Okay. Can you hear me now? Oh, but I can't hear you because you're muted. >> Hi. >> Hi. >> Hi, Erica. Hi, Lindsay. >> Hi, guys. I'm on here twice, I think. Um because
my and we're back. >> Okay. Good evening everybody. Um and thank you for your patience as we worked out some technical difficulties. Um welcome to the Ammeris Design Review Board meeting of June 15, 2026. My name is Erica Zikos and as the chair of the
Ammeris Design Review Board, I'm calling the meeting to order at 4:41 p.m. This meeting is being recorded and will be made available via the Town of Ammeris YouTube channel and minutes are being taken. The meeting is conducted via remote means pursuant to chapter 2 of
the Acts of 2025 extended through June 30th, 2027, the ability of public bodies to meet in a fully remote or hybrid manner. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via Zoom or by telephone. No inerson 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. A hyperlink to the hearing is posted on the town's online calendar. Board members, I will take
roll call. When I call your name, please let me know that you're here. Uh Lindsay Shar >> here. >> Karen Winter not present. Pat >> Off. We know Pat is present but is having
audio trouble. Uh Karen Bloom and Eric Zikos present. Uh board members, if technical issues arise, we may need to pause temporarily to fix the problem and then continue the meeting. If the discussion needs to pause, it will be noted in the minutes.
Please use the raised hand function to ask questions or make a comment. I will see your request and call on you to speak. After speaking, remember to remute yourself. The general public comment item is reserved for public comment regarding items that are both on and not on tonight's agenda. Please be
aware that the board will not respond to comments during the comment period. Public comment could also be heard at other times during the meeting when determined appropriate. Please indicate that you wish to make a comment by clicking the raised hand button when public comment is solicited.
If you've joined the Zoom meeting using a telephone, please indicate that you wish to make a comment by pressing star9 on your phone. When called on, please identify yourself by stating your full name and address and put yourself back into mute when finished speaking. Residents can express their views for up
to three minutes or at the discretion of the chair or discretion of the chair. And if a speaker does not comply with the guidelines or exceeds their allotted time, their participation will be continued discontinued from the meeting. At tonight's meeting, the board will conduct the following business. We'll
have general public comment period. Uh we don't have any um uh applicants tonight. Uh but we are going to uh kind of skip forward to discussion of the downtown design standards. Um then we'll approve our meeting minutes from April
27th, 2026 and uh any other non-anticipated business. So is there any public comment? Please let us know that you'd like to speak.
>> I don't have anyone in the attendees list that wants to speak. >> Okay. And this the the new number is that Pat or is it >> I'm not sure, but that was the same
number from earlier. So, I'm guessing it's Pat. So, I've tried to promote her to panelist. Um, but it I guess when you're on the phone it doesn't let you actually promote them. It just says allow to speak. >> And can you set that permanently since
we were having a hard time hearing Pat before? >> I think it's permanent until I disable it. So, she should be able to speak if she's here. Pat, >> that's you. Because without Pat's participation, we don't have a quorum. >> Yeah. Um we could have a discussion and
without any votes um which is certainly possible. >> Yeah, she's on here twice, it looks like. Okay. Um all right. Well, barring any um public comment, I'd just like to
maybe give a reminder to the board for the record about what our goal is in this discussion. Um as you know, the downtown the proposed downtown design standards are a three
volume set. Um, volume one kind of sets the stage and describes four different zoning areas and provides a sense of the character of each and those proposals respond to residents concerns about growth. Um,
this is also like the the residents um the vision for Ammerst is kind of driven by some community inspired values. Um, those are laid out in volume one. Volume two focuses on private development in
the downtown and it sets dimensional and character standards for the four different design zones and volume three is about the public way. It focuses on sidewalks and street furnishings, plantings, access to the street etc. So
my goal for the discussion is three-fold. one to provide some feedback to the town about whether these standards in our in our idea are moving in the right direction or not. In other words, do we approve of them in general even if we have suggestions about some
or many of the details. Second, to get into those details um for volume two uh we can talk about uh our concerns about dimensional standards about building character etc etc. um we should have
gone through the document so we can take turns sharing our questions and comments. Um uh and then for third I I note that these design standards are very different from what the DRB is accustomed to using as a framework for review. And I'd like to have a
discussion about the role of the DRB should these standards be adopted. Um we may propose to the town council that the DRB become a binding decision-making body rather than a recommending one, for example. Um, and we can have that conversation tonight. And I know that we
started it in the last uh in our last meeting and that there was a kind of a general interest in in having a having a firmer hand in being a a binding decision-making body. Um, but let's carry on that conversation this evening.
So I guess uh the one of the first questions if I could propose it as a as a starting point for the conversation is does anybody have questions about the overall structure of the the standards
volumes? Um questions or or comments about that? By the way, I'm sorry I'm late. I was um in the hospital. So Oh, Karen. Hi. >> Hi. We're so glad you're here. I
>> Yeah. I'm sorry I I couldn't get here sooner. >> We're glad to have you. >> Hope you're okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> So, any are there any um as we jump in um does anybody have any um questions
about like the way we'd like to run the conversation tonight? I'm sorry I missed the discussion. You've proposed it have proposed a certain way to run it. >> Oh, sure. Yeah. I um I just gave a a
very high level summary of what the three volumes of the design proposed design standard cover. suggested that we might start with a conversation about whether we think that the standards are
moving in the right direction or not. Basically, do we think that volume one >> addresses the the community values and concerns that um we feel that should be included? Um
is the the overall format of the of the document working? and then to move on to uh kind of deeper discussion about the the details the kind of page by page if that's how you >> well I don't know trying to figure I
have it on a different machine I'm trying to figure it out okay >> your hand just went up >> I know I figured it out. >> Oh, good. Okay. >> Um, I I appreciated the different sections they created, the different
districts, and I think that based on the information they took in, I think they were respectful of some of the concerns, including preserving the historic district, how to manage highrises
relative to the comm other areas of the community. So, I thought that was positive. Um, it's very detailed. I guess for me the question is what is the council going to do with this? >> Yeah,
thank you for for sharing that. Um, Lindsay, do you have any overarching thoughts? >> Um, I think it's great. I mean, I think it's really well organized and informative and a and a great
starting point um for developing standards that really do seem needed. Mhm. >> I guess same question for me is just like how how much like what's the process for
getting feedback and incorporating the feedback that is gotten um is received and um yeah that's my main question. >> Yeah, fair. Just do you have any insights? I can
speak to the schedule um only based on what's like published on the website. Do you have any insights about the adoption process? >> So from what I was told in briefly, it's that they're going to collect everybody's responses around July 1st.
