 I'm just looking for Amherst media. They had told me they were here, but now I don't see them. Oh, there they are. They popped on. Okay. Okay. So we are recording, Jack. Amherst media is here and you have a quorum. Great. All right. Well, thank you. Welcome to the Amherst Planning Board meeting. It's February 10th, 2021, based on the Governor Baker's executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, GL chapters 30A, Section 20, and signed Thursday, March 12th, 2020. The Planning Board meeting is being held virtually using the Zoom platform. My name is Jack Jepsek, and as the chair of the Amherst Planning Board, I'm calling this meeting to order at about, what, 6.34 p.m. This meeting is being recorded and is available via Amherst Media Livestream, minutes being taken as normal. Board members, I will take a roll call when I hear, when I call your name, unmute yourself, answer affirmatively, and then please place yourself back on mute. I'm Rhea Chow. Here. Tom Long. Here. Andrew McDougal. Present. Doug Marshall. Present. Janet McGowan. Here. Johanna Newman. She is not present at this moment. And then myself, here. So we got six of the seven, have a quorum. Board members, if technical difficulties arise, you may need to pause temporarily to correct the problem. Then continue the meeting. If you do have technical issues, please let Pam know. Discussion may be suspended while the technical issues are addressed. The minutes will note if this occurred. Please use the raise hand function to ask a question or make a comment. I will see your raised hand and call on you to speak. After speaking, remember to re-mute yourself. Opportunity for public comment will be provided during the general public comment item and other appropriate times during the meeting. Please be aware the board will not respond to comments during the general public comment period. If you wish to make a comment during the public comment period, you must join the meeting via the Zoom teleconferencing link. The link is shown in the slide. It can be entered into a search engine by typing the address shown. Yes, it's there. The link is also listed on the meeting agenda posted on the town website via the calendar listing for this meeting. Or you can go to the planning board webpage and click on the most recent agenda, which lists the Zoom link at the top of the page. Please indicate you wish to make a comment by clicking the raised hand button when public comment is solicited. If you have joined the Zoom meeting using a telephone, please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star nine on your telephone. When called on, please identify yourself by stating your full name and address and put yourself back into mute and finish speaking. Residents can express their views for three minutes and at the discretion of the planning board chair, our speaker does not comply with these guidelines or exceeds theirs. A lot of time, their participation will be disconnected from the meeting. So with that, we can dive into the first item, which are the minutes of, whoops, there should be two sets. Yeah, the first one is... May 20th. May 20th. So why were these, why are we seeing this now? I know we've been keeping up with them at this one. I don't remember. Sure, Chuck, there's a few stragglers out there. When we first went to the virtual world, we got a little behind in minutes. I also was tasked for taking minutes for other boards and committees. So there are some stragglers out there and I apologize for that. Yeah, is this the last one? No. Oh, okay. All right. I'm just gonna be honest and say no, but the stragglers, I just work on them as I can and... Okay. So here, we have four existing board members that were present for this. So with that, anybody have any comments? Want to make a motion to approve? I'll make a motion. All right, Andrew. I'll second. Can Andrew make that motion? Because he wasn't there. Well, he'll probably abstain, but he can make a motion. Okay. Correct on both. Just check in. Any comment on the minutes? No. I see none. Okay, with that, we'll do a roll call and... Oops, I have my, where's my cheat sheet here? All right. Maria. Approve. And Doug. Approve. And Janet. Approve. And myself approve. That's four zero on those minutes of May 20th, 2020. I think we should say that the other's abstained. Yeah. Oh, yes. So Andrew and Tom. Yeah, I'll go ahead and have them state that. Andrew. Abstain. And Tom. Abstain. Okay. Sorry about that. And the next minutes are... January, 2021, I believe. Yes. Okay. And that was just, is that the last one? No. No, we went, you know, we met... You had February 3rd in there, which they're almost done. Yeah. So any comment on this? Any, or someone went to make a motion to approve? I moved to approve the minutes. Okay, Janet. Second. I'll second. All right, Tom, thank you. Any discussion? I see none. Actually gotta get my... All right. Okay, let's do a roll call then. And Maria. Approve. Andrew. Approve. Doug. Approve. Tom. Approve. Janet. Approve. And myself approve. That's six zero. And I think that's it for that item number one that deals with minutes. And we have a public comment period. Do you see any hands raised? Pam, I do not... Oh, there's one. I see a couple of popped right up. Okay. So Elizabeth Veerling followed by Pam Rooney. Okay, Elizabeth has three minutes and then Pam. And then we have Ira after that. Hi, Elizabeth. Elizabeth, you're on mute. Can you unmute yourself? Yes, this is Elizabeth Veerling and I'm at 36 Cottage Street. And I just wanted to express two thoughts about the current discussion of zoning changes. And those two thoughts are simply that none of the changes or any of the discussion that I've heard really deals with or guarantees affordable housing, which I thought was one of the main goals of the master plan and development in general. And my second comment is that none of the zoning changes also deal with the town's significant pressure of supplying undergraduate housing, undergraduate student housing and it's of interest to understand what mechanisms might deal with these two really major issues that I see as problems in development in the town of Amherst. Thank you. Thank you, Elizabeth. And Pam Rooney, please. Hi, Pam. Hi, Pam. I've allowed you to speak. There you go. You just unmuted me. Thank you. You're welcome. Good evening. I am delighted that you're again studying these zoning changes in depth and starting to weigh the ramifications of what these changes mean. It has occurred to me as I've been looking at these changes myself and sort of trying to understand the background of why we might want to go in and take out a footnote or add a footnote. And it occurred to me that we have today with existing regulations, we have a tremendous potential actually for a great deal of additional housing in Amherst starting with accessory dwelling units. And in every single residential zone, I'll exclude fraternity for the moment. In every single zone, we have the opportunity to build one, two, three family essentially residential units, which is an astounding amount of capacity actually. I would enjoy hearing some of the discussions and some of the quantities as you get into the conversation tonight on how many parcels there are various sizes that would support that incremental housing capacity. So I think as we all understand zoning gets developed through due process because there's a need. There's something that's an issue or a need that's being addressed. And the need for that zoning goes away if the need has been addressed or somehow we deal with that issue in some other way. So I just wanna make sure that as we all talk about these zoning changes, we do understand or recognize or ask ourselves if the issues are still there, have we addressed them in some of their shape or form and can we support the intent in other ways? So I'm happy to listen in on the conversation tonight and hopefully can weigh in with some ideas at that time as well. Thank you. Thank you Pam. Ira. You have Ira. Hi, this is Ira Brick at 255 Strong Street. I hope you all are well. I wanna talk about the idea of removing footnote M from the RG. I live on Strong Street and I walk from my house towards town through the RG and in terms of trying to define a character of the neighborhood, it's very clear just walking around that that neighborhood is characterized by smaller plots and quaint homes and the idea that removing the footnote that would allow three family houses and tiny houses in the backyard with each of those four units having four legal residents, so 16 people on a lot is so obviously going to change the character of the neighborhood. And recently, Dorothy Pam was talking about looking at another neighborhood around Lincoln and trying to come up with more anecdotal reasons, not technical reasons why a neighborhood has a certain character looking at front porches and looking at yards and all of that. It's so obvious. Anybody that I have discussed with what might happen in that neighborhood says how is that going to do anything that is required or desired? How is that going to lower prices? There's no economic explanation at all about how prices are going to come down by densifying that neighborhood. I did hear somebody make a comment last week on a hearing that good zoning should not have footnotes and I have to agree with that. I mean, to remove something that is a kind of sloppy fix to the zoning bylaw there is the wrong way to go. It should be, what do we want that neighborhood to be and what zoning defines what we need it to be and also come up with a rational approach to how that is going to be the zoning that is attracting the affordable housing tenants that we're aiming for. There was a discussion recently about how it's very simple to build affordable housing that is not what is needed and desired by the people you're trying to attract to live in affordable housing. I think we are just so ready to make a major change with numerous unintended consequences. I think that's going to ruin the neighborhood and people frequently describe other campuses. Yukon comes up a lot of having a dead zone around the town and the campus from zoning mistakes. And I just wanna say, let's slow down a little bit. I don't see what the rush is. If there's a so-called shortage of housing, let's first check our work to see that the, something like five to 700 new housing units that have been built since the housing study was done has not actually changed our situation. And let's look at how prices have actually responded to some of the new student dorms that have been built from what I'm hearing, even from student landlords that rents have gone up because all they need to be is 20% less than the exorbitant rates of the new housing. So I think that in terms of having a planning board just decide let's remove this and see what happens is not planning. Thank you, Ira. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to recognize Johanna is with us. Sorry, I'm late. Then no apologies. So, Pam, if you wanna put that in the notes and thank you for the public comments. I see no additional within the attendees so we can get into our further into our agenda. And basically we're focusing on zoning priorities today in this session where as you all know where we're adding instead of going every other week we're doing weekly meetings to attend to issues that no town council and CRC have asked us to pursue so they can address what they have already identified as the priorities. I believe there's 14 items. Today we have focusing in on the footnote M1 and at this time, I would like to have Maria speak to this and get this topic rolling. Is that good? You can kind of like follow from the last meeting because I think this is- Chris Brestra was her hand raised. What's that? Chris Brestra has raised her hand. Oh, okay, Chris. So we have the planning staff has prepared a presentation about footnote M and unfortunately we didn't have a chance to send it out to you before tonight's meeting but we will post it online. So I wonder if Jack would recognize our planner Maureen Pollock to give a presentation and I think that will take the pressure off Maria and Doug who've also done good work on footnote M but Maureen's really been delving into it in the last couple of weeks. Oh, okay. I thought that we were gonna do that. Is this the same presentation that you and Rob worked on? No, that's different. No. Rob and I will present about the zoning priorities in general after Maureen's presentation and you have the chance for questions and answers. That sounds great. Maureen, can you speak to that? Yeah, sure. Hi, everyone. My name is Maureen Pollock. Let me pull up my presentation here and just bear with me for one second. Okay, can everyone, full screen, can everyone see this? Yes. Okay, perfect. Hi, everyone. Firstly, thank you Chris and Rob and Pam