replacing existing restaurant, we would ask for all this information. The management plan has to include hours of operation trash and rescue storage, describing you know how often would be picked up outdoor dining queuing signage lighting deliveries noise containment and response to noise complaints. Now what's been added is strategies to screen or buffer adjacent properties. So we're providing employee parking and other requested information. And so, last night there was some discussion about, you know we no longer have this 1130 threshold in terms of closure. And so is that really important to protect residential neighborhoods. You know staff has said that what we've learned since 2001 is that with the right conditions on a permit we can manage that without necessarily having a special permit so it could be a site plan review use. And if we require all these things up front and including a management plan, we have enforcement actions, and we have strategies that the applicant has already listed as to how they would manage that and so then we can enforce it. But there's some discussion about, you know if there needs to be some more language written into what would be included in the management plan for, you know, for protection of existing neighborhoods or residential uses after a certain hour. And so, you know the planning board was discussing whether or not they'd want to see certain changes, you know additions to some of these requirements. And then, you know, electronic ID verification, if, if you're serving alcohol, on site training and certifications including crowd control and tips, you reusable tableware shall be used for outdoor table service. It says all areas to be cleaned daily and left in a clean condition by the end of normal business hours outdoor furniture shall be placed to meet clearance services and egress requirements. So we kept this BN district condition, removing the class one so any any use in the BN would have to meet these. So this was, you know the proposed use chart. In terms of accessory uses, what we're proposing is to three sections it's the seasonal outdoor dining 5.401 that in these districts, the BGBL, BBC, BNNCOM, seasonal outdoor dining including sidewalk, sidewalk cafes, courtyard or terrace dining can be accessory to a principal use in section three and subject to the same review. So that means any use in table three could have outdoor dining as an accessory use. You know, currently, it's what's in red here only if it's accessory to a restaurant, cafe, lunchroom or cafeteria to a bakery, deli or other similar establishment or to a retail store. So we're saying that it could be to any, any use. The thing here is, you know, to serve food or outdoor dining you do need a commercial kitchen it's a big expense you have different licensing and inspection requirements and so, although we are now saying it could be accessory to certain uses that wouldn't, couldn't offer it now. You know, staff doesn't think that we're going to have, you know, a retail store putting in a kitchen just to have outdoor dining. Elsewhere in article five it also says that accessory uses need to be common in the region in the county and associated with the business and so if it really seems like the use is not accessory at all to the primary use the principal use and it's a secondary principal use, then it's actually not considered accessory. So, the definition of accessory does protect, you know, say like a, you know, a gas station from having outdoor dining. A gas station may have indoor seating, you know, sometimes gas stations in, you know, Dunkin Donuts are combined, but outdoor dining on the sidewalk may not really be an appropriate accessory used to a gas station. And in the subsections of this. Right now we're saying that any structure framework or planter for outdoor dining can be there so long as access for use is active and operational. And we're removing between November and April one. So the way it's currently worded is that you can have outdoor dining, except that has to be closed as of November. And essentially leave that, it could be remain open year round as long as it's being used so if a restaurant wants to stay open through through December and have outdoor dining. You know, this change is making that possible in 5.0413. We're removing the statement that no, no such facility shall be equipped with three standing heating or cooling devices are served by HVAC from an adjacent or associated building. So, you know, during the pandemic we allowed outdoor gas heaters and they worked really well so, you know, to go along with the changes in the previous section where delete, you know, proposing to remove this delete this for live and pre recorded music. Similar to the outdoor dining, we're saying that it can be accessory to any principle use in section three, not just a restaurant bar in or bed and breakfast. So we're saying that, you know, live or pre reported music or entertainment. It can be an accessory used to, you know, different uses, not just, you know, those five that are currently listed. And there are conditions here so you know these are everything else is existing in Article five so you know there's a decimal measurement on the property boundary, in terms of how loud it can be. You know it has to be clearly accessory and incidental to the principle use. And, you know, there's additional requirements here so, you know, what we're saying is that it can be allowed through the same permitting mechanism as the principle use so the principle uses a special permit this accessory use would be special permit. So it's not as if it would happen by right and still there's still be a permitting mechanism. So the drive through facility we're just removing a drive in restaurant because we're proposing to no longer have that as a, as a use category so a drive through facility is still allowed as an accessory structure. It can be used, you know, for instance at a bank or car washes other things but we're saying it's not really, there's no longer a drive in restaurant. So those are the changes to accessory use sections. And this is section 11 which is administration and enforcement. And this is where there's site plan review criteria. And currently there is this applicability section and we're proposing to add what's in bold italics so we're changing it to administration and applicability. And we're, we're kind of reorganizing this section. So we're doing 11.211 site plan review shall not be required when there's these four, four categories. And as you can see, there's some red and there's some existing black text so these are already in the bylaw. In terms of when site plan review isn't required, we're just reorganizing them. So when there's no physical change to the exterior of a building or site, there's no site plan review. When the only change is the installation of signs and compliance with articulate of the bylaw. When a change of use is proposed and there's no physical changes. And the building commissioner determines the change will not conflict with the purpose of the bylaw and finds that the proposed use will not result in need for further review under 11.243. Additionally, site plan review would not be be required if there's minor alterations to building your site. And the building commissioner can authorize the work to proceed. Following these, these conditions that are now been, you know, lettered ABCDE. So all this is currently in the bylaw, we're just reorganizing it so we're not adding to when site plan review is not required we're just, we think it's a better organization. What we're adding is this administrative approval in instances where site plan review is not required. And so this is what's new and proposed. So currently, there really isn't a strong administrative review process. Right now we're saying that this is where you know what's an article 14 essentially that no work shall commence until the building commissioner has authorized the work, or the use to proceed. The building commissioner may approve approve with conditions or deny the proposal decisions shall be made in writing filed with the town clerk and kept on record within the conservation and development department. The building commissioner in consultation with the plane director shall be authorized to apply any designer review criteria found in article three section 3.204 design review principles and standards. And this is a, a change that empowers the building commissioner position to, you know, deny an administrative use and so we see it as really important so we'd still ask an applicant to submit those conditions back in article three, you know, site plan a floor plan occupant capacities. Any sign plans, and the building commissioner could approve it deny it or approve with conditions. And so what happened in article 14 is we'd asked a restaurant to submit all that information and then there'd be a written decision. And with anywhere from 15 to 25 conditions that would then apply to the use and so, you know, we're proposing to keep that. And, and what this is important because if there's an existing restaurant that has a site plan review use or permit, say it was permitted a year ago and a new restaurant comes in, and they're not proposing to make any changes to the exterior, except for the signs, then, according to article 11 which is existing they don't need site plan review it goes right to administrative approval. And with these proposed changes were saying the building commissioner could, could deny that and say no, you know, perhaps you know the intensity of the use the hours of operation something is is too, there's too much of a change. So, you know, let's go then to, you know, to a board for review. We are saying that the building commissioner has the ability to seek guidance from the DRV or historical commission, and then it could also, you know, then become a site plan review. But so, you know, currently the planning board hasn't seen a lot of restaurants, because of this, you know, so an existing restaurant has a site plan review permit, which still guides it. So if a restaurant changes hands, or something changes about it, and it doesn't actually get to a hearing it goes through administrative approval. That's not new that's not a new process. So last night there was some discussion saying well for changing the use categories, and 1130 you know is in a threshold for, you know between site plan review and special permit then restaurants that could stay open later, but essentially then become approved and not have a hearing so you know neighbors wouldn't or but a butters wouldn't be noticed and you know is that problematic. And, you know, my response would be that those standards and conditions were including the bylaw are enough to provide conditions and mitigation measures, you know if if that was administratively approved. So that existing permits on restaurants are still in place so even if the bylaw is changed and something has a special permit now. And although it could be a site plan review use in the future, the special permit that it has is still a guiding permit it's still valid and legal. And so until that special permit has is changed, which may not happen for years, it's still operating under that special permit. And so it's not as if every