 Okay, we're recording. Thank you, Athena. Seeing a presence of the quorum of the community resources committee of the town council I'm calling this special meeting of the community resources committee to order on at 431pm on June 2, 2022 pursuant to the chap pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended by chapter 22 of the acts of 2022. This meeting will be conducted by remote means members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via zoom or telephone. No in person attendance of members of the public will be permitted but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means. At this time I'm going to make sure that our CRC members and our interview applicants, planning board applicants can hear us and be heard so I'm just going to go through everyone's name. And when I say your name just just state that you're present and we'll be able to confirm everything. I'm Shelly. Present. Pat. Present. Mandy is present. Pam. Here. Jennifer. Present. And our applicants Bruce. Present. And Karen. You have to unmute. Present. There we go. So that is everyone. And our interview list and our agenda had three names on it. Bruce called him John Gilbert and Karen winter. And I received an email at 245 this afternoon from John Gilbert with drawing from the process. I have forwarded that email to all CRC members but in short he withdrew from the process because he was unable to reconcile conflicts he had on Wednesday nights and therefore would not be able to attend planning board interviews if we had made a recommendation to appoint him. And so he withdrew from the process and will not be attending the interviews today, which leaves us with two of the three people who were listed on the agenda. So I wanted to clear that up for anyone watching and wondering why we're moving forward without everyone who was listed on the agenda present. So with that we are I'm going to summarize how we're going to do this. And then we will start the interviews. And so how this works is you have Bruce and Karen you have received the interview questions, they will actually be asked in the order they were listed on that document. Questions will be asked by various members of the CRC I will not be asking all of them. And then we will alternate since there are only two of you we will alternate who goes first to answer those questions so it's not always the same person. And you will have two to three minutes to answer. I will be the one keeping time, which reminds me I have to set my clock to keep time. But we will, we will keep to I will keep time. And I will give you, you know, I'll let you know when your time is up basically but you'll have somewhere between two and three minutes my guess is at this point, given there are only two people we're going to probably allow three minutes for every question because that just makes sense and that will give you enough time and we have plenty of time to do that. Are there any questions to either Bruce or Karen or any of the CRC members have questions before we begin asking the interview questions. I am not seeing any so I will start the questioning off. And so I start in alphabetical order so Bruce you will go first, and then, and then Karen, and then we'll switch for every other question so now you can plan on which ones you're going first and second on. So the first question is what do you feel you bring to the planning board that can make it successful, please include any experience you have a period before or serving on the planning board or ZBA or watching one of their meetings so Bruce. Okay, and Pat, I didn't include you among my friends because I didn't notice you up there on the screen and I was looking across it. So, what do I bring what can I bring I spent seven years on the planning board from 95 until 2003. And then during that time I along with john cune was the co founder of the first of the comprehensive plan committees which ran five years as an architect for retiring 50 years of professional experience and during that time. I went before many many planning boards actually never this one because I had to refuse myself after having served on it. But planning boards and zoning boards around Massachusetts and elsewhere around the Northeast. I was the pioneer in the design of net zero energy buildings, both residential and commercial as a matter of fact and as a national leader in creating living buildings. I led the design team for the Bechtel environmental Center for Smith College which was the fifth of the ever achieving living buildings. And I was consultant on the other two that were completed subsequently here in Amherst so a lot of experience particularly around matters which have become at long last. So I went to the town and to society at large which has to do with environmental consciousness stewardship green high performance building, and so forth. So I have a great deal of experience in that field and and I think it's timely. Slowly when I was on the planning board before last time. I spent pretty much all of that time as the kind of motion creator. And I've done that too with the, the local district district commission and I served with Jennifer and with current actually for quite a long time and making I find that role is a useful and constructive one and I performed it on the planning board for seven years when Bill O'Neill was the chair, just listening to the arguments. Listening the points, diagnosing or understanding or trying to the conditional possibilities and then framing the motions accordingly and voice accepting friendly amendments as a as a as the board discussed the motion and so forth. I think I'm good at managing discussions. I think I understand the importance of ordering questions and taking questions of clarification before those ones of procedural substance or comments and so forth. So I think I understand how to work with groups and these kind of groups I've done it before and I haven't lost the ability I don't think, and I would prepare to do it again I think I bring that to the table at least. And that little ding was your, your three minutes so thank you Bruce and Karen. First of all, I want to say I'm a great fan of bruises and the reason, one reason that I've even decided that it would be a good, good thing to work in town government is because I've been so impressed with people like Bruce on the local historic commission his expertise certainly led us, the three people that were completely new on the commission. I am not an expert architect or civil engineer I greatly respect expert advice, but you can only be an expert of one, one particular thing. And then board has to deal with many, many different aspects, and if you're not an expert you better be a good, a really good listener who does their homework and a good judge of whose advice to follow. And this is what I strive for. My background isn't teaching. I've been a teacher at the university level when I began at the University of Stuttgart. And then in adverse I taught children from grades one to 12, which I greatly enjoyed that also helps you to become a good listener and to really be able to assess the needs of someone else so that you can work collaboratively or just achieve what you want to do as a pedagogue. One thing that I think I bring that's maybe helpful is that I have lived in so many countries and so many communities. I have a relative a close cousin who developed a significant piece of land in former East Germany and I was there at the beginning he's he's actually a retired teacher of literature. When he went into this and his dream was to create a city block which would be for purposes of art and education. He, unlike me, also had significant means so that he was able to do this, but relied on expert. And I watched him from stage where this was a dream by the former piano factory the best time piano factory in East Germany and turn it into a center which now houses the only gypsy, which is now called Roma Museum in the world, a discotheque, a kindergarten which serves mostly the Turkish community that live in this area, a warehouse for architectural supplies, a publishing house, a discotheque, many little artistic boutiques. It's just, it just turned a very, very decrepit, poor impoverished area, which was totally neglected of course in East Germany into a completely vibrant community. I'm, I can't say that I did any of this but I watched it from the beginning and I think it opened my eyes to possibilities. Thank you, Karen. All right. So, the question is, tell us about an experience you've had collaborating with a group, particularly where opinions conflicted, or the decision was controversial. And we'll start with Karen. Can you tell me how you pronounce