 Okay, Mr. Marshall. You have a quorum. It is 634 the attendees have arrived. I think you're good to go. All right. I think my clock is different than yours. So we'll. I will list another time. Okay. All right. Welcome to the Amherst planning board meeting of September 21st, 2022. My name is Doug Marshall and as the chair of the Amherst planning board, I am calling this meeting to order at 636 p.m. This meeting is being recorded and is available live stream via Amherst media. Minutes are being taken pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended by chapter 22 of the acts of 2022 and extended again by the state legislature on July 16th, 2022. This planning board meeting, including public hearings, will be conducted via remote means using the zoom platform. The zoom meeting link is available on the meeting agenda posted on the town website's calendar listing for this meeting or go to the planning board web page and click on the most recent agenda, which lists the zoom link at the top of the page. The zoom link is available live stream. No in-person attendance of the public is permitted. However, every effort will be made to ensure the public can adequately access the meeting in real time via technological means. In the event we are unable to do so for reasons of economic hardship or despite best efforts, we will post an audio or video recording, transcript or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible. Board members, I will take a roll call. When I call your name and mute yourself, answer affirmatively and return to mute. Bruce Colton. Tom Long. Andrew McDougal. President. I, Doug Marshall, am present. Janet McGowan. Present. Johanna Newman. And Karen Winter. Thank you all. Board members, if technical issues arise, we may need to pause temporarily to fix the problem and then continue the meeting. If the discussion needs to pause, it will be noted in the minutes. These use the raise hand function to ask a question or make a comment. I will see your request and call on you to speak. Please be aware the board will not respond to comments during general public comment period. Public comment may also be heard at other times during the meeting when deemed appropriate. Please indicate you wish to make a comment by clicking the raise hand button when public comment is solicited. If you have joined the board, please make a comment. Please indicate you wish to make a comment by clicking the raise hand button when public comment is solicited. If you have joined the Zoom meeting using a telephone, please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star nine on your phone. When called on, please identify yourself by stating your full name and address. And put yourself back into mute when finished speaking. Residents can express their views for up to three minutes or at the discretion of the planning board chair. The speaker does not comply with these guidelines or exceeds their allotted time. Their participation may be disconnected from the meeting. Okay. So the first item on tonight's agenda as usual is minutes from some previous meeting. And tonight we have the minutes from our last meeting on September 7th. Board members, any comments about the minutes as drafted? Not seeing any. So. Oh yeah. I was just going to say that I read through them and they looked good to me and I would move to approve the minutes. Okay. Thank you. Do we have a second to that motion? Tom long. I second that and thank you Pam for turning those around so fast. You're welcome. Okay. Thank you, Tom. And yes, thank you, Pam. All right. If there are no further. Comments. We'll go ahead and vote. All right. Starting with Bruce. I'll abstain since I haven't seen them. Okay. I do hope we get. Get you. Okay. So we'll go ahead and vote. Conversant with how to download those. Every, every meeting. Tom. Hi. And. Hi. Yeah. Janet. Hi. Johanna. Hi. And Karen. Karen winter. Thank you. And I'm an eye as well. So the vote is six in favor, one abstention. All right. So the time now is six 41. And we'll go to the public comment period. Maybe I'll start that by reading the names of the participants that I can see. In the attendees list. And the three public attendees at the moment are Bruce Allen. Lemon C. I am I am. I'm not on tonight's agenda. With us. Just a C as the second name. And Mara keen. Okay. So. To all of our attendees. Would any of you like to make a public comment. At this time on something that is not on tonight's agenda. Okay. I do not see any hands raised. So I will conclude that we do not have any public comment. So the time now is six 42. And we can go on to the third item on our agenda. We're going to have two public hearings this evening. The first one. Okay. So the first one is as follows. In accordance with the provisions of mass general law, the second item is a public hearing. The second item is a public hearing. It has been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted. And is being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity. For interested citizens to be heard. Regarding. SPR. 2023 dash zero one and SPP 2023 dash zero one. Archipelago investments LLC. The second item is a joint public hearing. To request site plan review. Under section 3.326 of the zoning by law. To construct a private apartment style dormitory with 68 dwelling units and associated interior and exterior spaces. And associated site improvements, including waiver of onsite parking requirements. And a special permit to modify maximum building coverage. The second item is a public hearing. Under section six table three footnote a. Of the zoning bylaw. With the property located on map. 80. D rather. Parcel 18 in the RF. Zoning district. And this hearing is continued. From August 3rd. Of this year. So. I don't see any from the earlier. Hearing. I do not see any. Okay, Chris. I think you probably need to give us some introduction for this evening's hearing. Yes. I've been in touch with the applicant. Kyle Wilson. And he has requested a. Continuance of this public hearing to. The public hearing on the October 19th. And the reason for his request is that. He has been before the conservation commission. The conservation commission opened a public hearing on his. Project on the 14th of September. But they weren't able to take testimony or really discuss the project at that time because they had a full agenda. So they've continued their public hearing to. September 28th. Okay. So. Kyle doesn't have any input from the conservation commission. And I believe that the planning board would like to have. Certainly some recommendations from the conservation commission before you move forward with your approval. The other thing is that we still don't have a. Comment letter, a letter of comment from the town engineer. And I think we're going to have some other changes to his proposal. One of which has to do with the management plan. He took seriously the discussion that you had the other night about. The need for a 24 hour. Seven day a week live in manager. So I think he's going to be. Proposing that as an addition to his management plan. But in any event, he did submit an email. And he's going to continue his public hearing to October 19th. And he is not here tonight. So I feel like you shouldn't really discuss the project. In his absence. And I recommend that you go ahead and continue the public hearing to October 19th. Okay. And if we were to do that, is there a time on October 19th that you would recommend. I'm going to ask for Pam's input on that. I think we have. 51 Spalding street at 635. And I think we were imagining that we would have. Another public hearing, which is coming up next. Here tonight. We were imagining that one. Would be continued. But we can set a time for that later on tonight. So we could say. That this public hearing would be scheduled for 645. On the 19th. Archipelago. Does that make sense, Pam? It does. It puts it after. The one that we've already continued, which is Spalding street, but before. Anything new that might arise tonight. So. Okay. Janet, I see your hand. I'm not sure. So I wouldn't, I'm not sure if it's appropriate to talk about this right now, but. I saw that Chris Prestrup had sent a list of things that we're looking for the planning board is paying for more information on. And I was concerned. I think we need more information on parking in the sense where Mr. Wilson said that. We need more information on that. And then we have some more information on that. We have some more information on the parking. And then we have deeded rights to parking on the UMass. Sub division lots. And then we have correspondence from UMass showing that they don't seem, they don't mean there's not even enough parking. In their lots. And I just think we needed more information on that, like an agreement or something, you know, some more detail on. I think we need more information on that. I think we need more information on that. I think we need more information to park on UMass land or other spaces. That that issue I think was. So I don't. I hope I'm not making opinions on it, but I just think we need more information on that. May I speak. Yes. So I did try to drive that. Point home to Mr. Wilson. I sent him a copy of the minutes of the. Board meeting where that was discussed to some extent, and I listed it in the email that I sent to him, which I copied. I gave you a copy in your packets. So I think he realizes that this is a serious issue that he needs to come forth with information about. And that was also one of the things that he wanted to. Try to resolve before he meets with you next time. I didn't mention it. I'm sorry. But I forgot to mention that one. That's okay. Karen, I see your hand. You mute it. Karen. Karen, you're muted. So. I hope this is the right time to mention. That I. Chris, maybe you could convey something that were that I am particularly concerned that he provides some sort of accommodation for bicycles. And maybe. The unit, it would be great if he and the university would somehow since parking, and you're trying to get as few cars there necessary. The students should use alternate means. He could somehow contact the university about. A dedicated bicycle path directly. From these houses. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that is this inappropriate to bring in, but since he's reconfiguring. I think he should know that I particularly am concerned about that. All right. So Chris. So that is one of the topics that I. Also reminded Mr. Wilson of, I've had phone conversations with him and I've told him that. He needs to provide bicycle. Accommodations. But of course, he should be able to provide bicycle. For everyone who is interested in a bicycle path. I must say, though, that. I think. You probably should hold off on, on further. Suggestions or discussion about this until you meet with him. And you know, if you wanted to send me some. Email individually about things that you want to see when he meets back with us on the 19th. That would be appropriate. And then I can just forward those emails to him. One board member to you about something he was thinking about. Okay. So in that case, I guess. We can go ahead and have a motion to continue the hearing. To October 19th at 645 PM. Um, so move. Thank you, Tom Andrew. Those seconded. Thank you, Andrew. All right. Is there any further conversation from the board? Okay. We'll go ahead and have a vote to continue. Bruce. Approve. Tom. Andrew. Hi. Janet. Hi. Yohana. Hi. And Karen. Hi. And I'm an I as well. So seven votes in favor of continuing. Okay. So at this time, we'll move on to the second of our public hearings this evening. Chris, I see that that was advertised at 735. Can we. Proceed with this now, or do we need to do some other business and come back to it? I suggest that you take up the. Particle 14 item. And then you can either. Interrupt article 14 at 735 and have a conversation about flood mapping, or you can just put it off till towards the end of the meeting. We have a lot to discuss about article 14. So that might be a good thing to take up and then put off flood mapping until later. Okay. So in that case. It is six, six 53 and we will skip. Item, the second of our public hearings and go to item five on the agenda. The zoning amendment regarding article 14 temporary zoning. Temporary zoning regarding permitting for certain uses during the COVID-19 emergency in its aftermath. This is a proposal to make permanent certain aspects of zoning by law article 14 temporary zoning. Chris, would you like to introduce this? I'd like to introduce Nate Malloy and he will give you a presentation about the proposal for extending and making permanent article 14. We're not calling it article 14 anymore. The proposal is called something else, but Nate can explain that. Okay. Welcome me. Hi, thanks everyone. There's five documents. I'm going to share one's a presentation and then, you know, the zoning language itself. Immorine Pollock planner with a town presented this back in June. And then we've, you know, we've modified it. The request was to actually have some, you know, some language or things in, you know, in a zoning format to review. So the, I'm going to share my screen. And