##VIDEO ID:DA-YSeE1sGo## Steve sent me a message that he would be joining in a bit uh but we do have Nick uh from the building on here so I don't know if there's anything we want to focus on if uh if Nick is with us here well I'm is there anything on your list that was uh well one of the things Nick and I had gone over and Mark I sent you the comments a few weeks ago about incorporating change if we were able if you were scoped to make changes uh based on the new uh affordable homes act on Accessory dwelling units I flagged about five or six items that I think need to be uh revised to comply okay with with the new law um fortunately we do allow adus by right um but only for Det uh attached units which getting clarification from the state um we do have to that law extend to um detached units as well and then there are a few things that we need to change like we we have a mandatory we have a requirement that for owner occupancy for at least one of the two units the state did away with that uh we have some changes in parking because ours is based on it's one space per unit and or bedroom and there's this one space per unit so small changes but I think we flagged uh what we need to change okay I had discussion about this yesterday in Holden where I'm also they about a month behind you um is it your interpretation that towns must follow the Healey Adu model in other words it supersedes anything in the book today sorry Paul go ahead Nick so Mark I I sat in a seminar with the um with somea the the building officials of southeast of mass yeah last Wednesday and we had a um we had an attorney who I guess represents um a handful of local towns basically tell us that as of the date of in February that's noted in that in that law that new change I don't know if it's the 1 or the fifth or the seventh or whatever but as of that date noted in February it's it's it's a by right and it supersedes um local Town bylaws all right who is the attorney if you remember I don't remember off the top of my head I you know what I'll do is while we're talk it I'll see if I can look back I know Amy qule Our Town Council did do a seminar about a month ago on it um for a bunch of of her communities as well okay yeah um but let me see if I can find who the speaker was to simoa um last Wednesday right so you know typically our Springtown meetings in May so we might have a few months of you know J J T Taylor man oh my former partner perfect so you familiar with him yeah we're having a fight right now uh oh um I've never met him and I didn't I didn't get a chance to shake his hand and introduce myself during the meeting because there was a bunch of people there but he stuff yeah he sounded like he did um you know he he's he's he's probably much smarter than I am when it comes to the legality of stuff but he did say that um come February it'll be interesting because the Way It Was Written is that it's it's by right as of that date noted and it supersedes yeah but you also noted a bunch of of kind of hypocritical gray areas with um with all the regulations that came out too because it were very I don't know if you've read them yet or not but from a building standpoint they're very Bland um and not very specific as far as you know Norton is is 85% and correct me if I'm wrong P we 85% septic system so adding a bedroom whether it's in an accessory drawing unit or not there's a there's a bunch of other regulations and restrictions that the law really didn't take any consideration or maybe they did and they didn't note it but um there's a lot of of hands that are going to be in that cookie jar if somebody comes forward and wants to pursue that project and Steve has joined so I'll call planning board meeting to order here with three members and we can Dive Right In well I got to do some brushing up I was hoping to escape without having to brush up and anything but now you're telling me that I got to brush up as Holden did yesterday morning so well good thing I'm flying to New Orleans on Saturday for you for fun I hope two weeks are fun you're not having fun in New Orleans it's a great place to go for Halloween people take it very seriously I've I've seen I haven't been there for Halloween but I've heard the stories I think it's their second best holiday we had two we had two kids go to school there yeah to Lane you've said yeah great School yeah I serve my daughter well then Mark whenever the time is right can we talk about the community event in about three weeks yeah but whenever you know let's go through our the document and then afterwards all right well thanks very much to Laura for putting together a brief list of stuff that she flagged uh we can we can start there or um we can do that at the end doesn't really matter what I tried to do in in the stuff I sent you a while back was um cover a lot of miscellaneous items that we had talked about I think I sent a slew of files uh having to do with gradations of retail sales um that's one um the W the Water Resource protection the wetlands Protection District is not mapped right that's a so I had a case in Lakeville with judge Spicer last year and there is a provision in chapter 4A section 4 that says all zoning districts shall be mapped show on the zoning map something like they don't all have to be on the zoning map it could be a separate map but if there's no map that's kind of short of the mark so well i' I've had conversations with John Thomas our conservation director about this and and we're both thinking it would be it's really an unnecessary overlay District because conservation regulates the wetlands whether you're in that District or not they're treated equally so and and in this town we just follow the wetlands protection act we don't have a zoning a wetland zoning bylaw I think you don't have a wetland General bylaw correct correct sorry not a zoning course not uh but we don't have Wetlands bylaw but it it just seems to me that this is we all your problems I don't know get rid of it and it doesn't harm us because again the wetlands the the Wetland protection act covers far greater areas of town than this overlay than that overlay District so yep I would I mean I know that may be beyond the scope here but that I think would be a a a proactive way of addressing it and not doing really any changes not resulting in any changes and certainly not any adverse changes do you think that you could get a 50 plus one vote at town meeting for a Wetlands byw a general byw no I'm talking about I'm I'm sorry I was referring to this Wetland overlay District yeah that's not mapped no I I think we've tried in the past and it wasn't well received I don't know John's not on the call but I don't think he's interested in moving forward with it dying on that Hill again yeah you know so he's smarter than me so um at this point he's he well anyway he can speak for himself on it but I was just referring to the overlay District that it probably probably is should go away you want to take it out if we're if you're scoped to do it and if you well I mean it's a simple matter I'll just say delete the old Wetlands Protection District period I mean that's the end of that I would support it I mean I'm not a voting member but I I don't think it does any harm I think it helps us out if mgl requires us to have a map and we don't have a map why we why not just get rid of it and let concom rule yeah you know throughout their their purview as needed well I guess why going is I'd love to hear from board members on that but yeah I agree with you Nick so Mass General La says in section 4 I'm just calling it up here speak came for myself I think I would if we have a written note from John saying this does nothing for me please delete it I'm fine with his judgment second paragraph of section four which is very short District shall be shown on a zoning map in a manner sufficient for identification yeah so I would I would either either we have to get on the ball and create a map y or eliminate it all together because conservation by right has jurisdiction within 100 feet of wetlands no matter what anyway so kind of hard to map it if they're changing all the time well that's my point to Mark is right is and John's been very adamant that you know if you're outside of three years from an from filing an anrad um you're remapping and he's reconfirming and um it is what it is I think I think creating a map in like Mark just said in three years is is you have to update it based off of of how John operates right I mean that's a great Point too Nick I mean WS change and it's just again it doesn't serve any purpose it's it's the wetlands are already covered under a much broader program as far as theep goes I mean the whole purpose of a general bylaw is to fill the D loopholes