##VIDEO ID:PRp0gzUkD4Q## for good evening I like to welcome everyone to this uh Thursday January 9th 2025 meeting of the finance committee uh tonight will be following the published and posted agenda will be live broadcast by CHC T media and recorded for future viewing um now that we've resolved I think partially our Zoom issues uh uh we have no announcements this meeting so the first item on the agenda will be the approval of minutes from September 26 2024 has everyone had an opportunity to review them yes yes right do I have a motion I make a motion to approve the finance committee minutes from September 26 2024 I second it any discussion all those in favor I I that's five in favor unanimous for attendance um next our agenda this evening is a review and discussion of the special town meeting warrant article one accessory dwelling unit zoning bylaw amendments and with us this evening is Chris laali from the planning board v he's a plan board Vice chair he's on night three of this week of giving this presentation so uh we'll we'll be gentle thank you I've had enough practice so you don't need to take it easy on me fair enough all right um so just to start off with some highlights of the Massachusetts Adu law um it was a law that was uh signed into law on August 6th um and it will take effect February 2nd um it's a uh state law that will apply to any municipality in town in the state um regardless of whether they have current accessory dwelling unit laws in the books or not um if there is a conflict between the local law and the state law the state law um and its guidance will um will outweigh the will take take precedence over the uh local law so our current um La limited accessory apartment bylaw the LA laa bylaw um will essentially be ineffective of that date as of that date um if we don't take any action um and the state um guidelines and the state regulations will take precedence the stated goals uh from the state for this uh this law is to essentially facilitate uh the housing uh stock growth uh their goal is between 8 to 10,000 uh new adus in about 5 years um and they're really prohibiting overly restricted regulations on adus uh their definition of overly restrictive includes owner occupancy requirements and a few others that I'll go over um essentially the law states that any protected adus as they have defined them must be allowed by right in any zones where single family dwellings are are allowed um not just where single family homes are uh single family zones but single family or any zones where single family units are allowed and that essentially uh covers all of our residential zones so highlights of the uh Adu law from the state they have added this definition of an Adu Jim if you could go to the next slide certainly they've added this definition of an Adu to the do amend do Amendment protected uses uh which limits uh the town's ability to um create special permits uh for these uh attached and detached units must be allowed by right in any Zone District where single family dwellings are allowed uh they can be added as an accessory dwelling unit to any single family or multif family dwellings uh it does as I mentioned limit the restrictions and the process that we apply to these uh accessory buildings we cannot create limits on owner occupancy age restriction or affordability um very similar to the MBTA uh laws and it allow it allows us to apply limited parking restrictions um essentially we cannot require any more than one on street or off street parking space for any Adu and any adus within a half a mile from a transit station we cannot require any off street parking um their definition of a transit station includes any MBTA regional and local Ferry subway train bus station bus stop or route and if flagging is allowed at any place along that bus route um then that whole bus route is considered by their definition to be a transit station so because the LRTA allows flagging along the entire route in shellsford um that means that that entire uh route is considered a station and any Lo any properties within a half mile of that um cannot have a an off street parking uh requirement and that comes out to roughly half of chord so our planning board strategy and approach um we were following two essential objectives ensuring that our our BW is compliant and enforceable while also providing clear standards and process for residents and town staff one of the things uh to keep in mind with this is that the final regulations are still being drafted from the state um they expect the uh public comment period and the final regulations to end and uh pretty soon and the final uh regulations should be released somewhere around the first week of February we don't know exactly when that's going to be um but essentially it probably won't give us enough time to react to any of those changes so the approach that we're taking is to go based on their draft regulations that they've provided uh their additional guidance that they've provided in a number of uh webcasts and then base our initial um pass at this to be based on those uh draft regulations once we get a little bit further down the line in uh implementing uh some of these adus and we get those final regulations we can then take further steps to amend or adjust these bylaws as needed um so essentially this um M this roll out of the adus from the state is very similar to how they've rolled out the MBTA zoning um with some changes they really learned a lot from that NBTA roll out and so so one of the things uh that I mentioned before is that essentially the state regs will take over um the state law will take over precedence as of February 2nd which is a difference from the MBTA