Hey, Bruce. Hi, Brad. Hi, Nate. >> Jesse, >> how you doing? >> Uh, better by the moment. >> Yeah, sounds like flu. That's too bad. >> I've been fortunate to avoid. Knock on
wood. Let's see. >> We'll wait a minute to see if Angus is coming. >> Yeah, Angus emailed said he would join. I'm actually feeling a bit under the weather today. So, >> I I'll blame my kids. >> Yeah. Well, that's a that's a given.
Just like when people first go to college, like both my kids got sick a lot the first semester. It's just all the new germs from new people at once. >> Yeah. I was at a swim meet this past weekend with over, you know, probably like 1500 people.
>> Wow. >> I think it was that >> that's big. Is that like a statewide meet then? You know, it was like um I don't know what it was. I think it was like considered like a finals meet for swim teams. It wasn't high school, but I
don't Yeah, I'm not sure exactly what it was, but I guess >> Hey, how's everyone doing? Happy New Year. >> Happy New Year to everyone. Um >> all too. >> All right, let me get my screen
organized and then we can get started. There we go. Okay. Uh, I think am I host or you still host, mate? >> I made you co-host, Jesse, I believe. >> There we go. But I don't have the start meeting button.
>> Oh, it's already started. So, just >> Okay, I got it. Great. Well, hello everyone. Uh, welcome to the subcommittee on zoning and housing of the Ammeris Planning Board. It is January 15th,
2026. We are getting started at 11:32 a.m. Um, we will start with just a roll call vote. So, please let me know if you're here. Uh, Bruce >> here. >> Fred Hartwell
>> here. >> Angus Mloud >> here. >> And I, Jesse Major, am here as well. Great. Uh, I see no one in the audience presently. I will try to keep an eye on
that if anyone shows up on our agenda today. First was announcements. I had one before we talk about other things. Uh which is just that I'm bit overwhelmed at work lately.
Still catching up from some things. Uh, and I was wondering if anyone else was interested in chairing this subcommittee, even if just temporarily for a month or two. Uh, I'm just feeling like I'm constantly underwater and not having time to think about this
appropriately. Uh, happy to participate. I'll still come. It's getting a little more challenging for me to block the times during the day, but I think I can effectively do that. Uh, I just feel like I'm being a bad leader of this group recently. Uh,
so if anyone else has that kind of energy, I'd be happy to trade off for a bit. You don't have to decide right now, but if you want to think about it, that's fine, too. I'm not looking at you, Angus. Not at all.
>> Right. Anyway, just to put that out there. Uh, I think we're still progressing things, but I feel like I could be giving more thought and attention to things. is what it is. >> Yeah,
I've got a lot of things that I'm trying to do on this committee. Um I don't know that that equates to chairmanship or not. That doesn't hasn't occurred to me. I've just I've just got some uh things that I'm pushing
>> and uh al so I'll I'll certainly keep doing that then whether that translates into taking over from you for a while or not I don't know but >> okay like I said I I'm still planning to show up. I just don't know how much outside time I have to give a lot of
thought. Um that's what I'm expressing. Uh I I wish I did and I hope it'll come back in a little bit, but that's fine. And Bruce, you're currently vice chair anyway, so don't show up. You have to do it. >> Yeah, it's true. That's okay. What would
what would distract me would be making minutes, >> right? So that's really the only extra task and I'm behind on that which is the next topic. >> So >> because I'm trying to make I'm trying to make minutes in a different form, >> right? And so I I mean to be honest, if
you read the minutes that I have put together, I use AI to do minutes and then just sort of go through and correct things and it's actually pretty good. >> Uh yeah, and it's quite quite thorough and mostly just correcting names and spellings and stuff like that. And
occasionally like the the meaning of something gets translated poorly, but it's not not a huge >> people hear that phone ringing on my in my end. >> No. >> Good. Okay, I'll let go. It's not mine. It's a visitor who's left their bag on the
table downstairs and doesn't realize their phone's ringing. >> I don't care. >> Anyway, food for thought. Let's just proceed. Uh, no minutes. I didn't share any minutes again. I'll I'll hopefully get a couple rounds for next time we meet or at least get them to Nate to
upload in draft form like we have been doing and then approve at some point. Actually, I think there are still a bunch still just draft form. So, I'll I'll look at that again and see what we actually have to approve. >> Yeah. And I I owe a set from the other meeting in December. I can I can get
those working on. >> That'd be great. Okay. Um, another thing related to what I just raised like also just wanted to thank you Nate for really also helping us drive this bus because we, you know, you're really putting together the
agendas and helping us think about what we should think about. So that's fantastic. All right. Uh, we'll just get to it. Um, first on our list was continued discussion of cottage style subdivision or 40y. And I know Bruce, you had uh
some big thoughts about this. Maybe you want to start the conversation about >> Yes. Yeah. I could start at the two levels. One of course is that uh um I mean where we left off was thinking about the 40 Y last time. Angus had read
through it. You had, Nate had, and I'd read through your reports and a little bit of the 40y thing itself. And we concluded that it was little cumbersome for various reasons. And uh and the thought was uh what is
the benefit of the state uh and could we not uh bypass that and create our own uh piece and that's where we left off and I thought more about that and then uh uh I
thought actually that seems like a really good idea to me and so I wrote uh something and and the the the uh the the thought that occurred to me I think following that meeting was that we already have a a version of this in a
way through the uh farmland protection overlay um recall well you may not but that was put in place in the late uh '90s and the first uh parcel off the rank Fred and I happened to be on the planning board at
the time 25 years ago it was uh it was not certain in and at the at the town. Uh that that this would that the bylaw would uh stand a test of actually uh us
the town forcing the requirements of this bylaw onto an aspirant developer which in the that case was Jones Patterson. Um I think yes for the Barcowski parcel which is actually quite near me. Uh and
it turned out that uh after a year and a half of uh process and so forth that the uh that the the board did make uh you know determination in that that was around that land that farmland
protection overlay and it it wasn't contested in land court if it was it was done it wasn't in court. was done on the basis of opinions and so forth but it held up um and I thought that we could
contemplate something similar and so that's what I wrote in that uh parcel and essentially it's uh whereas the farmland protection overlay was saying uh in in uh it was forcing a um
the development to a portion a third or of the of a developer polite. It was taking the development entitlement and squeezing it and obligating the developer to use the zoning the cluster bylaw.