and to the planning board for inviting me to tonight's planning board meeting. My name is Maureen Pollock. I'm one of the staff planners with the town of Amherst and I am been researching footnote M which is under table three of the dimensional regulations of the Amherst zoning bylaw. The town council has asked the planning department to explore the possibility of removing footnote M as a way to increase the amount of housing opportunities in and around downtown Amherst, more specifically in the general residents zoning district. This study is part of the town's overall project to explore various zoning amendments. So here's a screenshot of the table three dimensional regulations. It's found in the Amherst zoning bylaw and it shows you the different factors that are listed in the table from addresses lot area, lot frontage, setbacks, building and lot coverages, maximum floors and height requirements for buildings. And it shows that how that's applicable in all the zoning districts across town. Here on this page shows what we're going to focus on which is the lot requirement for apartments and townhouses but let's step back for a moment. So the basic minimum lot area requirement in the general residents zoning district is 12,000 square feet. And the additional lot area per family is 2,500 square feet. I wanted to sort of just walk you through it and give you a couple of examples to get sort of our feet wet, if you will. So you'll see where I have example one, the lot area required for a single family home would be 12,000 square feet as that's the basic minimum lot area. Example two shows the lot area required for a two family home in the RG zone. So you would take the basic minimum lot area requirement which would be 12,000 square feet and then you would add that to the additional lot area per family which is 2,500 square feet. So you would add those together and that would give you 14,500 square feet or 0.33 acres and that would be the lot requirement for a two family home. So as it shows here, this is the basic minimum lot areas, 12,000 square feet. In here it shows 2,500 square feet would be required for additional lot area. Now, if we go to the next slide, we're going to show there's a couple of footnotes that you can see throughout the whole table three. We're gonna focus on where it's footnote M for additional lot area per family. So under footnote M, the additional lot area for apartments and townhouses is not the 2,500, it's 4,000 square feet. So I wanted to show you a couple of examples for that. So as I had said earlier that the town council is exploring the idea of, well, do we keep footnote M for townhouses and apartments or do we remove footnote M and just keep with the 2,500 as it's shown on the table three? So in example three, you'll see that the basic minimum lot area would remain and that would be 12,000 square feet for the first unit. And again, this example would be for a four unit apartment building. So the first unit would require the 12,000 square feet for the basic minimum lot area. And then for the additional three units for that building would require 4,000 square feet for each of those three units. So it would be, let's see here, it would be 4,000 times three, which would equal 12,000 square feet. So you would add 12,000 square feet plus the basic minimum lot area of 12,000 square feet, which would give you 24,000 square feet or about a half an acre. In example four, this shows you what the same building or same amount of units would require, would be required for the lot area if footnote M was removed. So the 12,000 square feet for the basic minimum lot area would remain and that would count for the first unit. But now since footnote M would be removed, the number would be for each additional unit would require 2,500 square feet for the remaining three units. So that would be 7,500 square feet. So you would add 7,500 square feet to the basic minimum lot area of 12,000 square feet, which would equal 19,500 square feet or about 0.44, 44 acres for a four unit apartment building. Now, before we move on to anything else, I just wanted to quickly explain what apartment in a townhouse is. I took this, the definition for apartment in townhouses from Article 12 of the zoning bylaw and this is just an abridged definition. And for our purposes, this is what I wanted to show you. It does have more language in the definition, but for tonight, this was the only thing that I wanted to focus on. So for an apartment, it's a residential use consisting of one or more buildings, each building containing no fewer than three and no more than 24 dwelling units. And then a townhouse is a residential use consisting of one or more buildings containing no fewer than three nor more than 10 attached dwelling units. Okay, so again, footnote M is only applicable in the general residence zoning district. And here is the RG zoning district map. As you can see, it's surrounding downtown. This is right here in the pink is North Pleasant and Main and Amity intersection. To the northwest is UMass, which would be part of the educational zoning district. To the west is the neighborhood residential zoning district. To the south is pockets of the RN district and then majority of the educational districts associated with Amherst College. Over here, we have some BL, limited business district, BVC district, we have the commercial zoning district along route nine where the Cumberland farms is and I believe Florence Savings Bank. And we have the residential village center to the east and that's where the elementary school is. And let's see here. And then the majority of the adjacent zone to the let's see here northeast, north and northeast is the neighborhood residential. Also, I wanted to point out that this map shows the two local historic districts where you can see, hopefully you can see my cursor on the west's early side of the RG zoning district is the Lincoln Sunset Local Historic District, which goes along the western side of this zoning district. And over here by Main Street and Triangle in that sort of neighborhood is the Emily Dickinson Local Historic District. I just wanted to point out all these sort of key areas. So here, let's see here. In this slide, I wanted to show everyone what the purpose of the RG district is pursuant to the zoning by-law. So I just cut and pasted this from the zoning by-law. The purpose of this district is to provide for residential neighborhoods of medium to higher density in areas both near the town center and between the university and the town center. Such areas are convenient to the services, facilities and institutions and or employment opportunities provided in the town center or by the university. So graphs, okay. So we did go over what the basic minimum lot area requirement in the RG is. It's listed up here as a friendly reminder. It's 12,000 square feet. It's a lot area for what currently for apartments and townhouses with the footnote M is 4,000 square feet. And if the town so choose to remove footnote M that would then go back to 2,500 square feet. So, and just to say with that, if you were to take the 12,000 square feet for the basic minimum lot area and add the 2,500 square feet for the additional lot area that is currently the requirement for a two family home in Amherst which would require 14,500 square feet or 0.33 acres. So over here in figure one on the left side of your screen this shows the lot area requirements for uses using existing footnote M for properties that have three units up to 13 units. And on the right side in figure two it shows lot area requirements for units with footnote M removed. And again, that shows you between properties that would be able to have three units versus 13 units. And so you can see as you compare a property that would allow three units the requirement currently would be 20,000 square feet which is about almost a half an acre, it's 0.46 acres. If the footnote M was removed and someone wanted to have three units the requirement would be 17,000 square feet or 0.39 acres. And as you go down the list you can see the different the subtleties of how you can clearly see that the amount of land that you would need for additional units on a property with footnote M would be reduced. So if we were to take a look at if someone wanted to build or someone wanted to have 10 units on their property currently they would need about 48,000 square feet or about one acre. And with footnote M and they wanted the 10 units they would need 34,500 square feet or about 0.79 acres. So let's see here. On the next page there's more. And don't worry this is the last slide of a lot of numbers. So I'll just show you one other example. So here the shows you on both figure three and four this shows you the difference of, we look at a property that would have 14 units up to 24 units. So if we were just, I'm just randomly picking this. So a property that wants 20 units currently with footnote M would need 88,000 square feet or about two acres. If someone wanted to have 20 units and footnote M was removed they would need about 59,500 square feet or about 1.37 acres. So you can see how it went down from about 0.44 acres to allow 20 units on this property. Okay, so RG parcels included in this study. So I spent a lot of time in ArcGIS in Excel for this which was fun and entertaining I guess. So the study analyzes parcels with lot area of 17,000 square feet or more in size. And let me go back in the reason why, again, the study analyzes parcels with lot area of 17,000 square feet or more in size. And the reason for that is if footnote M were to be removed and someone would like to build or have three units, they would need a minimum of 17,000 square feet. And this is for three dwelling units. And so that would be applicable to apartments, townhouses and to triplexes which triplexes isn't formally listed in the zoning bylaw but that's what that would be another name for it. So a triplex could be considered an apartment or a townhouse. So I'm gonna go back to this. So again, the study, so now we know why the study analyzes parcels with a lot area of 17,000 square feet or more in size because that is what the minimum lot area of requirement would be for a three unit building. And so let's see here. So the study includes 343 parcels as part of this study. And if I go to this next slide, so what does the study exclude? So the study excludes the following parcels, parcels that are less than 17,000 square feet in size because they're not helpful, they're not providing us any data, useful data when it's applying to properties that we're looking into for three units or more. So parcels less than 17,000 square feet in size would be more fitting for single family homes or duplexes, for example. This study also does not look at split zone parcels. So there are, in this, sorry, in this zone, you know, of course, this zone about another zoning district. So especially on Sunset Ave, there are parcels that are half in the RG and half in the RN. And so it's very 50-50. And that happened in some other locations around the parameter of the RG zoning district. So for right now, we're just gonna take a pause from looking at those because that needs special sort of nuancing with analyzing that. We also excluded town of Amherst properties, such as Town Hall, the police station, Kendrick Park, Sweetser Park, the Bang Center, et cetera, et cetera, because we believe those will always be, you know, always there and we're not doing anything with those. We're excluding churches, conservation properties and educational buildings owned by Amherst College. The study excludes the following factors. So currently, I have not looked at existing uses on any of these lots. So I'm only looking at this with a blank canvas. I'm only looking at the lot size. So again, I'm looking at the current uses. I'm not looking at parking requirements, building and law coverages, setback requirements in floor and building height requirements. And I have not considered at this point, you know, combining parcels, what would that look like or demolishing existing structures on parcels. Okay, so with that, so of the 343 parcels that were included in the study, the average size of a parcel, of the parcel that is part of the study is 31,600 square feet or 0.73 acres. The median, which is the middle value in the whole list of the 343 parcels is 24,700 square feet or about 0.57 acres in the mode, which I don't know if it's really applicable here. This might just be sort of a coincidence, is 21,780 or 0.5 acres. And let's see here. So number of, I can't see my legend because there's things in the way, so sorry. Number of units allowed per parcel with footnote M. So let me go back to that. So let me go back to that. So I have a good number of units allowed per parcel with footnote M. Okay, so this is showing that, you know, the majority of parcels that exist