 comes into the attendees section. We'll wait for that to happen for a little bit before we get started. All right, Mandy, we're recording. Thank you. Not seeing anyone pop into Zoom attendees. Giving it a little bit. So, okay. So, seeing a presence of a quorum, I am calling this special meeting of the Community Resources Committee of the Town Council to order at 4.31 p.m. on June 12, 2023. Pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Acts of 2021, extended by Chapters 22 and 107 of the Acts of 2022, and extended by Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2023, this meeting is conducted via remote means. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via Zoom or telephone, and 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. So, you will happen to know if you're out. This meeting is also being recorded. I'm going to, in a minute, take attendance to make sure everyone can hear and be heard, and I will do that also for our applicants to the planning board so that we've made sure everyone all at once can, and we don't have to do that multiple times. Once I do that, and I will explain how this meeting will work in terms of the interview of applicants. But in the meantime, I'm going to note that you might notice that three of our members are sitting in the town room right now, because right after this meeting is a council meeting. And so, for transportation purposes, they are attending remotely from the council room. I'm going to have to rely on them to indicate if anyone from the public shows up so that we can deal with that since we have noticed that we're not going to have in-person attendance of the public. We will figure that out if that happens. I thought it might be easier, but we'll see. So, otherwise, it's generally a Zoom meeting, but we do have three people in the same room, and their audio was being controlled through the town room audio so that we don't have weird feedback. So that's why you see a town room video and a town room attendee. With that, I'm now going to take a roll call vote of committee members, and then I will also call the names of our three applicants if everyone can indicate that they are present when they hear their name that will confirm that people can hear and be heard. We're going to start with Shalini. Present. And Pat. Present. Mandy is present. Pam Rooney. I'm here. And Jennifer Tob. Present. Thank you. And our three applicants are Frederick Hartwell. You're going to have to unmute Frederick. There should be a button. There you go. I am present. Thank you, Frederick. Jesse Maeger. Present. And Johanna Newman. Present. Thank you. That is all three applicants and all five members of our Community Resources Committee. At this time, we're going to move on to the interview of applicants. The way this is going to work is we, the CRC previously adopted interview questions, they have been forwarded to all applicants ahead of time so that they know what they are. They will be asked in the order they were forwarded to the applicants, but the response order will change and each applicant will answer each question before we move on to the next question. I have forwarded a schedule to the CRC members, just assigning for ease of purposes, assigning who is asking each question so that we can do this fairly blowingly. And then also a response order. The response order is random. It will change who is first, second, or third for each question. We will try to announce that response order before we ask the question so people can know which order they are responding in. And the attempt, the goal is to give everyone a chance to answer first, second, or third as many equally as possible. I think we only have eight questions so that doesn't quite equal out. But that way, everyone rotates through and you're not always following the same person either. After the interviews are done, once we've done all of the questions, I will ask the committee if there are any follow-up questions for any of the members. Each committee member is permitted to generally ask one follow-up question per each person, each applicant if they wish to. So I will just start with a random applicant and see if there are any follow-up questions for that one and then move on to a different applicant and go from there. That is the plan. Are there any questions about the plan before we get started or how this is going to proceed from either the committee members or the three applicants? Seeing no questions, we will get started then. Oh, Pam. Thank you. Before we start, I would just like to say thank you for the applicants for stepping forward and offering to contribute to the town in this way. And this is not meant to be an onerous process. It's actually pretty interesting and informative. So thank you again for stepping up. Thank you for that, Pam. Seeing no other questions, we're going to move on to the interview questions and responses. So I'm going to ask the first one and the order of response is going to be Frederick Hartwell, Jesse Meager, and then Johanna Newman. And this is the question, what do you feel you bring to the planning board that can make it successful? Please include any experience that you have appearing before or serving on the planning board or ZBA or watching one of their meetings. And the one thing I forgot is you'll have up to three minutes to answer the question. So I'm going to run the timer and try to have it loud enough that it runs through my mic when it goes off so people can hear it. But that's not a guarantee. And I don't have the fancy timer Athena has. So I will see if I can find a way to indicate there's like 30 seconds left. But that might take me a couple of people to figure that out. Okay. Having said that, Frederick Hartwell, you are first. Thank you. I think the main thing is that I have about six and a half years experience on the planning board. I served in the late 1990s and early into 2000s. And at the end of my second term, my successor had not been chosen. And so I ended up carrying over for a number of additional months at that point. So I will hit the ground running in terms of having a pretty good idea how the planning board operates at the time that my understanding is the planning board right now does not have a zoning subcommittee. I'm not totally clear on how that could be the case, but it apparently is the case. I chaired the zoning subcommittee of the planning board during the last four years of my service on the planning board. And I know a great deal about the Amherst zoning bylaw and have written a number of items in it. And so I have a pretty good background in that way. I think that's the main thing that I will bring to the board. Thank you, Frederick. Jesse. Hi, everyone. Jesse Major. I think you all read our statements most likely. In terms of what I can bring to the planning board, it's nothing like