[Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] Wednesday, Friday, Sunday. Good evening everyone. I'm calling
tonight's meeting of the family planning board to order. Today is the dayth and 6:30 p.m. and we are meeting at FMA town hall. My name is John Drooie. I am the current chair of the planning board.
Before we we begin, I would like to remind everyone this is a public meeting and is being conducted in accordance with the Massachusetts open meeting law. Please take a moment to silence any mobile devices or electronics to avoid interruptions.
Anyone wishing to speak should come to the podium, wait to be recognized by the chair, and state their name for the record before making remarks. We encourage respectful and constructive dialogue during public comment periods.
Thank you. We will now proceed to the first item on the agenda which is public comment. If anyone wishes to speak about something is not on the agenda, please come to the podium. State your name. Since we don't have anyone in the audience right now, we'll just go
forward. I am. All right. So, um, minutes. Mr. Chairman, motion to approve the August 12th, 2025 minutes as presented. Thank you. Second. All in favor? I I unanimous
and uh we have a public meeting. Jed. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um on behalf of the applicant, they have requested, so this is for um the site plan review for the five unit multif family building at 683 Main Street. There's a site plan review application
as well as a special permit. The applicant has requested a continuence of both of those applications to the board's next meeting, which is September 9th. And they've also asked for an extension uh to your decision deadline for your site plan review application.
and they're asking that extension to u be granted to September 31st, 2025. Can I ask what the holdup seems to be? They are working through edits to the drainage plan. Oh, okay. So, so it's not us. It's correct. Correct.
I move that we accept the applicant's request to extend um to the next meeting and also that they will extend the deadline for our decision. Second. Thank you. Any discussion? Just I realize the drainage in that area
can be very difficult. That lot's perfectly flat and everything else runs like this and I've seen runoff coming. It's really a mess and I'm glad they're taking the time to do it right. Okay, good. Any other comments? Uh if I may, um just a clerical error. There are only 30 days in September. So
the extension of the decision deadline is to September 30th, not September 31st. Thank you. You kicked as corrected. It's what happens when you're typing quickly. All in favor? I
I unanimous. The next on our agenda this evening is planning board fall 2025 town meeting zoning articles and uh town planner Jed will present them to us.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh for the record, Jed Cornock, town planner, um community development director. um extraordinaire of many things. Um so I have the presentation from the first
planning board meeting which um I can go through with you. Um so what we've done is there as you know there are five zoning articles uh for which you open the public hearing on August 12th. Um and they include um on the screen
these five amendments. Um, and so, uh, if you'll indulge me, I'll just go through them briefly. I'm going to skip over the, um, item number three, uh, because there's a separate presentation because we have a new version for you to consider this evening of the accessory
dwelling unit bylaw amendments. So, I will cover one, two, four, and five um, very briefly. If there's any questions, we can cover those and then I'll just move into the accessory dwelling unit uh portion. So, first and foremost, um the
first amendment that um you are seeking to bring to town meeting is the um as shown up on the screen, the deletion of item number two under 245.1C, which is your prohibited uses and special permit allowances section. Uh
essentially, as we discussed at the last meeting, uh this uh deletion of item number two will essentially um make it very clear that uh an applicant isn't allowed to seek a special permit for a use that is prohibited within the use
table from the zoning board of appeals. They would first have to get a determination from the building commissioner as is included in statute. And if they oppose that or if they disagree with that, they can simply go to the zoning board of appeals with an
appeal of the building deter building commissioner's determination. So this cleans up the process um that already exists. However, this language um simply allowed a workaround uh that we seek to um eliminate.
Jed, we had um said last time the title there cross out and special permit allowance because yes, this one here. Yes. So, uh Pat, you're you're excellent eagle eye. Uh this component here would also be crossed out in the town meeting
article because again, this section will only deal with prohibited uses. So, essentially, item number one says if it's not listed within the use table, it's a prohibited use. Item number two allowed that workaround. So, we're trying to get rid of that. It is crossed out on our documents, but
not on the screen. Correct. Not on the screen. Questions, comments on that. I'm just concerned. I know you I brought this up last time and you said, "Well, there's always the ability to uh appeal
it, but no one's ever going to know that that you could make the argument that there's a considerable use that's like it and you and you could challenge it and you might win. We're just shutting it down and saying this is the way it's it period. Yeah, because that's the way it's supposed to work. Who brought up this in the first place?
Why is it there? So, we found this when we were doing the recottification um because we've been going through the zoning bylaw and trying to find duplications, errors, etc. And we found this clause and it seemed odd to us at the time that
you would allow a another option to create a use that's already prohibited or to allow a use that's already prohibited. Well, allow a use that's already existed someplace else. It's not it's already been approved in the past. It's a little
bit hard saying I mean I just wonder why why the planning board in the past put it in the first place. Do they need was it a mistake or was it because they wanted to be more flexible? I do not know. That's my worry. Yeah. I'd like to make a point. When someone
So, when someone does get now a determination from the building commissioner, he in his determination letter tells them their right to appeal and tells them the process. That solves my problem right there. As long as that is part of the process, I'm I'm okay with. Yep. Great point.
That's very good. Any other comments or questions? Okay. So, um this second amendment as we discussed at the last meeting is related to the attorney general's approval of
our first uh accessory dwelling unit uh set of changes that we made post the affordable homes act. Um the attorney general indicated that whenever you have or you allow single family homes within a certain zoning district, you also need
to allow by right an accessory dwelling unit. And we did not include it in the business table um initially. So this will clean up um the um omission that we had from the previous set of amendments.
So again, all it's doing is just allowing an accessory dwelling unit by right, only one, within each one of the zoning districts of the business district because they currently allow single family homes. Questions?
Are you is it clear that if they have four single family homes in a district, only one of them gets it, or is it is it all four have the right to do it? We're going to put a pin in that and we're going to talk about that in the accessory dwelling unit section when we get didn't want to blow by it without
Sure. Okay. So, this is the fourth one. So, again, this is uh simply just as I mentioned before we when we were going through the zoning bylaw, you know, people have brought this to our attention that in the maximum building height and stories table in section
2401.5A, we have these two records. these overlay districts which um more uh importantly in the search and rescue overlay district it creates confusion. It simply states and if you were reading just the table and not the language within the
bylaw you someone might assume that you could have a building height of 100 ft which is not the case. Um there is a prohibition in the search and overlay district of not having a building that would exceed 100 ft. traditionally cell
towers. Um, but we wanted to make sure that this language is omitted from the table, but still included within the overlay districts in a different section of the bylaw. So, again, just trying to clean things up. If you'd like, I can show you where that
language exists. Um, but it is it's not that we're removing anything from the bylaw itself. We're just simply removing it from the table in section 11. The overlay districts, I don't know why this is advancing. The overlay districts are
within um article 7 and all of the information is still there three Paul. Oh, sorry. When you delete that table in the maximum height, will there some something to replace it? So, let me just show you what it looks
like now. I think it's a good good idea. So in 11 maximum height, here's the table that I'm referring to. Okay. So, as you know, within the zoning bylaw, um, the maximum building height
in town for the most part is 35 ft. So, it, you know, as you're reading this table, uh, it's clear that you can't exceed 35 ft, but then all of a sudden you get down to the search and rescue overlay district and it says 100. So, one might assume that you could have a
building up to 100 ft tall and that's not what the overlay district says. says you cannot go over 100, but you're still at a 35- ft building height within the entire town. So, it's just a duplication. So, what we what the um
proposal is to do is eliminate these two rows and then I'm going to jump to seven, article 7, where the actual language exists. Search and rescue. Here we go. So, here is the actual language.
So, we're not proposing to eliminate this language. This language will stay, but in the table we'll eliminate those two overlay districts. Uh, I can try to blow that up much.
Thank you. So that'll all stay. So there'll still be a a restriction on going over 100 ft. It just won't be confusing within that use table. And so just to further emphasize the point.
Yeah. So the lights section 11, if we were to truly continue to use the maximum height table, what we would do is we would add the mixed residential and commercial overlay
district. But as you remember, there are three allowable building heights within that district. There's 35 ft townwide. There's 40 feet for uh properties that are over two acres and then there's 50 feet for properties that are over five
acres. So again, we wouldn't necessarily add all of that information to this table because it would simply be confusing. So as an applicant, if they're applying within the mixed residential and commercial overlay district, all of the regulations are found within that section of the bylaw, not spread out
throughout the bylaw, just in one area. So that's why we propose to eliminate these two overlay district languages because that information is already found somewhere else and this cleans it right up. Cleans it up. Yes. Sure. Go ahead.
Since this article as written goes before the town meeting, would it be appropriate to make a reference that the height is referred to in section 240 by as part of the article? Yes. So, what we'll do now says it's gone.
Yep. Doesn't say where to look for it. What we'll do is we'll write that up in the recommendation. So, as you know, you've got the article language, you've got the explanation and the recommendation. Sorry, it's the reverse. We'll put it into the explanation so that it's nice and clear for town meeting members. Thank you.
Yep. Thank you, Paul. Any other questions? Okay. Okay. And the last item is 240 I won't maximize that 240 11.5B.
Um again the uh amendment as shown on the screen is to strike uh 240 11.5b 2B. So this language right where my cursor is. No accessory apartments shall be allowed. And again that's um in direct
conflict with state law currently uh the affordable homes act. So, we need to make sure that that language doesn't exist in the bylaw because you cannot prohibit um an accessory uh apartment or accessory dwelling unit in that way. How are they defining accessory
structures? I mean, is that garages, bonds, sheds? Uh it's a good question. So, yes, um accessory building is defined in our bylaw, and I can pull it up if you want. So accessory building and is different
from accessory structure then. Correct. Correct. So as I'm reminded um regularly an accessory building as you can see up on the screen is a garage or a shed located on the same
lot as you can see. I'm not going to read the the verbage for you but an accessory structure could be a swimming pool which is not a building. Yeah. So, those two things can be the same, but they can also be different. Any questions on those?
