Is Jesse around? He emailed and said he's having trouble. I just started the webinar just so to see if Okay. He was an attendee. Yeah. Oh, I see. Yes, of course. Yeah.
Hello. Hi, Jesse. Okay, looks like we all made it. Hi, Fred. Hi, Nate. Uh, hi Karen. I think you're there somewhere. She disappeared. Yeah.
Okay. Thanks for making me co-host. I saw that. In case you need to jump off. Um, guess I'll open the meeting. It is April 23rd, 10:30. This is a subcommittee of the Amoris Planning Board focused on housing and overlay
districts and stuff like that. Um, so looking at the agenda, uh, I don't have any announcements. Anyone else have announcements at all? Nope. Okay. Also don't have minutes from
the last meeting yet. I'll get that up for the next one. Um, and then we had three topics really for today. Hi K. Um, and I think I'm on a little time
schedule. I have an hour 15 for today. So, I'm going to sort of set a timer and keep us moving through the topics because I do think we should touch on each of them. Um, let me just see if anyone's in the one attendee currently, which is Pam
Rooney. Hi, Pam. Uh, unless there's objection, I will bring Pam over and we can still raise hand feature to speak. Um, and we'll see if anyone else shows up, we can always revert back to attendees. So, seeing no objection,
we'll do that. Pam, I'm going to bring you over. Jesse, we could do roll call just to Oh, yes. Sorry. Uh, yes, we'll do a roll call attendance. Um, please indicate you're here. Bruce
I am here. Brad Harwell. Brad is here. Car winter here. And I, Jesse Major, am here as well. So, full subcommittee. Can't seem to bring Pam over.
Well, oh, she has one of me. Okay. Well, raise your hand, Pam, if you want us to join it. All right. Uh, first topic, uh, is to talk more about overlay for North Ammerst. And I had suggested to Nate
that maybe the four of us can just help flesh out some guidelines, I guess, some initial thoughts to then go back to the full board for further discussion. So, oh, Pam is now raising her hand. Uh,
Bruce, you had your hand up, too? Yes. I was just as we left it at the planning board, I think Nate uh the the ball was in your court. And so, do I understand therefore that we're basically helping Nate uh deliver the ball back to the
board, right? Which is fine with me, but I just that's Yeah. Yeah. Nate, I don't know if you had any time or effort to put anything together yet or if you just want to talk through some themes with us now. Yeah. No, I I
you know, I I I talked with some staff and I have some notes. I think some of it would be um you know, I think we you know, I think we talked about the density factor and I think getting down to specifics, it's I think a question of you know,
what do we actually want it to be? Um, for instance, if it we call it just an overlay and we try to apply our current residential use classifications, apartments necessarily wouldn't work. Uh, we don't want mixed use buildings everywhere. Yeah. You know, off-campus or social dormitories
doesn't work. So, I think I think that's you know the kind of the first step is what you know kind of what are we sure sorry let me let me redirect this for a second. Let me see. Pam had her hand raised right before we started the conversation. Let me uh see. Pam, go
ahead. Uh Pam, you there? See you. Unmute my audio. There you go. Now, now you're good. I'm good. Yes. Yes. Hi. Thank you. Hi. I didn't expect to be a panelist. I had a question for Nate that
occurred to me over the weekend. Um, section 9.22, sort of the nonconforming use, has been used in a couple situations for infill. That's um is that something
that could be used uh in other ways or could be applied in a number of different ways? And what's the difference between that and an overlay? Is it just that you with an overlay you could add additional floors
of height to um whatever is built? Yeah. So, Pam's referencing in the bylaw, we allow a special permit if there's a non-conforming, you know, pre-existing non-conforming uh use. The the what we've experienced is that um developers won't go through
that because it's a discretionary special permit. And so, you know, the overlay to me would have to be by site plan review and we could have, you know, design standards or other criteria, setbacks, other things. And so, you know, 9.22 has been used. You know,
Aspen Heights um had done it on on Route 9, one University Drive South did it. I think the, you know, the in the bylaw says things, you know, can't be more detrimental to the neighborhood and character and scale. And so, you know, I think it would be hard to say that
allowing, you know, one and two story apartments to go to say four floors and double density is not impactful. Um, I could be wrong, but I just think it would be cleaner if we had another way to do it. Um, and you know, in the past, say in the last few years, 10 years,
five years, developers have come and we point them to this and they don't even bother coming back just because, you know, they might have to invest a lot of money to get through a special permit process and then be denied and so they it's just a it's a it's a risk factor that they haven't been willing to take.