Frederick can, no experience directly. But a relatively long time town number. I've lived here for 16 years. I work at UMass. I live right in town. A lot of the development projects and conversations and issues that have come up over the past many years. I've had tons of conversations. I'm often thinking about it. So I do feel like I've thought deeply about some of the issues that we're as a town addressing. Before being a scientist, I have an architecture and design background. I always had a bent torch urban planning. And so even before I thought about any real issues, when I walk around places, that's kind of what I think about is how things could get developed, how things were designed, what the intention is. I don't plan to move. I want to be here forever. I want our town to remain vibrant and fantastic. So that's the perspective I would bring, I think. Thank you, Jesse. Johanna. Great. Thank you. And thanks for putting this together. So what do I bring to the planning board? I'm a current member of the planning board. I've done one term. That was three years. I am excited to do a second term. So just from being a member for the past three years, I feel like we are making strides and steps towards realizing the vision of the master plan in town. There is more that needs to happen. And I'm excited to spend another three years helping Amherst realize that vision by serving on the planning board. And then in my professional life, I do advocacy and organizing around environmental issues. So I've read the master plan numerous times. And I think a lot of that aligns with kind of my professional work doing environmental organizing and advocacy work. And so insofar as I have expertise where planning and zoning meets reducing our environmental footprint, there's a certain amount of expertise that I bring to that space. And I've lived in Amherst for 12 years. I have two kids in our public school system. My husband teaches at the university, family and Leveret. I too, my life is here. I plan for my life to be here. And I want the town to be a great place. And I want to be part of making that happen. Not that it's great, you know, it's already great, but can always be better. Thank you, Johanna. With that, I'm going to pass off the question into Shalini. Thank you. And welcome again to all of you. Thank you for offering to serve. The order for answering will be, for this question will be Jesse, then Johanna, and then Cedric. 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. Did everyone get that? Yeah. Sure. So in my part, one role that I plan UMass campus is I chair the committee that approves all animal research for the whole university. And the committee is comprised of about 13 people, scientists, community members, bunch of administrators, different people. And so there's often very conflicting views about whether certain types of experiments should be done. And I've been in this role for about 10 years. And the reason I stay in the role is that it requires the ability to really manage and navigate very diverse opinions when people have very strong feelings about it. And I've learned I have a fairly good aptitude at balancing different opinions. And most of the time we don't end up agreeing. I think that's most cases like that where there's controversy. But as a group, you just have to end up agreeing on a path forward, even if not all the people involved are 100% on board with the decision. And so it's difficult and not everyone's happy at the end. But I've learned there's almost always a way forward that won't leave people feeling like they were totally dismissed. So that's sort of a perspective I have on those difficult situations. Thank you, Jesse. Next is Johanna. Great. Thanks. I love this question. So I could speak to a number of experiences. The one that first came to mind for me was an experience on the planning board where we were in the past three years where we were trying to decide whether to put a moratorium on solar development and immersed. And on the one side, people felt strongly that we need to grow clean energy, that we need to lead by example. On the other side, there was concern that moving forward without solar bylaw in place would disrupt beautiful open spaces, disrupt viewscapes, and harm our quality of life and immersed. So anytime that there are... I think anytime that you have an official decision-making process and you have to make controversial decisions where people come down on different sides, clarity of process is key. Making sure that everyone has an opportunity to make their voice heard is key. And that the dialogue and the exchanges are respectful and focused on substance and not on, I don't know, ad hominem attacks or... Yeah, they just should be on substance. And I think... So on that particular issue, I think we did that. We had a clear process. Different people made their decisions. People voted. And then as a body, it was not a unanimous decision. We were split. So to some extent, the ability to agree, to disagree, and then move on on future issues, I think, is how I approach controversial decisions. Thank you, Johanna. And Frederick. Next. Yeah, this is a good question. I have served on the National Electrical Code Committee. I am an electrician by training, actually. And I'm very well familiar with the construction process and that sort of thing. But for the last 33, 34 years, I've been a member of the National Electrical Code Committee code-making panel nine. I'm now the senior member on that panel. And believe me, when you start working on the next edition of the National Electrical Code, which is something that happens every three years, you get many hundreds of proposals in from the public. A lot of them are extremely controversial. And the NFPA rules are such that you don't move forward. You don't change the code without a consensus, which is defined generally as a two-thirds vote. And yeah, you have to weigh all of those inputs from the public and from the science. You have to look at the science that's involved and come to an agreement that will not screw things up. Often the consequences of these decisions are, in terms of economic terms, are huge. And I've had a lot of success in doing this. I'm also the secretary of the Massachusetts Code Committee. And we also end up having to weigh these sorts of things. And I have an ability to take concepts and create written language that crafts the interwritten language, basically the outcome of the discussion, in a way that can go into print. I do this extremely well. And when you're working with zoning, for example, that is absolutely something that is important. Thank you so much, Frederick. And next set of questions on to Jennifer. Yes, thank you. And I'd like to echo Shalini and Mandy and Pam just to thank you so much for your willingness to serve our local governments based