then, you know, after all the presentation, I guess we could stop after that and then move on to the technical documents, I guess. So that's visible for everyone. Right. So it's really, you know, it's article 14 is the temporary zoning where we're really just looking at food and drink establishments with that. So we're not looking at the rest of article 14. It's just that one. One piece. And so these background points were presented earlier. We can just repeat them that, you know, number 14 has accelerated permitting and review for almost 40, 40 applications. It's been successful. There's really been no complaints. But article 14 does expire at the end of this year. And so it will unlikely to be extended. The town is looking at other aspects that were approved in article 14 and trying to come up with other zoning measures. And, you know, the CRC town staff and the MRS business, you know, business community has asked for this, you know, are there ways to help keep some of those provisions of Article 14 in zoning? And the goal really, you know, there's a number of purposes and goals. You know, some of it is to allow for streamlined permitting to get to the board permits that really might have impacts and need to be reviewed, whether it's through site plan review or through special permits. So, you know, what we found is that a number of food and drink establishments can be approved administratively and they don't have any problems. But it's really there are certain, maybe uses or certain ones that may have some impacts that still need a land use permit. And so we're really proposing to get to the board ones that, you know, planning board or zoning board that really need this, need that kind of review. You know, and really it's an effort to have businesses relocate to Amherst, stay in Amherst and then also help support the bid and chamber. And so what's been permitted through Article 14? Like I said, there's been about 40 approvals and 18 of those have our, you know, deal with restaurants or outdoor dining. And so some are, you know, like the spoke literally expanded into this other half of the building through Article 14. The drake opened under Article 14. And then, you know, Garcia is also both indoor and then outdoor dining through Article 14. And so, you know, that was done administratively. There's a decision written by the building commissioner kept on file in, in town hall of the town clerk and at the planning department. And there hasn't really been any issues with that. So, you know, plans are required, a management plan is required. And really we're asking applicants to submit enough information that staff can make a decision. And where this happens is really in, you know, the area shown in red. So it's, you know, only a few zoning districts. It's in the BG and BL in the downtown, BVC, Business Village Center, Neighborhood Business, and then the commercial. And so, you know, the proposals were recommending to the food and drink establishments only impact these zoning districts. They're not allowed in any other zoning districts. So the whole, all the white in town you see here is not changing. So, right, it's not going to affect outlying residential areas or anything else. It's really just, you know, in the, in the Village Center course. And what we're proposing to do with the food and drink establishments is eliminate what's there now in terms of class one, class two, and class three, and come up with what's shown in green, you know, four different use categories. And the reason being, it wasn't necessarily for clarification, it's to have categories that make more sense in terms of the uses we're seeing. So, you know, right, right now, class one and class two is essentially the same thing unless one's open late or serves alcohol. But in the end, they're treated almost the same in terms of permitting. They're almost always approved as a special permit with a standard set of conditions. In class three drive up restaurant, that's, that doesn't, isn't used very much because we allow drive through as an accessory use. So what we're proposing is to have a restaurant cafe bar with food or other similar food or beverage establishment by site plan review. And so, you know, it's essentially combining class one and class two. There's a bar with no food. So, you know, there's a few that, you know, they could serve possibly prepackaged food according to, you know, state regulation, but they wouldn't have a kitchen or, you know, or anything like that. Then there's a nightclub, which there are a few of an Amherst and then an establishment with more than 250 occupancy limit or capacity. So that's not chairs. It's, you know, what's the actual capacity of the space. And those three uses would be by special permit. And so just some examples of what we're talking about that would be by site plan review. So Johnny's Tavern, Savannah's, Bruno's and House of Teriyaki. A bar with no food is the moment in dove. A nightclub, so Hazel's in downtown is considered a nightclub. So there's a building code definition of nightclub. And that's how, you know, that really determines if it falls in that category. So, you know, it's high density, limited seating. It actually says loud music. But there's a few parameters in the building code that would trigger an application to be considered a nightclub. You know, even if someone was saying it's a bar, but they present a plan, the building commissioner would have to categorize it as a nightclub. And then establishments with over 250 occupancy. And so, you know, there are establishments in town that act as a restaurant or, you know, a bar with food during the day. And then at a certain time, they might transition to a bar with no food. And right now we're saying that the restaurant part would be by site plan review. But if they wanted to be open later and turn it into a bar, they'd need a special permit. And so they would actually have to go through two permitting paths. And that's something for the board to consider. So, you know, there's other ways to manage that process. It does happen now. In some respects, you know, a project may come in for site plan review for mixed use building. And then the use itself that comes in in a particular space may be by special permit. So it's similar to that. And so we're still proposing that, that those uses, you know, a bar with no food, nightclub and a larger establishment, you know, could be impactful and then we'll go through the special permit process. And associated with that, it was then the actual changes to the zoning bylaw. So Article 3, the use table would change with that whole, you know, chart of proposed uses. Article 5, so accessory uses. Article 11, there's a little change in Article 11. And then Article 12 updating two definitions. And that's it for the presentation. If there's any questions or Doug, if you want me to go into showing the zoning, you know, the actual zoning piece. All right. I see Janice got her hand up. Maybe. Sure. You have a question? I think I was, I've been, I'm sort of confused about the framing around Article 14 and these changes. Because Article 14 let the building commissioner make a whole series of decisions that would normally go to the ZBA and the planning board. And so in these changes that you're suggesting, I don't see a change in who's deciding just a change in whether it goes to site plan review or special permit. So it's either going to come to the planning board or it's going to come to the ZBA. And so, because Article 11 site plan review already allows the building commissioner to, there's a whole path in that that says, you know, if you're not making any changes to the exterior of the building, you don't need site plan review. If there's, you know, a change to the use, but it's really minor, you don't need site plan review. And so I don't really understand why we're talking about Article 14, because what we're really talking about is in our normal process of either sending something to a special permit or to site plan review, the planning department is suggesting changes in that. And so, and that has repercussions in terms of who makes the decision, whether the special permit is discretionary, you know, appeal times, but so I'm kind of a lost a little bit on the framing of this as Article 14. So, so maybe to help me understand this a little better, if we go back and look at this, the Spoke, Garcia's and the Drake, if we were in COVID times and we didn't have Article 14, would those restaurants and that venue, music venue have come to a board? And what board would it have come to? Yeah, that's a really good question. So in Article 14, there are provisions for, you know, outdoor dining and certain things that the building commissioner could approve administratively. And so typically that would have to have gone, you know, so if someone was proposing, you know, a space for outdoor dining, that would have to go through, you know, a site plan review or special permit. But in terms of like the Spoke, I mean, we're talking about trying to, if the goal is to expedite the permitting by letting the building commissioner decide everything, which I would be a little, but you know, some just trying to understand like in a normal process, would Garcia's shifting from an Italian restaurant to a Mexican restaurant, would that have, would the building commissioner, you know, have just said, that's fine, it's not a change in use, there's no real external changes to the building other than the paint color? Would he have just approved that with the conditions? Right? Yeah, so yeah, so in Article 11, there is a provision, as Jenna mentioned, that the building commissioner can approve that. And if the only changes outside are to signs or, you know, paint color, then it can be administratively approved. And so the change to Garcia's right could have happened without, you know, through site, you know, through the administrative approval, but they added outdoor dining, and they wanted to stay open later. So that would have triggered them to be a class two restaurant and go through a special permit process. So, but Article 14 allowed that to happen, you know, administratively. So a transition from one space to a, from a restaurant to a restaurant may not trigger site plan review or special permit now. What would happen though, for instance, in those examples, if they want to stay open later or have outdoor dining or make some changes outside, then that does trigger, you know, land use permits. So, so Nate, to kind of get back to the crux of Janet's question, this is not a discussion about Article 14. No, this is an art. This is a discussion that is prompted by lessons learned from our experience with the temporary Article 14. And we're trying to translate some of those lessons into other parts of the code. Right. So I think, you know, previously, even before COVID staff had thought that the designation of class one and class two and class three food and drink establishments was somewhat antiquated and arbitrary, right. So, you know, just because you might be open later than 1130, all of a sudden you need a special permit, even if you're the exact same thing as a restaurant that's open closes a half hour earlier and the permitting paths are different. And so with, with the temporary measures in Article 14, it really prompted staff to say, let's examine just the food and drink establishment piece, right. And how can we clarify or, you know, change the uses to capture really what's happening on the ground in terms of establishments, you know, is there, and because there are bars and before there really wasn't a category for bars without food and the building commissioner needs to, you know, put a proposed use into a category that most closely identifies with in our, in our zoning bylaw. So that's, you know, that's a job of the building commissioner. So, it could be that like the Drake becomes, you know, we have a dance hall grange like assembly hall space. And, you know, it's like, oh, wow, is that what it is? But not really. And so, I think, you know, the thought was, okay, well, from Article 14, we realized, we can through administrative approval, put conditions on uses and not, you know, not see those impacts. And then the ones that maybe are, you know, are large enough that they would still need, you know, permitting, they would go to that. So, right, Doug. So, Janice, your point, right, I mean, I feel like Article 14, putting that in there is a somewhat misleading and confusing. I mean, this is really an improvement to the categories in the food and drink establishments. Right. Doug, could I follow, I have a follow-up question? Yes. Just because I actually just really was completely lost. And I think I've been found, but I'm not sure. So, sticking with Garcia's. So, Garcia's was a Class 1 restaurant serving food and drink. And they wanted to stay open later, which would have made them Class 2. And then they wanted to do outdoor dining and, I guess, music. I don't know. And so, in the old days, that would have triggered a special permit requirement, not particularly the change, you know, change in ownership, but adding that. So, they would have gone to the ZBA