Okay. Um, guess we're good to go, right? >> Sure. >> Hello everyone. Um, housing planning board housing subcommittee meeting. It is August 28th at 11:33.
Uh, we will get started with a roll call vote of the subcommittee members. Um, Brett Harwell, are you present? You're muted if you want to unmute just for >> I am present.
>> Great. Oh, looks like Bruce just joined. Hi, Bruce. We're just doing a roll call attendance. So, Bruce Maybe he's still trying to connect. >> Stop. >> Oh, there you are. >> Uh, yeah. Okay. Uh, I will mute uh
because you'll probably hear banging in the background, but I can hear you. >> Okay. It actually sounds okay right now. >> Okay. Well, tell me if it's not. >> Okay. Um, and I Jesse Major am also present. So, I have the full
subcommittee members here. Great. Um, I now don't see anyone in attendance. There was just someone. So, we'll just get started. We'll see who >> that would have been me. >> Oh, that was you and the attendee. >> Yeah. >> Okay.
Um, I sent a link for minutes. I know there was a whole lot of minutes. I'm not sure if anyone had a chance to look at them or if we want to wait until next time to vote on them. As I said, uh, they were autogenerated. I thought did a
reasonable job. Um, Bruce or Fred, do you have a comment at all about the minutes? >> I read the uh the most two most recent and I found that I could edit them as well. So, I I made uh some changes. They
were pretty punctuary. I I spelled Kathy Shane's name correctly and added that she was a town counselor as well as a North Amus resident. And I think on on the second to last the pendultimate one
uh there was it said there was no public comment. There was actually public comment. It was folded into uh the AI generated notes because the AI generated didn't distinguish between who was saying what. So I just made a note at the bottom instead of no public comment.
I said uh uh held the green bum commented as noted above. And I didn't say that Pat didn't comment, but I do recall that Pat made a specific point of saying no, she didn't want to say anything. She just wanted to be present. >> That that actually was on there and I
took it off because I didn't think it was relevant. But yes, that's that's fine. >> Thanks. >> Anyway, I've had a look at both of them of those two and uh uh >> Okay, maybe we'll try maybe we can try and chip away at a couple each time.
That's a good approach. So >> yeah. >> Yeah. I think what we can do is um Bruce, if you send your comments or Fred to Jesse, Jesse send them back to me and I'll just post them and I can post them as draft just so if people are wondering it's been a while since minutes were posted. >> Yeah. >> And that's easy to always like update
them once they're online too. So >> well my comments are in there because I was able to edit. So I didn't uh I don't know that it's uh it shows that it doesn't it didn't it didn't show a track change or anything. It just it just accepted my
authority to change the the draft. I've made my comments, but it's it's it's not evident from the meeting from the minute which what they are other than what I just said. >> That's fine. So, this was 8:14 and 723. You said is the two most recent ones.
>> That's correct. >> Okay. >> So, Nate, do you want me to send them to you separately? Do you have access to that folder? I don't remember. >> Uh, just can you send them separately? just I think sometimes I have trouble. Um >> no, >> I'm at home today so I could probably do it, but on my work computer I can't.
>> I'll I'll do it. I'll I'll send them to you. Um so Fred, have you had a chance to look them over or >> um Yeah, I uh other than that uh I I also work from uh most recent working
back and I didn't get all the way back through them. So, uh, we can, uh, revisit this at our next meeting. >> Okay, that's fine. So, then Nate, I'll send them all to you and then they'll be all draft form and then maybe next
meeting we'll approve as however many we get. >> Yeah. >> Okay, sounds like a plan. Um, okay, that's that. Uh, I don't see see anyone,
so I don't need to read any names. I like the way Doug does that. And I guess we'll move on to our agenda items. So, mostly we're going to go through the new ADU files that Nate just sent
us, right? >> Yeah. I can um explain. >> Sure. >> You know, I sent a document titled 820. It was after the planning board meeting and it just cleaned up all the you know comments and track changes and then more recently
the uh attorney general has made some you know in the last week has issued a number of decisions and they clarified how to discuss um gross floor area. So I I just a document titled 827. >> Yeah. >> It was updated yesterday. It was just
this week actually that the attorney general made these determinations, these decisions. And so the way we're calling the way we're describing habitable space just wasn't isn't going to work. So we have to use the the definition of gross floor area. >> Okay.
>> Um for protected use and so there's a new definition. I I can share my screen in a minute. >> Yeah, why don't you why don't you do that? Whatever will be most useful for you for us to work out with you. Let's just do that. >> Yeah. And then the other two things I'll say is we um staff met with Cassie Kathy Shane and there was a few comments
there. So I updated a few sections and really what there are there's two parallel documents. There's one that just says protected use ADU and essentially all the language is the same and then there's the um two types of ADUs protected and local. And the idea is that these are mirror versions except
for the local ADU. So the language should be the same. I feel like it's been, you know, cleaned up and worked on. You know, if there's comments, we can go through it. I think the big decision is, you know, does the housing subcommittee and planning board, you know, what version or what I what do you like? Two two versions of ads or just
one. >> Yeah. >> It sounded like at planning board the other night, there was enough support for the two versions that that would get passed, I think. And so, um, yeah, and it may be that, you know, CRC only recommends,
um, the protected one and then two different versions go to council and that's okay. And then staff can discuss kind of the process and thinking and the council can always, you know, go to one or two or makes other changes, refer it back. Um, I think it's actually to me at
this point it's it's I feel like it's pretty good. Um, it's really whether or not you want two or one. I think that's >> Yeah. Okay. So, >> and I'll share my screen and we can um actually, you know, hold on just a second. >> Bruce, if you're having connection
problems, you might consider turning off your video. That might make it a little more stable. >> Oh, yeah. Here we are. All right. Is that good for folks? >> Yep. Yep. So, you know, the purpose hasn't changed. I deleted that one sentence. So, allowing owners to age in place
didn't seem like it was necessary. Um, so this are two types of ADUs. A local um we had, you know, in a single family residential zoning district that allows detached single family dwellings by right or special permit. And so, you know, this word single family
residential zoning district is a phrase from I think both the legislation and the state rules and rags. So it's recommend I was we were recommended to put that in there. Um here's >> even sorry even though we don't call it that >> right and so the attorney from uh KP law
and then what the AG's been telling folks is to try to mirror the language and the regulations as close as possible. Um, you know, so originally we just said ADUs will be permitted in any zoning district that allows a detached single family dwelling by writer by special
permit, which is fine. The recommendation is to throw in this single family residential zoning district. So, you know, I think in some communities, for instance, they only have a few zoning districts and in their commercial district, they allow single family homes. And so,
um, you know, not not I won't >> Yeah, >> it's I'm just trying to understand the legal pieces of this. To me, >> that that opens up potential for someone here like me to argue we don't have this zoning district, so it shouldn't be allowed.