on volunteers. So we really value your willingness and your participation. Okay, for my question, the order of respondents will be Joanna first and then Frederick and then Jesse. And the question is, could you please describe how the planning board can help achieve the goals of the master plan? Joanna. Sure. Thank you. So there are a number of ways that the planning board can help achieve the goals of the master plan. The first is just by doing thorough review of projects that come to the pipeline and get bubbled up to the level of planning board engagement. The second is actually creating zoning changes ourselves. There are instances where either proposals or they have come from other places and come into planning board review that could include the solar bylaw question, which relates to our master plan. It could also include some of the zoning proposals that we've had, like the proposal to create a 40R on the north end of Kendrick Park a few years ago or for the past few months we've been considering a zoning proposal that was generated by a couple of counselors that the planning board is now reviewing. And so there's both, I think, putting the lens surrounding that filter through the proposals that come before us that are both project specific, but then also policy proposals. Thank you. And now we'll move to Jesse. Can I interrupt for a second? Johanna, and this has happened with someone else as well. We're having trouble. There's like a freeze and then it doesn't pick up. And so I wonder if Johanna you could answer the last question again because I really didn't follow your answer. Yeah, I would say maybe I can stop my video for a little bit. Yeah, should we come back to you if you want to? I could go on to Fred if you want to maybe zoom back in. I will. Sure. Or is the audio working because I could answer by audio and then find a different place in my home where the internet might be more stable? Yeah, your audio is good now. Okay. Okay, so go ahead. I'll try to answer it quickly and then I'll find a better spot. So we have better connectivity moving forward. Great. But the question is how can the planning board achieve the goals of the master plan? And I see two primary vehicles for doing it. One is just by doing a good thorough review of the projects that come to the planning board and percolate up to the level of planning board engagement. And then the second is through policy. So the planning board can be the genesis of zoning amendments or changes to our zoning bylaw and also just reviews policy. So for the past few months we've been considering adjustment to our zoning bylaw. So I see those as the two key pathways that the planning board is involved in helping realize the master plan. Thank you. That was very clear. Okay, next we'll go to Fred. Thank you. Yeah, I think the main thing that the planning board can do is by weighing issues that arise in terms of the zoning bylaw that you need a policy objective and the master plan is the policy objective, generally. And as I indicated in my last question, one of the things that I do well is to translate a policy discussion into text. And that's where the rubber meets the road, really, is the zoning bylaw. And that's that's a strength that I have. Thank you. And we'll go to Jesse. Thanks. I'll be honest, I don't really know yet. So being new to this process and the board and how the master plan and other crews interact, I can't really speak to that yet. Looking forward to learning how the planning board does interact and facilitate the master plan. But in the meantime, I'll just I'm excited to learn. Thank you. Okay, and Pat for the next. Thank you. And I also want to thank all three of you for applying. We're going to be looking at this question and the order of respondents will be Frederick, Johanna, and then Jesse. And the question is, please describe considerations and objectives you'll use for considering proposed revisions to the zoning bylaws. I think the the thing that most comes to mind is a Joni Mitchell lyric. You don't know what you got till it's gone pay paradise and put up a parking lot. Yeah, you've got Amherst has a lot of attributes to it that are that could easily be threatened by frankly current developments in the market. And that I think would have a major that would be a major focus of my attention during any future service on the planning board. We have to be so careful that again that we, you know, we don't know what it's got what we got or what we had till it's gone. And that's I have lived in Amherst for well over 50 years. And I bring a sense of history to this. I think let me think for a minute here. Yeah, the, I think that would be the major focus. Thank you. Thank you, Johanna. Great, thank you. So what considerations and objectives would I bring? I think for me they're really for the first is, what is the perspective and opinion of the our planning board staff. We have incredibly talented experienced staff who guide the planning department and, you know, really follow these issues. And so if the planning board staff say X idea or have X recommendation, I would take that into strong consideration because they're professionals. Secondly, the overlay of the master plan. So, you know, they kind of go hand in hand, like I think the planning board staff is also always thinking about how, how will something help realize the vision of the master plan. So I expect those to be pretty well married, but I do have kind of my own analysis of the master plan as well. Thirdly, and I would be, I do think going into my consideration on the planning board is an element of what is needed in the world today. So we, you know, climate change is real. It's happening now. It's because we burn too many fossil fuels. Amherst historically has been a leadership community in that that is a lens that I can't help but see as that come before the planning board through. Likewise, I'm, you know, aware of the need for housing in our town. I get heartbroken when I talk to my kids' teachers and there are amazing people who live in Amherst would love or sorry who teach in Amherst who would love to live in Amherst and can't afford to live here even though their kids go to school here. Like these are stakeholders and citizens that I think we want in our town and they can't afford to live here. And then thirdly, I also think about revenue. So, you know, we, the things that we need for our town to move forward and meet the challenges of the 21st century are going to require us to invest and that money has to come from somewhere. So that like climate, housing, revenue, those all fit together for me as considerations that I factor in. And then lastly, the just the public dialogue around it, you know, ultimately we're not a democratic body, but there is a in the sense that like, but I, you know, but I listen to every public comment