and said, hey, we want to stay open late. We're going to have music piped outside. And we're going to have people, you know, drinking margaritas, which, by the way, were quite tasty when I went. And that would be a discretionary permit. The ZBA could have said, well, you know, wait, you're too close to some housing, blah, blah, blah. You know, lights off at 1230 or something like that. So, that would, and they could, the ZBA could have said, no, you just can't stay open late. And so, under your new, your proposed revisions, that whole thing, like Garcia's could become a new company, a new restaurant, but outdoor dining, outdoor music, and staying open late would be site plan reviewed, come to the planning board. It would be, you couldn't say no if it met all the criteria. You know, and so, that's, so that, is that the difference now? Am I seeing that correctly? Well, you know, you can still deny a site plan review application, but yes, I mean, that's, that's the difference is that, you know, instead of it being a discretionary special permit, it's site plan review. And so, you know, there still can be conditions put on those uses. And so what we were finding, you know, even, like I said, even before COVID, a restaurant like that, that change would have the standard set of 50 conditions that would be the same for those restaurants. And they were always being approved by the ZBA, right? So, although it's discretionary, there wasn't, there really wasn't one that was turned down, unless it was, you know, it withdrew where it came back. But, you know, because the ZBA would work to get those same conditions, you know, decibels at the property line, you know, things that are in the by-law, right? So, having a management plan, certain responses to complaints. And so, you know, we found, well, why is this a special permit if they're always being approved? We can, we can incorporate those standard sets of conditions into, you know, the management plan so that every restaurant has to have the same type of management plan and, you know, same type of conditions can be placed on it. So it doesn't need to be a special permit. It can be site plan review. And then in both, in both, like how we do it now and your suggestion, people, butters will be notified, members of the public will be notified and people can participate in a public hearing. Is that right? Right. And so, like you said before, you know, if there's those few, you know, there's three instances in the by-law where it can be approved administratively and we're not changing those. Those are still the case. Okay. There's no changes to the exterior except for signs and minor alterations at the building commissioner doesn't think changes the site plan. And so those are already in the by-law. They have been for a while. And so actually in article 11, what we're doing is we're actually saying the building commissioner can improve them administratively, but they could also deny them or approve them with conditions. And so right now the building commissioner is putting conditions on those uses, but the by-law doesn't explicitly say that the building commissioner has that authority. And so the significant change to article 11 now is actually saying the building commissioner can put conditions on that or deny it or kick it to the board for site plan review. Right. So the building commissioner could say, okay, well, this space has been problematic. It is on the periphery. The neighbors often complain, you know, you're coming in, you're a new establishment, but you still want to be open late. I'm not going to approve that administratively. It's still going to go through a permit process because, you know, there's, you know, there's just something perhaps about that space or, you know, the buffering to a neighbor. So, you know, having that language in the by-law saying that the building commissioner could deny it administratively is something that isn't clear right now that could happen. And so to make that change in article 11, that's, I mean, that's really the, the significant change to article 11. Yeah. I had, I had like a fast and easier way to make that change that was less like red. So I could talk about that. Sure. So. Okay. Thank you, Janet. Tom. Thanks, Doug. I just wanted to make a quick note that you may not all know this, and I know that doesn't have to do with the functionality or performance or particularly in the zones, but the design review board saw every single one of those as well, you know, from an exterior perspective. So regardless of what that approval process looked like, while they were expedited, they were still under certain visual criteria in the public domain by the DRP. So I just wanted to make sure that people are aware that that was happening despite the fact that some of these things were, let's just say streamlined in terms of their approvals, there were still the overseeing at least from from an exterior and public impact perspective. Yeah, thanks Tom. That's a good point, right. So even, you know, initially when the owner for the building Garcia's was in, you know, a while ago, wanted to demolish it, that we still have to go through historical commission or, you know, if there's any changes to the right of way that would have to be reviewed by town council. So we're not, we're not excusing any other, you know, any other board review, it's really, you know, the land use permitting special permit or site plan review that's being recategorized. So I will share my screen, I'll show the use chart. And then we can move through the So, you know, like I said, like we had in the in the presentation, there's, you know, this is a whole new section 3.352. So there's the restaurant, cafe, bar with food or other similar establishment where food is served at all times. And so, you know, really, essentially, if it has a kitchen, or it's serving food, the food has to be, you know, kind of the main portion of that, it can't be, you know, a few little food, but really the major service is alcohol. I mean, it could be, but really we're saying the food has to be there. Then there's a bar with no food served, a nightclub and anything with over 250. And the permitting is just restricted to those few districts. And so the first one is by site plan review, and the others are by special permit. So, you know, so if someone came in and was proposing, like I said, to have a new space that is a restaurant during the day, and then a bar at night, they currently, the way this is proposed is they would have a both a site plan review and a special permit. So, Nate, you used the moan and dove as an example of a bar with no food. Right. But, you know, that's not a category that's previously existed. And I believe the reason that they serve peanuts in that establishment is because we didn't allow bars with no food. So, since they've traditionally done that, would you consider that they would need a site plan review or would they need a special permit the way they currently operate? No, so the, so they're a class two, but the, so that leads me to my points dug below. You know, for every, every food and drink establishment, we have these standards and conditions that they would have to meet and, you know, we say as applicable. And so, the state board of alcoholic, you know, alcohol and beverage control and then the Amherst board of licensing commissioners, the state allows bars to serve prepackaged food or, you know, say like appetizers or something, there's, you know, some, some phrase that you so the moan and dove would be, you know, they would, you know, they wouldn't be considered a bar with no food. They would fall into that category. So, you know, serving peanuts doesn't make them a restaurant at all. It would keep them in that category. So how would we, how would we make sure that that's the way no food was interpreted? So the building commissioners, yeah, so the building commissioners understand that. I can just imagine getting into a fight with an applicant about, hey, I serve peanuts. So I can just do a site plan review. Well, I think that, okay. So yeah, I don't want to jump around. So in, in definitions of a restaurant, we have, we have, we clarify that. Okay. So someone, I mean, right. So to your point, so we have, we have definition of a bar, a food and drink establishment or a part of such an establishment. So this is, you know, already in the definitions devoted primarily to the service and consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises and in which the service of food may be incidental. And so someone couldn't come in and argue that, you know, I'm going to have nachos and sausages, but I'm going to have a 20, 20 taps and, you know, it's a, it's a restaurant. So, since we're in article 12, we're deleting drive up restaurant because it's, it's really never used and sorry for all the scrolling, but we have the definition of restaurant in there and that's not changing just so everyone can see it. It's an establishment or part of an established establishment devoted primarily to the service and consumption of food and beverages on the premises. Any such establishment shall be considered a restaurant if the service of food is its primary activity in the service of alcoholic beverages, if any is incidental to the sales service and consumption of food and non-alcoholic beverages. So, you know, those are existing definitions that would still apply. Thank you. I'm sorry to interrupt you. No, no, good questions because right, I think, right, if you saw this, you'd say what, what is, I mean, I have a question now, what does it mean no food served? And, you know, Rob said, well, the Board of Licensing Commissioners in the state have a definition for what that means. So. Well, then why do you need the words with no food served? Why not just say bar? Well, for us, it's a clarification because up here, we say bar with food. So, there are restaurants or bars that serve food, right? And we're not trying to say it's a restaurant. It's a bar with food. So. Okay. Do you want to continue or shall I call on Bruce? Bruce has, I mean, I guess we can, I'm okay with. Okay. Hey, Bruce, come on up. There we go. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. This is interesting. My daughter's calling. I'm going to have to just tell her to go away. She might be persistent. So, a couple of questions. So, you've kind of hit that by the deletion of that definition of the drive up. But for me, I guess it seems to me that the current 3.352 food and drink establishments, restaurant cafe, lunchroom cafeteria in a similar place is a class one, class two is restaurant or bar, and class three is drive up restaurant. So, we're basically deleting class three altogether. So, I guess what I'm seeing is that we're essentially replacing class one on class two with two categories with four categories, and we're deleting one of the existing categories because, as you said earlier, if I understood you correctly, that we don't need it because it can be covered by as an accessory use. So, that's a broad summary of what's happening here, right? You know, that's, yeah, it's one goes away, two becomes four. Okay, that's good. Now, the second question that I had was the occupancy, the 250-person occupancy. When I was thinking about this, I thought, golly, that's a big place. You know, I was thinking of 250 people. I was thinking that's 50 tables with five people, and I was thinking, well, that's huge. And I was thinking, how was that the, what was the process for determining that to be the threshold? Well, that's still the question, but I now understand that we're talking code definitions of occupancy. And so it doesn't translate to 50 tables with five people so much, but it's still pretty big. So the question remains, although I've reeled in my apprehension a little, what is the rationale for choosing 250 occupants as the threshold that basically changes the first, or any of those categories into, well, actually, it makes most, it has most impact with a restaurant because the other two establishments are already in the category of requiring special permits. So the significance is that the restaurant cafe, if it's more than 250, shifts from a site plan review to a special permit from the ZBA. So what's the rationale, or what's the process for determining that 250 was the threshold? Sure, yeah. The spaghetti stuck to the wall with that number. No, the, yeah, I mean, it could fluctuate. And so some of it was, if it's too small, then everything could be triggered into a special permit because as you said, Bruce, that it's not the number of tables and chairs, it's the occupant capacity based on code. And so that's a little different than, oh, we have seating for 30, but the code might allow up to 70 or something. They might want to have spacious seating, but the size of the space allows a bigger occupancy load. And so 250 was thought of as a size where you start to have, or you could have impacts to the outside of the property or to surroundings in terms of queuing, noise, parking, but it could be different. It could be 200. I mean, there isn't necessarily, I'm not sure there's any code or regulation that says 250 occupants. I think it was