>> Yeah. I mean, right. So staff was talking about this. I mean, we think, you know, we think that maybe the idea originally was that ADUs would only apply to single family homes and that's why this this uh language was in there, but then they define principal dwelling as something else. And so, you know,
that's just what we're dealt with. You know, it's not >> Yeah, I could read where someone reads this and would say, well, what's a single family residential zoning district? And then, you know, it's described the following line. But um we say a protected use that hasn't
changed except for we say meeting all requirements of a building permit application and certain requirements listed in this section of the zoning bylaw. So before we had said just requiring a building permit and I think you know we want to clarify a building permit application it's a little bit more than just a building permit. You
know as part of the building permit application you have to have plans maybe a survey whatever you know is required to get a building permit. So it's a little and in staff's mind it's a little clearer and can cover more things. A local ADU you know like we talked
about the planning board it shall meet the definition and requirements in this section of the bylaw and then it follow the permitting follows these steps. So when a lot has a local only a local it's you know administrative approval according to 11 11.212. So that allows
staff to, you know, put some conditions on there in addition to what's on um in the bylaw. And then when a lot has a protected use ADU, the local ADU shall be permitted by a special permit. And so we have to require a special permit if there's already the protected use on the
property. Um yeah, Fred, I see you have your hand raised. >> Yeah. Um the uh there's a well there's a there's a grammar error uh in a meeting all requirements should be
plural but it's requirements of a building permit application. Uh somehow that that that can't be quite right. I'm
uh >> maybe it's >> you requirements associated with >> a the or yeah some help me here associated with the uh issuance of a building
permit or something like that. >> That's where where the require the the requirements don't come from the application. They come from what happens when the requirement issues when the building permit issues. >> Maybe we want to word it as requires an
application for the building permit. >> Isn't that the point you were kind of making that someone assumed you didn't need to request a permit even? >> Yeah. I mean if Fred I just said um meet meeting all requirements associated with issuance of a building permit.
>> Yeah, that's better. >> Yeah, that that works. >> Yeah. No. Right. So, you know, we have the towns received about a dozen, you know, since the since this took effect and there's only a few that are complete. So, yeah, some people just um you know, some are homeowners, some are,
you know, just applicants who didn't. I don't think they I think they thought they could just submit a building permit or very something. I don't know, even like a a note to the town. I think some of them are really simple. Um and then you right, you have to have plans and elevations and a survey to
show setbacks, right? I mean there's a bunch of things that are required. So, >> okay. >> Uh Jesse, could I comment for a moment? >> Yes. >> Um uh firstly, I'm working in this unfamiliar environment, so I don't know how to raise hands and things. No worries.
>> So, I'll since I'll just I'll just interrupt uh >> respectfully if I can. Um, I'm I'm back at the single family residence and and be and I' I've been trying to unmute myself for the last >> just stay unmuted. We'll we'll tell you
if it's problem. >> I I figured out how to do it. Um, it seems to me that that we have these phrases in here single family residential uh um largely or entirely a because that's the
wording that's in the state. uh um um general law, the mass general law and and and that because there are all sorts of different this mass general law that we are unfolding essentially has to uh
apply in all um all towns has to has to work in all sorts of uh jurisdictions and I'm I'm wondering whether there might be a sense in putting some footnote or preamble even to the bylaw law that that
explains the uh of this bylaw state uh to say >> Oh, you're you're breaking up a little, Bruce. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Is that any better? >> Yeah, now you're good. I I'm just
wondering whether whether there would be room for a footnote or a preamble to this particular uh bylaw the uh uh bylaw part of the bylaw that explains the uh the unusual
dependence or the the unique dependence on master. >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean we say a protected you say to you in accordance with master law 48 section 3 and 760 CMR. I mean I I don't know if we needed to you know if
we wanted to put more more there. Um it's only if it's only to continuing uh push backs to particular language uh uh that's in there solely because it's a phrase that is um created
in the mass general law. that phrase is intended to reflect the the mass general law rather than our zoning rather the situations encounter and our bylaw. I don't know whether this whether
it's worth drafting a >> yeah I mean right so I think you know I think the statement would read fine if we didn't even have single family residential zoning district in there it's it describes what it is and so you know I think in the model bylaw
um the state had said just say in any per any single family residential zoning district and then you define for the purposes of just ADUs what a single family resial zoning district is is a zoning district that allows a detached single family home or dwelling by right or by special permit.
>> Okay. >> But, you know, I mean, we could do it that way. I you know, I think our the attorney from KP Law is kind of cautious and saying that the attorney general has been asking communities to kind of put this phrase in. >> Okay, I'm good.
>> Before we go on, I see Kathy has joined us. Um, unless there's objection, I will bring her over just to be part of the conversation. Great. Hi Kathy, I'm gonna ask you to join uh promote you to panelist.
I'll see if you come over. Great. Looks like you're here. Just FYI, Kathy, we've been running the subcommittee this way of letting attendees sort of just join so they can add comments as necessary, but you can still use your raise hand feature if you'd like to add something.
We're just going through the uh Nate's latest version of the ADU bylaw, trying to clean it up and get it all ready for planning board to then hopefully vote on and send over to CRC and or council. >> So, >> yeah. So the CRC meets this evening or
this afternoon and so I you know I um after this meeting if there's any with some of these changes I'll forward them on. So I sent them the 820 version right >> which doesn't have some of these minor updates uh but you know it's quite similar and so you know um yeah it's
just trying to keep track of all the different >> Yeah sure. Go ahead. I'll just let you know I'm not going to say a word about the ADU because we are looking at it at 3:00 in the afternoon. I probably won't say much about the overlay district if
you get to it. I'm here mainly to offer the opportunity or request the opportunity for several of you or one or two of you to come to a district one meeting on the propos the conceptual thing and we will offer some dates to
you. So, I just need to know who am I offering it to. So, that's the only reason I'm here. >> Yep. I would say uh I mean definitely I'm open coming. I think Bruce is I think Fred said he would also there may be other planning board members as well. So, we should make that available to the
full board. I think as well. >> Thanks. I'm >> get participation for sure. >> I'm lowering my hand and if I I may log off then um having >> Yeah, I think we're mostly doing ADU today. So yeah, totally.