They're going to take that time to review those responses, possibly update or change the standards, and then shop them around again. So, they're sort of looking at maybe a November, December
timeline to go before the town council. Um whether or not they do any more sort of like back and forth in between that time, I'm not sure, but I know they're probably going to revise them based on the feedback they're getting from the
different boards and commissions. >> Okay. And as a reminder, we're having this conversation as a board, but everybody in town, including us as individuals, is welcome to provide feedback either as singular comments or
by filling out a spreadsheet if you have lots of comments um and submitting those. And those links can be found on the town uh planning board's uh no, yeah, the >> planning department's >> the department's website, not the
board's website. Right. So, and that's uh they're soliciting those by July 1st. So, >> um just do you have that link handy and could you put it in the chat if so? >> Sure. One second.
>> Yeah, it's a great idea, Lindsay. >> I think Haron has her hand up. Yeah, >> I understand they'll be gathering information from the different boards. My question is how do they solicit information from the community? How does a community get informed in a
significant way? Um, you know, often certain people, certain voices are heard again and again. >> Mhm. >> And it seems it would be important to expand how we reach out to members of the community.
It's just a concern I have because I know there is um a very vocal contingency that is interested in highrises. >> Mhm. >> And um it seems we need many voices.
Do you have any idea how they're going to um move forward in in getting other um opinions? I'm going to try to answer that as diplomatically as I can only because I
brought those same concerns to them last September and I was sort of I don't know dismissed when I raised those concerns. Um I had asked them if they had planned to reach out to the ADA
community, if they had planned to, you know, involve other members of the community that you don't often hear from. throughout this process that they had started and the individual who was representing Dodson and Flinker was, you
know, very adamant, oh, I care about these things and and when I saw them nine months later, this was what back in March when they came back to town with their their study and I point blank asked them in this meeting where, you
know, the planning director was there, you know, Dave Zomeck was there and He his attitude was very dismissive and very flippant. And I said, "Well, I had asked you about this, you know, in September whether or not you were going to engage these communities, engage, you know, members of these populations." And
he was like, and I said, "Did you do this?" And he said, "No, no, I didn't." And it was just a flatout dismiss of no. And I just remember thinking, okay, so I don't know how to answer your question because the
impression that I was left with was they were given a heads up by town staff. I'm a planner. I don't see why you wouldn't take that directive on board. I'm also the staff leaison for the design review board. So I made those things known to him. But he, you know, was very adamant
that, oh, we have a schedule. we didn't work that into the schedule, therefore we didn't do it. And I thought, well, that's unfortunate because isn't that the whole point of the study is to get >> Right. Right. Yeah.
>> I'm saying as much as I can without >> No, I appreciate it. you know, so I don't know how committed they would be to going and putting in the effort to reaching out to those very same communities that you never hear from,
right? Because they can't attend a sharet on a Friday afternoon or, you know, a Saturday morning or whatever or they don't speak English as their first language, as their primary language. So, >> I asked these questions and it was I
appreciate it. And also many people don't even know the process is going on or >> correct >> the timeline. >> Yeah. And the timeline is now kind of running to a a point of closure. >> Yeah.
>> So like if if voices are missed in this phase that becomes all the more critical that they be included in the next one because it's going to be in the leadup to kind of adoption. Yeah, you know, >> but the short answer is I don't think
there will be another, >> right? I don't think there will be is what I'm trying to say. >> Um I just don't see them building that into their schedule. It doesn't sound like they cared very much to pivot the first time around and I don't think that
they're going to pivot this time around either. So, yeah, it's disappointing and it was very frustrating for me. Yeah. >> And as somebody who flagged that very very early on in the process, but it was
not it was not a note that was >> I'm curious if you have experience with um outreach of that type and what's been successful in terms of reaching
populations who don't have as much access to this information. And if you have any Yeah. If you have any experience or recommendations of how that could happen and then maybe that could be a a way to take the next step.
>> I'm sorry. Did you >> I know just is it possible to Oh, maybe it's maybe it'll be fixed. There was >> No, I just I just muted who I don't know who it was, but I just muted them. >> We think it's Pat.
>> Okay. But um okay um >> anyway I guess just I mean it doesn't have to just be just but um you know just brainstorming on ways in which >> ways in which public outreach can be effective and
>> sorry I just had to remove them because they kept unmuting and >> it was not helping. Sorry, Lindsay. >> I think you got my gist. >> Yeah. >> Karen, did you wanna
>> You know, sometimes >> typically um you would I mean I I've done social science research. That was part of what I did. And you would have information sessions in key locations that are
relevant to that community, that part of the community. Yeah. and you would have multiple sessions and you would make sure that there are other ways the information gets out. Um, and it just it doesn't feel like that's
going on. I think with regards to the locations of of meetings um and maybe timing of meetings that it was there were let's see >> there was the working group
which met more frequently and then there were a series of public meetings and I don't I don't know looking back when those were held this process has been going on for a year now right >> um so it's I think It's really important to
be uh what's the word I'm looking for to to to look at that process with a critical eye to make sure that you know I mean I know that information is on the website and that's accessible if you can
find it and I know I've received emails but of course I'm on boards and committees so yeah like how do we how do we maintain an inclusivity in this process Are there flyers? Are there meetings
in the apartments? Are there Yeah. at the churches? Right. Like where are we going to go to find find these voices? But I was also under the impression that um these design standards
were being presented to all of the boards and committees that were relevant. They were they were presented after the fact, right? So >> during the process, the information gathering process, during the community
feedback process, those boards and commissions were not presented to. They were not included. That's I'm trying so hard to walk this fine line between, >> you know, saying as much as I can and yet also
having my own personal feelings as a planner, but also as somebody who >> Yeah, >> I ride the bus to get to work. So, it's so funny. the day that they came to present the uh studies to the town staff the
first time around it was frustrating because when I had asked that you know the team from Dodson and Flinker if you had engaged the ADA community if you had talked to other people you know etc and that flippant response and then two
hours later I'm waiting for the bus and someone who is visually impaired gets off the bus and they're struggling and this when we had snow and they were fuming and one of the things they said was, you know, I really hate this town. I heard them say they just they were
just so frustrated with everything and I just thought this is the these are the people that you should have been gathering information from. Right. >> There's still unfortunately this I think topdown
approach to planning which I hate to say is still being practiced within our department. Right. And someone's going to flag that and come after me for saying it, but it's the truth. And no sugar coating it is going to change the fact that there were voices that were
very much left out of this process. So, and the effort was not put into meeting those voices where you would normally and traditionally find them. The research wasn't done, the effort wasn't put into it. And yeah, it's been a point
of contention for me for a couple of months now. So, I've been very tactful about how much I say and what I say just because this could have been avoided. And it just breaks my heart that we're still making the same we're
still doing the same things and the same people are still at the table while the same people who aren't usually at the table are still being >> marginalized and excluded. And I don't think there's any excuse for it at this point. So that's all I'm going to say.