Thank you. Yeah, that sounds like a good solid answer. Yeah. So we want to give them guard rails basically and say here's what what we will accept more or less so that then they'll invest the time. Yeah. Right. I mean and they you know and they might not right. I mean we might come up with you know just like
say university drive overlay. It's an opportunity. It'll probably get used. It might not you know it might not right. It might not get used for three years depending on you know the economic climate and other things but it provides an opportunity. So I see you know the north amoris overlay as the same kind of thing. It's an opportunity if someone
were to do it. Um, you know, uh, staff's gonna has reached out to a few property owners and managers. Um, you know, I think it's an interesting question about what's the right density, is it too dense? Um, you know, I think Puffton Village is really a property. There's two actually that are really could take
advantage of this. I think the rest of it is pretty complicated just with different ownerships and types, but I think it's something to look at. Um, I think getting back to, you know, getting back to what I had asked is really what do we what do we consider this like is it a housing overlay and then we have to
kind of define our own type of housing we'd want there you know is it you know student housing do we come up with it you know our own kind of use classification because like I said what's in the bylaw now isn't very good so I started looking at that and just you know so I've been I've been giving
this a bunch of thought also after reading the housing production plan quite a bit. And one idea that crossed my mind was if we should develop really two types of guidelines. One more student housing
oriented. I think that's what you're maybe suggesting, Nate, for this type of overlay. And then something else that might be like the Atkins Corner project, a different type of density, building allowance, mixed use, etc. So that we
have these two sort of situations already described and and intentionally thought out by the planning board for what developers might consider. Um and then to me the North Ammeris one is is as we've been talking is I think really great place for increasing student
density. Um so that's what I would vote for. Yeah, Bruce go ahead. Um I think I agree. Uh I I in my thinking about this, Nate, it seems to me that the uh although it's a ways away, uh I think
Cinda Jones and her development initiative at North Village or North Square, uh would like to think that the uh commercial um fraction of that that project, which
is all of the first floors, uh which is it's it's struggling to mature as a commercial place. There's lots of odd little [Music] um I guess you might call not ideal
commercial presences. I don't that's probably sounds but they're they're kind of uh they're not the sort of thing you would expect to find when you drive into a mixeduse place, I think. Um, so my guess is or my thought is to
what well the question is to what extent should we try and um take away or create another north square in in in in in what we're doing here. Some folks might say, "Well, yes, we should because, you know, there's going to be quite a lot of
people there, and should they have to walk all the way to North Square, which could be 3/4 of a mile, and it's uh, you know, and it's it's it's not a nice walk really. I mean, down old Sunderland Road and so forth." So I think there's a bit
of a tension there, but I I think that whereas some mixed use in what we're talking about might be use, I I think that the primary intent here is to create a um a student uh housing. So my thoughts about so that's that's my
general sense that primarily we're trying to identify this as one of those places where we can uh we can consolidate student housing because I I think certainly for me it feels that the
uh of the three options that we seem to pursue to satisfy our student housing problem either spreading them out through the neighborhood using minimum distancing and so forth and then then finding a student household which seems to be difficult or expecting the
university to do it and they say well you know we already done as much as we think we need to do and we're better than most and that leaves option three which is uh apartment type housing in uh in parts of town that we think are appropriate for that and I think we
found a couple of places and this is one of them. Um so we should uh we should we we should invest in that particular horse in in this opportunity and and I think that we should represent that it's u goal is to take the load take some of
the student housing load off the rest of the town. Um and then uh having said that I'm interested in how we can develop uh more direct uh communication with the campus either through some kind
of pathway that was discussed in the previous uh iterations which goes along and perhaps also seeing if we can exploring the opportunity of getting an entry in from Route 16 in from
116. Uh because I think if we could get a direct uh feed in from 116, we could uh um we've got an answer to what will be the major question or the major problem that North Ammeris residents will see,
which is the traffic generation from a a large increase in density. So I I I I I think that those uh doing what Doug said, which is or Doug propo or responded to a question or maybe more
than one question from public comment which was traffic. He says, "Well, if they're mostly students, they're going to walk or they're going to move u without cars to the university. So we should facilitate that with this some pathway or some conduit that's that's
non-vehicular. And I think we should put a lot of effort into trying to make that happen. But I think we should also do the 116 connection which would uh so those so so in summary I think we should identify this as a student housing
opportunity primarily and then we should do those two things to mitigate the uh the concerns that greater density will uh precipitate in in the in the residents of North A. Yep. I I had a couple of similar thoughts actually.
Nate, do you have a map handy with the north or north emeration with someone who lives uh I forget the neighborhood it's called just north of campus in that little pocket and she said, "Yeah, all of us will fight it, but we know it's the right
thing to do." So that was very funny. Um uh yeah, I'll share my screen in a minute. I guess one thought would be if it's mostly students, do we have an inclusionary requirement? Right. So, so absolutely. Yes, I think we do because
as someone pointed out, I can't remember who it was might have been might have been uh I think it was actually um Janet uh that with such with such an opportunity for a large amount of housing if we don't have the inclusionary part of it, we push
ourselves too close to the 10%. Yeah. And I besides I think we can do the inclusionary in a very interesting way by by going there's do what Jesse's going to say. Yeah. That that came up last time in our conversation about doing inclusionary but I don't know about requiring it but
or or trying to make it in a group of inclusionary versus distributed to to sort of make another community in that way that would be distinct from the student high density maybe if if possible. So yeah, Fred, go ahead. Let me pull that
up. I would just mention in terms of in I support inclusionary and one of the reasons is that uh when the university uh reconstructed the uh was it North
Village? Uh it's called University Housing now, but yes. Yeah. they uh they rem they effectively removed uh an enormous number of uh
uh by by changing the layout and everything. Let me back up a little bit. Um and I I was not aware of this but my wife was and we talked about it. um where uh a a lot of particularly
graduate students with uh very young families and the way the layout worked uh you could have uh like five families around a common courtyard and uh they would take turns uh working on child
care and so forth. that really worked well and uh and they could afford to be there and apparently in the way that it's been reconstructed all of that is gone. Uh yes and uh
that is something that I think we need to make sure that we restore uh and the uh the overlay would be a way to do it. Yeah. So I have a couple thoughts about that but Karen go ahead. Yeah. I I I support everything that
you've said. Um especially I I used to hang out at North Village with those students, so I know how much they loved being in that community. I I think we need to when we when we do this and we provide density, we have to at the same time have requirements. And didn't you
Nate say you always have you know you can have different requirements and one of them is that we really do have to have a large safe dedicated bicycle path that goes from this um to the university
for sure. Um then maybe we really look at much higher buildings but make sure that there are open spaces with playgrounds around uh too. And then yes, I like very much the idea of requiring
or really working for access from 116. I've we've always thought that this would be really important because even right now I I agree with the residents. It's terrible to be caught in that traffic uh there at a certain time of
the day. It's already a problem. So, um the traffic does have to be definitely addressed. Nate, tapping up the map. And I think all these comments work really well with the conversation that I
think we had with the fullboard about increasing height as you go east to west because I could easily imagine on the North Pleasant side of the street is where we get the inclusionary housing, lower density,
lower height potentially. And then there could certainly be green spaces sort of separating those units from the higher density, higher buildings, more student oriented housing. And yeah, certainly if 116 access could work, great. But even if
not, I was imagining I don't know how this wall works uh with all the different properties, but somehow making a basically a parallel access to North Pleasant sort of behind or at the west end of all these properties that could
then dump into UMass down at the bottom at the southern end. There's already kind of a path there on that property, whatever it is into UMass, I think. Right. Um yeah, just a bit more south from what you're showing now. Yeah, the town had looked at using that
as a um as a bike path um you know coming up through here and there's some wetlands and other issues but it's something I think that could still be examined. Uh we have I was we are applying for funding to make this you know they had done um they widened the sidewalk to a multiuse path
up here and they ended at Fischer Street and we have block grant money and we're applying for other funding to to carry that multi-use path all the way down um to almost to um you know the the edge of campus. So there's