>> All right. Um, yeah. So, you know, we had this written a little differently. Maybe at one point it was a conditional if this then this and the building commissioner and you staff said, "Let's try to clean it." So, we put these sub bullets under local ADU. I think it's cleaner. I think it makes sense. Um, you
know, we say either type um either ADU type may be completely contained. You know, you know, that hasn't really changed. is just the language and we say any ADU because now it's could be either um in definitions we had a gross floor area. So this is taken you know verbatim
from the rules and regulations and you know from the building commissioner and from a few other you know communities they've expressed um you know some concern about how you know this what this means. So it says the sum of all areas of all stories of
the building. So it's it's not just the unit of building of compliant ceiling height pursuant to the building code including basements, lofts and intermediate floor tiers measured from the interior faces of exterior walls or from the center line of wall separating buildings or dwelling units
but excluding crawl spaces, garage parking areas, attics, enclosed porches and similar spaces where there are multiple principal dwellings on the lot. the gross flare area of the largest principal dwelling shall be used for determining the maximum size of a protected use ADU. And so, you know,
what we in essence, you know, most uh most um houses in New England have, you know, they have their first floor and then they have a basement of compliant uh building height, which isn't too tall. So, you know, if you have a 1,200 square foot
uh, you know, first floor and you have a 1,200 foot basement, you have a big enough principal dwelling to get to the 900 foot ADU. And so, you know, that's fine, right? I mean, essentially, this is allowing most applicants to get to 900 square feet. And so, you know,
again, it's kind of like if you know, if the state just wanted to have ADUs be 900 square feet, I think they could have just said >> protected these ADUs can be anywhere up to 900 square feet and forget about this calculation because what's happening is we're having people uh people are submitting applications or calling the
building inspectors and saying, "Well, you know, I think I have an a finished attic that qualifies and maybe I don't and what does it mean?" And so, it actually is a lot of work for staff. >> Yeah. Could Could we just say that make it simpler? >> We can't. >> Okay.
>> Because there could be an instance, right, a um a dwelling unit on a slab. So there's no basement that has no attic or anything. It's just, you know, a a one-story living >> because we can't change the ad. We can't change what they want, what they said
about the protected ADU, >> right? And so say this is a thousand square foot principal dwelling, they can only get a 500 foot ADU. >> Yeah. So, >> okay. >> Yeah, >> I can interrupt this. There doesn't seem to be any
minimum uh ceiling height in this and uh antics and lofts and so forth very often ceiling roofs that drop down to and and typically there's a but so how does that work?
>> Yeah. So it does say the sum of all areas of all stories of buildings of compliant ceiling height pursuant to the building code. >> Okay. >> Yeah. But you know that's been a question. So there's been a few um applicants who might have you know an
attic that goes all the way down to you know six inches, right? It's like there's no knee wall and it goes all the way down to the floor. And then the question is when does >> when does it start? Well, now that probably is um uh
it's it's going to make work because then someone has to go in and measure imaginary ceiling heights uh wall heights and to to to describe areas. This is not um
there will be houses particularly older house where Bruce, I think we lost you. Yeah, I mean, like I said, anyways, I think this means that the protected use ADU will get closer to 900 square feet. Not a big deal. We allow them to be a thousand now. I just it's just going to be a
process for staff. >> Okay. >> Principal dwelling, you know, that hasn't changed much. It's following the CMR, you know, and it's really whether or not the lot or the structure conforms to zoning. And so really what you know the state said is a protected use. You know if you have the principal dwelling
and it's too close to the side setback or it's non-conform the lot itself is non-conforming you still can put an ADU and that's the protected use the 4DA section 3. Uh it doesn't you know typically we'd require a special permit but as a protected use you can't. So
that's why this is in there. Um yeah the gross floor area. So again, this definition is pretty standard from the state. We took out habitable space a local accessory dwelling unit. We, you know, it's it reads kind of similar to
the protected use. So was it's it's not a protected use. Um it's larger. And so what we did in this bullet here too, we we clarified it. We used to say something like 90% or whatever. and we just say is larger in square feet than a protected use but shall not be larger
than 1,200 square feet of habitable space and so you know if someone wants to do um you know a local ADU they first could determine what their protected use measurement is and so if they have 900 square feet then it's 91 to 1200 is
their local ADU as opposed to having some other formula and you know I think that works um the state has asked that you have a size differential between a local and a protected. So they're saying that if you allow a local one to be the same size as
a protected, they would say, well, why isn't it a protected one then? How can you say that a local one, you know, it's really that it is to to the state's point of view, it's the size differential is what makes it a local whether or not you and the permitting process obviously, but
>> um >> but wouldn't the difference be that uh you can have two of them? >> Well, right. Well, right. But so for instance, some communities had written in that they would allow a local ADU and a protected use and they didn't really describe the size very well. And the
state's saying, well, okay, say someone permits the local one first and it's 700 square feet. Why isn't that the protected use ADU? U because what the state's saying is that if you qualify for a protected use in terms of square foot and size, you're automatically a protected use. And so
they're questioning how a community could say well someone could create an ADU that meets a protected use criteria definition but call it something else. And so really you have to have you know if it's so you know my understanding and staff's understanding is that if someone creates an ADU and it meets the
definition and all the criteria for protected use it's a protected use. They can't themselves call it a local ADU. It's it's just by default a de facto protected use. Um, >> if you already have
uh ADU and you wanted to have a local one as well, >> you could. >> And so that would be the difference that uh you could have another one as a local at 900 along with the protected one that
you already have at 900, >> right? Or 901, right? has to be larger in square feet than a protected use. >> In our case, yes. >> Yeah. Um, general requirements, you know, we kind of went back to saying and
for a local accessory, we're saying all ADUs will be on the same lot. There should be no more than one local ADU and one protected use permit on the same lot as the principal dwelling. Uh all ADUs are exempt from the additional lot area of table three which
we've had. Um no additional or separate driveway um curve cut to serve any ADU shall be permitted unless allowed by the department of public works. So you know we we had clarified this at the planning board. Um this makes sense. Um a parking
plan will be submitted. Uh if it's rented it should follow the rental registration. And so the CRC and you know we talked about this there you know there are some questions like well is the parking plans kind of redundant to the residential rental property bylaw the dark sky compliant and on-site
storage here and and it isn't. And so when if you know as a rental property you have to submit those but it's not saying there's not there's not saying it has to meet these design standards or that the waste has to be located on the interior or screen from view. And so
these are slightly more um you know more of conditions that you know staffs found we apply typically to ADUs as they've been permitted in the past. And so you know we'd like to be able to keep applying these to both protected use and local ADU. We think the reasonable right