Um and I'm just going to leave it at that because it's very it just makes me really angry actually. >> No, thank you for sharing that Justinta. I know that it it's you're choosing your your words carefully, but we we hear what you're saying,
Karen. >> Um I appreciate how frustrating that must be, especially as a planner. Um and this is probably moot, but another thought would be there are these pres proposed zones to talk to the people
within those zones and get feedback, but it sounds like that's not going to happen. So just a thought. >> I always take everybody's suggestions and and put it on paper and forward it along. Again, you know, that's most that
I can do. I can be very >> um persistent about that. And maybe it'll make a difference if it's coming from someone other than myself because and I, you know, since we're talking about it, the burden for me is always going to be
just because I'm the only representative of a marginalized community at the table, does that mean I'm always the one to carry, you know, who has to bring it up? And I had that internal discussion with myself even during that meeting. And I said, well, I'm at the table, so I have to do it. That's my duty, you know,
and I did it. But again it it's you know there are layers for this experience for me as well. But I will pass along everybody's suggestions and recommendations. >> Yeah. I mean you could you could know that you have the membership of the
design review board standing with you and sharing that set of concerns like >> we're here alongside. >> Yeah. So that should be our first item of feedback, I think. >> Yeah.
>> Is outreach and hearing voices from underserved populations that may not have access to input >> and what's what's the method for that? That there needs to be a method for that, not just a yes or no.
I think that I think that there's something about, you know, reaching out to the people in the the four zones, but I think that the downtown is used by everybody whether you live in the downtown or not. That's a an important
piece of this um this community. You know, most people don't live downtown, so uh but we still want to feel welcome there. And >> Mhm. >> I'm also amazed. I mean, I work for a firm downtown Ammerst and like nobody
that I work with was even aware that these were available. Um, and like it affects us a lot. >> No kidding. Okay. >> That's hard to believe. >> Yeah. So I mean even the people involved in the
>> presumably would have access >> and should have access and could have access don't seem to know. >> So there's something wrong with the process. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> All right. Good. I'm glad we opened with a kind of
the big picture because >> you know that may not have come up if we had just jumped into the details. So I'm glad to have that. um on the record. >> Um so volume one,
the big vision, the four proposed uh zoning areas. We're moving from two, three to four. So, smaller subdivisions of the
downtown, traditional Main Street, modern Main Street, downtown village, and downtown neighborhood. I'll start off the more detailed conversation by saying that I have a small issue with calling the zones main
anything because we have a main street and relatively little of these two zones falls along main street and I think that there's just a kind of a semantic issue nomenclature issue if you will um
and that's hopey not going to be confusing, but I would reconsider what we call the zones. And I went back and forth for a while in my mind about whether we need to go from three to four, but I appreciate the
intent um of these like a greater degree of subdividing the downtown. >> So, I think it's I think I landed in a place where I'm okay with it. Are you talking about traditional versus
modern Main Street? Is that what you're talking about? >> There's traditional Main Street and modern Maine and then downtown village and downtown neighborhood. And I think that um what used to be or what is currently the BG general business area
is kind of now divided into two traditional Maine and modern Maine. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. But I think it's kind of accommodating some changes that have already happened, >> right? >> And creating some space for, you know, a
limited space where that modern main language could could continue >> without inserting it into the traditional main street, >> which can happen, >> right? Theoretically now it could happen.
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. So I I I appreciated that additional zone for that particular reason. Um any other thoughts on volume one, which is not really the focus of our concerns,
but I think volume two and and to some degree volume three are really where our we get to sink our teeth in. I guess my only thought is like it's it's unfortunate that it needs to be as kind of like subdivided as it is. And I'm not saying
it shouldn't be, but it just, you know, from a like planning standpoint, design standard standpoint, like it's it's there's just so many there's so many different requirements.
um already um when it comes to design. And so it just feels frustrating to think about like, okay, well, which side of the street is it on, you know, and like which lot exactly and why? And um it
would just be nice if we were able to simplify it more instead of comp complicate it more. But that's my only thought. It's just like things just continue to get more complicated it seems when it comes to zoning and code and
that's hard to manage. >> Agree. >> I wonder if some of it is they're trying to deal with the current reality and contain what is being used. So yeah >> and maybe that's why they've described
it the way they have because by having downtown village in a way it contains the extent to which modern build tall buildings can enter other areas. I mean that's just a thought.
>> Yeah. Preserving some character as inevitable growth and change happens. Yeah. Yeah. >> Um Pat, are you back with us? >> I think so. Yes. Thank you for whatever
you did. I've been listening. I I had audio but I had no video. So I I I've been at the start of the discussion. >> Great. >> And I think the good there are very good questions about um this planning.
Are we ready to move on to volume two or would you like to offer any comments on volume one before we move forward? No. All right, let's fast forward then to volume two.
Um, and I I happen to make notes kind of page by page. >> Um, if that works for other people, uh, we certainly can review it that way. It's just kind of going through
sequentially. Um, with with commentary. This is uh the downtown design uh standards is applied to uh private development in the downtown and lays out
dimensional standards for those four zones so that we can start to have a a physical difference in the the built environment. Um, I have my first comment is on I think page 10. Does anybody have a
comment? >> Yeah, I questions about that too. >> Karen, you want to start us off then? Well, I'm just curious um the long terms of long-term planning what the reasoning
is increasing the height >> um across the three zones. Why the increase I guess is a question I have and what are the implications for increasing it in terms of the overall
character of the town? If I remember correctly, and I know we're being recorded, so this is the record, and if my memory is wrong, forgive me please, but that um modern Maine is currently 55, but that with um a variance, they were uh requested to go higher anyways,
which was approved. Um and so they're just kind of um normalizing. >> I see. >> That's been happening. >> Yeah. um no change in the in the downtown neighborhood and maybe anticipating the same for traditional
Maine. I think my concern is with the downtown village um the height increase from 50 250 from 35 is already a significant >> a significant step but they're also
permitting with special permit up to 60 as long as there's a step back and I think that that's even with the step back 60 ft is too high >> I agree >> in that in those downtown vill areas.