and to get more aggressive so towns typically put no touch no build in a local Wetland spw you're allowed to build anywhere in the buffer if you can get an order of conditions under the state regs and they also regulate things like vernal pools which are not regulated under the state regulations yeah yeah so we we can we typically and again I don't like Paul said I don't want to speak for John but traditionally there's a 25 foot no touch in town right and then and then John always has um you know he deals with the engineers and and they he handles all that kind of project by project but what does that mean traditionally there's a 25 foot no touch I'm just that's just standed practice for for concom in town and is it written is it written in a regulation somewhere I'm honestly not sure Mark I I've never read fully read their regulations from the conservation department maybe I'll create a little Mischief here there's a there's a case from North Andover years ago I think the case is called field Crest Meadows or something like that it's a it's a case in which the North standover Conservation Commission has a policy quote unquote of a 25- foot no touch Zone and some guy doesn't like it and he sues them and says policy is not a regulation and the court basically agrees with him completely every land use layer has this case on a you know on a card because if it's just a policy it's not applicable and you it's easy to knock it out of the box yeah again and and I don't just like I don't want to speak for for John but um I've never read through their rank so it may be in writing it may not I don't I don't have that answer here but um yeah I'm not sure but he he's made it clear there and and we know from his predecessor there's a 25 foot no build but if you don't have a bylaw how could it be in their RS I we need to explore that yeah typically the bylaw is more General and the regs implement the bylaw so usually the bylaw contains a provision that says the concom May adopt rules and regulations to fill in the details here right but this overlay district is in the zoning bylaw which falls under the planning board's perview yeah so it wouldn't even be concom but it's not up to speed I mean it doesn't it it doesn't have what a modern General bylaw would have oh no it almost looks to me like it was be created before aack Ben from my perspective it does seem like most of it is the wetlands in general anyways which is regulated separately but does this give the planning board uh like a select set of uses that we're supposed to review for like within the Wetland buffer zone such as playgrounds agriculture is that like that 100 foot buffer or whatever is kind of within this map space even if it's technically Wetland or not right now um let me pull that up Steve it's a great question it is a bit hard without a map to to reference exactly what we're it's it's a it's a legal description so right right yeah it goes on and on and on but I'd have to like review that against the topographic map and it would be nice to see it just to kind of visualize what it actually covers and why but yeah but I bet that that those legal descriptions now are probably many of them are not overlapping with today's Wetland conditions right right if we get rid of that District become a case by casee basis to you you have the fallback of the state regs under 310 cmr1 which are very detailed and complicated yeah um but like I said the hierarchy here typically is State regs are like the basic minimum standard and not that they minimal regulations they're pretty thorough but they don't cover certain things and I already mentioned them so you want to up the ante you you know most um certainly most eastern massachusett communities have adopted a general bylaw to close the loophole yeah we I think we tried a few years back and it failed yeah but to to Steve's point there are uses that are can be approved by the planning board within the district parks and playgrounds agricultural construction of a single family home right and and that to me is kind of where it gets real restrictive because if you're on a parcel outside of a wetland area but you're in this District you might just be limited to single family homes whereas the underlying zoning might allow opportunities for a duplex but this really clamps down on it more so it's much more restrictive in that in that regard unless conservation has some authority to regulate the type of use but they don't typically get to do that but I would think that if the boundary section here of the Wetland Protection District is consistent with the state definition of wetland in the CMR it's just duplicative I mean it doesn't look like it would be but maybe it is I haven't you know most of it has to do here with elevations right and the state regulation focuses on vegetation um right so God knows whether or not these ancient elevations still contain wetland or bigger Wetlands for that matter right and it would seem under the circumstances that so how does the concom administer this in conjunction with the state Ray do they you make two applications one under the state r one under this well this would be administered this overlay District's administered by the planning board um so yeah right when a project comes along that's within this District they have to apply for the special permit yeah has there ever been a case where the planning board didn't or did Grant the special permit and the concom reached a different results under the cmrs I I not during my tenure yeah doesn't come up that often but magri reaction is that you should just get rid of it and rely on 310 zmr1 that as long as we have compensation period I sent John an email he I don't know if he's here now but um I'll I'll forward you his response uh tonight or tomorrow I was gonna say move on to the topic I was going to say my my thought on it would just be either we can scrap it if it matches the wetlands and then the massachusett code otherwise we only need to keep it if we want to use it to go beyond what the code is doing if we want to regulate the buffer zone a little bit more strictly or or something else but we'd still need to look at what the mapping would be for that theond just the writing it's a little bit more complicated but it it really depends on our attitude do we want to regulate Beyond Mass code or not sure and I'll I'll talk more with John about that point all right well I'm just going to leave it in there for now and we need to pull it we got plenty of time to do it so I did um include a lot split by District boundary I did include um home occupations the newer model that I typically use um I think what would what we're headed for now is a third draft that's both clean and ped um and then that would be the document that we use in November so I'm just flipping through here yeah I now that we have neck on the I just confirm that Nick has looked at I think it's 5.0 where I was always a little hesitant to weigh in because it's not really yeah myview I I have't you're talking about non-conforming uses inst structures yeah that's I think so yeah what was it consider I didn't have any I other than I know enough to know I don't know enough to know what this work oh it works it's in 75 PBS so it works I I was looking for the Nick weigh in before I signed off on it yeah I don't um I don't have an issue with it La I think it's I think it covers our our what we need to cover but it gives it gives leeway where I think it needs to give leeway too right so I don't think there's any concern with 5all right one okay so you don't there's no need for me to go through it then is what I'm hearing no mark this is there's no need for that I I'm zipping through it now a lot of it looks like we have the basic gist in our B already but it's just cleaned up so I don't have an issue with five I I it honestly is in about I would have to say I'm sure 50 probably more like 65 or 70 towns and I've never gotten a phone call from any town except Oak Bluffs that they you know they were troubled by it or that they couldn't figure it out or that it didn't work so and and that wasn't my fault if Nick lik it I like it there you go yeah I mean it looks like it just gives more leeway Paul did you go through this yeah I went through everything yeah this I don't have an issue La I think this is fine that was the idea give a little bit more leeway to people yeah get the zba home earlier yeah um what about our friends the performance standards which ones can I ask because I am having problems with zoom here I I can only have control over one Monitor and I can't pull up anything else without so hopeful that maybe people could share screen so I can if we're talking about a specific item I might be able to see it because