 Again, sorry, Athena. All right, no problem. We're recording now. Excellent. It is 4.32 PM on June 23, 2022, seeing a presence of a quorum of the Community Resources Committee. I am calling this meeting to order. Pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended by chapter 22 of the acts of 22, this meeting will be conducted by a 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 call on both the members of the committee and our three applicants for ZBA interviews to make sure we can hear everyone and everyone can hear us. So I'm going to start with members of the committee. Shalini. I'm here. Mandy is here, Pat. Present. Pam Rooney. And Jennifer Tom. Present. And now we have John Gilbert. Present. Steve Judge. Present. And Sarah Marshall. Present. Welcome to everyone. We're going to go into the interviews. We don't have public hearings. We're going to move right to the interviews I sent out yesterday, I think, the schedule to the CRC members for which questions are being asked. So everyone should have that. I can assist if necessary for that. The applicants will have up to three minutes to answer each question. I will be the one timing all of them. And we will switch the order of response throughout the interview so you're not always following the same person and you're not always going for second or third. We will, however, there is a fourth applicant that cannot attend the interview today. We're not going to discuss anything about whether that person can actually be an applicant because it violates our policy for them not to attend the interview until we get to the recommendation stage. But in an attempt to be accommodating and offer as much options as possible to the council and the committee, that person has submitted answers, written answers to the interview questions. They are in the packet, but I will also read them fourth at the end of everyone's answers. So they will be read fourth. Why me? For each question in that order, and then when we get to the discussion section, we will discuss what to do about that. But I wanted to indicate that to the three applicants that are here in accordance with our policy that says in order to be an applicant, you have to attend the interview. So with that, we're going to get started. I am asking the first question, and the order of answer will be John, then Sarah, then Steve. And the question is, what do you feel you bring to the ZVA that can make it successful? Please include any experience you have appearing before the planning board or ZVA or watching one of their meetings. John. Great. So I have been serving on the ZVA for the past year as an elected full-time member, had extensive experience already supporting the ZVA and the town of Amherst in directing some of these projects that have come through. My background is in architecture. I'm a registered Massachusetts architect, graduate from UMass Amherst graduate program in architecture. So I've worked about seven years professionally as an architect in a lot of design capacities, as well as in some consulting forums with real estate developers throughout the state. I've got extensive experience in the built environment. And again, with respect to the ZVA, I have been able to provide some value over the course of the past year through these expertise. Thank you. Sarah. Thank you. Well, I have never appeared before or served on the planning board or ZVA. I have attended parts of planning board meetings and commented a very small number of times. And I have not watched a ZVA meeting in real time, but I have watched several recorded meetings in whole or part and looked at agendas and packets. Nor, unfortunately, am I a builder, engineer, or architect, although I am married to an architect who can be a resource for me if I need to understand plans and submissions. But what I will bring to the board if I am appointed as full-time or associate member is my proven experience as a dedicated member of various committees and boards, particularly the Recreation Committee and Community Preservation Act Committee, or CPAC. I'm stepping down from those positions after about five years of service. And I think that my colleagues on those committees would say that I prepare thoroughly and collegial and listen to the input of others. I respect the constraints of open meeting law and as chair of CPAC manage meetings efficiently. I have paid close attention to the details of the CPA program, our application and review processes, and CPA finances. And I think my presentations on behalf of CPAC to the Finance Committee and Town Council have been focused and responsive to concerns. So I feel I have the committee skills, if not the training that would enable me to be an effective member. Thank you. Thank you, Sarah. Steve. Well, I've served on the ZVA for five years. One is an associate member, two years as a full member, and two years as chair. So I think I have the experience and knowledge about the ZVA to continue to be a valuable member. I've not appeared, but I've watched the planning board. I think they have a little different focus. They do have a different focus than we do on the ZVA. And I think it's helpful for us to look at the planning board. But I think my experience more closely with the ZVA and I think that the ZVA has run well in the last two years. And since I've been chairman and I anticipate it would continue to run well with me as a member whether chairman or not. Thank you, Steve. And I'm going to now read John Varner's written response to question number one. While I have never brought an issue before the ZVA or planning board, I feel my experience is on serving on town meeting for six years, including the years of debate on the last parking garage. And my functioning as a member of a professional organization representing acupuncturists before the Massachusetts Board of Medicine and at public hearings. And meetings have given me insight into the workings of governing bodies working on difficult issues. So we next will move to Shalini to ask question number two. All right, so this time we're going to start with Sarah. And the question is, tell us about an experience you've had collaborating with a group, particularly where opinions conflicted or the decision was controversial. Thank you. Some of you will be familiar with what I'm going to say. So during my time on CPAC, the Friends of the Jones Library first submitted a request for a million dollars grant two and a half years ago. And in all my service on that committee, no other request triggered as much disagreement among committee members as that one. And naturally, public comment was also strong on both sides. And despite extensive discussion, there was no meeting of the minds in that case. The vote was split. Members disagreed, but everyone was civil and discussed the pros and cons in detail. That particular request from the library was first approved, then withdrawn, and then it submitted a new proposal in the next grant round. And while CPAC unanimously voted for the second proposal, we still received numerous comments in writing and at the hearing, both supporting and objecting to the project. But we kept our focus on the grant application and on the purpose and requirements of the CPA program and set aside comments that asked us to go beyond our authority or raised matters that were not for CPAC to decide. Thank you. Next is Steve Judge. Do you want me to repeat the question? I think I got it, Jolani. Thank you. Well, I've had tons of experience with organizations dealing with conflict. It's my career before I came to Amherst was I was first a congressional staffer. I was a deputy staff director for the House Banking Committee. And in that role, you try to find a center path or a mid-path between competing often warring factions and while it's not the staff's role to take votes, the staff role is to facilitate that. So I had a lot of experience watching and facilitating a consensus or at least majority rule amongst very highly opinionated people in very fraught circumstances. Later on, I was the president and CEO of a trade association of financial service firms. As such, I ran, I chaired the board of directors. These were high-powered firms and individuals who had competing goals. And the goal of the organization was to hold the whole industry together and to do that successfully and we did. So my professional experience has been almost entirely in legislative, political, board kinds of works. And I think that draws well upon who sets me up well to continue to work on the ZBA. And I think on the ZBA, we've done a pretty good job of getting consensus out of the ZBA when possible. You, John, you're next. Great, yeah, I'll maybe hopscotch off a little with Steve said there. Working on the ZBA with Steve and the other members for this past year, there have been moments of, I would, I'd say conflict and sort of disagreements, but in general, I think we've been pretty successful at having sort of meaning of the minds on a lot of these projects, even where there are base-level disagreements, sort of historic throughout my career, again, as an architect, dealing with ZBA in Boston in particular, professionally on projects that I was designing and managing. There's a lot of competing interests, of course, with the developer, with the designer, with the members of the public and the butters. And a lot of what my work in this public sort of forum was about was sort of guiding the design intent, knowing what the developer's goals were, but also knowing how these projects, of course, impacted the immediate community members and trying to sort of relay all of this information into a final product. So I'd say throughout the course of my career, I've been exposed to a lot of conflict, of course, through rebuilding, but I've felt a pretty successful approach to make sure that multiple opinions are being considered and pushing ideas forward in order to create the best benefit at the end of the day. Thank you, John. And now I'll read John Varner's answer. I have served in several organizations in various roles of governance. I was a member of the Board of the Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine Society of Massachusetts for many fractious years while we sought insurance and licensure reforms. I was an Amherstown meeting member for six years. I was a union shop steward at UMass during the period I took graduate courses there. And I am currently co-director and studio manager for the Mud Pie Pottery Collective Studio at Lever Crafts and Arts Center. In these capacities, I have maintained a stance of principled idealism while seeking realistic solutions to a wide variety of problems, personal, logistical, and organizational. Thank you, Mendejo. Over to you, Jennifer. I'm sorry, I just had skipped down to Pat. So this question will first be directed to Sarah and then Steve and John. So, and the question is, do you understand the role of the ZBA and how it differs from the role of the planning board? Sarah, thanks. Well, I think I do to a degree, but I'm sure I have much to learn. Their spheres of action, as specified in the zoning by-law and the regs, seem to be distinct and not overlapping, which is important in my case because my husband is serving on the planning board. And importantly, it is my understanding that neither body oversees the decisions of the other so that their territories are mutually exclusive. I understand that the ZBA handles four types of actions. As the name indicates, the board hears appeals from property owners who are unhappy with either actions of the building commissioner or who are appealing certain provisions of the zoning by-law. And the other two types of work for the ZBA are to develop