something that the building commissioner and Marine have looked at in terms of the size of existing restaurants and what had been permitted and what the occupancy loads were. So currently there's probably two or three establishments that have the 250 occupancy load. So down on University Drive, the hangar space, so it's a pretty big space. That has a over 250, and I think there's one other. And so, yeah, I mean, I think it's a good discussion point. Would 200 be better? We could look into that. What exactly does it mean? What are the factors code-wise? Hey, Nate, could you scroll up a little bit higher to the, or off to the left? I'd like to see the category numbers because I think, no, up, up, up, up to, show me the three point, okay, you see how under bylaw it says 3.352? Yeah, those all say 3.25. That was a dyslexic moment. Okay, all right. I see that now. Okay, good. Janet? So I think I need, you know, I need help. And I think I assume maybe my fellow board members need to figure out what are the changes, what are the existing rules and what are the changes? Because when I looked at this chart, I actually kind of glanced at it because I thought, oh, that's just the use table. And I didn't realize, oh, this is the new proposed use table. So you're removing a lot of language from the existing 3.352, like the limiting of restaurants to 30 seats and the BN that's gone. So, you know, so I, you know, when I look at this, you know, freshly, I realize, you know, what, what is the, you know, I can look at them and compare them and go line by line, but I think it'd be better for all of us if we could just say, here are the changes. You know, we found that to be really difficult because of the way the charts organized to cross out everything and then have the new conditions. Really, it's, I mean, it's almost really you're comparing one, you know, one chart to another chart. It's really difficult to do a line by line. Well, I wouldn't, I wouldn't use this chart format because it's so unfriendly to begin with, but maybe saying, you know, you know, any restaurant in the BN can now have, there's no limit on the capacity of it, right? It could be, you know, it could be a restaurant with two, you know, 30 seats or 90 seats. And so that has gone away. So, you know, that would be an important fact to know and that might be a good idea or a bad idea, but I think we have to know that there is an idea and what that is. And so, so I also wondered like what happens if a drive-through, someone applied for a drive-through thing, like where did that, does that land a special permit or does that land a site plan review? But those are sort of smaller things. So, so what I started to do was like try to understand, you know, so, you know, one thing that kind of irked me just in my feelings out is the word arbitrary distinctions between class one and class two because it seemed to me that there were two significant distinctions. One was, you know, what, how big is it and what time does it close? And so I think, you know, you're losing that, the closing time was a trigger to go from class one to class or a restaurant or bar that closes at 1130 is class one, I think. And then someone who stays open later is class two and you need a special permit. And I think that's not so hard to understand why they made that distinction, you know, in a town of many youthful people who go out at 10 o'clock at night in a town of many people who go to bed at 10 o'clock at night. And we have lots of people living downtown and in and around village centers where that would be important for them to know, especially if we're adding in outdoor seating, outdoor music that can go on past 1130 at night. And so when I started to sort of put them all together, I was just like, okay, so now, you know, we can have restaurants that have capacity or bars with food that have capacity up to 240 people 45 open all night with outdoors, outdoors, seating and music. And, you know, on one hand, I feel like, oh, I'm living in Paris. You know, this is so exciting, although I think Paris is kind of quieter, maybe. But it's, it's like, that's a huge change. And I think there's a reason for those distinctions. And we should sort of mull about whether we want to let go of those and how big is too big, maybe. My other point, which I think is, I think might just be a typo is when we were looking at article five, accessory uses. Basically, it seemed to expand outdoor dining cafes, live music to any principal use in section 3.3, which is the entire use chart. And so it sounded like any use found in section 3.3 in the five zoning districts could have outdoor dining and outdoor music. And I just, I think that must be a typo because, you know, that would extend to a gas station recreational marijuana retailer, a lumberyard in the comb, you know, a rental, you know, it's just, I just, I just thought that it seems like that was where the flood gates just opened. And I just thought, I don't think you meant that. Well, I'll start with your first one. So in terms of a class one of class two now, you know, if a restaurant wants to stay open till midnight, you know, all of a sudden it needs a special permit, even if most of its business is, you know, in the afternoon and evening. And so, like I said, but even before COVID staff had realized that the conditions placed on class two and class one were the same. And so from a permitting standpoint, it's arbitrary because class twos were always permitted, right? There was, they really weren't denied. And the conditions were the same. And so, you know, from staff's perspective, if, you know, I was going to show these standards and conditions. So, you know, there's a standard set of conditions that will be that are applied to, you know, class one and class two now. And those conditions that are placed through a special permit process allow enforcement and inspection services and police to manage those places without any incident, right? So typically they actually operate without having any complaints. And so to have a special permit process for something that follows the conditions and there aren't complaints, you know, staff was saying, well, why keep it a special permit? And so the real, you know, question would be if a restaurant is a restaurant and then all of a sudden turns into a bar with no food served, then it still needs a special permit, right? So if a restaurant like the Monkey Bar is a restaurant during the day and actually turns into a bar at night, that would be, you know, a two permit establishment because it really has two principal uses then. And so, you know, we're not, you know, if a restaurant really is serving food as its primary function until 1am, then we're saying that's, you know, we're saying that's good. If, you know, there's a distinction then if it's, you know, the primary service's consumption of alcohol, then it becomes a bar. Even if they want to say it's a restaurant or the name says it's a restaurant, you know, we'll look at how it's being used. And then you're saying that some of the criteria about the time and the distance to residential zones and those kinds of things that are in the current zoning by law are not really having any material effect on the conditions or the rate of approval. Right, or the complaints. So after they've been approved, it's immaterial, those conditions in the bylaw, right? So they're not coming into play. So what we are saying is, you know, that they have to be subject to review and approval by the Board of Licensing Commissioners, subject to other state and local codes that the accessory uses would apply. And so right now, what's happening is, right, a drive-thru restaurant, typically the drive-thru is accessory to the restaurant, a cafe or other thing, you know, the only time there would be just a drive-thru, the way we had defined it in the bylaw was all your services coming through a drive-thru window. And really there's no, I don't know if there's ever been, you know, a drive-thru as we had defined it in Amherst. We're saying that, you know, we, for every food and drink establishment, they need all these plans, you know, a site plan, a floor plan, a layout plan with occupant capacity for indoor and outdoor dining, a patron management plan, should say plan, for the interior and exterior, a general management plan, parking and traffic. And the management plan would include such things as their hours of operation, trash and refuse storage, outdoor dining, queuing, signage, lighting, response to complaints, employee parking and other information. And so, you know, what's happened with Article 14, we require all these things in the management plan and they become, you know, part of the decision that Building Commissioner issues. So if they say that they're going to have trash stored indoors and it's going to be picked up daily and we find out that they put a dumpster outside, then that violates their management plan and that, you know, that becomes, you know, it can be an enforcement order against that establishment. And so by requiring all these things upfront, whether or not it's by special permit or site plan review or administrative approval, all of this has to be met. It provides enough information for staff to, you know, to have that administrative approval with conditions. You know, so, you know, just going on, you know, electric ID if alcohol served, onsite training, staff training and certifications for crowd control and tips, you know, a condition about reusable tableware for outdoor service, the way it should be cleaned and outdoor furniture shall be placed to meet all egress clearances and requirements. And so, you know, those are the standards and conditions that would be applied to every use that would come in, you know, in addition to other conditions through permitting. Okay. Have we covered all the material you wanted to present or do you want to go on to another piece of information? Oh, just go on. So for, I mean, so it is interesting. So for Article 5, I mean, we could stop and pause for a minute because then there's Article 5, the accessory uses were changing, Article 11 and then Article 12, like I showed, the few changes to the definition. So there's three more articles that are being proposed to change. And so as Jenna mentioned, I do see that Bruce has his hand up. So why don't we let him ask a question? Thanks, Doug. I'm not done with the 250 threshold yet. So I had a follow-up question. And I basically, Nate said something about spaghettis and walls and so forth. And then went on to say that it was a good, a number that felt right for staff, I guess, and perhaps others. I think you said there were three establishments in town that were at or above that limit. So my follow-up question on that was take Johnny's, for example, Johnny's tavern. I'd be interested in knowing what the occupancy occupancies are for some of the restaurants in town. So we kind of know whether perhaps dropping that down to 200 would be good or not. Because I really don't know what the occupancy levels of the various food and drink establishments around town are. And I think I would need to know that in order to be intelligent about judging whether that 250 is the right number or not. I agree. I think that's important to have. Okay. That's good. That's information that will be forthcoming. Thank you. It's also, if a space, for instance, Johnny's could be under that, but what if there's an adjacent space that they open up to after hours and their occupancy increases? So then all of a sudden they become a new use. So that doesn't change what it is now, but I do think looking at what it is and what is 250 appropriate. I'd just like to know what we're talking about here. Because it's a big number and it's a number that triggers the fourth of the new categories. So obviously it's important. And I think we should know what some of the key establishments around town are. And if they have multiple lives before and after midnight or something like that, then we should know the occupancies for their various lives as well as the established. So whatever will help us make a good decision about that number. Sure. So for article five, it's really the 5.04, the accessory uses and retail business and consumer service uses. And so what's shown on the screen, everything in red striped through is proposed to be removed and bold italics is proposed to be inserted. So as Janet mentioned, in BG, BL, the BVC, BN, and COM, the five districts to a principle use authorized by section three and subject to the same review as the required principle use. So we're deleting one, two, and three in part because we no longer have, we never had, for instance, in number one, we say a restaurant, cafe, lunchroom, cafeteria, refreshment stand, drive up, fast food eatery or similar eating establishment. And so now that we're coming with proposing new definitions in 3.352, we'd like to remove number one. I mean, we never even had a definition for cafeteria or refreshment stand. It was just kind of an odd relic. Number two was a bakery, deli or other similar establishment for the production and sale of food and beverage. And so we're saying, again, that's somewhat redundant