And that's what happened here. And we had so what was uh what was what was created in that subdivision was much smaller lots than would normally be closed. and the rest twothirds of the land have been left um uh uh open.
Uh in our case um we would be u opposing the opportunity of smaller lots not requiring that they be condensed but I say um allowing a three-fold increase in the density uh but in return for that expecting that
there is a minimum house size described by envelope. I guess it could be done by envelope or by square footage or by both. Um but uh that's the essence of 40 Y is to create smaller houses.
And the experience of the uh the Coohl's project at um Cooh's Lane, the the the Jones Patterson developers was that um they built houses more or less the same size up on Cooh's Lane on these much
smaller lots. And so the question is can we um uh as we allow many more a three-fold increase in the allowable number of lots on a given subdivision could we at the same time uh limit the size of the house
and would that be considered a taking or whatever the the the term is or would it be considered a fair trade in the sense that the uh the the the zoning the the the the provision of this uh cottage
style subdivisional overlay would allow three times the number of lots and therefore um in return you build smaller houses and then that I think necessarily creates affordable houses and this is obviously not a student housing intention it's a a workforce housing
intention and I think this would be a very nice complement to um our efforts to create more dedicated places at higher densities for students and and putting the two together or promulgating advocate or putting them out together
indicates that this balanced approach in that the board has and we're not uh just seeing blinkered student housing. >> Yeah. >> So that's what I wrote. Um >> I think it's a great idea. I have a couple thoughts, some of which I think have come up in conversation before. One
is how do we make sure it's not just more student housing? I think you've offered in the past. Well, if you put it in certain places that are less desirable, it potentially would not necessarily be built to rent. I'm not convinced that works given what I see
around town, but it might. The other thing I'm wondering is, is there a way we can build in some owner occupancy requirement if you're going to have this in ability? A third thing I'm wondering is rather than overlay, can it just be a zoning change
to say, yeah, you can do this scheme of smaller uh square footage required, but you have to meet these other requirements rather than specify certain places because maybe that would be okay for some spots that are suitable for
student housing. I don't know. Uh maybe that's a way for us to also get more density uh in in the places we we're thinking about already. Um I mean I I I totally agree with the intention of what you're saying, Bruce, which is we want to opportunity for workforce,
>> young family, whatever housing. >> Just Yeah, those are the issues I I see right away. >> Okay. >> Nate, do you do you know can we do on the owner occupancy piece? Is that something we can do? Can we say, okay, if you're going to have smaller lot
sizes, half them need to be unoccupied. >> Yeah, it's a tricky thing. Um, typically with single family homes, we couldn't kind of have that condition. Um, but you know, it's interesting if if it's like one, you know, I see this as a development method, right? It's could be
similar to like cluster or open space. Um, and so, you know, I think that we still we're still we'd still be allowing all these other things and single family home development in a zoning district or on the property, just not at the density. And so,
I I Yeah, I think I I feel like maybe we could I feel we could try it, right? I feel like we could maybe even have um have inclusionary zoning apply and have it go up to 150% AMI on some units.
Um, you know, and so there's probably a few different things to to think about. Yeah, I I uh Yeah, I like this. And so, you know, I was thinking maybe we'd call it a traditional neighborhood subdivision only because in the housing production plan, there's a cottage style
development, which is more like, you know, multiple units on a single property that may or may not be be simple or with a subdivision road, but just, you know, um multiple dwellings. And so, but I I like this concept. And so, you know, I think the what's what's
nice about 40 Y what we discussed last time, right, is that it actually has a size limit and bedroom size count in in the in the regulations which typical zoning doesn't. And so, yeah, I you know, I've talked to the building commissioner and other staff and you know, everyone kind of likes this idea.
It's just that how do you kind of get to where you what we think what we might envision, right? So if we allow zero lot lines in some instances um and depending on our setbacks would we still get a big one big unit or can
we build in some kind of you know some of the setbacks and dimensional standards to get um you know a range of unit sizes or types or something. I don't you know you know I mean sometimes I look at this as doing like a 5,000 square foot lots right 50 by 100
>> right? Yeah. And that's what, you know, that's what this calls for. And I think some of it is actually appropriate because I think the development costs are so high. Either you're, you know, the development would be a traditional subdivision with really big homes. So the price of the homes, you know,
substantiates that investment in infrastructure, road, you know, roadways, public, water, sewer, whatever they might do. Or you get more units and a narrower road that then can still, you know, justify all that expense of doing that kind of subdivision. And so, you know, I think those I think though I
think it's I think it's something that we can look at. Um, you know, and I just sent that article around about, you know, the smaller lots and so I think people are are really thinking about it. I just I agree there's, you know, considerations. I just I'm not, you know, I feel like we just have
to maybe just put something down and, you know, bring it to the planning board in a in a few weeks and >> Yeah, I agree. >> see where it goes. >> And what do you think about the zoning change versus overlay idea? Yeah. Um Jeff, uh you know, the new director of planning and economic
development and I met with Doug and we talked about you know Jeff's coming to the planning board next week and kind of talking about priorities for the next year for the town and the board and the departments and you know Doug's like um you know he's like I'd love to simplify the zoning and overlay sometimes seem
like they complicate zoning. They don't they don't they I guess it's perception. >> Yeah. So I don't know when you were talking Bruce and Jesse when you were talking I'm like okay well if we had certain criteria and we said this last time you know is there minimum criteria in terms of how this is or where this
could be used lot size um water sewer public water public sewer I don't know and there's a few things and then we just say okay we allow this development method in these zones it could be RO RLD RN whatever then that
might be that might be one approach right because not it can't happen everywhere. And the other option we had talked about was if you if we had this criteria, would we then just create an overlay over some of the properties that meet the criteria? So I mean it kind of does the same thing. It's just right the
different kind of approach. >> Yeah, I was saying more of the perception and and also just Yeah. So when someone Yeah. just a perception issue as maybe being better for and and a wider applicability because maybe there's someone in a neighborhood who has a big
lot who decides they want to develop it a small lot then we don't have to piece >> I kind I hadn't considered that but I kind of like that approach and I guess we just have to figure out then you know >> where yeah uh Fred go ahead
>> yeah um I think a question has to be asked I I I think It's a this approach has a lot of promise. Um would the uh state law on subdivide um
um accessory dwellings apply to this? Would we end up with ADUs on this? >> We could. >> And and so that that would add another layer to this that we couldn't really control.