Um, and this is something they can't address, but I'm always wondering for what purpose in terms of their plans. I mean, what are they anticipating that space will be needed for?
>> It's if I can just I mean, from a architectural standpoint, it's uh floor to floor heights. um would that would allow for a fivetory 12 foot Florida height. >> Yeah. >> Um fivetory building and
um you know 12 stories is probably a little more than you would need typically, but it's but it's a good amount of space to allow for all the mechanical systems that go between ceiling and roof struct and floor structure. So, it's giving
like a comfortable amount of vertical space to provide a five-story building. Um, is really the math behind it. >> I see. >> Yeah. >> I would argue that if in the in the village, the downtown village zoned
areas, five stories is too high. I mean, they're along the park and bumping up against properties that are zoned residential. um five stories to me um feels like too much. And I I know that they've tried to accommodate it
with, you know, um stepping back or reducing to 40 ft within 25 ft of the lot line, but there's still implications for for neighborhood impact. >> I agree. >> Modern Maine and traditional Maine are
where we would welcome the taller taller buildings. All right. Um, moving forward, what's the next page or next section that somebody has thoughts to to comment on?
Maximum stories. I think that's kind of related to what you just said, right? >> Yeah. >> The stories the on page 11 the stories doesn't have a similar bullet point for special purpose assuming that it's there in the building height.
>> Yeah. Uh Karen, please. >> Oh, you may not be there yet. I'm on page 14. You may not be there. >> No, please. I think we Yeah, 14 sounds good. >> My concern remains parking. >> Mhm.
>> I think that a developer should provide reasonable parking and my understanding is in the past that hasn't happened. But it is of concern that there's pressure. you know there there are
businesses around where their parking spaces are being taken up by resident residents. Um and it's just it seems that somehow we should build in the expectation that a developer is
responsible for providing that. I mean, Lindsay, is that sort of a standard that if they a developer creates a residential building, they provide a certain number of parking spaces? >> Typically,
>> and then with with special permit that can be modified or waved. >> Yes. Yeah. >> We do have a parking problem in this town for sure. And um this isn't going to help with that. >> No, it's not.
I mean, I love the idea of a walkable, bikable downtown, but we do live in a four-season community. So, that's not always practical, nor is it in welcoming to folks who are coming from outside of the downtown to do business here or have
dinner or what have you. I mean, a parking structure might go part of the way towards resolving that issue, but the thing that I always go back and forth on is that parking takes up so much space. >> So much
>> it does, but there's also the issue of financial burden and who has the financial burden as well. That's why I bring up developers being responsible for parking because otherwise it falls on the town. >> Yeah. sentence.
>> Karen and Erica, I have my hand up if I may. >> I agree with your comments. I I was astounded when some of the new um buildings went in um in the
um upper part of Ammeris downtown, whatever you want to call it. um that that there was commercial space and there was residential space and there was no accommodation for parking. Mhm.
>> And I I think that developers have to be have to have a responsibility to make a certain number of parking spaces available for each unit and for each commercial district because otherwise um you know there's lots of conversation
that Ammerst has um a posity of parking and I think that's because um the new development has not accommodated needed parking >> and and I Karen I agree it takes up a
lot of space. However, the residents of those buildings of businesses of those buildings are are relying on street parking and other available >> and so I don't know how we solve this
issue but I think it is an issue. >> Yeah. And I think what we can do is just flag it as a point of, you know, something that we see that the the planning board will need to carry on a conversation about, >> right? And waivers are problematic in that regard.
>> Yeah. >> Um and that's perhaps to flag it to the the planning board. When we speak of a garage being built, that's the financial responsibility of the tenant. >> And that becomes a big issue.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Um yeah, and it may not be one car per unit. Maybe it there's a different formula that needs to be developed so that they're providing some significant or some percentage of the the
>> retail and residential needs on site. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Great. Okay. Noted. Noted. Um, my next comment falls on I think page
18, 18 and 20. Does anybody have anything before prior to that? >> So on 18 regarding frontage and side and rear setbacks, I don't know.
I'm trying to get a handle on this. Um, the downtown village the proposed here is a is a change to a a 50-foot frontage minimum um from 125. And I'm wondering if any of
the current what would fall into downtown village lots are subdividable. If we're changing to a 50- foot frontage minimum but requiring depending on conditions a 10 to 15 foot minimum size setback that leads to a
building that's only 20 ft wide. And so we're trying to propose development and we're trying to make space uh make developers see a potential site right as as useful. Um
that's problematic and I don't know whether to change the minimum frontage or to change the setbacks and it's probably not the setbacks because the village character kind of relies on that space between >> the volumes,
>> right? but also noting that the setback can't be used for parking. It can be used for travel, can't be used for parking. So then now we have all of this space between buildings and you're then kind of maybe
creating a long narrow volume and having to fit parking in on what might become uh otherwise useful space. So um just noting that Anybody else have comments in this in this area
of the document? And Karen, you probably then and maybe Pat had also comments on page 21, which picks up parking again where it said not required. I I I just want to comment on setbacks. I appreciate what you're saying.
It's a dilemma because many of the buildings and this pertains more to the modern part. Many of the buildings that have gone in do not have adequate setbacks. >> And it makes it very uncomfortable to move along that space. And it certainly
doesn't invite people to if shops or restaurants are going, it doesn't invite people to really spend time in the town. >> Yeah. >> When setbacks are like that. >> Yeah. Especially on the on the the front.