uh I have three Mo three screens and only one can you know can I uh make my way around do you want me to put these sections up on my screen and share that would be great all right hang on I got to call the bylaw up first hang on okay I've been working on a third draft so you're going to see some third draft uh stuff here hang on all right so do I have clearance to share you should okay everybody see that yes okay so I'm just going to go through the list that I used to create the uh the third draft Yeah so what I think I'm going to end up doing here is adding the home occupations I which I believe I sent in a separate file um this they'll go in here that's a system by which if you have no customer client or for non-resident employee you can have a home occupation as of right whereas if you have any of those things you need a special permit and I I I think we said in June that that was the direction we wanted to go yeah I agree that's that's fine okay let me just keep my notes ACC here um so I make one sorry one comment go ahead uh on the home occupation by special permit it says uh no more than two additional non-res resident employees I think we are already allow three non-resident so we I'll just match uh a number of employees with the current byw cool that's it thank you all right what did I take out of 6.1.2 for oh in 6.1.2 oh it was a provision having to do with non-conforming parking I think we moved it over to the uh section five well that's done all right so I broke out a definition for accessories and accessory structure I think I I sent a corner clearance sample did anybody have a chance to look at that I got to find the email because it's got a bunch of files attached to it think we saw that one that was that was a couple meetings ago right that was a while ago I'm not in the last no it was it was over the summer yeah okay so here's the corner clearance let me stop sharing I I remember on the last time we talked about the the site distance being too long to enforce the 35t distance from the intersection yeah so that's the the U thing I say you want a separate file do we want to change that in any way uh well again I think we we decided to not uh somehow we reduced the 35 foot distance down uh I'm not sure what we all agreed on or anything but I I remember we talked about that being kind of like in in the Grove some of the lots are only 50 or 100 feet wide M and to make the curb 35 feet seem not feasible at all so I I'm not sure what we all agreed on if it was like five feet or something like that I don't have that in my notes I'm not sure what the distance for like a ADA Compliant uh like sidewalk corner is but maybe that's like the minimum to provide that sidewalk Corner potential I it's more I think it's more like um ashto uh you know sight distance you want to go with 20 ft instead of 35 um what's about the length of a car yeah yeah yeah I guess okay I guess so okay cuz we were talking about the rock walls plantings hles lights yeah it it's to prevent um cars having to peer around around you know bushes uh any any obstruction at at or near an intersection right but like I think I think we mentioned how like here in the Grove especially I think a lot of other little parts of town it that would push a lot of the fences too far into somebody's yard around the corner like it would cut off chunks of people's J I think if we reviewed the last meeting I think we went over that okay I'm try find it and unfortunately I I downloaded it on June 25th yeah 6.3 is lighting so I'm having trouble finding where this would go I'm sure it's in my notes and this is just the numbering system that was used from the town I took it from so okay it it would it would probably go to U either the dimensional requirements or a separate section in the parking requirements 6.1 let me go to 6.1 and see if I have notes there and Tim somehow dropped off and he's trying to get back in and I'm waiting for the host to um to let him back in e while we're waiting is your town meeting still set for the end of the month of May um we don't know yet um typically it's middle okay middle to end oh good here's Tim I think I got a date from you last time of May yeah a rumor had it that it was going to be on the 28th so just keep me in the loop maybe that's what we had it is last year suspiciously like Memorial gu okay I found it uh looks like what we discussed there was less than 35 ft or 10% of the lot line length whichever is shorter So for 50 foot lot it would be 5 feet yep I mean that seems more reasonable for sure okay I got it I also have a note in here that says this is more a matter of enforcement and a building design standard could be selectively enforced I also have a note in here that says not worth the pitchforks at town meeting not worth yeah that's what I thought it intrudes too much on people's property me yeah yeah yeah you're gonna tell me to cut down my tree yeah those are my notes yeah I'd be okay not having it not my hill but I what's the general consensus you know every morning I pull out of my side street onto a larger Street I would hardly call it a major collector street but it's been bu enough and my neighbor has hydrangeas and other bushes that are you know right in the corner and it's gotten to the point where the stop sign which is only about 150 ft from the intersection I can't tell if anybody's coming through there and there have been some things where you it's kind of iffy you you always want to have the power to be able to knock on the door and say you have to cut that bush yeah I I I would certainly be more in supportive of of Public Safety because I too in my neighborhood we have a fence on a well it fronts a an arterial road but if you're on the side street pulling out I've had a situation where a pedestrian was coming walking and you don't see them until you're right on top of them and I would prefer to have better visibility for safety reasons Mark who enforces that the building inspector knocks on the door and tell somebody to trim their hydranga yeah well I mean if it's a safety hazard and the bylaw has a rule my my only concern and I guess the question to think about too is if does your line of or obstruction that's for Corner Lots what about just regular Frontage Lots right so with fences not so much with with trees and bushes but with fences we have a couple instances in town where we've had neighbors fight especially on a state road and we've brought them I say we' brought them they've gone to zba um you know with concerns and this that and the other thing with offense right now our bylaw has as a as a a rule or regulation we'll call it that's you know similar to what you had with the corner lot but it's a 10 by 10 you measure from the driveway intersection with the street 10 ft along the sidewalk 10t up the driveway and you make that triangle and that's your that's your area that you can't have an obstruction in but outside of that triangle there's nothing in our local that says you can't put a 4ft tall fence right up to the sidewalk he still a very very strong guy him um in the back of the car that was the one of the longest Journeys station sounds like it's BBC America yeah so elaborate on that Mark right like that goes to offense you we have a you were in town but then our particular fence viewer goes out takes a look and then won't put anything in writing or give them any type of literature to hang their hat on you to go to Nast doot to go to me to go to the board so I have I I would actually wouldn't mind seeing some type of Regulation that that if you have a suggestion that would prohibit you know fences from being within 10 feet of of the road layout for line of sight or for for visual obstruction not just on a corner lot but on other Lots if you if you know anything or can suggest anything that may relieve or give us some type of jurisdiction or something to hang our hat on if and when that problem arises in the future because it's going to happen again I'm sure of it and look so you're suggesting that any fence on any lot ends 10 ft before the street line yeah whether it's that or we have regulation that that within 10 ft of the street layout you can only be a certain height yeah um for for the exact reason you just said with the bushes and the Shrubbery a fence poses the same issue right I'm personally like I I wouldn't want to prohibit somebody from building a a a wall or a fence on there a lot I mean especially if you've got limited size to your property to take a couple thousand square feet off your lot and put it outside of your fence is is a little bit harsh so I think it's more on the roadway Steve you got to look at it this way if you're in a butter right say you're on let's use Manfield AB for an instance say