and grant special permits and comprehensive permits for affordable housing projects. Why certain special permits are assigned to the ZBA and others to the planning board? I do not know, but I doubt it. I need to know. And one thing that the planning board does that the ZBA does not, as far as I understand, is to develop new by-laws. Thank you, Sarah. And we'll move to Steve. Would you like me to repeat the question? No, I got it here. Thank you, Jennifer. Thank you. Yeah, I think I do understand the two different roles, although I don't understand totally the role of the planning board because I haven't spent a lot of time focused on it. But the ZBA handles applications for special permits, variances, and appeals of the commissioners, building commissioners decisions. By far, the biggest portion of that is special permits which really are a case-by-case evaluation and then vote on whether a specific project can proceed based upon the zoning by-law and the way in which the zoning by-law permits the ZBA to grant exceptions for lack of a better term to the strict interpretation of the by-law or the by-law specifically allows that activity, but conditions that activity or use on a special permit. So the ZBA tends to be more case-specific. The zoning, the planning board deals more with projects. And when they're dealing with a specific case, it deals with a project that is done by right on that property and really only has to make a decision regarding, and recommendations regarding design, color for lack of a better term, those kinds, it's artistic or aesthetic impact on the neighborhood, which is probably not fair, but it's what comes to mind to me. In addition, they do a lot of work with recommending changes to zoning by-laws and doing some overall town planning and working with the master plan. So the ZBA is much more in a semi-adjudicative process of application of the zoning by-laws and the authority of the ZBA to make exceptions or to approve uses that are approved to allow them to the zoning by-law. The planning board is more site plan review for things by right, as well as more general or long-term planning role. Hey, thank you very much. And John, would you like me to repeat the question? No, that's okay, I got it now, thanks. Yeah, so the planning board basically exists to help guide the growth and development of the town of Amherst as a sort of larger picture scope to it. ZBA deals with case-by-case basis use of projects that are not compatible basically with zoning law. However, based on the zoning by-law, these projects are reviewed for variances, special permits, et cetera. So I think, you know, generally with respect to everything that the members here have said, you know, I think the planning board is having sort of broad scope in terms of how the town grows and develops, you know, what the focus is, of course, Stephen Williams' aesthetics and things of that nature, whereas the zoning board appeals is dealing with case-by-case projects based on the zoning by-law. Thank you. And Mandy Jo, to read John Barners. Thank you. John Barner wrote, yes, planning board sets rules designed to address the development of the town at large and ZBA deals with specific cases where planned projects conflict with established policies. Thank you. And now Pat, to you. You're muted. Lo siento, I'm sorry. And I'm gonna be speaking to Steve first or asking him to respond first. When interpreting a provision of the zoning by-law, should the ZBA consider the original intent of the provision, its common sense, meaning, or something else? I think it's all those. So I guess it's something else, it's combination. All those are instructive to what we should consider in making our decisions. And it really is a case-by-case basis. So I don't think, I'm not a constructionist Thank you. Yeah, I thought that go over well in Amherst. I don't, there's very many of us. I'm not a strict constructionist. I think it's a evolving process. Common sense sometimes is just, doesn't, isn't favored by the zoning by-law. And that's just the way it is. I mean, so neither of them work all the time. And so I think it's something else. There's times when there's just, what seems to be common sense isn't permitted either by special, by any case. So you can't always go by that. And you have to follow the zoning by-law. So that's the key thing is following the zoning by-law. Interpreting it is just to use your best judgment, the judgment of staff, the judgment of your other members and come to the best decision you can. Thank you. John? Yeah, I agree with Steve, it's all the above here. You know, it's common sense, it's original intent, but it's really, you know, it's a case by case basis. It's looking at the zoning by-law as that applies to, you know, each and every project. But, you know, there's not one standard recipe. And of course the by-law exists for us to analyze these projects, but every project has its own sort of synchrosines and sometimes common sense butts up against the intent and what's sort of clearly written within the by-law. There's times where the by-law is also sort of open to interpretation and that's where the CDA, I think, gains its strength amongst its members, you know, sort of communicating the differences of communities trying to come to, you know, general consensus here. So it's all the above and it's a circumstantial case. Okay, thank you. And Sarah, I skipped you, but now I'm asking you. That's all right, it's time for me to go last. I find the question interesting because it suggests that the intent may conflict with common sense meaning. And since I don't know of any such case in the ZBA from experience, I've been trying to imagine an example. Perhaps there's a provision about where or how vehicles can be stored, which assume that the vehicles would use fossil fuels, but maybe in the particular case in 2022, the owner would only have electric vehicles, which was not envisioned when the by-law was written. So common sense might tell us that the provision is not needed in such a case, but whether legally the ZBA has the authority to waive or modify the provision is a different matter. Presumably conflicts like this hypothetical could prompt changes to the regulations over time. In any case, how can the ZBA know the intent of a provision if it is not spelled out in the by-law? I do feel like a constitutional scholar. This is more challenging. You might need to find the minutes of the discussion or a memo that explained the thinking behind the provision before it was adopted. In any case, my answer is also all of the above. And I would want as deep an understanding as I could get, certainly with advice from staff or the town's attorneys if necessary. And I would think that in the end, an interpretation cannot conflict with the general aims of the zoning by-law or the master plan. Thank you, Sarah. Mandy? That would be Pam. Nope, I have to read John Varner's answer. So John Varner wrote to that one, I'm losing my place, that's number four. Common sense should be applied to every act of governance, but as Franklin authored, common sense is an uncommon commodity. So we have established codes to live by and appeals boards to apply common sense to the enforcement or alterations of the codes. Now it's Pam. Thank you so much. We're gonna start with John Gilbert, then Steve, then Sarah. And the question is, whose interests do you think are most important in special permit or site plan review applications? The town's staff, the landowner or applicant, the parties in interest, meaning via butters or other residents? And we'll start with John Gilbert, please. Good, thanks, Pam. Yeah, there's not one main interest of importance, I would suggest it's a combination of all these things. I think I alluded to this in one of my earlier responses some of my work, for example, with the CBA up here in Boston professionally, it's sort of a meeting of the minds on these projects. And again, the zoning bylaw exists to give the CBA direction and guidance, but at the same time, as has been stated, every project is different. And certain projects might have differences of opinion from neighbors, from the butters, from town staff. So it's really sort of holistically looking at all of these opinions and interests and concerns and using the zoning bylaw to give some direction to the decision that is made, obviously being considerate of multiple perspectives in a way that in the long run will hopefully benefit not only most amount of people, but also great development that has some intergenerational benefits long term as well. Thank you. Steve? Yeah, I think John's right, they're all important. Each of them have their role and not know one of them is more important than the other. Town staff is incredibly, they have great expertise, they have institutional knowledge, they have the, they understand the zoning bylaw better than many of us on the ZBA do. So they're important. The landowner, that's their property and we have to respect what their concerns are and how they wish to use it and give some deference to that. In addition, the parties that interest the butters and others are affected by the decisions that would be made by the ZBA and can affect their life directly in the life of the town as well as others in the town. So all are important. And the question is for the board, how do you balance those out? And that's the process that the board goes through in this deliberation over granting an application for special permit, a waiver, or an appeal of a ruling of the building commissioner. So there is no one that overrides them all. It's part of the judgment process that hopefully comes out of the five members of the ZBA. Thank you very much, Sarah. Thanks. Well, I hope that the ZBA encourages all parties to collaborate if they have not done so before a hearing begins. And in fact, I assume that most applicants if they are thinking strategically do reach out to their butters and other parties ahead of time to try to have a meeting of the minds before the hearing begins. On video, I have observed discussions of a large project before ZBA that clearly had been revised several times to satisfy neighbors' concerns. And the general tenor of that conversation seemed constructive and not argumentative. But I expect that sometimes and a butters concerns are not reasonable. And I would not want the a butter to effectively have veto power over someone else's property. I can also imagine however a situation where the public's interest is significant because perhaps a public good is being created or modified. The town staff's interest was mentioned and I'm in the question and I'm not sure what interests town staff have other than ensuring that the ZBA is following the law. I would certainly be very reliant on their expertise and guidance. But all that said and desirable, although it is to satisfy everybody, it's my belief that our country recognizes and enforces strong property rights and the zoning bylaw and regulations define the extent of the public's control over private property. And those limits must not be exceeded lest the ZBA or planning board face legal challenge. So if it seems impossible to satisfy all parties' needs and an application can reasonably be said to meet all the legal requirements, then I think I would lean towards the interest of the property owner. But of course, since I haven't done this yet, I might feel quite differently once the process begins. Thank you. Thank you. And now from John Varner. This is what he wrote. Without specifics, judging whose interests should be given primacy are hard to determine. I believe the quote health of the environment should be an overarching consideration. Abutters, especially