Okay. So, I will go to the ADU bylaw. So, what I'm going to do is I'm going to show you uh two different versions of the bylaw. So as you remember at um the last meeting we had proposed certain
language um and is published uh in the enterprise on the left hand side of the screen. That's the original language that we had proposed and started the public hearing with. Um, we've subsequently met with town council's office a couple of times to review that
language and try to make things a little bit more clear because as you can imagine, ADUs are uh an important topic right now and there's a lot of questions about what can I do on my property, how can I use it? Um, and the state law is um, in my opinion somewhat clear. The
regulations that you have in front of you spell out more of that information. Um, so the regulations, uh, we've provided a copy for you. Let me just make sure that the folks at home know exactly what I'm talking about.
So, here are the regulations that um, the state has created for protected use accessory dwelling units. Now, again, protected use ADU is that first ADU. It's the one that you can have by right. Everything
else past that we'll get we'll get to down the road. But as of right now, your zoning bylaw will only allow a lot to have one accessory dwelling unit and that's all by right. So when I say the when I say or make reference to the regulations, this is the document that
I'm referring to. So I'm going to just sort of show you the difference between the two um versions, the version that you saw at the last meeting and the version uh tonight. And so the new version as you can see is on the right hand side of the screen. There are three
main areas where you will see uh changes and hopefully everyone has the new version in front of them. It's going to be first and foremost in the definitions then in um the what was the old requirement section and then um uh the
new section which it talks about all of the requirements that would be in place for all ADUs. So I'm going to summarize that fairly quickly and then we'll go to questions. So uh as you can see comparing the two the purpose statements have remained the same. There's no
change there but the definitions is where you start to see changes. So um what town council's helped us with is um essentially changing the reference instead of um producing the actual definition as you can see on the left
hand side of the screen. Instead of doing that on the right, referring to the regulations so that anytime the regulations change, we don't have to keep coming back to town meeting and changing the definition. We can always just have it refer to something that we
assume won't change, but in the event that it does, it can remain um as printed and we don't have to keep changing that. So, this adjusts with state law as it changes. Well, it's possible and if it does, what we don't want to have to keep doing is chasing that and making sure
that our definition matches. So, anytime that it does change, we'll still be referencing the CMR, the regulations that I showed you previously. And let me just go to those regulations real quick because I think it's an important component. So, within those regulations
are all of the definitions that not all of them are listed in our bylaw, but the definitions are found within the regulation. itself. So all we're doing is saying refer to this regulation which we will have on our website and available to folks but they'll be able
to see what that definition refers to. Go ahead Jim. Uh this is important. I I don't believe I've been listening to you carefully and you're saying like for now we're dealing with one by right, but is the state trying to say or implying
that you could have more than one? Yes. Are they so do you see us adopting that in the future or could someone say now that we've written this way and said the state could have it I want it and they have to have can could does does that open the door because now you're
referring to what the state says and even though it's not in our bylaw our bylaw refers to specifically what this state says and it would it'd be argued but they could make the argument is that what without going to town meeting again is my question. So to answer your
question is you you currently will only allow one ADU per lot. That's clear. Once we pass once we get through town meeting, our intent is to have a conversation with you folks about if you want to allow more than one, what sort of guard rails do you want to put in
place? because you can change the size, you can change the um building height, you can have uh control over design, you have ultimate control over the second and however many you want to allow ADUs. You just don't have control over the
first one and the first one is the protected. I'd just like to add something to that. So the state's regulations say that the towns themselves can figure out how many you want. It's we only need to allow one by right. If we want to allow more by
locally to use by special permit, we can. If we don't want to, we don't have to. I I understand that clearly. But I was being specific with your terms about referring to the state law so we don't have to keep coming back and revising it. And if the state law says you can,
can someone make that argument as soon as we pass this? And that language now says it it's the state law that does it. and our bylaw doesn't have to get updated. Does that open the door? I'm trying to be specific on that exact question. I don't think that's going to happen. I don't think the state's going to um tell
towns that they have to answer allow the direct answer to your question is no. Okay. So, so I may have been confusing, but let me just show you what I meant. But you use the term for now who when you were describing it. I've just I just heard something that was left a little crack in the door and I'm just trying to
understand. Let's close that crack. So up on the screen, I've highlighted what I meant by referring to the regulations. So it's only for the definition. Yeah, it's just for that simple term that we're saying in your bylaw, you'll say
accessory dwelling unit as defined in this regulation. That's it. That's the only reference that it's only through the definition. It's not the amount. Thank you. That's where I was unclear. Thank you very much. It took me a while to get that message. Yes, Charlotte. Um I recall and Pat you may recall also that one of the things
we were trying to do with recottification back when it was more of a team effort was make it so that um applicants and people who are interested didn't have to fumble around among a number of sources. They would be able to find what they needed here in our bylaws. And this is different from that.
This is oh go look and find this CMR whatever that is thing. I I realize that it it does stray from that um that goal that um objective that that we had. But I do think it's important especially considering the fact that these
regulations were just published. It is entirely possible that down the road a definition might be changed and the last thing we want to try to the last thing we want to do is be in a position that one we don't know that it changed and that our definition now is in conflict
with state regulations and two have to continually search it to make sure that our definition is in fact the same one as the state regulations. So therefore, that reference protects us and we don't ever protects you for the town and you don't ever have to update it.
Could I suggest that our original intent to prevent people from fumbling around looking for other sources could be met and meet this intention of saving you guys work down the road? You could include the definition right
here and then asterisk or footnote that these are in accord with 760 CMR71 blah blah so that people know that but they would be able to be looking at our bylaws and understand what's intended without going
looking for something else. And I think it was a very worthwhile goal and I hate to see it abandoned. So the the advice from town council was that if these definitions ever change, then we don't have to keep changing our bylaw.
Noble, but anything could change in the entire thing. They're all subject to change. That's true of everything. Y it's not especially true of new regulations. In fact, it's less likely to be true of new regulations because they just did it. I just don't buy that
argument. And the fact that the town council said it doesn't mean we have to do it. We're being asked what do we think of that? And I think it's not a good idea. I agree with Charlotte. Okay. And I think it could be um
with had we had it. I think it could be or as currently found in Yeah. I wonder if we could thread that needle with some some language that I I'm just throwing it out here. a definition as you're saying and then to your point or as defined
I don't think you could do both. I'm not sure. I don't think you would have to say or just reference that that's the the foundational document somewhere at the footnote. But these are the definitions that are in force now. That would be better. It would be clearer. It would be more useful to
people who want to think about an ADU or in a process of trying to do one. Much better. This is this is a departure from one of the main purposes of the recottification. Mhm. And as this is written, it just turns me off.
Right. This is terrible. Well, it's a it's a good topic. I think that, you know, if if the chair would would indulge, maybe a conversation about it so that we can bring that back. Well, we're conversing now. Okay. Yes, we are. we could
and I think if I think if the next meeting if we saw it in writing or before the next meeting what they're what they're suggesting then we can make a informed decision. Yeah. So I mean it I think the left and right of the screen will will tell that
story. So, Charlotte, your point is we should go back to the paragraph style as shown on the left, uh, rather than having just the reference to the CMR and Pat, if there's a way to potentially meld the two together. Mhm.
Um, we can certainly look at that. We've done that in We've done that in our documents before when the Bobs were here. they would say or as whatever the update is it applies the fact that any part of the
new ADU law could change any part of it not just the definitions any part of all the things that have a foundation in state law could change so I would think some statement initially or as a footnote saying these
are aligned with and in accord with such and such that's all you need yeah and I think um it's worth noting so there's this additional paragraph here which I believe gets to your point um it
makes it clear that the terms that are defined within the definition section only relate to accessory dwelling units and um you know it does say if the regulations do change they would um they
would supersede those found in section 9 right and speaking English you put the only in a different place in that sentence. Okay, we'll certainly take that back. It sounds like perhaps the whole board is potentially in agreement with that. Would like to see us change back to the
Well, I would like to hark back to when we began recottification. This is a long time ago now. This is what 6 years ago at least whatever it was when we were really aware of people coming here or coming to your office or your predecessor's office
and just you know mired in confusion because you had to look every everywhere in the document and in other documents in order to go forward. So we were reacting to that when we set the goal that we wanted it as much as possible to be a standalone document so that people could understand how to proceed from
what was here. that was important at the time. Okay. I would just like to point out that our attempt to be that clear really didn't work in many cases. Uh especially when it the same issue with multif family use
on on other properties. the two bobs and made this absolute references that it can't be and yet there was we found another clause that said it could be and we had to go back and redo it again because I believe the intention of this board was always to have some more flex on that on not on this unit but the on
the multif family unit but but your exact example that you're using how clear you were was actually wrong and we had to redo it twice so it's really hard to be so this is it fair I just caution you I was not a fan of how absolute the codification was
because I kept finding things that we missed and we had to go back and do it over and over again. So, it's not infallible. So, just be careful. I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just reminding you, you have a clear vision how great that was. I don't share the same vision. It was very difficult for
I think carrying it out was difficult. I think carrying it out was imperfect. But I do think that the goal making it, but we ended up changing now the use. I'm sorry. And just I think the goal was good. I think the implementation of it was probably less
good because things tend to be imperfect. We'll never be that clear. English is ambiguous no matter what. But I do think sticking to the goal of being able to find out what's expected of you when you read the bylaw is a good goal and this doesn't do that. Yeah. And I think, you know, I'm I'm
just reading this section here. I think that it's possible that what what you're suggesting is possible. Um, this sentence that the way I read it would simply say that any in the event that the zoning code, our
zoning code differs from the regulations, the definitions in the regulations will shall supersede those found in this zoning bylaw. Great. So, I think it's possible to then add back the language that you see on the left, provided that it's consistent with the regulations, and we'll go from
there. But we'll certainly ask town council's office to make sure that that makes sense. Or tell them and John's point to have it before. We don't need to make a decision this evening, do we? So we'll get to that at the end, but um it may be advised.