>> Yeah. But if we design it right, that might be fine. I mean, it's just more density, right? I mean, that's part of what we're saying. >> But then the problem is, I think you're saying then we have one lot becomes three lots and then suddenly there's six units on it instead of three that we intended. >> On on the other hand, that uh in terms
of economics, it uh it's another way to increase affordability of the uh principal unit. >> Yeah. water sewer, >> you know, is important. So, you know, if this were on septic, the distance
between septic and well, you know, creates a situation where you'd almost have to do a common, you know, treatment. Um, and you couldn't do individuals. So, uh, you know, so maybe in some parts of town, if this applied and someone was willing to do that, they may only be able to get single family homes. In
other parts where there's, you know, public utilities, maybe they could do ADUs more easily. But >> it's a I think it's >> maybe that's okay if we think that through. Maybe that's actually totally fine, right? >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Uh Angus, go ahead. >> Yeah, I was just going to say I' I'd
really like the idea that um you and Nate were discussing about um not so much doing an overlay, which I feel like would require a lot of like maintenance and thinking about actual parcels or or kind of discrete areas, but thinking more about the zones. um like thinking
about RLD, RO, RN, which are also the areas that are that we're not targeting um for as much housing changes. Um and as someone who lives in one of those areas, I think it'd be great to try and think about ways to allow for greater
density in them. Um and uh and I think there's a lot of land there that's ripe for this. Um, I think thinking about sewage and other services really important, but I really like that idea and I think it would make it easier to um, it would give people more flexibility and give developers more
flexibility and would not put as much on us in terms of like identifying discrete parcels which I think would be good and future like you know planning boards. >> Yeah, Bruce. Go ahead. Um
maybe it's it's uh well I'll let others figure out whether it's um works better as a general uh zoning change as opposed to um an overlay. I saw this as a
subdivision. Um and so um and I would put my hand up to speak to the afford the owner occupancy fraction of this um because I think the way I imagined this would happen would be that it it would be
someone would identify a substantial parcel, they would subdivide it and then the lots would be sold by the subdivision developer who may or may not put any of their own houses up. basically the housing would be put up
one at a time more or less and uh so I I just uh I just wanted to say that I am I I'm assuming that that will be the the way in which the the this sort of thing will mature. Um
uh and then if that's correct then we have to think how do we apply um the various um other requirements we might have about inclusionary zoning and and uh and owner occupancy and so forth.
I just want to make sure that we're not necessarily assuming that this is one one uh single development initiative. I certainly had not imagined that it would be that. Um, uh, so I just thought I'd check in to see whether anybody else is,
uh, whether that's the general assumption that this would be a subdivision and that it would it would proceed as subdivisions do. >> I I think it kind of gives I mean in the zoning change idea, it gives a lot gives all that flexibility. It could play out
the way you just described or it could also play out that one developer does build all the houses, right? >> Well, it could either way with an overlay and so forth. I mean, >> yeah. >> Yeah. Um, >> another thing,
>> sorry. Go ahead. Um I was um another uh thought that I had as I was putting this together and been thinking generally about our conversations is that I am want to ask a
general question about how thoroughly do we as a planning board I guess um so this is we as a subcommittee of the planning board advising or counseling the planning board and maybe staff uh how thoroughly do we need to put
together a proposal uh before we submit it to the town council. Now, now I'm thinking back uh how much time and effort we put into the uh the U drive and then we we just kept on doing it as
it went came back from the town council and came back to us and so forth. Um, by contrast, I see the uh the the two petitioner um articles for zoning changes that were submitted by Kitty and
Darcy. Um, they went to the plan, they went to council. Council deliberated on them and then sent them back to us. Um it seemed to me that it's pretty clear that you don't have to have stuff sorted out entirely in order to um submit
something for review by council to then uh um have it sent back. Now that that that what Kitty and Darcy sent wasn't fully developed but was developed enough for council to think yes we should formally uh engage the the planning
board on a public hearing to and and the CRC to engage in public hearings to evaluate this. So, I'm thinking um if we want to use our resources to the best effect, maybe we should uh hold back on
um completely or trying to do a thorough job on the first round and that maybe something like I've just written with a few more criteria attached to it perhaps and some dimensional some particular dimensional standards or
things put into it in a narrative form, but we submit it in a narrative form. um much like um has been done. In other words, do we do we need to do a whole lot more before we would submit this uh idea here to the uh
to council and and and similarly uh with regard to the North Ammerist overlay. >> Yeah. >> Um I'm thinking that we should uh perhaps lower our bar a little um since we only want There's in my mind there's a little risk
and I have one question for Nate more of a procedural question in the town. So what happens if something goes to the council and they just say no way we're not interested. Uh we as a planning board I assume can still work on it and
send something else back right there's no risk that they're going to be like nope can't work on that. Yeah. >> And the followup the followup thought is there's still a risk of that happening and setting the negative counselors deciding they're already not
interested. So that then no matter how much we work we do on it that'll be the immediate response. But in general I agree with you Bruce. I'm just want to flesh that out a little bit. >> Yeah Angus I see your hand. I think I think we should get things into a zoning bylaw format. So I think the citizen
petitions were were too generic and so just inform to me that you know I think the we've had some opinion from the turn some you know from KP law the town's attorney you know legal council who you know who said the way master law is
written it's pretty vague on how what happens when something gets you know is sponsored whether it's a citizen petition or brought forward by the planning board or others and what is that you know the council town council need to do with it. But I think they've been, you know, informed that they don't actually have to do anything with it.