long-standing abutters often feel they have a tacit level of protection afforded by existing town policies and that should be given a lot of weight. Infringing on this relationship warrants the most serious of considerations as it essentially involves the abrogation of a tacit contract between the town and the resident of butters. In some cases, this may be trivial. In some cases, it may be grave. Thank you. The next question is, 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? So we'll start with Steve and then John and then Sarah. Steve, you're up next, thank you. Sure, I'm not really sure about the question. Waivers, exceptions, and dimensional special permits. I think of dimensional special permits are something we do all the time. It's frequently asked that there is a preexisting non-conforming house that sits close to the property line and they're asking to make some changes to it or to move something. And you have to permit that continuation of that building even though or maybe extend the building along that same line because it makes sense and it doesn't dramatically affect the butters of the neighborhood. And so you've given a special permit to further violate the dimensional line in the bylaws. But it was something that existed before. Those things happen and especially in older neighborhoods where you have homes and businesses which were plotted a long time ago. And so those are fairly common requests and they're not uniformly granted but they're considered quickly. We try to consider them quickly. Waivers and exceptions, I'm not really clear what that means. We grant waivers, I guess we grant waivers sometimes for requirements in the application to have certain plans, a lighting plan or a parking plan or a landscape plan or a management plan. And sometimes we'll grant waivers if it's not really needed. If you're just gonna add on something to the back if the lighting is not going to change it's gonna be the same. We can waive the lighting plan requirement or we can, they're not changing landscaping. We can waive the landscaping plan requirement. So those are kind of case by case. I don't see that as a waivers are not a big problem. If we need to have the information if we feel that what they're asking to be waived is essential to the application we won't waive it. So it's just a judgment call as to whether you're creating a burden an unnecessary burden on the applicant to have them fulfill something that doesn't need to be done. I don't really know what the, I'm not certain what the exception means there. So I don't know if that answered your question very well but in my experience, waivers and dimensional special permits are something we deal with. Thank you, Steve. Yep. John, I think we're up next. Great, thanks. Yeah, they're necessary. The town of Amherst is almost 300 years old in some of the bylaw again, exists to give us some guidance but all of these projects as you know, I've been set up close to this afternoon have some extenuating special circumstances. So waivers, exceptions and dimensional special permits do come up as Steve has mentioned. We have dealt with them over the past year on a variety of projects but it's of course one-off cases. I am sort of of the opinion that the goal is not to sort of freehand these, let's say dimensional special permits in particular out in order to create precedent, right? Because then that sort of goes against the entire framework of the zoning board. You don't want to create precedent from projects that go against the zoning law itself. So these things are very necessary. Again, especially considering the age of the town, the lot dimensions to a lot of these properties, just zoning changes over time. But the goal is again, not to create an overarching precedent in these projects themselves. It should always be sort of approach case by case and this gives us a little bit of flexibility to do it in this extenuating circumstances. Thank you, John and Sarah. Thanks. It's sensible for a zoning bylaw to allow for waivers and exceptions and to require special permits because the bylaw cannot efficiently spell out every possible real world zoning land use and construction issue and how to resolve each one. But it is also smart for the zoning bylaw to be quite specific about when an owner can apply for a waiver or exception, what can be waived and to be specific about the limits of the ZBA's power to grant those exceptions. And where the zoning bylaw does not spell out the decision criteria, the decision still must enhance the public health and welfare and cannot conflict with the general goals of the bylaw. So if a waiver is lawful and the board is persuaded that it has merit, then it can be granted, but not set precedent. John Varner wrote, please refer to my answers to questions four and five. Okay, I think it's... Okay, I have a short question and I think we'll start with Sarah this time and then to John Gilbert and then to Steve. So the question is, what is your approach to incorporating public input into your decision-making? Well, I hope that I would have an open mind and be willing to be swayed by arguments made by the public. And I hope that the board can recognize and respond to comments even if dialogue during meetings isn't permitted because sometimes members of the public feel that their comments go into a black hole and are ignored when in fact they are, in fact, they are considered. In the case of specific applications to the ZBA, I can imagine the public comment can be very helpful, very useful in adding additional information and perspectives about pros and cons of the existing condition and the possible impacts of the changes being sought. But in the end, the ZBA at least for special permits needs to make numerous explicit findings in order to issue a permit. And if the findings are met, it is perhaps, again, I don't have the experience to be sure, but perhaps obliged to issue that permit even over objections of other parties. Thank you, Sarah and John, what are you next? Sure, thank you. Yeah, you have to recognize the comments, the public input, you have to sort of consider them and weigh the specific feedback against what the general project intent is, as well as, again, what the ZONE bylaw itself sort of gives us some power to allow for. So, I think there's like, again, a common theme through a lot of these responses that there's a lot of different parties that come into these projects in the built environment. It's not simply developers, it's not simply architects, it's community members, town members, members of the board, et cetera. And because these projects have like a propensity to sort of encroach on a lot of people's sort of opinions, it's important to hear them out and do our best, members of the media, of course, to incorporate that feedback where applicable, a way that helps drive the projects forward. And at least, in my experience over the past year, serving on the ZVA, I've seen that process actually carried out pretty effectively, of butters, neighbors, just people within the neighborhood in general, perhaps not immediately flooding the project site, have been able to provide, in some cases, some pretty useful feedback. And we have seen, we as members of the ZVA, have seen the developers actually incorporate that into project changes. And that's sort of where the public-private role is able to actually meet in the middle. And in my opinion, that's where the most successful development comes with the people as though their opinions are sort of incurred and I have warned. Of course, that's not always going to be the case, but by, again, recognizing and giving some space to these differences of opinion is really the first step in addressing them and potentially incorporating them into project changes. Thank you. Steve. Thank you. This really goes to the point of the deliberation of the Council and of the Zoning Board of Appeals. And that's really what we're empowered to do and what you want us to do, is to take various issues and various interests, hear them all, and then make our decision based on what's best for the town, consistent with the zoning bylaw. So my, as chairman of the ZBA, I do a couple of things to make sure that the public's comments are considered. The first thing is I make sure to read every public comment before the Board meeting. Sometimes that's a lot of them. As you, as council members know, this is not a town that is shy in expressing its opinion. And they're very good. They're almost, without exception, they lend some kind of light to the project that we may not have thought of. So every one of those is read. Everyone is noted at the meeting so that the public knows of the other public comments. And then, and I think most of my board members, most members of my fellow board members, I do the same thing. Secondly, we make sure to have public comments whenever there is, when we're in a public hearing setup, and we set time aside for that. And then the response from the applicant to those comments is made to the Board. It's not a direct discussion with the public commenter, but they're given a chance to respond. In that way, we get to try to evaluate the public comment against what the applicant says directly. And that helps us make our decisions based upon the public comment and the response of the applicant. So I think it's really important. It is really important to make sure that people feel, what I think it all, what this all points to is, you need to have the ZBA have legitimacy in the town. And the way that has to happen is we have to do our job well. That means we have to understand the by-law. We have to work within the by-law. We have to give space, as John said, to public comment. And we have to evaluate all those and come up with a decision that makes sense. And that gives us the validity in the eyes of the public to continue to do our job. If we don't do that, we're not serving the good of the town and that's what we're there for. Thank you very much, Steve. And Mandy, to read John Varner's response. He wrote, public input should be of paramount importance and should be encouraged as much as possible. The town belongs to all its residents, not one individual or one small group or another with some vested interest. While individual citizens must take responsibility to stay informed, adequate time and notice should be given and made as publicly known and available as possible. It's my turn again and I'm gonna be starting with Steve. What else would you like us to know about you that makes you a strong candidate for the ZVA, Steve? You know, I don't want to be glib, but I think I referred to it earlier. I've done this for five years. I think you know my, or you could know my record on the board. And I think the board has worked pretty well. Over the last couple of years. It's been extremely difficult with Zoom as opposed to in-person. And that requires an additional effort to try to gather collegiality consensus because we need to have four votes for most four out of five votes for most things. You need to have close to consensus. And I think we've done that pretty successfully. Not everybody agrees with every issue, but if we have more than one person that doesn't agree on a special permit, we can't approve it. So, and we've been successfully approving the special permits with the conditions on it that we thought were important. So I think the board has run well over the last couple of years and I can foresee it continuing to run well. Thank you, Steve. And I'm gonna go to John. Thanks. Yeah, I don't want to reiterate too much of what has already been said, but having served on the ZVA for the past year, I think I've been able to develop like a pretty keen