 that time. Okay so before we get to that our first item is an endorsement of a grant application to support the elementary school regionalization study process. Those of us who attended the Saturday meeting that was hosted by the Regional School District Planning Board are aware that this body and Ms. Brewer can speak to this more detail is applying for a Innovation Challenge grant to help fund any kind of a regionalization that might go forward. So they are they are pursuing this grant right now and what we need is a vote of this board to authorize me to sign this. It would be signed by myself and the Chair of the Amherst School Committee on behalf of Amherst. Ms. Brewer would you like to tell us anything more about the grant and its purposes? Yeah I thank you for referencing the meeting that we had that so many of us were able to come to. I think that the only other things you might want to know are we don't have numbers yet and that's why that's highlighted in yellow we keep working on refining the budget numbers. We're looking at probably no more than seventy five thousand dollars it may be less than that and we expect to get a whole lot of things for that so that's very exciting and this is the also referred to as the CIC grant we did apply for this very much in a hurry last year before we were fully a four-town board on this project and we did not get the grant last year and we are being given sort of positive feedback at this point that it's quite possible we could get it this year just because we returned out last year largely in fact because we weren't as far along in the process as we are now so we have high hopes for this you'll notice in the newspaper today and perhaps various other places that Amherst is in fact also applying for additional CIC grants in other areas but this is not the kind of thing where we expect that they're competing per se with each other because it's a huge range of things that can be applied for all over the state so it's not like those like oh two things from Amherst forget that in fact we're very excited about the fact that we won't have a lot of competition with schools so we should appreciate it okay thank you does anybody have any questions about this grand this time would you like to make the motion I knew that the select board approved the Amherst Leverett Pellup and Sheetsbury pre-K to 6 educational visualization initiative and the Amherst School Districts application to the Community Innovator Challenge Grant and to authorize Stephanie O'Keefe as chair to sign on behalf of the board second discussion thank you I shall do that all right 622 so for Mr. Wilde's benefit the we're only going to be dealing with one of the town meeting article tonight our next our next select board meeting okay so article 12 this was the single-family dwellings this is a planning board article and again we had the presentation of this last time this I'm not sure we put off we put off our vote on this so that we could all think about it more it was fairly complicated and I'm not sure what degree of detail that we want to go into about this I as I spoke about last time I'm not personally going to support this article and I plan to speak against it and to me it boils down to two key things one is it's basically unintended consequences one is that I think it might unfortunately handcuff the rental regulation permitting process that is the regulations for which are going to be brought to town meeting in the spring and I think that this is the most comprehensive and interdepartmental interdisciplinary look at solving the rental registration system solving the rental problems within the system so I think we need to have every option available as we pursue those regulations as opposed to having one of the elements of that fixed for which we would have to be working around with the regulations so that's an unintended consequence I'm also concerned about how much the process would really hamstring someone selling their property it takes a number of weeks because this is all about just for folks at home or tuning in for the first time article 12 basically creates two use categories for single-family homes it's either a owner occupied or family occupied dwelling or else it is a rental to other than other than a family which is to say up to four unrelated persons and for that second use category you would need to get a special permit to do that so my concern is imagine you're selling your house and if if you end up wanting to or needing to sell it to someone who intends to make it a rental property then your purchase and sale is going to be contingent on that person getting the permit now to even get on to on the docket of the ZBA grants the special permit you need to submit a special permit application a special permit application has to contain a whole bunch of plans for what you would do with that property with the management plan the site plan the parking plan all that stuff nobody is going to do that the seller is not going to create those plans until they have a purchase and sale agreement with until the buyer has a purchase and sale agreement with the seller that's going to start a clock that how long it takes to schedule the ZBA hearing then how long they have to make the decision etc you're basically adding kind of a minimum as far as I can tell a minimum of three months on to the sellers process now I can completely see that you want to make the person who's turning this into a rental jump through a number of hoops in order to make sure that this is going to be a very responsible rental but I don't think that we need to burden the person who is selling their house who who needs to move wants to move for a job for any kind of a relocation that basically just the potential consequences of screwing up their life I just think is is not worthwhile so those are the two unintended consequences that that are why I am not supporting this article and that's where I am I would argue that the second item that you list as an unintended consequences in fact an intended consequence which is that is to make it more difficult for people to sell their homes to someone who might turn it into a rental