restaurant or bar is going to all of a sudden become site plan review. It wouldn't be if there were changes. And then that initial change would actually be a hearing, there'd be a, you know, a site plan review hearing. If you know if that were to change. And so that's article 11 article 12 this quickly. We, we changed, there's a definition for bar. So really a bar is an establishment where the service and consumption of alcoholic beverages is the primary use and food may be incidental. We just add a slight change there. We are deleting a drive up restaurant. In part because we just, it was never really used and so you know we have a drive through facility which is allowed as an accessory use and what we're saying is a drive up restaurant would just be a restaurant. There's really, you know, it. This actually was, this was never really put in place. And then, you know, there was renumbering as I think that was an illegal ad. So if we wanted to renumber, or you know there's one suggestion last time to say intentionally left blank here so that the rest of the article 12 wouldn't have to be renumbered. And so there's no other changes. There's an existing definition for restaurant. And that remains the same. And I guess I can stop there and take any questions. Thank you. Yeah, does any of our committee members have any questions on that extensive summary of what it's being proposed thank you so much for doing that Nate and for weaving into that where the planning board was asking questions and all that's that was also very helpful. Questions from the committee. I was trying to let other people go first. I do, I do have some additional questions I emailed to Christine and Nate and Ron. I guess last night after their meeting or during their meeting, some of my questions. And I think I'm very, very glad to see the, the pretty extensive list of standard conditions. I think I would like to add service of alcohol to that list. It's already quite extensive. Maybe it's included in the management plan already but it's not listed there. I think that's one of the key elements that differentiates what today is a class. One and a class two. That's one of the differentiation. I'm, I'm a little. Well, let me let me ask some other questions first. For, for any of you, why, why is it that that today's class one facilities need to be able to convert so quickly to a class two. When, when that implies that their hours of operation are are lengthened and service of alcohol may be added. Why, why is that so easy and why do they do it so frequently. Well, should I answer now or yes please. Yeah, so what you know Robin word has said and what's what happens in practice is a restaurant will come in as a class one because it's a site plan review so it's a by right use. And they'll meet all the conditions of a class one. They'll you know get the permit they'll invest in the space. And then a few months later they'll apply for a class two and so really, you know, unless there's been a lot of complaints or issues with how it's been managed or operated. You know, the permit for a class two is is is granted pretty easily because the only change would be the service of alcohol and hours of operation and so from the zoning board of approval standpoint there's been no reason to deny that right so they can put conditions on in terms of when there's queuing how are you going to manage queuing on the sidewalk how are you going to manage crowd control and noises and so there's enough conditions put on the permit that there's really no reason to deny it. And so, you know, we don't want to say it's gaming the system but you know what we found is that those those thresholds that were put in in 2001, you know the 1130 the service of alcohol, and certain things were worked in 2001 because previously for the last 30 years there was nothing in the bylaw really that had those protections. And what we've learned since, you know, in 20 years is that we can, you know, with standards and conditions we can improve this site through site plan review, and still have the same protections that are offered that are, you know, happening now that were put in place in 2001 and so. So, so adding specifically adding service of alcohol to that management plan list would be very helpful them, because that's the key, you already have hours of operation which is the other, the other primary factor. Given that list back to the management plan, the site plan, the floor plan, the layout plan, etc. By the time they work through all of those plans, I'm really curious, why does it take that much longer to go to the ZBA for the planning board for permits after after all that work. I think it's, it's two things. One is a special permit is discretionary and so even if we say that Amherst grants a lot of his special permits, many communities do not. And so businesses will actually not come to Amherst, just because it's a special permit use right they'll call the town or they won't even you know they might get as far as a call to the building commissioner or to myself or even Gabrielle or Jennifer or any of those things. And if they see that it's a special permit use they just don't even bother. You know, even if we tell them that we'll work with them or that you know they can manage this, a special permit is really not seen as a, you know, it's not an incentive really. And so even, you know, it's not just for restaurants it's for anything right even when an appraiser is doing appraisal on a property, and they see that, oh you could put a development on it, but it's by special permit you can put a development on a property based on a special permit use it has to be a by right use and so it's just the nature of what a special permit, kind of the, you know the stick I don't say the stigma of it but what you know what what it really is it's a discretionary permit. Next question is about him can can you pause on your questioning because both Chris and Rob have raised their hands so they might have answers to that. Chris, and then Rob. I wanted to point out that if something is a site plan review use, and it's already been approved by site plan review and then there's some change to the facility some change to the business that's in there. That can be approved by the administrative approval. So, one of the, one of the reasons for avoiding the special permit is that the site plan review use can be approved by the building commissioner, if there aren't any exterior changes so that's an important aspect of what should I say, sort of streamlining things. And the other thing is the ZBA special permit has a 20 day appeal period so it automatically adds 20 days to the time in which it takes to get permanent so those are two reasons why something would be better off in the site plan review arena, rather than the special permit arena. Thank you. And Rob. I wanted to say to that and in response to why, why does it take so much longer to go through the special permit process. Because I see what happens is that when all of that, all those plans and all those documents to put together. That's about halfway for the applicant. That's when we then look at schedule to, to advertise for a zoning board hearing. Generally, if they're not super busy, it's four to six weeks after the hearing occurs if it's done under in one hearing. Sometimes it's two hearings once that's completed. It's another number of weeks before the decision is prepared. And then as Chris mentioned, it's filed with the clerk and then another 20 day appeal period has to occur before, before we're able to proceed and issue permits for work to begin. So that that second half is in the best case scenario is three months to get through that process. And we've, we feel like we've done so much work with the applicant getting them ready for that, that hearing process. And in what we've seen over the years is that it's very well received by the board. And, you know, that's, that's why we lead to these, these standards and conditions that really what the board have developed over all these years. And that we found that we've been able to, to implement on our own during the article 14, which was a great test for that. Thank you. Thank you, Rob. Pam further questions. Yeah, another quick one about about the accessory uses. I'm trying to think how I, how I asked myself the question as I was listening. So, is it possible for an accessory use of outdoor dining or to be approved through the administrative process only, or is, or. If it's deemed an administrative type of process with no changes or minor changes to the building, but they're, but they're coming back and asking for an accessory use of outdoor dining or music. That's new. How, how does that get treated. Nate or Rob or Chris. So, yeah, I mean, you said if it's new then. I think it says permit us reuse would be new. Right. And so we're saying it's the same permitting as the principal use so if it's site plan or view or special permit then it's a site plan review or special permit process. What if it's an admin is what what if it had been an administrative review would the accessory use doesn't count that. So, so like I said so if there's already a site plan review on a property and say the site plan or view includes outdoor dining or pre or live, you know, recorded music. And that's special that site plan review or special permit still guides it and so if there were changes in the new use or the new to the new establishment was going to continue to use that outdoor dining. Then that could be an administrative approval because it's already under a permit. It's already under a site plan review permit so it's not as if it needs a second site plan review permit. You know what, what, you know, through the administrative approval process we're writing in that there could be conditions so if, you know, if there've been issues with how it was managed then either it could be, you know, there could be conditions put on it or it could be through a hearing process. It looks like Rob raises hand you might have a different answer. So just the way I understood the question. If there's an administrative approval granted for a restaurant, because there was no change to the site no change to the exterior of the building. It met all the standards and was granted administrative approval with conditions and then later on, they decide that they want to add outdoor dining and live music that would in fact be a change to the site. That would be required to go through the site the full notice site plan review hearing process, even for that little component. And it's possible that through that process my administrative approval would be amended in some way to be incorporated into that site plan review now that it's got this exterior change occurring. Right and thanks for how quickly if, if that was already approved once and it changed a restaurant changed hands, it wouldn't necessarily have to go through the hearing again right I mean that's, that's how I explained it it was already approved once. Right so it's approved it's constructed there's this designated outdoor dining area that is built and not changed but used by a different operator than that would be appropriate for administrative approval. Great. Thank you. I've got a couple little odds and then but I've taken up a lot of