insight into competing interests within the town. And that's a pretty valuable trait to pull forward hence my interest in also renewing here. Through my professional career as an architect, I've worked on projects of all scopes and scales. So while Amherst is quite unique in the writing projects that come through, there is still a variety of projects. And I like to think that at least my professional background has benefited me in being able to have some flexibility in analyzing and providing some feedback as my role as a board member based on different scales and sort of scopes of projects that have passed through ZVA. I've lived in Amherst on and off for I think six years, something to that degree now, both during my time in architecture, also a recent graduate from Eisenberg in my MBA. So Amherst has held a special place in my heart even with a lot of bouncing around and living in Boston in the light. And from my perspective being able to provide some value to guiding thoughtful, long-term oriented development throughout the town is really what I want to bring and feel at least I've been able to offer for the past year and be able to continue to do that in the future. Thank you, John. Sarah? My professional work has always been science related in one form or another. My training and work as a scientist, teacher and consultant always centered attention to detail, objectivity, questioning and weighing of evidence. These habits of mine will be useful to me if I'm appointed in a role where so much critical review and thoroughness are needed. Thank you. Mandy? I will read John Varner's response. He writes, I believe my 30 years as an Amherst resident and property owner and my rich employment history and association memberships give me an in-depth perspective and a broad set of skills to bring to the zoning board of appeals. I spent several years as an employee of the National Park Service giving me a deep appreciation of the need to respect and conserve natural resources. I worked for a few years in biotech first in a startup in Amherst and then as one of the firm's employees in the Worcester Biotech Park. I have several years experience as a builder and remodeler having built several houses in the area and remodeled commercial locations in Amherst, Northampton, Hadley and Montague. Finally, I have been an acupuncturist now semi-retired working in a private practice and in the employment of Bay State Pain Management Center in Springfield for 20 years. In addition to my work history, I have served in several organizations in various roles of governance. I was a member of the Board of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine Society of Massachusetts for many fractious years. While we sought insurance and licensure reforms, I was an Amherst town meeting member for six years. I was a union shop steward at UMass during the period I took graduate courses there and I am currently co-director and studio manager for the Mud Pie Pottery Collective Studio at Leverett Crafts and Arts Center. In these capacities, I have maintained a stance of principled idealism while seeking realistic solutions to a wide variety of problems. That brings us to me asking the last question. Please answer this question yes or no. Please confirm that you have the time to commit to meetings, hearings and site visits. John Gilbert. Yes. Thank you, Sarah Marshall. Yes. Steve Judge. Yep. And John Varner writes, yes, as a self-employed and semi-retired individual, I have time and energy for this position. I believe that ends our interviews. I want to thank all three of our applicants for coming to the interviews today and sitting with us for the interviews. I know two of you have a meeting that starts in 40 minutes. So I appreciate you being willing to come early in order to stay on Zoom and then go back to that meeting. What will happen is after I finish this, we will remove you from the panelists section of this meeting. You're welcome to stay, although we will not be going directly into discussions at this time because we have some stuff from the planning department that needs heard and they want to discuss it before the ZBA meeting at six. So we're trying to get them through before the recommendations. So we're actually going to do that before we go back to as a CRC group discussing the interviews, the applications and making recommendations to the town council. When those are made, I will try to remember to email all of you tonight. I failed in that last time and remembered just before the meeting, but I do my best to notify all applicants about the motions that were made and the votes so that they know ahead of time before the council meeting what might be going on at the council meeting. So I will do my best to do that tonight. If we make recommendations tonight, if we do make recommendations at today's meeting, they will be on the council agenda for action on Monday's council meeting. And if votes are done there, then any appointments made would become effective July one because that's when things are there. Are there any questions before we move on in our meeting? Seeing none, thank you all again for taking the time out to come and interview and make it through this process. And while I've got Steve and John here, thank you for your service for the past number of years on the ZBA. And Sarah, thank you for your service on CPA committee. And I think it was recreation that put you on CPA. And so we appreciate all of our residents that are willing to take time to serve the town. So thank you all. And we're going to move on to our next agenda item now. So Athena, can you please move on and Steve to the attendee section? And once they are all moved, we will move on to what we're gonna go with is I think we've got everyone, Rob and Ben and Chris and Maureen and Dave, Rob and Dave, if they don't start their videos, I'm gonna have someone try and I think they're both in town hall right now. There's Rob's. And Dave doesn't show up soon, we'll get him started too. We're gonna move on to the proposal to make permanent certain aspects of zoning by law, article 14, there is a PowerPoint in your packet. I believe, I don't know who it is, Ben or Maureen or Rob, someone's going through that if not all three of you are today. And so I think we've got everyone moved. So yeah, let's get started because I know Maureen and Rob, you guys have that six o'clock meeting, maybe Ben does too, to go to too. So we're on a time limit here. So who's starting? I'm gonna get started. Thanks, Mandy. Unless Chris or Rob, do you have any introduction to make? Okay. So I'm gonna share my screen, put the PowerPoint up. So yeah, we're here to talk to you about article 14. As you all know, article 14 is a temporary zoning article that was put into effect during the COVID pandemic. So I'm gonna talk about kind of the impact that article 14 has had, its success. And then Maureen is gonna talk about our proposal to make aspects of article 14 permanent. So yeah, just presentation outline. I'm gonna give you a little bit of background and then talk about next steps. So just a little bit of background to start. Article 14 was put into effect, I don't know the exact date, but early on in the COVID-19 pandemic, obviously Amherst was severely impacted economically by the COVID pandemic students leaving Amherst and it really had a big impact on our downtown restaurants especially. So the article 14 was put into effect as a way to both expedite new businesses entering downtown but also to easily allow the expansion of new businesses to include outdoor dining, for example, or to expand their footprint. The way this was done was by the relaxing of zoning requirements and to allow certain uses to be approved administratively rather than by site plan review or special permit. Article 14 has been extended, I think at least twice since it was first put into place. However, it expires in six months on December 31st, 2022. And I think it was this body, the CRC, that expressed a desire to not extend it further but to make aspects of it permanent, which is why we're here today. I think Rob can speak to this a bit more. There haven't been any issues that have arisen out of these administrative approvals. It's been applauded by the business community and we haven't had really any issues with the administrative approval. And so it brings me to my last point, which is there's interest from the CRC, which we've heard town staff and certainly the Amherst business community in continuing these aspects of Article 14. So we're gonna talk just today about the nuts and bolts about how that could happen. Here's just a little bit more about the purpose of why we want to do this. We think by streamlining some of the permitting processes, processes that could reduce cost and permitting requirements for businesses that are really the core of our downtown, we wanna encourage business owners to consider relocating to Amherst or locating in Amherst. The bid and chamber support these efforts and so we're wanting to support them as well. And really, we have decades of experience as a town permitting and approving restaurants, whether through site plan review or special permit or administratively. So we have a lot of practice and procedures for doing this. And so we have kind of this list of standard conditions that we put on, that are put on these types of applications. So we're looking to build off of that experience to make more streamlined processes. And so that's the last point is to just make sure that if we are gonna make things more streamlined that they're properly conditioned and have the right standards and conditions attached to those approvals as well. So just a little bit about the nuts and bolts of how this could happen. And this is also a little bit overview of the presentation to come. So planning staff, we've been looking at just a review of the status or I guess the pre COVID days, how things were permitted before article 14. So we're gonna review the permit pathway for the food and drink establishments and then how they're classified. And then Maureen's gonna discuss the re-classification of food and drink establishments, some changes to the permitting pathways and standards and conditions that we might consider. And so currently the zoning by-law, the current use categories that we have for restaurants or I guess food and drink establishments, we have really three categories. There's class one, which are restaurants, cafes, lunchroom, cafeteria or similar places. So these are class one restaurants and these are permitted by site plan review in all commercial and business districts. Class two restaurants are permitted by special permit in all business and commercial districts. And really the difference between class one and class two restaurants is that class one restaurants close before 1130 and there might be more to it. That's really one of the major differences is that distinguishes the class one and two restaurants. And then lastly, we have class three restaurants which are drive-up only. We don't have very many of those, if any. They're in the commercial district only and they're permitted by special permit. So we're mainly focusing on class one and two restaurants today. And we're gonna make some proposals for how we could better define and classify restaurants rather than just based on the hours of operation really. And so this, to my next point, the way we currently classify food and drink establishments is really based on their hours of operation, whether it's open past 1130 or not, whether alcohol is served or not. And then there are some considerations for a proximity to residential zoning districts. I think it's 150 feet. You're held to a higher standard