it doesn't nullify the legislation. You know if you have to figure out how to hide screen your trash it doesn't mean you you know you're incapable of putting a protected use ADU on your property. I might just have to put a little enclosure for >> related but not exactly to this document
did make me wonder why that's not part of the rental registration. >> Yeah. I you know it's interesting I think >> it is an issue all over town frankly >> right >> and they left out for weeks and you know on the street all kinds of issues like that. Yeah, I think when they were doing the residential rental property, right,
it was more about the use, the rental use, and then trying to rely on whether it's the nuisance property, you know, there's other bylaws or general bylaws and zoning in the town that could regulate it and not mix it um into the rental piece, but I yeah, I know what
you're saying. It um and so in this case, we have the ability to do this. Um, so we think it's worth having even though, you know, someone could say, "Well, >> I still have to do this rental property and I have to submit a parking plan." It's like, yes, but what this condition says, you have to submit a parking plan and it needs to meet these landscape
standards. So, depending on how big it is or what have you. >> Yeah, it's fine. >> Um, we clarified this, you know, no more than three on-site parking spaces provided for any ADU. And in accordance with the 760 CMR, there's no additional
parking required for a protected use ADU that's located within a half mile of a commuter rail or bus stop. So, you know, we added the word bus stop. Bruce had suggested that. I think it, you know, it's fine. I think it makes sense for protected use. You know, there's uh,
you know, because there's two types now. There's a few we deleted, you know, to the extent feasible, any new entrances should be on the side. So, that's gone. um for both. So for protected use we have there no minimum lot size. So that's the state requirement and here we
say the more permissive or you know i.e. least restrictive dimensional regulations and we've updated this language found in article six of the zoning bylaw for a detached single family dwelling principal dwelling or accessory structure shall apply to the protected use ADU. And so you know what
this means is if someone is putting an ADU on a property, they can use the side setback for an accessory structure which get gets it closer to the property line than the setback for the say their the principal dwelling but then they can use the height requirement of the principal
dwelling to have a higher ADU. However, you know, they're limited by their their foot their um their floor area. So, you know, if you want to have a two-story ADU, you're going to have a pretty small footprint. But you know, so while this is this what you know, the state has said this and they've come back a few
times, the attorney general has stressed this to communities, sometimes communities will just say, you know, following the dimensional regulations for the single family home and they're like, "No, it has to be the more permissive of these three types of structures." And, you know, maybe in some communities there's no difference
between an accessory structure and the single family home, but in Ammerst, we've given accessory structures a much smaller side and rear setback. So anyways, you know, it's something that staff again will work with an applicant to determine and that's why we ask for a survey or a plot plan so we know what it
is. Uh and then specific requirements for the local ADU, we say that, you know, either one, either the principal dwelling or local ADU shall be occupied by the owner as their principal residence, which is a term defined in the zoning bylaw, and they'll have to
file something at the registry to confirm that. Um, we say a local ADU shall be designed so the appearance and scale of the structure is compatible with the principal dwelling and should be clearly accessory to the principal dwelling. We use there's some other language I think we clarified at the planning board meeting.
And then we say um all dimensional standards found in the zoning bylaw including those for accessory structures and table three dimensional regulations apply to the local ADU with the exception of the additional lot area. So that way someone you know it's just saying right so if now they're building a a local ADU they have to follow you
know a different set of setbacks and dimensional standards um you know that's you know that's for both types you know essentially if you're saying just protected use >> you know these specific requirements for local are gone but all these other
standards are essentially the same >> can we add the uh for unrelated to the We could, it is elsewhere in the zoning bylaw, but we could add it to local. >> I mean, it feels like the more places we make everyone aware
maybe is better. I don't know how you feel about that, but >> let me just um Yeah, let me um you know, so that when someone's thinking about an ADU, they're clear. That's also a requirement here. Yeah.
Yeah, we can do we could do that. >> I doubt that will discourage anyone from building an ADU, but you know, rather than, oh, I was planning to put six people in here and then I get to the rental thing and I say, "Oh, no, it's not going to work." >> Right. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, there is, you know, a concern that a bigger ADU could
allow for more people. So, if we have something like this, it's just, again, to me, some of these things in the bot, like I've said, they're to me they're guidance points for both applicants and staff. So you can say, you know, we could say foreign unrelated and we could reference the section the zone by
section two. >> Yeah, I think that I think that makes sense. >> And I'm not sure exactly where it is. Um >> also then if if we ever reach a point in which the town has the ability to try and enforce these things, >> right,
>> point to lots of places. >> Yeah. Right. Yeah. I mean the foreign related is a tough one. we've, you know, town the town's done it and usually we, you know, we'll work with the um the property owner, property manager to then find, you know, we can't evict someone or kick them out, but you know, so it'll take a while, but oftentimes then
they'll resolve in having a new, you know, a new apartment or someone for one or more of the tenants. All right, so this, you know, this so this, you know, if we have any questions, you know, this, like I said, this has been cleaned up since the last time the planning board and the housing subcommittees looked at it. I feel like
it's, you know, getting there. You know, unless there's, you know, some if, you know, in in my mind, unless some of the language is unclear or we're still confused about something, then it needs to be clarified. You know, stylistically, if people want to make changes, sure. But I feel like it's
saying what it needs to. Um, >> yeah, I would agree. >> Question. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, do do I still understand correctly that
the special permit for the local ADU is only required if it follows a protected use ADU, >> right? So if there's no protected use ADU on
the lot the uh it's a decision by >> sorry Bruce that again we're losing your question. >> Yeah I think what you're saying is if there's it's I scrolled up to the
applicability so it's here and it you know Bruce is right. So, if the if there's a protected use on the property first, then the local ADU, it will be a special permit request. And that's something that the states said and uh they've clarified that through the attorney general's office. I think at
one point they people thought it was unclear, but they they've confirmed this is what they meant. And if it's the local ADU comes first, we're saying it's administrative approval according to section 11.212 of the zoning bylaw. And that section allows the building
commissioner or staff to um you know look through essentially could use the site plan review criteria and you know some conditions in the bylaw to you know and and sometimes in administrative approval the building commissioner just issues a building permit. It is a byite thing or they issue a building permit
with conditions. So, you know, for instance, we have these other requirements in the zoning bylaw about scale and mass of a local ADU. And so, someone could come in and want to put it really upfront in the front yard, and we could say, well, actually, we we don't think it should be in the front yard,