>> Yeah. >> There's like no no setback or the sidewalk is also narrow, right? Like these >> very narrow. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. If you have a double stroller, you can't do it. Oh, yeah. All right. Um, moving forward, next
pages of concern or comments, thoughts. I pick up on page 24. Anyone before then? Okay, page 24, length of building and then 25,
facade length without modulation. And this also picks up on 26, like roof length without change and bay width. Um, I feel that that maximum should scale down more significantly
in the downtown neighborhood, something more residential in scale. Mhm. >> Um I'm seeing uh 40 feet um as the facade length without without
modulation and length of building side 150 ft in downtown neighborhood. And that just you know this is the this is the zone that they flagged to kind of transition us into residents. And I I feel like there's this whole package of dimensions that
just feels big for this purpose. >> That makes a lot of sense to me. >> Yeah, I agree. >> Did anybody else pick up on any of that or want to add to >> I didn't pick up on that, but I agree
with it. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I do too. Um, I'm trying to understand the waivers because there are a lot of waivers built in throughout. And I guess I mean maybe that's typical. I don't know. It just concerns me
because historically um a lot of things have been excused through waivers and I guess I don't know if we can yeah special permits or waivers um are
uh by approval of the the ZBA. Um and so they have to they have to make a proposal. I mean, Lindsay does this all the time for a living. So, maybe you want to speak to the process, Lindsay. But it doesn't come automatically. It's not a a thumbs up. You have to make a
pitch and have a conversation. >> I've been turned down. >> Okay. Well, that's good to know. Not that you've been turned down, but >> no accessibility um variances, which >> I don't feel proud of asking for. So it
was understandable. >> That's a good a good lesson. >> And I think sometimes those uh waiver possibilities of waivers are kind of pitched as incentives, right? So like, oh, if we could actually get a developer to come, if only they could do XYZ and
then make an argument that it's not going to be um harmful, make a convincing argument that it's not going to cause harm, then they could you know, then go the extra five five feet so that they could get another set another whole story and house that many
more people or what have you. all part of the part of the process. Um, you know, as sidebar, I just heard um a lecture from um a woman who's an architect and an
attorney. Um her name is Sarah Bronin and she has uh founded an organization called the National Zoning Atlas where she's she and her team are documenting uh zoning regulations across the country
and they're getting into town by town um what the zoning regulations are and and noting how many different zones and like how are they applied and they're really reading the meat of uh different communities zoning proposals. Um, and
she makes an argument that less is more, right? Like the and that there are communities in our country that have no zoning and that may not be great either, but >> I don't know where Ammeris falls in, >> but um, okay, moving on. Um,
>> my next one was on page 31. >> Okay, I've got a 27 and 29. Um, let's see. storefront assembly on page 27. It's too narrow in the modern Maine. I think it needs to match the bay width.
If we are going to pres propose or provide the possibility of contemporary architecture that um it should we should provide the possibility for an all glass um storefront.
>> Mhm. >> Fully glazed ground floor. So maybe that storefront assembly should match the required bay width which is 40 ft. Page 28 anyone? I guess the only so if
yeah cuz traditional matches the bay width the modern main is half downtown village is half. Like I'm wondering if some of that is is that scaling down that you're talking about,
>> but I think like uh 11 East Pleasant, you know, it has this like all fully glazed ground floor >> might not be permitted. Like I walked it I think it's 39 ft. It's the width of that building, right? And so you
wouldn't be able to have a full glass storefront assembly. >> But if we're are we are we wanting to change the bay width? >> No, I think I would propose changing the storefront assembly to make it as wide
as the bay. >> Okay. And your previous your previous comment about trying to reduce >> the modul modulation >> was to the the downtown neighborhood zone. >> Okay.
>> But it might fall into other zones as well. I'm not sure how you feel about >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah, it's interesting to think about kind of how they're doing making that transition happen architecturally and if that's part of their thinking like
>> no I agree I mean I think this falls into the category of less is more so like give people more flexibility >> which is part of my complaint the roof categors category but that's week. >> Oh, yeah. We're getting there. Um, okay.
29. Um, in the modern main I This is so fine, too. Fine grain, but I was saying consider adding adding text that says um projection or recession to differentiate ground from upper levels.
Um, so on this in this their second paragraph under Modern Main Street. Um, and then I'll also note that Modern Maine does not have a a requirement to differentiate the top.
Um, and I don't mind that, but I'm just pointing it out. Um because then fast forward to page 31 where Lindsay I know you have a comment but I'll just throw this out there that on
the roofs I would ask to strike the last sentence from modern Maine and not require a horizontal projection on the modern main to allow the the
facade just continue without a a cap to create a shadow line. Do you want to pick up from there, Lindsay? I'm nibbling on dinner while we're
talking. Um, that's why I keep going off camera. Um, so I'm pretty surprised that the traditional main street has in her materials only masonry.
>> Brick is masonry. So I'm not sure why they're differentiating that, but um, yeah. So like even in places where there's historic districts, it's typically like a percentage of masonry,
not 100%. >> Um, and so I think it would be helpful to provide some flexibility in materials. I think having
predominantly masonry is makes sense. >> Yeah. >> But I feel like like an 80% would be would be more appropriate to give people flexibility to provide some alternate material for cladding
um that that provides an accent and differentiation. Um, I also had concern about the traditional Main Street roof saying that it must be flat or low sloped.
Um, I don't know what low slope means. It's not specifically stated, but in the example that they show in the in the image in the top right, it's I mean >> probably that tower would be considered a low slope roof, but like that's pretty
subjective. >> Yeah. Um, so, um, maybe like they have pitches like roof pitches listed in the downtown village and downtown neighborhood.
>> Yeah. >> Um, I mean, I don't think telling like limiting the roof to being flat um, in those areas makes a whole lot of
sense to me. But especially given the image and and that like we're trying to create this modularity and this um um like rhythm and um differentiation.
But maybe just having a a roof pitch referenced >> or the low slope option. >> I have Lindsay, I have a question with both materials and that I appreciate what you're saying. Just going back to
materials to provide more flexibility. My question is are there any materials we would like we would not like to see that we would um exclude from
the material list I guess is one question there list for the other locations like the modern main street. So, it says brick, masonry, fiber, cement panels, brick veneer, masonry
veneer, metal siding that is not excessively reflective or glare producing. I would I think that that's a great list. I mean, I don't think they need to word it. So, with so many different ways of saying
brick and masonry, but um I would say masonry, fiber, cement, metal, panel, those seem like viable options. Um, wood is tricky because it's it wears. Um, we've seen that on some of our
downtown buildings and it can be really challenging to try to protect it adequately um from weathering in ways that are not desirable. But um I certainly think that
fiber cement and metal should be considered >> as an example. >> As an example, the Cune Riddle designed building on the Hastings block has a metal panel staircase. >> Exactly.