Maybe this was the end. Yeah. So well um but put a pin in that too. So So onward we go uh in the new version. So again, that's all the definitions. I do want to highlight this new section. So after the definitions of
the old and I say old, last week's bylaw or two weeks ago, we had we started off after the definitions on the lefth hand side, we had essentially requirements, right? And so those were all of the um items
that either existed within our current ADU bylaw or were found within the um executive office of housing and livable communities model ADU bylaw. So we added some language that was consistent with the state's uh new law. Uh town
council's office has suggested that what we do is we take 9.1 C and break it into two parts. on the right hand side of the screen you can see um language in 9.1C that only relates to the protected use
ADU again that first ADU that is allowed by right and so what you see and then the second section so breaking it into two one deals with only protected use ADUs and then the next section deals with all ADUs so that when we do come
back and have a conversation about the potential of having a second third or whatever we don't have to do a wholesale change to the ADU bylaw. All right. So, I'm going to go through the first five items up on the screen and I'm just going to
maximize it because it might be hard for folks to read. Um, and then, you know, if we need to compare between the two, we can do that, but I just want to make sure that we can see it up on the screen. All right. Again, so we're talking about all protected use ADUs. That first one
is essentially allowing a protected use um ADU on a lot uh pre-existing non-conforming structure or a pre-existing non-conforming lot. So essentially what we're saying is in those situations, you're still allowed
to have a protected use ADU. Section two, this is important. So the protected use ADU that's accessory to the principal dwelling cannot be more restrictive in its dimensional standards as would be
required by a principal dwelling, a single family dwelling or an accessory building within that same uh district. So we're talking about setbacks, we're talking about building height. Um we're not talking about size because again protected USADUs can only be a certain
size. So it's dimensionalized. Is that a dimensional standard? the size the 900 ft. No, no. Lock coverage would be a dimensional standard. Setback would be a dimensional standard and height would be a dimensional, but not the size.
Even though it sounds like it would be state law says that an access and a accessory protected use ADU can only be 900 ft or 50% of the principal dwelling. So we don't you don't have control over that. Whichever is less.
Whichever is less. Okay. Item number three, unless there's questions, I just want to be be clear if it's a pre-existing non-conforming structure, but it does meet the height restrictions and everything else, but say it doesn't
meet the setback, it's protected, right? So, essentially a protected use ADU would not need to go through a special permit process even though Okay, that's how it's done. You don't have to go there. So the the structure itself if it's non-conforming would
still have to go through that but the protected ADU does not. Okay. Okay. And that's essentially what item number three says. So item number four we've talked about this before uh but it's worth repeating. So now the new rule will be for
protected use ADUs the by right they will not be subject to site plan review. It will simply be a building permit with the building commissioner with signoffs from other departments. And then the last item, no on street
parking or sorry, no off- streetet parking is required for protected use ADUs that are located within a half mile of a transit station. Again, transit station is a def defined term in the previous section. That essentially means
near a ferry, bus station or route um commuter rail station or a fixed route um transit station, train station. Did you say bus route? Did you add that in there? You did. Yes. That's right. Yes. And that bus route is every inch of route 28. Yeah. Correct.
That's a half mile either side, right? Correct. Jud Jed, going back to number three. Three. Um, what are any required findings under MGLC 48 section 6? So section six of MGL4A is uh all
dealing with non-conforming structures, uses, and lots. So this is all this required finding is all about non-conforming. Correct. So protected ADUs do not have to go through that process. Thanks. Okay. Question.
Looking at this number five. No off- streetet parking is required for a protected use ADU within a half mile radius of a transit station. Does that mean they can park on a public street then? No. Okay. So I'll show you why.
Okay, please. So later on, so we're going to get to this next section that deals with all ADUs. Later on, we've got this statement here. So again, it's a little repetitive and it does mention the fact that if you're
within a half mile, you don't need a um a parking spot. But the last sentence, all required parking shall be located on the premises of which it serves and shall not be permitted off site on town property or within the roadway right of way.
That's number 10. That's number 10. John, yes. Paul, what is defined as a transfer station? Transit station. Transit station. Sure. Good question. So, I'm going to go back to the regulations. So, a transit
station could be a bus station as shown on the screen. So any location bus stop uh it the bus stop or a station like a physical station both it can be a station it can be a bus stop and I interpret that as also the
route so it's any point of embarcation so anytime that you get on the bus and so our uh fixed route transit bus is a flag stop system because you can wave it down so you the bus can stop anytime along that route where it's safe
if you're half a mile off Main Street that's a transit station, correct? Cuz you can call the bus. Correct. So that would also include like they go through a shopping center, be a half mile from that also. If that's part of their route. Yep. If if I would say if the route goes
wherever the route goes, there's a half mile buffer off of each side. And any parcel within that or any property within that buffer does not have to have a parking spot for a protected use ADU.
Any other questions on that? Now, it's not applicable, but a transit station can also be a commuter rail station as shown on the screen. It can also be an um a ferry terminal. So, again, down in Woods Hole, so anything
within a half mile of that ferry terminal. Um not out in the ocean because that wouldn't make any sense. Um, and then the fairies, excite piper, and the uh, it's only what year runs year round. Yep. If it's seasonal, it doesn't count.
There's one that runs year round. That's one particular. PG runs a a ferry off of Simpson Warf all year round. Okay. All right. Well, that's that's good to know. That's what I was in particular wondering about if we're addressing that or not.
Okay. So, as you can see, the definition of transit station as it's currently stated as defined in the regulations to include without limitation the embarcation points for the CCRTA bus line and the steamship authority. So if we've if we've got another transit
system that serves year round and it fits the definition found in the regulations, we can add it to this statement. Can you find out if that does because you note that Melinda, the contractors use it all winter long
to to run over to the vineyard all the time. It really is used pretty heavily. Not so much for tourists, but working people use it constantly. Is it it's public? What? Like it's for the any public, anybody? Yes, you buy a ticket. I mean, it's not free, but you buy a ticket.
So, it would fall under the definition of a ferry terminal. So, let's make sure the location where passengers Well, the one in particular, I think it's called Simpsons Warf. Simpsons. Yeah, that's that's and it's regular time intervals. Yes. Okay. All right. So, if it fits that
definition, we'll we'll certainly add it. That adds up a lot of places in downtown. Right. So, um, we just I'm going to sort of reorient everybody. We just covered number one through five on the screen.
So, again, we're going to move on to the requirements for all ADUs. John, yes. Before you do, sure. Why doesn't it say for all ADUs? And why is why are number one and two included here rather than in the section that is
intended for the protected use ADUs where they belong. That's what they're about. It's because they're more general and broad statements. Not really. Well, um you know I realize your point
where there's protected USADU language in here. Um, but again, one and two. So, I don't I don't see that in two. Make sure you're reading the correct I'm reading something that says only one ADU shall be allowed as this is in the
new version. Yep. Um, only one ADU should be allowed as a ride on a lot containing a principal dwelling unit in a single family residential zoning district. Right. Only one ADU. So, that sort of belongs in the protected use ADUs.
That's number two. Yeah. So I think well I shouldn't say I think the the rationale here was to and I and I hear what you're saying Charlotte the rationale was to focus all of the restrictions and requirements of
protected use within 9.1 C and a general statement that says only one ADU is allowed on the lot. even though it is referring to the protected use ADU, it's more general as it applies to um all ADUs within town,
but if you feel like you want to move it, we can certainly entertain that for sure. What's the clearest statement about what a protected ADU is? I'm not sure where you're at. You're going back and forth here and I'm not sure because I think it's a classification uh
error. the the first section 240-91C rights to construct protected use ADUs and under the next section requirements and limitations the first two statements are about protected use ADUs.
So you'd think they would be in the section about ADUs. Yeah. I mean, I think the f the first statement is meant more to say this section is intended to only allow the the construction of a protected use ADU
to make it clear that the town currently does not have a regulation or rules for more than one ADU on a lot. So, it's just a general statement to say we only allow one right now. Mhm. We're just talking about where that statement
belongs because 91D requirements and limitations for all ADUs would be clearer. One and you clearly then maybe I'm the only one who thinks you scroll down so we can see 91. You just took it out of the vision so I'm not following what Charlotte says here. Take a look.
Well, it's right there. I mean, I knew it was on the screen. He just didn't scroll. He went by it. I was reading it and he went by it. So, I think what Charlotte's saying is one and two would be moved up to 9. See? Yeah. In fact, they would probably be one and two there or wherever you put
them there, but that's where they belong. I don't see the harm in leaving them where they are, but if the board wants to move them, we can certainly go ahead and move them. I don't know why that's so important. Okay.