that are part of the study in the RG zoning district are parcels that would allow between three and 10 units currently. And as you can see with the gradation of the green would indicate those parcels that would allow between three and 11. So there's 76, and if you can notice, I have these parentheses. That is the count of the amount of parcels that currently would allow the unit type. So here, this color is representing number of units allowed per lot with footnote M. So this color is indicating that these parcels allow three units on the parcel and there are 76 parcels in total that would allow that. And here, there are 41 parcels that would allow four units and then it goes down the list. And so the majority of them, as I said, would currently allow between three and 10 units on the property. And then there are some that are between parcels that would allow between 11 and 28 and there are a few in the higher end. And I would like to have just a statement of those that are on the higher end that would allow units, these number of units of like this for example, this red, this red parcel here could currently allow 65 units on the property. What I just wanted to point out is there's an existing use here. This is where Aspen Chase apartments are and this red, this parcel that's colored in red is the Salem Place condos. I wasn't able to, I ran out of time of looking up all the sort of red and oranges. I do believe that this is also condos. And I didn't have chance to look up these two parcels but I can certainly do that in the future to let folks know. Here is the number of units allowed per parcel if footnote M was removed. And you can't see, you don't see as I go back and forth, there isn't a massive change between the difference, but there are certainly more opportunities or Aspen Chase example, I believe it's Aspen Chase example where they have apartments from before or currently, they could if they decided to redevelop their property tomorrow, they perhaps just looking at footnote M, they could propose 65 units. Again, this is not looking at law coverage, parking requirements, setbacks, et cetera, et cetera. And if footnote M was removed, they could have theoretically up to 103 units on their property. So, but you can see that it has provided some more subtle opportunities for more units on these properties. In the future, I would like to provide a chart that would show the percentage change. I ran out of time, but I would love to show what the percentage change is using like a table or a pie chart that would show the percentage change between parcels between units allowed per parcel with footnote M compared to without footnote M to help sort of visualize the before and after. So next steps for analysis. So again, this study solely looks how many units may be allowed in relation to the lot size and the inclusion and exclusion of footnote M. This does not account for any other factors. Here are some next steps that I am suggesting which is one, determine the percentage change of number of units per parcel with footnote M and without, determine how many additional units can be added to existing parcels that would maintain the existing parcel, maintain the existing use on the parcel. So for example, if there was a parcel in the RG that let's just say they had a single family home on the property, they want to keep it, but they have enough area that they want to have a second principal use on their property. They would like to add a three unit building on their property. I could do a further analysis and show what sort of opportunities would that look like? And then with that sort of one example among maybe other examples that we come up with is that of the example of a single family home that wants to add additional units, the example could also account for factors such as the existing use, the parking requirements of the building and law coverage and the setbacks which really gets into the nitty gritty of this all. So questions, comments? Thanks. Maureen, I thought that was excellent. That really caught me up quick. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, and I look forward. Do you think that you can hit most of the items that you laid out as the next steps within the next week? What's next week? What's today's the 10th? Oh, you have on the 17th. I could certainly provide like a site plan. If you're looking for like a 3D model, I would need probably a couple of weeks to play around with that. But are there any like sort of either specific properties in mind that folks for whatever reason have been like, oh, maybe that would be a good one to play with or are there specific uses that you would want me to look at like I gave you the example of there's a single family home and the property owner wants to add a couple more units on the property or? So before we, I think you're gonna get some questions, but Chris, with regard to our weekly meetings now, would it be reasonable to assume like every other week will be more of a zoning priorities focus pending what's on our docket? Right now we don't have any pending site plan review or special permit applications. We have one scenic roads hearing that's probably going to occur sometime in the middle of March, but we haven't received any applications for land use permits. So this is a good time to focus on zoning. So if you have the tolerance for it and the stamina, we're raring to go and we can keep doing zoning every week until we all become exhausted or until we get an application for some nice new project. Yeah, I think Maureen's presentation was very responsive to some emails we got in that. So that's great. I see a Doug sand, please. Thanks, Jack and thanks Maureen, that was great. I have three things about the presentation that I wondered if you could maybe think about the next time you show it. Sure. First of all, the charts that were at the beginning that showed how much land area you needed for a certain number of units. I think it might be more or at least it would be helpful to in addition, if not instead, to change the columns so that for a given lot area, you then see how many units could be on that lot area with and without the footnote. Because more people, I think given that the RG is already highly developed and divided into a lot of small lots, it's gonna be more a question of looking at a particular lot and seeing how the number of units changes. Sure, yep, that's really great. That's a really good suggestion, thank you. All right, then my second comment is about the color maps of the RG district with the sort of spectrum of a small number of units allowed to a large number of units allowed. And it was, I'm wondering whether it was misleading when you toggled back and forth between them. So maybe you can tell me whether you used the same colors for say 11 units in both of those maps because it looked like you actually made them to have the same range of colors between fewest and least. In other words, if you take the Aspen Chase parcel. Could we look at the charts you're talking about, Doug? Sure, thank you. So if you take the Aspen Chase parcel on the first map, it has 65 units. But if you go to the second one, is the color that's used for 65 units a little less red? I see what you're saying. So I used a color ramp. And so it automatically provided me the colors. So I see what you're saying that like a three is a three, a four is a four and so on and so forth. Here it's just showing you sort of the gradient for this applicable map. I see what you're saying. So if you've got a single range between fewest and most that you're using for both maps, then toggling back and forth is misleading because there would be more difference if, because toggling back and forth, we're judging it on the basis of the color changes. And 11 should be the same color on both maps. Sure, yeah, no, that's really, really good feedback. Thank you, Doug. And I also feel that if I were to provide a column table chart that showed the percentage change that would be another good visual for the board to see the percentage change for amount of units allowed per parcel from with footnote M and with it removed. And so that would take away the issue of color. But yeah, I will certainly, that's really good. And I didn't think of that. So thank you for that comment. I will definitely will play around with the color gradient and see if there's a creative way of addressing that. Then my last comment was it would be useful or help interesting at least to, for both scenarios to hear what the total number of units are, with and without the footnote, there's 574 with the footnote and there's 3000 without the footnote or whatever the difference is. If we did this, what is the potential additional number of units in town? So those are all my comments. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you, Doug. Those are very good. I think with GIS, certainly Maureen sounds like it's very doable. Yeah. Yeah, I think so. Yeah. Great. So next is Andrew. Thanks, Jack. Thanks, Maureen. I would echo Doug's comments. I thought this was a great presentation and really useful visual. Just so like for the record, I'm a GIS nerd, I use it every day and I've been on the planning board for whatever four or five months and I'm like finally getting a GIS presentation. So thank you for doing that. I have some comments which may be border on a little technical or overly technical for some folks, but just knowing that you use the software is one, it might be useful to adopt like a story map for this, something that's kind of dynamic as opposed to having just kind of a static PDF presentation. And as we want to delve into individual parcels, that would be really kind of a useful vehicle for doing that. So I'm not sure if you build those or not, but just float that out there. I think also on the thematic maps that you showed, I think what to us, I'm guessing, certainly for me, but maybe for everybody would be more valuable is rather than have the range reflect all of the values is maybe we group those. And by that I mean, I think what's important for us to understand is how many parcels would go from like one, would be able to go from one to two or from two to three, being able to go from like 45 units to 48 units is not, I don't think particularly relevant. So maybe if we tighten that range to just focus on kind of those single digit type things where a single family or a single unit parcel could go to a double or a double to a triple might be really giving us better focus. Because I think that's what we're trying to really address. And then I think you just mentioned this actually in response to Doug, I love the idea of a thematic which would just have like the Delta in the number of units. So that rather than do the visual compare like the thematic could just be based on the change. So like we can easily take a look and say, these are the ones that increase by one by two by three or by four. And I would not be afraid just to like limit your scope to say let's eliminate anything to my first comment let's eliminate anything where you can already put five units or six units. Cause again, I don't know that I think there's probably an upper threshold to what we really care about. And then just seeing the number of observations in those anyway, you have like one or two parcels that clustered some of those. So maybe make the maps and the story a little bit easier for us to focus on. But otherwise I would love it if you came on all of my meetings because it's really great. Like you have no idea how excited I am. So thanks for presenting. Yeah. Well, thank you. This is really good feedback, all of it so far because me behind the computer in my ArcGIS layer here I'm going through these sort of thought processes of like, oh, should I do that or that? So this is, it's great to hear your comments that can help move this along and provide updated material. Yeah, so I mean, Andrew, I mean, you took it to another level there. I thought Doug's was great, but now you're, I have a question. What is a story? Story map you mentioned? Yes, I mean, story map it's almost like a PowerPoint presentation with a dynamic map layer. So imagine, you know, Maureen's presenting this and we can take that map and zoom in in real time or zoom out. So like it's not, it's not a, it's not a, it's not like an image, it's a dynamic map that you can go in. And then if you do that, you could drill in and you could get some, you could actually get some attribute information on the parcels. You could pull up, you know, the building footprints. Like it's one thing to say, you can go from one to two but depending on how the current housing structure is set up on the property, like there may be no room for that, right? If the building footprint is up, is in the middle of the parcel, you really maybe not be able to build another structure, but it's up front, perhaps