>> Right. which is I think really well done and respectful of the scale and the color and >> right I was thinking of that too >> in a you know a stucco finish or some kind of other smoothing smooth pin >> um >> and that's true at the
>> and stone is not even mentioned which is curious although I guess maybe it's >> that's masonry yeah um and there are a lot like actually um terracotta and limestone are also
masonry. Um, so I I would assume they're broadening it to include those, but I think it's worth asking that question because it because those do provide some really great variation in materials
other than brick. Um, like I'm thinking of the Ammeris College admissions building, 55 South Pleasant Street, which was done about 15 years ago. And that's there's terracotta cladding on the
addition. Um, and then there's stucco. I believe it's stucco. And then on the original historic part of the building
with a stone base like plinth. >> Mhm. Um, and it's really beautiful. Like I think that the combination materials and they're the terracotta like really picks up the brick color and then the stucco is just
kind of a clean accent and way of kind of referencing the like white clabbered traditional New England housing. Um, so I don't know. I mean I I think I mean you wouldn't want to see a vinyl
sighting. I wouldn't I don't really ever want to see vinyl sighting, but um it's part of our reality and some of it's okay. But I think for for a like commercial building, it's probably not the best option. >> Mhm. I don't think CL like clabbered
sighting is probably all that desirable, but at the same time like I could imagine it done in a way that's I I wouldn't want to assume that it's not like I think like shiplap sighting can look nice um or some of that type of
more modern clean line. Well, circling back to what you started with, which was a a percentage, >> that might be an interesting way to frame it that there's a a primary material >> exactly >> is masonry
period and don't need to define with a a a list what all of those masonry options are >> and then say and and you know, then have a a secondary material available.
because I think once you start listing you you do kind of run into this problem. Um like in the modern Maine they don't list weather treated wood which you know can
be problematic but I think and in in downtown village they list painted wood but there are other ways to treat it. Um, so once you start getting into that level of specificity, you into a
a list that you have to constantly maintain. >> Mhm. Um, so maybe it's more like a primary material masonry and then provide a percentage and secondary material and maybe there's a suggested list but it's not
definitive. I don't know how to handle that. Um, >> I think another item here is how water is being managed. And I didn't see that anywhere. But um you know when it comes
to roofs >> Mhm. >> water is a big issue and a big part of its job water management. Um, so thinking about,
you know, the use of gutters, scuppers, sort of like roof drainage and and not so much like from a standpoint of I'd like to see this type of gutter or scupper or downspout, but more of a like
let's make sure that our water is being properly directed away from the pedestrian walkways and and not causing problems, you know, that that water causes like whether it's dripping or ice
building up or >> weathering um materials. Just um I don't know. I feel like from a design standpoint, that's a more functional than aesthetic consideration. Um,
but I just think, you know, make ensuring that that the water is being properly managed and and moved away from the building in pedestrian way is is an important piece. >> So glad you brought that up. Thank you. >> Um, okay.
moving forward. Any comments? Um 32 ground story upper story fenistration or 33. I had an issue on page 33. upper story
fenestration spacing. >> I think specifically and only in the modern main that we could just delete that text alto together. It's too restrictive. Um contemporary construction allows the
facade to disengage from the structure. So if you're using steel or concrete structure or CLT C11 East Pleasant Street, right? like the the windows don't necessarily align with the structural bay. I think that's a real character of the
more traditional parts of downtown, but it shouldn't be a requirement of the modern Maine if we're going for contemporary construction. >> I agree. I kind of have an issue with this whole thing, but
>> again, I just think it's I just think it's too restrictive. Um I certainly think that it's important to have an order and a balance and a you know set of datim data datmss throughout the
building and um alignment but I I don't think it needs to always be that the windows are vertically or horizontally aligned. Uh, but that's just hitting it getting a little too
specific, I think. >> So, there'd be some designs where design-wise there would be a different approach. >> Yeah. I mean, there's lots of ways to create a rhythm where you can see that there's um a datim or an alignment
that's held um an organization to the penistration, but it doesn't always that can depart from having things being vertically or horizontally aligned. >> Yeah, I agree with that. >> It just feels restrictive.
>> Yeah, >> it's such an interesting challenge. We haven't had like a form-based >> before and you know you you see them and you deal with them but once you start on a path of defining
like I don't know where the difference is. Yeah. I find it very very restrictive and it's an interesting thing to think of some future design review board measuring the percentages of aperture versus mass and saying you
know provide this documentation you're off by 10%. Um I mean that is kind of already where we're at with energy code. >> Yeah. So that's what I mean. There's just so many different
restrictions and requirements. It just gets really cumbersome. >> Yeah. >> Um >> design grievances, rooftop mechanical equipment, page 34. I just made myself a note is like define
the screening as viewed from where, >> right? Mhm. >> Like for example, the the building behind the Oyster Bar, that mechanical equipment is screened
technically, but you see it really. >> Yeah, >> it's really really vis visible and unfortunate, >> right? So, we need to choose some strategy. Do we mean from the sidewalk, from the center of the street, from
adjacent buildings? Like what's the what's the goals there with the screening? >> And what's what is the screening? Like does it >> how much does it actually shield? Is it in integrated into the design of the building? >> Yeah.
>> Are the architects local enough that they can actually see the building? >> Oh, interesting. That's an interesting point. >> Well, there's another question. Um, okay, right along. Um, any comments on
page 36, site design, length of frontage without pedestrian passage to interior or rear of the lot? I do feel that 150 ft is too long for the downtown village and downtown
neighborhood. Again, like thinking of that neighborhood scale, I think it's unlikely that somebody would max out would combine lots and max out and all that would happen. But I do think that there's something to be said for
breaking down the overall scale of those more resent parcels. Yeah. >> And again, I don't know what the right number is, but 150 ft feels too to me.
>> Okay. >> Maybe 100 was the bandwidth. I don't remember, but yeah, maybe 100. That would be like half of what you're looking at there. Or 75. Oh, not 125. So
like >> 100. Wait, 100 would be 2/3. So >> 100 is 2/3. Yeah. >> Um just like in general stepping down the overall.
>> Yeah. >> And those zones a little more. >> Yeah. Where was my previous I've lost my previous note about the the bay width of the downtown village downtown
neighborhood. Um any who has the next comment? Page 37 38 39. I don't pick up again until page 43. I don't have anything. >> Okay. Um, I actually don't have any
issue with the the lighting guidelines. I go with everything, but I don't know where to park information about bird safe glazing design and lighting practices.