Anybody else? Any thoughts? I'm just curious, why is that half a mile limit so terribly important? Uh, that's found in the state law. State law. Yes. Yeah. But to seems to be arbitrary, but the state law
it's not. Correct. Thank you. You want You want to move it just because you think it'll be more clear? Yes. I do too. Yes. Okay. It just cleans it up. Mhm. It's still there, right? It's just in a different spot. Well, yeah, but if it's going to be there and it comes from us,
I just assume it'd be logical. I don't necessarily. Same words on the page, just the order they're in, right? That's all you're talking about. Changing the order. Yep. Changing the section. Yeah. Just moving. If there is a limitation in that sentence, you know, if it's requirements and
limitations, the second sentence says no construction of accessory dwelling units other than Where are you reading that? Right there. Two. number one under uh 91D. And if it's a requirement and a limitation, there is a limitation in that sentence
that shouldn't be in the protected use section up above. That's fair. This number two is a specialist. We're on one or limitation limiting ourselves up. But whatever you think is honestly e having it either there or in the other section I don't think it
changes the intent or spirit of the bylaw. I think it just is a natural flow of of uh language basically. I think that you would still have the exact language just in a different area. I think but when you're putting it in
the right and then you're saying well no it isn't a right. I think it belongs in that second section uh requirements and limitations. it because because you are putting a limit on it. What what is the limit you're putting on it?
Uh no construction or of accessory dwelling units other than protected use accessory dwelling units shall be permitted by this section and that section is the right to construct protected use of ADUs. It's all about ADUs. I it I don't want to hold everything up for this. It just
strikes me as illogical. Okay, we'll move on and if we want we if you like to we can come back to it. So they both make good points. Agreed. I personally like it the way it is.
Okay. So sorry. Oh, go ahead. So we've covered number one and number two in this 9.1d. Um number three I think is an important one. Again we've covered this in the
past. None of these ADUs can be operated as a short-term rental at any time. Again, if you want to change that in the future, we would come back to town meeting. We would amend that. But, uh, we understood that to be the intent of the of the board. Um,
similar language in number five, but a little bit different. Um, and it basically says that the the ADU itself cannot be used as a commercial accommodation at any time. Now, a commercial accommodation is a defined term within our zoning bylaw. As shown on the screen, it's capitalized to
indicate that it is a defined term. Um, we did receive comments um and we've covered them uh briefly in the in the previous meeting from Attorney Morning. We do intend to go through them with you tonight, but that's one of the items that that we'll get back to um at the
end of this uh walk through. Uh and then of course the important component of the ADU is is size limitation. 900 square f feet or 50% of the gross floor area of the principal dwelling whichever is less. Um and then
again it's defining how if you have multiple principal dwellings on the lot, which one do you choose when determining the size of the allowable protected use ADU? And so it basically says uh it would be the largest one.
Go ahead. Okay, this is interesting. I just came to me tonight because I've been dealing with this issue. When you're terming that the size of the ADU, do you switch back to the net area or you now talking to the gross? In other words, does the
basement count in the attic count even though you can't live in it? So you're limited to 900 square ft including the basement and the attic because that's what that says if you're going from net to gross. And I thought you were applying something else and I think I see it a mistake or
No. No. So, um, the state law changed all that and now we have to go by gross floor area and but for both. Mhm. Yeah. Well, if you're doing the gross floor and it's limited 900 ft. Now, now you're counting the basement of the ADU. So, an ADU with a basement can't be more than
900 square foot gross. So you could have a 900 foot first floor and a 900 square foot basement and have a gross area of 1,800 square feet and wouldn't be allowed. I It's just words, but I you know, we're picking apart words. I thought I'd point that out. No, it's an important point. And so in
order because we allow the gross when you're looking at the main house, but you're switching to the net on the ADU. So here, for those of us who are in the business, this gets us really confused. Sure. Here's the definition of gross floor area. that is um included as
reference within the um new version of your bylaw. So we can read it together and try to figure this out. But our understanding is that all of the gross floor area would be um calculated towards for calculating the size of the ADU.
So my question is specific. A 900 foot ADU with a 900 foot basement. It's got a gross area of 1,800 square feet. Correct. Is it allowed? wouldn't think so. And so I I built an ADU two years ago, a new
ADU. Yep. And no basement, right? For all space, right? So back in a couple of years ago, the way we dealt with that was on the site plans or the floor plans, there would be a note indicating that the
basement was not habitable space, right? And so that it was to remain that way. But Jim, you the very first AD we approved had full pacement. Yeah, the laws are different and they had they used it. I mean way way back. This is really difficult language. I
didn't catch it. I've been thinking about for years and it just dawned on me right now. So that Yeah. So there's got to be some language in there to differentiate living space versus but but see GR that's what happens when you use the term gross. And then I was
taken back when growth showed up because all of a sudden the attic counted, the basement counted and when you're looking at the primary structure to to get to the the 50%. It became very very liberal. But it's has to work both ways. You can't change it go to net when you
go back to the ADU or you can then the word should say net. No. No. So it it does work both ways. So it clearly says an ADU shall not be larger than a gross floor area of 900 ft. So, let's go back to the definition of gross floor area. And that's exactly
your point. It it would have to include areas like uh basements, lofts, intermediate floor tiers, etc. It being the ruins the bylaw, it being the ADU as well as the principal dwelling. So, you're using the
same um term to define the size of the allowable ADU as well as the size of the principal dwelling. But but to but but to get the maximum 900 square f feet for the ADU
if it has a basement that's counted correct as part of the 900. That's the way I read it. Right. So they would just put in a crawl space instead of a full basement. Correct. Yeah, that's the answer. Attics atticss are not counted. That's that's the answer. But presently that isn't that way. We do allow a full
basement. Well, not anymore because right because we did, but a lot of things that we did prior aren't allowed anymore. I'm not in favor of doing this, okay? I'm just picking out the language that we're also being real careful about what we're doing right here. It just hit me in the head. But if people already have it approved
the way it is, we're not going to go make them change it. It It is what it is. It was approved the way it was, but moving forward, these are the guidelines that we have. So, the ADU should have a crawl space and not a full basement. Well, yeah, but it's up to the person if they want to have a what the law says. I'm reading that and that's what it
says. But why would we want to restrict ADUs to have no basement? That's going to make a very cold building. If they're a basement, they can be finished off at some point. Yeah, I understand that part. But the So, they're not allowed to or some of But and then I'll just point out the
language. Okay. I I I want them to have a full basement. And I think we should have a full basement. But that says you were you the ones about being careful in the words. That's what those words say. Your first floor can only be 450 ft. Yes. If you have a full basement. If you have a full basement or you have a crawl space. And I think
that's wrong. Or slab on grade. Or slab on grade. And I think that's wrong. I'm not saying I want this. I'm just saying if we're being so careful about we're writing and we're using this words. We switched from net area to gross area. We're not writing this. This is the state. The state. That's the state says that.
But does the state mean that? Yes. Yes. They mean they want to be only 450 ft. No basement. Nope. No. So what they say is that it cannot be larger than 900 ft² of gross floor area. You as the applicant get to decide how you want to use that 900 ft.
If you want to do a full basement, fine. But if you don't want to do a basement, you've got a 900. So what we're saying is no full basement. That's that's really what we're saying. Unless you want, let's say you want it. Unless we've had many come before us that have crawl spaces. Not everyone that's come before us before has a basement.
I I I also agree. I think it's a lousy building to have a crawl space. I think a full basement makes it easier to maintain the building, take care of it there. It's better. I I am not in favor of restricting the basement, but if we're going to be careful about what we're writing, we're using the word net and gross. I think it has You can't use
No, no, that's not our writing. John, what were you going to say? State. We're adopting it though. I was going to say that if somebody wants to have a full basement, 450 square feet, then they're going to have to have 450 square feet above. Correct. They can finish both floors off. Correct. I think it gets complicated when you
want to put an addition on as opposed to a separate uh detached ADU. I gets real messy. Well, if you put an addition on, I would think that the basement if if it's connected to the other basement, then it would count as the square footage for
the house. Um, but a lot of our ADUs, if you think of it, the ones that we have had in the past, um, a lot of them are over garages, you know, or on second floors. So, I mean, this area right here hasn't been an issue really in the past.
A lot of people have put in crawl spaces, but we have had a number of people that are building brand new houses and incorporating an ADU within that initial footprint, too. Mhm. And we've had some twostory ADUs that are part of another uh structure, the
main house. But it doesn't really matter what we've had in the past. This is about going forward. It will appear that going forward we're not going to be allowed to approve an ADU with a full basement unless it has
restricted the overall building to 900 square ft. And that basically means putting in tiny houses that are even smaller than we thought they would be. There would be 450 square ft cubed with one below ground level if they want a basement full basement. Correct.
But most people do want a full basement for insulation purposes. Then they have a tiny house upstairs on the first floor or they do crawl space. Is that what they meant? So it's a restriction by the state. I think so. Yes, it is. We've just got to deal with I'm sorry I brought it up. I disagree with that's what this says.
It's a good discussion. So it it's an important point and and what's really important is to not confuse the fact that we are we are not using net versus gross. We are using gross and gross for both the principal. That was the specific question. But when
they do the 900 becomes 450 with a full basement. And that's not what I think is good. Yeah. I I don't see how you could get a three You're allowed to have a three-bedroom ADU. How you going to fit a three-bedroom ADU in 450 ft? very tight quarters.