uh zoning that we encountered earlier um so really if we don't take any action on this um we will have very minimal um ability to control our own destiny on this so key provisions of our proposed bylaw is that only adus as defined by the state will be allowed according to the state guidelines we could allow more um of these protected adus if desired um up to two may be allowed per uh property the first one by right the second one by special permit we are taking the approach for this iteration um that we don't want that second one in place yet um so we're only allowing one um protected Adu uh in these bylaws the size uh the maximum size uh for the adus uh protected adus by the state are 900 square ft are the current size of laas in town is no more than 750 um Square fet uh the gross floor area is measured somewhat differently uh by the state so we're using their definition um or it's the 900 square ft or 50% of the principal dwelling whichever is smaller as I mentioned already the uh off street parking space we are requiring one for those properties that we can um but then anything within that half mile we are not the state also allows us to prohibit short-term rentals which are less than 31 days and we are um we are also not allowing new curb cuts for adus they must use the existing driveway and walkway to Branch off of um do you mean physical curb Cuts I.E a curb where you have to cut the thing are you talking like my street has no curbs so a curb cut is essentially a driveway entry into the street all right so that you couldn't add a a second driveway you could not okay you would have to Branch off of um it could Branch very close to the street but it would have to Branch off of that um initial driveway okay um the design standards that we have in place uh in this bylaw that we're proposing are uh the same ones as we have for prior entryways and stairs for any attached uh adus and for detached adus um we are uh in the bout that we're putting in that it cannot be located within the front yard area and shall not have an height in excess of 20 ft or or two stories are greater and that's the those are the same um guidelines that we have in place or same design standards that we have in place for detached structures in any single family Zone the key provisions of this proposed bylaw uh for review and approval on the next slide is that for adus on single and two family dwellings the plan will be reviewed by The Building Commissioner for any adus on multif family which includes three or more units a minor site plan review will be required by the planning board all setbacks and other dimensional requirements that we have in place already will still apply um and it mirrors the current process for zoning relief uh through the zba for any pre-existing non-conforming situations the exception to this is that while the process is the same um the zba or the planning board or the ruling board cannot issue a special permit which means it it is not going to be a super majority um it needs to be a simple majority similar to what uh the planning board encountered fairly recently on the North uh 150 North Road Project um where it still came before us in a special permit process um but we weren't allowed to apply the uh super majority special permit voting to it if the property um with the Adu proposed is non-conforming uh the Adu must also not be substantially more detrimental to the existing non-conforming structure uh of the neighborhood other concerns that we have encountered um quite uh frequently on this topic is sewer and septic uh a lot of questions about that so essentially the uh We've checked in with the uh DPW we are not um addressing any of these in the bylaw itself these are going to be addressed by the DPW regulations um and they've said that the current regulations will remain mostly unchanged uh but they do need to revise it to allow um detached Adu connections to sewer right now current regulations do not um allow accessory detached accessory um uh units to be connected to sewer current uh regulations allow an increase of 500 gallons per day for Residential Properties doing any type of expansion um and based on Title 5 calculations sewer increases for adus would be under that uh so those would be covered um by any allowable expansion for residential Chris do you know uh and have you been in contact with the water districts uh regarding whether or not they'll be putting a separate water beer on these there will be I believe separate water meters but I think that's still being discussed okay because that would affect how how sewers calculate all right thank you um sewer connection design uh will be based uh essentially on best design standards and the topology of the property um so if the um if the Adu is attached and um next to the the uh single family then it would likely be branched um or at least uh in in the same area if it's a detached it will depend on the um the topology of the property so Chris we're since we're already maxed or close to maxed there was a concern about maxing out in in the in the sewer um is there any I there's a lot of talk about this I mean what what is the con there should be a concern about and is there a cap on the adus uh that the town is looking at so we're just going to allow people to build these and you know According to some person's calculations it's under 500 gallons a day but we're still even more now concerned about the maximum capacity in the sewer yeah from the bylaw perspective we cannot cap it um from the planning board perspective we cannot cap it um I Paul may be able to answer a little bit more than I can but in terms of the um DPW discussions based on their current regulations they're