you could build something in the rear. Like as we look into individual use cases, I think that that could be, that could be a fascinating piece. And it's a pretty, depending on how you're configured, it's a pretty easy adjustment to make from your, your Azure configuration. Thank you. Maria. Thanks Maureen. That was actually exciting. I can't believe zoning is so exciting. The most exciting slide to me was, could you go to the one where you toggle between the, the gradients that were like green, yellow, red? Did you just do like a, just keep going like back and forth, because that what Andrew just touched on was so exciting about seeing the delta, the change. And I think that's the, that's the right point is we want to see change. We don't really care about like, how much more square foot is. And so if there's a way, can you just do that a few more times? That was really exciting because the thing is, like your point was, was that you can see the incremental uptick is not that significant. And in fact, the part that is changing the most is in the local historic district, which I think is you can't really, you wouldn't, you'd have to be really creative, right? To be able to add another dwelling unit to a lot of those project parcels. So I don't know if you saw Doug's spreadsheet where he did exactly what he was suggesting, which is just show the delta on the number of units, not necessarily how much more square footage you need because that's too abstract for people. I think they want to know if right now it's allowed three units, what does it go up to if you have this certain square footage? So I don't know how to show that, but basically, yeah, just seeing the delta in number of units between removing the footnote and having the footnote is really great. And I think that toggle you just showed is what really excited me because I just want to see, when we did the study, I forget when I was focusing on the largest parcels, but oh, that's gonna be where the biggest impacts are, but it's very telling that it actually is more about like going from four units to six units or three units to four units. That's what sort of, the sounds like the point of unlocking footnote M. You know, there are only a few parcels that I found that even had that ability to do the sort of 10 units up to 16 units scenario. So, and I think, I can't remember if it was Chris or Rob mentioned, you know, the parking alone would just make that not even feasible. So I think you're on the right track as far as studying where the smaller incremental changes are. And I think that will sort of, quell a lot of these sort of worries that are coming from the public about people saying, oh my gosh, this is gonna completely change what's currently there. And in fact, what's already allowed versus what footnote M would unlock is it doesn't look like it's that huge of a leap. It's not like suddenly this neighborhood that could allow a three drawing unit is going to go up to eight, you know, it's literally going to go up one unit. And so I think it was great. This is really telling study that you're doing. And I wonder maybe other board members can chime in. Should we just leave out the historic districts just to reduce the number of parcels you're analyzing? I mean, I don't know. I guess that's a worthwhile study if you have the time, but maybe it's more about looking at the RGs that are also closer to the main arteries. I think townhouses and apartments are only allowed close to places where you already have a lot of either multifamily development or close to main roads of travel. So just to reduce your amount of number crunching, I wonder if that's worthwhile. I mean, it looks like you've already avoided, well, from your green and yellow charts, I forget if you avoided the ED and all the other districts, but just thinking about how to reduce the number of things you have to number crunch so that you can really play with the numbers and show the really salient data so that it's less work and get more information out. But thanks, I love those charts, those are great. Thank you. Doug, please. Yeah, I had one other, or I guess two other thoughts. I don't know if you can do this in GIS, but when you're analyzing the change, it might be helpful to compare the existing number of units to what could be allowed, rather than the hypothetical current allowed to what removing the footnote would do. And then the second thing I was just gonna comment in response to Maria's comment about excluding the historic district, I would not remove that from the conversation. You know, I think if you had a very determined developer, they would go through the demolition by-law and see how they could maximize that property and design something that was however, everybody agreed was in keeping with the district. So I think we ought to make sure we're not gonna ignore that. Good comment. Thank you, Janet. I love your presentation, Maureen. I feel like there's just like lots of meat on the bones and you're creating visually just the, I love the data. I agree with Doug in that we should include the historic district because they don't prohibit you from adding onto it, just whatever you're adding onto or allowed to has to fit with the building in the neighborhood. So I've seen some projects where people have added units and they're just not gonna look like a mid-century building unless the neighborhood has those. I think that in terms of like narrowing your scope, I wouldn't encourage you not to because two things is that the apartments are supposed to be near arteries and things like that, but places with multifamily development. And I went into the assessor's database, which is the only thing I really know how to manipulate. And lots of streets that even are sort of off, the hinterlands have two family houses or two condos on the same lot. And so I think multifamily development is a pretty general term. And I think Amherst is really progressive. We do allow a lot of ways of multifamily housing to happen in the RG already, and people have taken the zoning bylaw up on it. And you may not notice it from the street, but sometimes it's a two or three family house. So it's really important to me, like one thing I'd love to do is see that number of, like when you presented the RG, it looks like there's a lot of potential housing in the existing zoning bylaw regulations. And so if you could add those numbers up, I think it's actually sort of more relevant to me, not when you get to the Aspen Chase things, because those seem sort of the outliers in a sense. But I just think if you compare those raw numbers, and if they're kind of close, I wonder why we're bothering with footnote M, if we can already have a lot of development under existing zoning bylaw, and it's like 30 more units, like why are we going through this exercise that may have different consequences down the road? And one of the consequences would be maybe pushing people to consolidate lots, and make, to do bigger and heavier developments, which happened. So I would love to see that run number, as I think Doug had mentioned earlier, I would love to see what a 3D build out of something, of different, on different lots. So an average lot of 17,000 square feet, what does a two acre lot look like, with the maximum versus what is allowed now, or one and a half acres? I think that's gonna really matter to people. I think that's it for now, but I think this is a great start to this conversation about what's possible now, and what's possible in the future, and we can actually have numbers and things like that. The other thing I just wanted to say, which is maybe too many things to say, is if we take footnote M off of the RG, footnote A is still allowed, is still on, there's a little tiny footnote A on additional lot coverage. So then it would be go from 4,000 square feet for apartments and townhouses, additional lots. We take the M off and little A is still there. So that could actually drop below 2,500, which would open up more areas of units for development. So we might wanna consider, if we're taking M off, then we should take A off. So at least we know there's a bottom. Thank you, Janet. So I'm wondering about how people feel about that, the historical district as a sub-district within the RG, based on what Maria and Doug had said. And I don't know if there are any other thoughts on the board in that regard. I was on the fence. I was thinking, well, maybe the historic district lots are different, but I think Doug, what Doug said was kind of compelling. Don't know if, Chris? I think you should keep the local historic district in this study because it is possible to build things in the local historic district. The planning board went through a long process with approving the Amherst media building. And that was very, it was an arduous process, but the landowner really wanted to build that building. And people are, in many cases, determined to do things. And I think the local historic district certainly does slow down and limit what you can do there, but it doesn't prevent doing things there. So I think we should really still keep that in the mix. And there may be things that come from that. So I would discourage you from eliminating that. Okay, Andrew? I was only gonna say that I don't think it's actually any extra effort or limiting it. I don't think it affects more range work at all. Like it's just, it's a query. And so like it's just, it's not putting filter on. So I don't think it's putting any extra burden. Obviously more ancient comment on that, but I would agree, it seems like you include it. And then let's look at it. And if there's some learnings from that or some things we wanna maybe have some other discussions on, that will actually help us understand whether we wanna have this future discussion. Tom? Oh, sorry, Maureen. I was just gonna say, yeah, it won't take any, it won't impact me time-wise to include the parcels within the local historic districts. So for my end, it's totally fine to keep them. Okay, yeah. Tom? Yeah, thanks Maureen. This was a really amazing presentation in terms of helpful for me, but I think it was helpful for a lot of people watching. So much appreciated, plus your explanation and walking people through was very educational, I think for a lot of people who might not have understood the implications of this particular footnote. One of the things I'm interested in making sure we talk about, none of the when that happens. And it's a question that might go for Chris, Rob and Maureen. So as well as the rest of the group is, is footnote M as it exists, and maybe A, is there enough meat in there to make it an incentive to encourage affordable housing? So if we say we will take footnote M off, allow you to build more units, but it would require you to put affordable housing in there, is there enough incentive in these numbers to do that? And can we look at these numbers, not from what's a scary high number, but actually what are the opportunities in there to leverage for developers and how do we take advantage of this information that's in front of us to provide new housing for people who could potentially need it within walking distance of downtown. Chris, do you have any comment on that? Well, one of the things that we're going to be talking about later on is our work plan for developing zoning amendments. And one of the zoning amendments that we're working on is beefing up our inclusionary zoning bylaw because we realize that right now we're really not getting that many units out of it. And we see an opportunity, especially with changing the zoning in the BL district and changing zoning in RG and possibly changing it elsewhere in town that developers are, they want to develop in Amherst. And right now we're kind of feeling like making the inclusionary zoning bylaw tighter in terms of providing more affordable units is not going to be a disincentive for people to develop here. So I appreciate Tom's comment and it's part of our thought process. So hopefully we'll be able to come up with something that will produce more affordable units whether it's through incentives or through a requirement. Thank you, Chris. What do we have here? Andrew, your hand's still up or, okay. Janet. So going forward, I would like to have more information about why Footnote M was adopted and what it was trying to do. And so it seems like it's more, has a more impact at the larger unit buildings than at the smaller, the larger parcels with controlling from going from 43 units to 65 and things like that. And so can we find out why Footnote M was adopted because it obviously went through the usual process which would be it probably came from the planning board of the planning department or the zoning subcommittee and, or maybe citizens brought it forth but it went through the usual machinations and it went in front and got approved. I think by