that's made before our body, I factor it in where there are lots of comments, I keep tallies of, you know, how does it break down? Because, you know, when people take the time to show up and make their voice heard that that carries weight. And so I factor it into my consideration and decision making. Thank you. Sorry, Jesse. No, that was me. That was interesting to hear the delay. Johanna finished right at three minutes. Okay, Jesse. Um, I think the theme for my answer for this is really transparency. So where did the revision originate where the idea originate? What's the purpose, the real purpose or intent behind the revision happening? And who would then benefit from the revision? Which, which parties involved? Uh, what are the dynamics around those three issues? And then really trying to project, okay, how would this revision if it was granted actually get enacted? Because a lot of times an intent does not equal how it's something is used when it's sort of in writing. So I think that's how I would view our role in that process. Thank you very much, Jesse. Thank you. So my question, number five is, um, and we're going to go in the order of Jesse, Fred and Johanna. And the question is about waivers and exceptions. So what's your opinion of waivers, exceptions, and special permits in the zoning bylaw? When they should, when should they be used and when should they not be used? So we'll go with Jesse first. Sure. So every rule is meant to be broken, right? That's the idea. I think same, similar to what I just said, I think it's really about trying to figure out what's the real purpose, like why the exception will be needed and what the benefit is. And it's just weighing the pros and cons of allowing a deviation to whatever, you know, the rule is we're talking about. I'm sure we all have scores of examples where yes, some exceptions needed for whatever status we're talking about. But that's the purpose of a board, right? Is to decide and weigh the pros and cons. So those, I think, obviously it can get really difficult to make the decision. But I think in theory, it's pretty straightforward on those kinds of things. I think I'm next. The, you have to make some distinctions here. A special permit is essentially evaluating an application in terms of the whether or not it complies with the objectives in the bylaw. And that, you know, that is very much a case by case basis. Special permits have a special status in law and that they can actually be denied. And so that there's a lot different as opposed to waivers and exceptions, which normally take the come up in terms of, for example, site plan review where it's less consequential often and easier to call than on a special permit. Basically, in any instance, they should be used in service of the public policy objectives of the bylaw. And, you know, it's, the master plan is certainly a provides direction for that. And the, and then the bylaw itself. I have a fair amount of experience doing this when I was on the board previously. And I have a pretty clear idea as to how this can go forward. Thank you. Yeah. And Johanna. Thank you. Yeah. I mean, with regard to waivers and exceptions and special permits, I've been actually a little bit surprised at how these, these, these do come up on the planning board business. They don't, and I, they don't, I've often been struck by how often it's not to thwart the intent of the zoning bylaw, but to make, to make something happen. So for example, they're, I think on some of the big buildings or, you know, the buildings downtown, they needed a couple more feet in order to put equipment on top of the roof, then was allowed. Johanna, excuse me, can you put yourself back in and withdraw the whole story essentially during the, that's a spot where that's, thank you. Okay. Sorry. I don't know why the internet is being so fluky. But I think ultimately you have to look at, yeah, what, what is the purpose? Why is the waiver being requested? Why is the exemption being requested? And then you look at what would be the ramifications if it were not approved and what would be the ramifications if it were. And then you ultimately make a decision that is going to advance the policy objective most effectively and help move towards the master plan most effectively. Thank you. Okay. For my question, the order will be Johanna, then Jesse, and then Fred. And the question is, what is your approach to incorporating public input into your decision making? Great. Thank you. So let's see. I think I answered this a little bit on the front end. Public input is important to me. I'm glad we have a public comment period at every meeting and I'm, that is on issues unrelated to the agenda. And then also a public comment period on all the issues that are on the agenda. I, you know, listen to those comments, factor them into decision making. I think that they are an important piece of the puzzle, but also need to be taken in context with the recommendation of staff and, you know, the conversation that happens on the board itself. Thank you. And next for Jesse. Yeah, I agree with Johanna said. I also think public input is fantastic. It's also really important to try and recognize that only certain people are able to attend meetings and make public comment. And so I don't know how currently the committees try and gather other opinions, but if there are mechanisms, I think that's always a great way to go to just gather as much input as possible. And then yes, the professionals and those chosen to be on the board just have to decide and weigh all the input to the process. Okay. Thank you. And Fred. Well, this is a public opinion has to, you know, public comments have to be taken very seriously based on the arguments that are presented as part of those that comment process. I, yeah, I pride myself on a willingness to be confused by the facts. And this is often that comes from an argument that I did not anticipate. And you have to be open to that. And but you also have to weigh that against the interest that the person may be may bring to the table in the process of making the comment. So that's, you have to do both. You have to listen and and be willing to change your mind. But you also have to know where the person's coming from was making the comment. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to be responding in this order Frederick, and then Jesse and then Johanna. And the question is, what else do you bring? Would you like us to know about what makes you a strong candidate for the planning board? I think, well, one of the things that I bring to this process and I do so as a very long term resident of Amherst is the a concept that was first presented to me by a historian many, many years ago. And that is that we are stewards of the land that the land ultimately will outlive us. But while we're here, we are stewards of the land. And I take that very seriously. I can identify significant capital improvements to the properties that I've owned and where I live now for, you know, many, many decades. That is something that I take very seriously. And I would take it equally seriously as coming back, if I am selected to come back on the planning board. Thank you, Jesse. Thanks. I think I would offer that I bring a lot of creativity. So in many roles, parts of my life, I find that I'm able to think outside the box and come up with solutions that are actually inside the box that are not always obvious and that satisfy a lot of interests at the same time. Yeah, I feel like that's a strength that I can definitely bring to the committee. Thank you, Johanna. I feel like I've spent three years on the planning board learning, and now I'm excited to build on that experience. So I bring a dedication to making our town an even better place to live, work and play. And I like to think that I bring a spirit of open and thoughtful deliberation. Thank you very much. Thank you. This is our last question. And the order of answer will be Jesse, then Johanna, then Frederick. And it is, please confirm that you have the time to commit to meetings, hearings and site visits. And if you're currently serving on any town boards or committees, do you see any conflict with serving on multiple boards? And can you manage the time commitment for all of them? Jesse. I don't serve on any other town boards at the moment. And yes, I believe I have the time to commit to the planning board. Thank you, Jesse. Johanna. I also do not serve on any other town committees. There are times when it's a stretch, but mostly it works. Thank you. And Frederick. Yeah, I am retired. I have a reasonably flexible schedule. And so I do not anticipate any problems meeting the time requirements of the board. And I do not serve on any other board committee in Amherst presently. So there is no conflict there. And I can manage the time required for the planning board. Thank you. We're going, I'm going to now ask the CRC members if they have, we're going to do the same order. So Jesse Johanna and then Frederick. So are there any follow up questions from CRC members for Jesse? If there are just somehow raise your hand or get my attention. Pat. Yes, Jesse. You said for number three, describe how the planning board can achieve its goals. And you stated quite clearly that you lack the experience of the planning board. And I believe me, I understand that. What I'm interested in is if you had a chance to look at the master plan and reflect on the master plan and what aspects of it feel important to you or resonate with you in some way? Yes, I did not very deep read, but yes, I looked over master plan. I think what resonated most is sort of keeping the quality of the town at the same time, allowing development and conversations come up sometimes of the reality of what's needed today. Because that's constant changing. And even if it's a living document, a master plan might not always evolve as quickly as what the real needs, the practical needs are for success of the town and all aspects you can define that. So can I answer your question? I think so. Yes, thank you. Thank you. Pat and Jesse. Are there any other follow up questions for Jesse from committee members? I am seeing head shakes of no and no hands. So we will move on to if there are any follow up questions for Johanna. Are there, do the committee members have any follow up questions for Johanna? Jennifer? Well, I had a question. Could a question be related to something in the statement of interest or does it just have to be to the? No, you may face something off the statement of interest too. Okay. So I did have a question, Johanna, in your statement of interest you had said over the course of your first term on the planning board, you deliberated and voted on projects that increase housing near downtown in UMass, including projects in neighborhoods often averse to change. I was wondering what you meant by that. Good question. So I'm thinking about specifically like the Olympia Drive developments and the buildings downtown and there were definitely a butters to downtown who expressed concern about the design elements of those buildings and the massive of those buildings. Yeah. So that's what I was referring to. Jennifer? Oh, can you hear me? Yeah. Now again. No, thank you for the response. Yep. Are there any other follow up questions for Johanna? Seeing none. Next is Frederick. Are there any follow up questions for Frederick? Shalini? Was that a hand raised? Sure. Yes. And this was with respect to the question. Please describe considerations and objectives you'll use for considering proposed revisions to the zoning bylaws. And Frederick, I heard you. I love the Joni Mitchell code. And I read you emphasize the sense of history, which I think is an important aspect of a master plan as well. But could you speak a little more because that was the main focus of your response? And if you could speak to what what does history mean to you in terms of how you're going to make decisions? Is it the number of years a building has been in place or like what, you know, what did what would be the criteria within history that you would take into account, especially if if the sense of history is conflicting with an urgent need, let's say for affordable housing or like how, you know, what what were the criteria you would use in that situation? Oh, what you were thinking about? Well, that's a that's a very good question. And for example, if you're if you're if you're looking at a special permit, there are rules about the application being and the and the proposal being consistent with the prevailing architecture and so forth in the particular area. And on the other hand, we have, again, I heard someone talk about urgent needs and and they are there. And one of the things that that I would bring to this would be the to try and be creative about how to craft something that is consistent with the neighborhood and still advances a need, for example, for additional housing. And I happen to have over 50 years of experience as a landlord. And if you're going to solve the problems of housing in general, a key component of that is going to be rental occupancies. And I have a lot of experience with managing those and and doing so very successfully. And so I, I hope that answers your question. It's, you have to be very creative in order, but it I have found ways to do this, that advance the the goal that we want of more additional housing without sacrificing the the livability of the neighborhood. And that's that's something that I would take very seriously. Thank you. Appreciate the answer. Thank you. Are there any other follow up questions for Frederick? Seeing none, I believe we are going to we've completed the interviews. I want to