I think that we can certainly have it we could have an even longer conversation about whether or not that's an appropriate thing to do given person given property rights and traditions in the United States as well as that within Massachusetts but I think that is in fact an intended consequence to make it less attractive to anyone who might want to turn it into a rental I'm not sure still whether or not I think that's a good idea because of the position it does put people in who are trying to sell their home who may you know truly need to sell their home as opposed to what we consider selling our home at various other factors I think that by saying to some extent I would argue that people saying well you know you're putting these extra three months burden on the seller well that's only if nobody else comes up with a decent offer that isn't a rental offer and I think it almost gives away the idea that well the only reason some people would want to buy some houses in Amherst is to turn them into rentals and I think this tries to pull that back and say there are lots of people who might want to live in those houses if having a rental property was not such an attractive investment and so I am concerned about how it's going to play in with your first concern about you know what we're trying to do to put into place for the spring I'm not sure what you know I thought I'd have a more specific vote tonight as to how I want to do this because I'm not sure that it's a horrible consequence at this point to possibly put some homeowners in difficulty of not being able to sell their house to someone who wants to turn into a rental it's not that they can't sell their house is that they can sell their house to somebody who wants to turn into a rental as quickly as they might otherwise so I think your point is a good one about it being potentially an intended consequence so either way it needs to be acknowledged that this is going to be part and parcel of what would happen with this as a community if we want to do that and I'll write town meeting will speak on that but to me I think that the the perspective should be regulating trying to create responsible rentals not to prevent them entirely but trying to create responsible ones and to put the burden of that on the person who is going to be the person who is owning the rental as opposed to the person who needs to relocate for a job or who needs to you know move to assisted living or you know whatever your situation is of needing to sell the house I think I think we're burdening the wrong person in that transaction so that's where I'm coming down but I appreciate the the the point about the unintended consequence and I agree Mr. Aiden and wondering you know what my recommendation to town meeting might be I sort of remembering that this divided the planning board in their recommendation on I think almost evenly and I'd also want to point out the rather interesting preamble to this it's obvious that there's some concern about intended or unintended consequences that it would generate among them I just want to point out that it's trying to regulate intention you know that you know the purchase and sale agreement involved an intention that the buyer has to state the outset maybe they don't intend to rent it and something changes but any event that's kind of an interesting time warp there many men I'm wondering if we can recommend referral think you bring it back to let the planning board finish it and get it to a state where they can where they can actually recommended to us recommended to town meeting with with some sort of gusto rather than lukewarm divided thing and the reason I would ask that is that or suggest that is that the preamble is correct I mean this is an issue that that homes well homes are not homes but rental units without a homeowner living there seem to attract nuisances more often than ones that don't now that's not to say that every house that's not that's rented and does not have the owner living there is a nuisance house but the nuisance houses tend to be homes that are not occupied it's a good idea important that we deal with it but this is not really generating sort of the comfort that I think an article that's dealing with such as fundamental as disposition of your property would require Mr. Wall similarly I think Mr. Hayden is used to the word comfort is a good indicator here I think all of us understand the desire to protect the character of neighborhoods in a sense of stable places for families and individuals and we want to provide homes for renters and I think part of the problem we're having here is that this tries to do a lot of things very quickly on an ad hoc basis with maybe the wrong tool because we've got a market issue are there enough rentals in town are there enough single-family houses that are affordable in the legal and in the common language sense and then we've got an enforcement issue and I'm not sure zoning is the right tool to deal with it so I think discomfort is really the key here it's it's telling that both the planning board and select board seem sympathetic to the outcome but very hesitant about the method it's not ready for prime time this thing I do think it's very important that we get a handle quickly on rental properties of the type that are described in this article I I don't think it's too onerous to ask for a special permit in which the regulation of the rental property would be described to the zoning board of appeals and they would be able to decide whether it's an appropriate use of the rental property however I would like to abstain because the planning board is split four to four and plans to bring this issue to the whole of town meeting presenting both sides so I think it is reasonable for us as a body to abstain at this point and listen to the arguments testing and then decide my inclination as I say is supported but I would like to hear what the planning board has to say on both sides of the issue before I make a decision one way or the other I am very very concerned with this issue of preserving neighborhoods it is something we've been hearing about for at least three years with the property rental