your name? Karen, Karen, K-A-R-I and so I say Karen. Karen. But I answer to anything Karen. No, no, no, it's good to know Karen. Okay. Yeah, so my experience was on the local historical commission, and I was a complete newcomer to town government or commissions. I didn't even know what an open meeting law was and how to respect that. And our very first, I think our first meeting dealt with an applicant Amherst media and I assume that you're familiar with how contentious this applicant's quest to build on such a historically and important and in my opinion, most beautiful open piece of land that we have left in the center of town. There was a lot of history that had gone before I had become involved that, and it was clear that that I was completely sort of over my head. So we had to rely on thank heavens, the wonderful people on the commission that had been a part of it. And Adams was wonderful. Bruce was wonderful. We had an amazing staff person who guided us. And, but nevertheless, it took a lot of courage to ask questions because I knew how naive and, and ignorant I would come across. But, nevertheless, it was important to get as much information and to make comments and to make suggestions, even though the public was watching, and we had an audience which were so passionate. We had lawyers that were representing the butters. We had people that were so in favor of Amherst media and I think that together as a group. We, we kept asking for more and more revisions until we finally got to a point where we also comfortable about giving approval and I think this experience was actually very formative for me it was actually positive, and I had nothing but awe and respect for the people that I got to know that were that were serving so that's my first experience in town government here. Thank you. And, Bruce. Well, as Pat well knows, I've in the past 30 years have been deeply involved certainly from 35 to 30 years ago in the development and then management of co housing communities. So housing that I initiated along with others but it was as I characterized it my idea, which turned into our project. And I still live there. We were always striving to achieve consensus and many of our decisions were straightforward or were harmoniously achieved but of course not all of them and managing a process where you actually have to handle hundreds of thousands and what would nowadays be equivalent of dollars of people's funds. People were very focused and and the issues were were meaningful and we had to negotiate that and I was the, the development leader of that group. Similarly, I was for five years the chair of the Northeast Sustainable Energy Board of directors, during a particularly stressful period of its existence, a period that it's threatened its demise actually and so I was charged with trying to rescue the organization at a governance level, and the organization is now thriving and myself and others at the time were therefore successful I think I've been president of the North Amherst Community Farm for the past eight years, and have led to successful fundraising efforts there as well as the various renovation restoration efforts that we've done. It's certainly an abundant experience I think of participating in managing collaborative and group design making group decision making processes, but the particular decision that instance that you asked for. It's the same as the one that Karen mentioned because it's recent and it's immediate for the town that's the, the, the challenge that the local Historic District Commission faced when it was trying to adjudicate the application of the Amherst media group made a storm of public engagement around that. And I think we came to a satisfactory conclusion and it was not the preferred outcome from my standpoint, I had a rather unconventional idea of how to achieve what I thought would have been a better, more successful result, but I couldn't convince any of the parties involved, including my fellow commissioners of the wisdom of what I had in mind. And I can understand why it was fairly radical, but that it seemed to be worth pursuing and and we we did, but I let it go and we worked to make the best of plan B and that's. And right now I'm involved in the elementary school issue and right this week, right tomorrow, I think we'll see issues of controversial. I'm done on the committee, but I'm actively involved in supporting those that are and particularly the chairperson Kathy Shane. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Pat, you're next. Oh wait, no, sorry. Okay. Thank you. So my question is, if you and I guess so. I have Bruce is the first. Did you. Yes, I think so. Yes. Yeah, yeah, that's right. Okay. If you could please describe how the planning board can help achieve the goals of the master plan. Well, I was involved in the master plan, not the one that was eventually adopted, but the forerunner. But I think with careful review and support the constructive contributions from interested parties. And with the positive outcomes, the, the new elementary school and particularly the from the town's point of view, the fate of the non selected candidate in, in, in building, I think the planning board, as well as town should be active in that the school building committee will see I think that it's beyond their purview to, even though the challenge is created by their decision. I think I pointed with the, that the public that the North Amherst development on the PRP site in North Amherst didn't proceed because I thought the planning board could have been quite active in in fulfilling some of the goals of the master plan on that project. I thought it was a challenging problem, a challenging application, but the, the, the, the, the fundamental one of the fundamental challenges from town is just revenue and so forth. These sites are important and developing them as important and trying to find the right applicant and have the right applicant do the right thing. All of that is a role for the planning board in figuring out how to condition approvals in the most constructive way within the, the constraints and the aspirations expressed by the master plan. I think when you've got significant projects before the board routinely probing the applicants intentions as a board, particularly so far as environmental energy performance and of the proposed buildings and site designs are concerned but other issues as well. The planning board can set a tone that leads the town, even sometimes when the issue is not exactly in the overview of the board with a board is not able to require something. It's possible I know from past experience to lead an applicant in the direction in a more positive direction, not by saying that you won't approve, because we may not have the pound to disprove or if we do we will end up in court and cost the town some money. So, trying to induce applicants to do the right thing is another important role that the planning board if it's sufficiently skilled and coherent can do. I would like the planning board in the view of the master plan to try and develop the open space community development part. I think we should have more of them I hope that the board can think of ways in which that could be achieved. Okay, so Jennifer. Jennifer, should I call in Karen or were you. Yeah, okay. Thank you. I was waiting for the chair. Thank you very much. Thanks, Bruce. So Karen, should I repeat the question. No, which, yeah, was how do you feel the planning board can help achieve the goals of the master plan. Right, right. Well, I think I just reread the master plan. It's kind of a very. It wants it all. It wants a walkable vibrant diverse, you know, strong economically secure downtown and yet it just wants it all and I was impressed because it's clear that there was an input of very many people who weighed in and there was a lot of thought about it. The question is how to implement it and do it in a way that's also that we don't go broke as a town. I think our finances are have to be healthy and and yet we have to really be ready to look at the world that we live in sustainability and all these things. So many of the details that Bruce was talking about are, to me, completely new I don't know these specifics I haven't been involved, but I agree that I working with the people that are proposing something in order for them to see to maybe change their thinking or change their proposal in a way that would be more positive. I think is a is something that the board should be skilled at doing we just saw this with the local historic working with a developer who really, I think was very open to changing his plans because of input from us and and it was in an outside of a