you live on Manfield LA and your neighbor puts a 7 foot tall fence up to the edge of the sidewalk and your driveway is 15t from that fence and your property is on a curve on mainfield Al this the concern is that pulling out of your driveway if you have to cross over that lane of traffic and you can't see down the road and don't know what's coming that's a concern that's a safety concern now granted you as the as the as the resident that puts the fence on your property have no issues because it's your property right but we could make that argument in any situation you want to do what you want to do on your property but sometimes people don't get along with their neighbors for like a better term sure and and unfortunately sometimes people also do things out of spite sure that's that's true right so I think I think and I'm not disagreeing with you on a 5,000 foot lot down you know say on Sunset AB or AC Road or Ridge Road yeah I agree with you every square foot counts but but from a public safety standpoint we also have to consider certain instances where such as that one I me that where it is a legitimate safety concern sure and well I think something specific would be to make it um like 10 feet from the road or 10 feet from the the actual public easement that we have for the town that could build the road in I think it should be 10 feet from the granite curbing on the sidewalk or from the asphalt on the road whatever whatever Mark you know Mark's done this whatever He suggests but it's usually the street line the layout line yeah or you or you can do I don't know Mark what do you think about the center line of the road that's a that's that's a a a not movable object or not a questionable object right that's kind of a static location well sometimes the center line isn't in the center of the layout that's the problem it can be shifted over to one side the other I think yeah I think that's kind of what I why I would look at it because if the road if your layout is 40t and the road ends up you know three feet from the right side layout line but right then the middle of the road oh I guess I guess you could look at it both ways right from your point and from my standpoint but can we look can we think about this for a sec the center of our town the historic old library has a big block wall Maybe 4 ft off the road and our whole entire town comet has a fence right against the road but none of that is an obstruction not impeding site that there is no obstruction to lineer sight whatsoever on either of those issues think of a seven foot stade fence instead Steve so maybe part of it is is if it's how what the level of transparency is so like a you know a chain link fence it doesn't create an obstruction but a privacy I think the easier way to do it in Mark you can you can tell me to shut up if you think I'm wrong but either it's a either you do a set back from from the road layout right from the road or you do a height restriction with I think I think you do both yeah I think or you can do both yeah you kind of drop it wedding take it down as it approaches the road yeah because it it's again Stephen and I totally understand where you're coming from and can respect you know the consideration of my own property and want to be able to use every square inch of what I pay taxes on but again in certain instances we got to take into consideration and that doesn't that you know to maybe you can put a 4 foot fence if four feet is the height number is you know you can put a 4ot fence across the front yard of your property and you can you can use your whole property yeah right in your sidey yard you know like marer said wedding cake it down or or slant it down from 10t off the roadway down to where the fence goes I think we just have to seriously take into consideration the visibility in the line of sight that like Laura said a six or seven foot Stockade privacy fence can can impede on if we allow it to be right on the front property line I know one need to something for this this type of the corner that and just general and thiss like something that we put in the draft and make sure that we High you you faded out there any chance you could repeat that I think this is something that want to have many engagement discussion yeah I still not get me I'm okay with putting some version of this in I I would like to make sure we don't over overdo any part of it let me look for some examples and I'll shut I'll send them around and we'll go from there okay this is the last time we talk about this before the November EV so I'm facing this okay um I sent you three sample parking tables I think it was Andover conquered and Easton I don't know if anybody had any thoughts but I'm listening I think I think one of the reasons we did that is because your parking table let me get the parking table up here hang on you have an unusual parking table do you have specific thoughts I did I'm trying to find them so this is unfortunately I read this so long I'm not remembering where anything is anymore this is the non-residential section of the uh table 6.2 6.1 is residential and you don't you know you kind of most towns if you look at what I S you from Andover East or conquered it's you know it's not public assembly it's specific things right yeah that's a that's a big issue throughout our parking is you know we're we're seeing it now with we have an educational facility that'll be coming to the board and our s our standard is one parking space per three students but there are so many different educational facilities you can't just have one so I mean what what you'd have to do is take these are all good parking tables as far as I'm concerned the ones I sent you they they tend to work um Easton's the closest town and not a bad com I made a note that I like E's catch all number 22 any is not interpreted yeah oh okay all right will if there's any debate about where you fall under we get to we get to choose yeah yeah so we don't have people dictating and trying to fight case law and I tried to do a comparison against what we had versus what they had and it we've got very different descriptions of things uh conquered seems to appear there are no multif family houses there I'm saying that not laugh not allowed in conquer is it I think it's probably all 40b if there is yeah but there is there is literally no parking standards for multif family in conquer that I can find no the um yeah there's no freestanding entry for multif family in the used table you know researching a project for a assisted living facility and I want to do independent living with it and it would be nice in a multif family building and I don't have that opportunity I've got to call it Assisted Living even though they're not getting any assistance I think e seems to be a we the the most helpful and least owner I found Andover just it was a lot and maybe it covers absolutely everything do whatever need but it seems Overkill to me but I could be convinced otherwise do we want to tackle this with um I you want to tackle it with a you want me to take a try at it well can I just throw out a a a different approach here um and this is something that's been in my mind for a few years um couldn't we just reference the latest version of it parking generation I mean that's a very detailed and it's the most professionally accepted standard for parking and it does get updated periodically whereas the problem with like with any of these they're static and it is continuously studying you know they're looking at parking and traffic studies throughout the country on these similar types of uses and I would put more credibility in in that than you know um than well I mean we could take we could take standards based on the most current but once once these numbers get updated with which it does periodically we might have to go back and amend this and do we really want to do that yeah it wouldn't change in the uh iterations of the it manual unless you went back and amended the bylaw too well I would just say the most you would deal with that by saying the latest version of it yeah but if it changes it's it's you're administratively changing the zoning without town meeting approval so I think it would need periodic um you know just periodic un confirmatory bylaw votes that's all well could this be in a planning board regulation yeah that's an easy that's kind of a nice way around it yeah and it would allow for things to be updated without having to go you know through that onerous task of well I think if it's particularly under um number 22 of e if it's not in the book maybe the reference is not the Planning and Zoning Board which is what they call it in e but maybe it's the it parking men is the parking I know something that has public that has