properties creating great discomfort to the neighborhoods and disrupting them and causing owners to move out of town and I just don't think that one can wait for the perfect if we have something that would impact work but as I say I want to hear what the planning board has to say on both sides of the issue I wonder if and obviously I won't make a motion that sounds like we could have motions to refer to not take a position rather than call it abstaining perhaps to not take a position if we all agree to that or obviously have a mixed vote with perhaps some abstentions one of the things I'm trying to look at from my viewpoint is you know what's the worst that can happen if this passes which frankly given how complicated it is seems rather unlikely given the two things so it is required but if it were to pass the worst that could happen is in theory some people might get lower prices for their homes than they would otherwise we don't know that but that could happen or it could make their process longer perhaps on the plus side again in theory there would be no additional conversions of this type before we put our new rental registration by-law set to place if we don't do this which admitted quite a minute might be the completely wrong tool to do what we're trying to do there will be nothing to prevent additional conversions taking place through this spring and then obviously being ready to go online for the fall so if you're trying to you know stop a flood and maybe somehow there are those properties out there and we just obviously we have no way of knowing how many mythical properties could that could happen to between now and then just like we don't know how many mythical properties will even go on the market thereby impacting their sellers but there is nothing that we are doing now that because of the rules that we have now that will stop anyone from converting additional single family homes into rentals if we don't do this and the new rental registration by law also will not change that in terms of like you know our people concerned about what's it gonna look like next fall there may be many other tools we wish to use to make that less appealing to people but this is the only thing that appears to be the thing that would stop a few given the number that we've been given in terms of the past few years additional conversions from taking place so I think you raise a good point which is the question of are we trying to prevent the conversions or are we trying to have responsibly yes managed rental properties and so yes I'm I guess I'm coming down on the side of responsibly managed rental properties more than half the units in town are already rental properties so I guess I would be looking to I mean the people have to live somewhere so I would be looking to to try and make them as responsibly managed as we possibly could and so I would add to your list of which I agree with the potential what are the worst outcomes I would hate to be working on the rental regulation permitting system and having having this weird thing we're saying okay well we've got this we've got this bylaw that we passed about single family homes and we either can work with that or we need to change that if that turns out to be kind of the weak link in the overall you know kind of this comprehensive look at the regulations then we either need to propose kind of two sets of regulations in the spring one that that gets rid of of that if it's in fact the weak link or one that or rather and one that doesn't in case that doesn't pass so again with that two-thirds majority it's kind of like starting the whole really comprehensive rental regulation process with one hand tied behind your back and I'm not sure that that's the most productive way for a whole lot of work to happen on that front so we're clearly a split board we've got a lot of opinions here again agreeing with the concept Mr. Wilde's point about comfort level where we're not at a uniform certainly comfort level here so then the options are as Mr. Hayden stated we could move to refer or Miss Stein said and take no position and when Miss Stein mentioned taking no position that seemed to make sense to me again we don't have a recommendation from the planning board we don't have a recommendation to approve you know this from the planning board I'm so why would we have a recommendation one way or the other from the select board I think if the select board took no position because we want to hear more and again really this is about the body deciding they're not greatly looking to us for guidance on this if the planning board is not coming down one way or the other so I'm fairly comfortable with that which is why I would re-argue for referring the you know I don't know I mean I have a sense that this concept is valuable having two separate classes but it would be particularly valuable if it worked if it worked in support as you mentioned of other things that we know were coming down the pipe and things that need to happen so rather which is to say that we do have a position the position being that we support the concept and that we wanted to work and sort of just we would recommend a town meeting that they you know share with us that idea that it can work and it should be made stronger so miss pure and the Stein now I think you're saying what's going to happen between now and spring they I think they want the opportunity to potentially pass this if the arguments are are in favor of that as opposed to referral so I mean if we do a referral we let's say we come up with a 3-2 vote to refer and that still is a split vote and kind of meaningless and for the planning board for it to fail if they think it's important they can still keep working on it and bring it back they don't need the referral directive to to do that so okay I'm not sure we've made any progress so what do we think well referral to me always means take this back and put in a better format and I think this format is perfectly clear you're going to have home owner you're going to have owners living in the properties or you're not and I just I would like to hear what the planning board has to say and leave it open if we refer it