 the zoning bylaws. So we consciously and intentionally set the zoning bylaws aside and proceeded to spend significantly more of our time on coming up with the changes that were clearly needed to bring the old bylaws of the town of Amherst into conformity with the new charter. With respect to the zoning bylaws, we perceived in the zoning bylaws as they existed before the charter change, a well integrated internally cross-referenced collection of laws that work together like parts of a great big machine, unlike the general bylaws that were like many small machines each needing repair that didn't mention one didn't mention the other. So this analogy probably gives you an insight into how we looked at it with great trepidation about making the number in scope of changes to it without the careful attention of this body, the planning board, to any substantial changes. So our attentions were limited basically to those fundamental necessary changes dictated and mandated by the charter, mainly referenced to the local boards and officials that exist under the charter that did not exist under the under the old form. So changing select board to town manager or town council as required, those kinds of things had to be done. A few other changes related to the manner in which the body is appointed and you can see in the materials that you had previously been provided, the number of changes that we proposed were relatively few. The most significant one is taking topics that were treated in separate parts of the zoning bylaw and aggregating them into a single location for ease of reference. The previous bylaw committee that worked last summer technically went out of existence when the new charter came into effect and the council then appointed the second bylaw committee, made up of five, not three people, three members of the committee, members of the council, and two or not, myself and Bernie Kubiak. Alyssa Brewer, Pat DeAngelis and Evan Ross are on the committee. And we three have been meeting again to fixate and focus on the general bylaws but attended to the necessity of bringing the zoning bylaws to the council at the earliest opportunity. This could have been done shortly after the council took effect as the governing body. But the council determined that it would be its preference in its wisdom to take more time to look at the bylaws as proposed before you so that the action that is taken had been thoroughly vetted. So this body, the planning board did actually go through this exercise once previously, but one of the provisions of chapter 48 section five is that legislative action on the recommendation and report of the planning board has to occur within 90 days and it did not, obviously. So we're doing, this is a redo, basically the same thing all over again. And what it does is it presents to you a revised copy of the zoning bylaws. And the charter did make provision for the bylaws of the town to continue in full force and effect until and unless changed or modified by the council. If questions arose, ambiguities occurred with respect to how to enforce the old town bylaws for our new form of governance, which is a city form of governments, those matters would not likely happen. And if they did, the court would simply say, well, what is the appropriate correlative body or official to carry that out? So we have been living under that regime since the charter we need to affect. But now is the time to bring ourselves up to current. So the matter before you tonight is to join me in recommending something to the council. We recommended something. The planning board under the statute has to make a report with recommendations to the council on the proposal to substitute this book for that book. And the new book basically has the small collection of changes that I just mentioned to you. The benefit of making this wholesale change is to substitute the fundamental core document, the new baseline document that then sits as material for future changes to the zoning bylaw. In other words, making the changes to the zoning bylaw that you are always thinking about that occur regularly. We want those actions on your part in the council spot to address the provisions of a revised set of zoning bylaw, not piecemeal during various stages of this transformation from the old to the new. So if this goes according to the plan that has been proposed, the council will in July there is a date on which the council has begun the procedures of setting it up as an agenda item to basically repeal the old bylaws and enact or adopt the new bylaws as the zoning bylaws in the town. One final comment. The committee has made a slate of recommendations that should be ongoing interest to you. And that is once we have a revised set of zoning bylaws and a new set of revised general bylaws, the extent to which we could bring a little bit of uniformity into these two forms would be helpful. In the general bylaws, we proposed a whole new organizational framework with a new set of alphanumerics that make it easier to read. It is entirely different than the alphanumerical order of the zoning bylaw, which is in and of itself not a legal problem. It just makes it difficult to read. And we have made some recommendations that may warrant your attention going forward. That is to bring the zoning bylaws of format and structure into greater alignment with the format and structure that we have proposed for the general bylaws. Something to think about. We will talk about it over the next year or two perhaps. But as you think about revisions to the zoning bylaws, our committee has recommended that as one of the items to quality your attention. So, substantively, there is a red line strikeout, track