that's in the works Nate that road. So is that those are private roads I assume like uh coming off Meadow Street. Yeah. So all these are just considered driveways actually within here. So though and how does that work if like I mean you know to me ideally we would
make that a bigger road and that could be a primary access into these places that like the the one farthest to the west. Right. Right. Yeah. Right there. and then tapping into that other one. So that that really becomes the way in and out of this highdensity place and avoids
the whole circle and problematic traffic altogether. But again, I don't know how we facilitate that, how the town can sort of help make that happen. Yeah, that's a good question. I'll take a note. I I agree. I mean, I feel like, you know, you can almost, you know, it's
like take one of these, you know, these two entrances into Puffedin and create a network of streets. you know, it's almost like you could carry these down and yeah, I mean, you know, a grid layout could be um really efficient in terms of layout as opposed to, you know, having curve
linear roads or something. I I think that's what's difficult about this is that then, you know, there's different properties to manage um and you know, would a developer be willing to to do this? You know, puffed in right here. You know, the way I the reason I mentioned is just that, you know, they
have a nice nice, you know, property already, properties and a layout and size that could work. Um, you know, if we zoom out a little bit, you know, um, you know, you can already see it's really dense compared to other parts of
town. I think it could handle it. I agree with off-road uh, transportation routes. And so that's something, you know, if we do have this overlay, it's, you know, do we um do we ask the developer to provide some assistance there? So, so couldn't it be, well, in exchange for eight stories, you got to
put in a road to tap in to this other access or something. I mean, I don't know if that's the kind of you could that's feasible, right, for a developer from a developer standpoint or if that's like getting too much
Yeah, there's a it's a fine line in Massachusetts with like exactions with from projects. It can be done elsewhere in other states, but not, you know, I think there's a way to do it. Yeah, Brad, you got your hand up. Go
ahead. Uh yeah. Um I don't I really don't have any idea of what the economics of this are but uh there's always eminent domain. Yep. Uh K
um Nate, can you put a bicycle path through wetlands? It seems like it because a lot of the bicycle paths here do seem to be going through things like that. So then you could have parallel to 116 maybe a straight shot down uh and
have that if you can't build on it be the a bicycle path. Is that possible? Yeah. Oh, sorry. I just have an older aerial image available. Um Oh, look at that. Yeah. So when we looked before, you know, we this is we call it the old it's the old cinder path and we had looked coming up to here and then
running it all the way along here. Yeah. Yeah. And then I think um I think we're actually hoping to get all the way to here and then come up just because there's it's a actually a channel here. But yeah, come to here and then come along to get to Meadow Street.
Um the wetlands were one piece I think we could manage and then it just became the other property. um you know managing it with all the other properties and liability. And so that was gosh that was probably like 10 years ago the town looked at that with UMass you know to
figure out how to bring swift way you know through the university and up and so that right now the idea is to have this on you know along North Pleasant Street. It's off road you know um but I still think there could be an opportunity to have something over here. Yeah. Yeah. So that just got dropped
because of the multiple owners problems. Yeah, I think it was getting right. It was getting complicated. A few owners didn't I think the they didn't like this idea, the liability and then the wetland piece. I think it was just you I think if there was and there wasn't say a lot of
funding, right? I think if there's this I think if we were talking about this overlay and there's renewed interest of dens in density here, I think this could you know pick up again. Yeah. Yeah, I mean it's already here, you know, for Yeah, it is. You know, you know, and safety was brought up, you know, like if you know, you
know, illuminating it and making it safe, but I think all those things could be worked out. Yeah. Again, I mean, to me, certainly if we're talking of the bike path, that seems like a low an easy trade for increased density to a developer. Right. We're talking
about bigger roads on the northern side. I think that's a different scale. Right. Right. Uh Bruce, go ahead. You're muted. My family walked through as I was uh I think that this is one of the
considerations related to density, isn't it? I mean, last time this conversation was had. was had obviously in relation to the current density of of what's there and whether that would support it and how much trouble can we uh how much time and effort can we spend to make
a a non-vehicular conduit on that western uh boundary. But if we are tripling the size, tripling the densities and so forth and so much more and and uh the the the potential revenues that we've got to to to do
that, I mean, that's something that probably the developer could the development could be leveraged to to put put some funding uh into, I would hope. um as could the town and and uh and uh
grant applications to state and federal funds and so forth to support something along there providing that the the wetland problem can be managed which I hope it could. I mean ultimately it could. You could put it on a boardwalk but that seems like a very expensive way
to solve the problem. Hopefully it wouldn't have to be quite as elaborate as that. But my point being that uh if we are talking about greatly increasing the density here um that is a drives much more powerful force to
create what previously wasn't uh there wasn't sufficient force to create but the dynamic changes when we triple the density I would guess. Yeah. And so the density question should be sufficient to drive whatever we figure it needs to be
to drive the eventual creation of that um of that conduit. All right. Uh Karen, so when we're talking about who is this for and we're just talking students, we have to expand it because what's really needed is not
just undergraduate housing. Um there's always this talk about staff and young families that work at the university and no place for them to live and faculty not coming to UMass because there's no affordable. So how can we also incorporate that into this? I I agree
with the need Karen. I don't think this is the right place for that. I think we make as best we can as dense undergrad housing and the point is that alleviates the pressure from other areas in town where then we can hopefully have projects that will
accommodate different kind of standards for families, young professionals, whoever because I I and and sort of logically in my mind if you have these whether they're highrises or whatever structure they are full of students that's probably not
where a young family wants to live. They'd rather live maybe somewhere else. But again, that just could be my bias. Uh but I would I view them as separate. I'd like to try and I think it's more efficient to try these separate efforts and maybe more attractive to a developer also because
then you're not trying to balance all these things in the same project. Uh Bruce, go ahead. Um completely agree. I was going to say exactly the same thing. um the there there are only so
many places where we can ideally concentrate uh student housing and that same uh constraint doesn't apply to housing generally. So I think when we identify a place where we've got a real opportunity which is approximate to campus and so
forth that's we we have to we we should be not shy in focusing on on letting it be the primary solution to student housing. Uh I think we we have to we have to be strategic. We have to focus. We can't try and solve all the problems
all the time everywhere. So I agree with you. However, there is uh an affordable there is an inclusionary component here and uh and it could be um 60 or 100 units ultimately if everything you know
all the dominoes fell. So there is already a residual uh if we include the inclusionary zoning requirements which we all agree we should. So we we at least uh contribute that to the the solution and I think we
should be satisfied to let that be the the formula just as you said Jesse. Yeah. Okay. My timer says we should move on topic. So, I'm going to try and wrap up some of the key points hopefully to help you Nate craft something which is
uh sort of increasing density east to west along these properties. Maybe trying to push the inclusionary to the east and lower density areas, but definitely including them in a group. uh really trying to
focus on the transportation issue, whether it's a bike path or car roads coming earlier on Meadow Street or from 116. Um and then you know this number of tripling
density I think Nate that originated from you from the 10-year-old plan. Is that right? Like I don't know if that's the right number. I don't know what the some of the services can handle like like sewer and you know all that kind of stuff. kind of needs to be considered also, right? Yeah, we'd have to upgrade
the sewer line. Um I public works had said that some of that is pretty old and small up there. And is there a maximum when they upgrade it? Is there some upper limit that we need to think about or they're going to upgrade it and then it can handle a whole city block in there? Like I I don't know, you know, I
think Yeah, I I think we just, you know, I think right now they're it's um it is they're not big pipes, so it's like if we just went up to a bigger size, that's you know, they didn't they said that that's what you need to do. They didn't say that the system would be at capac you know like the overall town system would be at capacity just this one sewer
main along North Pleasant. So with with the the triple increase in mind, right? Yeah. Okay. So maybe we should focus on that as the goal and you know whatever that works out heightwise, unitwise. Yeah. I mean I don't Yeah, because I think the height thing is important. I
don't you know you know we have we have you know in the U drive overlay we had six stores stories and you know we're talking about how high could it be here. I mean, you know, I've been to North Square now more and, you know, they're pretty tall, you know, and they're they're four stories with a roof. I I know I guess I was going to look at
topography and really see what, you know, what right that kind of how the topography works east to west and can we really get taller than five floors comfortably. I just I don't want to, you know, um I guess some of it would be like is there zones within the overlay where you have certain heights?