allowing any residents to be able to expand under 500 gallons per day um and based on I think the state guidelines that would still be allowed for any adus what if they went up what if they 2x that or 3x that I mean is there any any any any fee or any you know I know California does a similar thing where if you overuse your water budget right yeah it's unlikely that the addition of an Adu especially since it's capped at 900 square fet um would bring it over that oh true okay but yeah that if in other cases that have come before the planning board if the residential units do expand beyond the 500 gallons there is an additional fee involved I guess my only concern was is is it doesn't sound like we're capping the number of people within this unit now I know it's 900 square ft but um yeah we're not allowed to actually uh regulate that okay thank you it'll it'll essentially self cap at yeah the 900 square ft okay thank you um the next slide has essentially a a quick comparison of our current laa um bylaws with the ad use um the 900 to 750 right now we only allow attached uh the new uh bylaw will allow detached and attached um no restrictions on who can uh occupy and no restrictions on the ownership of the Adu or principal dwelling uh right now we have e uh that the principal dwelling um must be owner occupied uh the new Adu laws don't allow us to um put that uh restriction on either unit so the timeline um as you know uh we had our planning board meeting last night public hearing uh we did close the public hearing and voted unanimously to move this forward um as drafted and um we are I presented to the uh select board on Monday they're expected to vote on it on uh the 27th and then town meeting on the 27th we will continue to monitor the state regulations as they um are developed we continue to work with Town Council on any new interpretations that might be coming out um what other towns are doing things like that um and depending on what the changes are uh we may be able to amend uh the um bylaw at town meeting um if it's within the scope of the original um proposal uh if not then we'll certainly be read addressing it potentially for a spring town meeting or fall town meeting depending on um what the what the changes are what do you feel the percentage of completion is for the state's um draft into into final you think the changes will be minor significant wildly different we don't know um my feeling is that given what they just encountered with the MBTA law um I think they're pretty complete I don't think they're going to they definitely won't relax them um they're pretty set on how strict these are if anything they may get more strict um right now we're unclear as to the interpretation of what we can impose on the restrictions so for example there's some differing opinion between whether the regulations that we can impose are only specific to the single family unit or anything on the single family property so for example the um restrictions that we have for accessory um accessory buildings we are applying those to the adus other people are interpreting that we shouldn't be allowed to do that that um but our town council's opinion and the approach that we're taking is that those accessory buildings are part of that single family dwelling and so as such we are applying those um design standards to the Adu as well what is an accessory building a shed um a pool house uh things like that does an accessory building have to be powered in any way no okay no so a shed a garage yeah so we do have those restrictions um on Heights and they can't be put in the front yard in front of the the house um we also have the the curb cut restriction um things like that if you have a I'm just thinking like places in the Westland and and places in North jood there's some fairly small lotted houses would they still have to fit into all the zoning sideways this much sideways kind of thing so yes however if they don't if the Adu so if the single family home is within setbacks and conforming they want to put on an Adu that is makes it essentially nonconforming that would have to based on Town council's um opinion right now and this is what hopefully the the final guid lines will give us is they would have to go before the zba for zoning relief in terms of a process but the voting would be quite different and the standards that they apply would be quite different so the process would be very similar um but it it would end up being not as strict um from the zba's perspective so an assess so some you try to do an accessory building on a smaller lot would have a harder much harder time in the before times but less hard in the after times potentially um that's what the state's aiming for um but as Town Council mentioned last night it it might end up being Case by case depending on the um characteristics of the property the layout how how much out of compliance and out of um is there any percentage of land like um like your house takes can't take your house and your accessory buildings and your Adu can't take up more than 40% of the available land lot size anything like that there are um Florida area ratios that we still apply um but again those are not going to be as enforcable on adus so the like if you're buying if you're got a lot and you're going to build an individual house there's all these rules but if you have a house and you want to put an Ado on it it's the rules are a little can't put in the front yeah got that one but that's that's about the only thing I can setbacks still apply so the the setbacks around the property are still going to apply um but if someone wants to put an Adu with um to within that setback currently it would be very difficult