back that takes it off the table if that's the way the vote goes we're done with this time it's not this does much more than just define whether or not somebody's living in the house living in the house it requires that if you move out that you need a special permit there's an action here and it's that action which is which is what the banks are going to notice when they're looking at the purchase and sale agreements it's that action that requires the zoning board of appeals to take part in this it's that action which really makes this article as it's presented work or not so what do we want to do I would like to make a motion to the that the the select board take no position on this with regards to recommendation to tell me their second second for the discussion on paper say hi hi I opposed nay okay okay so you were preferred referral yes thank you for your motion okay good alright so that's where we are in that good thing we're not doing the other ones because we didn't ever prayer of getting to this okay who's speaking to the slip where it's no position sure okay so I because I plan to speak against it so I don't want to confuse that right so okay this time we'll speak to okay all right we got a couple of other things we've got to do let's do the downtown parking for the holiday season this is a this is similar to last year's proposal but it's been made a little bit more broad we are okay what we did last year we tried to give more rationale and town downtown friendliness to this last year by expanding it to be free parking on the weekends in the paying display lots between Thanksgiving and Christmas with free parking everywhere on a couple of days so we've got that free parking everywhere on a couple of days still included in this that small business Saturday which is next Saturday and the following Saturday which is the annual greeting card day on all the subsequent Saturdays the proposal is to make it again free parking in all the paying display lots but now there are more of them so rather than just limiting it to bolt wood and CVS why not why not make it nice and simple for people if you're in a lot that has the new paying display and not paying display it's pay-by-space I'm sorry the new pay-by-space machines then then it's free on those Saturdays that's the proposal you may have a problem with broadening it that way it's just being a little bit more generous and a little bit less confusing miss Burt I won't argue about it but maybe I will a little bit which is I mentioned last time that I'm not sure why we're encouraging people to park behind town hall and it feels to me that when you say something's free it's because you're trying to encourage people to utilize it like we want to make sure people are using a CVS lot like we want to make sure people are using bullwood so I'm while I appreciate the pain no longer pay by the space concept I'm I'm not clear on it's no longer as clear online as it was before and obviously they would prefer the chamber would prefer the parking was free everywhere I'm just wondering if anybody can give me any insight as to any more of the conversation might take me so I was very aware of your noting the town hall lot last time but once we really talked about adding the Main Street lot the Spring Street lot and the Amity Street lot then it's like now it's now it's peculiar to leave the town hall one out so what we don't want is for people to be confused you know you can or cannot I thought at the ones that had these machines you didn't have to pay so I think it's less an encouragement than a you know it what difference does it make if they park there it there's potentially some benefit there's no harm and there's confusion if we if we leave that one out I feel better about it because it's Saturdays it's just so often that we're doing the week yeah during the week we talked a little bit about that during the week isn't when people are really downtown sharp and then you fill all the free spaces just with all the employees from downtown and and it's probably having me of the opposite effect for shoppers so it's just a Saturday thing and this year since we were explicit about taking the Sunday thing off of the parking now it's now it's free parking on Saturdays and Sundays always free on Sundays in all of these lots for the rest of the season to verify and I think you said this earlier but I'm gonna say again to pound through my head all parking at meters and it pay by space machines in town is free on Sundays so when we're talking about this and we're only talking about Saturdays it's because Sundays are already free and when we talk about throughout the downtown Amherst area we mean anything that has a meter on it or and the goal is to get those new machines programmed so that they say happy holidays no parking or not other than just having a year whatever over right I don't mean no parking I mean nobody it's fantastic change them to say the donations are freely accepted to all right I don't like to make that motion I move through the Amherst area chamber of commerce requests for free parking throughout the downtown Amherst area for small business Saturday on Saturday November 24th 2012 and annual greeting card day on Saturday December 1st 2012 and free parking at all the parking lots with the new pay-by-space parking machines both with garage Amity Street lot Spring Street lot Main Street lot Town Hall lot and the town portion of the CVS lot on the subsequent Saturdays before Christmas December 8th 15th and 22nd second further discussion they would say I'm sorry I'm just wondering if this we could do this earlier next year so we get into the circular that we got on the newspaper last week about shopping bag day there's a whole bunch of advertisement that's already gone out that this cannot be doing it now thank you noted yes all right for the discussion all in favor say aye thank you okay budget policy guidelines quickly and so we had basically approved these last time and I insisted on inserting another sentence or two yeah so I have done that and I hope you're okay with it this is in the overall philosophy section we talked about wanting the ability to support