to the new categories we're proposing. And then a retail store or convenience store selling prepared or packaged food. You know, in the building commissioner, you know, really thought that, you know, a principle use authorized by section three and subject to the same review. So you know, it's really only in those five districts, it's only seasonal outdoor dining, including sidewalk cafes, courtyards or terrace dining or similar uses may be permitted in those districts as an accessory used to a principle use. And so I agree, you know, Janet might say, well, wow, so that could allow, you know, some use you wouldn't expect to have outdoor dining or some sidewalk seating or, you know, terrace dining. And we're saying, sure, why not? Right. It still has to go through some review. But why, why are we, why are we restricting it in those in what is really our commercial cores in our downtown and village centers? And 5.0410. The way this had worked was it said that, you know, really, the outdoor dining would only be in place November one through April one. And what we've learned is that the outdoor season can be, you know, earlier or longer, it can be longer than that. And so we're saying now any structure, framework, you know, planter box, etc. shall remain in the outdoor dining area so long as the use is active and operational. And so really, you know, if someone wants to propose outdoor dining year round, and they think patrons will use it, you know, that's something that it could happen. And so, you know, a corollary to that is this change in this, you know, 5.0413, where we say no facility shall be equipped with freestanding heating or cooling devices or served by the HVAC system of adjacent and associated buildings, except for fans. You know, when we started having outdoor dining, we do allow, you know, a gas powered heaters and they are inspected by fire. There's codes required for those. And so we're proposing to delete that statement, which would allow for, you know, a longer season of outdoor dining. And so we see that as a good thing, you know, that we're allowing, you know, these, you know, planter boxes, whatever, you know, we have them out there now, right? We have it in a number of spaces downtown that those could remain as part of, you know, accessory use as long as the principal use is operational. So if, say, a restaurant closes seasonally, they close, you know, January, February, March, every year, and then they have outdoor dining. The outdoor dining would have to be removed for those three months that they're no longer operational. And then, you know, just going down through Article 5, we struck a restaurant bar or in and said any principal use in Section 3. You know, again, live or pre-recorded music, you know, still everything else with us, you know, is still the same in terms of the conditions. And drive-through facilities, we're still allowing. We just removed the reference to the restaurant section because it's no longer there. And so those are the changes to Article 5. All right. We have three people with hands raised. So many questions for you, Nate. Sure. Karen. Yeah. So I congratulate you on this because we do want to encourage a vibrant downtown. And you made pretty clear that if there are complaints, and first of all, you've tried this out, there were no complaints. Of course, it was COVID time. But I think it's great to simplify this and still have the, you know, the control that you said that we would still have if there are complaints. There are things will be addressed. There are so many things that are going to be looked out for. So I'm very much in favor of this. I don't see a problem. And I congratulate you on this. All right. Thanks, Karen. Andrew. Thanks, Doug. And thanks, Nate. My question is actually pretty quick. And 50410 is just, I'm just wondering, the November 1st to April 1st, is that in place as much for like snow removal purposes and just allowing the, you know, the ability to remove snow during those off seasons? And I'm just, you know, envisioning a situation where someone, you know, leaves their planting boxes and tables and stuff out there. And then it just ends up, you know, just collecting snow through the season and might make it more difficult for the area to be maintained. But in principle, I like it. I think if we keep it, they want to tighten up the language or something just to have some more definitions of tighter or discrete definition, what active and operational is. But bigger question is, is that really there to help with snow removal? Right. Yeah. So I think originally it was for that. And the thought was that who would want to have outdoor seasonal dining in the winter? But what we found is, you know, some places might. So when it says that any structure shall remain as long as the use is active and operational, that's the primary use. So, you know, I don't think we would want to have in the zoning bylaw something too detailed about that. But I think we could, we could perhaps fold it into a standard and condition in the use chart to say something about, you know, something about having a, or we could fold it into the management plan that they have snow removal in outdoor dining areas as part of the management plan. So, you know, that could become a required piece of information. But yeah. So I, you know, I think that's some of the reason it was in there now or now, but we're finding that, you know, maybe not everyone wants us to open up those and during those months, but some might. Very good. Nice. I think it would be useful to put the word primary before use. Because when I first read this, I thought you were saying, as long as there's outdoor dining use, it can stay in place. But you said earlier, as long as the indoor food is continuing, these could stay. So yeah. Yeah. So I, yeah, I think originally we had said the principal use is active and operational. All right. Well, I think some way to clarify that. Okay. Janet, I'm going to let Chris go first. I assume Chris, you have a comment about this discussion. I am not sure what I wanted to say. I'm sorry. The thought has fled my mind. So, okay, well, we can come back to you. Janet. We're definitely covering a lot of ground here. So, so when, when they, when you say, you know, why not let anybody do outdoor dining or in, in, you know, these five, four or five districts and, you know, have outdoor music and things, like I'm not against precluding somebody from having an outdoor event like a food event or having a food truck and, you know, a bank having a celebration that way. But, you know, you need to, before you bring this back to us, list all the uses that would include, because I'm looking at, you know, funeral establishments, studios and repair shops, bike mechanic, vets, offices, medical uses, a dental library, a potter, medical marijuana, treatment center, dispensaries, you know, it just goes on and on and on. And do we really want to have every business in these, you know, our commercial and, you know, neighborhood, you know, in our, in our downtown and village centers able to serve food and have outdoor music, you know, year round. And, you know, are we going to, I just, I just find that a little much. I mean, we've gone from, yeah, we want to encourage outdoor dining and have some music with eating, you know, and maybe with a bar to let's just do it everywhere all the time. And, you know, if it's all site plan review, there's no way to say no to it other than, you know, I mean, you know, if they hit the criteria, you can't say no. And so I think it's just, it's like, this is the floodgates. I think, you know, let's focus on what we're really trying to get, which is keep our restaurants engaged, you know, make our example more lively. If a bank wants to have an outdoor event with music and, you know, and or eating, you know, they can do that on a, you know, one-off kind of basis, get a permit for that. But do we want the Bank of America playing, you know, outdoor music 24-7 like a Disney show or every business? And so I think it's gone too far. And I don't, I'm not sure if it's, I can't support just saying any use in 3.3, unless we see that list of what could, what could be. And I really would, and I think it's going to be a really long list. But I think, you know, we're saying here subject to the same review as, and we say it kind of differently down here, under a special permit or site plan review, whichever is required for the principal use. So we're not saying that it can happen. We're saying that, you know, currently it can only happen if it was related to one, two or three. We're saying, you know, if a use is allowed by special permit, then those could happen as an accessory use by a special permit. And so if we're already allowing the principal use, you know, we're saying, why not encourage some accessory use? And so right now there actually is no one-off. Let's have someone do music for a day or two. There really isn't a use. Really that would have to be denied. But it's allowed to happen. But there really is no permitting mechanism right now in the bylaw to allow that to happen. So, you know, the new bakery downtown wants to have some music or maybe a chair or two. And we'd say, well, actually, you can't have it right now if you're, say, not in these districts. But we allow, they would be allowed to happen. And so, you know, I think, you know, the building pressure really doesn't think that this is going to open the floodgates, right? I think he thinks that is, you know, we're already allowing people who come in to say, oh, we want to have a one-time event, you know, on our sidewalks in front of our store. And he'd say, sure, we'll give, you know, we're going to place conditions on it. And here's how it's going to happen, whether or not it's actually explicitly allowed in the bylaw. But now we're actually having a provision to say, yes, it's an accessory use. And now we can permit it and put conditions on it. According to the bylaw, without having to, you know, have kind of some, you know, kind of informal process, we're trying to formalize it. Because the town gets a lot of requests like this, actually, for small events or one-time event or for a business to do something. So they... I think we should just hone in on what you want to do. Do you really want to send the optician to get a ZBA special permit to have a music or food event in front of his store? Or do you want to just say, you know, like, I mean, if the building commissioner needs, you know, permission for that kind of one-off event, I think that's fine. But I really don't think that... I mean, when you look at the list, it's a list of basically food-related things. And so, and that's related to outdoor dining. Do we want to have CVS open up, you know, an outdoor restaurant in its parking lot? I don't know. You can say, well, why not? And you can just go through every possible business, you know, or use. And also, COM is a really huge amount of uses. And so I just think it's like opening the door too much. If the building commissioner feels like he needs permission in the bylaw to do these kind of temporary permits, let's just do that. Let's just focus on what he's looking for, not opening the floodgates. All right. Thank you, Janet. Bruce. I just want to respond to Janet a little on this. I'm not so concerned, Janet, as you are. And maybe I should be. But it was when you were suggesting that someone would have to go through section 3.3 and identify kind of like your sorting sheep, you know, with a gate that does this. I don't think we can do that. I think that that would be that would be too leading the reader or whatever by the nose. My sense is that I just have the sense that, well, if people did want to be creative, and if a funeral parlor did have some brand new idea, which may turn out to in 20 years be a new thing, I don't see that we need to stand in the way of that. I think that there is a mechanism in place that if somebody really does have an odd idea about how funeral homes could become food establishments in some strange way, let them make their case. And because we've got a structure through the permitting process that will allow that. It doesn't seem to me that we're at risk here. So you can push back on this a bit. But I'm not as concerned as you are about this because we have this structure for evaluating and reviewing and permitting these things. So I would prefer not to make a big long list, if it is a big long list, of what might be clandestine or whatever the word is, food and drink establishments. But just let the creative juices of the community flow, if indeed that's what they have, if they want to. But my guess is that that the building commission is right, that the flood gates, there's going to be no flood of activity here. So I don't think we need to presume that there might be and then try and second guess it. All right, Bruce, thank you very much. Chris, I now see your hand, maybe you've remembered what you wanted to say. I did. I remembered what I wanted to say and I also wanted to say something about accessory uses. So there is a kind of a definition of accessory uses in section 5.00. The topic or the title of that section is