They can just let it sit. They don't have to they don't have to refer it and then essentially it just, you know, the time expires and then it it can't move forward. Uh and they didn't really have that that legal opinion when these citizen petitions first came forward. So
I I agree with Bruce. I think I think that but I do think we should get something in the zoning form. And so what I was going to say is I think at the next week at the planning board meeting and I've been talking with staff I'd love I still you know I've said this before I think we wanted to kind of narrow it down and say let's identify
four to seven zoning amendments between staff and the planning board that we'd want to work on and get to um town council say by May in you know or something give ourselves a good deadline and this might be one of them and so I think you know what we'd want to do as a
subcommittee and with the planning board is just you know start getting a a format down and we might not be able to answer all of the questions, right? So, we might not be able to answer the owner occupancy piece, right? But we can get a
we can get the the zoning article into a format that we can bring to council with, you know, these other considerations or factors because then it just comes back to the planning board and CRC. And so I don't think we need to spend, you know, a year talking about, you know, this subdivision method or
whatever we want to call it if we think we can really focus on it in three months and get something in a good format because it'll always be other ideas. And so that's yeah, I I you know, I think university drive, you know, in the end it worked out, but it did take a
long time. And I think some of it was how the CRC and others were brought into it. And so, you know, we as staff have talked about if we identify these number of priorities that the planning board and subcommittee might be looking at, do we just go to CRC and preview it with
them before it goes to council just so they're not, you know, they haven't heard about it and give them the opportunity to start looking at it too or, you know, before it becomes official zoning amendment, right? So, if it goes to council and they refer it back, then it's actually the official zoning
amendment. until then it's a possible zoning amendment, right? It's an idea. It's a concept. And so what happened with University Drive, they heard about it, but I don't think they actually really, you know, really read it and then took it seriously because it hadn't been referred to them. But maybe with some of these ideas, it'd be good to
bring them along during the conversation. So, you know, we've been talking about it for a few months, it goes to council, it comes back, and the planning board is like, "Oh, we've already talked about this a little bit. We can do this pretty quickly." and then the CRC or others might be like, "Wow, it's going to take us six months because we haven't heard it." So,
>> yeah, that's good. >> I don't know the right answer. I don't want to like I don't think we should go with just a narrative and a few bullet points. I think we should actually try to structure it as like a bylaw format and maybe there's, you know, we we have questions within that, right? Like things to consider and we list them, but at least we get
>> get it pretty close. >> Okay. Okay. That's that's good. >> Great. I I propose we use this as a first example to try and be nimble. Angus, go ahead. >> Yeah, I was just going to say I I I uh the question that raises for me uh and
and this is maybe a question for for Bruce um since this is kind of um I don't want to say your baby, Bruce, but it's it's the thing you're you're taking initiative on, which I love. Um I guess I'm wondering one of the parts of the housing production plan talks about um I
think it's like the fourth no the third fifth strategy. Um it says amend the cluster development method to increase subdivision density and flexibility. And so I guess I'm wondering could we just make a should we could we uh if
we're trying to think about where to place this right as an overlay as a change to you know general zoning could we make this essentially a major change to cluster development um I'm looking on the zoning bylaw on pages like 51 and
52. It has um dimensional regulations for cluster developments in RLD, RO, RN, RBC. The minimum lot size in RBC is uh 7500 square f feet for a cluster
development. And for RLD, it's 25,000 square feet. So pretty big. I mean 7500 is smaller, a lot smaller than general dimensional regulations, but still way bigger than 5,000. So I guess I'm wondering like could we could we funnel
this into reconfiguring the cluster development method which I haven't read that closely so I don't know how much like that sounds like a like a lot of changes um but it would potentially bring down the cluster abilities and it's already the cluster ability is already kind of
targeted for different in different ways to different districts. We could lower them all but um but maybe not make them all the same. I don't know. It's just one thought or question I guess for Bruce or for everyone. >> Yeah. I mean, I like that because it's
back to this broader change, more flexibility. Uh I wonder if there's room or format in the bylaw to be like option A on cluster development, option B on cluster development. So like whatever's in there can stand, but then it can be like okay and if you want to get to 5,000, here are the other requirements
that you need to meet. house size or accuracy, whatever. Yeah, I think that's that's good thinking. Nate, go ahead. >> Yeah, I was gonna say that's a you know that let's let's maybe look at that right as a as a
could it be modified? I think you know essentially that's what we're doing and you know part of the agenda and what we're talking about as the planning board is what how do we implement the housing production plan and you know I think this subdivision this development method we're talking about does what you said Angus what the plan says and you
know it's interesting to me cluster is a term that's been around and so sometimes you know if we change it to something new like Bruce said if we you have then it means something different and so to me it's like oh well maybe maybe you cluster doesn't is outdated. You know, maybe we actually
want to call this we keep it we use the cluster, we keep the same formatting, same section of VIA, but now we call it, you know, something different traditional neighborhood subdivision or traditional neighborhood development and we use that framework and we modify right where we need to, but maybe you
know half of what's there more than half stays. Uh, and then, you know, we we try to rip off that. I think that's a it's a nice approach. I mean, essentially what we I was going to do was right, we I was going to look at some of those things anyways and kind of use that as a template and then just, you know, see
where we we tweak it. And so, um, if we think cluster, we think there's value in it, sure. If not, um, then, you know, or, you know, we can use it anyways and it could just become a new section, right? It could just be look similar to cluster but be something different. So, I think that's a nice approach, a nice
way to look at it. And then option C is row houses or other dens densification. It's all in the same place just as zoning, not trying to target specific lots or anything like that. >> Um, which kind of taps in nicely to our
next topic. I'm just looking at the time. Um, so let's kind of wrap up this one maybe for today unless people have burning other thoughts. Uh, I sounds like we're on pretty good agreement that we want to get something in shape a little more
quickly than we have in the past to bring to planning board and then hopefully to council to see what the what comes back because it will come back, right? Um, I think Bruce, what you've provided is a great framework starting place. Uh,
>> yeah. Hey, good. So um perhaps I'll just but I'll I'll look at what I've written and I'll look at the cluster development section on 48 to page 51 or so. Um
because essentially uh what's been written has the added uh component of reducing house size and the cluster as I think I I haven't read through closely yet but my guess is that
how this would change in principle would be that it would be a type of cluster development that allows for more lots than would otherwise be in return for reduced house size. And as Fred points out, we all we would bear in mind the
the fact I guess that uh an ADU as a protected use um would find its way or could find its way or should be enabled in a way to find its way onto any of these small lots in some way or other. So that
probably means that uh we could be you quite small houses could be required recognizing that an ADU of 900 square feet could be added to any one of those lots. Um so I think
>> I don't remember I don't remember well enough is there there's no lot size on the ADU lot. >> No there isn't any >> z it could be 100 foot lot there. >> Yeah. So, you know, to um you know, if