and here's why. It's in this bylaw itself, section five, and it's also in 11.212, it says, you know, try to follow the setbacks of the neighboring properties. And so that allows the building commissioner staff to work with the applicant to see if they could move it back. And you know in some properties it
may not be possible, right? Given the shape and size of the lot, but others maybe you could say that you know they have that ability to do that. Now there's no dimensional uh limit the so essentially any any lot could have
two ADUs on >> right >> um >> if that requires a special permit because granted >> yes >> no I well I'm saying that any lot could
have two ADUs on it if the local one preceded the protected use ADU. >> Right. Yep. Yeah. So, right in that scenario, someone does a local ADU and then they do a protected use. We can't prevent the protected. So, they end up
getting right two ADUs on the property. >> So, how do we >> That's a really good [Music] Sorry, Bruce. I think I cut you off. >> I'm I'm uh I I know we had discussion
about this at the last planning board meeting, and we seem to think there was value in having both the protected and the uh and the local. Uh in other words, enabling them both. I seem to remember
that I was why why don't we just have one and and we don't go with a local but we decided to go I think at least this seemed to be of us that
was proceeding with the the possibility that they would with with with enabling two um types of ADUs which meaning that there could be two ADUs on a given or on any property
um case of the zoning board which the cloud to deny and some cases um administrative review based on the order in which they are they arrive. Um, why do we think
that it's a good idea to have to to allow two ADUs? Because it seems as though the RC is not inclined to agree. So if my sense is that if we incumbent upon us as a planning board is to make the case and
we don't do it here in the bylaw. we simply make the case in support of the uh the this this this version of the bylaw why we think it's important to allow two I think we should have a paragraph that makes that case and I
wouldn't be able to do it I don't think right now >> so >> yeah it's a good question I mean staff has said that you know we we allow a thousand now so at one point it was to make you know to still have that option so they don't become come non-conforming.
Um, but I think that's, you know, they're always allowed to do a protected use anyways. So, even if they're non-conforming, they still are protect could do it protected. I think what we've also said is that we've we have some households or applicants who actually would rather have a little bit larger ADU because they're thinking
about it say for a family member or for themselves and 900 square feet is just you know at one point we only allowed 800 or 850 you know was a little small and so as to allow this larger option and we still require an owner occupancy. So some of it was if someone really wants to do a local ADU and have a
bigger ADU they can and then they have an owner occupancy requirement on the property. I think um you know the question being well then they could turn around and do a protected use ADU is correct and so then both things would happen without any
permit land use permit you know the KP law attorney thinks that the local ADU provisions of owner occupancy would still remain on the property I think that um that hasn't been you know completely determined by the state right
so you know the >> I think that's a really important point because when we discussed this the other night, excuse me, in my mind, the number of
properties that would be owner occupied. >> Mhm. >> That then would want to build two ADUs feels pretty small. And in my mind, it's largely developers or renter, you know, rented properties that would mostly want to
have two. But if we keep that requirement in, they can't, right? Or they can't all three be rented is the point. And so to me, that that will result in very few of that occurrence happening was my logic about it. Um, and
I agreed with I think Jared made the point pretty clearly that, you know, some families might like the larger one. And I think that that's why I was in favor of leaving both in. But if we think that part, the owner occupment part won't fly
or we can't keep that for some reason, then I would be in favor of going to this one. >> Yeah, I think it's a to me it's a um you know I think we can put it in our bylaw and to me it becomes you know a legal question. So you know is someone going
to challenge it? And so you know the state hasn't ruled one way or the other. you know what you know what I've read and what attorneys have said is that you know typically a a zoning decision or some decision that has been made in the past can't then be completely nullified
by say a new decision for someone trying to do something you know to get rid of it. So, usually, you know, a special permit remains on a property even if there's >> right >> some other something, you know, new zoning um that allows it by right. And so, it's still there's still a special permit on that property. And so,
>> um but yeah, I I I think it's a something that has to be decided legally. The I don't think the attorney general's weighed in on it. You know, there's been a lot of decisions. There's probably been like 50 decisions on town meeting votes submitted for review and no, it hasn't been, you know, this
hasn't been discussed really. >> Okay. Yeah. So then I'm inclined to support it and then if for some reason that gets taken out, we can always revisit the bylaw, right? Like go go to one of hassle.
Yeah. And I think you know the other discussion was or kind of a parallel discussion was well could we just allow a protected use and allow it to be bigger and then you know so then you know if you said a protected use could be a thousand or 1100 do you really need a local ADU the difference being then
you have a larger protected so any ADU that's already been permitted which is all of them essentially >> what's that >> I thought we could not change and allow a larger protected. >> Oh, we can. We can. So, we can always be
more generous than the state law. So, they allow that. So, we could allow a bigger protected use. >> But can we I guess I'm no I guess I'm not in favor of that. >> Yeah. And then like I said was that if we did say a thousand
or bigger then any then essentially all the ADUs we permitted and all the ones with owner occupancy requirement though they're all now a protected ADU. So we couldn't enforce that provision. >> Got it. So yeah, that to me is another reason not to do that. >> Yeah. >> So that we keep that provision on the
existing ones. >> Right. And so in the protected use version of this, you know, I just say, you know, it's basically the same thing and then we just say 900 square feet. So if we so if for instance the the thought is to only allow one ADU type and it's a protected use and we say 900 square
feet, then no one can build a thousand square foot ADU anymore. it would be considered a duplex or converted dwelling or whatever if they had that ability. But, you know, we would, you know, essentially all we're saying, we're saying that in our bylaw that you're just limited to a 900 foot ADU
and it's just one per property. >> Yeah. >> And so, yeah, I think it's a good question. I think, you know, I would someone build a local ADU and then think, well, I'm going to build a protected use and try to get rid of that owner occupancy requirement from the local
Maybe um you know I kind I kind of agree with Jesse. Most people though if they want to build a local and have it be owner occupied probably don't think they'll then build another protected. They might at some point thinking it could be more rental income or something if they you know want to stay the
property and manage it but it's you know it's hard to say without that that legal question about that owner occupancy piece. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, yeah. I mean, I'm still inclined to de lean this way, but we'll
see what others think when it comes time to vote. Right. >> Right. Fred, do you have anything to add or Fred? Are you there? Okay. >> Yeah. So, I think, you know, I'll um Yeah. So, there were some changes made. I'll make changes
to uh to the protected use. I'll email this off this afternoon um to CRC or share it with them so they see it. And then, you know, the planning board meets next Wednesday. I'm I'm assuming we could probably get to a vote with the planning board at this point. >> Yes,
>> I haven't heard any other comments from board members. You I guess I think the language has been cleaned up and things are flowing nicely. Um so yeah, great. Okay, thanks Nate.