So, uh, Tom has a question. This mistake in the state law. Yeah. Tom, what's the, uh, size of a crawl space? Refresh my memory. No, no greater than what? I can't stand up. Habitable space in a basement, I believe, has to be at least 7 feet. The ceiling height has to be at least 7 ft
tall for a crawl space. No, no, no. I want Okay. So, anything under that? So, if we're going to do 900 in a crawl space underneath, what are the dimensions? What's the height of a crawl space in the book? 6' 11 in. Yeah, it's basically anything below
7 ft. Okay. So, they could have a 6T Okay. basement. Yeah. That's what we have on Glenwood because of the flood zone. Okay. And they could have a 5ft basement, but it works. But again, it would be up to the applicant to decide how they want to
configure their ADU. If they really want of to John's point, if they really want a full basement, they could do that. They're just limited in their living space above it. Yeah. So, they would have to figure out how that would work. 450 foot threebedroom apartment doesn't work. That's very tight.
Even if they have a 6'1 basement, that's plenty of room for your utilities. And that's that's the biggest thing. Head room. And not many not many people are taller than 6' 11. I I don't know many. Yeah, that might be the solution right there.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. if we just make it right there. And I'm sure that's what it says. Yeah. Yeah. So, and again, that's just for the first ADU, right? These are all items that you don't have control over.
Moving on. Yeah. Okay. So, wait a second. So, now we're saying as long as the basement is 6' 11 in, it doesn't count in the gross area. So, that's what we were saying. To clarify
what I was saying is that my understanding is livable space in the basement ceiling heights have to be a minimum of 7 ft in order to be habitable space. But the bylaw doesn't say livable space. It says gross area. I would defer to the building
commissioner on this because that gets beyond what we know. We need a clarification on that. This is important but you don't have control over that language. I just don't want to know what it means. Fair. I don't want I We could We could do that offline, but
this language can't be altered because it's in the state law. So, you don't have control over the Okay. So, gross versus net. It has to be Can I get a determination from on the question? State law says, do I have to go to an attorney or do I go to We can work on that for you. Yeah, we
can. Because I think it's important. I just want to know what it is. Yeah, I'll deal with it one way or the other. I'm not advocating. I just clarity. Well, it's a good point. Yeah. Okay. So, item number six, simple statement. It basically says, you know,
the ADU still has to um meet all the applicable applicable requirements within the bylaw. So, setbacks, it still needs to adhere to front yard setbacks. It still needs to adhere to lot coverages. You know, you can't just go willy-nilly. It still needs to meet um
all the other requirements. So, if you have a small or you have a large house on a small lot and a 900 uh or any size ADU uh would not uh would go over the uh lot limit, lot size limit, you can't put
an ADU on that property then. So, if you go over the lot coverage um and you are in a zone where you can obtain a special permit to exceed the lot coverage, then that would be dealing with the lot itself. It wouldn't be approving the ADU
even though they are tied together. Yeah, that protected use ADU is still a byright application. You would still need to correct the non-conforming issue as it relates to lot coverage. I hope I answered your question. Um, but if you
are in a zoning district that doesn't allow lot coverage over 20%. So I think the only zoning district residential anyway is the general residence if I'm not mistaken that you cannot exceed 20%. Mhm. So my understanding would be that if
you're at let's say 20, no, you cannot add more lock coverage and therefore you cannot have a protected use unless you were able to fit it within the existing structure and not exceed the lock. Okay, that's that's what I was getting. Yeah, but all the other areas,
you're running out of questions. General residential, you can go to the ZBA and get approval for up to 25%. Exactly. So that that door is still open. Correct. And that's what I was referring to at the beginning. I thought so. I just wanted to understand.
Number seven simply says the footprint of the new detached ADU cannot exceed that of the principal dwelling. Fairly simple. Number eight relates to um title five.
So essentially, you know, the ADU construction needs to adhere to uh the title five requirements. Number nine relates to ADUs as they're applied for within the coastal pond overlay district and the water resource protection overlay district. So, as you
know, in the water resource protection overlay district, there are um certain restrictions or requirements for lot size and lot coverage for new residential properties within those within that overlay district. the uh ADU
would be subject to all of the requirements within both of those overlay districts if it were within those districts. We've covered number 10 that was all due with parking. And of course the last item and this is the only this is an important component. This is the only
section um where design comes into play when you're talking about a protected USADU and it's only related to the historic districts. So a ADU within a a protected use ADU within a historic district needs to adhere to the guidelines as published by the
historical commission. The whole town historic district, right? That's what I was thinking. Be pressure to get historic. So that is the difference. Do it open up more. Just toggle back to um what I was referring to a minute ago. So if you
were to compare side by side um the left being where we were two weeks ago to where we are today we believe that the right hand side of the screen is a superior version of the article for town
meeting obviously with some potential tweaks. Um, but the idea is to, as I described, separate out 9.1C, which is found on the lefth hand side, which was just a list of all of the requirements. And then importantly, what we did is we
eliminated 9.1d, which was administration. All we said in 9.1d was essentially that the building commissioner uh was able to approve this as a building permit. We feel that that language has already been covered within uh the new version on the right hand
side. And so there's no reason to have the administration. That was some language from the um from the model bylaw that we don't think is necessary at this point. So where does it appear in the new one? Okay, so on the right hand side in the purpose statement right at the
beginning. Just maximize this real quick. So it's the first it's the first par um sentence. So the purpose of this section is to allow accessory dwelling units to be built as of right. So an as of right build is a
building permit. We've also articulated the fact that site plan review is not required for these protected use ADUs. So the only time that you would ever have site plan review is when you have a building permit. So therefore with no site plan review, it's just a
building permit with the building commissioner. And again, our workload just got cut in half. Yes. Yes. But your work continues after town meeting because if you do want to decide
on multiple ADUs, that's going to be a decent amount of work to figure out what kind of guardrails you want to put in place. So with that, to come back to your question, John, about when do you need to approve this article for town meeting? So the town meeting schedule
I'm going to just show for everybody on the screen. We are supposed to provide or let me say this. The select board is executing the warrant on September 8th. They're meeting on September 8th. So we need to have language to them by September 4th.
September what? September 8th. So what I would say to you tonight is if you're comfortable because we have five amendments. If you're comfortable with four of the five amendments, you may want to consider closing the hearing for
those and approving them and allowing us to submit them to the select board office, town manager's office as zoning articles for November town meeting. If you want to keep the public hearing open for the ADU bylaw, we may need to schedule another meeting perhaps on
September 2nd as shown on the screen to allow for one last review of the ADU version that we just covered tonight. Close the hearing at that evening and then we can submit on the 4th to the select board's office. I think we've gone through it pretty
well this evening. I do too. When's our Don't we have a joint meeting? Is it on the 8th? It is on the 8th. Yeah. Okay. So that that meeting where they approved it's going to be a joint meeting with us there. Correct. Correct. So that'll be other business that will happen after your joint meeting.
Okay. So they do it without us. It's not correct. Part of our joint meeting. That's unless you want to stay. Not really. I'm just trying to understand. This is getting pretty complicated. Yeah, I get it. So the ETH Yes. is your joint meeting and um they will execute the warrant later on in in the meeting.
So when do we see the final version? Well, we could work it tonight. You could um provide us with guidance or you could say that this version that you see before you this evening is absolutely perfect and ready to go to
town meeting to the warrant. Well, we've already agreed that it's not perfect, right? Well, I can take away my objection now that if you're saying that 6' 11 12 in means you can have a workable basement where you can put a heating system and your plumbing and do everything you need
to do, but you just can't make it into a wreck room in in an ADU and turn it into an 18,800 foot house. I I I can buy that. Y that's what we're saying, right? Could we close the hearing with uh the changes that you want made
uh done by the staff and so that uh we can move on from this? I'd like to I think that changes that we want include the change under the uh the first section. Mhm. Okay. Where we seem to agree that we wanted to
return to the old definitions. Mhm. rather than so that this is complete in itself rather than referring it to CMR71 and so forth. I think that's fine. I think those are the only changes we we were going to make though. I think so. Yeah, these just the definitions. Yeah. Yeah.
Right. And I want to I just want to clarify I don't think we're saying that 611 and a half is the answer. I think that's the building commission. Definitely building commission saying that it could be a possibility. Yep. All we're saying is 900 ft. I don't
want anybody to say afterward, geez, I thought it was 611. Yeah, we don't want to get into that. I don't want any in in the audience and at home to that's not that's not our jurisdiction. Correct. I I just don't want what 8 foot ceilings in the basement with a giant playroom down there and and turning the house
into We all know how many people sleep in some of these things and they have a great big room and you end up with beds room big rooms that aren't bedrooms with 10 people living in them. Sure. And I don't want to open the door to that. nor does anyone else. And I and the way it's written, that's
that's not what's going to happen. But I think if we make the adjustments, we can go forward. Okay. Do we need to take a vote on that? Um, what I would suggest you do is open it up for public comment, even though there may be nobody here, but if in the event someone does want to provide comment, they can do so, and then you
can close the hearing if you'd like. Thank you. You're welcome. Anyone from the public have any comments to add to this? Uh, I don't see any. Anyone to step forward? No. So now you would take a um
a vote to close the hearing and then take it under advisement and you can discuss the amendments that you would like us to make. Just for the record. Okay. Any other we close the hearing? Second. All in favor? I I unanimous.
Great. And so just for clarity sake, what we plan to do is just do this real quick. What we plan to do is incorporate
the language within these um definitions on the left into this version on the right. Keeping this statement at the top which indicates that in the event that there's conflict, state regulations supersede the local code.
Right? That is it. Correct. Very good. We can do that. Do we need a vote on that or Yes, please. Okay. So, so I would move it just as Jed described it right now. You write it up.