the lot is so small, maybe you can't do a detached, right? You might have to attach it or connect. >> That's still about right. Hold on. Sorry to interrupt. >> Yeah. >> Sorry. As you're >> go, Nate. >> Oh, Bruce, as you're talking, I just And you mentioned cluster. I was just
thinking so, so the cluster is based on a traditional subdivision. So, you create a yield plan, right? And what you say is, oh, if you can get 20 units, 20 lots on this property, then you can cluster them, but you don't actually get more lots. You just condense them. And so, I don't know if that's the approach
we want. Or we still basic we say you do this yield plan, but then we say you can double the lots. >> Exactly. >> Or, you know, because other the other difference would be you just give us a dimension size, right? You just say you can do these this, you know, 5,000,
7,500, whatever it is. or we we figure out a way a different way to appro to get to that small lot size. So I guess it's a matter of looking at it. Um >> my guess is that we would need to demonstrate some kind of uh giving in order to
>> right >> compensate for what Mike considered the taking. >> So that's why I'm imagining that there needs to be some rather um what's the word? very much in your face. A deliberate uh
um um methodology which represents a giving on the part of the the town that compensates for the the the the restriction on house size. I will look at that. As you said, you
wanted to move on. So, let's do that. I didn't want to take >> um Okay. Next on the list was discussion about main corridors and RBC BBC zoning. Um I I be honest I don't remember where our
conversation ended on this. I think this was partly prompted by I think you Angus and obviously related to the uh citizen petition that came through. Yeah, go for it. >> Uh yeah, I I can uh so I haven't done
anything on it. Um what I did do is a little bit of work on the um my my hobby horse which is the PRPOP stuff. Um which is is um uh the PRPOP the idea of
folding PRP and OP into commercial would um actually relate to the main corridor issue um because uh a bunch of those zones are on main corridors. Um so that is something that we that we could talk about now or later. Um, depending on
what y'all's thoughts are on the PRPOP thing, if I'm moving past that, I I sent Nate a bunch of documents like nine minutes before the meeting started um with uh track changed um alterations to the bylaw
um uh trying to fold the PRP and OP into the um commercial district. >> Nate, do you have a zoning map handy that we could look at? Yeah, these are there are very few of uh I mean we've talking about three zones
here and there's probably what eight parcels. >> Yeah, I I um sorry I was going to um say we're you know I think at the planning board we are talking about housing and PRP. I think that's something that's on the zoning priorities list Angus. So I think we can
you know we can discuss that more in terms of the corridor zoning. I just want to jump in and say that, you know, the town does have a grant to study East Ammerst and uh staff's trying to work on that and get that going. You know, we'd hire um a consultant or, you know, a
design team and you know, we haven't really defined the geographic boundary. The purpose is to assess the existing zoning and then recommend ways to dens you know, increase density whether it's through a 40R or a state tool or just through using our zoning as it is.
perhaps right even combining districts. And so I think the um I think the that to me that would be let's keep that as our main corridor study. You know we have it's going to kick off this spring. We're going to have you know a year to complete um the
grant and you know and I think that we could use that East Ammerst as the first go. I I I think the planning board and the subcommittee here would be involved quite I'd like to think that we we kind of be the kind of the working group of the consultant
um if that works out and so that way you know we you know we can kind of keep this moving and I'll find a zoning map. I think the um there's more commercial you know there's so commercial you know there's some in North Ammerst east Ammerst right it's around PRP it's
bigger areas and then there's office park so combining them it's not as if they're contiguous in terms of land area they just you know if we what Angus has done is looked at the use charts the allowable uses and other things and they're very similar and so the question
is could you combine these uh make some you know carry over some of the uses from the different ones and essentially create one zone and you know that still allows those things. I haven't looked at it what Angus what you sent I can forward I'll forward it to everyone on the subcommittee. So the
question is, you know, is that a do we want to move that forward like I said or what we might talk about at the planning board is would we just focus on housing in the PRP or in some of the other some of these other districts in a limited fashion. And so again, right there's probably so many ideas here. So let me
let me see if I can pull up a easyto read zoning map >> and I can share a couple >> a couple of thoughts about it. Um so the uh most of the use classifications are are not that different. Um it's like changing special permits to site plan
reviews. Um changing a few nos to site to site plans uh uh reviews. Um most of it would be uh the the areas that I think would be thorny having looked through it would be there's a bunch of um stuff allowed in commercial relating
to automotive stuff um that uh might not fit as well with um the PRP zones um and that's because that yeah there's those auto shops on uh in that uh
>> yeah on College Street. Um, so you know that that's that's the only place that I saw where there there could maybe be an issue. Um, and then what I did in going through the bylaw was basically try and move everything to more lax whichever
thing was more allowed for more. Generally it was commercial that allowed for more. Um but on a few of the dimensional regulations um uh I I uh relaxed commercial some things on commercial
um to match OP and PRP regulations but um Benade I correct me if I'm wrong or or help me understand if I'm hearing maybe reading between the lines of what you're saying as well the work that y'all are doing on on College Street. It
sounds like you're also maybe concerned about the idea of making any kind of changes to commercial to the commercial zone while that consulting work is getting started. >> Oh, not necessarily. I think right now the limiting factor with commercial is
the additional lot area per unit and we limit you know how many units can be provided in a mixeduse building. And so if the uses look similar, it's the conditions within the use chart or in the bylaw that would limit say residential development right now. Um
the No, what I was going to say is I think that the consultant is really going to look at East Ammerst. Like I said, I'm not sure where, right? I think generically we said anywhere. It could be from like Hamshaw Lumber down to, you know, I'll say Stanley Street, but it could I I think it's we're going to focus and not be that broad. But within
that there's commercial. It's a main corridor. There's RVC. there's whatever BVC possibly. And so I think that was because to me that's like our main corridor study. So I don't think we need to, you know, spend a lot of time right now thinking about how we reszone for
main corridors because I think this ECMR study is going to do that. >> Gotcha. >> And in terms of a zoning map, I you know what we have I can share my screen. It's not very it's >> not critical right now. We're not >> It is not it's hard to read. So I I can manipulate. >> It is really hard to read. I've always
have a very difficult time figuring out what we're talking about sometimes with >> I mean I'll I'll just say like to I think it was Bruce I can't remember if you said that it was just a few parcels. I mean it is it is pretty small. The commercial has um there there's the one right above where they were doing the North Ammerst overlay. That's a big
chunk of commercial. Right above that is PRP, >> right? That's about >> Yeah, there's uh commercial down for the lumber yard south of Ammerst College. That's literally a single property that's zoned commercial. Um, there's commercial on College Street. Then, um,
there's PRP down off of Old Beluretown Road. Then there's, uh, Office Park. The only Office Park I've been able to find is maybe even covered by the north by the University Drive overlay. I um and it's on the east side of University
Drive and it's like where that the hospital complexes and a couple of other properties. So to me I you know my my goal is to try and simplify the zoning code where and how we can. And so what what I was trying to do was basically anything that could be done currently in the OP and
PRP would basically still be allowed. A whole bunch of additional things would be allowed. And then my goal was opening up housing in both commercial OP and PRP. And so in the uh dimensional regulations changes or excuse me the use
um changes that I that I made it was to open up apartments, town houses, maybe mixeduse buildings. Definitely. >> Yeah. Yeah. Was the I I don't know if anyone was around when those weren't defined.