time. Thanks, we're going to go to Jennifer. Yeah, I just wanted to ask clarification on. So you said it though. If a restaurant was going to become a bar and be open to 1130, then that would be an administrative approval, but I heard that I guess I heard 1130 and what if it was going to stay open after that would, would that trigger having to know notify the vendors. So what, you know, so the way it works now existing there's class one and class two and so if it wants to stay open late, it has to get a special permit so that's a, you know, it could initially. So what's happening is they initially come in as a class one site interview they get approved. Six months later they want to change hours and serve alcohol later. They, there's a special permit process through the zoning board, and then they're now a class two. What we're proposing is that if you're a restaurant or a bar with food, a bar with the kitchen and you're serving food, you're by site plan review. So the establishment though then is like on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday nights after nine o'clock I'm gonna close my kitchen and just be a bar. Then they also are there's two principal uses now in that space and they have to apply for a second permit, a special permit as a bar with no food. And so, you know, essentially they would have to then get another permit which is another hearing another process so it's not as if a restaurant could be operational. You know, stop serving food closer kitchen down and then say they're still a restaurant, but serve alcohol they're actually then according to our proposed use categories that are bar with, you know, I guess my question is just in terms of neighborhoods like, okay so where I live and it's just the way it is. Nobody thinks twice about we're just used to it, but they're the bars close it to. There's no pedestrian traffic in the residential neighborhood after that so but that's just the way it is, you know happens to be in this neighborhood, but I'm thinking of like North Amherst, could one of the restaurants become a bar open till two and the residents wouldn't be notified until it happens. I'm trying to think of a place where people may be not going to their cars off that you want anybody going to really a car from a bar at two in the morning but I'm thinking it's like where the moan and dove is. There's probably less foot traffic from the establishment into the adjacent residential neighborhood but in North Amherst there might be so I'm just trying to think of what could people there find that an establishment they thought closed at nine or 11 was open till 230. I didn't know until it happened. Jennifer I want to try and rephrase it because I think I've got what you're trying to ask. I'm not good with all these articles and which is, can a restaurant open with hours to say 1030 be a restaurant serve food to 1030 get their spec their site plan review through whatever and then apply for just a change in hours. I already have a site plan review and the only thing they're seeking to change on that is the hours from 1130 to 2am. Keep the restaurant, keep the kitchen open. Let's say they decide to pay their cook till 2am. No but what if they don't keep it open. Would that change from 1130 to 2am right be able to be approved under administrative approval or would they have to go back to site plan review. A similar question for if it's just a bar till 1130 and then they changed it to right it's an hour change like that. Administratively approved, provable once they have a site plan review. That would be an administrative approval. So if a restaurant is open till 10, and then they want to stay open till midnight, you know, they saw the kitchen and everything then that's an administrative approval. Sorry, I think it would need to go back through the land use permitting because presumably they have a site plan review that says what their hours of operation are, and if their hours of operation are until 1030. If they change that to be open until two. I think that's a change in their land use permit, but I will bow to Rob if he has a different opinion on that. Rob. I agree with Chris so once we have a land use permit with conditions, whether it's a special permit or a site plan review. You know that generally we have a condition written into each of those decisions that says if there's any change that you shall come back to the board for review. Sometimes it's a public meeting sometimes it's amendment of the decision so that that would occur if they're, if the use originated with a written decision land use permit decision. Alright, so you think that change in hours would be enough to amend the permit would need an amendment to the permit. Oh, yeah, absolutely. Thank you. Thank you for that. I have just one concern which is the one I brought up last time and then just a question out of curiosity my concern is still about the bn condition that remains in here about not so much concerned about the maximum seating capacity of 30 but more of that hundred foot requirement of spacing that you said in your presentation might limit the ability to put a restaurant or a cafe in the bn neighborhood to only two parcels, which is very limited in my mind, and almost. And so I guess I'm concerned about sort of, we're looking for more walkable neighborhoods within our zoning we're looking for places that people can get to by walking to by biking to and all and if we're limiting where restaurants go so strictly that we don't allow them within walking distance to certain neighborhoods because of these requirements of it has to be 100 feet and therefore you can't operate at all and most of the parcels. Are we going sort of against that walkability is there a smaller sort of distance that we could do that would still safeguard I understand the concerns about, you know timing and all but daytime hours or daytime hours. Could there be a limit be that that's provided more to protect residents that deals with hours of operation in those bn neighborhoods versus distance requirement like is the distance requirement the right thing to do to to you to to accomplish what I think the desired protection is which is to ensure that the residential areas are not disrupted at in those small sort of areas at certain times of day but maybe I'm interpreting what the protection is for that hundred foot protection so I would just ask, what is that hundred foot protection meant for and is that the right protection to accomplish the goal. So we're trying to accomplish there. And then just out of my curiosity which is what what would be the Drake under these new things because I know Rob's talked about we have no live music venues sort of permitting use and so where would we think the Drake goes under our new zoning if we pass these, which is just a curiosity of mine. Yeah, so I'm going to jump on that first one and that Rob talk about the Drake, I'm just going to share my screen quickly be. So yeah, the here's if this is visible. And here's here's the bn here's the VFW here the railroad tracks. And these red lines are you know 100 feet from a residential house and so you know the bn encompasses what's just in this vertical line so this property, these properties here's 446 and 462 Main Street which are being redeveloped with apartments and so you know the hundred foot buffer was meant to really be a spatial buffer from residential uses. And so you can see what 100 feet looks like here. You know, there's the bn where Amherst media's properties considered bn you can see what 100 feet looks like from the adjacent property to the north. And then you know there's one bn property over here. 319 321 Main Street and 100 feet from the homes and so you know many to your point could there be another condition or criteria that could help mitigate impacts possibly. I also think that there's limited opportunity right now in the bn. You know this is all business Village Center right here on this on this section of Main Street. And so there's you know there's not many properties that are zone bn, not to say that they couldn't change. They couldn't change uses but there's, there's not a lot so you know, possibly staff, you know staff didn't really want to originally was not to have anything, you know, maybe not to have that condition in there at all but then there was the bn is, you know, pretty integral to some residential neighborhoods and so could there still be some, some conditions there, specific to bn. And so if there is, you know, a different idea that could work other than 100 feet, it could be size hours of operation, then that could work as well. Chris. There's already a limit on the hours of operation in terms of serving alcohol, which is nine o'clock. So I think that's a pretty good limit. And that would already tamp down any kind of, you know, activity that you didn't want. So what is that I guess that that sort of says, I'm not sure about the 100 feet. I guess I would follow up with Nate you could put that back on that that map back on. Because it was helpful to see those 100 foot barriers. So looking at the Amherst media property it. How I look at that means that if I look at that sweep, it's likely that if Amherst media say wanted to put a cafe in. They probably wouldn't be able to maybe in a small corner of the building but I think the buildings actually. It says building. Yeah, so the building is the exterior wall of the building that the use is in so the building. So they literally could not put a cafe in if they wanted to. If we keep this condition. I look at the big building. At that end right where your where your thing is there, the entire buildings, you know, you can't put a building on that property, pretty much more than 100 feet away and so that building could never have a cafe in it. So if you look at where the Amherst dog wash and all is which is across from Amherst media you pointed out that one. That building. Basically you can't put a building on that property that would comply with that so that property is also negated from having any type of cafe on it. Even though across the street. There are restaurants and cafes and food establishment areas and so I guess if the concern is disruption to neighbors and residential buildings at night. The hundred foot barrier makes no sense to me and hours of operation condition would make more sense to me. In a similar theme, I think given the fact that that all restaurants. Most bars are now lumped into the same like plan review. Possibility that it's the same it's the same kind of basic dilemma and issue that all of the, all except the BG all of the business districts are pretty close proximity. To neighborhoods that are immediately adjacent to them. So if there is. Although the hundred foot in this case seems a little restrictive because it means you really can't have even a coffee shop. In the in the dog wash area or whatever. It's, it's the combination of serving alcohol typically after night after 1130 at night and the and the distance to neighbors. How do you, how do you protect that if, if in fact were to approve this, these sets of by law changes. How do you build in that. It's not just the discretion of Rob when he goes to do the administrative chain. That's only on new uses, but you know what I mean. Anyway, that's kind of the gist of