Second. Yes. Second. Second. All in favor? I I unanimous. And for clarity sake, the vote also includes for us to submit to the select court's office for consideration for the November town meeting for the accessory
dwelling unit bylaw amendment. Correct. Okay. Um do you also want to make a motion for the others because there are four other amendments on that move those up. Here we are. Yes. Okay. I move that we uh
recommend the four other amendments. Second discussed previously. Second. One, two, three, and four. No. One, two, one, two, four, and five. Sorry. Yes. One, two, four, and five. All right. Second. I'll second it. Yeah. All in favor? I.
Very good. Jed, as long as you brought it up, and I don't see it as a discussion item, but maybe it is. Um, the agenda for the uh joint meeting. Yes, sir. I don't I don't have an agenda yet. I
will be discussing it with the town manager tomorrow morning. So, I'll be working with John to um spread that information once we have it. So, we should let John know if we have an agenda item he'd like would like him to consider. Sure. If there's if there's um perhaps
what we can do is under the planning department report I can report on it and then we can have a discussion about it. Okay. That would that work? Sure. Cuz we still have one item to cover before we get to that point.
Will the ZBA referral? Correct. Ready? Easy. So, uh, now we have the, uh, 809 Sandwich Road, 40B ZBA referral. Great.
So, uh, for the record, the planning department uh, received this referral request um, this month and as you can see up on the screen, the referral to the ZBA is due by the 11th of September. So, this um application includes a total
of 36 rental apartments. Um 18 of which, let me just make sure that I've got that right. 13 of which will be affordable um at a variety of different AMIs. Um and I don't have that with me tonight, but I'm sure it's included within the packet and
if not, we can certainly provide it to you. Um I'm sorry, you have a question. Um this uh application um came through what we know as the local initiative program. It's a uh we consider it to be a friendly 40B. So we myself, the
housing coordinator uh assistant town manager, a member of the select board met with um the developer several times to essentially get a flavor for what the application was and sort of guide the application forward um as a friendly 40b
proposal. So, this is um just the first sort of high-level uh description or uh site plan that shows the layout of the buildings. And I'm just going to really quickly orientate you to where this is within town. So, this is located at 809
Sandwich Road. So, this is the former Smithfield Farm uh location, which is Let's turn on the satellite real quick. Bingo. So, this is the site itself. So, uh for folks at home who are watching,
this is the um uh field up uh in off of Sandwich Road. This is the new fire station uh that was just built. So, this is just down the street at the intersection of Hatchville Road. Um and so the proposal is as shown on the screen. It will basically utilize uh the
majority of the site. There'll be a um uh consistent uh structure as as shown on the screen with the exception of uh two in the front. Uh and we'll sort of zoom out and give you a sense for what that looks like. Um so essentially the
front uh buildings are mimicked uh very closely to the structures found at McGansa Crossing uh the 40B up in in North Falmouth. Um, so it's a duplex style and again all of these would be rental. Um, they're spread out throughout the the site. There's a
shared um, IA system proposed. This would be the uh, sort of the leeching area uh, common space for all of the units. And again, 13 of these units would be considered affordable um, at different AMI ranges. So included in
your packets tonight is a variety of different plans. Uh here is the existing conditions as I've shown you uh on the screen already. Uh this is uh as I mentioned the the site layout and I'm just going to quickly go to the building
elevations to give you a sense of what that structure is going to look like. The floor plans. So that is and you'll you'll recognize that as the essentially the front of of
the building. This, like I said, it mimics the um the Ganza crossing style um with two units on either side. So, as you know, um your role here is uh as as if we were the you were the planning department, we would typically
get a referral on on this type of application. So, we want to go through it with you um and pick out any items that you might have to provide to the ZBA in terms of what the site looks like um some constraints that you might be aware of or perhaps positive comments
that you want to provide to them. One item I am um noting that we don't have for you this evening, so we may want to consider putting it on the agenda again, is the list of waiverss uh that the applicant is looking for. So that's
important for you because as you know with this type of development they typically um follow the subdivision standards in a in a 40B process. And so those are your domain right the subdivision standards of building a road putting in utilities etc. And so those
are typically the types of things that the applicant would be looking for waivers on. So, we'll go back and make sure that we get that list of waiverss, bring it back to you, and we'll continue this discussion uh before we submit the referral to the CBA as you Yeah, that's very important. Yes, it is.
Questions, Jim? Yeah. Could you go over the uh you the various uh qualif income qualifications? You said it's going to conform with all different ones. Could you spell the range? Does this go up to 110%. That's what I want to hear. Yeah. So, I don't have that off of the
top of my head. We can that's all I need. I I'm not I just want to know what it is. I'm not questioning it. I know that there was a range of 80s, 100 and 120%. I just don't remember exactly the number, but I will provide that at the next meeting. I just wanted forformational purposes
only and then object. I'm pretty certain to be a 40B it has to be at least 25% at 80%. Correct. Correct. Uh and Jed, could you just for uh for a minute give us a summary of the advantage or the town's participation in a friendly 40B?
Yes. Like what departments they they've already u met with Right. So, uh, the advantage of going through the friendly 40B process is the fact that they meet with particularly myself, uh, the housing coordinator and
the assistant town manager. And we have, um, in the past met with the zoning administrator to get a feeling for what the ZBA might be looking for in these types of applications. So for example, um making sure that there are bus stop areas, making sure that the uh limit of
tree clearing is clear on the site plans and that to the extent possible that the developer limits the amount of tree clearing. Uh that they produce or create buffers um between this site and the neighboring properties. Um that they
include adequate parking and visitor parking. So these are some of the topics that we continually hear from the zoning board of appeals. So it's think of it as sort of the rough draft or preliminary plan if you will. Um so they come through that first process with us, they iron out all of those details. So
hopefully when they get to the ZBA's special or the comprehensive permit process, they've already ironed out and figured out those that information so that they don't have to spend a lot of time with the ZBA creating that information. that's already presented in
the plans. So, one of those components is right in here. There's a pavilion at the front and there's area for school bus stop for where um parents might line up. There's adequate space for that. This
pavilion area would serve as sud a pseudo bus stop for kids to sit um while waiting for the bus because likely, although we don't know for certain, likely the bus would not pull into the development. they would simply pick up kids um on Sandwich Road and so you'd
want to have a place for them to stay out of be out of the weather. So those are some of the things and some of the advantages of coming through that process. Um and more importantly is we can we can work with the developer to create more affordable units and to
create more of a um what's the term I'm looking for? More of a variety of uh AMI units. So instead of it just being 25% at 80% of the AMI, we look for a variety. 80% 100% 120% so that we're not
just focusing on one segment of the population. We're trying to focus on multiple segments. So those are some of the advantages. Perfect. Thank you. I want to go down the line and see if we have any comments or questions. Preliminary Tom. Um,
so the I guess the uh entrance I don't know if this is a thing. Um, can you have two entrances on the opposite side of the street um uh directly across from each other? Are they supposed to be um offset?
So, wherever possible, the idea would be to line them up. Um, and the reason for that is, you know, because when they're offset, clearly it creates confusion as you come to that intersection at the same time. So, what we've tried to do is work with the developer to make sure
that this uh the entrance to the to the development lines up with the Hatchville Road intersection. Um, I will say that, you know, clearly this is a a Y or a triangle-shaped intersection, which I never like um based on the number of
conflict points. We'll be working with town staff to try and fix that situation, but that's outside the control of the developer, but to your to direct answer your question, it's always best to ask. Okay. All right. So, by design. All right. Thank you. That's Yeah, I had a couple questions. Number
one is that intersection I think is going to be very problematic and I think that's a real concern. Uh secondly, if I look at uh drawing 11 11
the top of the page it shows a detailed wastewater system. Yes. Sheet 11 out of 11 top. Sorry. Right there. Yep. And then if you look at drawing five.
It allegedly is in that center point on the south side, but there's something else in there. So, it's very confusing to me what they're doing with the wastewater system. And I'd like somebody to explain that from uh from the project.
Okay. What we can do is when we have our next meeting, we can come back with that answer for It's a very detailed, very uh flat slope all the way across for a long distance and then it pumps out someplace else. But if that's located in this
area, it looks very different in the rooms. And up in the norththeast corner, there's a looks like a uh storm water system. And I don't see a lot of detail on that. So I'm not sure how they're handling that cross-hatched area up in the righthand corner.
This one here. Yeah, it'd be nice to get that explained. Sure. U, I initially had some confusion because there's 17 duplexes and then there's two singles, but two of the singles on number three and six.
Yeah. So, it's a duplicate numbering system. So, initially I had a problem with that, but you know, that's not a big deal. Yeah. And the last thing is appears to be a swell in the middle of the land going north. the low area. And the drawing says
they're going to put a retaining wall with a fence on top by others. Oh, up in here. I think nice to know who's going to be doing that. Right up the top. Yep. Yeah. So, proposed fence on the retaining wall above seven. Yeah.
218. Those three. So, it says retain 7, eight, and 10. And I don't know what that is. It doesn't go the full property line. So I think somebody needs to explain what that is and what that detail. Okay. I think it's very important.
Thank you. A lot of stuff into that. Another question. Yes. Thank you, Jed. Is there any are there any designated open spaces for wildlife? Uh for wildlife? Yeah. Uh I don't believe there are for
wildlife per se, but there is um just trying to get to a good actually right up in here. Let me get to that. So this is an open space not for wildlife per se but for the um
residents. I believe the intent is to essentially leave this area open uh to function as you know place for pets etc but not necessarily for wildlife. No corridor. Okay. Not that I'm aware of. So I don't I don't see any here. All right. Thank you.