Um, yeah. I mean, I thought that I mean, Bruce played it out pretty nicely last time we talked about this, like how it slopes down east to west and that you could sort of and don't North Square's got those ridiculous gables on them. I mean, that's you're right. That's that's a
story and a half of height that's not used for anything. I mean, there's so much about that Beacon property that's kind of crazy, stupid, and nuts. uh from a design point of view, it's painful for me as an architect to uh have to drive past it, which I do all the time. So, we can do something more like what
archipelago are doing and uh and then it won't be so won't appear so high. Yeah. Right. And I also think with this staged increase in height, it won't appear so big either. Right. If you're going from two stories near North
Pleasant and then three or four stories in the middle and then six or seven towards the end, I think they won't be so in your face unless you're standing right there, right? So, it really is about 20 ft um uh difference in topography between North Pleas Street and just the you know the western part
of those properties. So, yeah. So, that's two stories, right? And then if you allow another one or two, they could get seven or eight and seem like five stories, right? Karen, go ahead. Yeah, I was just looking, you know, I was just in Europe
and looking at at counting stories and um they can be pretty high and and still very attractive when the when the top floors are recessed and have some sort of um balconies or something in the front. they can look very attractive uh
if you have them built in that way. Yes, that's a good idea. Okay. Any other critical points you want to touch on this, Nate, before we move on? No, I think that's good. I um yeah, even I think you know what you said and even limiting floor height. So, you can
have stories, right? And then we have like we have the number of floors and then the actual height and feet. And so, you know, you could say if everyone likes to build 10 story, you know, 10 foot floor to ceiling or 12 foot floor to ceiling, it's like we could say, well, let's just keep it to, you know, 10 ft and that way a fivetory building
is 50 ft. You know, the way we we could you kind of force that a little bit. Um, just because I think in the older buildings they are a little shorter. You know, the newer buildings, I get it for mechanicals and some things it makes sense to have some, but you know, I don't think we really need 12 feet, you
know, for each floor level. So that you know um well I could do better than that because I have uh it's there are ways of doing it so you don't have to have it quite so high but I'm I'm but but but I'm not sure enough
of my current technology but I it seems to me the 12T for floor on residentials is excessive right because every foot you build is money spent no purpose if you can't uh basically put a story Okay. So, I would
I would think you that we should imagine that the 10 foot of floor is probably a reasonable workable number. Brad, go ahead. Uh yeah, just um keep in mind and I I know you'll do this Nate,
but as you go down and go west, one of the consequences of topography uh going down is uh wetlands. And so not
all of that is uh incorporable. I would suspect I I haven't mocked it, but I suspect that not all of that is uh is buildable. Well, when I did my numbers and looking on the USGS, I stopped my
topography short my my topo calculation short of the wetland area. So, I think I think from North Pleasant to the beginning of the wetlands is around about 20 ft. Okay. One one last thought I had about the mixed use. I don't I would vote not to
require mixed use, but certainly encourage some in terms of services for this increased density. Uh, you know, I it's unclear to me, maybe developers already do this, but like if you're going to have a bigger building and it's mostly
students, do you build in laundry rooms? Do you build in bike storage? All those kinds of things. I know that's some of the details we could hammer out towards the end, but like I think we should encourage that all to happen either in buildings or as Yeah, there's two commercial spots for a laundromat and a
a whatever mini stuff like that. But yeah, so the way we uh define mixed use, you know, so if a developer were to do that, it's not public serving, then that's just for the building. That would be fine. So I think there's a way to to
do that. Um yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um Bruce, last comment on this topic. Um question Nate. Uh isn't the way you we can essentially uh dial the move the dial between mixed use and apartments but by the percentage
of uh commercial on the first floor. Because essentially if you have a 30% commercial use on the first floor the and you've got something notionally 70 but probably 60 or 50% of the first floor is essentially housing. So that
means half of the building is essentially an apartment. And so my sense is that the difference between an apartment use and a mixed use is really just the dial of the amount of commercial required on the first floor. Is is that logic or is that analysis
correct or or flawed in some way? No, I mean that's kind of it really. I think like I said though, the the um non-residential space, you know, serves the public. It's not just for the residents of the building. And so, um yeah, I mean, I think that's it. You
know, so the 30% can't be, you know, some of it can't be reserved for the building only really. That's for everyone. So, um, but I do think that's a high number. I I Yeah, and I agree. I feel like Jesse, what you said, it's interesting. We don't require it, but we could, um, encourage it, right? And we
could try to find ways to incentivize it maybe along the North Pleasant Street or in a few areas. Yeah, that's what I was imagining. But, uh, yeah, I mean, what I've heard is that if you know, the way we limit apartments with 24 units and some other things, you know, people would do them more. And so
here uh maybe it's the right place to have you know um some other kind of unit mix and requirement or standards because you know is it really necessary to have you know someone can put up 100 units in a mixuse building you know and only 24
in apartment it doesn't make any sense from a management standpoint uh so maybe does that mean are you suggesting we define a different type of apartment for which is be fine I mean That's getting back to where I started, right? I think it would be good to have these kind of different definitions for
this type of spot. Yeah, we might need to. I mean, I was thinking if it's students mostly, we could call it the social dormatory use classification in the bylaw and then throw in some other requirements or we come up with a new kind of a definition for this overlay, which is maybe where it needs to go.