my dilemma. Yeah, so I think, you know, this was a discussion at the planning board, you know, do we like the way it's written, you know, that was amended in 2001, or can we move away from that and so, you know, what staff has said is that through article 14 in the last 20 years of permitting that we can get enough information in the management plan and through the standards and conditions in the zoning bylaw that, you know, we can essentially set conditions to safeguard neighbors. Right, so I'll just share my screen again what we're proposing in in the, you know, table three are all these standards and conditions that need to be met in the management plan we have you know hours of operation queuing signage lighting noise containment responses you know strategies to screen and buffer adjacent properties from noise and other impacts employee parking. And we could add to this list you know there has been some suggestion to add about alcohol service. And so, you know what this does is an applicant has to answer how they're going to deal with all of these, these categories and criteria and then that becomes a condition as part of their permit, whether it's through site plan review or administrative approval. And so, you know, staff can see that a place may be pretty close to a residential neighborhood and, you know, the strategies for screening noises from other property. There can be a number of methods to that and so that becomes a condition that they have to do that and so, you know, it's you know, it's any use that could be close to a residential neighborhood. There's some consideration as to how it's going to be mitigated or buffered and so, you know what we found is the ZBA has, like I said their standard conditions and, you know, and it deals with that and so that's why we're having these categories and the standards and conditions so we think we can manage it this way as opposed to having, you know, 1130 and time or some of the current provisions in the bylaw, you know we can handle it with these new proposed standards and conditions. I trust you. That is the key element that that neighbors would rely on you folks to take all of those elements into consideration and as before there were some physical, there were some physical hurdles that they that they had to, you know, get around. It's primarily the hours of operation and it seems really benign to people who don't live near these, these kinds of functions but even even, you know, in the fall in the summer, definitely in the summer even in the spring when windows are open, there is conversation there are doors slamming, there is, you know, there are motors running. And that's, you know, that's just part of their operation of business. But when it goes past 1130 at night, believe me, that's passed a lot of people's bedtime. And that's when it becomes a burden that the neighborhood ends up having to bear. Tell me, tell me how you're going to guarantee it. Thank you, Pam Rob. Yeah, I just, I just wanted to mention when we're talking about alcohol service, there's another level of review with the Board of License Commissioners, and they do establish and set the hours of operation. And, you know, during article 14, it's been interesting because Steve McCarthy in our office who supports the Board of License Commissioners and I would talk about applications. And sometimes I'd have to wait to see what they wanted to do and establish for hours of operation so I can ensure that the article 14 permit aligned with that. And, you know, just for interest, there has, there's been no new establishment that serves alcohol past 1am. And that's that's continuing a practice that the zoning board of appeals has, you know, has seen through for many years, stopping that I think there are some preexisting establishments that might operate a little bit later. I just want to mention there's a management plan business plan review and a very thorough operational review by the Board of License Commissioners, which includes the hours of operation. Thank you, Rob. We're going to hear from Shalini and Jennifer but then since it is a public hearing we're going to move to the public part of the hearing to see if there's any questions and comments from the public so Shalini. What I'm hearing is that there are different pieces in place to make sure that when any approval is given. It's already taking into account the noise and nuisance to residents. I'm just curious like in other towns that are some like, like, are these very, I mean I do hear from businesses right that there's too many steps and that's why we're doing this. And so the changes that are proposed like how radical are they relative to other towns or are we just some of the obstacles, and which will now make us comparable to other towns. One general question. And the other thing is like which we will come to later when we do the rental registration is the idea of noise, especially when people are walking out from restaurants at night and I wonder if you can deal with that. To other mechanisms like some of the suggestions that were there is like putting signage out on the streets. You know, like, can you know you can't put a signage out or you think it doesn't work well we'll discuss that but just like it doesn't work. I mean, I don't, I don't know, like I don't know if you've tried in a way that kind of brings reminder, at least to some people it may not work on everyone but just having those reminders that hey this is a, you know, just a friendly reminder you're in a neighborhood or something. Anyway, we'll discuss that in more detail on rental part. Nate or Robert Chris do you have a do you have any way to respond to the question about does this bring us more in line with other communities or is this sort of out of line with that Rob. I think we still, we are, we are still, I think regulating at a higher level than maybe some of those other communities for these types of uses, even under the proposal. It's not uncommon for other communities to just simply say a restaurant is yes in these districts where they've determined are appropriate for restaurants. We also are adding all this criteria, this the standards and criteria that we're now proposing to write into the bylaw that don't exist today so right now. Class one restaurants and even class two restaurants are not guaranteed I mean these are these are standards and conditions that we created and made part of an application process that we want to formalize. And that's really unusual to see that in in bylaws in the other communities so I think it's still still heavily regulated in my opinion. Let's say quickly in terms of noise I mean there's the zoning bylaw and the land use permits and then there's also the general bylaw so you know there's a few different ways to address noise if it's on the street and outside the property so you know unfortunately it may have to be complaint driven but you know if if there's conditions, as I learned that you know hours of operation are strong enough in terms of a permit that has those change that's a new permit hearing. And hours are you know are enforceable the way they write into their management plan how they'll release patrons or manage the noise is also enforceable and then you know if it's outside the property then there's you know the general bylaw. That can be used for for that. You know it's really difficult to. You know that I think noise is really interesting you know we heard from a resident in North Amherst who said that you know the way noise moves around and can get into a house even if it's not really loud right the dinner bit or the vibrations can, can you know penetrate walls in a way that you know even if it's not a large decibel reading it can impact. I mean so it's really hard to say okay what what's the right, you know what's the right, is it the time, is it the time of night or what is it that changes that and so that's why in the management plan we have all these standards and conditions to try to address it but you know, it's like, you know my neighbor listens to music really early in his basement when he works out and it's like whatever reason that din of music, I hear it my wife doesn't and it's like, you know, how is that possible from 100 feet away that I can hear some type of vibration. You know on a second floor bedroom but you know so I don't think that there's, you know the noise piece is really interesting right I think that's a bigger question than the land use permit if it's outside the property and in the public right of way it's not really something that zoning addresses directly addresses it indirectly but. Just one more comment related to this is this I just want us to keep in mind that it is hard for small businesses we're seeing to come to Amherst and sustain this in the economy and and all the challenges that they face and as we make it more difficult relative to other communities. I'm not saying we should be relaxed but as long as we have very good solid plans based on the past experience of our staff of the taking all of that and distilling it into creating a very streamlined process that allows that's inviting to businesses that's what and that's what we also want as a community is we want small cafes local restaurants and so forth so let's just keep that in mind. Yeah, I just want to say quickly to that you know Rob said that we're adding these standards and conditions to the bylaw which is true. I think one nice thing about that. I think with article 16 we're putting in some extra stuff in terms of the FEMA, but what we're doing by putting in the bylaw we're making it up front. So not only do applicants see it but property owners and landlords see it and so what happens right now is a restaurant owner may, or you know an applicant may come to town, see a space. So we're putting in a restaurant in two weeks and then realize they need architectural plans they need a permitting and you know whether it's, you know, just not enough education or misinformation or what you know they don't understand the process by actually having in the bylaw, you know someone could call the town months before they've been really come and look at a space and we can say here's our bylaw, here's everything you'll need and it actually becomes helpful. And so we're providing them actually to me, we're providing a great great checklist with those standards and conditions so by the time that they have to do any permitting, or even come to town they know what they need. They need a floor plan they need to know how they're going to mitigate noise. Are they going to serve alcohol here's you have to go to the board of licensed commissioners and so if it's not in the bylaw, you know we probably develop a checklist internally, but by having in the bylaw it's something that you know it's a regulatory it's a regulatory tool and so that you know we can give it to landlords there's no way a landlord wouldn't know about it because it's in the bylaw so to me it's actually helpful tool as well as you know it's a regulatory tool but it's also to me a helpful tool for businesses to be able to see it up front. Thank you Jennifer and then we're moving to the public. Yeah I just want to say yeah you know anything that we can do to attract more businesses, you know restaurants cafes here. You know, we