what you have to pay 500 bucks oh is it one that's Public Access or to pay 500 bucks forward or whatever we're not getting you I think some of this is academic because I did add 6114 is new so um you can vary the requirements of the parking table if it can be demonstrated that a modification won won't result in substantial dentur yeah I giving them that flexibility I think is a positive yeah well looks like Tim's question was is it parking reference something that every is able to access or do you have to buy a subscription to it oh you have to get a subscription to it but you know Traffic Engineers have it this um regulations for parking in Residence classifications is you should really eliminate the stuff in yellow it's it's not real anymore government subsidized housing doesn't even exist anymore there's only a couple of programs HUD 202 and pretty much the age limitation just to get in is 62 in a in a HUD 202 so not many people are driving am I coming to better now you did there okay my feeling is we need to I would prefer to have something like Easton if we want to reference it as a catch all at the end that's fine I don't know if I like people not being able to know being able to look it up without having to papers I'd like to stay traditional and keep it right on paper I'm fine with E I think it was the applicable of the three so I'm going to make a single table out of these two I'm going to use what Easton has for residential and I got to find it again yeah so single two family multif family I'll just follow the use table if it's missing U from the parking table but it's in the Ed table I'll make a list and we'll assign some numbers to it so everything in the Ed table will have a parking assignment I mean I might even add a column to the use table to say you know parking by code a BC something like that what's that um I'm writing um okay let me put this aside um a waiting substitute for 7382 what is that there was an amendment to 7382 having to do with setback requirements for wireless and that's me I owed you that I still do I'll send it okay thank you I didn't like when a shed had to all 200 ft hor okay and did I get the marijuana overlay while we're while I'm waiting for stuff to come did I get that the bylaw I thought I sent it to you let me look who sent it to me Paul I should have I have an email that says it with them I can easily send that well hang on let me see if I got it yeah on September 24th Brian indicated that Mark made the changes to the draft as follows and added the changes to the marijana overlay in 9.4 yeah I see it okay the other item that was in my did we finish this pile maybe this is on your list mark is the due diligence around sighting for adult us um fighting what was it again U the sighting for adult use aduse oh foot and you know Steve did a lot of G he did GIS work on that and did a comparison of what the 500 foot and it does bring in a few more properties so pretty limited with a ,000 ft Steve you did the work so please more intelligently to it than me I mean just reducing the buffer space from 1,00 foot to 500 feet basically allows our industrial pet Park to be fully accessible to adult use it doesn't go beyond that um there's a tiny spot in the middle of the Valentine property swamp out back that would technically be accessible but I not the entire property or most of it it's probably Wetlands anyway um but that's only one other space in town as far as industrial land but we would then um sighting requirements we would reduce this th to 500 that's correct if everybody agrees I think what we're looking to do is to make sure that a th000 ft didn't leave us with nothing yeah and as long as something could go in we were fine it has to be a reasonable something yeah what'd you find out Steve I remember a percentage being thrown around like blood percentage Yeah that's um Tings boro's number was just under 1% it was like point 9 09 um and medford's was just over 1% but medford's a city so they were held to a different slightly different standard it was like 1.2 or three so Med tsoro was um I I think Kingsboro had about 10,000 acres so it was just under uh 1% of that and I believe it was six Lots maybe all owned by one guy so it's pretty low standard you don't have any adult entertainment now do you no okay well the chances of you fing this up unless you're under pressure pretty small I remember from Steve's analysis it looked like several properties yeah would but Steve you correct me if I'm wrong on that uh the way I sort of s I'm trying to bring up my own map here to reference it but um I did I did send the map out but it gives us essentially the the industrial part of South Worcester Street and Commerce Way Commerce Way itself would be within the The Zone but at the current 1,000 feet it's basically only Horizon beverage and even the road into the industrial park itself is not within the district sounds like we made the right tweak to get it Beyond single or not it's not a terribly dramatic change it doesn't really put it anywhere else so what I'm hearing then is keep it at the way it is a thousand as it is was one one only lot seemed to I'm comfortable with reducing it to 500 feet okay let me make a note position that as a First Amendment issue that'll be fun I I can't wait to explain this to town meeting we had somebody the town meeting that position themselves as an avid member supporter of the First Amendment well they didn't know what they were getting into that's the best part um the I sent you a model flexible development bylaw I believe I sent you Sharon anybody have a reaction to that let me call it up hang on so I had a question on this is this in L uh I know you don't like our cluster development is this in L of the cluster yeah all right I I think we've determined we make very good use of our cluster development okay and there's no issue with them okay I'm fine with that okay how do tell me about how you make good use of it we have several okay there anything ongoing now uh and being built currently there is they're being built the drawing board yeah I'll be honest for for what it's worth putting my developer head on our cluster bot does not is not conducive to to developers okay um our Coster byar is is way too restrictive on um on lot size yeah our cluster bylaw still requires a minimum one acre lot that's not a cluster development that's not even Bill rer no I agree very much with that our cluster BW from and and take this with a granted for what it is but from a developer standpoint our cluster bylaw is is very very very very not developer friendly okay have you looked at the flexible development bylaw that Mark sent I have not I can go through that and give you my and give you an opinion of it but a cluster bylaw in my opinion and Mark you can again correct me if I'm wrong but the point of a cluster bylaw is to is to allow for higher density building right so our c bylaw limits your smallest lot size to what our we already have a zoning District that requires 40,000 square fet so you really don't get any relief the point of a cluster bylaw would be like a 15,000 or 20,000 foot lot in an r in an R40 zone or half of the lot size of what zoning District it's in it is it is half half the lot size minimum th square feet Steve is it is it not if you're sewered you can go below the minimum lot size it's only 40,000 if you don't have sewer I think our cluster bylaw restricts at a it it Taps out at 40,000 square feet I'd like to check I don't mind the idea of reducing it if it is but I I feel like it is available if it is a sewer property I think that 40,000 because most of the town's not tell me tell me where we have sewer available for with a bigger parcel for um cluster development in town well we don't I I agree with that is a restrictive thing but I think that is what's the limitation factor is our bylaw that says we need sewer well if you need if you don't have sewer you have to have a 40,000 foot law it's not the cluster bylaw doing it it's the 40,000 square foot restri restrictions I don't know if that's placed in there but it's that wording I don't believe um I've got it here uh in a cluster development made up of individual Lots each lot may be reduced in size up to 50% from the minimum size allowed in the zoning District in which the site is located or on-site sewage disposal is required a minimum of 40,000 is required okay so you you know we're talking it could get down to 20,000 in an R40 but then our 60 drops at the 30 it's still big it's still you know one unit per acre is by definition sprawl it is probably the worst it's within that range of what people in my field would say is a very sprawling land use pattern very inefficient and so to supp you know to you know agree with