Yeah. Large apartment unit building or something, whatever. Right. Yep. And then we could Yeah. specify different bedroom mixes if we wanted or not, but you know. Yeah. Yeah. Great. Okay. Um, great. Good discussion. Hopefully
that gives you some Yeah. direction. Uh, next up, uh, ADU. Nate sent us a draft bylaw. I assume that's what that was, right? Nate, you want to talk to us about that? I had a quick look at it. Had a couple questions, but yeah, I
could share my screen. You know, it'll come up at the planning board. think, you know, the goal is, you know, like we mentioned, is try to get something um that the planning board would recommend or vote to council, you know, just to get that going. Um so I uh you know, I haven't heard from the attorney general's office. I wrote to them the
other week after our meeting with um the foreign related uh piece, you know, thanks Pam. And so I haven't heard back. They, you know, they acknowledge the email, but no uh you know, no updates or anything. Um, and so what I what I sent
around was, you know, I think the idea would be to take our current ADU section of the bylaw and remove and replace it with a new section and we'd have a local ADU um definition and regulations and the protected use ADU definition and
regulations. And you know, in the local ADU, I you know, I'm proposing or you know, staff's proposing up to,200 square feet through administrative approval. So they do, you know, it's not by right necessarily. It is with the condition that it has to be approved by the building commissioner and so we ask for
a number of things and um you know it still has owner occupancy requirement and the idea would be to try to make it larger to incentivize its use. Um, you know, right now that would need a special permit and it wouldn't be allowed to get this large. But I don't know, the thought was if you know, if homeowners are willing to not have a
protected use ADU and they would want to have a larger one, they we were offering this with some kind of additional conditions. Um, the protected use one is really, you know, the state piece. And I think the student home definition and the for unrelated, you know, I put it in
red text below as things that are unlikely to move forward as part of the bylaw. Um, you know, and so the standards and conditions are the ones we've been looking at. Um, nothing too new. I think limiting the number of parking spaces is a nice I think we can do that.
um habitable space and um um single family dwelling I think are things we can interpret the b the new state legislation and rules and rags to to mean. I think there might be some push back from the attorney general on that but I'm I'd be willing to kind of
say I think this is how it could be interpreted. Um so yeah, I mean you can look at I just I think you know I put it in a format that it you know with you know with changes I think it could actually become a bylaw as opposed to just like you know before it was a document. So it has a purpose applicability definitions and things.
Yeah. Yeah. I I I only had one question slash change I'd propose. I thought takeaway from our last meeting largely raised by Pam. I thought
we should include the four unrelated in the by right ADU with the logic being we've decided that's needed for our town for every other
situation and we justified it as a town. It certainly should apply to this as well. And to me that's the logic is so sound that yeah maybe it'll get challenged. I don't know. I I would vote to include that in this draft to go to council. And I think we I have that in
um right for local. So we could just move that up. It should be for both, right? Yeah. Yeah. For both. Yeah. Okay. That's what you intended then. But no, I I I can move it up. I um I did email. I think it should be clearly there for both cases that that's what is required.
I agree with Nate, Jesse. I think it's we we should put it in and have it struck down there indeed and then then then at least we'll get an explanation. If we ask the question and they decide not to answer it, we don't but if we put it in the bylaw, we're bound to get an answer to our question. So, I
strenuously support Jenny's Jesse's suggestion. It'll it'll get the baby washed. Yeah. Yeah. I um I I did email the sorry, I did email the attorney general that and I explained how it's used elsewhere and applies uniformly across the, you know,
units. And so, um, yep. And the strategy of just dropping the student housing definition for now is seems like the right way to go. Just like try and get this on the books and then come back to that when needed.
Yeah. I mean, I find this I don't want to say it's simple. I mean, there's a lot in there, but um, yeah. Yeah. I I you know, the local ADU, you can look at it. Like I said, we were, you know, staff was trying to come up with a way to have to still allow what we do allow. So, we allow adus up to a thousand
square feet, but it's sometimes it's by special permit. Could we make them a little larger and incentivize them so that there's maybe people would opt for that rather than the protected use if you know and that's to include the owner occupancy, right? Is that what you mean?