the, you know, by the planning board then went to the select board who approved it and went to town meeting that approved it by two thirds. So I'd be interested in what, why is it there? And before, I've been kind of hesitant to abandon something with that understanding. Yeah, I can see how it's working now especially with Maureen's presentation but I wanna understand the why behind it. Yeah, Janet, you stole my question. Well, Doug took some of mine too. I was like, why is there Footnote M? So a little... Doug took some of my questions except I didn't know the hues. So that background is really important to me because I, you know, to me, you know if it was working to stop whatever was bad, you know, we wanna know that or what's the purpose was. I'd also be interested, anyway, so that's... Do you know anything, Chris, off of top of your head? I have anecdotal, I can talk about it anecdotally. What I've been told is that it came in as a result of Spruce Ridge and Spruce Ridge is a development of, I think it's 12 units on High Street. It's an old house, an old Victorian house and a number of townhouses behind it. And the neighbors were very much against that development and the development went through the ZBA then it went through an appeal process. So it was kind of a long drawn out thing but my understanding is that Footnote M came in as a result of that project after that project was approved but I will do some digging and see what I can find out if I can find out more about that. Thank you. Is there any more discussion on this on the Footnote M? It looks like we've made a lot of progress today, Maria. It's real quick. I had thought that the impacts were with the large parcels but was it Rob or Chris that said, actually large parcels are not a non-issue because the parking made it almost impossible to do that jump from like whatever we had like 40 units to 60 units. Was that why, like I, when we did our study we thought, oh, right. It is the large parcels that are gonna have the biggest impacts from Footnote M being removed but wasn't there mentioned that the parking prevented that scenario from happening? Or am I remembering wrong from one of the ZSC meetings? Chris, do you remember that? Chris? I think parking and lot coverage and building coverage are all issues that we need to study and we really haven't studied them yet but it's potentially true that parking and lot coverage and building coverage will prevent some of these properties from being developed to the extent that they could be just based on the numbers of a lot area and building in that additional lot area that's required in the bylaw. But I don't feel like we have a sense of that yet. Tom. Yeah, one of the things I noticed here and Maria, I don't know if there's a way to look at this and isolate it was that there were a lot of parcels that went from blank to green, right? And there were quite a few of them. So that means that, does that in theory mean that they're right now only zone for one family but then can potentially become three family units which is something that if there's a ton of those that does have an impact on the community around it in a significant way. So I'm just wondering if that's what that number means and if it does, can we isolate those and see what that looks like in terms of how it might change a particular district or zone or neighborhood in terms of shifting it from a single family to a triplex potentially. Cause I don't know, that was just something that I noticed right away. There were a lot of little ones all around that just blipped up from zero to three. So sit down. Yeah, just a response. Yeah, you had a good eye. There were a good amount of parcels that could, that currently given just the lot area could allow one or two family units with footnote M and then with the removal of footnote M it reduces the lot area requirement for three units, et cetera, et cetera. And so then you suddenly saw, it was blank before, but now it's suddenly green. And so that was a really good observation from you, Tom. And yeah, I could certainly isolate those parcels and see, look at that closely to see of the parcels that currently allow one or two family units, what could that accommodate with footnote M removed? Yeah, cause then you're talking to some of them would go from two, three and four. So I think it's just, that would be a drastic change. Cause it was, it seemed like a lot. That's all it just, it was just, because they're just small, but there are a lot of them. Janet? While we're giving Maureen things to do, I think it'd be really helpful if we had a simple chart showing all the ways that you can add an apartment or two on your house. And so, pretty much everybody can, if you have a single family house, you can do a supplemental apartment on your house or many people can put one in their backyard. So those, without increasing the amount of lot coverage. And so, but I think if people could understand, not withstanding footnote M, how can you add to a house or how much density can you add to a house in different ways? And so I was very startled to realize that in RN, where I live, there could be, you could put a three, you could add three units or even have a four plex. And so that, that was, you know, so if people can understand maybe even for each zoning district, your residential zoning district, how that can happen, regardless of footnote and things like that. Cause I think that people just don't know that. I mean, Chris, do you know what I'm saying? Or Maureen? Yeah, if I may respond to you. So I'm glad that you pointed that out because I just wanted to clarify just one or two things is that townhouses, apartments, duplexes, single family homes, those are examples of the principal use on the property. A supplemental dwelling unit is accessory to the principal use and under our zoning law for the supplemental apartments and detached supplemental apartment, it is only an increase of one unit and you do not need to add additional lot area. You don't need to factor in additional lot area to it. So that wouldn't be applicable to this study specifically just because it's an accessory. So if you can just do it like a chart that shows that because that people don't understand that, you know you can get that. Also one question I had is what is the difference between an apartment and a townhouse? Like physically, like, you know, does an apartment can't look like a townhouse? You know, like why would you, you know because you're limited to only 10 units in a townhouse and you can go up to like 24 with an apartment. So like what's actually definitionally the difference between those two other than I think I have a visual in my head, but I don't know why. Sure, I can, would you like, I could pull up the definitions. Thank you. So this is, I just opened the zoning by-law. So this is, I opened up to article 12 for definitions. And so under section 12.02 is the definition for apartments, I'll highlight it and I'll make it bigger. Ah, too big. So it's a residential use consisting of one or more buildings, each building containing no fewer than three nor more than 24 dwelling units. Apartment dwelling units may share interior access ways in entrances and need not have separate exterior entrances on the ground level. Aha, okay. So that's that. So that makes sense. So each building, it could be between three and 24 and they may share interior access ways, entrances and need not to have separate exterior entrances on the ground level. Okay, so now if we go to, bear with me. Town, town, whoop, whoop, one, town, townhouse, okay. Whoop, okay, so now we'll try to highlight this, try. Try to avoid the toxic or hazardous substances. Yeah, don't pay attention to that. Okay, so, so townhouse under section 12.51 is a residential use consisting of one or more buildings containing no fewer than three nor more than 10 attached dwelling units, each of which has a separate private entrance on the ground level and where no building is more than three stories in height. Individual townhouse dwelling units extend from foundation to roof and may consist of more than one floor with each unit having fully exposed walls on at least two sides for access, light and ventilation. You have answered my question. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Chris, your hand is up. Yeah, I wanted to respond to a couple of things that Janet said. One is that I did get an email from her earlier this week and I finally responded to it today to list out the numbers of ways that you can add dwelling units in the RG zoning district. So I sent a chart to Jack and Moia and Janet, but I wanted to show it to the planners before I sent it to everyone. So Janet could look in her inbox and see that. The second thing is Janet made reference to being able to have multi-family dwellings in the outlying residential districts, R-N-R-O and R-L-D. So really that's only possible if you have a PURD, a plan unit residential development and then you can do things that you're not normally allowed to do in underlying zoning or if you have a building that you can convert as a converted dwelling. And then you can increase the numbers of dwelling units but for the average person, the average situation, you're really not allowed to go beyond one or two dwelling units in those outlying districts. We do have some examples of other kinds of things like Hampshire Village down near Atkins Corner and that is part of a PURD and we have Applewood and that's part of a PURD. So there are examples where these things are located in PURDs also Echo Hill but generally speaking, there's not an allowance for multi-family houses in the outlying residential districts R-N-R-O or R-L-D. Great, so I think we're wrapping this item A up but I'm just wondering about what the planning board members think in terms of the dynamics of this discussion on the zoning priorities compared to the zoning subcommittee and what are we missing? Is there enough interaction just looking for general comments because we're gonna have a series of these meetings for the next two months and see how we can do this and capture the zoning, the field zoning subcommittee within the formal planning board meetings. Maria? I think that with this number of people we can't quite have that unmute situation. So I like you sort of calling on people and I feel like we're still having a dialogue like it's not just people sort of saying their thing and then ignoring what the previous person said. So I think that it's been pretty good. I think also if more people bring things I guess gets more of the board members really into the meat of the matter rather than just watching Maureen bring things week after week. So I guess if anyone has, you know, things that they wanna bring or suggest or a thing that they've suggest the Maureen that they can do themselves, maybe that's worth bringing because for the ZSC we were the ones in the meeting bringing stuff. So if anyone has ideas. I know, Janet, you mentioned some items. I mean, maybe that's something you can do. Doug, you had already started a chart on some of the numbers. Maybe it's modifying that chart. I had some maps that I could try to match what Maureen had and just keep tabs on, you know, where some properties I think might pop up that would be interesting to really focus in on and see, you know, implications of. So I think if more of us can be proactive in bringing things, I'm not sure what it is this week, but maybe after we get into it, we can be more specific about what we wanna bring. But otherwise, I think the dialogue and the information has been very technical and very involved. It's not like we're just touching the surface. So I don't know what other people think. Yeah, I, again, I learned so much about this in such, you know, a short manner. Thank you, Maureen. That was just, you know, excellent. So I, you know, I invite all the Plainmore members, you know, sending emails to Chris, if you have an idea and let her know that you might be presenting something on the particular, you know, zoning priority item that will be coming up and we can, you know, work it in and certainly wanna use it because we, again, we all have different expertise and can bring a lot of value to the discussion. Janet? Will we have, can we see Maureen's charts in like, are they gonna be online or are they in the packet or something? Cause I'd like to look at them more thoroughly. I didn't have as quick an eye as Doug and others. And then I think there's somebody who wants to make a comment from in our public. Okay. Chris, your hand is up. Yeah, so I wanted to say that we are intending to post Maureen's presentation tonight. We're gonna post it on the planning board webpage under packets. And so people will be able to go there and look at it. And that the same is true of the presentation that Rob and I are gonna give them a little