The goal was I assume to encourage different types of development. >> It was a concern that the tax base ename it it followed the uh the expansion of conservation land and so forth and
people started noticing that less than half of the town was taxable in one way or another. And uh and we had uh an expanding university at that point or it had expanded. It had been expanding for 20 years. And the thought was we really
should provide uh opportunities for business. We can get uh uh the benefits of that onto the tax roles and so forth. And so uh in the 90s these things were carved out you know in the few places
that were remainingly available I think and so now we're kind of 30 years on almost and nothing much has happened. So I would have uh in the first time I was on the planning board was uh would have uh perhaps been you know rather
viciferously challenging the proposition that these should include housing. I'd say what the hell are you thinking of? You're nuts. this is this microscopic part of town that we've made possible for, you know, for for for industrial or whatever, you know,
the development and you're you're thinking of shooting yourself in the foot. How could you be so stupid? 30 years of nothing happening on those sites has probably mellowed my indignation. So, I'm just sitting here and saying nothing. But that's that's my
history associated with uh you know, and there's probably a lot of peoples who've been around for a while. >> Yeah. And was it was it I mean the housing was not allowed. I'm assuming out of concern that it would just become more student housing. >> Well, not student housing. No, it was
the housing was not allowed because the higher and better use was perceived to be um you know um commercial development. Yeah, I see >> that and and and securing the tax base. That's what it was all about. I think that was and student housing hadn't registered
terribly much at that point. No, no. It was preserving and enhancing and and expanding the tax base. That was what that was the that was the that was the golden goose that was seen to be uh uh to be attracted to those parcels. But no goose no goose has come.
>> We need to change them to designate Amazon warehouse or AI server farm only. Then we'll increase our taxes. The hope was that uh incubator uh startups from UMass would uh
>> and it was said that the uh the amist address having amist in your address had value had cache and so we should try and uh create the opportunity for for people to you know for that value to be added so to speak
>> all this stuff that was the kind of general conversation I think Fred might want to either say he agrees with me or or or or challenge. It would be good to know whether I'm inventing all of this or whether it's shared by in some way.
Uh yeah though uh I too was on the planning board uh at roughly the same time that Bruce was and uh >> that was uh absolutely the case and uh I remember that uh uh development that was
proposed for uh Sunderland Road uh and they the developer was going to pay to uh extend the sewer all the way out. Uh was that was an example and well Tom meeting shout that shot that down
but still that was the uh the the tenor of discussion in both the planning board and the finance committee. >> Thanks. >> Okay. >> Um so I I mean yeah it sounds like no reason not to address that. Right. Go
ahead. >> Yeah, I was going to say let's just um like I said, staff is kind of looking at how to allow housing maybe in the PRP and Angus if it's combined. I think there is a concern that if we allowed it then that might be what
gets built and maybe there's still a possibility that who knows right in the next few years something could have a spin-off from UMass or some other business may come there. And so some of the discussions are like well would you I don't want to say overlay again but
would housing be allowed in just only certain areas within these districts or something just you know I think the market is so heavily um weighted housing that I don't want to preclude the you know so say we said okay let's allow housing in
the commercial and all of a sudden we get a frenzy of building um but then someone comes and says oh I'd like to do I'd like to do this and we're like, "Oh, we've actually built out a really good commercial part of town." I you know, I don't you know, I
just so I think I think it's a let's just keep talking about it. So, you know what I thought about with if we want to change PRP or whatever housing is do we I think we need to right we have to lift the cap on apartments. We have to change our mix if we want to have mixeduse buildings. The 30% seems to be a lot of
people seem like it's a high hurdle. So, do we change that percentage or change our Mixie's building? Um, you know, how do we still allow for the possibility of other uses that are allowed in those districts that are not residential? And so, >> a lot you you said a lot of people think
30% is high. Are you saying a lot of developers? >> Yeah. So, you know, more recently, we've had developers and property owners come and say they've looked into trying to do mixeduse buildings not in downtown, right? So outlying village centers otherwhere other you know other places
and they've just said that the 30% is difficult um in terms of uh finding tenants and so the you know what you know essentially right the mark the units will subsidize the commercial space >> right
>> which is okay to an extent except that it seems like you know there isn't a strong market then to fill those spaces I don't know you know how much >> I agree but but I interpret And I'm not a developer, but I interpret that maybe too faciciously as it's hard to find tenants to bring as much money as
apartments would. And so I mean I again I don't know the finances. >> I don't I my reaction to that is do we really want to let developers tell us what we should zone when they have a much different agenda? Right.
Well, I think in the PRP in those areas, I guess what makes gives me pause right now is what we say can be allowed in mixeduse buildings as part of the non-residential space is really kind of like your typical retail commercial. >> Yeah. >> But maybe in these areas we could allow
like manufacturing uses, right? Like a fab lab >> can be clean now, right? And so you could have like an innovation lab. >> Sure. which wouldn't be allowed in a mixeduse building, but maybe in these areas we'd want it to be because it's really not producing, you know, hazardous waste or noxious fumes like
maybe we thought it would 30 years ago. And so I would just say that if we're going to do that, we would want to look at >> kind of maybe tweaking the mixeduse building standards. >> That's all you know. >> Yeah. Do you mean to allow those to allow those types of things? >> Yes. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Totally for that. I mean I was thinking great in the PRP let's make 100% commercial on the first floor 100% mixed I mean increase that to still encourage that and allow the tax base to grow because those bases get more right
there just we have a split tax system right >> we don't >> oh I thought I thought commercial was different than residential >> tax wise it's not >> uh I don't believe Oh.