Like incentivize that so that that becomes more used than two rental houses basically. Yeah. Right. So, a property owner could say, "Well, geez, I would like to get to a thousand square feet or do an 1100 square foot ADU." And you say, "Sure, you can. You know, there's these additional requirements. You know,
it has to be owner occupied essentially, and we have a few more um kind of design standards or ability to regulate design." Yeah. Great. Uh Fred, go ahead. Uh yeah. Uh Nate, the student
home that was included in your laundry list to the AG's office for comment, right? Yes. Y Okay. So, um I mean I I I'm I obviously support it
and you know I don't want to move forward with this, you know, giving it up until until unless the AG office says no, that's a non-starter. If they say it's a non-starter, okay,
uh they're the uh elephant in the room. Although so part of the thought Brad was that if we remove it from this first just to get something we can get the council that hopefully has a chance
of getting voted and passed. I feel like if we include this in home right now there's there's no chance it's going to go through council like zero. And it's going to take months and months of conversations and debates about it. And maybe by then AG will weigh in. We don't
know. But if we push it to the side for the moment and at least try and include the four unrelated in the by right ADU that has a chance of getting approved and becoming our bylaw even if it's just for some number of months until something else
happens. Go ahead. Yeah. So Jesse, you think uh the council itself won't support student home, correct? I was unaware of that. I thought I thought that the politics in town were such that
it would be supported, but I could be wrong. Yeah. I've I've been part of three or four conversations and groups where there were so much basically fear of a definition at all that I'm sure those arguments will
be made to council. And again, I I don't know for sure, but that's my gut tells me. So they the the fear being that the AG's office would turn it down, right? No, no. The fear from I'm saying the fear from residents of us having a
definition defining people by unrelated by who goes who takes a class at community college by it. it it's like it's and I get it in this current political moment a fear of of the I think that's tapping into it also just
any attempt at defining and and restricting based on definitions of what you do and who you are right and I don't I don't agree that's how we would use it but that's that's what's being projected on this okay I I'll defer to you on that then yeah and
again I don't want to drop it at all I just think it'd be better to try and get this on the books this Okay. And keep pushing on the student home definition as well. Yeah. I mean, yeah. So, I I feel comfortable with what was sent around. I just brought up that foreign related and
that could be questionable, but really, you know, there's, you know, definitions. There's, you know, 14, we call them requirements that apply to local ADUs and the protected use ADUs. And then there's the additional like three or four requirements for local ADU like owner occupancy and kind of
the design review standards and other um kind of review by staff on the local ADU. And so I I feel pretty comfortable that this you know we could say that the what we have in here is you know according to the state regulations for
the protected ADU is reasonable so that that you know it meets an object you know it's objective it meets a public need a goal it's clear and so if we you if they have questions about the foreign related or how we do things I feel like it's all yeah right and and sorry Bruce
one second part of that discussion Fred to me is also with the student home definition. My sense is that staff isn't even comfortable with it. So to bring that to council when our own planning staff and department isn't totally
saying yes is okay just opens up the whole can of worms again. And that's why I think it's just a maybe a better strategy just to do it in two parts. Bruce, go ahead. You're muted again. The dog has been behaving badly. So I uh
um just need to be clear I haven't I haven't read what you sent around but and if I had I probably would answer this question but it's it seems therefore that the the the the by right uh protected is is is uh is is what we've just discussed and then what we I
think you called the local which is our special uh bylaw which would allow for a larger slightly larger footprint of an ADU uh that used to be a uh by um special permit of the zoning board, right? And are you are you saying that
that uh we would downplay that? So it's no longer a special permit requirement. It's a start review. Uh and so once again, the permit, it's essentially by right, but by right only if you comply
with the additional constraints. Is that a correct understanding of the way that would what we're proposing here? Yeah, I mean it is with the you know it's an administrative review and so what that does is there's still an application they have to fill out a survey plans
they record you know the um basically a a a restriction at the registry that it's you know has to be one of the units has to be owner occupied and so um you know it's done elsewhere in different communities where this administrative review actually has you know some teeth right so you know essentially a building
permit can't won't be issued until certain conditions are met and So it's not as if they just submit a building permit and then they they just can go forward. That's what the protected use ADU essentially is. Yes. This one, you know, this one, you know, we the staff can say no, the building commissioner
can deny an administrative review if they don't think it, you know, meets the standards in the bylaw. So, so it's a bit like the local historic district commission where a certificate of appropriateness is uh is is required and the commission has seeded to the
building commissioner to Rob Mara the ability to make some of those determinations right u on our behalf. Yeah. So it's it's okay. I I uh I understand kind of how but it it takes
the lo it means the applicant doesn't have to go before a zoning board which only happens once every two weeks. They can because the staff are there all the time. Theoretically this would speed things up but I understand that it's got teeth as you say.
Uh Karen go ahead. Yeah, I congratulate you Nate for doing this because I myself was looking at, you know, doing something in our garage for when my when my daughter came here with her son and we wanted to and the the fact that you
uh were limited at that time to I think 800 square made it really difficult. So, this gives a lot more flexibility to families that maybe want another part of the family to live in a smaller unit. So, it's a great idea.
Great. Okay. So, hopefully this get on the agenda for next week maybe planning board and certainly hope we can push or call for a vote and move it to council. Excellent. All right. Um, let's move on. Before I
move on [Music] to just general housing production plan, draft and goals, strategies, etc. Uh, I like how Doug always reads the attendees. So there two more people joined us which are Janet Keller and
Jara Smith and Pam is still here as well. Just wanted everyone to know who's on the call. Okay, so last topic for us today was review and discussion of draft and goals and extra and there strategies for the housing production plan.
And I just want to um say quickly if you I don't know time you have to leave Jesse if you want to ask for public comment. I mean, you know, I I emailed the planning board the draft goals and it was going to be part of the discussion last week. It will be at the next meeting and it's more, you know, it's a few pages, right? It's a, I don't
know, 14 20 page document. Um, it's the draft from the housing production plan and so we we don't have to spend a lot of time today. Really, it's just to have, you know, the housing subcommittee and other members of the planning board, you can review it independently and provide comments back to staff and we'll
get those to the consultants. um you know so we can spend time today but if there's if the public wants to say anything we I could defer to them. Okay, sounds good. I had a slightly different topic also. Uh so sure let's call public comment. Any of the three of you attendees would like to share
something with us. See Pam's hand up. I will give you some time. Pam, please unmute and I guess you address. Hi Pam. Pam Rooney, 42 Cottage Street. Can uh somebody
remind the public where the draft housing production plan is located for review? Thank you. Thanks. Yeah, I'll um it had been on the housing trust uh web web page, but I I can um I'll email staff
and just make sure that it's up there. Um well, again, the packet for us for next week for planning board maybe. Yeah. So the draft goals and strategies would be in if it's not already up online for the May 7th, but it was for the April 16th planning board meeting.
So it's in the packet there. So can I can I have a follow-up question? Sure. Sure. Um so that said, if I go to your meeting uh calendar notice and I go to more details, it it
does not include any packet materials. So, this has happened before and I think I I bumped into it on the planning board website as well. I didn't actually see packet materials. You mean on the subcommittee, Pam? Sorry. Yeah, on the subcommittee. Yeah, I think we're still
working on that, right, Nate? Getting packets for us, but planning board should be there. Yeah, it was it was um I'm pretty sure it was the planning board. It may have been you folks. Um, but it was a little disconcerting
because I was looking for, you know, to read ahead of a meeting and didn't find anything. I think it was actually planning board. So, um, anyway, thanks. Good. Yeah, the planning board on, you know, unlike the council, you have to there's a link from the planning
board web page. It says, I think, new packets or something, and you have to then click through a bunch of folders online. Um, the way it's set up, it's an online directory, but they they usually should be there. Um just for the public to know. Are are we uh at some point
we'll have the subcommittee also with because even the minutes I think are not anywhere yet, right? Uh I thought they were um on the in the archive center mixed in with the planning board minutes. Okay. Okay. Which isn't great, but um yeah. All
right. Let make a note myself. Sure. Hi Janet. Uh, please unmute and tell us your name and address and what you'd like to share. Sure. Um, Janet Keller. Um, I live in uh on 120 Pulpit Hill
Road. Um, and I would like to add my voice to Pam's and um maybe with a little more intensity. Um it's really difficult for those of us who are trying
to follow um these changes that are being made um and uh any more transparency that you can add would be appreciated. Thank you.