while. So I guess, you know, taking public comment on this seems reasonable. And maybe we should just, you know, I guess a discussion, Chris, Maria, whether there should be a public comment period specific to what we discussed on a zoning priority item subsequent to our discussion. Maybe we can put that on future agendas before we let Pam speak. Does that sound reasonable, Chris? I think it's up to the chair, you know, depending on what the timeframe is like. Okay. Well, I think three minutes. Yes, I think that's reasonable, yep. Yeah, okay. So let's put that in future agendas, a little public comment period subsequent to the planning board discussion. And just so we allow that to happen. So Pam, you want to? Can I just ask you a question first? Cause I think I misunderstand. So that will become an agenda item or it will, to talk about that or it will become an agenda item to allow public comment after your presentations. Well, I know, I just think that because the zoning subcommittee, I remember discussing with someone that there would be a public comment at the zoning subcommittee based on things. So the initial public comment period, they don't, you know, they haven't really understood what we're talking about. And now they, you know, would like to have some period of time to, you know, they digested what we talked about and then, you know, another, you know, period of time there, same rules, you know, say three minutes each and then- I understand. I was confused. I wasn't quite sure if it was going to be an agenda item for you all to talk about. And I wanted to make sure I got that clear. Okay. No, it's kind of like an A1 and then A2. A2. Got it. So because officially we don't, we don't need, it's not a public hearing. So we don't, correct me if I'm wrong, Chris, that we don't have to have public comment on this. But again, we're kind of trying to capture the zoning subcommittee, you know, you know, what works within the zoning subcommittee and public comment was certainly, you know, part of that. So- Yeah, may I just say that I think public comment is really good in these kinds of meetings because we find out what people's concerns are and they may, their comments may shape, you know, what you propose in the end. So I think it's perfectly reasonable to take public comment as long as, you know, it's within the timeframe that you have in mind. Okay. Yeah. So it's eight o'clock now. We're an hour and a half in. I know, you know, we don't want to, you know, go too long. And we have a presentation by Rob and Chris on their presentation through the CRC. So we definitely want to, you know, hear that. But certainly Pam and Ira can bring each of those in and they have three minutes each. Hi, Pam. Hi again, and thanks. I think since you have, but you're not holding a separate zoning subcommittee meeting, I think it really, I really appreciate the opportunity to just speak about the topic that you're working on because I think we're all working on the same topics. So I do appreciate that. Given that, I think one of the goals of the CRC for getting some of this information and for looking at footnote M is that we're really trying to gauge capacity for additional housing housing or at least the RG. And I wonder if Maureen, your graphics are great. I think it's really helpful to see graphically, you know, how things line up. What occurs to me though is if you have existing units on, I would say every parcel in the RG. And I think what we're really looking for, we have a baseline capacity. Some are single family, some are duplexes. We have a subdividable dwelling unit up on Maureen. So we know that the capacity is X today. So it occurs to me that your map might be existing capacity. And then the second round is possible units now. If people have a lot over 17,000 square feet, it means they could actually have developed a subdividable dwelling where they could have had something or actually like a duplex. So we have today's baseline condition. And then we have the possible units now. It's just that Pam Rooney hasn't built that SDU in the back of her, in her barn. And then we have possible units with leaving eliminating footnote M. So that footnote M really only comes into play when you're talking about units of three or more, when you're actually dealing with an apartment itself. I would like to add, I do hope that you get to footnote A because I think somebody mentioned it earlier, footnote A obviously is also starting to affect lot coverage and building coverage. I think that's pretty critical when you're talking about a fairly dense neighborhood already. So that's something for the future. And then also for the Maureen, for the graphics, that range of green is so slight that my eyes don't differentiate between 10 units and 11 units and 12. And I wonder if maybe you have the growth capacity of say three to 10 additional units as greens, maybe 11s to 20 as blues. And so you'd get a range of color schemes so that you kind of get blocks of bigger volume as opposed to one by ones. And that would be lovely. And you did a really nice job. So thanks for letting me speak, Jack. Thank you, Pam. Aira? Hi, Aira. Hi, how are you? Hi, Aira. He's on mute, yeah. Okay. Thank you for letting me speak again. It does seem like a lot of the biggest differences when I look at the slides of number of units allowed per foot, per square foot. If you now are allowed eight, your number would go from nine to 24. If you're now allowed nine, I'm reading this, but at nine at 11, 11 is more than a double increase, at 12 is more than a double increase, at 14 is a triple increase, at 16 is a six time increase. There were certain numbers on here and people were saying like, let's look at how many could actually be increased. There's a lot of numbers on here that really are where the huge increases in population and density and apartments replacing houses really can happen. And I'm not hearing any of you express the concern that I'm feeling, maybe I'm not understanding what could happen to this neighborhood, but I'm guessing that you're not really seeing the number of additional units that can really be built in neighborhoods that are typically smaller lots and more cozy character of the neighborhood places. I think there's gonna be a huge impact on character in the neighborhood at certain sizes on this chart. So thank you. Very good. Alrighty, so can we move on? Oh, Dorothy Pan. Dorothy Pan. Hi, Dorothy, you are on mute. Hey, there. I'm good. Okay, in the charts, which are really exciting, but they do go by kind of fast when you see them, I think you really do have to put the parking in there because so many things in the RG would not be allowed once you put parking in. And parking is a major issue. And I think that if you expand to a triplex, for example, I live in Amity. There's no parking on the street on Amity at all. So, and on Lincoln, the residents have been told that their parking on the street really belongs to the public. And it doesn't, that's really okay because most of them actually do have driveways and park in the driveway. So their concern is being able to get out of the driveway. So I think if you do, and this is also for the supplemental dwellings, I could put several in my backyard, but I don't really know what I could do unless I paved all of my green in front of the house, I wouldn't be able to deal with the parking. So the visual picture would be, I think, more realistic. I do think, I also think that what you're saying is, the chances of increasing density are more likely to happen in a small incremental way. I think this is what Tom was saying. One family, maybe adding one unit or maybe up to three. And I could see that working in lots of ways, but the parking has to be factored in. So that's just my suggestion. Thank you. Thank you, Dorothy. Chris, I mean, to what extent is there an allowance for the parking in the dimensions that are referenced here? Well, I think one of the things that Maureen was planning to do moving forward was to take some particular lots and do build-out scenarios on them, which would include looking at lot coverage, building coverage and parking. So she's gonna come up with examples from different parts of the RG district, different sizes of lots to give people an idea of what might happen. Okay, so that's part of it. Based on the input that she got today, she's gonna do that and certainly not don't do all the lots, but just a few kind of characteristic ones and just so we get the gist of how things fit. Great, great. Tech one, additional hand has popped up. Oh, Elizabeth. Elizabeth. Elizabeth, I have allowed you to talk. There you go. Yes, thank you very much. Elizabeth, you're on 36 Cottage Street. And yes, thank you again, particularly Maureen for these explanations that have clarified a whole lot of things that I was unaware of. Also, I must admit, I have an extremely naive question that maybe you could clarify and that is, I don't understand the definition of a unit. What actually is a unit? What does that mean as far as number of people's size, et cetera? My other question is what we're talking about parcels, but what stops combination of parcels? So if a developer is able to buy two neighboring parcels, does that then mean that suddenly this can become a X number unit apartment building where before there were just two single family homes? Family homes. And my third question is trying to understand what is the pressure for this change given what appears to be the current possibility for quite a bit of development having looked at these maps today. So those are just some questions that I hope perhaps can be addressed in future meetings. Thank you. Chris, do you want to speak to that? I mean, I know- It's getting kind of late. So maybe I could address these in future meetings. I think they're a legitimate question. Okay. Yeah. I mean, I think, you know, part of the master plan is increasing densification into the downtown area and the RG is residential within the downtown, but certainly, what was it, Elizabeth? You're welcome to email. And then it'd probably be more appropriate for an email given the general- Or a phone call. Or a phone call. There you go. Elizabeth wants to call me. Yeah, phone call. Chris is- Yeah. I'd be happy to speak with you or I will try to answer these questions in a future meeting. Great. So let's move on to the update on the zoning priorities work plan that Robin and Chris presented to the CRC. Was it last night? It was yesterday afternoon. Yesterday afternoon. Yeah, they'd meet in the afternoon. Okay. So if Pam can bring up that presentation, that'd be great. I'm going to do my best to do it as quickly as Maureen. Maureen's a pro. He is a whiz. He did great. Thanks, Pam. Can you see it? Yeah. So this is going to be a joint effort by Rob Mora and myself. So my name is Christine Brestrup and I'm the planning director and the building commissioner Rob Mora and I would like to present an updated work plan to you on the zoning bylaw amendments that the town council asked us to work on. We presented a draft version of this presentation at your meeting last week when you met with the CRC. And yesterday we presented an updated version which is what you're going to see tonight. And that's why this version has yesterday's date on it because we presented it to the CRC. So you've seen several of these slides before. So I'm going to skim the first few. So Pam, can I have the next slide? So as you know, on January 4th, town council voted to direct the town manager to present zoning amendments to the town council. And so we work for the town manager. So we're working with him to get these zoning amendments prepared. And the zoning amendments were divided into two groups by the town council based on when they expected to have them presented. And recently the building commissioner and I have assessed the list and we've come up with this work plan which we think will achieve the stated goals. Next slide please. So the next slide shows what the town council had asked for what their priorities were for the first phase. And there are a number of things here. I think there might be eight different things here. And next slide please. And this is the second phase. The second phase was to come later possibly at the end of the summer. And they also asked us to look into hiring a consultant to develop design guidelines. And we are working on that. Next slide please. So as you could see, we had a lot of priorities given to us by town council and we needed to prioritize the priorities and figure out what could we actually accomplish this spring and what can we realistically have adopted by June 2021. So that's what we're working on now. And Rob is going to talk about the next four slides, I guess, yep. So next slide please. Yes, hi. This is Rob More of the Bill and Commissioner. So we had to make some choices on what we