Nick if we were able to drop those and again that's contingent on having sewer um septic systems obviously you're going to be you're going to have to have meet title five and the size requirements there which of course is a big problem in this town since very little of our area is sewered but I think we should be incentivizing if there if sewer becomes available that we should drop that minimum lot size significantly because that's a real cluster I mean the idea of a cluster is is you you make more compact development and set aside a lot of open space you know that's the tradeoff and we do that here would the tradeoff be able to be as as long as a 40,000 square foot lot was provided for the septic that the individual house Lots could be under 40,000 square feet you have an on-site septic system right so space well Steve are you referring to a system like what we saw at waiting River Estates where there's a a septic system not individual systems like a community system yeah huh that's a good question well flexible development can be a condo so there's no reason why you couldn't have some sort of a common septic system or if you went over 10,000 gallons you could do go into package treatment depending upon how big I I think don't disagree sew an issue I think that that kind of comes into our cluster already where if the sewer is provided whe it's onsite or offsite if the houses are connected to a sewer then they individually their lot sizes can be reduced by half and the Restriction there would be being in the R40 district and the R40 not just itself being reduced to an R20 District or something yeah I just you know would say that I I think it might it would make some sense to allow a even a reduction from sure it count as sewers is that what you're saying if it's one of those like group systems that counts as sewers right because the homes are not on septic they are sewered like they are not on a septic system draining like leeching field they are sewered with a line even if it's a privately owned station I think we have a few examples of that in town I think we have at least like four or five developments that have their out sewer yeah we do we sure do and no one can connect to them I mean other than the project itself right so this the flexible development is exactly what it says it is it's um whether it's SE or not you just have to figure out the Wastewater um the idea is that you take the houses and the options are you know if you if you Google conquered Riverwalk I think I've said this before then you'll see one end of the Spectrum which is a 13 unit development on a 3 Acre parcel a lot of it is on the aset river so there's a 200 foot River Zone and the houses are very close together with a common area in the center and the houses on the street are the old single families that have been converted to duplexes so I think there's four on the street in the duplexes and there's nine in the back and it's prize winning I mean you would think you were on Banbridge Island it's it's that kind of development and then on the other end of the spectrum it a developer has every incentive to do this because if he can he or she can cut the road length you cut the cost dramatically I'm not saying that they can build a navy base on a small parcel of land but the idea is that they can configure the houses in a way that relates to each other you probably want to have a landscape architect involved on your end when you're going through the regulatory process just to make sure that they don't try to give you a pig and a poke um but I think by definition it's sort of always better than what you would get under under a conventional plan um if you Monitor and and implement the process consistently so the the towns that use this very effectively are places like groten where there's really no sewer um it's it's mostly As rural as you are and it has a a a much more lenient approach um so the the way this works is you you establish the number of units by a yield plan using conventional zoning and other uh Health regulations and that establishes the basic maximum number of lots Under full conformance with all the regulations and then um if you wanted to do this for bonus units you could achieve some bonuses by adding additional open space over the open space otherwise is required and a 5% increase in the basic maximum number would be awarded and the other one is that you're offering significant amenities and again um up to 10% u a bonus but that's all it's all part of a special permit so if you don't think you're getting anything in trade you don't have to give a bonus if this one just happens to have an affordable housing component up over and above the bonuses so 10% is uh the affordable housing number number and it's added to not subtracted from the U the market rate units so if you had 10 market rate units you got to have 10% affordable you have 11 uh the 11th one is the affordable you're not losing all of the market value you're you know you you're people think of affordable units as not quite covering cost and that's probably pretty accurate and then under the types of buildings one two and three this it's just their choice um what it really describes here is foxboro's uh Canon Forge if you've never seen it it's worth a drive so it's off of uh onet Street um and it's beautiful it's 100 it's about 300 units I think and it's up and down the hill there's common areas tennis courts swimming pools the houses are laid out nicely so you don't see very many garage doors from the road and I I think it's a job well done then you get into the details of the roads and parking this is only calling for 20% open space so the developer is not going to go wild and and walk away for 20% open space to get all these benefits that's not so bad and the open space has to be basically usable open space um and then at the end of the day you got to get rid of the open space there's some buff offers to make sure that the neighbors you know can tolerate a different style of development the right all the rest of this stuff is pretty straightforward and there's just some spectacular projects that have been done using the flexibility if I could go in with that a little bit it doesn't look terrible I mean I I don't mind reflecting on it I do like our our cluster and I'd rather try to tweak that if we can but I I I'm willing to consider some of this um but our current cluster already asked for 20% yep if we're going to have like another version of a type of cluster development that's more versatile more like variety single family two family three family it it seems like we should already just probably go beyond the 20 like it if 20 is the minimum why why not bump it up and at the planning board meeting we just had the the density bonuses where they did not well so I would just get rid of that whole density of bonus section yeah I feel like entering this into a recodification is it's Ain to touch in the third rail at this point okay this town this town does not want us to make it easier for more res do anything other than single family they don't even want single family let's just be honest I I like the idea of architecture but yeah they don't want more residents but I have absolutely no problem if Nick wants to make some amendment to our current cluster development agree by law well I think the amendment probably would be to lower the minimum lot area and or eliminate the requirement of a lot at all because that opens up the flexibility that you don't have today I think I mean a condo is you know perfectly appropriate under zoning you um exclusive use area is more or less you know it's not like owning a lot so there's a little bit less in terms of value but it does do the job of giving kids a place to play well we actually we actually have a section of our bylaw that does that does all of this and that's in our affordable housing bylaw right that's what that's how that's how waiting River Estates got got approved right I mean the challenge there is because we have the the affordable housing trigger but that's what it is that's a that's really the cluster other than we don't set aside open space but that gets to more no set well we can forgive all the setbacks they don't have the lot size it's yeah it goes right down to the minimum I think well there's no minimum for it does it go below the 5,000 oh I think it's still have to meet your uh I I I think you still have to meet your the base zoning but but there's differences with it for sure it's more you can get more out of it than than your base sure yeah I think we already pretty much have it all covered so maybe just tweaks to what we have all right I can make a couple of tweaks and see how they float yeah I'm happy to listen to suggestions from