say thank you to all of the applicants for joining us today and completing the SOIs completing the your submitting a statement of interest, having interest in serving on the planning board. Some of you having served on the planning board in the past, currently or or a while ago and being willing to come back and serve again. We appreciate you work working with us to go through this process to be here today to answer these questions and all we have completed the interviews. What will happen next is I'm going to as host of this zoom meeting, move you into the audience as we move into deliberations. We will potentially make recommendations today to the council. The whatever vote we take today will not be in front of the council until June 26. There is a council meeting tonight, but our recommendation does not fall under the ability to hear at the council meeting that recommendation tonight. We always do our best to minimize the time in between those recommendations on the vote at the council. It doesn't always work. There will be two weeks there, but sometime tonight or tomorrow, depending on timing, I will be in touch with each of you to let you know what the recommendation vote is, but it won't be heard at the council and whatever it is and whatever the council decides won't happen until June 26. So there'll be some time in there where that happens, but you'll at least know what our committee has recommended to the council by tomorrow. If we recommend appointment and the council votes whatever our recommendation is, no appointment will take, the appointments will be effective July 1. And so that's why we're getting it done in June. The appointments become effective July 1. Are there any questions from the applicants at this time before I start moving you all into the attendees section? Seeing none, I'm going to start moving you all in. And once I've done that, we're, as a committee, going to start our deliberations. You're welcome to stay because it's an open meeting, but you don't have to. That is your choice once I've moved you in. Thank you. I believe the committee members as panelists. So we are now moving on to discussion of our interviews and applications and a potential vote on recommendation. Before we get into the discussion, I just want to remind our committee, we have three potential openings. We have three committee members on the currently on the planning board whose terms are expiring, one of whom we just heard from has reapplied. And so we have to, we may recommend up to three individuals for those spots for three year terms. I'm going to summarize sort of the selection criteria that we have adopted before we get into conversation, just to remind us of, of what that selection guidance was. And then we will begin discussion. So the selection guidance has two parts and input from the body's chair and criteria for a healthy and effective multiple member body. The criteria for a healthy and effective multiple member body from the council is a strong base of seasoned members and a group of newer members who have served less than one term, as well as members who reflect the diversity of the town's residents. On the input from the body's chair, which is the planning board's chair Doug Marshall, we received some input that said his minimum qualifications include being fair and open minded, willing to reconsider previous positions, a team player willing to collaborate and compromise committed to attending nearly all board meetings, willing to review the meeting packets attend site visits and otherwise prepare, and a positive attitude about advancing and balancing Amherst's multiple development goals, as described in the master plan through the planning board process. The preferred qualifications from the chair are analytic reasoning, clear and concise communication style and ability to redesign and construction drawings, professional experience in related fields and he went to list them, an understanding of the town system of governance, boards and committees and the ability to contribute to the geographic economic age, employment and length of residency diversity. So that's a summary of our adopted selection criteria. Thoughts on the applicants and possible vote recommendations. I'm going to open up the floor at this time to that. I can't hear you Pat. Yeah, that's because I'm trying to make up my mind whether I want to speak. Your mouth was moving, so I thought you were saying something and just hadn't pressed the microphone. Well, I kind of was, but I was. I want to speak to and about Jesse. You know, both Johanna and Fred Frederick bring a great deal of experience. And Jesse is not experienced on planning board and his answers were short. And but rereading his statement of interest, I and some of the things that he said in his answers makes me really want to support him as a candidate. He in his statement of interest, he talked about owning rental property. And it's a long term investment for him. But he also as you read through and absorb his statement of interest, he talks about that long term investment being are I'm hearing it as being about people, not profit necessarily. And that's refreshing. He's also the only person who brought up any issues about diversity in his answers. And I don't have right here the quote that I wanted to use. But he's really looking to support families in year round residents to and to encourage them to move into Amherst. That's already a slightly different perspective instead of how do we keep them here? How do we also draw them in? And I feel like he was very honest about his values in terms of I have living downtown on purpose, living in a dense area on purpose. And I'll say more in a minute. I just feel there's something there that I feel is missing or was missing for me in terms of the other two candidates who I think are who to also but in a very different way. So I'm going to encourage us to take a risk on Jesse. And I'll probably say something else later. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else want to take a shot at it? Jennifer. Oh Pam, she raised your hand. Pam and then Jennifer. Okay. Well, we're discussing Jesse major. I would say that I appreciate someone who is able to negotiate and lead a faculty organization or faculty and staff organization, which comes with all of the inherent interests of each and every one of the people whose research is impacted or whose funding is to be discussed. And it is not an easy course. And I think someone who's been successful in managing that first and foremost is a good listener. And I think that's a characteristic and a skill that I think is pretty critical. Thank you. Pam, Jennifer. Yeah. Speaking of Jesse, I agree with what Pat and Pam said. I actually hadn't realized I knew he was a biology of veterinary animal biology professor, but hadn't realized he had the background in architecture and urban planning. So yeah, I think that's terrific. And yeah, and I was really impressed. I can't imagine anything more where people hold more passionately held physicians than on animal research and knowing that you're not going to reach consensus, but that everybody has to feel that they were heard and considered. That's, I was impressed by that statement. That's it. Thank you. I'll take a turn. I was impressed by all of the statements of interest and also the answers to all of the questions. And I think the three committee members who asked follow up questions, those were very helpful too in drawing out some additional answers. In looking at the selection criteria, I would vote to recommend and probably support recommending all three. They all have different strengths and weaknesses. And I can see where there might be some concern about Jesse because of an appearance of lack of experience. But I actually think back to Johanna when we made the recommendation three years ago to appoint Johanna who at that time did not have a lot of zoning and planning experience. And when we look at our selection guidance, we're supposed to have a good mix of experienced and newer members. And with two of our three candidates right now having experience and the current four members on the planning board, three of whom have at least, you know, I went back and looked, we, our current members who are continuing on were appointed in either 2019, 2020 or 2022. Two of them were 2022, but one of them had served on the planning board previously. So we really have a lot of experienced members and not as many of the what, what I think our selection guidance would call newer members. And so I think adding in a newer member or two would be beneficial to the board as a whole. And so, so in that sense, I think I found them all fairly open-minded and fair in terms of their answers to the questions and also I, I felt like all of that, all of the candidates generally meet our selection criteria in various ways, such that I could support recommending all of them to appointment. Jennifer. Yeah, so I didn't know if we were going to be going around through each candidate, but I have to be, you know, just, I feel like I have to say this because I've been really, I have some, I found on both in terms of from zooming into many planning board meetings over the last three years. And also the statement of interest that I do have concerns. I felt like the statement that, you know, that neighborhoods that are averse to change feels divisive to me. And it doesn't just seem, it's not just a difference of opinion. It's characterizing some neighborhoods as averse to change. And I have to say the response, I don't think those are neighborhoods averse to change if what was being thought of were the buildings downtown because there aren't a lot, I mean, those aren't a lot of residents before those buildings went up. There weren't people living downtown. So they weren't the residents of the downtown. I mean, I think there were, I know at one point there was a moratorium petition and without that had like 900 signatures for people all over Amherst. So and then, you know, I've heard in planning board meetings, she sometimes refers to transitional neighborhoods, which I can't help thinking or some of the neighborhoods in my district, which feels always felt a little derogatory or condescending. I'm not sure what that means. So I just, I was concerned about, I felt in the statement of interest that that was, it felt a little divisive and accusatory to me. So I'm struggling with that. Thank you, Jennifer. Pam. Yeah, that's actually good impetus for me to speak up as well. When I was listening to Johanna's response to number two, which is the conflict and controversial decisions, the very nice statement was made that process, that process is key, meaning we discuss it, we get it out there. But I am trying to remember back, I also have listened to more planning board meetings than I wish. And I, and I wish that there had in fact been initiated by Johanna Newman, more discussion of the pros and cons of projects. And I was typically very surprised that it was usually a fairly carte blanche acceptance of what was being proposed with, with little discussion about what could be improved to a project. I mean, we can, we can always get projects, but they can always be, they can always be serve the, the public better, they can serve the open space better, they can serve the goals and the master plan better. And I, and I missed hearing that aspect, just specifically from Johanna Newman. Thank you. Thank you Pam. Any other comments and thoughts? Yeah, I'm again debating, but I, since Johanna brought up the solar moratorium, I sort of need to speak to that a little bit. Her interpretation of it making, letting the world know that Amherst wasn't supportive of solar development is an inaccurate interpretation of what the moratorium was about. It was about slowing down so that we could create a solar bylaw so that we would have guidelines. And I remember very strongly the chair of the zoning board of appeals desperately reaching out to the planning board to say we need some kind of guidelines. And I want to state, I was one of the main supporters of the moratorium. So I don't, so it's a little funny to be doing this, but I, I again heard interpretations that puzzled me because it wasn't about protecting open green space. It was about using forests in a primary role to sequester carbon, and perhaps putting limits on having solar development in a forested area that was limited, that wouldn't take up 80 acres, but would take up a smaller amount. There was also a great uprising of public opinion in support of forest sequestration. So it doesn't seem like that was taken into account. And thank goodness for our governor, although I'm mad at her for other things. She's talking about preserving forests. And I don't know where the solar bylaw group is with that, but then initially they started off wanting to not necessarily save forests because it was a social justice issue. And so to me, it was a real lack of insight into what forests do and a lack of imagination on the part of the committee working. So I have real problems, and I will not be able to support Johanna to remain on the planning board. Thank you, Pat. Any other thoughts? Shalini, you have been quiet. Do you wish to say anything or do you wish to remain quiet? I'm just taking in all these different points of view and just contemplating the, especially around the solar issue. And I mean, it is interesting to me because that is Johanna's primary work in terms of environmental advocacy. So it is kind of ironic that that is the issue that Pat you're raising against her. But I understand you're raising it because you heard her disagree for reasons that you're saying are