could reasonably move ahead with with the time frames we were looking at. And we pulled from the town council list these four items that you see bolted there with the goal of presenting amendment packages for the March 9th meeting to the CRC. So this includes the BL zoning district with the focus on how do we allow more housing, the elimination of footnote M, which of course you've been talking about for a little bit now, the supplemental dwelling units and then the apartments definition. We'll talk more about those in a minute in a little bit more detail. But we also are incorporating what we're calling the planning department list of items that we feel need to go along with these, the mixed use building definition and standards and inclusion area zoning requirements or key items to go along with the conversation for particularly the BL district, but other areas as well. Reconvocation you've heard about by now that has been something we've been working on for a little while. We do have the focus on reformatting, correcting errors, cleaning up some of the definitions and references throughout the document, making it a clean, more presentable, usable bylaw before we start adding and inserting these amendments. So we're moving that along at the same time. You're very well aware of flood maps and the demolition delay is a draft bylaw that's being worked on currently by the historic commission. And we expect to hear more about that in the coming months. Next slide, please. So to talk about the BL district, what we wanna do is focus on two areas, two BL locations, North of Toronto Street and West of North Pleasant Street. The options are laid out here, but the recommendation that came to us from the council was to add the BL district to footnote B. So the staff has started looking at this in depth and we certainly don't believe that's the best option at the moment in going to create or going to suggest a couple of other alternatives. One highlighted below that is the idea of an overlay district with a designating an area for the more dense development where we wanna see that close to the front edge of the property along the street line. And we wanna make sure we're incorporating appropriate design standards. So we have a concept that we're working on that we'll be bringing to you possibly next week, but we'll talk about that, I guess, be into this presentation. Another option is to just create an entirely new zoning district and address that with the dimensional standards and design standards that we'd like to see. Next slide, please. Elimination of footnote M. So you've been talking about that and we're gonna continue to provide the analysis with Maureen's assistance and all the good work she's doing to help figure out what the best approach is and what it really means to go ahead with that idea of eliminating the footnote. Next slide, Chris. Oh, so yeah, we're looking at supplemental dwelling units and right now supplemental dwelling units are limited in size to 800 square feet or 900 square feet if they're fully handicapped accessible. What we're looking at is the possibility of expanding them to 1,000 square feet. That was something that came before the town meeting in the spring of 2018 and it did have a lot of support, but for various reasons, most of which had to do with the fact that town council was going to be taking its seat in December. Town meeting was reluctant to approve that change. So we're looking at that again and we're trying to figure out exactly what the right number is. We're also looking at the recently approved state law that has allowed accessory dwelling units up to 900 square feet by what they call by right, which means not by special permit. So that's kind of factoring into our discussion and we're looking at whether the size of the supplemental unit should relate to the size of an existing house. So in other words, if you have a very large house on your property then adding an accessory dwelling unit or a supplemental dwelling unit that's 1,000 square feet may be fine and it may look like an accessory dwelling unit, but if you have a smaller house, if you have a 1,200 square foot house, maybe adding a supplemental dwelling unit of 1,000 square feet just is not the right scale for the house, for the lot or for the neighborhood. So we're looking at that. We're analyzing what dimensional requirements should apply to supplemental dwelling units. Should it be the same as the existing house? In other words, should it be allowed to be as tall as the existing house or should it be limited in some way and would the setbacks be different? And we're looking at finding examples of existing supplemental dwelling units in our town and there are also examples in surrounding towns. So we're hoping to bring some pictures of those into the discussion. And we're researching how other towns handle supplemental dwelling units. Next slide please. We're looking at the definition of apartments. As we spoke about during Maureen's presentation, the definition of apartments now is a building that is between three and 24 units. And we're looking at whether that still makes sense that that limitation was put on, I believe back in the 70s, when there were a lot of apartment developments popping up in South Amherst and North Amherst. And so we need to figure out does that make sense for us today? We're considering looking, re-looking at a proposal that came about a few years ago where there's only a subcommittee thought, perhaps there should be two classes of apartments. Class one, which would be consistent with the current definition up to 24 units and class two, which would be 25 units or more. And I think they were imagining capping it at 75, but we haven't really talked about that yet. So, and the other thing about apartments is that apartments are limited in the type of units that can be built in the building to no more than 50% of any one type. And what we're seeing in mixed use buildings these days is that there's a desire in the part of developers to build small units, many of them either studios or one bedrooms and is that appropriate or should we provide larger apartments that could house a family or a small family, a couple. So anyway, that's a topic that is important and design standards. What do we want in terms of the way these things look? So that's, I know that's gonna be a topic that's interesting a lot of people. Next slide, please. Let's see, is this one that Rob was gonna talk about or me? Yeah, so we do think it's really important to bring the mixed use building standards back to the discussion, particularly with the possibility of larger coverages and dense building development in the BL district. But one option is to deal with that within the changes that we're making to the BL district. But we also think looking at that, it might be an appropriate time to address this or in the general use classification of the building and have it apply to all the districts where an excuse building would be possibly proposed. So that's defining it the amount of area where the commercial space would be required, the mix of unit sizes and whether or not parking is allowed and how much allowed on the ground floor. Next slide, please. Along the same lines, we're really interested in looking at the inclusionary zoning bylaw requirements at this time for the same reasons with the changes that we're considering in BL. But one option that we think is worthy of bringing forward for discussion and would be a somewhat simple change to our bylaws to have it apply to all development that occurs, not just the development that occurs by special permit that has been the way it's been handled in the past. And this is for developments that include new units, 10 or more new units. And the only exception that we see to that at this point would be your standard residential subdivision. Next slide, please. So recodification, I talked about that a little bit, changing the format, renumbering reference corrections throughout some interpretations, clarifying them or adding interpretations on the things we deal with day to day. We'd like to look at definitions that are really gonna be dependent on how much time we have and how far we go with that, but it might be as simple as that. Much of the reformatting is already completed. We did show that in one of the CRC meetings a month or two months ago. So we'll bring that forward in the coming weeks so that everyone can see what that's looking like. And like I said, with those probably minimal changes at this time. Next slide, please. So we're looking at schedule. It's really aggressive schedule starting yesterday with the CRC meeting to kind of kick off this work plan. As you know, your weekly meetings were key. That decision that was made last week to really give us a place to talk and work through these issues as they're being developed with the goal of making it to the 23rd, the CRC meeting on the 23rd to give the group a progress update on what we've been working on as staff, what we've been working on with the planning board and the subcommittee. And then continue that work with the feedback we get there and the overall goal is to get to the March 9th meeting with a package to present on these amendments that we just outlined in this work plan. From there, if we're successful with that, accomplishing that from there, we expect the CRC to spend some amount of time developing, they're still developing their process on how they're gonna handle this, but holding their meetings and working with the public participation that they wanna get through this effort and have us respond to all the questions and recommendations that come out of that process that could go on for a month, two months until it's ready to be sent off to the council as a request to consider a bylaw amendment, which would begin the formal process that you're more familiar with where the public hearing process begins to consider adopting the bylaw amendments. So that's the end of our presentation. Thanks Pam. You're welcome. Look, so Rob, oh, I'm sorry. I just wanted to say, we wanted to bring you up to speed so that you were familiar with what we had just told us CRC yesterday. Thank you. So I was under the, it may sound really stupid, but the public hearings with the zoning bylaws, I thought that was all on the town council as a legislative body, but, you know, so. Yeah, there will still be planning board public hearings. I believe Chris knows this workflow really well, but I believe they're joined. They're intended to be joint hearings with the CRC. So once a package or proposal is delivered to the town council to request a bylaw amendment, they will refer it to the planning board and CRC to begin that hearing process before they start holding their first and second reads of it and actually get to the point where they would consider adopting it. So it begins the process. And there's a workflow chart that describes that that was worked on by the CRC in the planning board months ago. Yeah, because I thought that I thought we would just be recommending, but I guess it's in a hearing format. I don't know, Chris. So the state law requires that the planning board hold a public hearing on any zoning amendments that are proposed. And the planning board makes a recommendation to town council. Town council has made a decision, a kind of policy decision that they would prefer to have the planning board's public hearing held jointly with the CRC. And I think what they're trying to do is just make sure that all of the conversation happens in the same place. And everybody hears everybody else and understands what everybody else is saying. There may be times when we don't wanna do that, but I think for now it's a good idea to do that. So we'll hold joint public hearings and then the CRC will make its report to town council and the planning board will make its report. They'll take separate votes. So the planning board will vote to make a recommendation and the CRC will vote to make a recommendation. And then it goes to town council. And as Rob said, they have the first reading and then they have a second reading where they would normally take a vote. Thank you for that. Sorry for my not remembering, I guess. So Janet. Chris, can you just, can you send that sort of memorandum of understanding that we had that process chart between the CRC, the planning board and the town council and the, because that might be the perfect moment for that refresher, especially for our new members. So I have like three things, but so my first one is I attended and we're just listening to the CRC meeting and I, my, these 12 zoning priorities which I read as a motion, the town council asking the town manager to ask you to draft these amendments specifically. And so I saw that as very concrete and specific, but the CRC members were describing these 12 zoning priorities as