general. But anyway, it says any use which is in Hampshire County, customarily access accessory and incidental to a permitted principal use shall be permitted on the same lot with the principal use or on a lot adjacent there too. And then it goes on. But the point that I'm trying to make is that the building commissioner can go back and look at this paragraph and realize that the accessory use that is going to be permitted has to have some relationship to the principal use in a customary way in Hampshire County. So that could prevent some of the things that Janet is fearful about happening. The building commissioner will say, well, outdoor dining isn't really customarily accessory to X use in section three of the bylaw. So we're not going to allow it here. So that was one thing I wanted to say. The other thing I wanted to say is that in response to Andrew's comment about leaving furniture and things outside that are associated with outdoor dining, many of the outdoor dining places that we see now are either on the sidewalk or in the street. And that's a result of article 14. And it's also a result of things that the state has done at the state level to allow cities and towns to allow dining and drinking in the public way. And the building, the town manager has been given some authority over the public way by town council to allow those things to occur. But those things require an agreement between the town and the entity that's offering these services. So the town could say on the sidewalks, for instance, or in the street, we don't want you to have those there from November to April because we need to plow the sidewalk, but in places where it's a privately owned patio or whatever, it may be quite appropriate to leave them there. So we didn't want to have this restriction that would keep entities that wanted to pursue this that were not in the public way and we're not getting in the way of the snow plows and things from being able to do this. So I think that would tend to restrict some of the things that Andrew was concerned about. Okay, thank you, Chris. Janet, is this a new point? I think you've made your concerns pretty clear. I have a question. So if the goal is to sort of streamline permitting, and at the same time, people are getting site plan review permits or special permits, and they all look kind of the same. And no one's been said no to. So here's my question is, what if we changed everything to site plan review, which gave us the chance to say no. It's a discretionary permit and it gives a little bit more heft to saying we'd like to put these conditions on also site plan review means special. Do you mean special permit? I'm sorry, special permit, like, why don't we shift everything to special permit because it's a discretionary permit, and it has more criteria dealing with kind of, you know, well being of the community and nearby residents. Just to give the board a little more heft in terms of putting conditions in, because it doesn't seem like going to site plan review would speed up anything versus special permits. So, you know, why not just keep the discretionary permits so there's a little more control. Great, thank you. Nate, do you have any comment? Yeah, I would say that that's actually, to me, that's a statement saying we actually are trying to, you know, we're somewhat discouraging restaurants or bars or other things from coming to town. So, you know, a discretionary permit is really, you know, it is discretionary and I think a lot of businesses see that as a red flag when they're when they're surveying a community. And so, you know, I'm not sure that a restaurant that's open or some of these here are the same as a bar with no food or a nightclub or a really large establishment. And so from staff's perspective, we would say that, you know, we think site plan review is more appropriate as we've categorized it and not to make it a special discretionary special permit. So, you know, a site plan review, you know, the art conditions can be placed on it. But we're saying we actually want to have this by site plan review. And in some instances, you know, class one is by site plan review. So, we don't want to actually change it and reverse it and say, well, now let's make it special permit. We'd rather have it be, you know, a site plan review use. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Chris, I see your hand again. Yes, I wanted to talk a little about where this goes from here. So if this is an appropriate time to do that, may I do that? Yeah, that would be great. Okay. So the CRC, the Community Resources Committee is going to be considering this on September 29th. And then I think that the intention is to bring this to Town Council sometime in October so Town Council can refer it back to the Planning Board and to the CRC for public hearings. There's a feeling of, I don't know, I guess pressure to some degree because Article 14 is expiring at the end of December. So there's a feeling to want to do something before Article 14 expires to allow these things to happen. So I just wanted to let you know that. And certainly the Planning Board will have, you know, more time to discuss this. But that's kind of the schedule that is going forward that is being planned. The only thing is I haven't shown Article 11. So I did do Article 12 of the definitions. I'd like to share the changes to Article 11. And so everything in red is proposed. We're not proposing to delete anything. We're proposing. That's a little too. Is that legible? I can't, I don't know if that's, yeah. So, you know, these three, so we've, what we've kind of done is reorganized. We're calling it administration and applicability just to have it be a more accurate section. And we're saying site plan review shall not be required when, and we have these, you know, these sections listed 2.110, you know, 2.111. Those are already in the bylaw. So those aren't anything new. They're red because we're renumbering them and reorganizing them. So we're all making them a subsection of when site plan review is not required. So these are, these are existing. There's no physical change to the exterior of the building or site. The only change to the exterior of a building or site includes the installation of signs and compliance with Article 8. A change of use is proposed and no physical changes to the exterior of a building or site will occur. And the building commissioner determines that the change will not conflict with the purpose of the bylaw, defines that the proposed use will not result in the need for further review under Section 11.243. So those are already in the bylaw. We're just proposing to, you know, nest them differently and renumber them. Minor alteration is also currently allowed. It says right here would usually say administrative approval for minor alteration. So the, so really the big change now is we're inserting this 11.212. So when no site plan review was required, so that means for any of these, these uses up here, no physical changes, you know, signs, when there can be administrative approval in those instances up above. But the building commissioner has to first authorize the work or the use to proceed. And here's where we're saying that, you know, this language is taken from Article 14, to have a straddle of two pages. It says 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 with the conservation and development department. The building commissioner in consultation with the planning director shall be authorized to apply any design review criteria normally reviewed by the design review board. And so, you know, really this paragraph is the significant change to Article 11. And what's happened under Article 14, we've developed an application form and a set of plans and requirements that are submitted. So the decision that the building, building commissioner has been making under Article 14, you know, includes a management plan, includes a site plan or floor plan, and then includes conditions. And all that gets signed and bundled and filed with the town clerk. And so we're proposing that that same process would continue to happen. And, you know, Janet, you mentioned this earlier. So we already allow this to happen. But what isn't there is really the ability of the building commissioner, the bylaw is silent on whether the building commissioner could deny or approve with conditions. And we want to put that in writing to say that that can happen. Because sometimes the way regulations work is if it's silent, say it means it's not allowed, or if we say it can happen, it means it just has to happen without any conditions or denial, right? So if the bylaw says the building, so right now it says up above it'll say administrative approval for things that don't need site plan review. And the way it's written, really it's almost saying it has to be approved. But we're saying, well, it doesn't have to be, it could be denied. Nate, your last sentence about design review board criteria. Right. How would those work with this only applying in situations where there are no changes on the exterior? Well, they have signs. So we're saying signs could be. So, you know, that's really the only instance. Okay. Thank you. Tom. Yeah. I mean, my comment was similar, Doug. I mean, in a sense that what I'm hearing and clarify for me, Nate, because I'm trying to follow, the way this is written, it seems as though authorization can be made by various people without the design review board's involvement. Is that the case given a certain scenario? Because I think it's important that we imagine design review board having the opportunity to look at those things. Right. And so, you know, it's only in these instances above that that would apply. And so the next section in 11 point and 11.24 says other review, the building commissioner may seek guidance in reviewing the above from other town staff and may require application to the design review board and or historical commission. So that's existing in the bylaw and that remains in the bylaw. So if the building commissioner felt that, you know, the sign was, although it meant article eight, it was really big, right? Or it was something that seemed like it should be reviewed. The building commissioner, you know, could recommend that the applicant apply to the board. I think my question is the may is different than has to. And I guess my question is, is this actually changing the procedure by which things would normally be approved by design review board and are now in discussion of others who get to choose whether this may or may not be seen by DRB or is this actually a completely separate set of circumstances that I'm not actually following? Yeah, so what it's saying is that the building, so right, right, what it's saying is the building commissioner is authorized to apply the principles, the design review criteria normally used by the design review board. So, you know, we have the section 3.325 whatever section that is, we have all those design review principles. And what this section is actually saying is that the building commissioner can apply those to these administrative approvals, you know, without, you know, right now it wouldn't have to go to the design review board, right? So there's no changes happening necessarily. Right. It's saying that the building commissioner can still apply those principles. If there needs to be conditions. So another way, if I can interpret what you're saying to say it is that this is not reducing the authority of the DRB and it's not reducing the scope of projects that they will see in any way. No, it's right. It's really giving the building commissioner the ability to apply those principles to the administrative approvals. Great. Thank you, Nate. Yep. Okay. Janet. So this is not, this change really has nothing to do with like Article 14. So that just let me just drift that away from me. I thought that the easiest way, not the easiest way, but I thought that if you took the section 11.212, which is giving the building commissioner like explicit authority, I thought that it would read or be better to see that information and I would have put it in 11.210 in the beginning because the first statement is, you know, if site plan review is required, the planning board has to approve and you can't do anything. And the second statement is if site plan review is not required, here's what the building commissioner can do, right? And then the next section, you wouldn't have to do any red changes below that because it will just list site plan review is not required in these situations. So I thought that in a weird way by putting the administrator approval section at the end, you sort of buried the lead and that it should just come up earlier like, you know, planning board, site plan review, if site plan review is not required, you go to the building commissioner, he gets the permit, he does the conditions, here's his power. And then the question is, is like, oh, do I need site plan review? And then you would look at the list of when you don't need it. I mean, I just thought that flowed better and it just had less, you know, confusing changes to see. I don't think you'd have to change the numbering or anything. So that was