if you're in that proximity to a residential zoning district. So now I'm gonna ask Maureen to chime in. I know you have to go soon for the ZBA meeting. Yeah, do you mind switching to the different slides for me? Yeah, absolutely. Okay, cool. Okay, thanks everyone. So we propose to consider reclassifying the food and drink establishments based on a variety of factors. That are including the intensity of the use, queuing lines outside, how people wait in line to get into a restaurant or a bar, noise levels, as well as whether food is served or not and the capacity load of how many people would be in a restaurant at any given time. And so we are looking at one, two, three, four different use types. The first one would be a restaurant, a cafe or a bar, any sort of restaurant or bar like place that serves food at all times of operation. And we want to have further consideration of really small establishments and existing buildings that have 20 seats or less or a number around that. And that would be classic places like MoMA or glazed donuts or the once glazed donuts that we had. And Arigato and small restaurants like that, we would like to consider having a use classification just for those small sorts of restaurants and existing buildings and to have a use for bars that don't serve food or just have very minimum prepackaged food and or allow takeout food. Some examples would include like moan and dove, they have peanuts that people can grab and bring back to the table. The spoke allows folks to bring in takeout food, which I actually just learned of. And the Drake has a bagged popcorn for people going to shows there. And then another classification we're looking at is nightclubs as defined by the building code. And some typical factors of like a nightclub to distinguish like a nightclub versus like a restaurant or a bar is that nightclubs have low lighting levels, they have loud music, a dense amount of occupants that are usually standing or dancing and not there's hardly any tables, if any at all. And they have typical door opening times such as like when the nightclub opens and then at the end of the night when everyone wants to leave. And then the last use that we're looking at is any of the above food and drink establishments with more than 250 occupants allowed. And so those would be geared towards larger capacity places opposed to smaller restaurants. And there are typically restaurants in Amherst that we've done some preliminary research is, there are majority of restaurants that are less than 200, but there are some out there that are more than 250 such as like the hangar is a good example on university drive. I think the capacity there it might be even over 400. So that's a big capacity if you go to the next slide. And so we wanna consider changes to the standards and conditions for each of those proposed use types that we indicated in the last slide in the zoning bylaw. So the current standards and conditions under the zoning bylaw for the existing uses, the class one, the class two and the class three restaurants are very limiting. There's not a lot of information or requirements for these use types. And it could be expanded to make the process more clear, predictable and coordinated and timely which would be really beneficial both for the applicant so like a restaurateur or for like the ZBA or the planning board or the building commissioner they would know precisely really what are the big factors that need to be or criteria that needs to be fulfilled in order for a restaurant or bar to open. And so bit by bit the ZBA and the planning board have gradually built a set of effective boiler plate conditions as part of the proof permits. And that's been with the assistance of the building commissioner and planning staff. And it's worked really well and we've built these boiler plate conditions over several years. So based on every decision we write we expand it a little more, it gets evolved a little more and it gets better and better and better but we wanna have a consistent criteria that would be applied to all restaurants or bars that want to come into Amherst. So to really formalize that for each of the use types. And we similarly, if you're familiar with the zoning amendment that we went through last year with the accessory dwelling unit that was kind of the same process of like, the ZBA on a routine basis would include these boiler plate conditions. And we wanted to say, hey, let's standardize these criteria and put it in the bylaw so we can make it simpler and more effective for both the applicant and for the town. So we see this as a really good opportunity. Next slide. And so we wanna consider allowing like restaurants and bars that serve food to be permitted by CyPlan review. And so those would be restaurants and bars that serve food. And then we want to provide further consideration of very small establishments in existing buildings, as I mentioned before. Adigato, a good example that had 20 seats or less or a pita pocket, it'd be a really good example. Places like that. And consider making those buy-right uses that would be really helpful and beneficial for the small restaurant owners that are just starting off a business and we wanna provide much support as much as we can through the local government. And then we propose that there'd be a special permit process for bars with no food served because the intensity of that use is beginning to change. It's bar with alcohol, there might be queuing, there might be noise activity, there would definitely need to be like crowd control items and ID checking. And so things of that nature need to be really reviewed and to make sure that that use is compatible with the surroundings. So we would propose that bars with no food would be by special permit review and approval. And certainly with nightclubs, again, now the intensity of that use is expanding even greater, more loud music, perhaps longer queuing lines outside. And so we really would wanna make sure that a nightclub that's being managed properly. And so a site plan review and approval would be our recommendation. And then establishments with more than 250 occupants allowed for any of the above uses mentioned would be also by special permit. So a restaurant that serves food that is a really large restaurant that's over 250 occupants or I think maybe, let's see here, I'm trying to think of an example, but like I guess the hangar would be an example of that. They have a very large restaurant with a high capacity which has an increased intensity of use in it and potential impacts on that surrounding. So having stringent conditions more so than just having a criteria in the bylaw, we would wanna give the discretion to the ZBI to even provide more stringent conditions on a permit to ensure that it would have no ill effect to the surrounding. And next slide, let's see here. And so there would be other zoning with these proposals that we're presenting to you, they would have other minor adjustments to the zoning bylaw and procedural changes that would be sort of the domino effect. So we would need to amend Article 11 to detail the administrative approval decision and filing with the town clerk. And we would have to consider how to publicly post administrative applications and associated approval decisions. So how do we use technology? How do we use the website as a wonderful tool to get the word out to the members of the public of all of these applications and decisions? We just got this new permitting software called Open Gov and it has all bells and whistles. So we think that we could really streamline this process both for the applicant and also for the public to notify folks in a real transparent way and then make Article 5 accessory units consistent with the permitting path for restaurants and bars. So we would want to also look at what changes would need, if any, to occur with the seasonal outdoor dining section and for live or prerecorded entertainment. Next slide. And then, so as a summary, Article 14 has made it clear that more uses could be permitted successfully either administratively or by site plan review. And that Article 14 does expire in six months. It seems like far away, but it's really not. It's gonna be here in a couple, before you know it. And so this is a really great opportunity to improve the permit process, both for local businesses and restaurants and for the town and the public. And Amherst's large student population and recent development will continue to support these establishments in downtown and village centers that are close to residential areas. So we wanna be as supportive as we can to encourage restaurants to come to town, to encourage people to come down, to visit downtown, to walk downtown, to check out retail and restaurants. And so this would hopefully be enticing for restaurants to know that the permit process is gonna be clear and concise and be timely and not some complicated, lengthy process where applicable and trying to find, so we're trying to find a balance and having reasonable oversight into high intensity uses, such as high capacity bars and nightclubs and to support economic development in downtown and our village centers. So next steps, we wanna of course, receive feedback and direction from you all from the CRC and from the planning board, Ben and I and Rob and Chris will be meeting with the planning board on Wednesday, June 29th and we'll be giving them this presentation as well. So we wanna get their feedback and we want to provide a draft proposed changes to section 3.3, the use classifications and standards that's where all the uses are indicated. So we would wanna put the different new restaurant types into that and see how that would look and to propose criteria for each of those uses and to draft minor related amendments to article five and to 11. So article five is for those accessory uses, the outdoor dining and the live entertainment and article 11 is for administrative approvals. So those would need to have minor modifications as well. And we hope to return back to the CRC and to the planning board with draft amendments in form of the zoning by-law in early September. And I think, thank you. So Ben and I, I need to go in about six minutes but Ben could stay for as long as you need. Oh yeah. Thank you. We're gonna go in a number to questions from, or before we do questions, Rob or Chris, do you want to add anything into that before we, before I open it up to questions from the CRC members? I don't have anything to say. Rob is more familiar with this whole topic because he's been working with the ZBA on the, particularly the class two restaurants. So he may have something to say. I do not have anything to say. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions, comments from CRC members? I think that this is a really good idea to make article 14, the permanent. It's really worked during COVID and decisions have been excellent by the staff and I see no reason not to go ahead with what you're thinking about. Jennifer. I agree with Pat. I think, what is it like necessity as the mother of invention? It seems like COVID helped us to happen and it got us to actually the place. But I did just have a question, it's more curiosity. It said that the reclassification for food and drink establishments would apply in an existing building and that's because if it's a new construction, the usage isn't necessarily gonna have to get a special permit, but the building is that, is that why existing building was spelled out? It said food and drink establishments in existing building would be by site plan review. So I guess my question is, if it's a new building, then it's a special permit because the building's being built even, but it's not that the restaurant itself is gonna have to go through. That makes sense. Maureen. Sure, so I can try to help explain this. So we're proposing, so restaurants and bars that serve food would be by site plan review and so that would be for, regardless of if, that would be for new construction. And we do currently, and we would like to maintain the ability for redevelopment projects. So like when Garcia's took over, I'll always call it Pertugis, when it took over Pertugis, that was a redevelopment project. And so they actually, and I believe they just needed to make up some modifications to the doors and the windows and the signage. And so they, if that's, and they would have seeked a site plan review waiver if COVID didn't exist. But because of COVID, I believe they went for Article 14, but in normal circumstances, that would be the process. And so we all, and then on top of that, we want to further consider for very small restaurants and existing buildings to allow those by right because we wanna support the development in town that it's already there, that these restaurant spaces are already ready to go. But as different parts of town, along University Drive, by the East Village, by like Spirit House, you might start seeing some of these buildings be demolished and rebuilt. And so we would wanna make sure that new restaurants, regardless if they're really small or if they're 100 capacity, that those sorts would be by site plan review because those will have new impacts to traffic and to the surrounding. So the by right would really be just for small establishments and existing buildings. So whatever takes over glazed donuts, for instance, that would be a site plan review waiver, but under our proposal, that would be under a by right use. So for example, with Humble Peach, I'm just curious. They're open. I believe that was under Article 14. Yeah, okay. Thank you. Tony. Yeah, I totally support this and I just wanna make a comment and then I have a question. The comment is that I think these small changes really make a big difference. For example, even the small change we made in accessory dwelling unit in the last CRC, and I just heard in our neighborhood, there's a new couple that chose to come to Amherst and not East Hampton because we have better accessory dwelling unit by law. So I just wanna commend all of you that all the changes that you're making, they really have a direct impact in bringing in families and hopefully with this bringing in small businesses. And there are a lot of minority and small businesses that are trying to open up. So here's my question that what I've heard and obviously I haven't done a systematic study or anything but I've just heard that the online program has been a little difficult to navigate, especially if a person for that where English is a second language. So what has been your experience with the online permitting and especially with the people of color, I mean people who have second language and what would be a support you can offer for people who can't navigate that online system? Rob? So we've actually received really positive feedback for the system so far, it makes applications really convenient, renewals really fast, establishes good communication and generates a discussion electronically that can occur a lot quicker. So we've had a lot of good positive feedback from it so far. It's not necessarily used for the first application so a new establishment really does need to contact the office. For example, the chamber contacted me last week because they had an individual in their office that wanted to talk about starting a restaurant and I told them they really need to come in and meet with us and we have a position here or permit administrator. So it's something that is because it touches on health licensing, building permitting potentially and fire regulations, somebody would really have to be well experienced to use the electronic system for that so it's really geared for renewal and processing large numbers of applications. So staff is here, we are communicating more than we ever had with the bid in the chamber on these matters and I know they're gonna have some technical assistance funding available and they don't hesitate to contact our office to start discussing the specifics of the properties. I think that's really what we have to continue to do. Thank you. My question, it's gonna be sound similar to everyone else. I support all of this in terms of moving as much of the food and drinks to special permit site plan reviews and then allowing them for the administrative waivers or also just by right uses because we've seen it working well through COVID. And the one question I have which doesn't relate to this presentation at all was when we first discussed this back in January or February about making things permanent. One thing Rob, you had said was temporary uses that really that doesn't exist in the bylaw right now. That wasn't discussed here. I don't know whether that's because you've just haven't brought that to us and you're still considering it and you were focusing on food and drink right now or for some other reasons. So I'm just curious as to with the temporary uses in terms of kiosks, the farm facilities you talked about I think farm that wants to offer wedding or music event type uses and that we don't really have a permitting pathway for them right now other than Article 14. What's going on with that? Is that going to come to us also by September so that we don't lose that if we don't extend Article 14, Rob? Yes, we are working on that very much so just as much as Article 14, the planning staff has secured a grant working with the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission on parts of that. Some of that will overlap with things like how to possibly consider small scale breweries or distilleries or wineries. So that's part of another project that's very active and going on. I don't know if it's gonna be something that'll be ready for September. It might be later in the year just from what I've seen and certainly Ben, I know Ben's very much involved with that if he's got any thoughts on that. But really important, I'd like to see it continue and hope that we'll have some draft language for that in the coming months as well. Excellent, and I forgot I had one other question which is that split at 250. I don't know what capacity the new Garcia's has or what Bertucci's had, but that went into an existing building and under the sort of plan you just put forward that would still require a special permit because it would be over 250. And so is there a way to, if they're over 250 but going into an existing building that had the similar use, like is there a way to maybe make that easier to permit than having to go through a special permit again type thing because it looks like under the current plan they'd still have to go to special permit even though I think Garcia's was permitted under temporary zoning Article 14 and it doesn't seem to have been a problem. Again, existing building, right? And I think that's one of the concern, one of the defining characteristics of things that could go through either administrative approval or not is existing building similar use to prior use. Yeah, so we actually only have one establishment that's over 250, that's the hangar. They have a document load of 388. The next highest document load is the Bistro 63 monkey bar. Full capacity is 240. And then we go down from there, but Garcia's and Johnny's and a number of other establishments are right in the high 100, 190, 180 area. But I think what would happen is that it really depends on how the special permit is conditioned. So the zoning board in the past, they've handed it a couple of different ways. When a permit is issued for a food establishment, it may expire and end with that current owner or it could continue with updating management plans and just kind of new information. So I think it would depend on how big of a change the new business would be making. Certainly if it's Garcia's gets bought, change the name, but it's the exact same kind of configuration. We would give the opportunity to that business owner to just show us that their management plan satisfies all the requirements of the initial permit and that's something the zoning board is used to. But yeah, it's something we'll consider as we kind of put the classifications into the bylaw form. Any other questions from CRC members? Seeing none. I want to thank Rob and Ben and Maureen and Chris for bringing this to us and updating us on the status. I think we're all looking forward to seeing the language and being able to make sure that what has worked during COVID isn't lost and that we've learned from that and move on from there with changes that we'll be able to continue without us having to renew them on a yearly basis. So we're gonna go at this point back to action item 4A, which is the ZBA appointments, discussion of interviews and applications of applicants to the ZBA and then a recommendation vote potentially. So before we talk about the applicants, I just wanna summarize sort of where we are on this, which is there are two impending vacancies or vacancies for full membership, so members. The ZBA is one of the only boards that has members and associate members. And so two of the members who are current applicants, their terms are expiring June 30 and so we have those two vacancies coming up. We also have ZBA allows for four associate memberships and those are one year terms, not three year terms. So everyone that's appointed to an associate membership has to reapply every year if they want to continue, but we are looking to appoint four every year to that. As people saw, we interviewed three applicants and then there was one applicant who could not make the interviews that application. The CAF was filed after we'd set the interview deadline and the applicant could not make it. I offered that applicant not any promises. I will be clear about that. I did not promise anything, but I said, what you could potentially try and I don't know what CRC will do is submit an SOI to remain an applicant, submit answers to the written answers to the question since we'd already adopted the interview questions and then I will bring it to the CRC. It is not a policy we can waive because it's a council policy that's been adopted that flat out says in section nine interviews that residents who do not attend the interviews will not be considered applicants and will not be considered for appointment. That is the council policy. So we can't consider them as an applicant necessarily. What we could do is make a recommendation to the town council to waive that the council waive that requirement of their policy for a particular applicant and then make a recommendation that if that requirement is waived that such applicant may be appointed. So we'll deal with that applicant last because of those issues. What I will say, not everyone was on CRC last year. Last year it was not a council policy, it was a CRC policy that everyone attended interviews. And last year there was one person who applied to the ZBA that could not attend the interview that CRC moved to waive its policy for and then moved to a point, recommend appointment for that person to the ZBA. This situation was slightly different. That person had applied to planning board and did attend the interviews for the planning board. And then when they were not appointed to the planning board CRC had directed me as chair to reach out to every applicant who was not recommended for appointment to the planning board to see if they would like to serve on ZBA. This person said yes, but they couldn't attend the interview for the ZBA. They