Thank you Pat. I too believe that that intersection is going to be exceedingly dangerous. Um, is there any storage for these buildings or do they have basements underneath? That's a good question. See if we've got floor plans
cuz there's no storage shown on the plan if they don't have basements. There's basement plans. Basement plan. Yep. Okay. Yep. So, it looks like it would be divided in half. Um, but we can certainly take a closer
look at that. What kind of does is it is that a bulkhead access or an interior access? Yeah, it's hard to say at this point. Okay. I'm sorry. I can't read it. Yeah, I I don't want to keep going in and out of the plan for FCTV is trying to figure this out, but we can we can come back and provide in more detail about that.
Any other questions or comments? Yeah, Jim, just on procedurally u so if if they're doing a lip, they convince the committee and then the committee takes it through the process. The developer doesn't even show up here. You guys take over that.
No. So the developer still shows be appears before the ZBA as the applicant. I mean I mean to us but No. No. So they would never come here. Okay. That's my point. That's that's my point. would you we deal with you correct?
That's all I need to know. Y or they deal with us through that. Any other questions? Sh. Bob, uh my comment was the uh same as uh the that open that's the open space
requirement that that field that's there. Uh it's not a requirement, but it's where they plan to put the um the leeching area. Okay. Yeah. So, so they're not required to have any open space as part of this project.
Not as a comprehensive permit. However, based on what we hear from the ZBA on a regular basis, that is one of the things that we as the we call it the housing development working group who meet with these lip applications. We make sure that they have that um in there so that they're prepared when they get there.
And uh there are two other intersections. There's one further up. Uh and then uh one on the opposite side of the road. Uh Thomas Landers comes out onto that. Uh and that is I I exit Hatchville Road across from that just about daily. Uh and it it can get pretty
messy. It just kind of saddens me to see more fmouth farmland get available for housing. Charlotte, based on what you said, we could assume that your team, your group, I've forgotten what you call it.
Housing development working group. Housing development working group. That the housing devel You're satisfied already uh with the spacing. The provision for parking. Yes. And visitor parking. Yes. And open space. So this satisfies that
group already at a minimum. Yes. at a minimum. So, because these look really close together, what would we have that we could that we've seen that would have this kind of tightness? H
um well, Megan Crossing might be similar. Uh I don't know of the building spacing between those existing structures. I drive by those quite a bit. They're pretty close together, but this looks more like um Are you familiar at all with Southport?
You mean Homeport? No, Southport, which is in Mashby. It's an an enormous development of some 750 units. And recently, within the last four years or so, they added an extra section to it. Um, where things are incredibly close together. And this
looks like that. Um, there's a measurement that they're 20.1 ft apart. Just a second. So, it's a 10 foot step back on each sort of lot, you might say. Yeah. Oh,
see if we can show this a bit better. Um, and in another spot, it's 18.2 cuz they kind of angle in in the back. So, right. Right. Ranges between those, I believe. And there really aren't very many trees, at least on the whole front part of that
that lot anyway. It's a a horse farm right now. Yeah. Yeah. And so Meganza crossing I mean rough again we're just measuring between the the buildings is approximately 40 ft. So it's double of so double double of what that is again just with GIS.
Yeah. Really crowded. I can't think of another development offhand that is as tight. I mean I would say Kendall Lane but that's that's much tighter. Um the buildings in that they're they're smaller than this except
for the ones. Well, side by side there they are, but there's a couple of big lots that have conservation land on Kendall Lane that throw it off, but it's very similar. I think it is it is around 20 feet. It's a basically a 10 No, it's 10 feet at some
I think it has to be 10 feet. If it's not more than 10 feet, it's it's 10t has to be fireproof on the And a comment on the trees, too. You you said you would try to save trees. My understanding is you can't save the trees when you dig the hole by the time you do all the excavation. The arborists
say the trees don't survive. So that's a nice thing to say, but did you really save any natural trees? There really aren't any, on it. It's extremely hard and we don't go to that level of detail. We simply say to the developer, it was your comment saying you intended to save. It's important that we emphasize to the
developer, look, save as much as you can because we know that the zoning board of appeals has issue with clear cutting. We all do. We all do. But there's also reality when you do development like that. My understanding is by the time you do the excavation and bring in the big heavy equipment and you run around all
the trees and you go the roots, you've already killed it. So it sounds nice to say, but practically it doesn't really happen when the lots are so close together. It's tough. Just my observation. Any other comments? Um
John, can I point something out? I I was reading um online on the ZBA's website and it tells what the affordable um requirements will be. So nine of them
will be 80% up to 80% and two will be 100 and one will be 110 and one will be 120. Okay. Thank you. Out of a total of how many again? What? What's the total? 13. How many units total?
36. 13 affordable. 13 affordable. No. 36 total. 36 total. All rental. These are going to be slab on. Great. So, no no basements.
Okay. No basement. So, no storage underneath. Yeah. Oh, Jed looked and he said there was storage. They do have basement. There's definitely a basement plan. I just can't read it on the screen very well. We'll have an answer when we come back. I'm looking at the section drawing. It
doesn't show a full Okay. Okay. We'll look into it. That would be It's kind of unusual if they do. Yeah. Yeah. Jim, do you have another comment? No. Charlotte? No, I don't. Okay. I looked at the site plan uh a
little bit today when I was doing the visit here. And the green space that we see right there, most of it's going to be for the septic the leeching field. And then to the right of the arrow there is going to be a drainage area for the
road. So they're going to dig a hole, put some grass around it, put some rocks at the bottom, and that's going to be the drainage. Yeah, like a swale. Basin. Yep. It's not a play area. No, it's not a play area.
No, not not in this area. And the sidewalks are behind and and of course the intersection is horrible. It couldn't really be at a worse location. I don't I don't believe. And I don't understand why at the end there's not a turnaround for fire trucks
or emergency vehicles instead of uh so they do they have a four buildings right there. It's a it's just a hammerhead style. It's just not a circle. So they'll be able to come in back out and come out that way. Okay.
But again, all of that will be dealt with at the ZBA level when they do a referral to the fire department. the fire department can confirm all that and we're going to have one more chance to talk about this. Correct. On the September 9th meeting. Okay. I made one other comment. Uh John John
certainly uh one other item I noticed on uh building number four, duplex number four. Okay. The air vent coming from that wastewater system is right at the driveway going to the house. So, unit number four
up in here. No, down below. Wasn't that four down below? Let's make sure. No, no. Go back where you were. Oh, sorry. Right there. The last two houses on the left hand side. This guy. Okay. That one there.
Okay. If you look at the drawing of uh number five, there's an air vent right at the entrance to the driveway going to that house. Okay. For the for the leeching area. Okay.
Very good. So, we will make sure that this is on the agenda for the next meeting as well. All right. Thank you. You're welcome. So, the next thing on our agenda is the uh planning department report. Is there a report from the planning department?
Go ahead. Was that was that the report earlier? That was the the GBA. That was it. Um trying to remember. There was an item that we were going to talk about under the planning department report. Does anyone do you remember it was something
you brought up? I forget. Oh, the joint meeting. So, um that you brought up tonight. Yeah. Yes. As you know, uh the select board has invited you to uh participate in a joint meeting on September 8th. I will be meeting with um the town manager
tomorrow morning to talk about the agenda if the chair is so inclined. If you want to um articulate some items that you might want to talk about. I'm sure he would be talking about um short-term rentals considering it's an
ongoing hearing going on and and an ongoing concern. Okay. So, it's an opportunity for the two boards to see where they are on it. So any any suggestions? I would just call the planning department.
You can call me if you want, but that was the only suggestion. Well, you can call us both. I anticipate one of the topics that we'll likely be discussing is the potential uh grant funding that we might be receiving to update our local comprehensive plan. So, we're crossing
our fingers. will know approximately October whether or not we have that um that funding and if we do uh we'll obviously set set out to hire a consultant and then start you know developing a plan to get that done um and so likely that will be one of the
topics I have a question could we uh talk about uh how we're doing on the housing production plan and how we stand with uh the safe harbor a safe haven with the
effect of our 40bs. Mhm. Has there been any changes in that stance? I mean, sure. I'm sure there's some things going on that we we could be brought up. Okay. Okay. Next thing is committee reports.
Do we have any committee reports, Charlotte? Um the uh short-term rental people have met one more time. The the group is pretty much in accord here. We wanted to move forward, but we uh we heard what was going on um in
Provincetown. The uh select person from there came to meet with us to say, and the most interesting thing that she had to say was really about the the scale of the problem. people. It's been a common assumption that the number of short-term rentals listed on the state uh website
for a town is is only a small number or at least a partial number of the short-term rentals available in the town. Provincetown hired the Donahghue Institute that has a really they're connected to UMass Boston. They have a terrific reputation for uh consulting
with municipalities to solve municipal problems in Massachusetts. Province Town spent some I think it was like $20,000. It was an expensive or more uh report to find out what exactly is the situation on short-term rentals in Province Town.
And they had assumed that the 1,600 that were reported at the state was a fraction of what really existed. No. The right answer turned out to be 860. Wow. which was eyepopping to the whole
panel because we were we have now listed in Felmouth we have listed some 1588 and we have assumed that's just a small fraction but no it could be that the re that the number that Scott again
reported that he has made two mailings now to everybody on the the state uh website please come and get registered with the town and the first number who reported back to him was really a small number, but now he it was like 300, but
now he has 760. And it could be that we have 760 or thereabouts short-term rentals in Felmouth and that's it. That's surprising. It much reduces the scale of the problem that the the this committee thinks it's dealing with. It's
really a change. So that was the most important thing I think that we learned at our past meeting. Also, they have been regulating in a province town now for about a year and a half. Too soon to tell really how's it how it's going. But what they found is they they made a a
really by accident they made a good decision in how they paced introducing regulation because they initially increased the fee for licensing. So suddenly the people licensing by the town and everyone um who already had a
license got sent a notice and people came in and and redid it. So they got a sense of the universe that they were dealing with and people got used to the idea that it's going to be regulated. It began like an education campaign for that subset of the of the residents in
the town and then they added another regulation and then finally came to passing their short-term rate regulation completely. So it came in stages and that has worked out very well for them. So those were the main things we learned.