Um so we do have bunch more time than I had budgeted anyway. Um do we want to dive back into some of the overlay details? Um I've lost track a little where we were. So we were the last ones to talk about I mean subcommittee right because we did
not talk about it the full board. >> Um and I feel like we had made significant progress sort of going through a lot of it right. >> Are there are there pieces in your mind Nate outstanding that we should try and address or do we need to kind of wait
for more feedback from full board and or district one conversations? Yeah, I um you know, you know, I've spoken with a few different people about this. I was just going to try to share my screen in a minute.
Yeah, I don't I don't know. I think the uh you know, I think what we haven't determined I was trying to make an outline of the overlay and say, you know, like we have purpose, applicability, and then I think we really what we haven't decided is say residential use type. So right now we're still deciding do we want apartments,
mixeduse buildings and social dormitories. And then to me, you know, we have um dimensional standards and then I feel like I'd want to categorize the bylaw in terms of like site plan um site layout criteria or conditions,
parking, amenities, you know, and have have something a little, you know, it's kind of structured that way. But I think after the last housing subcommittee, you know, Bruce had done a kind of a site layout and it, you know, it worked. But that's not to say that a developer would come in and do that. And so the question is
how much flexibility do we want to provide the developer or how or do we want to have some standards in the bylaw? So, say for instance, you know, we could say here's the maximum density and size and then they could have buildings really close to each other that just meet building code
or do we want, you know, some space around buildings or, you know, and to me it's it's kind of getting into, you know, we could have some general ideas and then it's like, okay, how does it actually work in a bylaw? And I think the really important piece, I mean, I guess the more I think about
it is I almost wanted to say, you know, just allow apartments. I think mixeduse buildings are kind of interesting. I think we could say that in the overlay, you know, amenity space that serves the residents is not a not a commercial use. It's a an accessory use to the apartment
building. So, you know, if there's a um you know, even if it's like a um like a cafe or you know, whatever gym or something, I guess we'd have to be careful. If it's open to the public, well, maybe it's different. So I just, you know, I just I think that some of those things, those big pieces are
important. If we say social dormatory, then really in our bylaw, that's only for students. And so then, you know, non- students couldn't live there. And I'm not sure we'd want to say that um in the overlay. And so you know, you know, we have those kind of questions in the in the document. And then we, you know,
we have our buffers. I was going to share the screen just to show the map which I think is actually you know I think it's um you know and some of it could just be do we like the boundaries of it. I feel like you know this is been the working
model. You know we have Meadow Street. We cut behind the properties on North Pleasant and then we go to the street here down to Presidential and then basically to 116 and we have, you know, a a 400 foot set back from North Pleasant Street and a
300 from Meadow Street. And so what we've been saying is, you know, within North Pleasant Street to 300 feet, it's three floors. Beyond that is six. And same thing here, three floors and beyond that could be six. We have different setbacks in dimensional standards, but we haven't really gone into, you know,
what do we think in terms of say general site design. >> Yeah. And >> so, correct me if I'm wrong, Nate. We at some point when we were talking about this, I left the conversation with the understanding that, you know, this would all come to the planning board anyway,
>> right? >> That's another opportunity to say no, we don't like that or you need to consider this, etc., etc., has to be approved. And assuming that's true, I prefer to leave it a bit more flexible
to encourage it to happen, right? To see what because because we're, as you point out, we're not the developers. We don't know what will be attractive for them to build. >> Um, >> yeah, the only my only thing there is if we say it's site plan review, there's a
limited ability to deny it. And so I'd want to have some conditions in the bylaw that allow the planning board to really modify the design. And so you know one other thing I was thinking about putting in the overlay um and you know I you know other communities have done and I was looking
online you know actually require a pre-application meeting with staff. >> Sure. Um, you know, it could, you know, it might spell out like, you know, from, you know, public safety and public works and planning conservation and actually have, you know, we could say meetings, you know, but have some pre-application
meetings to review the design and site layout and have some criteria there that would flow from the bylaw. >> Yeah, that makes sense, >> you know. Yeah. I I just to me it's interesting. So, even if you look here, right? So, you know, town houses, you know, quads, which, you know, easy to
do, but then it allows for big gatherings, you know, um, brainwine's different, Puffton's different, you know, and presidential is different. And so, you know, do we want, you know, you know, so, right, someone could come in and have a completely different idea of how they want to organize the site and,
right, do we allow that or do we have some some other some ways to to manage it? >> Yeah, Kathy, please join us. Oh, you're muted. >> Thank you for letting me. So, I I I'll
frame it as questions right now, but I also um one comment is a few years ago, this is an this is all the RN zone um residential neighborhood. And a few years ago, there's a little carveout and
Nate would have to draw it with his arrow um that runs along pine, picks up a lot of brandy wine and town houses and across the street on the other side and it was instead reszoned as bu resident
village center. So that is already permitted to have apartments on it. That was reszoned um in the zoning map. So where your little red arrow red comes, it partly overlaps with what was already done. Um just just so you know what the
zoning current zoning looks like. It's weird when you look at it. You'll say why was that done and not two sides of the street, but it was done. So my other is how does this conform with the master plan? Because this is all supposed to be a village center up here and certain
kinds of density were lower. Uh secondly, uh why this area? You could also look at Colonial Village, which is also was near another village center, Village Park, which is already on a strip that's got several uh student
things. If you go up to Olympic Drive, a new one is being built. So, so why this area? It's already very, very dense. Um and then the other question I think you should be asking yourself as you move west very wet uh both with floodprone
conservancy but one of the decisions against running a multi-use trail along this whole green space on was because of the wetness we the town considered that was talking about it then there was also objections to some of the apartment
complexes they didn't want a multi-use trail running behind them but it was also the wetness because it's a really nice potential access point all the way down to UMass, but it was rejected and instead the town is investing a huge amount of money in making the sidewalk
wider on the along North Pleasant. So, I think you and and last is traffic. Um, anyone who hasn't seen the traffic up here uh needs to see it. So, I just so my question is master plan talks about lower density as you get out to village