suggestions and recommendations and it seemed very fluid to them. And so my question is, are all the 12 priorities on the table, do you see it as that specific or is it just like take a look at these things and work on them and bring them back to us in some form or with a recommendation? And so I just was very confused about that. And so, and also I'm just, so do you feel like as the planning department, you have to bring, you know, six or four specific amendments on June 1st, or is it more fluid? Because it sounded super fluid yesterday and I was sort of relieved because there's so much on the table. Should I just ask that question, then ask my next one. If you want to do, Jack, do you want us to answer the questions as they come? Yeah, I'm sorry, I kind of spaced out. I'm so sorry, it's getting late. I have three questions, but that's a big one. Like, you know, are all the priorities still on the table as specific zoning amendments or are they, is this a recommendation by the council for the planning department and planning board to look at these, you know, or suggestions? They were described as recommendations. Okay. So I think we were a little confused about that in the beginning, but I think we've gotten a better sense of what's going on now. Those were, we went, we, planning board and the planning department went to the council and said, you know, look, we don't want to work on things that you're not going to vote for. So why don't you tell us what you think you would vote for and then we'll work on those things. Tell us the priorities that you have that you think would be important to pass. And so they gave us their best attempt at giving us a list of things that they felt were important and that they could pass. So then we took that list and based on conversations that we had with the town manager and with the chair of the CRC and the chair of the town council, we came to understand that these things that they have asked us to do are representative of issues that they recognize. In other words, putting the BL district into footnote B or however you say that, that was indicative of the fact that the BL district can't accommodate residential development at this point. So think about what you can do about that and come up with something. So they asked us, or the town manager asked us to look at this long list of things that town council asked us to produce and to tell him, well, what do you think you can do? Because he knows that we have site plan review and we have, you know, the Pomeranian lane intersection and we have North square and Rob has all kinds of things going on in his world. So the town manager asked us to realistically look at the list and say, okay, well, what makes sense to do together? And I think that this package of things makes sense to do together. And then when can you get it done? And their idea was that we might be able to get six things done by March 15th. Well, we came back and said, well, we don't think we can get six things done, but we can probably get four things in a draft form that we'll give to you and then you can start working on them by March 9th. So it's a back and forth conversation. I don't think it's hard and fast. It's not, you know, set in concrete, but they've given us a list of things that they want us to work on and we will strive to work on those and produce them at a time when we, in a timely manner to the best of our ability. And maybe Rob has something more to add to that. I think I would just add that it might be that we go to CRC and explain why we're not moving forward with one of the recommendations. So I think as staff, you know, it was written as a directive, we've talked about it over the recent weeks and learned more about what the group involved feels about it now, which has been really helpful, but we do wanna address the items and this is the first package and then I think we'll continue to address the other items, but they'll be, you know, the staff's recommendation may be that we're not moving forward with an amendment or not proposing an amendment at the time. So we'll see how all this develops. Okay. That helps me a lot. My second question is, you know, I was, you know, just like I was thinking, oh, maybe at the next meeting, we'll talk about the BL issues because we had a great start on that in the zoning subcommittee, but then there's also, you're working on mixed use supplemental dwelling units. I don't wanna panic anybody, apartment definition, recodification, IZ. And my question is, how is the planning we're gonna work or get clued into that? Cause that's a lot. And so, and that leads into my third question is, how can the public stay involved and updated? Cause it's kind of like a fire hose. It's like drinking from a fire hose. If we're looking at that many changes by or a lot of work by June 1st, you know, I think it seems intimidating to me, but I can imagine the public will be mystified by this or have trouble trying to figure out how to stay involved or unaware. So the first question is like, what's the planning board role on a lot of these priorities that you're working on or issues? Like mixed use and IZ and apartment dwelling and supplemental dwelling units. Are we gonna be taking those up week by week? Are we gonna, are you? I think, you know, Rob and I have to have a conversation and we have to have a conversation with our staff, but, you know, I think what we're planning to do is give you presentations on each of these things similar to what Maureen gave you tonight. Unfortunately, you know, because we're in such a compressed timeframe, we weren't able to send that out to you so you could study it before she presented it. You'll be able to look at it online after she's presented it. And we will be talking about footnote M again. So it's gonna be kind of a fluid, not necessarily formal cut and dried process, but we'll be giving you information as we get it and, you know, hoping that you'll be able to absorb it and we will try to write our agendas. I think we did a pretty good job this time of writing our agendas to let the public know what it is we're doing. And I've had some back and forth with some of the people who were attendees tonight about where they can find information. So I directed them to the planning board packets. I understand from talking to, and Janet was at this meeting yesterday, the CRC, they have a group of people who are working on an outreach process for them. And it's going to include a survey of residents and I believe they're planning on setting up a website. So I asked them specifically if we should be setting up our own website or if they were gonna set up a website, should we coordinate somehow? And so that is a conversation that is currently occurring. We don't really know exactly what their plan is, but we don't want to duplicate it because that would add to the confusion. So I think it's an ongoing conversation with CRC about exactly how they're planning to do outreach, but we're doing our best to respond to questions that come in and to get things online. And we will put Maureen's presentation and we'll put our presentation about the work plan online. I've asked Penn to do that tomorrow. And so it's gonna be a work in progress, but we're doing our best to get the information out. Thank you for that. That's really helpful. In terms of webpages, I would hope that the planning department would do it because you guys just, you get it more, like you have more documents and you understand the details. And so I think if they were opening up a website, it would be kind of like a learning experience. I think you guys, you know, you've done that before for different projects and I think it'd be easier, you know, like to take presentations and to say, here's this one from this day and people would naturally go to the planning department for information. So I hate to add to your workload, but I think you'd do it better and faster, basically. They are working with IT. Okay. Town council and CRC are working with IT. We have Pam and she's great, but Pam's only one person. So we do this for Pam, but IT has more people than just one person. So anyway, we have it in mind that the public needs to know about this. And unfortunately, you know, we've got six people tonight. We had several people last week. We had people at the CRC yesterday. So bit by bit, this will all be coming out. We hope. Thank you. Tom. Yeah. I just wanted to follow up on that conversation, both Janet and Chris, about kind of the engaging with the public and the sort of public engagement aspect of what we're trying to do. I always had multiple conversations with Shalini from CRC. And one of the things that I've been interested in is the, I guess the human centric approach to planning and visioning and design. One that where some of our needs originate from the community, rather than things that are being top down sort of delivered by what others see as priorities. And in this way, meeting some inclusionary issues that we're missing as this collection of, shall I say, white people trying to put together a planning board. So I'm working with Shalini to try to develop some kind of working group, maybe with her as a liaison, but to build a long-term process for how we engage with the public, how we do it in an inclusionary way, how we build a broader set of communications with a broader cross-section of our community to bring their interests and needs and issues to the table in a way that we're not doing right now. Now we know that this is not gonna be able to be done to impact what we're doing today and for the next few months, but this is a process that we believe we can start to implement and sort of experiment with how it might work with the different kinds of processes that we work on in the community. That being said, I'm also working, we've also had many discussions about how to build these kinds of surveys and questionnaires that really probe people's more human experiences within the community, places that they feel are safe, places that they feel are inclusionary or exclusionary and trying to figure out how we actually ask meaningful questions of the community for their feedback as we make these decisions going forward. So I'm working with her to try to build those questions out over the next few weeks, but I would like at some point for us to have a more robust conversation about inclusionary community engagement process and how it might impact our work and whether that happens. Again, it's a long-term project, but I'd like us to engage with that in the future, but just to know in the short term that I'm working with Shalini on trying to address some of those questions as a kind of liaison between CRC and the planning board. So if there's questions or issues, I can try to keep you abreast of that. Sounds great. Thank you, Tom. Good to hear your voice on an initiative like that. So I think we're close to perhaps winding up our conversation and the zoning priorities if we haven't already. Is there any more discussion? I see none. So Pam and Chris, I'm wondering about these other items when we have a zoning priority focus, maybe these shouldn't be on here. We're taking advantage of you. You can ignore everything starting with item six. From item six down, you can ignore. Okay. So you wanna do all business, new business? No, you don't need to. Oh, item four. Excuse me, I'm going backwards. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Item four to the end, just... Oh, good. Okay, so we can kind of just... Nothing to talk about. Just adjourn. Adjourn. Love it. Thank you. This was great for me. I really loved the discussions that we had learned a lot what you have been discussing in the zoning subcommittee. So hopefully the other members felt this was a good format as well. Okay, thank you all. Good night. Oh, wait a minute. Mr. Marshall has his hand up. Yeah, I don't want y'all to go home too soon. Okay. I wondered whether this is a question maybe for Maureen since you've demonstrated your GIS acumen. I think it would be interesting to see where all the affordable units in town are now. My suspicion is they are not downtown and they are in outlying areas that are difficult to access on foot. So, you know, other than the PERI apartments, which I don't know if they have any official affordable units, I don't know what else is downtown. So... Anne Whalen Apartments, Clark House, that's probably 188 units right there. And there are others scattered around Jean Elder, which is up by, it's up a little bit north of the roundabout. So there are affordable units scattered around downtown. And we're gonna have 28 more on North Hampton Road coming along, but I think it is a good idea to map them. Thank you. Good idea. Great. All righty. Thank you very much, everybody. Yes, see you in a week. Thank you. Thanks. All righty. Good night. I'm trying to leave, but I'm not out.