all support you I live near downtown I'd love to have more places to go walk to. So it's, I think the concern but you hear us is just that small category of establishments that are open very late at night, it's not a lot and when we where we are different than other towns as we, you know have a lot of patrons that would go to those establishments late is just to be conscious that even if there's some noise control right at the establishment that it can filter out. You know, as, as people walk home. So I just, I know you know that but that that's I think you know what we're what what the concern is that's being expressed. Thank you, we're going to move. This is a public hearing so we're going to move under our public hearing guidelines to questions from the public there are is one attendee in the public right now. So, if you have any questions related to the food and drink establishment proposals that have been being discussed, please raise your hand at this time. There will be a separate since this is a hearing this is solely focused on this proposal and set of changes we've been doing. We will hold another public comment session during our meeting for general public comment just to be clear. And so if you've got any questions related to this please raise your hand at this time. Seeing no hands if you have any comments. Related to these proposals please raise your hand at this time. Before we move to a motion. Are there any other questions at this time from the committee or any comments the planning staff would like to make Pam. I would like to reiterate the desire to lower the capacity threshold for the large facilities. I'm not saying lower in mind but but I understand that if, for instance, the Johnny is is what 178 or something like that and that there are several facilities that are about that same size they're slightly larger. Like 200 again it's just sort of surprise surprise, you know site plan review only for something that that could probably generate a whole lot of car traffic the traffic, that kind of thing so would appreciate your consideration of that, as well as adding services alcohol to the management condition. Thank you. And can I make another comment. I would love to hear from the planning board and just understand their final determination on this. I'm wondering if it makes sense to extend the hearing. Continue it for feedback from them. Yeah, so so that was going to be my motion. I was planning to move to continue the hearing and before I actually make that motion. The reason I was going to make that motion was, it sounds like there are potential other changes coming and I would want us to be able to continue this during a hearing about those quick changes instead of having the hearing closed. And so we are I will say, I do have one concern I'm hoping the planning board will be able to finish their hearing on the 16th. So we're hoping as a council and as a committee to get this to the council in time that the effective date would be as close to January one as possible. To do that we have to have our first reading at the first meeting in December. So, which is December 5th. So the hearing continuation to the next meetings in November is about as late as we can to still get it to first reading at the council. If it doesn't, it just means there's a lapse between article 14 and when this goes into effect of a couple weeks depending on when we get it. I know I hope, but we've still, if we continue, we still have time to get it to the council by that December 5th council meeting. So I'm going to now make the motion to continue this public hearing to November 17 at 430pm. Is there a second second. Jennifer seconds it. Any discussion. Seeing none, we're going to take a vote. Shalini. Yes. Pat. Thank you so much. Thank you. Jennifer, I. That is unanimous. At 546 we've continued the hearing. To November 17th at 430pm. I'd like to say thanks again to the staff for doing all this work and, and being patient with the questions. Appreciate it. Thank you. Uh, knowledge about what the planning board has done and hopefully they'll have acted by then. Um, with that, we move on to action items action item a is not up for discussion right now because the hearing is still open. So that will show up on next week, next. Meeting's agenda. We're going to not take up action item B today because Pam, well, we're not going to take up the discussion. I will say Pam has sent out the emails we've been waiting for. And she has requested responses by this Saturday. And so we will put it on the next agenda is the plan. But because we're still waiting with that deadline, I don't want to take it up today. Pam, you wanted to say something. You want just an update of how many people have said, yes, they're still interested. Sure. Okay. Um, there are four people that have said that yes, they have a continued interest in, in being considered. And there are five people now that have replied that have not replied. And there were several people that said. Clearly very, you know, no. So it's, it's, um, we're hoping to hear back from the five people by the end of Saturday. Thank you for that. So we'll be on next time's agenda, which brings us to action item three C residential rental bylaw. The only thing we'll be dealing with is the one thing I added because of just time limits here, which is the discussion of the survey summary and analysis. I want to welcome Elena back in and Shalini. What we're going to do is let them talk a little bit about what they did and the, the document that is in the packet. This is the survey analysis and summary from the engage Amherst sort of survey that we put out that had over 200 and I think you said 50 responses are nearly 250 responses. And so there was some questions that I received about whether this is a final document or not. So could you talk about whether you're open to revisions and suggestions for revisions as you talk about this. And we can as a committee discuss whether we would like to sort of take a vote at some point about finalizing this as the report for the survey or not. It may not be necessary. It may be something the committee wants to do. So I'm just going to turn it over for a little bit. We've got about 30 minutes to deal with this. Shalini and Elena, would you like to talk a little bit about what you did and be one more thing to say thank you so much. I know how much work this was. Thank you to both of you for putting in all of that time and doing all of this because without your desire to do that I don't think we would have gotten the summary that we did get we would have just had what we each read in our heads and then the charts that that was able to And I think what you've done is something that is a help to all of us, at least it was to me in terms of summarizing and bringing it all together to see really where the trends were. So, for me, I want to say thank you so much. Shalini and Elena. Thank you all for giving us time to talk about this because I think the crux was that more than 250 people responded and they're still responding we stopped at a certain point October 7 I think which was 257 responses and I, we felt that I mean I felt as CRC member that it's a responsibility that when we invite people to give us comments that we do something with it and not selectively choose what we want and which happens right we bring our own lens so I went to the UMass interns fair and met with Elena there and she immediately wrote back and it's been it was really so so fabulous to have Elena she was like a miracle worker with me working throughout what we did is we took all the qualitative data of the four different stakeholders that we had. The tenants neighbors who are living close to in neighborhoods with rental units landlords and then landlords who are also neighbors, and we created tags that we went through over 400 pieces of information qualitative comments. And we tagged each one of them read the comments what were the key themes or ideas and we tagged them using existing tags that are already there in our service. Elena did a lot of the tagging going through all of each comment and tagging them and each comment sometimes had multiple tags like this is concerning cost or occupancy limits or so there were new newer top teams that were coming up that were not included in our questions in the survey so we found it very enlightening and then we took all of those comments and try to collapse them into main themes, such as cost. Elena what are the other themes we have in the document noise parking trash. Yes, and so and then so in the so there's an executive summary up front, which draws upon those main themes and the teams had quotes from the people and we were the other thing we tried to do is look at each issue from the lens three lenses of tenants neighbors and tenants neighbors and landlords. So to not to really try to look at it from a very holistic perspective. And one of the goals, at least we felt it by the end of it is that we hope this document will create empathy for everyone who reads it to try and understand the different perspectives of the people who are living in our community. And, and an understanding and respect. So that's one of our goals. I'm just going to pause for a little bit in it. Elena add if, if anything comes to mind that you want to add at this point. Nothing comes to mind immediately. I just had a really great time putting this together with me was really great. Yeah, I think it was just so fabulous that we work together and also, I think it was really nice to have someone who experiences has experiences in our town of renting and being a college students I think that was really enlightening for me as well to have that perspective. In doing this work. So, I'll just pause here if anyone has any comments or questions. And I think from for us at least it's like, how do we use this now to inform my discussions I think that's one question for me. We've organized the executive summary to inform the goals that we have and maybe that can. So when we're dealing with either the resolution, the, not the bylaw but what's the other document, the rather with our what's the word regulations regulations yes. Either to inform the regulations or the bylaw or, or even help the town staff, and, you know, in like seeing okay this is where people are concerned and so forth like some of the things that came up I think that are relevant to staff maybe the permitting process or, you know, some of the things that we were just talking before but they were those was from the landlord's point, it adds up to the cost, every time we adding more regulations and stuff so that balancing of how do we have enough regulations that ensures the quality without making it burdensome because that does get passed on to tenants. Anyway, that was one thing. Thoughts, comments, questions on. I'm going to open this up to not having too many limits on those comments and questions but on how we could use it on how it's presented on anything you've got concerns with or questions you've got or requests for changes all of it it's it's just sort of open for all of that. So Jennifer. Well, I guess, for start my first is whose report. Is this a committee report is this a CRC report. So that's what we haven't decided yet right. We did the survey. Right. And