meeting was just an informal meeting, talking to somebody so I think the planning board. You know they they have a big responsibility. Amherst is is a place in the world which is very unique it's not just a little New England University town it's the home of Emily former home of Emily Dickinson, and that really puts us on the world map. So I think we have not only the responsibility but also the opportunity. Maybe people should weigh in that have that come from somewhere else from outside maybe there should be things like international competitions for certain problems I think that we could involve. This might seem idealistic but why not. My feeling is that who's on the planning board the way they communicate with each other the way that they communicate with the public, the kind of enthusiasm that they can create for involving or getting the whole town motivated and excited about implementing some new ideas is very important. Thank you. Pat is next. Thank you for your view, Lauren. Would you please describe the considerations and objectives you'll use for considering proposed revisions to the zoning bylaws. Yes, I actually looked at this question three and or three and four seem to go. No, four and five seem to go a little bit together. I do think that rules and regulations are very important and have a purpose. I think that they bring structure and a kind of just security to governing and if you were going to reinvent the wheel every time somebody had to change a regulation you would get much more chaos and you get a lot more strife because everybody had to weigh in on everything so I do think that regulations need to be respected and if you're going to make an exception you better then you have to make an exception. Absolutely. I also know that no rule or regulation is perfect is perfect they all have, they can't be. And so what you need to do is see what is the spirit behind this regulation the rule why was it put in place, and perhaps the applicant has a way of dressing the regulation in a way that's better or more suitable for a certain unique situation. And I think that has to be weighed carefully, and I would be very open if in the case like that that I felt that the greater good would come out of making a special agreement, I would be more than than ready to to approve that. So that's my feeling about rules and regulations and special permits. Thank you, Carl. Bruce. I think it would be important to use the goals objectives strategy statements etc set out in the master plan. I mean, this is a very thorough document it's we've invested many more years than most towns in creating this and and it reads well. It should dignify all of that effort, the planning board should dignify all of that effort as other town boards and committees and commissions should as well. So I think the master plan has to be a guiding document for considering proposed revisions to the zoning bylaw. But beyond the structure of the master plan and so forth. I have a view that bylaws should provide avenues for appeal. As Karen just said, you know, they're kind of blunt instruments, they're not perfect. They, we create them as best we can trying to imagine the future, the future isn't ever as we imagine it. So, structuring avenues for appeal is essentially feedback it's a way of identifying anomalies and then being able to address them with future modifications. So I see appeals structuring appeals as a constructive thing to do not just as a way of allowing an agree party to take their case to court that may be as well, of course, but to the extent possible, seeing appeals and even if we don't already have the property structuring them so that the we have a learning process and and I'm not sure that that is fully engaged or that we couldn't do better. But that's a, that's a personal consideration that I would then I'm not sure that I would advocate for this but I think it's worthy of consideration, or it may be, and that is considering the discretionary power of the planning board. We expanded to some degree, the argument is that we can do better if we allow the deliberative body, particularly one like ours in Amherst, which is so well supported by town staff and and for experienced town staff. I think it's safer to allow for the deliberative body to have more discretionary power that's another way of sharpening the otherwise blunt instrument. But of course, the great problem with that is that it can be seen to be abused, and particularly by those who may not be in receipt of the decision from the board that they wanted, whichever side of a particular So it's difficult, but I don't think we should shy away from it because again I think it can deepen the effectiveness and the intelligence of the of the decisions of the planning and the guidance that a planning board can give. Thank you Bruce. Thank you. This first question goes through and in order. And that is question five, what's your opinion of waivers exceptions dimensional special permits in the zoning bylaw, when should they be used and when should they not be used. And that's me. Yes. Well generally I'm in favor of waivers. And as Karen said these. This is this is a sequential connection between this and the previous question or it can be in my case that's true here, because waivers is another way of looking at discretionary power. So it says that under certain conditions, we should allow something that may generally speaking, not be allowed, even though they we imagine that the zoning board regulation allows for waivers. It's another deliberate it's another discretionary power. As I said, when the bylaws are adjudicated by a well supported deliberative body is in the case with us. I think it's more risky with small jurisdictions like the surrounding hill towns where boards are not so well supported by permanent staff, but that's not who we are. As I said bylaws are essentially blunt instruments and it's firstly impossible to foresee all the future situations of any law drafts people, you know, we who create these things do their best and basis of past experience but the passage of time use all sorts of innovations that we can do to ourselves all legal draftsmanship so including these kind of discretionary powers like waivers and so forth potentially sharpens these blunt regulatory instruments. Parking I know is an example where the board does have a waiver can waive parking requirements and in my time on the planning board, and that's quite a long time ago of course now. Additionally, as a positive and useful instrument often we decided to waive some parking requirements, but we required that the space be retained so that the additional parking could be provided if the future need arose, but the idea of paving an acreage, because the regulation says we must when we don't really have to providing we keep the possibility just seems to be a very good example of why and when a waiver is a useful thing. But finally, waivers are like variances in that they create precedents that potentially open doors with unforeseen and deleterious consequences so waivers when consistent when considered should be mindful of their becoming or actually hoping them trying to avoid they're becoming spontaneous redrafting of a bylaw. That's not a good construction of use of a waiver. Thank you. Karen, do you want to weigh in on that. So, I, I don't want to waste your time I agree with everything that Bruce has said, and he has said it far more eloquently than I ever could. So we can just continue I think. Thank you. Okay. Jennifer now. Yeah, thank you so I will be, Karen you get to take the first stab at the response to this question and it is, what is your approach to incorporating public input into your decision making. So, I would not only welcome incorporating it I think I would solicit public input into my decision making that's just kind of who I am and I remember listening to a talk once by a CEO who said decision makers have to be able to make decisions, even to make sure that they can only see the tip of the iceberg, your, that's the knowledge that you have there's going to be far more under invisible than what you can see, and you still have to make a decision as far as so I'm concerned, the public input just helps make sure of the unknown visible. I've in watching these meetings on zoom and listening to public input and also in my experience on commissions. I, I always learned something that I didn't know I think it's extremely helpful, even if it's contentious and passionate and, you know, inflammatory, it's nevertheless I think is valuable so first I think is a special place you're going to have some more public input here than in a lot of places I think that's actually wonderful. And