to do that because they would have to go before the zoning board the zoning board would have to the the landowner would have to show that there's some um feature or or characteristic of the property that doesn't allow it them to do it anywhere else with the Adu they don't necessarily have to show that and the um the voting threshold is going to be different so I believe it's super majority on the the zba for those um relief grant grant majority two3 yeah okay um but I think that for these cases it would be a simple majority okay so if if there's an existing non-conforming and someone goes to add an a to you uh and it's it's just not conforming it doesn't meet the setback requirements not going to matter if it's still within the same footprint of the current uh building theoretically there could potentially a lot of these questions we Case by case you don't know yet because they haven't finalized the they haven't finalized regulations they haven't given us any guidance on these specific types of cases and even if they don't it might end up being a case by case at the zoning board level yes a theoretically someone that can't build an addition on their property because they lack the F could have an Adu instead yep yep exactly yeah do you think the state will impose quotas town by town and and what in um I mean you've done this three nights this week and and you know you've done your homework for sure what's the what's the general pulse of the town uh are they loving it they can't wait to like get into this I mean what's what's happening some people love this because they've been trying to get uh an Adu type an accessory dwelling on their property for a while and haven't been able to because of the restrictions we have um some people see this as another way of increasing the housing pool which will bring down prices there's a lot of disagreement on whether that actually will happen um some people are opposed for this for various reasons um similar to the MBTA it's the state imposing their will on us um some people are just worried about the I myself am worried about the do Amendment um applicability on this um I'm sorry middle the movie do Amendment the protected use so the state has um under zoning uh uses that are protected under the do Amendment uh it's the um now the adus religious institutions uh nonprofit education and also daycare um and those essentially are exempt from most if not all local bylaw regulations so they can go anywhere so we have very and this happened on North Road the planning board has very little leeway in what we um Can require what we can reject and that brings the threshold of voting from a the 2/3 vote down to the um simple majority so this now okay Chris is with the curb cut situation I know that you have the regulation saying that there that you're not going to allow an additional curb cut um has there been any thought as to how that's going to affect trash pickup because currently with our trash pickup it's based upon you know I think was 36 36 gallons per per household per um per week and uh with that Reg with that they they the trash pickup Bas bases it upon address and and driveway essentially so if we're having a bunch of these adus put in that don't have an additional driveway don't have additional curb cut how are we going to they will have an additional address they will have additional address so how are we going to make sure that the the pickup knows that the two separate addresses at that location there are a lot of unanswered questions like that we still have not yeah and the part of the reason for the not the curb cut is not so we still it maintains the look and everything like that but I'm just logistically I'm not sure how that's going to work and and that's definitely going to be a cost a cost issue with with the contract well a I heard that transfer station here we come um any other questions for Chris um I would looked at a presentation not by uh you gave but one that was done by the state and it talked about you could match the height of the existing building but you said 20 ft is the limit is that just is that allowed in that whole so we think it is because in one of those other slides they had um a what you can and cannot apply to these adus and so this was discussed last night in the main body of the legislation it specifies the single family dwelling however in the subtext box from the state they they ask questions like um do you have regulations already for um applying um applying regulations to accessory buildings uh like sheds and pool houses and the implication is that if you already have those those would and if they're applied already to other accessory buildings they would also be able to be applied to adus is our interpretation okay so somebody who has a Victorian uh house which would definitely be over 20 ft tall they couldn't add like a addition in the back that matched the style because it would be over 20 ft tall so right now with this bylaw they would not if we did not have that they technically could but they're also limited by the 900 ft so something that tall at 900 ft would be an odd looking Tower right right but again if we don't do this there'll be that one person Y in town that does that and you know I'll be lucky enough to be next door to them right like you don't that person right like so it would be interesting maybe built a tower for your so what about what about lots that are are not even that have Hills in the back say for example right where you know even a one story uh 900t dwelling would from the street view technically be taller than the say Ranch in front of it for example entirely possible and based on what we've seen so far we cannot