my suggestion. Yeah, it was interesting. Actually, the building commissioner, like this format, to say that, you know, site plan review should not be required when and everything is a subsection of that. So even the minor alterations and even this administrative approval is a subset of no site plan review shall be required. And so I, yeah, I actually had that one part up above previously, like you had suggested, and he liked it the way it is, so that it's really, it's really only when site plan review is not required is their administrative approval. Because if you had it, its own section, it could be seen as competing with, if it was at the same level as 11.210, it's almost competing with that in the bylaw. But if you have it nested under when site plan review is not required, then that's the only instance when that can happen. I didn't feel the competition, I just thought it would be clearer to the applicant. So I think that's the, I think that's what the building commissioner felt like, if we had it at the same, you know, hierarchy in terms of, you know, levels that it would then be, you know, it'd be competing with it. But okay. All right. Thank you, Janet. Bruce. I just wanted to thank Nate and Chris and others, I guess, Maureen probably as well. For all of this, when I was reviewing the packet and trying to understand this in relation to Article 14, I, like Janet, I was pretty confused. I didn't quite see which way was up and so forth. But the conversation over the last hour or hour and a half has clarified a great deal for me. And I thank you, Nate, for your persistence and so forth. And I think, you know, with the exception of the concern or the query that I have about the number, the 250 number, basically it seems to me to be, you know, broadly supportive. I mean, personally, speaking personally, I can broadly support all this. Whereas 24 hours ago, I didn't have really a great deal of sense about how I was going to handle all of this. So thank you for your 90 minutes of explication. It's been very helpful. All right. Thanks, Bruce. So Chris and Nate, have you received the kind of feedback you needed tonight? And should we consider this closed until it comes back from Town Council? It's up to you. If you want to discuss this more, you know, you're welcome to do that. My guess is that Town Council is going to take it up on October 3rd and send it back to you. But if you want to, what would your next opportunity be? After tonight, your next opportunity isn't until October 19th. That's when your next meeting is. So you could discuss it then, but you might have already gotten a referral for a public hearing. Okay. Janet. I would like to, I don't know if there's urgency to getting it to Town Council, but I think that the issue of the size of the restaurant and the time when, you know, I understand the distinction about like things, you know, a restaurant that closes at 1130 or a bar with food is quite different from one that stays open. And I'm thinking about, you know, close to where I live, you know, Mission Cantina, you know, surrounded by small houses and apartment buildings and condos, you know, Southeast Street intersecting with Route 9, you know, there's going to be a lot of, you know, there's low income housing, you know, units with kids living right there. And, you know, I just think that the impacts are greater at night and with the bigger establishment. So I'd like to have a better handle on, you know, what's 250, like the list of bigger restaurants, you know, like maybe Ginger Garden might be one of the bigger ones. I don't know, but I just, I don't feel like I have a good handle on and I do think that the 1130 at night closing time is big. It's going to be big, you know, when, you know, in a town where you have a lot of residential housing right next to small, you know, a large restaurant and stuff. So I think we should talk about that more, you know, and attaching to that outdoor music and after dining till or whatever till late. So we're saying those a bar or those large establishments are by special permit. And so I think I'm saying, like, I don't have a handle at what a 200 capacity restaurant is. So that seems really big to me. So yeah, so that that's parallel to what Bruce was asking. Give us a little bit more context for that threshold. Yeah. All right. So board members, would we like to bring, put this on the agenda now for October 19th or a later date? Or would people like to just see how the process goes with CRC and Town Council? Chris, I guess I'll call on you. Well, I'm looking at what we have on this lake for October 19th. We have coming back to 51 Spalding Street. We have our, I'm imagining that flood mapping will come back then. We also have the Meadow subdivision. So October 19th might be kind of overburdened. Maybe you could try November 2nd, if you wanted to talk about this again. And we also have 47 Olympia Drive. That's right. You're going to October 19th. Yes, October 19th. Thank you, Bright. So we make sure you've got coffee in the house on October 19th. So do you want us to bring this back on October 19th or maybe November 2nd? I guess I mean, would the planning board need to refer or recommend that I go to Council for them to pick it up? Or are they still going to just to look at it? It can, I mean, if I remember the float chart and it can come in from into Town Council from staff, it doesn't need to come through planning board. Right. So we'll have to talk to the building commissioner. And then we'll also talk to CRC about whether they feel that this is ready to bring to Town Council. But I suspect that they will. And then of course, you know, you can open a public hearing and continue the public hearing. You don't have to decide in one night about this. So why don't we? Do you want to go ahead and put it on the agenda on October, whatever, or November, whatever it was. November 2nd. Yeah. Why don't we just stick it on the agenda and see if we can remember to discuss that at our next meeting and whether it still makes sense. Okay. Yep. All right. So we'll consider that topic close for this evening. The time is 8 16. We normally take a break around this time. I'd like to give you a chance to get up and walk around. So we'll take a five minute break. Try to come back at 8 23. And mute yourself and turn off your camera while you're gone. Hey, I see the clock says 9 23. I went credit for being here. Yes, I see Janet back. I see Johanna and Bruce and Andrew, Chris and Pam. Did you say 9 23? Oh, did I? I meant 8 23. 8 23. Yeah. No. So we still need Tom and Karen. There's Tom. Yeah. You're sticking with us, Tom. I was hoping to hold on until 9 23 when you told me. Well, maybe I should do the intro for this next public hearing that we skipped. And see if I can make that go on long enough that Karen's back. Does that make sense, Chris? I see you nodding. There she is. There she is. Okay. All right. So the time now is 8 25, 8 25, not 9 25. And we will go back to the second of our public hearings, item four on the agenda. So in accordance with the provisions of mass general law chapter 48, this joint public hearing has been duly advertised. And notice thereof has been posted and is being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity for interested citizens to be heard regarding zoning bylaw, article two, zoning districts and article three, use regulations and article 16, FEMA floodplain overlay district to see if the time will vote to add article 16, FEMA floodplain overlay district to the zoning bylaw and amend article two, zoning districts to add FEMA floodplain overlay district and amend related sections of article three use for regulations to regulate activities in 100 year floodplain as shown on the flood insurance rate maps issued by the federal emergency management agency for FEMA for the administration of the national flood insurance program. The flood insurance rate maps indicate areas that have a 1% chance of flooding in a given year. The purpose of the floodplain management regulations is to protect the public health, safety and general welfare and to minimize the harmful impacts of flooding upon the community. So we also have a zoning bylaw official zoning map for the FEMA floodplain overlay district to see if the town will vote to amend the official zoning map to add the FEMA floodplain overlay district for the purpose of regulating activities as described in article 16, FEMA floodplain overlay district. And this public hearing has been continued from June 1st and September 7th of this year. I will offer if any board members have disclosures, now is the time to bring them up. I don't remember any disclosures from the previous episode of this hearing. So Chris, do you want to start us off? Sure. So the latest news on this is that you held your public hearing on the 1st of June and the 7th of September. And at that time, you know, determined that the flood maps hadn't actually been sent to us yet. Our letter of final determination was sent out on August 9th, and we were expecting to get our maps a month later, which should have been on September 9th. But today I was in touch with our consultant, AECOM, and they said that they were surprised that the maps hadn't been issued yet. So they got in touch with FEMA, and FEMA said they're still doing a technical review. They did send me the maps in their current data form, but they're not really maps that are ready to be adopted by the planning board yet, because they're not in the final format and they don't have the dates on them. So I would again encourage you to continue this public hearing, and I'm so sorry to say that, probably to November 2nd, because I hope by November 2nd that we will have the maps. The gentleman at AECOM told me today that we should probably have our maps hard copies of them, in fact, in a month. So hopefully we'll get them. So I guess we need a motion to continue this public hearing to November 2nd, and Chris, do you have a time that you would recommend be part of the motion? Why don't we do it first thing in the meeting, because the other thing that you're going to possibly discuss that night, Article 14, doesn't have a particular time associated with it, since it wasn't a public hearing, and you would need to continue both public hearings, and to that time, whatever that time is. This is the bylaw hearing on Articles 2, 3, and 16, and the bylaw hearing on the FEMA floodplain overlay district. The official zoning map. The official zoning map, okay. All right, I see all kinds of hands. People want to make the motion. Janet, you got there first. I so move, but I also have a question afterwards. Okay, well, we'll come back to you. Andrew, you were second. And now we'll happily second. Thanks. Do we want to say a particular time? We want to say 635. Okay, that's good. Yeah. All right, Janet, you had a question. So I just had a quick question about the draft was the changes that are in blue, which is a new color for me. Those are all the changes we talked about from our last time we talked last, last meeting. Okay. Okay. All right, Andrew, you have your hand up. Is that a legacy? Okay. Yes, it is. All right. So I don't see any more hands. Unless there's more discussion at this time, we can go ahead and have a vote. All right. Well, we'll go through it. Starting at the end of the alphabet. Karen. I. Johanna. I. Janet. I. Andrew. I. Tom. Right. You're sounding worse and worse, Tom. Bruce. I as well. Thank you. And I'm an I as well. So seven votes in favor of continuing the hearing for articles two, three and 16 and for the FEMA floodplain official zoning map to November 2nd at 635. Okay. That's the end of item four in our agenda. We've already done item five. The time is 832 and we'll go on to old business. Do we have any unanticipated old business, Chris? No, old business. Nope. All right. How about unanticipated new business? Maybe we could use this opportunity to talk about the packets. Okay. Ham is up for that. Um, we have been experimenting with a new format of sending you the packets and that format is in keeping with the way the town council sends out its packets and in keeping with the way the committees of town council send out their packets and others do as well, including the solar by the working group. And this seems to be an accepted way of doing this. Um, we are currently providing paper packets to, um, let's see, two members of our, our, no, three members of our board. And if people would like us to provide a paper packet to them, such as Bruce, Bruce had trouble downloading some of the documents, we would be able to provide him with a paper packet if that would make his journey easier. I hate paper. We're reluctant to take on the third option, which is to scan this scan packets, because scanning of the packets gets very complicated, especially when we have large drawings and different size papers and Pam, you know, tries very hard to make it all in one scan, but sometimes that's not possible. So we don't want to be in a position of having to make the paper packets and do the format that we're currently trying out and do the scan. So, so that's our, our report on the matter and maybe planning board members would like