we've published almost all of the answers as separate answers and Shalini wanted to have a report that does this. She took it upon herself and and obtained a lot of help from Elena to do so. But it was not a formal referral to say Shalini from the committee, go do that we're going to adopt it so I think it's really up to the committee's discretion on and decision as to whether we want to formally adopt this as a committee report or whether we put this out there as a big thank you to Shalini for for doing this itself. So I'm open to thoughts on that. Yes, I mean. So, you know, I have some. I don't agree with, like just looking at the executive summary. I think, I don't know if you want to just get right into the discussion but I wouldn't feel comfortable with this going out. I think it is as a committee report, or even as any kind of official report because, you know, as with anything, you know, when people, I think, you know, take, they read the comments, it's, it's not objective. I think conclusions were drawn whenever you're drawing conclusions, they're your conclusions. So, you know, I don't know if you want me to just dive in I know I'm kind of a broken record on anyway so that's just my concern is, you know what this report is who's authored where it's going to go. You know, could if we disagree could we do our own report, you know that So, so there is a methodology in qualitative research where you tag things as they're coming up so and and I've given links to the Google Docs, which have like all the data that was taken from the survey it's all in an Excel sheet, and then you can look at the tags that were given. So it's not like we randomly chose to give a particular thing one tag and then another one another tag so it was like, you can look at the data and see that I don't agree with this tag or I'd like to add additional tag and that's totally fine because we did have limited time and limited staff to do this is just a two of us so the process itself is like, I come from, I have a PhD in, I don't want to throw my credentials but that is my background is I taught PhDs how to do qualitative research, which is not an objective like oh it's an opinion thing there's actually a methodology to I can send you this grounded theories or how you do research in that that being said, this is not a final report that I'm attached to, but I welcome you all to look at the data and the tags that were given. And if you'd like to change or add to some of the tags that's fine. The other thing is that the summaries are of course that is I think the executive summary is more subjective in the sense of what so I would encourage you to look at the data which is in terms of the teams, right, so the teams have these were the main themes of cost, and they have three columns in them, and the columns have certain quotes that just to highlight. I read the whole report I read the whole thing. Yeah, you know when I read every survey that we got, but when something goes out, you know most many people will just read the executive summary. Yeah, so if you'd like to take because none of that is like all of the conclusions that are then the executive summary of tied back to the teams again they were not like this is a data. And here is the what we think the takeaways all the conclusions are tied back to the data. So if you have very specific objections we're very open to discussions. And if you'd like to edit it, change it, add your own, we can definitely do it I think the important thing though is when we talk about community engagement. We, and we, we put out a survey and we hear back from people it is a duty to look at it in a systematic manner, discuss it as a committee, and then report back to them this is what we heard and learned from you. So I agree. And I mean two things first of all, in the executive summary at one point, Rob is quoted from something he said at a forum. So it didn't seem appropriate since this is the title is survey report. So there's some mixing up of what people said one comment yes but that but important it's raising it's trying to cast doubt on whether we can have occupancy limits, which is huge. So I have to say, when I read the executive summary one of my main takeaways is that it says neighbors of rental. Let's see, it's, it says that one of the major concerns the occupancy limit is failing to support the bylaw goals of safe housing and strong neighborhoods in our town's comprehensive housing goals are providing affordable housing, the needs to be re examined in zoning. So what I read in many many of the neighbor, you know that the surveys that were neighbor was that the concern with the occupancy limit was that it wasn't being enforced. Yes, not that we shouldn't have an occupancy limit but when you read the executive summary you come away thinking, Oh, you know, people are really happy having an occupancy limit. And that is not at all what I read. Okay, let's just take it. If you look at the table with the occupancy limits, I do give the perspectives of all three and you're absolutely right for the neighbors it presents almost the opposite. So why isn't that in the executive summary. Why is the opposite in the executive summer. I mean, we're trying to show balance. Absolutely. And I, my ceiling, let me take a look at what I wrote over there. Okay, hold on. Hold on. So, so we're going to give Shalini some time to take. Right. I'll stop for now. Yeah, it is one thing. Thank you for bringing up that concern Jennifer. We're going to go to. Shalini, hold on. We'll let Shalini respond then we're going to go to Pam. One thing I'm hearing though is what we can do after bringing some of these up is each of us could send Shalini some comments for her to take into account in revising a potential report. And a document. Okay, so Shalini, would you like to respond after you need more time. I found it. Okay, so it says, number five, so that we can all be on the same page. Number five point in the executive summaries key factors concerning occupancy limits, and it clearly has the title negative consequences for tenants, negative consequences for neighbors, neighbors of rental properties complained about the noise and chaos from too many people living in tight quarters cars and diminishing property value so it does reflect the neighbors point of view. The next paragraph, however, says the way it stands now, the occupancy limit is not serving the tenants or the neighbors. That's not a true statement. You can edit it. I mean, it is not a statement because the occupancy limit is, if you say it's not serving the neighbors, it's not because it is not being enforced that that is that doesn't mean it needs to be changed. It just simply means it's not being enforced, but this doesn't say that in a nice way that doesn't say that. Okay, the same time, but Jennifer did. Okay, so the reasoning for that is that right now the way it stands a there is a problem in implementing implementation so we can include that and say that more clearly if that would be helpful. The second thing is in some cases, maybe four is even too much because of the proximity and what not maybe in some cases it needs to be reduced to three. So I don't think we're trying to say to increase the occupancy to six. All it's saying is they needs to be a discussion. It's not saying we should increase it to eight or 10 or six. It's not saying that it needs to be reassessed. And if there are, yeah, I see the sentence. If there are edits that you would like that you think would convey that more clearly, definitely send me though. Thank you, Shalini Pam Pam. Yeah, I just, I had my own question but just to follow up on that a little bit. It doesn't say in the survey that that the occupancy limit is failing the buy by law goals I mean that is that is an extraction of some comments about the occupancy limit that is being brought into this summary which I think is is it's stretching the bounds of of this survey tool. Let's just put it that way. I had a couple comments, and I really really all of all of the time. I think this there was an area that had eight it was like eight elements that you listed that were very clear. Oh, yeah, it's on page 10. And it was as you got into the quality of analysis costs related to rent quality of housing noise parking complaint process relationships for tenant limit and other perspectives, which were really great categories. I, I expected to see those. At the beginning, you know, essentially the same categories. And instead we have licensing fee licensing program. So it's a complaint so it's a different, it's a whole different ball of, of materials that's trying to be process so it was hard for me to follow the organization of that okay. The other thing that that I would like very much to ask for is that we could say key insights or themes, but I would like to very much ask to have the word recommendations stripped out of this entire thing because none of us is yet the recommendation and if, if someone in the public read this and says, Oh, CRC, or even this report is recommending something. I want to have to agree to it before, before it goes out. If that if that works for you folks. And just very generally, again, like item number one key factors impacting the licensee and licensing fee, but then below is licensing fee and fine. And to me those are two very different categories that that probably should be treated separately. Again, number 2, their licensing program. Plus complaint. And again, those are those are 2 different things that they ought to get separated out. Just for reference, Pam, you are on in the executive summary. It doesn't quite have a page number on it, but it's, it's in the executive summary. Number one and two under key insights for people trying to find it. I'm sorry. Yes, absolutely. It's page three of 29. Two and two and three of 29. And again, we are the follow up the sort of a follow up summary of each of these items. Considerations for is a really good phrase in number in number one. But it's the second paragraph under key factors impacting licensee considerations for that emerged from the survey. That's a really good phrase rather than recommendations. I love that phrase. The theme of what I'm reacting to is that we aren't making any recommendations, nor did I think there were any. There were lots of suggestions, but no recommendation. That makes sense. Thank you. I'm Shalini. I think this is just like a starting thing so it wasn't meant to be like a final that I'm speaking on behalf of all of you I just did all of this work on behalf of all of us. I think we did it as with the personal goal of something something it was just that this all this data was out there and I wanted to do something about it and I think we talked about it in CRC that I would be doing it. That being said, we can get rid of the whole executive summary if you want and just keep the teams that are there later on that to the qualitative, you know, in starting in on page 10. This is kind of how the, the, I just took a shot at taking, if you look at, so page 10 has the summer, the main teams, and then if you go on to page 14 of the qualitative analysis, and it says, okay, these are the main themes that came through and each of those teams has is based on it draws the main teams for the tenants and