yeah, so my intake is. Yes, positive. Thank you, Karen. Bruce. Like Karen I'm a fan of public input. I may be. I mean, in my previous time on the planning board I guess I could imagine a few particular instances where I thought public input was not constructive and and, but those are exceptions in my experience. The high points, probably for for me would be the first meeting that we had as the local Historic District Commission on the Amherst media project. That first meeting which they brought a bomb building, I mean it was nothing like the building that they are currently when, but that first building. The first meeting was, there must have been 50 people from the public there. I mean, we had that meeting in the town room. I've never been a panelist, I mean, a commissioner or anybody in the town room we're always, you know, in the boards and various other things we always in these little rooms. Small little squarely spaces and so forth but we were in the town and that was a big deal and this town room was full of people. And my goodness, the, the, the level of content that came that day that afternoon we ran five. No, it wasn't that long three hours I suppose everybody said what they had to say and God bless them they only said that once I think that everybody was so pleased with so can be. And so I'm sitting there doing what I do, trying to figure out how to absorb all of this information. And, and out of that two and a half hours of commentary of people saying things I think I and we died. And God knows about four major things that we thought that we had to say, well that should be said to the Amazon media applicant about how they might improve their application. And we, and this was entirely based, pretty much entirely based on what was said by those people in the room, just writing it down what we did was try and synthesize this avalanche of input into for what into that to be for recommendations, one of them was that they didn't employ an architect, they didn't even have a good architect so you can imagine how well received that was by me but anyway I'm obviously biased in that regard. But that was just a spectacular example of how public input affected a process and how a board or in this case a commission could take that public input constructively turn it around and and do what we had to do which was basically give instructions or advice and counsel to this applicant about how to move forward. Thank you to both of you. And I believe we're on to Pat. And it's Bruce again. What else would you like us to know about you that makes you a strong candidate for the planning board Bruce. Well, I've had experience with town staff and the planning board in the crafting and refining of two parts of the present bylaw actually. And the first was when I was last on the planning board, and we approved the first outing I guess you could say of the farmland conservation overlay. The properties was so called Jones Patterson but it was the Bacowski farm that is in North Amherst here adjacent to one is now the simple gifts in ACF and the development that became the own drive development. But this wasn't an easy task this was the first outing of a new portion of the bylaw and and it. Whoops. And it wasn't certain that we could even persuade the developer to abide by the terms of our bylaw the concern was that they would take the whole matter to the state land court and that you know they would go through the process and wouldn't like what we asked for, and then it would be over and we would be in So we worked very carefully. We managed a considerable amount of grief from the farm committee at the time, largely based on what constituted prime farmland that experience resulted in a better drafting of how that is done in the bylaw. Some time later though, another piece of, let's just say that the farm, the own drive development proceeded. It didn't go to land court. The, the place is still there and the tail of the farmland has been wonderfully preserved, and is now essentially part of simple gifts from so the outcome was spectacular. Over peer over the time period so that was something that I've been very proud of actually although at the time I was at all sorts of accusations of being in the pocket of Paul Jones which was not very pleasant. Sometime later, the two co housing communities in town came together and helped to draft what became the open space community development section of the bylaw. That introduced the idea of co housing to the town in a number of op-ed beaches in the bulletin in the 80s and then as I said earlier, developed along with others what became pine street co housing and helped and supported the other co housing community. And by the way, we're both approaching 30 years now of this full existence. But the, from the time that these co housing complete co housing community were completed we had this stream of visitors from all over the country, and the town received considerable kudos for hosting these places. And it was that it was devilishly difficult virtually impossible to do them the only the reason why these two communities exist is because of freaks of crevices in the bylaw our bylaw does not did not support them at all. And the open space community development bylaw that we crafted 13 years later, we help craft, we're a big part of helping craft, and now changes all that. Listening to Bruce, it is so obvious to me that I would have a steep learning curve to be able to understand all these many facets of all the things that you deal with. I would say the only thing that I could say on my behalf is that I do love challenges and I work very hard and diligently to understand. And I would feel confident that working in a group, such as the planning board with the caliber of people that I've seen that dedicate their time and just just listening to you would make me confident that I could grow into this situation and be able to I have throughout my early years before I became a housewife and mother and part time teacher in Amherst mostly been in various leadership positions at the University of Stuttgart I was chosen to be the sole representative of the whole what's the middle bow the, not the top department heads but all the lectures and assistant professors and people under that to represent us in government I was kind of amazed to be in that position and it was tough, because these professors these top professors in they are monarchs and hard to bend on anything, but we accomplished a lot and so I don't know I'm, I'm looking forward to having this opportunity and thank you for considering me. Thank you. Thank you. So I get the last question which is basically a yes or no. So, so we will start with Karen on please confirm that you have the time to commit to meetings hearings and site visits. I do. And Bruce. Same, I do. I think both of us are in a position in life where we have the time and then Karen's demonstrated that with the local Historic District Commission she's always there when she's needed. And I, and I've been there too. With that, our questions are over for the afternoon evening. For the interviews I want to thank both Bruce and Karen for doing the entire process, which because it's not just the interviews it's it's putting your name out there filling out a CAF and then making sure you're available for the interviews completing and writing a statement of interest which are in the packets today and then coming and attending the interviews and and answering all of our questions and all and and putting yourself out there publicly for this role and and and stating your interest. So I want to thank you both for coming today for taking the time to do the statements of interest to apply and for interviewing today. After it's the same meeting but I will soon soon I will be asking Athena to move you into the attendees section you're welcome to continue to watch the meeting as we move into deliberations and recommendations or you do not have to. That is your, your option and whatever happens today I will be emailing you later tonight with letting you know what the decision of CRC was whether that was we made a decision or we didn't and if we did make a decision on a recommendation, what that recommendation is I will be in touch with both of you tonight. I want to talk about that, so that you know where, where we got, and if a recommendation is made today there is an intent for the town council to act on that recommendation on its Mondays, June 6th meeting. And so that is in theory, if the recommendation is made tonight it will be on the agenda it is currently on the agenda in hopes that we make a recommendation tonight for action. Any action taken on June 6 would not be effective until July