to discuss this. Okay. Yeah, I see a couple of hands, Tom. Sure. Thanks Doug. And thanks guys for trying something new. I actually found it really helpful to be able to find the actual documents that we're referring to as opposed to having to scan through 86 or 98 or however many pages it is to find the section that we're looking at. So the idea of breaking it up the way you had on the website so we can access each project or problem or agenda as needed was super helpful to me and I had no problems with it. I found it actually way more efficient than scanning through so many pages all wrapped up in one PDF. So I appreciated the change and it works for me. Good. Andrew. Yeah, I generally agree with everything Tom said. I would, I guess one thing I would ask for is would it be possible if folks agree for the directories to be, to correspond to the meeting item, the meeting agenda item number, right? So instead of 47 Olympia Drive you could have, you know, whatever that was today. Yeah, because like that, so that should take it one step further. So I could drill down easily and find those and then also just, and I think you've done a great job already, but very descriptive names, you know, like no abbreviations or things like that. So it's clear what document we're looking at. But I love the approach and I think it will definitely be an improvement. It already has been for me. Good. Bruce. I agree with Tom and Andrew. I would like to be able to get the, I need to know how to get the agenda and the minutes. But I do agree that having the discrete packaging so that you can go and download or access clearly and so forth is a better system. So Pam, I guess I need to just correspond with you to find out, or is there any reason why the agenda and the minutes aren't in the same packet, in the same downloading? They absolutely, they are in there, but because they did not correspond with one of the topics, they are like single documents. Nate, can you pull that up? I would love to see that. Yeah, I was going to say it's actually the main folder for the folder. Yeah. It shows up there and it's, yeah. So they should be in here. Yeah, it's visible. Hold on. It is. So maybe I can make my screen a little bigger. If we, when you get the link to the packets, it'll bring you here to meeting packets. So if this is all collapsed, if you click on 2022 and then the date of the meeting, if you click on just that parent folder, double click it, the drop downs will occur, but then over here, you'll see what documents are actually just in that main folder. And so typically in that main folder, we'd have minutes and agendas, you know, maybe if there's announcements or something like a, you know, a letter, memo from PVPC and then the specific agenda items would be have folders. So, you know, if there's ANRs, there might be an ANR folder, you know, and then, you know, each, the documents associated with each topic are then over here, but on the main folder, the date is where we'd have kind of the, I think like as nebulous documents, right? They're just, no, if you know to click it, then it's there. I didn't know to click it. But I think, I think that, I think I've seen other, I'm not sure if it's CRC, but they in, when you click the date, they list the agenda and the draft minutes separately, and you don't have to double click it. So we're also trying to make our stuff accessible to members of the public. So the double click seems like a secret. And it's not a double click. I mean, if you, I mean, I said double clicked, it opens the folder, but if you just single click it, it's the same thing. It just, you know, it shows up over here. You just have to have your cursor and highlight each folder to see what's over on the right. So, you know, anytime you just hit a folder, whatever's in it populates over here. So Oh, I have a question, which is for those of you that didn't get paper, like Janet and I did, are you just looking at the documents from this website during the meeting? Or are you downloading PDFs? So yeah, so if you, yeah, so if you click on this, sorry, it does this, it'll open a new tab, and then it'll, you know, open in your browser. Okay. And then you have the option to download as a PDF. So when I was sharing my screen earlier, you know, I essentially downloaded every document individually as a PDF. So it's on my, you know, it's on my hard drive, but typically I would just use the online version if I wasn't presenting. Yeah, well, I'm finding that during Zoom meetings, I try not to have too many of the things open because my bandwidth doesn't seem to allow it. And I start to have trouble. So I may be an outlier in a remote part of town from a network perspective. But I, Chris and Pam, if you're willing to keep printing packets for me, I'd be, I would appreciate that. But if we're not going to do that anymore, I'll figure out how to work with this. I think we can continue to print packets for the people who we already do that for. Yep. Okay. I was only part finished here. The, I downloaded them for somewhat of the reason that Doug said, I have multiple screens and I open them up and I have them all queued so I can swipe across and I can see all these things quickly and I don't have to rely on what's showing on the screen. For example, if article 12 is open on the screen and they've zoomed in on a certain portion of it, but I want to look at some other part of it, I have it on another screen somewhere. So I like that. And so I will download them, which brings me to the, it's quite time consuming to download everything. You can only do it one at a time. And once you've downloaded it, then you've got to go all the way back and click the, basically I have to click the link that Pam gave me to the town website and then I click the package. So there's about five clicks to get back to the download and then you click that and then you click save. So basically you've got to click seven times for every document you want to download and it scrolls back in a way that you have to also scroll down because the thing defaults. So it's a little annoying and I don't know whether anything can be done to make it easier. So you can download multiple documents at once. But if you can't, I guess I'll get used to it, but I'll just have to allow 20 minutes, but that's less time than it would take me to drive up to town to get it off the door of the town hall or whatever Janet does. So now I know I stand by what I said earlier and what Tom and Andrew said, I like this system in principle, it's working well. Now I know how to get the minutes. I'm even happier and I'll figure out how this expedites the downloading part of it. So thank you. All right. Thank you, Bruce. Andrew. Yeah, I was going to say if folks use Chrome, you don't need to download it. I just open in a new tab and I just have one Chrome window set up for it and Doug, maybe you should just stop mining Bitcoin during the calls. And it's just a PDF file, for goodness sakes, right? Well, I think we just need to upgrade our computer actually. Tom. I think planning board should fund that for you. Maybe UMass would give you a better computer. No, I was going to say I typically just, you know, this week just ran them all as tabs and the descriptors are quite well, quite specific. So if I mouse over them, I can go through the tabs. So I have all the different things open and super efficient. I found it to be super helpful. So I look forward to this next time. So I remember being like, what page are we on? 89? Like who's 89 is that? And yeah, it was a different animal. And I think this is much more efficient. So. Janet. So I think it's great that people can click on the document and it's separate because I've, you know, I've scrolled through that. So I've had people say that it's like, you know, they're like, where's the document and contacting me? And I'm like, oh, it's on page 69 out of this giant 140 page packet. And so I think this new system is great. I would just suggest that when you click on the packet, it says agenda and it says draft minutes and it's all in a line with the other documents, the other, the other items on the, you know, because I think people aren't going to, they may miss the way Bruce missed that because I actually went and looked from then I didn't notice that either. So I would notice, you know, agenda draft minutes, you know, whatever, you know, hearing on blank blank blank, I would, I would expect to see that in a line. So I think that might be the little twist that will help people. Yeah, I know. I understand what you're saying now, Janet. It's interesting. You know, there's a, you know, the content manager of our website has some strict formatting. And so the module we're using for this may not allow that where in other parts of the website, it will, it'll show underneath that folder. And so when you said that, right, it made sense to me that it would, you would just see it and not have it be off on the right. And so, yeah, I think Pam and I can talk with IT if that's possible. Because I, when you, when you just said it made sense to me. And so I think can I make a recommendation Nate and everyone if underneath the 2020 to 921 date, there was a folder under that that was packet contents or, you know, general info. And that had the agenda and past minutes and other things. So it was actually a folder underneath that that might clarify it for people rather than it being in the, in the primary folder. So if there was some descriptor that you could use in that sub folder, that would probably work with your IT, but probably also work with the public to kind of give them incentive to figure out that that's where the agenda is. We're just call that folder agenda and draft minutes. I also just have to say I love my paper packets. I can take it wherever I can. I go if I'm camping, you know, the whole thing is very easy. So it's all in your phone, Janet. It goes with you wherever you go. Okay, so it's nice to have a diverse board with multi generational skills. So Chris, did you, you've got your hand up. I just wanted to thank Pam, especially for going to the effort of putting this new format together because I think it was a big, it was a big job. And thank you, Pam. And thanks Nate for supporting Pam and doing this. All right. Thank you, Pam. All right, Chris and Pam, have you got what you needed on that topic for this evening? All right. Any other new business you wanted to bring up? No. No. Okay. All right, the time is 847 and we'll go on to the form a and our subdivision applications. Do we have any? No. All right. The item 10, the upcoming SBP, SPR, SUB applications. Any? No, not tonight. All right. Number 11, Planning Board Committee and Liaison Reports. You skipped number 10. No. Well, I skipped number nine, the upcoming ZBA applications. Oh, so no. Okay. Thank you. Now, number 11, we can start with Bruce, PVPC. No, I plan to call Jack and get to know him. Okay. I haven't done that yet. Are you receiving invitations to the PVPC board meetings or whatever it is? I assume I will, but I haven't received any yet. I imagine they'll come as an email and I don't, well, I should check jump mail and things like that. Actually, I haven't done that, but no, I haven't received anything. Okay. Andrew, anything on CPAC? We don't have a meeting again until October, but I'm responsible for the minutes for the last meeting. I haven't written them yet. So if anybody still wants to get back into the groove of writing minutes, they can help me with that. I suspect I'll have no takers. I know we did have Matt, we did have some announcements for who's been appointed. So we've got a new representative from the Recreation Commission, which is Matt Cain, and then a new representative from the Conservation Commission, which is Michelle Lau. I'm not trying to pronounce your last name, but the committee has been filled out with appointments. Okay. Tom, DRB. We have a meeting next Wednesday, so I will have a report after that. Okay. And Janet, solar bylaw. We're meeting this week. So there's no, I mean, on Friday, so update. And Chris, anything for the CRC? The CRC met on the 8th of September and talked about the flood maps. And they're meeting again on the 29th of September to talk about, I think, rental registration and what we've been calling Article 14. And I think that's it. Okay. All right. Report of chair. I don't have anything to report this evening. Chris, anything report of staff? I don't have anything to report. Okay. All right. The time is 8.50. That's 8.50, not 9.50. And we are ready to adjourn. Are you sure we know how many else we can talk about? Like another hour maybe, just something? So we have almost a month till our next meeting. Seriously? In October 19th, right? That's right. We're not having a meeting on October 15th because of the Jewish holy days. Well, I personally appreciate that this gap in the schedule because I'm taking a two week vacation. And I don't have to miss any meetings. And Tom, you don't have to run the meeting while I'm gone. So thank God. Have a good evening and I'll see you in a month. Have a nice vacation. Goodbye. Thank you. Don't succumb. Stop recording. I'm sure you want to stop recording.