had attended the interview for the planning board. So we had actually as a CRC group seen them at an interview. But based on that situation is why I offered this potential option to this applicant Mr. Varner because we had done something similar in the past although it's not an equation. So saying all of that, there are a couple of motions we need to do immediately. I'm gonna start with two of them and then we will discuss the three applicants that interviewed and then we will discuss the one that did not attend the interview. So I'm just gonna make the motion for the first set of motions which is of the four people whose terms are expiring to our applicants. I'm not gonna make a motion for them right now but two or not. Yet they are currently sitting on ZBA applications and hearings for those applications. What we do is we always recommend that their terms be extended solely for those applications so that they can continue to sit on those applications until those applications are completed and votes are done and whatever is signed. Otherwise it creates problems because ZBA, their regulations, state law requires that the same members sit for the entire hearing. So if they're not members of ZBA, they lose them and so we do. So I'm gonna make that motion. It is a motion we did last year too for those it worked well and that is a move to recommend that the town council appoint the following residents to the ZBA, the zoning board of appeals. Associate member, effective July 1, 2022 for a term expiring at the conclusion of action on the matter of ZBA FY 2022-13, Karen Winter, extension of term to complete hearing on which member is serving. And associate member, effective July 1, 2022 for a term expiring at the conclusion of action on the matter of ZBA FY 2022-14, Eric Cochrane, extension of term to complete hearing on which member is serving. Is there a second? Second. Go ahead. We'll give that one to Jennifer. I can have the next one. Any discussion on this? Seeing none, I'm gonna take a vote. Shalini. Yes. Pat. Aye. Mandy is an aye. Jennifer. Aye. So that is unanimous with one absent. Okay. So now we move on to the three applicants. We have John Gilbert, Steve Judge and Sarah Marshall. Depending on what we decide for them, depends on whether what motion I will make because two of them are currently on the ZBA and sitting on four or five different hearings. So we're ready to make motions to extend terms for hearings, but we may not need to make those motions depending on what we recommend regarding everyone else. So that's why we only did the associates that were not seeking further terms because what we do with the rest. So thoughts on, let's go with just quick thoughts on all the applicants and then thoughts on positions. So Jennifer. So what I wanted to say is I got a text from Pam. So this is that she tried to call in and couldn't and she couldn't email you Mandy because her computer lost power and she had my phone number. So she texted me and I don't, so I don't, she just, she texted what her vote would be. I don't know. I'll say that till the end. I don't know if she can even vote. Let's say that to the end. Okay. I was going to tell you I had it and she tried to get through you. Do you want to say anything regarding the three applicants? Well, I thought they're, we're all gave thorough responses, I guess just to cut to the chase. I would be partial for reappointing the two that currently serve on the board and then offering Sarah and associate. I mean, I think that the two that are currently serving would provide good continuity moving forward. I have always found Steve judge, not that I've sat in on that many ZBA meetings but extremely measured, fair, calm, judicious. I have to say he, I ran into him once on the street and I said, oh, the LHD just granted a certificate of appropriateness to such and such and they'll be coming before the ZBA and he said, don't say one more word to me because I don't like to do anything ahead of time. So he's really takes that very seriously. Well, I'm jumping ahead. Personally, I appreciated some of the answers of John Barner, I would be comfortable with him being on the board, but I know that that's a whole, you know, so this is where I do feel a little uncomfortable because I don't want to disparage anybody but I've recently sat in on two ZBA meetings, about six hours of meetings and I was paying attention to John Gilbert. I mean, I just thought, well, I don't know him at all. This would be a chance just to get a sense of how not just conduct himself but kind of what, just to have a better sense of how he handles the position of this and I was struck that in the six hours of meetings he asked one question. So I didn't find him as maybe engaged as I had hoped to. So that's, you know, but I, you know, he certainly has the qualifications to be on the board. So I would say that. Thanks. Would anyone else like to make comments before I make some comments? Well, I'll make mine. As with many applications that we see here, everyone is eminently qualified, which is always a good problem to have, you know, and so, you know, as with Jennifer, I support Steve and John as members and then Sarah as associate members. It's clear that Steve and John have full knowledge. I worry that if we don't reappoint either to a full membership, we might lose them completely and I don't wanna do that, especially since we have such a small pool. I also, in seeing, listening to Steve's answers, he spent one year as an associate and then has been on for four years. So I do recognize that our reappointment policy, this puts him over that six years. But it does not put him over by much. It puts him over by one year because associates are different than full members. But what struck me was, I think that years associate, then the membership, you can just see how much there's there. And I think Sarah could, would learn similarly, would be fantastic in that, that slow sort of entry into all of those regulations so that you're not sitting on five or six hearings at a time you're starting with one or two potentially over the course of a year. I think that would, given the learning curve that we know she's gonna have and I know she's gonna be fantastic at doing that learning curve. There's no question about that, that the dedication is there that an associate at this point seems more appropriate in my mind for that, given who else we have applying for the roles. So that's sort of where I stand. I think that's where I stand on those three. Any other comments? And if not, I'm just gonna make some motions. I see some noddings and heads of motions. Jennifer, did you want to add in what Pam was thinking for those three people there? She obviously can't vote because she's not at the meeting, but what are her thoughts on those three? Exactly where you come out. Okay. With that, I'm just gonna make the motion which is, and this is gonna be two separate motions. Move to recommend that the town council reappoint Steve judged and John Gilbert as full members to the zoning board of appeals for terms effective July 1, 2022 and ending June 30, 2025. Is there a second? Second. That motion is moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we're starting with Pat. Aye. Mandy is an aye. Jennifer. Aye. And Shalini. Yes. That is unanimous with Pam absent, but Pam according to Jennifer would have voted yes if she could have had enough power to attend this meeting. The next motion is moved to recommend that the town council appoint Sarah Marshall as associate member to the zoning board of appeals for term effective July 1, 2022 and ending June 30, 2023. Is there a second? Second, Shalini. Shalini seconds that, any further discussion? Seeing none, we're gonna start with Mandy. Mandy is an aye. Jennifer. Aye. Shalini. Yes. And Pat. Aye. That is also four to zero with one absent. Next we need to discuss John Warner and the first one is does this committee believe we should recommend that the town council waives section nine interviews of the town council policy on making recommendations for town council appointments to multiple member bodies. That is the title of the policy for Mr. Varner because that policy, if we do not waive it, he cannot be considered an applicant. Jennifer. Yes. Well, I believe it's maybe helpful to know I think he was out of the country and out of range. So it wasn't just that it wasn't convenient. And, you know, I think it's hard when they're only offered one time for the interview. So I don't, I think he would have made every effort to be here if he possibly could have. So I would support waiving or recommending to the council that be waived. Shalini. I think, yeah, I think that we need to be flexible and make every effort to accommodate, which I think we did in terms of getting his responses and writing, but given that he wasn't going to be there, did he give the responses before knowing that he's not gonna be, no, I don't know. Okay, what I was gonna say is that given that, so if I was, I knew that I'm not going to be there, I would make extra effort to answer every question. And I think he just answered a couple, which was like the same or like it was like a very, it wasn't a good explanation given. So to me, that was not very compelling. And I don't know. So yeah. Before I go to Pat, I will answer the question that Shalini asked. So we had a deadline to submit SOIs of basically the six, today's what, the 23rd, the 16th at 9 a.m. I made it as late as possible because even as of the 12th and 13th, we were still getting CAFs submitted. And so I was trying to give given the policy of seven days for publishing as much time as possible for people who were submitting CAFs on the 13th or even on the 14th to be able to submit something and remain an applicant. So John Varner submitted his CAF after we had set the interview date. Normally if for anyone who submits a CAF before the interview dates are set, we work with everyone to make sure they can attend. So that is one instance where because we'd already set the interview date and then a CAF was submitted, there was no opportunity really to work with additional applicants to find a time for everyone to be able to attend. When I, initially when I responded with this is the interview date, he responded, he can't make it. So he'll just have to wait till the next time about a week later. And I believe this was on the 11th, maybe the 10th. I having received something from Pam and then thinking through it in my mind, wait, we did something similar last year. I offered him the opportunity without any promises that said, if you submit your SOI by the SOI deadline and then if you submit written answers to the interview questions by, I think I told him the 21st. So 48 hours in advance of the meeting that I would put them in the packet. I would put his name as an applicant and then I would leave it up to CRC and then the council CRC to make a recommendation on whether to waive the policy. If it does then make a recommendation on appointment. And then I explained to him that that still doesn't mean it would go through because the council would formally have to waive the policy. So I made him no promises, but I offered that as a potential for him without being able to attend the interview to do it. I believe I received both his SOI and his answers to the interview questions the same day I made that offer. I know I received them at the same time. I think it was the same day within hours and not the next day. So the responses to the interview questions were received at the same time as the SOI before the SOI deadline. He did not take as much time as I offered for answering the written interview questions. Pat, you had your hand up and then