regulate that okay so it's 20 ft from the ground that it's built okay okay yeah all right from the financial aspect portion of this um obviously permits would need to be P pulled to to build these adus do we anticipate there'll be a a rush on construction of these adus and an increase in permits that are being filed at the town we don't know we don't know yeah so I suspect in the first year maybe maybe not a lot of activity right but over the next several years perhaps I mean the the state is looking for upwards of what 10,000 in the next five years which sounds aggressive to me but maybe not I mean how is this going to affect our infrastructure we were just talking about trash just signed a 5-year agreement with Harvey um you know 1 2 3 four even five adus isn't going to amount to a hill of beans honestly but 20 or 40 would right so you know is the is this is the state providing any guidance on how we address those issues nope okay nor are they providing any money for that well that's what I was politely asking you should know better than that no money no guidance yeah okay that sounds about right okay um and maybe this a question for the gentleman to my left um but as far as valuing these adus from from a tax assessment perspective do we have any kind of IDE has there been any discussion as to what we expect that might lead to as far as valuations and when those valuations would be would be done that's a very good question you got a couple of things first of all it would increase uh one benefit would be uh new growth okay so absolutely adds to the tax base so that's a good thing in terms of the actual valuation of the property um we haven't really given it much thought but it would be essentially it would be a square footage calculation so it would be a cost uh the value from a cost perspective more than anything sure because you're not you're not increasing any landre value structure okay y interesting so just getting to the lla um how many are in town and how many permitted per year on average this is kind of getting to your question on demand that came up last night um trying to remember where I took that note Nita do you remember I was just about to go look I think Nancy arway um when she spoke she mentioned I want to say 300 I think that was that's vaguely what I recall from watching but I don't think we've done any research to validate that or not and over what period of time was it like 10 years 20 years I'm not sure okay I think that's at least 20 years yeah that's that's a total number yeah since the LA's been in effect so not many but the the zba does get a significant number of requests for L laas um every meeting I mean I I look at the zba agendas and almost every meeting there's a request for one or two and that's with more rest stringent restrictions at the time at the time being there are many much much less restrictions on this and and the other thing to keep in mind is that we cannot regulate the use of that M Adu um or the ownership so some people may want it as an in-law apartment some people may want it as a rental unit some people may want both units to be rental units some people may um offer more of a condo association where both units are owned in a condo what about businesses can they run businesses out of I mean is there any regulation there there's no regulation but what it's residential only as long as it's legal of course okay The Limited accessory apartment bylaw was was was adopted in 2001 there you go that's 20 years about 20 years I mean would accessory uses apply to this Adu I think theoretically they would theoretically yeah um if we don't if we don't vote to adopt um please I I I I know what you're going to say but what what what happens if we don't adopt if we don't adopt um as of February 2nd our laa uh bylaw essentially becomes null and void and the state um law becomes our default bylaw okay and at that point which is very open and very nonrestrictive MH and even though we would be able to promulgate regulations that are in conjunction with that it would be after the fact and so anything filed before that would be y subject to okay all right any other questions for Chris and so that's why we're taking the approach as tight as we can legally first and then loosen it up as we need to and do you does anyone expect someone to try to push the envelope that we're creating I do expect someone to push the envelope as soon as February third based on public comments okay which comment so I can stop watching that show there are a lot of comments on Facebook um and uh last night's meeting M okay seeing no other questions Chris thank you very much for coming for a third night to give this presentation appreciate it all right next round agenda we have appeared to public comment seeing none on the zoom um next agenda is a discussion of the special town meeting Warr article and a vote of recommendation on the same all right do I have a motion I make a motion to recommend article one all right second discussion do we have a choice no we always have a choice always have a choice Milton had mil had a choice yeah right when they voted down the MBTA we always have a choice and there are there is no penalty if we don't different because you're right they didn't change their zoning so there wasn't any right like so they voted and they're going to sue what they Su and trying to figure out this if we don't vote for it it defaults to the state which is a lot worse like exactly so isn't actually all done yet well yeah but it's a free fall like someone there's no height restriction there's you know and someone you know could find themselves next door to something they really didn't like and we at least we're being