one 2022 because there are no vacancies until that date we are seeking to fulfill vacancies that are coming up through the end of a term that ends June 30 so so that would be when any effective dates of any appointments would be. Are there any questions that Bruce or Karen have before we move on to the about the process and what's happening between now and and say Monday at the council meeting or thereafter, before we ask Athena to move you into the attendees. Not for me. I have a question, but I do have a short comment, which is to say, I really applaud appreciate and the process that is now for getting people onto the planning board. When I was appointed 25 years ago it was only perfunctory someone called me up and tried to bend my arm into serving. And then I found myself on the planning board. This level of deliberation that you have is just so much more sophisticated and it's just good. It's just so much better than I'm like manager I think you might have had something to do with that so thank you. I can't take all the credit the whole council's been working hard including our very first. I'm sure outreach appointments and communications team that committee that worked really hard to find something that would work and it's been refined over the last three years but I appreciate the comments and the feedback. And we always try to refine to make it better and better each time. So thank you for that. With that, Athena, can you please move Bruce and Karen into the attendees. Okay, we're going to wait until everyone. So, next on our agenda is a two part item. And so I know Pat your hand is up I want to explain the two parts before I get to your question in case it answers that question but I see your hand up. And the way CRC in the past few years has found it helpful to have this discussion because it can be very difficult is to talk about each of the applicants and interviews first before we move on to whether any recommendations should be made and who should be made on a recommendation. So we, we try, which is why it's listed as two separate items in the action item because we try to. Normally we have more than two applicants for two positions we normally have more, but we try to make sure we've said something and talked about every applicant before we've moved on to what our own members CRC members believe should be the recommendation. So we're going to keep with that, even though there are two vacancies we're going to keep with that plan to talk about each applicant first before we do that though, because there are two vacancies and two applicants. I am going to request that we have a mini discussion on the sufficiency of the applicant pool again. I'm not saying that that any of the interviews we just held were for not, but as we've seen in the ZBA process we can always revisit the sufficiency and make a determination there, given the fact that there are now two applicants for two positions I believe it would be time for us to put some sort of comment into the report I'm going to file tonight about that situation. And so I'm going to request that we talk very briefly about that situation first, before we move on to the applicants themselves and then any recommendation so Pat, with that plan, Pat. With that plan in mind I'm going to not follow it. The reason is that I need to explain my relationship with Bruce. He talked about me being a friend and we're certainly friends, but it's much more. He has devolved over the years to an acquaintance relationship. We met 30 years ago and worked very hard together on the Pine Street co housing. And then Carol and I were not able to follow through, but it was a wonderful process and created an interesting community. Over the years I've sort of known him and Mary but we have no. We're really acquaintances. I did use cold and Hartman to redesign our energy retrofit and to change some of our house redesign some of the house, but I was not involved with Bruce in that process I work with Andrew and I'm blanking on his last name and Jesse and Tom Hartman led that group. So I just wanted to be clear about that I thought it was important. Thank you for that that goes in under disclosures. I will also probably note that in a, in a report so that it is fully in there. Pam and then Jennifer. Thanks. I would, I would certainly love to see a number of people, they know lining up ready to serve on the planning board. Having having heard from both of the candidates. I'm feeling very solid about the qualities and capabilities of the candidates so that I would not want to hold up the process in order to broaden the pool. Thank you Pam Jennifer. I actually even thought that I might have to disclose but I served on the local historic district commission with both Karen and Bruce. So, I mean, that's, so I'm just disclosing that there's certainly, and so having served with them. I would, I guess concur with Pam that I think that you know maybe jumping ahead I mean I think they are both excellent candidates so I know we would prefer to have, you know maybe more applicants than spaces but I think that in this case, you know we would be well served with both at very that we're lucky to have both the applicants. Thank you Shalini. So, it's kind of awkward right. But I'm looking at the current planning board members and it's a very new board, like most of them are 2020. And there were new people who not served in planning board before so it's kind of like a very fresh new planning board and Doug. I'm sorry one of the members is, okay no one member. Yeah, only one member is three years old and the others are going to be two years in this term and it takes easily two to three years to really two years at least to sort of. You know, it just feels that it's a very new board, and it would have been nice to have more applicants with more experience. I'm not to say at all, not, you know, towards any particular because I agree with everyone that it was really wonderful to hear what each candidate brought brings to to the planning board. But I don't know, yeah this is. I don't know if you've had this situation before and what, what are the options here. Um, so I'll take my, my shot to answer that question and to say some things before we move into talking about each candidate, and then a potential recommendation. This particular situation has never in my I mean the council is only four years old right three and a half years old, and the, I think I've been on nearly every appointment for finance recommendation for finance and ZBA and CRC. For the last three years because of the committees I serve on in this situation has never happened the closest we've gotten was with ZBA I believe last year, where I believe we had two openings plus four associates because we already have we always have four openings coming up vacancy wise because they're one year terms. And, and when the statements of interest came in. I think we had one statement of interest come in for all of those openings if I'm remembering correctly last year, but that was before we'd held interviews or before we sort of even scheduled on. I was able as chair to go back to CRC and say, Are we putting a hold on the process now that the deadline for statement of interest have passed, and we haven't made it sort of to that interview stage. We were able to put that hold on, put a hold on for a couple weeks on the interview process, go out recruit more and try and get more candidates so that we had a sufficient pool to at least move forward on the full member applicants for ZBA and that's what we had in some sense decided was there are two sort of sets of sort of sets of appointments for ZBA there are the members and then the associates and we said we had at least a sufficient pool for the members even if we decided not to to a point associates during that time. And so that's the closest we've ever gotten to this situation. And, you know, it, it's a tough one. You know, options, right, the options are to move forward without any reservations that an option is to say we've now interviewed two of some number of candidates and we're going to put a pause, and we're going to make any recommendations today while we try to recruit more and then hold another set of interviews at some point. While also stating that we would not require the two we just interviewed to come back for interviews. You know, but but try to find more applicants. I know it gets awkward when we've already held two interviews right the whole thing is just awkward. Not something I like to do anything about as chair, but a withdrawal came today an hour and a half before the meeting. But you know, there's, there's only so much I can do as chair, and, and then another option is to