>> Oh, >> wrong. >> Okay. Well, my recollection is I'll just stay quiet, >> but I think, you know, so I think um let's talks. I think, you know, at the planning board next week, we might hear some like, oh, what do we do with the
PRP? It is an interesting conversation, you know. Um but but like but yeah to your point Jesse if we wanted to allow housing is there a way to preserve and maybe encourage space for other uses that other than your traditional retail like you know do we >> um
>> so I guess I'm just trying to understand I mean so potentially we could it hasn't happened yet generally speaking the land is also very difficult to build larger things on because it's
like whole wetland uh almost. Um so I mean Nate, are you s the way I was approaching it was we'd leave as many options open as possible so that if someone wanted to do something they could but by opening up more options for housing that could lead to infill which
could then necessarily even though other things are allowed block off other uses of the space but it seems like the only way to stop that is not to allow housing. So, you know, and then and then we're potentially stuck with the same nothing happening. So, I guess I I'm
wanting to get a sense, n like what are what are you suggesting exactly? >> Yeah, I I don't know yet. I think I think just, you know, I think some of it would be, >> you know, like Bruce said, there was a purpose to these zones, right? there's a
purpose in the bylaw and there was a you know an expectation of what they what how it could be developed >> and and it has maybe it hasn't been used that way but I just don't want to for instance if we said we can allow apartments any size up to you know we don't cap the number of units and we allow them by site plan review and the
PRP we might get a lot of proposals for apartments in the PRP in the for the for the developable land that's left >> and maybe that's okay or the problem might be is that um we then just you know we precluded any opportunity for
say some type of other office space or other type of you know manufacturing used to go in on that land because now it's apartments and so um you know >> you know I agree maybe we say well we've had the zoning in place for a long time
and it hasn't been used so what's the harm I just want to make sure we kind of understand those implications that's all >> but if the goal was really about tax base and less about diversity of who what we have that we still accomplish that with apartments, right?
>> Yeah. Know, I think it's a really good question like what is economic development or what's growth, >> right? >> Is growth if the goal was really to have a diverse business base, >> right? >> That's one thing. Um but clearly that there's not a lot of interest in that happening here.
>> I don't know. >> Yeah. No, I mean I so um yeah, I just think it's let's have the keep having the conversation. It's something that is on the priority list. It's something I, you know, ever since we talked about Angus and you know, you've mentioned it, I've said, "Yeah, we should investigate this a bit more because
>> um >> so is the next step then to bring it to the whole planning board to figure out what we are as a group willing to countenance or is the next step, Nate, for me to meet with you about the the changes that I made to the documents to think through like what I'm what I'm
missing, what I'm not thinking of. What's our next >> thinking on the on the on the 21st um you know I think we're going to have a the housing and zoning subcommittee is going to have a a more time than just the report to actually discuss what we've been talking about what you know
what our ideas and then to have the whole board discuss them a little bit too and say okay here's what we think are a few priorities we'd like to continue working on and give the board the opportunity to weigh in a little bit and then staff has a few zoning >> um ideas and so then yeah so I think
we'd bring this back to board next week and say, "Okay, here are the, you know, things we've looked at like the subdivision method, North Ammer, still this PRP, comm office part, however we want to kind of frame it." Um, and then yeah, so I think that's how that's to me that would be the next step and see how
the whole board looks at it. >> Okay. And then once once this uh PRPOP stuff is kind of set to the side, I'm happy to also work on the RBC BDC stuff um and thinking about if there's a way to either combine those or or make
changes there to kind of simplify things since those are again, you know, these high um high priority areas that seem to align with the housing production plan priorities of, you know, both infill development, but then also So, you know,
thinking about um areas where where greater density would make more sense because they're on major bus routes or major arterial roads. So, >> okay. Um other thoughts before we switch
to North Ammerst overlay? Okay. Um, we can summarize where we're at with North Ammeris Overlay and >> Well, I'll have a shot. Um, >> sure. >> I I think we are at a point where we
know what we want to do, but we recognize that there is significant headwind. Um and what I tried to do in the uh uh thing that I sent you which is in rough
form is basically to uh uh write an write an introductory narrative um which and and I think I'm as I said I'm in inclined to try and develop this and
this was your suggestion Jesse when we had a drink the other which I very much enjoyed in the in that that library of the Boltwood in which is a great place to sit and chat. um that um I think it's
worth uh us, which means I me I'll put the work in on this to create a a a series of probably a half a dozen uh 700word articles that can uh ideally uh be published sequentially in the
bulletin that basically set out the big picture thinking here. Um uh and the sequence goes something like um we have a problem in town. Uh and it's a
it's a peculiar problem because we're a peculiar town. Uh it has to do with housing students. And so the first step uh the the first uh bundle is talks about Amist
uh as a town hosting a large institution uh in this country and and basically uh says what other towns are like Ammerist and and describes the criteria that we would use to establish a comparable.