proactive on this so this is a little bit different not no I understand I understand I was I was just referring to the choice portion of it any details ini initially they're pursuing the most restrictive Avenue they can which may be tighten loosened up later but this is in my opinion the absolute correct approach uh for the protection of the town so I'm in favor of it the best of a bad so bad deal so so ours would take precedent so so if somebody came up and and didn't like um you know this proposal that we have uh they couldn't go they couldn't throw the state's mandate at us the state's guidance and say correct oh but the state said this yeah as as Mr lavali explained that's the interpretation of Our Town Council but I think that's what we go with okay yes triple checking thank you yeah it's a little bit different there's no there's no set penalty the penalty is self-imposed if we don't adopt it so this so if you don't pick it you get we get what the state gives us State decides it's if you don't check off that you want that special dinner you get whatever is left over and it's left to the Building Commissioner to determine what reasonable regulation exactly could be subject to challenge exactly certainly so I think the the choice is an obvious one yeah I agree yeah pretty straightforward okay and when we go to town meeting um how do you answer the people who like we should just say no because that's the part I BEC be because it's different it's it's not the same as the MBTA it's not adopting and choosing a location for something to happen based upon regulations that are currently being challenged here it's going into effect and if we don't adopt uh the regulations we get what the state gives us and we're subject to doing what they tell us to do they've given us the opportunity at least initially we'll the final reg say to apply our own M non not non not completely restrictive not non-restrictive but not completely restrictive uh regulations to the bylaws and that's what the planning board's doing here they're saying let's put in what we can um there's no set penalty for doing that like if we hadn't adopted the MBTA there were the penalties that were associated with um not adopting it by the certain timeline now the SJC decision came out and they said well you need to go back to the to the board and and properly notify and address address your regulations but the people basically giving it out for the people that didn't adopt them saying you're going to have to but we're not going to apply the um penalties that were you going to face um had it just gone through automatically so it's kind of a a redo that the state gets to do to say okay we're still making this required but the people that didn't adopt it when they're supposed to adopt it this first go around have the opportunity to now adopt it because they're going to have to adopt it because there's a ruling that says that they have to adopt it um but they're not facing the penalties before so different situation different scenario um here if the regulations say well yours are too restrictive they'll again the plan Bo have to get back together and adjust it to be less restrictive um if I guess theoretically if they were allowed for more restrictive which I don't think would happen I mean theoretically go back and make more restricted regulations be great it's not going to happen but yeah I I the part that the state the state part I'm just confused is like why did it decided that you didn't have to be owner occupied which I thought that was that a lot of um I can tell you like s um canalo of R yeah um there was a lot of discussion about that I think you were you actually spoke at the State House via yes I did um about that this was a a big issue I I can tell you you know from a lot of people my perspective as well um neighboring towns low um more you know that was the one thing that's like all right you want to put this in you need to do it unoccupied and I think people just didn't want to hear it I also think quite frankly there's money behind this private Equity Funds money pushing this they don't want that the legislature was lobbied to Anita's point that did happen yes yeah because uh having lived down South for a while there were neighborhoods that were all investor owned homes and they were met neighborhoods MH so that's something I wish we could avoid because that's not great well I I I can I don't P I personally as a finance person I've look you know I look at this and I'm like I don't understand number-wise how this is going to help the housing market because I think this now brings more of incentive for investors to come in and outbid you know the young couple who's trying to start out and buy their yep start a home because they can always outbid them and so and you know I've told people who I can tell it'll be a rental economy yep that's scary and that's scary trying to avoid scary yeah yep is there any scenario that the state can come back to us and say oh you're being too lenient or you know you need to fall more in line with this particular regulation is there any scenario where that could happen well yes so they they may make they're still in process of finalizing these regulations and not more lenient more restrictive guess that's concerning right and so but so what what that what just what that means is that we won't be able to apply that portion of the regulation and they'll have the planb have to go back and make the adjustment to our regulations but wouldn't that be driven is wouldn't that have to be challenged by someone who's trying to develop something wouldn't they have to kind of like initiate all of that I don't know I don't know unless the state