neighbors and landlords and then there's some quotes not all of them of course, but there's some quotes to kind of highlight what was the essence of what people were saying from all three perspectives, right so we tried to be really balanced and bring that idea that any issue we look at, let's try and look at it from multi stakeholders. And so we could just take that as a starting but I just took a stab that okay now that we have these themes, how can they inform our goals. So that's what I was trying to do is take all of this and take a higher level of abstraction and say okay the cost or like when we hear that landlords have permitting fees or it's affecting the tenants. So friends, maybe these insights can go to inform when we have a conversation about setting the fees for tenants different types of tenants that we heard like we heard from landlords like, and from tenants that when they're living with their landlords or when they're living in the homes, those with the landlords living there are close by there are no, they're very little challenges in fact they're mutually beneficial relationships so it seems like, and that obviously that's me projecting that it sounds like that needs a different kind of fee that we charge from the larger units. That was just me taking a stab at initiating that conversation but it's by in no means the final conclusions but it's just to get us thinking about how to use these main themes that emerge in the qualitative data starting from page 14. And how can we use that to inform now our rental registration by law discussions. So I'm totally happy to change the executive if you want different themes to come out of that maybe you will look at and say hey this also informs you know x, y, z. So definitely let's do that. But let's use the data let's really see what people were saying and let's see how it can inform us because I certainly learned a lot of new things. When I really looked at it from all three I'm like well, you know, there's a lot going on. Okay. Thank you, shall any. So, I want to say, I would love to keep the executive summary maybe based on some comments. It needs looked at a little more closely in terms of things but that that part, you know, really helped me in terms of looking at this and one of the I just want to say some of the surprising things I thought in reading this, one of which was we went into this survey asking about rental housing in hopes that it would inform our bylaw work on rental permitting. And when you look at the executive summary and when you look at all of the also additional work beyond the executive summary that was done in this. There's more than just permitting that it might inform us for. And you know really eye opening on just other areas that that we might not and probably can't use for the rental permitting discussions, but that we're going to be able to use for other parts of our work I think as CRC members and maybe as counselors, going forward. The other thing I want to say is, you know, when they were coming in one by one. I knew we were getting a lot of people in the 18 to 29 area, but I had not realized how many we were and when I saw that 26% of all respondents were in that age range. And that almost floored me in in how well of a response we got, which I want to actually thank all of the cooperation we had from Rob's department in emailing landlords and tenants about the survey from UMass in emailing off campus in emailing about the survey. I feel like in my four years on the council this was one of the first times, we've really had engagement from a sector of this community that we've struggled to engage in. And so, you know, I think that's really important to acknowledge that engagement, and then use that engagement for something to inform us on what we do afterward as well as the engage you know that was 25% 75% aren't in that category right 200 and I never thought we'd get 250 responses and more. Never. And so, I think it would be wonderful if we could figure out a way to use Shalini's work and Elena's work to make something of a sort of report and formalize this as a CRC group, if we can get to that point. Because I do think it's really important what Shalini said about reporting back out, you know, not expecting everyone to read all 250 responses to see what it was saying here's a 29 page document that summarizes where you can get an idea of what we heard. And then use it going forward for other things so you know those are some of my initial thoughts and just views. Thanks. I really liked page nine of 29 which gave a background. And it felt like if, if in fact this is going to be a report that goes out. That's a really important thing to have up front. And by the time I had gotten to page nine or 10 was like oh okay yeah that because I think there was a reference to the goals for doing the the bylaw reform and it's like, oh yeah yeah here were the goals. Having them up front would be great. I think so that was a that was a really good stage to, but I think needs a little more a little more prominent. Thank you Pam Jennifer. You're still muted. I'm sorry. Yeah I think they're, well I actually, first I did have a question in terms of the demographics of who completed it. Was there really zero between 30 and 50. No there wasn't, because I remember reading some surveys that were from people who were in their 40s, I guess where it said, was there really two at the top. Yeah it had respondents 18 to 29, and then it went to 50 to 59 60 to 69 70 to 79. And there was like from 30 to 49 was missing. Yeah, in terms of that that sentence is talking about the largest groups of respondents and their age ranges, and in order of what percentage is in those so she, she highlighted the largest. Okay, so there were but it's still interesting that kind of the, how do you put it, certainly the people in sort of raising children years seem to be so I don't know if that's because that's the demographic, we're losing an amount. So that was really food for thought for me but that's just an aside. Yeah no I mean I appreciate the survey being done, you know, which we have to thank Shalini for, you know just because you worked on this survey right you. And Monday to. Okay, well yes that was a huge lift and having all the data and having it compiled so I mean, hugely appreciative of that we all are. I do, I would. If we're going to, I think we should have an executive summary but I think that we need to, because I feel, since we, we respecting all the, many people that completed a survey, I, and I know I'm a broken record on this point. I do feel like on page for that under the heading negative consequences of for neighbors of rental properties. I am concerned that the, you know, the neighbors that completed it will feel that their concerns maybe misrepresented in some of what's in those paragraphs. So, I would want to be able to, you know, thank you. Not only personally but the committee. I recommend that, you know, if you've got specific changes you'd like to see please send them on to Shalini. She can bring based on the conversation we've had today and things that were mentioned, a new draft to a future meeting, I'm not sure which meeting yet Shalini so I'm thinking after Thanksgiving. We've got something now we can work with to inform us even if we don't finalize it immediately type things. But that, and then I just have a question. I don't think it should be circulated. I mean, is there, does the committee have any state you know until. Because it is in our packet. I have not included it and sent it to the town council yet but it is in today's packet so anyone who wants to see this one can see it, along with the discussion that we've had today, but I have not. If it makes sense to say reported this out to the council yet. There was in a. I think I referenced something in a in something that will be in the council packet on Monday but I have not included this I think Shalini might have requested it be in Monday's packet from Athena I don't know whether she put it in if CRC is uncomfortable with that we can request that it be removed from that packet for later dates. So that's it for today's discussion. But, Shalini and Elena just any questions any further comments and or anything else you want to hear from us, or thoughts. Shalini. I would love to get your edits and so I can share it and if I don't get it, I think I will be sharing it with our district. With my district five people but I will put it out as my work I will be very cool and I can put a statement saying that this is not endorsed like we're still discussing it and this is but I have put in like. 100 of hours into it, as long as I'm not saying it's coming from you all, like I did this work and I think I have a right to share it with the public. Thank you. I appreciate that and I appreciate that support of that. What is what's hard about this is that in fact you are drawing many conclusions that we as a committee just have not drawn. And once something is public you can ever it's like a word spoken you can never take it back. And I, and I don't want people pointing to conclusions that that are not supported by just data points. It's, it's, you know, recommending that we that that, you know, the cap on for people should become a, you know, a zoning discussion. I don't think the word zoning I don't think even shows up in the whole, any of the respondents and maybe Elena, you know, can can prove me wrong but it's, it could be incendiary let's put it that way I think I'm concerned about that safe to put something out with recommendations and conclusions I just, I would just ask you to really, really, really reconsider doing that until perhaps the CRC has has toward consensus has some consensus on it. It seems to me that shallow day should be able to share her work. It's her work, particularly with her district I could see us saying, don't share the executive summary, but her conclusions about it I think it would be shared and that's what's happening. If Jennifer we're bringing it to your, you know, District three, then you'd be sharing your conclusions from it, but I do agree that the executive summary has to be created by all of us. I'm really grateful for this work and I just want to remind us that what you see is incendiary. It's your truth and what you want to see. And what facts you want to glean from this just like I have my truth and the facts I want to glean from this. Somehow or other, I need all of us to really think about the whole of Amherst, and what we're doing and not to put out misconceptions and things like that about occupancy limits which you two have done. And what you want from shallow day I would like to have from you as well. And that feels very important to me. Thank you pat Jennifer. I think would what if I'm understanding correctly that would have said that she's saying for all the. I didn't complete a survey. So it's not that I feel misinterpreted, but for the 38% in all the neighbor surveys, I didn't hear anybody saying that there was a problem with having occupancy limits. And if I didn't see limits were mentioned. It was a concern that they weren't being enforced. So I think that's what Pam was saying that all the people who completed a survey. And, and then are going to read, you know, if they read the executive summary