centers. Why this area? There are two other places you could look at. Colonial Village are all short. Brandy Wine is already three stories if you go and look at them. They're already three and they're pretty new construction. And my other overarching comment is
affordability. These are one of the more affordable student housing in town. If they're brand new, rebuilt, they're going to be a lot more expensive and it's going to keep the pre the pressure on the single family houses where you can cram people
in a crummy house. And so we're seeing some of the big complexes on UMass campus and also South Ammeris have vacancies because their rents are too high. They went high enough that the students said, "I don't want that." So it didn't take any pressure off the neighborhood. Um we we're just absorbing
them. So just my big ones are for now. Um and I do want to have a district meeting on the nuances of this whole area. Um but those are my thoughts when I walk around town. Um why this and master plan wetlands and there a couple
other areas that could be looked at in terms of allow more density. They're much older buildings is the other thing to look at. They're much older. And I'm going to leave your meeting. Thank you very much for having me. and I'll make and so my open request and we'll just
say there sort of some nights we'll we'd have it up in the North Ammeris library and it can hold in the community room can hold 40 45 people and we'd announce it at least two or three weeks in advance. So I'll just offer some dates and people can say if any of them work
and who wants to come up. >> Sounds good. If you do you have a couple more minutes to hear some of our previous conversation on the questions you just raised or do you need to go? um >> for you to think about as well. >> I have about four minutes. Yes. >> So quick quickly then maybe Nate you and
I can tag team the I I'll address briefly the why here. Um the main well a it's not the only location we're looking at. We are you know this is the first one we're tackling but there are several other sites around town that we plan to think
about as well. The main reason for why this is attractive is there are very few places with such close access to campus that we can do this meaning students can walk bike very straightforward right um
we have discussed basically all the things you've raised uh and are trying to work those in as well traffic open spaces um we're talking about how to you know build into the zoning some other traffic, you know, roads or whatnot to
to make sure it just doesn't get worse on North Pleasant. So, those are all very much on part of the conversation. Um, Nate, maybe you want to comment on the master plan. Uh, and anything I left out? >> Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, that we have a rationale document that the
subcommitteees worked on. The planning board, I think it can explain a little bit. Yeah, I mean, I think this is an appropriate area. You know, the housing subcommittee has also talked about and plenty of boards looked talked about East Ammerst, you know, all the way say from like, you know, the railroad tracks, you know, the bridge all the way
down to, you know, Echo Hill area. I mean, along a long section of College Street and um, you know, I think also, you know, the Gateway area and north of Fearing and around UMass, that's been identified in numerous studies. And so, I think there's a, you know, I think
Olympia Drive, like you mentioned, Kathy, is another one that has also been discussed. I think some of it is just, you know, I think each area is so unique that what happened when this was first discussed 13 years ago, the idea was to come up with an overlay and have the same standards and setbacks that would apply across town at different sites.
And it just to me that wouldn't work. So I think the idea of what we're doing here, say in terms of density or setbacks, would not apply say at Colonial Village. I'd want to have a different set of standards unfortunately. But I so some of it would be okay this is you know the housing subcommittee thought this is something to investigate
uh and we're working with it and then maybe you know we're also thinking about next year we've applied the town's applied for some funding to hire someone to look at emerst and come up with ideas there and so you know that's the next idea that we'd move forward with. It's hard to do them all at once. Um you know I think uh you know we felt pretty good
about University Drive. I think you know North Amoris who I'm not sure what'll happen there. You know, it could be that we modify the overlay in terms of density or size, but still wanted to move forward because it allows a way for those um existing apartment areas to be redeveloped without a special permit.
And maybe that's attractive to someone. Even if they don't triple the density, maybe just to double the density. So, right now, to me, it feels like they're kind of stagnant, right? They're they won't change much, which maybe people think is good, but at the same time, they won't change much because they need a special permit. Uh and that's a difficult thing to sometimes achieve.
Well, I I did hear that they've been able to do it, Nate. So, you may say it's difficult, but there's a lot of sympathy. Puffton is among the oldest, and they got permission to build and replace. So, I I don't think it's impossible. And anyone who walks around Puffton, it is a village. It's
beautiful. And the rents there compared to some of the new that have been bu I think you need to think about affordability. And long-term, are you building just for students? Puffton Village would make amazing family location. nice small clusters of two or
three four apartments. So, I'm going to get off because these are the kinds of questions that we'll get into with with district one, but it was um some of the others because they're so much older and they're short, they're they're not as tall. Um so, Puffton Village probably
would might want to go up a floor on a couple of the short ones, but some of them are already two and Brandy one's already three, so and they're fairly new. But thank you very much for letting me join like this. It's been the ADU discussion was also useful for me. So
thank you. >> Okay, see you soon. Thanks. >> Yeah, I think you know those are good questions. I I took notes. I think we know we can prepare for the district one meeting. You know, it's funny as we were as you know, since we've been talking about this, I was thinking about if we were to look at North of Fearing or
Gateway again, you know, there's been talks about, well, what if that were more family housing or other kinds of housing? So, to me, it's like, well, if the North Ammerst overlay were in place, right, then maybe that area would be, you know, a different housing type and a different kind of target audience >> and, you know, maybe it could be a 4DR
or some overlay that encouraged, you know, a different kind of user. uh you know I think it's really hard to to say that because if we allow more buildings I think most of it would be generated for students right and so >> I I don't see I mean yes I completely agree with that and if we are talking
about these few locations next to UMass I don't see how we get around students I agree it'd be great to zone in somehow some more family housing somewhere but that to me should be the other locations >> right yeah I mean right there's a few tools in the state that you can do that
but not a lot. And so it's really hard to say well let's allow you know town houses but only say they're for you know non- studentents. It's >> I mean that like you know Atkins Corner for example that to me is where that should go or other more not so central
places. Um okay but that was a good preview of what we need to think about. Uh okay. Um, think about the things you said, Nate, that we should work on.