because the state hasn't finalized it are they going through a random review process of Town's proposals and well they are taking input from towns in public right now um but they've also learned some lessons from the MBTA process yeah so they could say um for example the accessory um accessory units they could go back and say you can't apply those um those accessory building uh design standards to an Adu they could come back and say that um that is the that was the argument last night in public comment town council's opinion is this is our this is our interpretation um the public the uh public speaker may be right Town Council may be right we don't know yet those are two varying opinions y the final regulations May resolve it one way or the other or they oh they may not and if they don't that's where it becomes a challenge that that that someone goes tries to do something and it becomes illegal battle at that point but they would have to initiate that but they would have to initiate that but what will happen before that is after town meeting adopts the bylaw it goes to the attorney general for regulatory have to they'll have to make a ruling now they could strike provisions of the bylaw and we've seen that in the past and then it will could effect but so that's what's going to happen so it's not only what may come out of the final regulations but every community in case of cities and town towns only not cities but towns our bylaws will be sent by the clerk's office to the Attorney General's office they'll have 90 days to review it and then make a determination so that's so that's the other check we'll have right up front y any further discussion no all right we're going to do a roll call vote on this because David is on the zoom David if you can unmute please if you [Music] insist thank you um so here now I'm going to call the vote David I'm in favor okay Sam I Steven I Anita I Cindy I Elaine reluctant I and I'm also an i that's unanimous in favor all right thank you any additional public comment seeing none um discussion of special T meeting warrant article and vote recommen oh we did that discussion of timeline for finance committee warrant uh book production so we have to basically have it's warrant book so we have it has to have all the information it'll be a pamphlet probably Pam right I assume so I don't someone needs to email to me I don't actually have the document uhuh so I just I will send that to you I I need to clean it up slightly okay um but yeah I can get that to you guys and I I don't have the uh warrant either right now okay the warrant so okay I just need the warrant I have the do you do you want the slides in the booklet as well I mean there they aren't a ton of them I could put them into the booklet might as well because there's not nothing else in it there's nothing else in it yeah I can I can send those this weekend that'd be perfect what we have to do is get it off to the printer by Monday okay in order to be compliant with the be it's it's it's funny our bylaws require a two week production for special town meeting a one week for regular town meeting um so I know don't ask me I don't know so when when does is this needed Monday this coming Monday this Monday yes all right and how are we printing it am I emailing it to Trish or what what are we doing that was my next question chairman I was just just going to make a suggestion because of the length of it we may be able to print it here and on copy or a town office is just to save on printing rather than having it professionally printed okay okay and so who do I email it to an email it to me if you'd like yeah so we'll put together a quick it'll be a quick letter the regular voting procedures and everything like that I'll check in with John he said he he may have had a comment on one of the voting procedure issues um he actually emailed me a redo of the back section did he excellent okay so we'll include that as opposed to the previous ones that we've used um and then we'll get it over to the town Monday be a fun fun weekend um all right that'll be the fastest production of a of a of a book we've ever had though I think we'll see record time all right discussion of timeline for the production we've just done that a discussion of future meetings so um the your budget will be finalized pretty soon Paul correct end of end of January yeah uh I think it's because of the town meeting it's got to probably get push back to True February 3r okay so um likely mid mid February for our first meeting um and then we'll go from there we'll start in Earnest have our first meeting um do all our appointments check all our appointments and then start our review so we can get going and get and uh get our departments in and our recommendations together any so so it's would be a Thursday it would likely be the 13th the 20th me see one of those two okay and the reason why we want to have the initial one is because that starts the starts the process for making those meetings so we can have people come in and give their presentations we don't want to wait too long because then we run out of time yeah I mean obviously I'll be presenting it to the select one on the third I can come anytime after that to present oh so I guess we could do the sixth we could start the sixth and then maybe not have another meeting until the 20th of the 27th based upon when people are able to meet with their respective departments and and uh and there are no no citizens no say and petitions all right perfect okay uh I took public comment out of order any further public comment seeing none I will entertain a motion to adjourn all moved second discussion no all in favor I I I thank you dve boy Dave for