they'll say wait a minute. Who will that's why I agree with you about the executive summary being held back by shallow day. Okay, I agree with you. Not anything else. But I'm also questioning the kind of information that different counselors have put out to their districts, depending on their interpretation and what they want, and what they think their district wants to hear. So, I guess I'm asking for all of us to stop that. Well, no, but we're here to represent our constituents. Yeah, but not by fibbing. Who's getting. Wait, wait, you. Oh my goodness. Jennifer and Pat. I want us to take a step back. Let's take a step back. And, and just stay calm. Although that saying that doesn't always help at all. You went to the same training. I'm going to take a step back and just, just say that, that what I, what I want to say is, as chair, it is clear this committee has very different views, particularly surrounding occupancy limits. We've struggled with it for the past nine months in any conversation we've had. So I think that's an issue I've, I'm seeing in this particular executive summary that has been brought up as, as the most sort of in conflict within ourselves. And so we might have to take a step back from that one in and of itself, we're almost out of time on this meeting, but I know I'm going to recognize more people were going to. And as chair from this conversation, we're going to have to put this on an agenda again if we want to try and be able to get to something where we can put out a report as a committee on this, which I personally and as chair I think would be something that would be helpful to all people to say, here's what we saw. This is, this is the you don't have to read 250 responses. Here's what we got and here's a summary. So let's take a step back from that. I mean, Elena, if they have time, we'll go back and take some of the comments we've heard and try and do stuff. She, Shalini was working really hard and Elena we're working really hard to be able to get it out in time for us to have the conversation today to start. So, you know, I appreciate all that work and, and the rush that went into trying to meet today's deadline, which means some of this may have ended up that way but Shalini and then Pam, and then I'd like to move on to public comment. As part of our meeting because we are almost out of time for our meeting. Okay, so the question whether the resident whether the survey talked about changing the occupancy limit. If you read page 24 where it says take hold of perspectives on the four tenants rule, and the tenants and the neighbors under landlords, there are quotes taken directly from the survey. And it does say from tenants point of view saying rather than having a law or for unrelated and what they should be a limit based on the size and zoning of the property. So that the landlord cannot place additional units a budding your home. The second person said as a college student the four person by law seems very outdated and pointless because this person can live together with a girlfriend and whatnot. Another person said that the tent that the landlords sometimes misuse this limit to stop prevent tenants from complaining because there are more tenants already living and then they will use that to. So being used in very bad ways from the tenants point of view from the residency I really as a that's the integrity that any researcher brings to a project is to reflect all perspectives as fairly as possible. So in that point of view, I did include in their comments which is so for students there's more density, and it creates more, you know, reduces their property in, you know, rates and so I tried to project all three and it's I'm not pushing any agenda, but I want what it seems like from this, this particular there are other comments to that we need to discuss but with this. It does require us to reassess and have that conversation. The second thing I just want to say is, in my opinion, I thought I reflected in the executive summary that this was a negative aspects for the residents this was a negative but if you if it's not clear and having that one statement that they did not find the implementation of it appropriate, I am very happy to make that clear because again I wanted to be an accurate reflection and all the conclusions then executive summary are tied to the data points. So nothing was a priori projected, which we have seen in the past a lot of reports that have been presented to town council have an agenda they do research and they come back and say, Oh, this is what we found there's no connection between the data and. And so we really tried to do a very thorough job with the limited time we have to show the connection, but I'm like I said this is an initial step taken and I would very much welcome. And being said, I will be sending this out I will remove I'll make all the changes and I will also not say recommendations but considerations all that everything that we heard today, we will change that. And I will be sending this out I can remove the executive summary if that's uncomfortable to people but I do want to let the tenants and our district people know that everything that you said we are listening and this is the work I have done and it's been taken to the CRC and we're going to be discussing it. Thank you, Shalini Pam, then Jennifer and then we're moving to public comment. A quick, a quick note on the. It reminded me of the forum information so I have, I have eight pages of notes that I took from the forum, and I'm sort of thinking. Okay, how do we, how do we take advantage of all that input that we got. So far we have not incorporated it. And I saw that's why we sort of focused on, I focused on seeing Rob's name and his comment from a previous work session. I knew was not part of the survey. So that was one thing is is you've already taken on this huge task but how do we, how do we use the forum information. And then secondly I wanted to say to Pat. I don't talk about zoning with my district so I have not shared anything about this with my district specifically. I don't talk about limits to my district. I talked about it with my friends, but I don't talk about it with Michael sir. Thank you. Thank you pat Jennifer. I do talk about limits with my district because it is a huge issue in my district. It has been for decades. So, yes, you can barely go you know you can't go out to dinner in my district without it coming up. But yes, I would feel it's yes the executive if I would feel more comfortable with the executive summary until we've all had input but the rest of the document. You know, you know it was more raw data. And, you know, I also did have the concern with if it was a summary of the surveys that with all due respect to Rob that a comment made during the forum probably didn't belong in the executive summary but so. But yeah, without the executive summary I think it seems nobody has any concern or rejection. Thank you. Shawnee we really do have to move on. Thank you at this time we're going to move on to public comments so public comments with on matters within the jurisdiction of CRC are going to be accepted at this time residents are welcome to express their views for up to three minutes. Please, if you would like to make a public comment at this time please raise your hand. And we will recognize you in turn. Seeing no hands the public comment period is closed. With that we're going to move on to minutes. We have Elena she wants to see and then she would be good. Yes, thank you Elena would you like to say anything else I do really thank you for coming. If we, when this goes back on an agenda if you're available. I'm hoping Shawnee will remind me if I don't remind remember myself to invite you again if you're available for continued discussion on this because of all the work you've done on it I think it's important for you to be included. Anything you'd like to say. Yeah, definitely. Thank you guys so much for looking this over. Despite issues with the executive summary I think all the data afterwards is really important and things that have affected me and a lot of people that I know personally, especially in the community. So thank you for taking the time to look at it. Thank you. Thank you so much and thank you for coming today. Minutes, we have three sets of minutes to approve today. The October 13 minutes the October 24 minutes and the October 27 minutes I believe Pam you have some amendments to the October 24 minutes would you like to summarize those amendments. You're muted Pam. Sure, I don't have them in front of me but I, I recall that the Diwali date was wrong, or the time of the time of the celebration was incorrect. And then I also think that this was the meeting that I chaired and so, or vice versa and so your name was where my name should have been. I just pulled up what you sent me my, your name was there when it should have been mine because I chaired this one. So, so that that was one correction and then looking at the other ones that you had. I'm going through quickly here I know you mentioned the Diwali either date or time. I don't see it on here immediately should have been under announcement somewhere but I believe those were the two changes in the October 24th one, the dates of Diwali are wrong. Yeah, so that's the other changes that the dates to Diwali date and time so I've made a comment on this thing itself. That's it's a small thing but just in case anyone did happen to be wanting to come to the valley then yeah it is November 5, 336. Yeah. Okay, so are there any other changes to any of the other sets of minutes. I'm going to make the motion to adopt the October 13, 2022 minutes as presented the October 24, 2022 special meeting minutes as revised, and the October 27, 2022 meeting minutes as presented. Is there a second second the answer list. Thank you Pat any further discussion. Seeing none we start with Pat. I. Mandy is an I, Pam. I. Jennifer. Hi. And Shalini. Yes. That is unanimous for those three sets of minutes. I don't have any announcements does anyone else have any announcements. Next agenda is going to include the food and drink establishments. I'll try to get you more information as to which of those three will be working on and discussing more specifically so that we can all focus our concentration on one thing once I determine and once I think through which we need to start our conversation. So that's my next agenda preview Shalini, you have something. Yeah, I was just going to say I encourage people to just look at the data part of it because even as we're having the discussions to see what were the comments and if they tie or relate to the things that we're going to be discussing more specifically so that we can all focus our concentration on one thing once I determine and once I think through which we need to start our conversation with. So I encourage people to just look at the data part of it because even as we're having the discussions to see what were the comments and if they tie or relate to the things that we will be discussing in the in our rental registration. Thank you. Are there any items not anticipated. Seeing none. Thank you so much. Thank you, Athena and Rob and Dave and all for not just attending but staying a little bit afterward we are adjourned at 638pm. Thank you.