Thanks Janet. Um, yes, I I agree. Uh, certainly, as you know, I'm sure that the meetings are recorded. They're all viewable at some point. Uh, but yeah, we've been waiting for at least the subcommittee to have packets
and stuff. It's just a staff time issue. I believe Nick could comment on that part. Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. It's a little bit of that. Also um I had put a request into it just to it's a you know we have to add some permissions and controls and
things but I think we can get that moving. Oh also I'd say Janet anything you know from the subcommittee will certainly come to planning board also with any kind of resolutions or votes that happen. So a little bit way to catch up on what we're doing there. Uh Bruce go
ahead. Uh just to be clear, public uh can access our um bi-week uh every two week packets. Is that correct? I mean this I mean I get a link from You mean the planning board the full Yes, I get a
link. It's easy. I click on the link and and it goes there. But uh but you can get there without that link, I assume. Is that correct? Because that's all I have to go on. Um, I have no nothing more than that um uh to go on. I guess
well I I that's not true perhaps because sometimes uh running up to meetings um Pam or you Nate or others on staff will send emails to the board with the late arriving uh material and I suppose
that's not I don't know how quickly or if that gets added to the packet and how accessible that is to the public. My guess is that somehow or other it is. But uh how does that happen? I mean when you get late arriving material that goes
directly to the board. How is that made public? Yeah. So you know just here's the planning board web page over on the right hand column there's packets. If you hit current, this is where I mean it takes a few clicks. It brings you to this online directory. Yes. So you'd have to go to you know the year and then
the meeting date. Yeah. It's it's all pretty straightforward really. Yeah, it's all there. So, you know, Pam uh manages it um you know, sadly in our office. And so, typically we'll try to get stuff uploaded, you know, as late as like 4:00 on a meeting date, you know,
unfortunately, like right if something comes in. And so, when we email it to the planning board, then we upload it to the packet as well online. So, you know, anything. Yeah. Just below you there two down is the housing production plan. And there it is right there. Yeah. So, if you click on it, it should Yeah. Yeah.
And then I download it and Bob's your uncle. you've got it there and you can uh I download these sometimes because I want to mark them up in some way which I can't do with the online uh right but downloading it is fine.
Yeah. Okay. Um hi Jara apologies if I'm not pronouncing your name correctly. Please tell us your name and address and unmute and share your thoughts. Great. Thank you. Uh my name is Jara Smith 15 Alyssum Drive. Uh, and you nailed it, Jesse. Jer like uh Sarah with a J. Um, I
uh I'm just looking at the HPP draft uh for the first time. So just one quick thought is I noticed that there's um a suggestion to investigate a loan product for to support ADUs which I think is
fantastic but I would also um encourage the inclusion of some kind of financial product for missing middle housing because one of the things that I've encountered uh in my work is that one of the biggest challenges to developing
those two three or, you know, or other a little bit higher density uh missing middle housing opportunities is banks don't really know how to loan for those kinds of housing products. They're not familiar with it. They can be seen as
risky. And so to the degree that the town or, you know, could cooperate with one of our local banks or CDFIS or something to develop some kind of missing middle loan product. Uh, I think that would be a pretty crucial lynch pin
for supporting that kind of development moving forward. Thank you. Interesting. Hey, thank you, Josh. Can can I ask Jesse just his background because it sounds typically we have citizens commenting, but sometimes we
have people who may be citizens, but sometimes they're people who are professionally engaged in some aspect of what we're talking about. Is that your background, Jesse? Uh, Darra. Yeah. Yes. I'm uh I'm both a a very happy resident
of Ammerst, Massachusetts, but also I um I work I'm a professional housing policy consultant and I work with uh towns and counties and other organizations across the country on how to support um housing production primarily focused on housing
affordability. But uh yeah, this is this is in many ways my my profession and my passion. if you haven't already done so, would you rather one or two short paragraph email to uh because your your language was good
and uh and I think it'll strike home better if it's your words that uh go directly to the uh to the to both both the planning staff and and the town administration as well as to Barrett the consultant. Would you be if you would do
that? That would be helpful. Yeah. and I'll take I'll take a closer look at the the document al together as well. Sounds like we would benefit from you doing that. Thank you very much. Thank you. Please please come back. Okay. Um, that actually Jar's comment is
a great segue into the other comment I was going to bring to the group and I don't want to get into the details because the Atkins the Archipelago project is on planning board agenda for next week. Um, but I did want to share a thought with the three of you on the
subcommittee, which is I've been thinking about this a lot the last month or two that my time on planning board, I feel like we don't do a lot of long-term planning. And I think we're mostly reacting to what developers are bringing
us. And I think that's a mistake. Um, and I would just encourage us to be a little more proactive in the planning part when a project arises. And so, uh, again, I'll comment on this on Wednesday in specific relation to my thoughts on
that new project. Um, but I think we're getting there. I think, you know, talking about these overlays and really trying to to think big picture about what the goal is rather than letting developers tell us what they want to do. Um, so yeah, I'm going to try and be a little more proactive on that front. I'd
love some company in doing that. Yes. Do we have time for any comment on the uh the housing production plan? Sure. I I mean I've got seven more minutes and I've got to go. Uh but there's still quum if I leave so you guys could talk a little more if you want to.
Okay. [Music] Um I I made a whole lot of notes. The trouble is that I I looked at this some days ago and uh um well let's let's just
um in the second uh um the second uh piece on uh there are four sections four strategies four clusters of strategies and the second the first item on the second was the suggestion that the
inclusionary zoning be increased to 15%. Um, and that and there's a few other recommendations there as well. Um, then there was a suggestion of dispersing affordable questioning the
wisdom of dispersing affordable units throughout. I know this was kind of a a policy that probably dates back decades and the idea was we don't want to ghettoize which would probably be a word that is loaded. Uh and so the idea was
well let's not ghettoize things with spread out. But I think the recommendation here that that dispersing isn't always a great idea is one that we really should give some thought to um for the reasons that Fred suggested as far as the old university housing is
concerned and and so forth. So I like that idea. I'm not sure about whether we think we can appropriately drive 12% up to 15%. Um uh I'd like to give for us to have
some discussion about why we think that's a good idea or whether we do and or whether the alternatives are and why why indeed that's suggested. Uh that's a so I that that that that jumped out at me and I also this idea in the same
session of granting credits I didn't really understand or credit units it seems to be a bit of a transfer of development rights type of thing but I didn't really understand it. So that portion of the strategic that cluster
that item in the cluster of strategies needed I I I needed some conversation about that cuz I I didn't fully understand or I haven't fully developed thinking about some of that. So that's a that's a point of entry for me.