Any questions or comments on? So I I have a question for you. What is their appetite for short-term rentals? They in Provintown. Are they in support of them? Are they in opposition or They are pretty much where we are. um
except they are much smaller, geographically smaller and by their their population during the winter is very small. So that their housing issue for regular residents is different from ours. But their attitude toward what they were doing is very much like ours.
They have a pattern of short-term rentals in the town. It's not the same pattern for every circumstance, but they already know kind of how people want to use their property and be allowed to use their property. And they didn't actually want to change that. They wanted to be sure that it kind of stayed like that
that it didn't they too were fearful of corporatization and people now coming in and buying up several houses just to monetize them through short-term rentals. So it was really to prevent change more than to change what was going on. That's part of what we're doing. We think
so the buying of corporate corporations has not happened. No, it has not happened. it had not already happened and they didn't realize that either, but it hasn't happened. In my conversation with the representative from Provincetown on the on the commission,
they they have they want more short-term rentals because they want they need the tourism to support their economy. They certainly want to foster tourism, but I didn't get the sense from this person that they wanted they might want
more. She didn't say they didn't. Yeah, I might not have picked that up from all that she had. That was my understanding. The gentleman that represents him is is in the rental business. And uh he said he had an awful lot of cancellations this year.
All of his regular clients from Canada canled. Oh, well that's different. That's not something the town did. Oh, they were looking for more people to come there. Yeah. Has their need for housing declined? No. The other thing that they found was
regulating short-term rentals didn't affect any other kind of rental or housing situation. Didn't have the effect that they thought it might have. But it's early days, so it's hard to tell. But so far, you don't get more rental housing. You don't get more
long-term rental by regulating short-term rentals. Province Town hasn't found that. Very interesting. Thank you. It was It wasn't what we thought. Tom, do you have anything uh from your committee? Um
the CPC, we have a new administrator. Her name's Emily. She's very talented. She's already hit the ground running and fits right in. Our meeting was short. And for the recreation department, uh we talked about our new fee schedule for pickle ball, basketball, and volleyball.
And uh we continued our talks about locating a uh an outdoor pickle ball location. Great. Yeah. We're getting close. Is she full-time or part-time? It's a good question. Her hours that she's a I don't know. Actually, I wanted to ask her that at the end of the
meeting. She is part. Yeah, she's part-time. Part time. Okay. Thank you. John, could I ask Jed a question? Sure. Jed, you were there at the short-term rental uh meeting. Did Did you have further things that we think we should share? I'm sorry. I should have asked you sooner.
No, no, no. Um I I don't. I think it's a I thought it was a really interesting perspective from uh the select woman from Provincetown. Um and I to to echo your statements, I think it was not quite eye opening, but it was very
helpful to the committee to determine, you know, how it went in Province Town and and to get their perspective. So, I I thought that was a great pers. It's just a It's a big topic, so it's likely going to take a little bit to iron out all of the details,
but it sort of that what she had to say kind of took the heat out of it. You know, you lose that sense of, oh my god, we're threatened. No, not particularly. It helps to have information that's valid. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, obviously, one of the challenges with the short-term rental situation is you're really not
certain how many you do have until you have a platform that can or you have staff that can essentially look at those um listing platforms all the time to really get an accurate count. Um, and we just don't have that yet.
Great. John skipped over me. Not yet. Oh, okay. I'm coming to you. All right. Are you all set, Charlie? Paul, forgot what I was going to say. No,
I continue to attend the water quality management committee meetings and last week there was a very detailed presentation, final presentation by the US Geological Survey on the impact of the groundwater levels being discharged from the wastewater systems. And it's a
very esoteric, very detailed presentation. and I didn't bother to put it in the packet today because it's somewhat confusing. The bottom line is it's going to have minimal effect so it's not going to be a big deal. But it was a very interesting presentation. It is interesting
and all the other issues continue and I'll there's a meeting tomorrow and I'll report next week on what's going on. Are you going to attend the meeting tomorrow? Is it tomorrow night for the for tomorrow? The afternoon. Okay.
I think one of the things you may want to do is have Mr. Ravity perhaps come to the board here and talk about the issues that are really a concern that they're dealing with so we're a little bit up to speed as I give little pot shots but it
might be helpful to put on the agenda to talk about what they're discussing and how it impacts uh our planning department. I can't get to the meeting tomorrow, but if you want to invite him, that'd be wonderful if you're there. Well, I I think we need to have tell him
what we're looking for. We need to discuss a little bit and give him an agenda that we wanted to talk about because it will be all over the place, but don't give a lot of issues. Be a great idea. Jim, I have an announcement. Is it your announcement? On committee reports. Okay. Sorry.
Any other committee reports? Page. Yes, I have a committee report. Uh the the uh Cape Cod Commission is going to have another hearing on the uh solar array at Cape Cod Country Club and it's going to be on September the 8th I
believe at 5:00 Zoom meeting. So they're proposing to put more than 43,000 solar panels on the site and um the golf course will disappear.
They're going to move, just a little summary, they're going to move a lot of uh fill around on site to to the approximately 6,000 um dump trucks full of fill moved around. And so what you see there that
has been there for 100 years is if this gets approved and gets built, it's going to disappear. But we're going to have a solar array. So anyway, just for the public's information, it's uh Thursday, September 8th, 5:00. It's a Zoom meeting and
everyone's welcome to participate. John, have people turned out to speak against it to say that this is really a loss to the town. They have and I understand there's a um petition,
etc. So, but it's it's it's hard to uh combat solar because it's uh you know it's a hot topic right now and so seems under attack from the federal level but it well that's I think that's going to be one of their biggest hurdles as they get it financed if it gets
approved. Yeah. So, and most times you recommend solar would be in a in a abandoned gravel pit or like we did at the landfill somewhere out of out of sight. But this is going to be if it gets approved, it's not
going to be out of sight, right? And it's on a particularly scenic road. Well, it's the scenic road. They're going to disappear. The the scenic part's going to disappear. They're going to have a a chain link fence separating
the road from their their panels, etc., etc. So, are they being required to landscape or along the road? There's going to they're going to do a lot of uh planting of wild flowers underneath the panels and I mean, I I would just if I may, I would just
caution you that this application will come back before you as a site plan review application. So, I would limit the amount of discussion you have before. Yeah. Sorry. And I would like to make a suggestion that we take you out of the dark by turning the lights on. Yep.
Come on, Charlotte. That's your spot. I'm not good with those things. It was John Kidding. John used to do that. That's why I know I did. You want the reflection, don't you? It's only for the people at home so they can see who you are. Okay. So, we're going to do We're going to
I see you. We're going to do the rest of it. You want to do announcements first? I just have one announcement, but it sounds like Jim might have one as well. I go first. Yeah, I've been gotten back involved with this the station and we're actually running a concert there on Sunday uh the 31st from 4 to 6 and we're
having it's an ice cream social and we're giving away free ice cream at at 5:00 for the last hour. Ben and Bills are helping me and having it there. It's just just just a music outdoor concert picnic with free ice cream. No charge.
Open to everybody. And where's it going to be held at? The train family station edi property. Excellent. Any other announcements? Well, this one doesn't have free ice cream. Um, but it is free of charge. Uh
so it's an important um board of health public hearing um where they are proposing changes to the existing title 5 regulations that would affect um properties that are undergoing new construction
um other items. I won't get into the details, but it's September 3rd, so it's next week uh at 5:30 at the Felmouth Senior Center. And it again, it's in relation to um innovative alternative septic system requirements. So, it's a
it's an important public hearing uh that the board of health is holding. Uh and so we're trying to uh do our best to spread the word. September 3rd at 5:30. At 5:30. Yes. At the senior center. Senior center. Yeah. Yeah. That is an important topic.
Thank you. Uh do we have any future agenda items? Get through what we got. General correspondence. Just this guy. So um in your um packets is a letter from the Cape Cod Commission
indicating amendments to chapter D of their regulations which uh deals with development um agreement regulations. So as you may know uh we have a development agreement with the Cape Commission. Actually the EDIC does on behalf of the
town for the tech park. Um there's a lot of language in here. It's uh you know similar to a zoning bylaw. I've reached out to the uh commission to see if we can get you sort of a summary of what changes were made so that you know you can cliffnotes type uh review. So it
when we do get them we'll provide them in your packets but for your reading. Thank you. Any other general correspondence? No. Hey our next meeting September 9th. You got it. What's the select?
Is it a joint meeting yet? 8th or 9th? What is So technically your next meeting will be September 8th, a joint meeting and then your regularly scheduled meeting will be September 9th. Back to back. Correct. It's going to be on the 9th. Your regularly scheduled meeting. Yes.
The eth's a joint meeting. The eth day before we have an agenda. Yes, we will have that agenda to you shortly. What What time on the ETH? Right. Um, I believe it would be 6:30, but we'll confirm that tomorrow morning. Okay. Thank you for correcting me on that.
I move a journment. Second. Second. In favor? All right. Bye. [Music]