not what the solar moratorium was about. And I'm wondering if we need to clarify from your harness what her statement meant, because I didn't take it to mean what you are understanding because I also am totally in favor of the solar bylaws. And but I felt having spoken with the UMass group and having spoken with the staff and that they're like, while the solar bylaw is being written, there are processes in place that can make sure that we continue. So I'm just saying that there's like a, there might be some disconnect between what was said by her and how we are perceiving this. So is that something we need to clarify before we decide based on our interpretation of what was said? So we have closed the interview section of the meeting. And everyone was offered the chance to ask follow up questions. So I would be hesitant to reopen the interview portion of the meeting, because I'm not sure it would fall within policy or necessarily be equitable at this point. If people disagree, that can always be trying to overrule the decision of the chair. But that would be my decision at this point is where we've closed the interviews and it would be inappropriate to reopen them at this time. So other thoughts? Could we invite, I mean maybe now because we've closed, but could we invite a clarification from the candidate about what, because I don't think that's appropriate. So that would be, I would take that to be the same, at least at this time during this meeting, to be the same as reopening the interview process. Obviously, when whatever our recommendations are, go to the council. There, we have seen in the past plenty of public comment on our recommendations, including comments from candidates during the public comment phase of the meetings where the recommendations go. So that that could be a place where things could happen if people choose, if candidates or other residents choose to make comments at that time based on the recommendations we make. Okay, so yeah, as long as people have, because I don't think even, I don't think that question was asked for clarification while the thing was open and we're making that statement now. So just, I think it would be great in the future if he did, like that would have been a great clarification question to ask the candidate while we were still with the candidates. It was chosen not to be asked and that is okay. So Pam. Yeah, I just wanted to respond that this is based on all the different facts, including statements in the statement of interest. And so I think this is not an exhaustive interview process. And I think we've covered the basis pretty well. I did want to speak just for a second, since we've talked about the two other candidates, I would like to state that I'm very excited that someone like Fred Hartwell is interested in coming back on the planning board. I think the ability to review detailed zoning bylaws and the ramifications as he said are really important. That's that's what it's all about because there's so many interconnected pieces of zoning that it really takes somebody to be able to pick them apart and understand which pieces affect something else. So I really appreciate the fact that that he's coming out of retirement to to step back to the planning board. And I would support him. Thank you, Pam. Jennifer. Yeah, I guess in terms of Fred, he kind of he brings so much. He having been a limited Amherst a long time. He's a long time landlord that he, you know, is so and that he is an electrician by training and serves on licensing boards. You know, at his past experience on the board, he kind of seems to have the whole package. So that's exciting and that he as Pam said is willing to come out of retirement to serve again. Any other comments, thoughts? Seeing none at this time. I we have done motions in various manners before. We have three potential vacancies. And we have at this point three applicants. So I'm going to make the, well, people can make motions anyway they want. I was going to make motions. And what I was going to do was make a motion to recommend each of the candidates separately. So three separate motions at this time. Since there are three candidates, instead of if we had six candidates that might be a little harder to go on by one, but we have three. So that was going to be my plan. If anyone wants to make different motions than what I make beyond the plan I just stated to make the motions. And we'll see where they fall. Please let me know. But I will start with and they're all going to sound the same. And then we will take the votes. So let me get my notes. Sorry, I'm writing my motion down so that I can just read it each time. We're going to take them in alphabetical order. So I am going to move to, sorry, I got my mouth ahead of me, move to recommend the town council appoint Frederick Hartwell to the planning board for a term beginning July 1, 2023 and ending June 30, 2026. Is there a second? Second. Hal. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, I will roll call that vote. We are going to start with, we're just going to start with Shalini. Yes. Pat. I. Mandy is an I, Pam. I. And Jennifer. I. That motion passes five to zero unanimously. The second motion is a motion to recommend the town council appoint Jesse major to the planning board for a term beginning July 1, 2023 and ending June 30, 2026. Is there a second? Second, Rooney. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, Pat. I. Mandy is an I, Pam. I. Jennifer. I. And Shalini. Yes. That motion passes unanimously. I. The third motion is a motion to recommend the town council reappoint Johanna Newman to the planning board for a term beginning July 1, 2023 and ending June 30, 2026. Is there a second to that motion? Second, Shalini. Is there further discussion on it? Seeing no discussion, we will move to a vote. Mandy is an I. Pam. No. Jennifer. No. Shalini. Yes. And Pat. No. By my count that motion to recommend fails to in favor of three opposed. Seeing that, that means we will be, I will report all three out and I will report that that means the council has recommended whether not the council were not the council. The community resources committee is making a recommendation that would leave one seat on the planning board open for the time being. Is there any, let me look at my agenda. Are there any other comments, questions under planning board appointments at this time? Seeing none, we will move to announcements. I do not have any announcements at this time. Does anyone else have any announcements? Seeing none, I do not have any items not anticipated by the chair 48 hours in advance. Does anyone else have unanticipated items? Seeing none, that takes care of our agenda. I am going to adjourn this special meeting of the community resources committee at 5. 52 p.m. We will see all of you at 6.30 for the regular council meeting. Thank you.