Anyway, there's a few other points of entry, but that's we don't have a lot of time, so I just chose one. Yeah, Nate, go ahead. Yeah, thanks. I was going to say the trust is will be look talking about the inclusionary piece too. um you know uh
there had been an amendment last year that never quite made made it forward to adjust the payment in lie of um language to allow it to be more than four times the median income. So um I think the 15% you know could be possible
and maybe there's a tiered approach right so that that applies to projects of over so many units or something. Um yeah, and I I you know, I think there's uh ways to write it. You know, something else that staff has noticed is that, you know, the 80% AMI
um you know, you want to get units at different income levels, but the it's hard to fill at 80% AMI. There's a narrow margin, you know, of of households that qualify that then can afford the units. And so we're reaching out to some developers and property
managers to kind of better understand why some affordable units with through that are provided through inclusionary zoning are left vacant. You know, is it are there some other barriers that we don't know um unique to Amoris? You know, for instance, sometimes they require, you know, three and a half
times the rent up front or you have to earn three to four times the monthly rent and income, which you're not supposed to do, but maybe they don't know they're not supposed to. um you know, you can't deny someone an affordable unit based on ability to pay if they are already income eligible. Um
so, you know, we're trying to figure that out, but I yeah, I think it's a good discussion. I think we could have some different ideas for the inclusionary zoning. Um and the credits, yeah, maybe they're complicated. I'm not, you know, Bruce was right. It's
like this idea of like, you know, having a swap for something, you know, affordable units and then you could do this. And I don't I don't, you know, I don't know. It seems it seems as though it was somewhere between actually requiring them in the development on the one hand and payment
in L on the other. And this was saying, well, we we won't make you put them here and we we we won't ask for payment in L. We'll just have you put them in some other development. And and if I understood that that seemed to be I seem to remember the conversation we had
something very similar with Barry Roberts uh and and Barry's answer I think it's one of the few times when Barry spoke because he's he's a he's he's a he's a listener. Um but he said
it's quite complicated because all of these developments are often you know may it might be Barry Roberts's building this is a Robert's development and so is that and so is that but all three of them are buried with different partners
and so it I got to understand from that conversation just that 2 minutes or so that this credit uh you know swapping or whatever just seems as though it would be almost unworkable if you are really
trying to move something. How can you do that? It just seemed to be But so the qu the the was my question on that is is do I understand correctly um or is or is
perhaps the consultant not understanding the complexities of what they're suggesting? Fred, you want to come in? Yeah, I I remember that conversation as well and I remember we immediately backed off of uh
pursuing that at uh 55 South Pleasant Street. That's my recollection, Fred. So my question then is is is what the is what Barrett's uh is what the document
is suggesting as a strategy is that identical to what we were considering or asking of Barry Roberts or is it somehow different? Yeah. And I can you know and I'll I'll uh I've taken some notes that I can forward on to the consultants from this
meeting. I think one would be that um can they explain it a little bit better or how they envision it working in Ammerst? Yes. And and with reference to Barry's clearly and simply articulated uh um statement of the problem
associated with doing that. In other words, how can you solve that problem? Or this is not the same situation. So with the voids, it's it's it's it's it's not uh it's it's it's not
the same thing. Yeah, that would be nice to know. Okay, I've got to run. Uh Bruce, I think you're officially vice chair, so I'm handing over to Well, unless you close the meeting, Bruce, I'm I would Yeah, you go. And Wednesday.
Okay. Bye, Jesse. Um uh do we have any further need to keep going without the No, I was I was going to say one thing. Yeah, Bruce, it's interesting. When the town um hired a consultant a number of years ago to look at inclusionary zoning, um you
know, one of the responses or comments was like, you know, you want to get the units built. So, you know, if there's options for the developers not to build them, then sometimes you they may not get built, right? And so the payment in L was an option that was allowed, but the idea is that the payment was
supposed to almost disincentivize its use or provide enough funding that it could, you know, leverage and actually get a unit built. Um, you know, not to, you know, my general sense of the of 12, which is a little bit more than 10, and
the logic of 10 is that let's make um larger scale housing that gets built. let's let's not let it adversely affect the affordability balance in town. And 10% is is a number generated by the state. And so the logic of an
inclusionary zoning that keeps us above 10% um my I don't wasn't part of the discussion but my guess was that that strategically generally speaking was a was a strong argument for inclusionary
zoning. It just it it it keeps us ahead of the curve and 12% does that. And so this is a different conversation it seems to me about whether we can be not exactly greedy. I mean we are in a way but it's it's fulfilling a valuable and
and and and kind of imperative need. So it's would be nice if we could do more but but the logic for doing 12 is different from the logic of doing 15. It seemed to me it's a different argument,
right? Um shall we? Uh um I mean I I one thing Jesse and I have been Jesse's been talking and I'll leave Jesse to raise this. It's his idea and so I won't burn his bridge.
Um, the only thing that I would have left to talk about would be more conversation on this uh document, but um I' I've got my notes from having read it about uh well, basically I read it in
preparation for our Wednesday meeting last week. And so now we're a week away and I've I've forgotten a little bit of even though I've got three pages of notes. I'd rather look at it again before I kept talking about it. Does do
either of Karen or Fred do you want do you have topics that you would like us to uh m keep going on? Karen says no. Fred, I think says I can I can continue, but
um my sense is that Jesse's an active chair on this meeting and I would I I would like to have him included in continuing conversations. I think that's good. We've had an hour and a quarter of conversation or actually an hour and 20. So we we've
done a fair bit and we've got a meeting. Oh, hold on. We not till the Yeah. Not till the 7th. Yes, that's right. So, we've we don't have a meeting uh for a while. Um okay, I'm going to declare that we
are adjourned. Yeah. Thanks everyone. Thanks very much.