Nick to make it work better as well yeah Laura me and Paul can sit down and kind of throw some stuff together and get it out to you guys for sure okay all right well that's what I had so that's plenty um my goal is to give you a clean third with a complete table of contents all going with a coded third pretty quickly for the meeting that we've got scheduled for the 13th yeah so I need to talk about that because um the most as far as I've gotten with this is laying out some of the the procedural things I have not noticed anybody and my apologies but um but Mark we just had our town meeting on Monday yeah so there was a lot happening but we have so one question I have right off the bat is you know we I think it would be we have to invite select board finance committee Z in addition to zba and planning board is this a joint meeting or is this more of just a community how do you usually do that um in Wakefield we did it about a month and a half two months ago and if there was a quorum of another board they had posted it and they opened it and as the meeting ended they also voted to adjourn okay so we will need to PO we will have to post agendas just to be safe or make sure that a quorum doesn't come okay because I I when I talked with the town manager's office they said that we would need to notify the chair and get it on an agenda to I guess make a make a call on it so I'll follow up with them tomorrow um but I think for the other boards I mean we can handle that just by posting an agenda but I I'll talk to them about it for select board but you know in in Norton finance committee also makes recommendations to any zoning bylaw articles going to uh town meeting y so they need they need to be involved with it because we've had just just just recently I don't want we don't need to talk about it but they both of those boards recommended against an article or 3A article that the planning board had recommended for and um I I think getting them at the table at this event is critical because we need to get everybody on the same page I would also invite send a message to Economic Development okay good point anybody else La no uh maybe maybe Board of Health and I guess Mark is this also this is a public event uh do your communities typically invite the general public to wait to come and participate I don't that's some point yes now whether that's at the so-called stakeholders meeting it's up to you I don't think you're going to get a big turnout but you know damn well that as we approach town meeting the two things that are going to be most often repeated are I didn't know you were doing this and how do you expect me to absorb this huge document when I just picked it up off the pile on the table approaching town meeting so the more you on Monday the more you can deflect that the better off you're going to be so you're okay if we in if we put out word uh to the public as well yeah good so the way the way it typically runs is that the this thing is going to be posted online uh relatively soon so that people can look at it um when I go when we are at the meeting and we're going to put something up on a zoom screen I'm going to use a clean version not a coded version because I don't want to get bogged down and why is that yellow and blah blah blah yeah and then I walk through it section by section by section so it's almost like a budget um issue on town meeting section one here's what we did I usually have like a two-page one piece of paper two sides cheat sheet major minor changes and it's not everything but it's enough to get people focused so I'll walk through section one it's all minor changes I'll ask anybody if they've got any comments or questions seeing none we move on to section two and you know the use table is going to be a big deal the non-conformity section can be a big deal if we were to introduce something new certainly if the performance standards in 6.5 are still in there um and they look like they will be that's going to be you know a lengthy discussion to the extent people have read it I mean if they haven't read it it's not going to be anything and we try to get out of there and you know if it's a 7:00 6:30 start time you want to be out of there by 8 39:00 I think I walked out of the Wakefield meeting Jus as Biden uttered his first words in the debate it was on the night of the debate and I got in the car heard him make an ass out of himself snap the radio off and that was my evening yeah okay well we've scheduled it for we had agreed to 6:45 yeah so I'm working to get the big room here at our new town hall but I'll I'll talk to the town manager and staff tomorrow to make sure we get select board but it's like you know we'll make sure we post agendas for every one of these boards and then um you know if the select Board needs to take an action to do it you know we'll still make sure they get a notice in addition to having the agenda so we're we're you know we meet open meetings yeah do we have a list of uh planning for super fans uh Ain and uh Kevin O'Neal and anybody else um oh or dropped off he didn't you didn't even hear that Tim I yeah I would um you know maybe a Joe Fernandez um you know um I I think even you know Bob Kimble Bob's on Transportation so that's why I said Transportation wait what was that Tim traffic transport study committee whatever it is yeah he's on the uh Traffic Safety Committee how is out I'm aware uh Mark before you go sorry I just found one more thing on page 150 after wireless communication facilities we're out of order we put solar energy stuck in there where I think it should be over on page 148 hang on I got dial over there what's the section number uh it's 10 it's the definition sorry oh okay that's definitions later is Def oh sorry definitions is 11 yeah so say say the section uh on page 150 right after wireless communication facility it goes back to solar we started we started solar on page 148 so I think we just need to consolidate that section there over on to um back a couple Pages as just to put it in order okay thank you thank you yeah Mark I got one too yeah I notic is f um for mobile home park you have it listed as two or more trailers under M Lots just three or more trailers that's in the yeah that's in the definitions okay yeah okay got it that's it change that right now great I I got one more thing I guess for for the whole group to to ponder for a moment doesn't have to be answered in this meeting but um for our uses table would anybody be interested in pursuing the idea of removing multif family from the R40 District wouldn't be anywhere as a special permit it would be in Village commercial and then it would be part of our new proposal for a multif family specific District so what what's your what's your rationale for that Steve well part of it we're trying to propose a multif family District by right and we're being fought on the idea of adding in the potential for new residents in pound where currently we have 3,300 acres in the R40 that is potential multif family yeah through the special permit right yeah um there's 450 acres of Village commercial that is multif family by special permit also right now um and we could use the new District we propose as a way to expand where we want multif family specifically as opposed to just throughout the entire R40 Zone and the R40 Zone itself all one of the things we heard at the town meeting was multifamilies are going to bring all the students to just the somones school and the R40 Zone exclusively feeds the SES right so do you think that gives us leverage with the um MBTA zoning or I I think the tradeoff for negative 3002 3,200 acres of land is is quite some bargaining chip yeah there are multi l so I think people will take them an nice I'm I I don't know if it makes sense for the recodification well that is the recodification itself is exactly where we're working on the new draft of the uses table it's it's it is the time to do it I think I mean I I I think the idea is that with the MBTA district one of the battles of it is that it's this District nobody wants and doesn't look at as like a where yeah we're going to only do 50 acres right now but we want to view it as something that if we remove multif family from all around town and only limit it to using this tool as where we want to place it then we have much greater control of where our multif family goes and it will be a reduced amount even if we choose more places to put our multif family specific district and we can design that District to be something that caters to multif family lifestyle which means like the retail uses the top of the shop like we want to add commercial to multif family to make it viable for tax revenue and right now in the in the a 40 where there is a multif family