consider the two applicants right now and potentially only fill one or recommend one of two vacancies or zero so so we can always recommend either one or two. Right. After discussion or we could say at this point you know we don't like this pool, not because of the qualifications of the candidates but because it's just not a sufficient pool. Under the guidelines that the Council has given us and all and so we're going to pause the process completely and not discuss any of the candidates and not make a recommendation. Those are sort of the options I see. None of which I would say necessarily are great for various different reasons and you know I think we can all guess what some of those reasons are. But, but those are what I see as the options. I mainly wanted to have this discussion because I am foreseeing someone wondering why we went forward with interviews for two, two vacancies with two candidates. And, and asking that question at a Council meeting and so I wanted to be able to address it in the report ahead of time, which requires us to have a conversation so I know what to write in the report. And so, so that that's sort of, you know, and I don't know what I think at this point as to what the right choice is. Yeah, I just wanted to add that I do think we have to look at Bruce, who has served on the planning board for eight years as not new in the sense if we're looking at yet that he brings probably more experience than any candidate maybe ever so I just want to add that. Thank you, Shawnee. Yeah, my comment wasn't for Bruce, but I didn't want to single out anybody is just saying it as a general comment but definitely it wasn't directed I learned a lot listening to Bruce today so. And I could keep listening. But anyway, I think what I was going to say is that maybe we can reframe this position as saying we are very fortunate to have two very solid candidates. And could we try for more like not decide today that we already have two really good candidates and try for more I mean but it's ending June 30 so I don't think we have much time. Should we try for some more candidates and then if you don't get within a certain time period that we decide we're like yes, we got to very good candidates. See how hopeful I was. You're muted pat. Never fails that I forget to do that. I'm really interested. It looks like. Well Maria chow is leaving and Jack gem sick are the people that are leaving, which leaves us with Doug Marshall Johanna Janet and Tom, and Mandy since you were involved in the process before. Can you speak to their experience. Maybe new members of the planning board but I don't know, you know what is their experience. I know John Johanna had the least experience in terms of anything but environmental issues. So I think she's had a steep learning curve. But I'm interested in and Janet. I don't know if Janet has had architectural experience or not but so I'm, I'm interested in if you can fill me in a little bit on that before because that might affect how I decide about the two candidates. So Andrew still on right. That's Andrew long. So, yes, I'm sorry. Yes, Andrew. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It's McDougal. It's McDougal. And Andrew McDougal. So of the five. In residents who members who are continuing on because their terms have not expired. Janet McGowan has the longest serving. Time, which is four years. As of June 30th. Of, I think it was three years. And then was reappointed last year. To another term. And, and Andrew and Tom were all appointed at the same time. Which was a year after Janet. And then Doug Marshall was appointed last year to a one year term. Well, two years ago, I guess to, he was appointed to a one year term to fulfill an unexpired term and then was reappointed last year. And I guess. And what it was. So he has now served two. Janet is at four and everyone else's entering, I guess. Third. Pat you're muted. I think, I think I've got those times, but I could be a little bit off. Yeah, no the times are pretty good. But when I'm saying is what is, what was their experience. Many of them. Board of Appeals prior to appointment to our planning board. Johanna is an activist and an environmental fundraiser. So she was brought that experience in. Janet McGowan is an attorney. And Andrew, Tom, Andrew, and Andrew, Tom and Doug all have either architect or engineering type experience, one of whom is more experienced in the real estate side than in the sort of design architecture side. And so that's sort of the background of the current. Maria is an architect. I'm sorry to say that again, Jennifer. Maria Chow is an architect. Yeah, but she's not continuing on. But she's leaving. OK. So if you look at the selection guidance, you will see some of that background in the selection guidance written by Doug Marshall in terms of what the board is losing and what it is not. So that's in brief a summary of the continuing members. Pam and then Pat. Oh, no more hands. Oh, thanks. Yeah, I was going to say Andrew McDougal actually got a landscape architecture degree, but does a lot of retail development kind of thing. So he brings sort of real basic construction and sort of retail outlet space, but falls back on landscape architecture when he needs to. There are currently two full architects on the board, plus Andrew, the landscape architect slash developer, and Janet McGowan with the law degree. Also, having been on the board for now three or four years, reads plans pretty well, I understand. So we would, yeah, I'll just leave it at that. I'm not seeing any other hands. I'm not necessarily seeing any strong desire one way or the other to either formally go forward with the process or formally not go forward and sort of pause the process before I continue my statement, Pam. Well, I would make a motion if that would help your. So I don't think motions are necessary unless we're really divided. So Shalini, and then I'll go back to Pam. Pam, what are your thoughts at least? Yeah. Right. My thoughts are that as awkward as it seems, I think the idea of somehow awaiting a third or fourth miraculous expert is unlikely. I was very pleased at the considerations that both candidates expressed on a whole range of, we put a lot of questions in front of them and I feel that they addressed them well. I am not of a mind to somehow hold up the process to fulfill a different pool, Canada's here, or just a different pool. I guess that's not a good thing. Shalini, you unraised your hand before I recognize Jennifer. Do you want a chance or shall I just go to Jennifer? I guess I could ask the question. I mean, I feel it's more like what the planning board needs and I don't know. I'm just feeling very good. Yeah, I'm sort of confused with what is the right step here and I feel like we have. OK, I guess my question was, I don't have the planning board's recommendation or needs or. It's in the selection guidance, which is in the packet. OK. You want me to tell you what it kind of comes with? No, I think Shalini can pull it up. I can just pull it out and read it quickly. OK. So here's a thought. Jennifer, you go and then I'll propose something. I mean, I do think in terms of what the planning board needs, that these candidates bring what is needed. I don't think the planning board as right now as they are, as lacking for expertise. I mean, they're all very well qualified to be on the planning board and they've been there for two, three and four years. Bruce clearly brings experience and expertise, I mean, for decades. I don't think you get a more experience that's candidate. And then I do think I've always thought this for really, well, like even on the finance committee, I've always felt that it would be a really terrific addition to like almost every board and commission to have a resident member who brings commitment and experience serving and being an active volunteer in town, but who is there kind of representing just the, I don't want to say the average person, but that it's, I think the planning board could almost, it's very heavily weighted to architects, which makes sense. But I think it's really could very helpful to have someone who brings just a general public representation. But again, we have a candidate who brings more than that, who's lived in cities all over the world and has a very broad view of what can be. But I think, so I guess I see both the candidates that we have now bringing a particular perspective in terms of who they, the community and expertise and commitment that would really fit in very well with the current board. And again, I don't think the current board is lacking for qualified members of the planning board. Thank you. It's clear we've moved into wanting to talk about the