Um, it's not addressed here at all. And I've been kind of deeply influenced by some research that's been happening at UMass that's been tracking um bird collisions on campus. Um and I
know that there's a lot of very low viz high impact uh practices that designers can take that reduce bird collisions. Um, and those happen uh both with the
design of the glazing itself, but also um lighting practices and locations of vegetation and things. So, just flagging that that I'd like to see some reference to bird safe design. >> Absolutely.
>> My son just wrote it made a book about about that topic in first grade. This is a little picture and it's like out of nowhere this building shows up or something like that.
>> Poor bird doesn't make it, >> but they're teaching it. >> Good. Okay. So, we should include it. >> Yeah, >> definitely >> thing. It's a real thing. Um, and then the next, you know, there's this whole section on on on sign
guidelines. And I think that what I'd like to see as somebody who, you know, is part of enforcing these guidelines in town is that article 8 either gets merged into this package or basically that things
get consolidated. >> That And so concludes volume two. Do we all need a stretch? >> I wanted to say I did have a thought about signage. It's just that like >> maybe window signage alone shouldn't be
recommended. Um I've just noticed how it's really can be really challenging to read signage on windows. >> Yeah. Um, and I think maybe trying to encourage it's pretty rare that there
isn't another sign, but there are times where that happens and it can just be really hard to hard to see the sign. So, I didn't see that anywhere in here that it's required to have a secondary sign to a window sign, but
something I've been thinking about. >> Yeah. Yeah. Or or rather that maybe the language is that the the window sign should always uh complement a a building or >> Mhm.
>> other sign. >> Mhm. >> And as far as the volume three, I didn't spend a lot of time on it. I did just flip through it and I think overall it seems fine, but I don't have any actual
feedback to give. >> I don't either. >> I have relatively few. Um, I do think that the various widths and subzones that
they defined are are are clear. I appreciate the material and textural options that are provided, but also trying to provide some consistency in town, which would be really welcome. um
the lock transition zone. Like if you look at the where those dimensions go like pages six, seven, and eight. We don't have a lot transition zone in
very many places, only the widest sidewalks. Um, and this might be a hot take, but I'm wondering about taking bicycle parking
out of that lot transition zone labeled as B, zone B on page six. um because it never occurs without also um a furnishings and utility zone. And I
think keeping bikes out of the throughway, even crossing or somebody hops on their bike and they're on the sidewalk for a little bit is a good idea. It's safer and it's kind of cleaner, if you will. Um,
so it doesn't eliminate an option for bicycles. It just keeps them from being from having people from having to cross the sidewalk with a bicycle. >> So, you're saying to move it over >> or eliminate it? Yeah, there's a table
on page nine >> that says that in that lot transition zone that bicycle parking can happen along with public seating and street trees and planters and so on. And I just think that you know it can happen just on the other side of the sidewalk in the
furnishing and utility zone. That >> makes sense. Um, it's possible on page 19 that outdoor dining could be allowed in a in a in a area that's only 4 feet wide.
Guess that's enough for like a cafe table and chairs. It's pretty skinny. It is. Um think you could do like a a twoerson table. >> Yeah. And I I mean I guess that that the
option for some kind of outdoor seating and dining is a real benefit for visibility and enjoyment of some of our downtown places. So I just pointed that out to myself. I shouldn't have even said it out loud. Um, and then I again I
don't know where to put this, but I was wondering if if is there anything besides a jersey barrier. >> I know they're really unpleasant to look at >> and if we're going to use them. Yeah. Can we require maintenance and replacement
when they get gnarly? um during CO they were all painted and they were brightly colored and and they've all started to chip and fade and it um
it provides a safe space on the pedestrian side. Um but it doesn't look great. >> Yep. >> Are there alternatives to that? the parklets that they have provided,
you know, that these kind of decks that they move in that kind of a builtin >> Oh, >> yeah. >> Those look nice. >> Those do look nice. >> Where does it even talk about them?
>> It doesn't. Uh, street enhancements, outdoor dining. Um, the example is in the furnishing and utility zone. I couldn't find out. I couldn't find a place where it was about taking over parking spaces. >> It's probably in here. I just didn't.
>> 42inch high compliant boundary on all sides facing street. So I would say that jersey barriers aren't typically that high, are they? >> No. Three >> three-foot minimum buffer with crash rated planter side facing oncoming
traffic. I mean, to me, it seems like Jersey barriers don't meet that criteria. >> Where are you looking? >> Um, page 20. >> Page 20 >> at the bottom under um
>> uh F and G. >> Got it. >> Yeah. And this is this is in a in a parking area otherwise would be used for parking. >> Yeah. >> But yeah, I mean I think maybe making a
note of maintenance of really any materials. Um but certainly painted structures. Do you want to add the raise platforms as an option?
>> I think it does list that. >> Oh, it does. >> Thought I saw it. Allowable furniture. Yeah, it doesn't say it doesn't specifically define the surface. It just says
without changing the curb line of the street and the accessible access threshold services and furnishings. So, I think it it doesn't define it away. It's possible within the definition, but it
doesn't demand that I have a a deck. >> All right. Um, I had some questions about bio retention, but I don't really know how to answer them. I was really hoping that it would be required
um for groundwater management and it seems to be required in some places and optional in others. Um but that's that was my last comment and that falls on page 36.
How'd we do really appreciate the close read that you provided. It's I think important to have a lot of knowledgeable and wise eyes on this package of
standards. Um, is there any other discussion or points about the standards that didn't uh come to light that you'd like to provide now before we kind of close this
conversation? >> I think one one takeaway other than just the like access >> Yeah. access to other to anybody everybody. Um is the less is more concept and just like the importance of
trying to not be too restrictive. Yeah. I think that these being um just comments are recorded uh and can be provided to
whoever comes next >> um the department uh the consultants and on to the planning board. Um, I don't know that we need to vote on
anything. We've provided as members of the design review board our feedback. Um, and just you will obviously you're packaging all of this up. Appreciate that. Um,
do we have I know I recognize that it's six o'clock, but do we have a minute to uh get it on the get our thoughts on record about um how we feel the DRB with with this
big change pending to the downtown design standards? Should the role of the DRB change? Should we become a binding decision-making board or continue to
just be a recommending board? Should the DRB go away and be folded into uh become a subcommittee of the planning board or the zoning board of appeals? For example, Karen, given all that's being proposed, I think
it's the DRB should have an important role. Mhm. >> Where it's placed is I have a question about you know the zoning board is the board that really has the most power in terms of making these decisions and I
wonder if um they would be more aware of our recommendations if we were part of that process. >> Yeah. more directly, I guess, is what I'm saying, where they're more aware of
what's being suggested. >> Definitely be curious about what that looks like, you know, like that idea of in being a subcommittee, like what would that how would that change our operation? And I also agree with what Karen said
that it it would be nice to have more of a binding role and voice um and and not just be one like part moving around. I have to prepare for that slackboard meeting in a few
minutes. Um but yeah, just having having more a more integral part in the overall um approval process.