lists the the potential comparables and recognizes what are the 10 or 15 towns in the country that are most like Ammerst. And we and then the second u uh tile or the second component says um we talked
to the planning directors of each of those 10 or 15 towns or whatever it is each of those towns. Um we asked these kind of questions and we learned the following and the following that we learned which is essentially the essence
of the second tier second second piece of this is that there are three ways in which towns like Amist have addressed the student the challenge of providing student housing and I list the three and then the the
the third fourth and fifth of these uh articles goes firstly with the the solution concept of the university uh the institution providing housing on campus. Um and describes the the ways in which
that can happen but concludes with the reality that this is something over which any given town has no um power. It only has the power of persuasion. Um the third one uh sorry the the the next in
the sequence is the minimum distancing solution concept which is the second solution concept which we found that sounds and we describe that in some detail uh but recognize that it's um got two
severe uh challenges limitations. The first is that it's highly demanding of administrative uh time and effort. And the second is that it needs a town needs to be a certain size relative to the number of uh
student houses it's trying to contain in order to work in theory. Um state college uh has one student housing student house for every nine essentially and they do it on the frontage basis but it boils down to about one in one per nine. So that means if you want to we've
got 9,000 students, let's say that's 2,000 houses. If you want to minimum distance 2,000 houses, you're going to need 20,000 houses. And and and that's that's that's not who we are. We're not big enough to solve the minimum distancing problem the way State College
has. And State College is the only town in the country that has for any length of time com uh committed to that. At least that's my understanding. So then we move to solution concept number three which is the um building uh off-campus
but close to campus highdensity uh primarily student housing and then we describe that and then um the the the final in the sequence uh basically is a draws it all together. So it seems that
in order for us to be able to successfully or most successfully, we may not be successful, but the the the mo the most powerful way in which we can push this is to show the options
and to um basically make the case that we can't afford not to try to do this because this seems to be the most obvious option in the face of not being able to persuade the university to. And by the way, that third uh article mentions and acknowledges that the
university has, you know, 60% of its uh uh uh student accommodated on campus, which is pretty good compared to other institutions. It's just not pretty good when you have a unique situation where the uh
if you're a university of this a masses size in a town like Amist you should be uh aiming to have 80% of your students uh on campus not 60%. because otherwise the town suffers and I think we should
um uh now maybe that's been made um with sledgehammers and all kinds of abusive instruments to the administration of UMass for years and years and I just don't know it but maybe it hasn't and that the case needs to be
made that the you the UMass is uh um should do better because of the particular and peculiar situation in which this university and the town is. But in the meantime, we also should look at uh plan B or plan C. I think plan B,
the minimum distancing thing, the second option really doesn't seem to me to be a a feasible solution concept for this town given the nature of the problem and the scales of the various institutions in the town. Anyway, all of this I want
to write out so that um oh and then the sixth of this would be the uh the cottage style housing thing we talked about and that we include that because we say um just in case you're wondering um why we think this is all about
student housing. We don't really we recognize that it's the major uh market that we have to satisfy and we should be uh not blind to that but at the same time we're not uh ignoring the other needs that we have because I think we have to show as we've said before to
ourselves. So the six of the uh one of the the sequences is that. So it's a a fairly comprehensive um series of short articles uh discussing housing in Amist that hopefully sets a broader context within which we can respectably
uh present and defend the proposition that we should uh commit to the town should commit to highdensity uh off-campus housing in the immediate vicinity of campus and that the uni the
overlay method method is the uh is our we see is the is the best mechanism for achieving that. So that's where I think we are and and if that's the case then the ball's very solidly in my court. >> Yes and no. I totally you know I like
this plan a lot. Um I think that can get started and I think we could probably try and move an overlay plan along at the same time because as we know it'll take weeks until it gets to council. it'll take weeks till it comes back to us. And so, you know, it's a timeline
anyway. So, I think we move in parallel with trying to move >> something forward >> very I I think we've >> I think we've got the essence u of of uh what we're doing. I mean, the mechanics of what we're trying to do are in place.
>> Nate has we've defined the area. um we've defined the uh the the the the mechanics of it and so forth and design guidelines uh design standards not to say they can't be improved or changed or
modified but um all of that is in so I think yes we should uh create that uh that document >> with the previous conversation in mind about being a little more nimble bringing things forward
What else do we need to do before we think it's ready to come to full board hopefully for a vote to then go to council? >> Oh, I guess we need to review the we need we need to finalize I can't what is that document? I I can can I find it? Uh
>> yeah, I mean I think I can work just to jump in here. I think I can work with Jesse you and Bruce and I think we need to kind of get a kind of a general for format you know document like in zoning format down. So we kind of we have a few frameworks. We have you know other narratives. >> I think it would be synthesizing those.
Maybe there's a cover memo or document and then there's actually you know kind of a zoning um in a zoning format you know a purpose maybe you know we said if there's definitions you know standards whatever and we can just kind of put it in that I think having it in that format is really important. So I think it's
kind of getting getting you know taking everything we've done and um kind of getting it there. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Then the other thing I was thinking about last week, I was thinking back over the last many months about how some things have played out with full planning board
and I was a little surprised but there have been more than one occasion where we've brought something forward and then the response from the other board members is what we don't know anything about this. We're not prepared to vote on it. We're not prepared to talk about it. So I don't know how I don't know how to progress that. I don't know if it
means we need to get this on the agenda as soon as possible just for conversation with the full board. >> Yes, that's >> two weeks later, a month later, bring an actual document >> or something like that so that we don't end up in that same >> Yeah, but that's what you were saying
that we need to advance the the the the regular mechanism of of reviewing and submitting this to council. uh and that can happen while uh I mean I I don't know whether you know the bulletin is going to be happy to do all of this and so forth but but
uh getting uh my what what I see is is my task or the task that I would like to try and achieve is to put this into the uh to to put this in a forward in a very public way so that broader context and and is
>> maybe I'll write to Doug and ask if we can get this on the agenda soon for conversation. >> Yeah, Jesse, like I said, I think you know, Pam and I just talked about this and I I suggested getting the housing and zoning subcommittee as a a more substantial agenda item next week and
maybe for future agendas, not so late in the meeting, right, as maybe under the general housing discussion or something or its own agenda item up front so that we could actually talk about what the subcommittee has been doing. And so, next week we're going to try that. Um, >> excellent. I haven't we haven't run it by Doug, but um I'd like to just move it
that way just so we do just what you said. We don't expect a vote by the planning board next week. We can say here are the two or three things the subcommittees, you know, really been focusing on. We can have a document or two in the packet for each and it's just a discussion, right? It's just, >> you know, I don't want them to, right?
No pressure, right? But like here's what do you think? You know, >> here's what here's our maybe we put a timeline. you know, we're going to come back in two meetings and we're going to have a draft zoning amendment. The idea is to get the planning board to sponsor it as a zoning amendment to council, right? So, that's the goal and we just
kind of work, you know, it doesn't have to happen at one meeting. It can happen over a few, but >> that's great. I appreciate that, Nick. That's excellent. Angus, you gonna add in? >> Nope. Sounds good. >> Excellent. And like, thank you again, Bruce, for doing all that work. I mean, it's
>> haven't done it yet. >> Great plan. No, no, but there's work in thinking. >> Well, I thought I would have, but I I mean, today's the first day in a week that I felt like I'm I'm not I'm not going to go back to bed after this meeting. >> Yeah. >> Um, so I hope, you know, hope springs
eternal. I'm looks like I might be able to pull this off. >> Okay. So, uh, maybe that's it for our discussion today on North Ammerst. We seem to know what we need to do. Um, also on our agenda, Nate, you put a
housing production plan conversation. Not sure if we need to go into much more detail right now unless anyone wants to jump in with something. >> Look like it. Um, we kind of just Well, I don't know that we talk about the petition amendments
again. I think we're we're set with that. I don't see anyone in the public. Um, I don't have any unanticipated items. Anything else anyone wants to talk about today? >> No, we're good. I'm good. >> All right. Excellent. Nice to see you
all. See you in a week or six days. Planning board, right? Yeah. Okay. Thanks y'all. Happy New Year. >> Thank you. Bye.