candidates. So I'm going to, we're going to move into that. My proposal was going to be that we talk about the candidates, we make recommendations, but that we be clear that we leave, essentially we leave the decision on the candidates and the sufficiency of the pool and as whether they want to up to the council by making a recommendation and being clear about the size of the pool and this conversation. So, you know, and letting the full council since it is the council's formal appointment, basically tell us whether or not we should have gone forward by deciding whether or not to make any appointments based on a recommendation we make. So let's, let's discuss the candidates briefly. We've already heard a little bit about each candidate, but would anyone like to say anything about Bruce that they would like to have included in the report? Beyond, I will do a summary myself, but if someone really wants something specifically stated in the report, let me know, Pam. Thanks. So I was on the board. In fact, Bruce recruited me to go on the planning board. So he and I served together. And what he stated is absolutely true. He is very good at collecting the conversation, synthesizing and helping move projects forward. I think the other, the other aspect that I would strongly, strongly state is that both candidates actually are very open and understanding of the role of public comment and public input. And I think that in a town such as ours, we should not be afraid of public comment. We should endorse it and embrace it. And I think both of these candidates, including Bruce, do that. Thank you. Jennifer. Yeah, I also wanted to add Bruce's expertise and everything he brings in terms of his environmental expertise. We're talking about how to bring that lens and all that knowledge. And he was really way ahead of the curve. So I think given all our climate action goals, that would be terrific. And he would be joining John and Newman in that. I think the two together in terms of the climate lens and expertise that would be brought to the planning board would be, Amherst would be very fortunate to have that. Thank you. Shalini. Yeah, I would agree with what both Pam and Jennifer said. And given what I heard Bruce talk about really was aligned with three of our very important goals, which is the climate action goals, and then affordable housing or family housing, which he's initiated and been a leader in that area. So he has that experience in how to initiate new projects and how to make that happen with community engagement. And the third, I even heard him talk about the economics and understanding how we have limited land and why we want to retain open space. There are certain areas that could be developed and how do we do that in a thoughtful way. So I really appreciated him saying that. And I think I agree that we definitely want public engagement. And again, it's just that we, I just want to, and this is even for the candidates and the public and everyone, we really need to try and find ways to engage all stakeholders. So when we say public has spoken, we again are, and we have very vocal residents who made a lot of really good things happen in our town. And at the same time, we're not engaging the entire town and all stakeholders. So I really hope all future candidates and all of us will continue to engage our neighbors and residents and also look at the groups of people who are not being represented. Maybe they will never come to council meetings because they don't have time. But we have to find ways how to get the input of different groups whose voices are not included in our decision making. That's all. Yeah. Thank you. Jennifer. Yeah, I wanted to add this. I just forgot to as I, Bruce and Karen also bring, well, the two candidates come from very different parts of Amherst. And so I think that that's also important that we have, including one of the candidates lives close to the university and close to downtown. And I think that's a good perspective to have on the planning board, which I think has been missing for a long time. Thank you. Comments on Karen, people like included in the report. Pat. Well, she intrigued me for several reasons. One is her personal experience living abroad and also working with children, which is dear to my heart. Her work on the local Historical Commission seems important and gives her a certain kind of experience with public bodies and decision making. She also had a sense or seemed to me to have a sense that that was echoed in Bruce's talk about public comment that it really needed to be able to look at unintended consequences. And so I stand corrected by Jennifer and Pam. I must say that I did not want a question about public comment on the, as you know. And it's not because I'm opposed to public comment, but both people gave me clear examples of how to use it. And I think what I object to with public comment is it's not used to collaborate. It's not used to bring people together. It's in our town right now, as far as I'm concerned, it's used to divide and keep divisions alive like scabs. And so both of them intrigued me in that way. It does seem to me that Karen was very apologetic for herself. And I think that she doesn't need to be. I think that she's bringing an important perspective, which is the layperson's perspective and talked about how hard she's willing to work, what she's willing to learn, what she's willing to do. And I know how hard Bruce works because of his own explanations about working around Amherst media, being on planning board, being appointed arbitrarily, et cetera. So I'm feeling fairly comfortable. Because we had really not very many people coming forward, I'm feeling comfortable with these two candidates. Thank you. I'm going forward with appointing them. Thank you. Pam. We're recommending. Thank you, Pat. Those are good points. Something else about Karen, I was actually surprised and we didn't get a chance to ask her. But my understanding that she has served as an associate member on the zoning board of appeals for several years, at least one year, and there was no mention of it. But my understanding may be wrong that there is still a fair amount of training and learning that goes on to interpret bylaws, to interpret regulations, to make decisions on waivers and setbacks, and all of that stuff that she didn't really mention. Now, maybe, again, we didn't get to ask for that. But maybe she never actually participated in a project discussion. I don't know that. But I can't help but think if she has been exposed to that, that's actually a far better basis than most people who step onto the planning board with zero experience in actually reading and interpreting bylaws. So I thought that could be an oversight. But she's got to have absorbed something from the CDA processes for the last year. Thank you, Shalini. Yeah, I want to appreciate Karen's perspectives, especially around listening and the courage it takes to ask questions. And I think many of us came in with no experience at all. And so again, I also appreciate that comment that we don't need to be apologetic. We don't have previous experience. But what it really is about the willingness to show up fully, to have empathy, to listen to different perspectives. And I really appreciated the fact that they can be contentious, but there's something to learn in that. And Karen is willing to bring that. So yeah, I think those are two very strong qualities of listening and asking questions. Thank you, Jennifer. And then I'm going to make a comment. Well, I know I served with Karen and I just, she is very dedicated and very hardworking and very fair. And in the time she was on the Local Historic District Commission that she's been on, I mean, Amherst Media was, you know, that was really learning kind of trial by fire. So she, it was going over plans and plans and setbacks. And it, you know, learned anyone who went through that process learned a lot about planning. So it was really almost like being on the planning board for that project. And then also in the Local Historic District Commission, you know, I know they, Karen was on and was really a leader in that discussion in a new townhouse development going there. And that was, you know, some may think that a historic district would be resistant to that, but the district wasn't. And Karen was really, you know, very, I would say a leader in let's be open to bringing the new, you know, into this area. So I, you know, again, her, and it's a lot of work being on the planning board. I mean, it's hours of meetings and it's like they have hundred page documents to prepare, which I think may be why there's not as many people lining up as we might like. But so I would say, you