beyond the level services budget if there were a responsible financially responsible and practical way to do it to address what could be more staffing needs in the code enforcement stuff that we're talking about to try and really strengthen all of these neighborhood issues whether it's from a public safety perspective whether it's from a building code health code inspection standpoint so I inserted two sentences that that do that I'll read them just in case you can't find them which say check check one two all right it's about halfway through that first paragraph and it's after the thing about addressing the loss of CDBG funding says we also recognize that we are at a pivotal point in addressing the challenges of public safety and code enforcement to protect the quality of life in our neighborhoods and that this may require additional staff resources if there are opportunities to increase such staffing in ways that are fiscally responsible in the short and long terms we view these guidelines as having the flexibility to support that that is all I think that's fine I was just wondering about the first half of the second sentence because initial revenue projections are not so much positive as they were when this was originally written so I just wonder if we would be better off saying the larger economic picture remains challenged and unstable in the near term since that's this is sentence to I'm just deleting the first half or suggesting deleting the first half and the reason is that you know this recent newsletter talks about the fact that there may even be a shortfall this year so I'm a little bit concerned so I thought it might be a little more prudent to not suggest that projections are more positive because at this point I think that's fine I don't think it changes the concept of the mystery yes and more positive is a relative term still okay so which is right with the larger yes okay then if we're good with that if you could have a vote on them then I will make those changes and get this memo out to you tonight okay I don't know why yes I look at the plan for to prove the FY 14 budget policy guidelines as amended second discussion I appreciate all the work that's going into making these happen by our chair and by my colleagues so thank you I was just going to suggest if you cleverly work it in as a comment at some point during town meeting that these will by that point be up on our be up on the website under the budget I think it's useful for people to know that our guidelines around as well as the finance thank you all right for the discussion all paper say hi hi and I have unanimous okay let's see if we can just blow through these couple of things that we have to do which are specifically taxi licenses special liquor licenses all right I move that the select board approve a new taxi slash chauffeur license for Carol Jean late on the half of celebrity tab second further discussion all the paper say hi hi I have that the select board approve the special all alcoholic license for Amherst College catering services for a cash bar for student activities 21 plus event on Thursday December 6th 2012 and the Freeman campus center Amherst College Greg Wardler dining services and catering management second for the discussion all the paper say hi hi I move that okay I just want to say that the dates are a little confusing because of the time of year of these appointments so where it says for a term well for the first one it's a term to expire 2014 which makes them have two years seven months instead of a full three years and all the subsequent ones they're also not getting a full to one year two year or three actually they're getting more than one year more than two years and more than three years so it's a little random but I think we need to work that out and put it into the appointed committee Ember and so I will not book and I will not bother you with it tonight except to make that comment okay I move that the select board appoint ingrid ask you and Carol Ross to the Human Rights Commission each for a term to expire June 30th 2014 second the discussion I move that the select board approve the following following individuals to serve on the local historic district committee as noted below Amherst Historical Commission historical society solicitation three-year term ending June 30th 2016 Anita Lysis right back right back American Institute of architects solicitation one-year term ending June 30th 2014 Naomi Elliott Board of Realtors solicitation one-year term ending June 30th 2014 Tom Aragud property owner from within the district two-year term ending June 30th 2015 and Murray Schwartz two-year term ending June 30th 2015 second discussion mr. Waltz for the record mr. Schwartz is also a resident but I don't want that listed but I wanted you to mention I know thank you thank you so much for saying that mr. Waltz because the reason to be using this funky language in case it wasn't obvious is when you look at the charge or the committee and these are not representatives these are not liaisons they were solicited through a certain method that's laid out by law and one of the property owners is to be specifically solicited that way and yes Murray Schwartz is also a property owner we just didn't want to have me in case one of these people have to leave we're trying to make sure we kind of track that we have somebody filling all those slots but absolutely mr. Schwartz isn't thank you for that clarification for the discussion all famous say hi hi all right it's unanimous okay so I think we're done does anybody think we're not done what were you gonna tell us about executive session I see it at the bottom oh there is one at 615 no at the end at the end yeah so you know we'll have to try and wrap up 640 years okay that's what I was trying to understand okay where is it stated so that's on next week's I'm sorry I didn't even remember that that was on the calendar preview I was thinking have they already seen the agenda for now okay Mr. Hayden it's three minutes of seven I would move to adjourn for adjourn and without objection this meeting is adjourned at 656 for me for me for us all right see Monday happy Thanksgiving