>> Yeah. I mean, it seems if we were a subcommittee, we would have more direct contact with them and it it would be harder to sort of dismiss some of the recommendations or, you know, not be aware of them.
Mhm. I >> also wonder if it may be easier for the applicants to have, you know, more integral approach to the approval process, >> one-stop shopping. >> Yeah.
>> Would it be easier on town staff to show up at fewer fewer evening meetings? Um, >> yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, it's an interesting question. I don't I I It's an interesting question. I do feel that the, you know, if this is going to
become and something at this level of specificity is going to become law, that they're going to need some folks that are really tuned into um the the the nuances of the code
because we still want to have good design in town, you know, and just simply putting these limits on the paper doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to be compatible and be beautiful and >> fit in. So, I would like to see the DRB
having a a stronger voice as well. And I don't know, I think we asked this at the last meeting. Um, and I don't know just if you learned anything about it, but like what even is the process of changing the DRB's
responsibility or should we just flag that for the town council to consider along with these, you know, the long process of approving the standards. Um, also
reconsidering how the DRB is enforcing them. >> I think with regard to changing the DRB's sort of, I guess, leverage, if you will,
in becoming a binding body. When I brought it up with the planning director, it was a little bit like, oh, but wait, let's just back up for a second and get through the design review standards. So, I've heard varying opinions since I started working. Some
people have said they don't want to get they, you know, they want to get rid of the DRV. I've had people say that. Um, and I don't know where the temperature is on that. You know, no one's sharing that with me obviously as the staff less
on to the DRB. Um, but I would have to say that it would be a huge missed opportunity and I think the town would be shooting itself in the foot to create these standards and then you know
go through the process of adopting them through town council whether it's you know in block or you know a volume by volume and then not to have anyone who's you know skilled in these types of
decisions to not have somebody there to make those decisions and help enforce it would be a real detriment I think. So that's something the town needs to I think consider whether or not they are considering it and how seriously they're considering
it. I am not privy to those conversations so that I can't say. Please read between the lines with my answers. We pass you Karen. >> Well, perhaps one way to present it and
define it is we would act as an advisory board >> to um the zoning board >> and sort of redefining how we're understood uh might be helpful because I do think
that would be our function to be advisory advisory board. >> Yeah. And I I think the risk there is that we're kind of defined well we are defined as an advisory board at the moment and there's no nothing that we
say is binding. We make recommendations to either the building commissioner or the planning board and they get to do the enforcing. So they can choose to listen or not. And so I think what we would like to do is advise
with teeth or right with to to respect the the expertise the the time um of the of the committee and the staff to you know spend time on this board.
And if the if the you know the design review board if the design standards are going to turn into this huge document um then I think we want some people that are really invested in the carrying those forward.
So >> and that's where being a subcommittee may have may be a better option. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. or maybe there's some other structure that we're not >> considering but that would provide that
opportunity. Yeah. >> And I I take Lindsay's point too about maybe having a kind of a a closer fit structurally that would make communication about um all of these new standards a little
bit smoother for the folks who are applying. I think the overlap is obvious between the zoning board and the design review board. It's just getting those who make the decisions and you know those who
>> go through this process to kind of like start integrating those two things, right? And and start figuring out how to make that work because you really >> the zoning board can only do so much, right? when I work with them, they're thinking, "We're just here to approve
the use. Why do we have to talk about, you know, the design and and why do we have to make a comment about this?" And they're not necessarily, you know, the right people to make those decisions, >> right? >> Um, their purview is zoning. So, I do
think the subcommittee option is, you know, a path forward. It's just whether you know it's convincing other people to go on that journey with you and to see the benefits of choosing that path. So,
>> I apologize, but I have to go because I need to get ready for this other meeting. >> All right. And so, if you're if you're running, then we don't have enough time to review the minutes of the last one. So, we can of our last meeting. So we can shove that uh approval till the next
time we meet um which is >> it's in July but we do have some homework to do at least I do and as far as just figuring out terms and expirations and we didn't really get to touch upon that. So
>> yeah and I think maybe those conversations about uh terms and renewals might happen uh more one-on-one than in the public forum. So, um, but we can we just name the date that we're we
would be meeting. Um, >> sure. One second. >> Before Lindsay runs. >> Hold on, Lindsay. Summer tends to be a quiet time for us, but we should at least have the date on our calendars.
2026 meeting schedules. So, the next meeting is scheduled to be July 20th. >> July 20th. Okay. >> I'm not certain I will be in town.
That's okay. I mean, summer's a strange time for everyone. >> They are indeed. >> Okay. in the afternoon. >> Thank you for your feedback. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Okay. Well, we have it um we have it on
the calendar Monday, July 20th, 4:30. Um and uh Karen, does the week before that? Are you in town?
Like would we consider now moving it? >> Could we do this by email for this re when I rush to get here? I don't have my phone so I have no idea what my life consists of at this point. >> I hear you. >> That's great. We'll take care of that by
email then. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Um and I will just put it on the table that um in the fall I have a class on Monday evenings.
Can't meet on Mondays any longer. that we can maybe do start thinking about. It's it's a lot September's a long ways off but um we could start thinking about day >> and Thursday evening um I have a series
going >> okay that would make it difficult so okay so not Monday not Thursday and we'll collect this information just in that if you're doing a scheduling email we might collect um
near-term and long-term info Okay, >> sure. >> Great. >> That was epic. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Dropped off early. Um and to you, Karen, and to you, Justinto, thanks for your
comments tonight. Um let's adjourn. >> Okay. Have a good evening. >> Thank you. >> Feel better, Karen. Bye. >> Thank you. >> Oh, yeah. Karen, there