know, she is very hardworking, very dedicated. And like I said, very fair and open to all perspectives and open to the new. Thank you. So I want to say I agree with much of what's been said about Karen. I do have concerns. Pam actually mentioned some of that concerns, which is Karen has been an associate member of the ZBA for a year. Now I don't know whether that means she's actually served on an application or not, but it's very concerning to me that it was not mentioned anywhere in the statement of interest or in her interview, even to say, while I've been this, I haven't had an opportunity to do anything with it. And so I don't know what to take from that. You know, I appreciate the lay experience and the lay opinion. I worry if we tilt the planning board, and this goes more towards just in general planning board appointments, if we tilt the planning board more towards that over those that have training in some sense, in some sense, if we make a recommendation for both of these individuals, we will have a planning board that has four individuals trained in planning type experience and three not trained in that experience. Because there will be three architects, I think, yeah. There will be three, four architects, three architects, one landscape architect, an attorney, which I can say my attorney training is not training in planning. And even though it gives me some background along with an environmentalist that has some background, but not necessarily in architecture or engineering, we won't have any engineers, we're stuck with the pool we have, right? And we will be lacking any engineering experience, I believe. And I worry if we tilt too far, but that doesn't mean I don't support a recommendation to support all of these. I'm just concerned at a very young board with a very steep learning curve for one member that we might be recommending. And that person has admitted to a very steep learning curve. And how that will result in discussions at the planning board, I don't know, but that steep learning curve given the youngness of this current planning board and the experience does concern me. And I would have been remiss if I didn't say that. Given this option, I would have really liked to have a lot more applicants. I always like to have more applicants. That's not to say anything about this pool. I was concerned with three when we had three for two spots, you know? And so, but I wanted to mention those concerns specifically even though, you know, I support very much the willingness, the desire to learn the admission of needing that steep learning curve is very important too, because if someone doesn't believe they do, that almost bodes worse than someone who knows they have that, right? And so, and I take all of Jennifer and Jennifer in particular because you've served with both of them on her dedication and her willingness to learn. So I have to take that a lot into consideration as we get here, but I wanted to at least voice some of my concerns with sort of where the planning board as a whole will be if what I believe the recommendation out of this board will be and assuming the council takes that recommendation and votes accordingly, I do have some concerns for the status of the planning board as a whole going forward with its very limited in some sense experience, but I'm done for now, Pat and then Jennifer. Okay, I am unmuted. I'm gonna laugh at you a little bit, Mandy Jo, because your lawyerly training has certainly enabled you to dive into zoning and planning issues very dynamically with and to really in a short period of time develop a deep understanding that I respect. So I guess I disagree that an attorney that who's also the longest, gonna be the longest serving person leaves us in a problematic position. One of the things after having gone through some work with the planning board in the last so many months, I feel like what we do need is a more diverse pool of people and what I respected about Karen, who I've never met before and never worked with is her kind of being able to look at herself. I think and to pinpoint things that she would need to work on. I appreciate that a lot. And I feel like I'm more open for diversity in this instance and experience only because all of the candidates are white, which is really too bad to go along and to say that I certainly can support her and recommend her to the council. Jennifer? Yeah, I guess I spoke to this a little earlier, but I guess I'm not really seeing the planning board as being a new board because three of them, the members have been there three years, one has been there four years. So that seems like, that seems like what Pam? Pam. Pam, I guess we could go over how many years is each person, Janet's been four years. Well, if we start with last July, which is the beginning of the next round. So Doug had served one year and was renewed starting the beginning of a three-year term. He was just an interim something. Janet had been on for three years and is renewed for another three-year term. Andrew, Johanna and Tom all started a year ago, July. So they've all had a year on the board. I see them sort of coming into their own, they're asking questions, they're interacting better. And so I think, and then Bruce, Bruce is like to walk in and just running. So I think his structuring of commentary will be helpful to everybody, whether they have a lot of experience or don't. And I didn't mean to cut to it for a while. No, no, that's fine. I'm glad you corrected me because I wrote it down and I did write it down incorrectly. But I do think Doug Marshall, he brings, you know, he's set years of expertise in planning and Amherst. So you might've just be starting a second year, but I would consider him a very experienced Amherst planner. So I just wanted to just share that I'm not feeling uncomfortable in there not being, you know, in it being a novice board. I think that there's, you know, between at least Doug Marshall, Janet McGowan and if Bruce were to join, that that would be a good number of the board that that brings years of experience. Pam? Thanks. Yeah, I would echo that. I think I am very happy having no more architects. I mean, three architects on a board is way more than usual. Usually there's maybe an architect, a landscape architect, maybe an engineer. There wasn't the whole time I was on the board. There's always been an attorney, which has been great. So I think it's gonna be a pretty decent mix. I have no qualms about that. I'll just leave it at that. Thank you. It sounds like we might be ready for our motion. So I will read a motion based on the conversation. I have heard because then it matches the one that's in my report and it matches what Athena's gonna be putting in her, the motion sheet, it makes it easier. So it's a motion to recommend the town council appoint to the planning board effective July 1, 2022 for terms expiring June 30, 2025 through July 1, 2022. Bruce Coldham and Karen Winter. Welcome. Is there further discussion? Seeing none, we will go to a vote on that motion. We start with Pat. Aye. Mandy is an aye. Pam. Aye. Jennifer. Aye. And Shalini. Yes. That is unanimous. With that vote, we have finished our action items for the evening. I was off by about five minutes. Sorry about that, Athena. There's no unanticipated items. There are no announcements other than we have a meeting next week. I'll post that agenda. Well, I'll send that agenda to Athena soon. I will have that packet ready, I think tomorrow. So I don't know when it'll get on the web but I will be dealing with that tomorrow. It will be rental registration for the whole meeting. So we're going to move one thing earlier. It'll be, we will be discussing about inspections too. We're adding inspections into the discussion, which was not supposed to happen for two more weeks but we're going to do it next week. So with that, unless there are any other hands that need to say anything, I'm going to pause for 10 seconds, Pam, before I adjourn. Pam. Can you just quickly, if you have them in your head, what sections of the, of the current bylaw are we talking about? Give me three seconds and I'll be able to tell you because I have the agenda ready. I only have seven seconds left. So that is the discussion of inspections and other requirements or sections H and I of the referred draft and section seven, nine, and 10 of the current bylaw. Thank you. Is what we're adding into reviewing the language for what we discussed last week. Okay. Thank you. Seeing no other hands, I'm adjourning the meeting at 6.07 p.m. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Bye everybody. Bye. Athena, I'll have that report to you sometime later tonight. Thanks, Mandy. Thank you Athena.