>> Yeah. I mean, you know, I like for me the housing type is a big one. You know, how many different uses do we allow in the overlay? And, you know, we could redefine a mixeduse building specific to the overlay, so it doesn't have that 30% requirement. It's something else. And maybe we do. I just
>> Yeah. So, I'm I'm backing up again to my first question. I understand what you said that there's you know we need to build but there's not real ways to deny >> right but that's and the whole point of this is to avoid special permit to make it more attractive
>> and is special permit the the only way we could have that process meaning say to developers tell us what you want to do and then we'll say what we you know yes or no that's really what a special permit is for right >> um yeah a little more than a site plan
review. So, typically with a site plan review, you you know, you've written conditions and standards into your bylaw that have to be met. >> Yeah. >> But unless unless the design is so, you know, egregious, right? There's something that's really wrong with it, it's hard to deny it. So,
>> so then I do think we need to think through all these things like you said. Um >> um >> right for instance like we could say you know if we wanted to say six stories maybe we say well the sixth floor has to be under
the roof and has to be stepped back and we could say you know some distance and then we could have illustrations right and so then it's like okay well that we know that that's what it is. Um, if we wanted, you know, variations in the type of building along the street, we have to
say it and it could just be like what we said in the overlay too. You drive overlay, you know, it can be some language. It doesn't have to be too detailed, but enough to say, okay, well, you have to have variation in the facade. >> So, it's not a single Yeah. Yeah. So, I agree with all those things. Um,
>> um, you know, you obviously this is you're the expert here. It's almost like I'd ask you to put some language together and then for us to discuss, right? >> Yeah. No, like I said, I started putting another kind of a a separate document as an outline and seeing where we are in it
um in our document just helping me think about it a little bit. >> Sure. Sure. >> Okay. So, maybe we're not ready for much more at the moment. Maybe you just need to whenever whatever you can, right? >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean I think what we talked about before was, you know, like having requiring like a multi-use path
and some open space requirements and um and so I was trying to think about that like do we have a buffer or distance between buildings? Um do we would we you know I think parking is a really big one. So do we act would we actually say you have you know we could say no more
than one to one right one parking space per unit and we could say that and that way you know the concern about traffic is mitigated. So I like I like that idea a lot >> really minimizing the or what you're saying max give a maximum >> right >> that I'm personally in favor of allowing
the different types including the social dormatory because I think if you know the goal we've talked about all along is maximizing the student housing there that's one way to do it again I have no idea if that's attractive to build but
since that's how all universities do it makes sense that financially works. >> Yeah. I almost think the way that type of building is designed is, you know, the way they've changed what a dorm looks like to me is really similar to an apartment building now, right? So, you
know, most of them now are sweet style living or basically almost separate units and they have amenity spaces. I mean, you know, the dorm I went to, right, was like, you know, it was like a barrack, right? It was center block walls. It was a very small bedroom with a roommate. And >> although some of them are still like I moved my kid into honors college
yesterday morning and it's just like that, you know, small room, two two two beds, two dressers, two desks and common spaces. So >> yeah, I don't I I didn't have there's no common space on my hall my freshman year was like all it was was a shared you
know shared bathroom and then there was some small common room in the basement but other than that it was just rooms line the hallway. >> Got a little better. >> Yeah, it's gotten a little better. All right. >> I mean, yeah. So, I I you know, what I what I emailed the housing subcommittee
is the current versions for the north armrest overlay. And so, I think, you know, any comments can come back to me. I'll work on it some more, too. I you know, I think it's important to realize, right, that there there is concerns from the that part of town. And you know, sometimes I you know, Bruce at the plane
board meeting, I said, well, maybe we don't have to allow such density. And he's like, well, let's not shy away from it. And so I think if we're going to allow it then maybe we like like Jess what you said have some more conditions in the bylaw in terms of really helping shape it. >> Yeah. And that's where the pre-application meeting, I mean, some
communities use it. And I think as part of an overlay and site plan review, I think we could be a little bit more um kind of um upfront about it and we could list what we want in the pre-application meeting and we could, you know, talk about the site design, the site layout, and everything and
really say here's the, you know, here's what we want to see. You know, we could say like three different concept plans. >> Yeah. >> And really work with someone. >> Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense. Um I was not familiar something else Kathy said about a master plan
suggesting lower density at town centers. Is that what she said? >> Oh I I think the thought is that this isn't necessarily near a village center. So it's in a residential zoning district. >> That's why it should be low. >> Right. So it's not like you know necessarily in North Ammerst. It's the North Ammerst village center. It's in North Ammeris. But
>> yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. I mean I you know I think it's on water and sewer. the sewer would have to be upgraded. But I, you know, I do think it's an appropriate place to look at it. Um, and maybe, you know, maybe, right, as Bruce said, maybe this doesn't move forward or it takes a different shape,
but I think it's worth investigating. >> All right. Maybe um for our next subcommittee meeting, we can also think about the other potential areas. And again, I think to go to this meeting with a town map
showing all the other places where you want to consider is a smart thing to do. >> Yeah. And I I Yeah. And I think that if there was say four o overlays in town, depending on where they were, and if we said each overlay could accommodate a thousand more students,
>> right, >> I mean that to me that's, you know, you're changing the housing um market in a way that's meaningful. >> Agreed. Yeah, >> that's the justification for sure, >> right? Yeah. And maybe it's not a thousand, maybe it's whatever 700 in each overlay, but something, right, that
gets at some magnitude of number. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, maybe that's good for today then, unless there's something else you want us to address, Nate. >> No, I think that's good. And, you know, thanks for the ADU. Like I said, I feel like the ADU piece is, you know, we'll
see what the CRC uh decides today or where they're leaning, but I feel like the, like I said, the documents I feel like are nice and hopefully the planning board can reach a decision next week and we can move on. I'd like to um you know, there's a few other zoning amendments that staff keep, you know, we talk about and so I'd like to get those moving with the planning board and you know, we have
this one and if the housing production plan moves forward with the council too, I feel like we can, you know, there's a few ideas in the housing production plan that would be great to pick up too. >> Sure. like cottage style to me is really an interesting one. >> Yeah. Yeah. Agreed.
Okay. No attendees, so no public comment. Um and I don't have any unanticipated items. Anything for you, Nate, my friend? >> Okay. I'm going to send out um suggested meeting dates for us for the whole fall.
I'll send that out uh later today or tomorrow. Um, it'll be largely dependent on your availability first and then we'll see what we can do. >> All right, sounds good. >> Great. Thanks. See you all next week. All right. Thanks, Jesse. Thanks, Fred. Bye, Fred.