you took it down. Yeah, I got tired of holding it. I figured you'd remember. Like Chalene, I feel comfortable waiving the criteria in this instance because I think flexibility is important. And I think it's really possible that someone can't make the actual interview. And I appreciate that the SOI was returned and the questions were answered and received in plenty of time for them to even be revised. I found his answers to be on the lean side and I'm concerned particularly about his response to that public input is critical. Every one of the people who applied said a version of that because public input is critical. But I felt like what he was saying is that was more important than anything else in where I was hearing the other candidates talking about balancing. The other thing is whose public input would drive the decision. If I look at the moratorium that I lost, so I'm using it as an example because that feels like I'm not impinging on anybody, public opinion was out there saying, don't cut down Paris and public opinion was out there and cut it down. They weren't saying it like that, but cut it down and I didn't win. So was I not listened to or the people who were, maybe, maybe not. I think that's why I'm leery of resting on public opinion because who's? Who's? And I think that his answers were very, very lean and in a way I felt like a little disrespected which it's hard to make me feel disrespected because I don't like rules. So I'm very uncomfortable with this gentleman. I don't know him at all but I'm uncomfortable and don't want to support his candidacy. Jennifer. So I actually think that I would very much like to see him as an associate and I think he and Sarah Marshall might because they did come out that response, that question from a little different perspectives. She said that she would ultimately fall on the side, that she would give more weight to property owners' rights and I guess I didn't read him as giving more weight to public comment just but if you did, I think they might balance each other out well. He's written a number of articles, I mean, they've even been in the Gazette so he's very engaged and I think he lives in South Amherst which I, so he comes from a different, he'd bring a different part of town I think to the ZBA. So I think I would like to see him get a shot as for one year as an alternate or associate member, excuse me and I think that between those two candidates would bring maybe different perspectives and good balance to the one year associate positions. Thank you. I struggle with whether to waive the policy because in some sense it's unfair to those that could show up yet at the same time I understand all of the concerns and everything and last year I actually did vote to waive the CRC policy and I would likely on a motion today to vote to recommend to waive the policy but I do think it, given that it's happened two years in a row we might need to look at modifying a policy or something because waiving every year is not always necessarily, maybe we need to reconsider the policy. I have the same concerns that Pat and Shalini have regarding his answers. They were lean. I did not put any word limits or reading limits at all on his answers when I wrote and offered him the opportunity to offer written answers. I did not say whether I would read them or not I was waiting to see how long they were and whether they'd fit in the three minutes but I did not put any of that in. I was actually really concerned with his answer regarding, it wasn't the public input one it was the prior, it was the number four I think the one that talks about interests and who's interests and he seemed to talk about this, the way I read it was that a butters have overarching interests over the property owner themselves and that if the property, if the butters lived there for so long and nothing's been done to their neighboring property or that neighboring property is ex-use that that a butter should be able to keep ex-use on a property they don't own and force that other owner that's maybe applied for why use to not be able to change it to why use because the butters lived there for 30 years and that really concerns me. You know, and so I think, you know, I'm willing to wave or vote to wave the policy yet I'm not sure I can vote to recommend him at the same time we are desperate in need of ZBA people. And so I think my thoughts are to leave this up to the council. So I'm gonna propose two things. I'm gonna make two different motions. The first one is to recommend that the town council wave the policy and I'll read the full motion. I gave these potentially ahead of time to Athena. So she has them in writing just saying that's why I'm making all of these to make her life easier. And then if that passes, I will also move to recommend his appointment as an associate member just so we can have that vote. I don't know. It sounds like I know which way that vote will go but I think it deserves a vote. And because there are openings and then whichever way it goes, it will still end up at the council then somehow. I'm not sure how I'll deal with it with Pam as we write the report, but it would still at least there'll be a vote there and we are only five and there are 13. And so I can't know what a council would do but that's my plan and proposal. Jennifer, your hand is up. I didn't since when I was relaying Pam's message we're talking about the three. So Pam did say she would be comfortable with John Varner as an associate. I just wanted to add that. Excellent. So the first motion I'm gonna make is move to recommend the town council wave section nine interviews of the town council policy on making recommendations for town council appointments to multiple member bodies for John Varner as he was unable to attend the interview for ZVA applicants that was scheduled prior to his submission of a community activity form but did provide to CRC written answers to the adopted interview questions. Is there a second? Second to the answer list. Any further discussion on that? Seeing none, I think we're on to Jennifer. Yes. And Shalini. Yes. Pat. Aye. And Mandy is an aye on that. So that is a unanimous vote with one absent on that one. And the next motion is to move to recommend that the town council appoint John Varner as associate member to the zoning board of appeals for a term effective July 1, 2022 and ending June 30, 2023. Is there a second? Second. Jennifer seconds that. Is there any further discussion on that? Seeing none, we start, we're back around to the beginning, Shalini. No. Pat. No. Mandy is a no. Jennifer. Yes. That is a one to three with one absent. And so that will, I will write that report. I will have a report out. I need to touch base with Pam somehow probably through texting at this point because she was gonna write as much of it as possible and then I was gonna write the summary. So we will do that and I will get that report out and I will touch base with Athena on how to deal with that on the motion sheet and on the agenda itself. Thank you all for that, Shalini is raising her hand because there's a district meeting starting in four minutes. I know that we did not get through the rest of our agenda. We don't have a meeting scheduled till July 14. Yay. Before I say yay though, we don't have a plan or agreement on questions for any survey before we do our public community forum on July 25th. So before I adjourn the meeting, I need to know whether the CRC wants to try and schedule a separate meeting earlier in order to do that or whether it is okay. And I'm not even sure which way I go on this or Shalini's provided an Excel spreadsheet. There are some questions in that I believe with some proposals. The questions are more important than the rest of that sheet at this point but there was also like who to distribute to and all. So does this committee wanna schedule another meeting at some point to get through that or does the committee want to just assign it to someone who can then unformally consult with at least one other to come up with stuff and get something out? What is the committee's preference? Just consultant, get it done with some like, I just put in the first set of questions but I would definitely want feedback. So maybe people can send feedback and then to one person and then that one person can work with another person to confirm. Because I'll be traveling in July middle. So I'll try to, yeah, attend. Are you gonna be here on the 25th? 25th of July, yes. I'm just gonna be away from 10, 8, on the 14th I will be away and I'll be like traveling back so I may not be able to attend. Yeah, I'll be away on the 25th but I will try to try. So if CRC wants to meet to discuss all of this I would recommend we do it next Thursday at our typical time if we're all available on the 30th. Okay. Well, or if people like Shalini's idea if we say Shalini's got the final go ahead on what goes on that survey I think anyone giving her responses or feedback doesn't violate because she's got the final say and only she has the final say and it just goes out. If people are comfortable with that we can skip the meeting and if Shalini's comfortable with that too and I don't know whether she has we can skip that meeting and work to get something out so that we have some surveys out shortly after July 4th. And this is the surveys or the public forum because public forum we can all people can always add other questions. It's not like this is the... Yeah, so the question is do we want the survey out before the public forum? If not, then we don't have to worry about the survey. I think it's good because it'll give us a pretest of what kind of responses we're getting and what questions we can ask in the public forum. It sounds like no one wants to add a meeting so we're gonna assign this to Shalini to finalize surveys. I'll be in touch Shalini with you on how to do that. I know you had a number of questions about things like what surveys we can use. So I think Dave, you're still hanging out. I think you, Shalini, Dave and I need to get together soon. If Shalini's available tomorrow maybe we can find a time hooked on to my 11 a.m. meeting. I really need to go now. Yeah, no, so, but we'll do that so that we can figure out how we can do the survey. Is that agreeable to everyone? Yes. But you all can keep discussing because it looks like Jennifer is still thinking about it. It's a no pressure. No, no, I'm just saying I could meet, I would be fine to meet an extra time if that's what, but you should go. Yeah, I'm looking for my link to go. I would meet an extra time but I prefer that Shalini take it on and that we not meet. Okay, let me think about it. I'll let you guys know really quickly tomorrow what the decision is on that. With that, Shalini, you can go. We still have to get through. I have to say one thing, which is general public comment, public comment on matters within the jurisdiction of CRC. Residents are welcome to express their views for up to three minutes at the discretion of the chair. Up to three minutes. If you want to make general public comment, please raise your hand right now. No hands, so general public comment is closed. I will still see since he is here that I saw his email. He's our ECAC liaison to this committee. And Steve, I'm gonna get back to you on that. So expect an email for me tonight on your email. We're not doing minutes tonight. We're gonna just, unless we can right now, if no one's got changes, I can easily make that motion. So I moved to adopt the June 9, 2022 meeting minutes. Second. Jennifer, we're voting. Hi. Pat. Hi. And Mandy is an either adopted three to zero. With that, we are adjourning the meeting at 6.32 p.m. Thank you all. Thank you all. See you. Bye-bye.