there is no commercial base there to offset that I have to think about that Steve it's intriguing yeah I I I'm kind of leaning towards Tim and this goes a bit beyond the scope of a rectification project I said I think if it comes up at the same meeting as the MBTA what people are going to hear is the removal of 3,000 Acres of multif family versus the addition of 50 I iagree yeah I don't know yeah they could do both we ,000 acres and not a no yeah right no no Steve I don't I I think I I don't I'm not trying to be dismissive I I i' like to think a bit more about that there may that's why I prefaced it with the time to think about it thing but yeah yeah um I think it's a proactive way to think about how we're going to do multif family going forward and it does allow us to place it more where we want it to be as opposed to where we don't want it to be right but people are going to look at it as well I live in R 60 or I live in r80 and now you're going to put multif family in my zone where I didn't have to worry about that before well that's the potential of the NBTA District not the removal of of multif family from R40 right but you're removing it from our 40 so that we can create it where we want it and it doesn't have to go in 140 which means it can go anywhere but that's r0 or r80 it can't go we it can if we if what we just proposed passed that overlay could go on R8 or yes the 3A yes absolutely could but if 50 acres it's you know nothing whereas if we open up all of R 60 and r80 to potentially getting multif family I think we're going to hear but we already did by getting that overlay District we could propose it again in another like the what we proposed already opened up the entirety of town to multifamilies not just proposed right but 3A was just 50 acres it's going to go in one spot well not necessarily one spot it's going to be 50 acres and that's where it's going to go but this petition was not the potential of the overlay we asked the the overlay does not say that it's limited to 50 acres we could have it's a minimum of yeah but but any land owner in town could come and petition the town meeting to change their zoning to include that that's what we just offered to the town that any parcel group of parcels in town could write an article to town meeting and propose multi family by right we just that's what we just proposed yeah I I get it but you're going to have a significant hit yeah I gu what we're going to propose again for the next time when we propose this multif family by right as a overlay right but we are telling them where the initial parcel or Parcels is going to go if somebody wants to add on personally to that overlay of their own parcel that's up to them and that's their fight at town meeting not planning boards I agree 100% but that's regardless if we put this zoning District on the books we are now granting the privilege for any Resident or group of residents to now petition the article yeah and then they have to get it town meeting so whether or not we we do that now or with another article that doesn't change whether or not we should remove special permit multif family currently from the R4 the effect of the MBTA is still a separate trajectory okay so if we remove it now have we opened ourselves up to litigation by not having a Zone a residential Zone that allows multi family we got to put it somewhere it's in the village commercial we already have 450 acres of Village commercials on for it and we had we're going to propose an MBTA melty family District yeah I I this is getting to third rail territory again yeah it's my my concern too is when I think recodification it's largely largely it's a reorganization and fixes like Mark's been doing to get us compliant with it and you know getting compliant with Mass General law this is a big cut at a pretty significant change um that's where I would just be hesitant in this you know in this instance I mean I'm I'm still hesitant because I would like to down the road make some changes to open up multif family to you know Steve we've talked about this but you know to see how we could promote more gentle density with you know things like triplexes and quads being treated differently than right a 300 unit apartment complex which our code does not do and right which that's the R40 right now yeah I mean R40 could be any of these zoning districts could accommodate a Triplex you know and it would be it would be much more compatible with what's there versus 100 unit apartment complex so I don't know I that's where the the multif family that we're designing would handle that ability to regulate that code where the R40 as a district right now does not prescribe that that sort of code around a multif family building you're right it doesn't yeah so that's sort of the AR like yeah in a way you kind of argued my point to be fair I don't well again I'm not I'm not I'm I'm not trying to dismiss it it's just I think my bigger issue as a procedural is that this now goes beyond what I would say is a recodification and I I you know I certainly want to make sure that we we get the recodification passed through um you know adding this Dimension to it is to me is a substantively different thing um I mean we went through the uses table and we decided on changing some of the yeses and special permits and NOS we did that we did this is the same thing as that I disagree wholeheartedly you're opening a whole new can of worm I you know I think the uses table it was brought up to more current standards it made Corrections where necessary but it didn't change anything really that materially I mean that's fair I I yeah I mean it's fair that you might disagree with the thought but I mean I think I think it's in my mind it's a better way to go forward with how we do multif family around toown it's something to think about while we're in the middle of this project right now yeah I think it's timely for how we've been going about but I think I'm leaning towards Paul's it feels like it's more of a sub change it's think we've lost him again yeah really you didn't hear me that time we hear you now I didn't move that was perfectly clear yeah I didn't move I think that we've I'm kind of in agreement with Paul whether it's a good idea or not it's a more sub substitute chain than we've done with some of the other okay so it's definitely something that we can look at sure but I'm not sure in this in this moment in this vehicle okay all right I'm going to get you the revamped Third Edition of this on or before Friday of next week so that'll give you a couple of weeks 10 days 13 days to be well yeah 13 days plus or minus yeah we'll have this will we have this in time to be able to post it and give it to people prior to prior to the 13th yeah my objective is to give it to you at the end of next week that's and what is the date and what is Halloween is the Thursday yeah so it'll be the first the first so you'll get it no later than the first what time's town hall close on the Friday 12:30 all right you'll have it at 12:25 okay and I will hopefully be able to start putting word out tomorrow plus we also have to remove things from the old town hall tomorrow's the deadline to get anything else out of there before it's not the building's not coming down right away there's a bunch of things that have to be dealt with they're discovering electrical all the fire hazards uh well that's one of them Tim that's one of them uh can't do anything until after the election because the Secretary of State's cable wire goes to the old town hall and they didn't connect this building just yet so town clerk is still running back and forth between the two buildings so you know you know who knew taking down a building would be so complicated I'm upset that the bank took the safe out yeah they should have used that as an architectural element in new building you know we could have used it you should see we have a few vaults in this building now that are pretty extensive nice but anyway folks um I will do my part and get everything get this event uh scheduled get it out there and um and then I'll do what I can I I you know there are some people I've now connected with because of the MBTA that I want to just remain in touch with because you know they they seem like people have good ideas and you know get them to the table so I'll see if they're remotely interested in this so I shouldn't say remotely but see if they're interested but I definitely want them being interested as we go forward with mvta so sounds good oh yeah if there's anything else do we want to adjourn motion to ad anything else call I cut you thanks everybody oh we're good to go I want to get on home onir I bye a all right everyone have a great weekend have a good night guys good night