changes version of the new bylaw, the zoning bylaws, which you have had opportunity to review. And if there are any questions about any of those proposed changes, I would be happy to provide whatever answers I can come up with for those. Thank you so much. And if I could just reconfirm the changes that are before us today are the exact same changes that the planning board endorsed in December of 2018? Yes. Thank you for that. Are there further comments, questions from the board? So the matter before us is whether the planning board will recommend to the town council adopting the zoning changes that were described? Seeing no further comment or question, I'd entertain a motion. I'll move that the planning board recommend these changes to the town council. Second that. Moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion? If not, all in favor. And that's unanimous. Thank you for your time. Thank you. All right. The next, yes. I wanted to ask you a question of Mr. Richie. If he would tell me at what point that planning board needs to have its report ready for town council, if he knows that. Could you please use the microphone? Thank you so much. The sooner the better. The legal function of this is to equip the council with the legal authority to act. In the absence of a report with recommendations from you, it cannot do so. So the minute before they convene is legal. I'd suggest that you do it earlier than that. But there is no specified timeline in the statute. Or the charter. Thanks again. Okay. All right. So the next item on our agenda would be public hearing on planning board rules and regulations. The gentleman in the audience, are you here for a particular item? Okay. So you're not associated with the presentation material here. All right. Thank you for that. So we're just going to proceed with the agenda now. I think we'll be revisiting or visiting that presentation material a little bit later. So this next item is public hearing on planning board rules and regulations. This is PBR 1-19 continued from March 20, 2019 and May 29, 2019 to review, update and amend the planning board rules and regulations to bring them into conformance with the Amherst Home Rule Charter as adopted March 27, 2018. And so we have some material in our packets. This was discussed at the beginning of March 20, 2019. So we're going to move on to prior meetings. I would, yes, Chris. I just wanted to make a correction to the agenda. We discovered after we published it that the meeting of the planning board was actually April 17th rather than March 20th. So that's just to know this meeting. All right. Thank you for that clarification. I would add for informational purposes that, there are two places in Amherst's ordinances which discuss the planning board voting requirements. And what we're discussing now is the voting requirements as laid out in the planning board rules and regulations, while the other location where these appear is in the zoning bylaw. The zoning subcommittee did meet this afternoon and reviewed zoning amendments, which it will be bringing to the planning board for its consideration. And the zoning subcommittee did recommend that at some point the planning board recommend to the town council, that the town council adopt the changes as described by Attorney Joel Bard in his email, which would change the wording of the voting requirements such that the concurring vote of at least four members of the planning board is required for site plan review applications. So the zoning issue is not at hand right now. What's at hand is the planning board rules and regulations and a potential approach to this as discussed by the board is to simply reference the zoning bylaw and point to that for the voting requirements. And as we know, the voting requirements and the zoning bylaw currently require a two-thirds vote or at least five members of the board. So having provided that update, are there other comments, questions on this issue from board members? Michael? Yes. I'd like to say that I appreciate the information that has been circulated in the last few days concerning the voting requirements statewide and particularly concerning the Governor's bill, which will to promote additional residential development and development of all kinds. And it's an assumption that a majority vote will be required for almost all site plan reviews in connection with these new approaches to development. I intend to continue to support the notion of a two-thirds majority, a two-thirds vote for site plan review at our level, largely because while I support strongly a number of the initiatives that the Governor's bill is proposing, particularly the arrangements for infill development and the 40R proposals, I think that the bill, as it's written, and I haven't read the bill, but I've read a lot of the information about it, suggests to me that it is overwhelmingly skewed toward the interests of developers. And I believe that it should be equally, I believe that the interests of current residents of towns and particularly in this case of Amherst should have more authority in determining the nature of the towns that the town that we live in. I am concerned that since that what I believe to be too large influence on the part of the development community is skewing the way in which the laws are intended to be enforced. That seems to me to be clear from all of the material that I've been reading about, reading prepared by the state agencies which have been circulated to us in the last few days. So, although I realize that I am a minority on this board, I intend to vote that way and I wanted to record my sense that this is a vote more against the mandate from the bill that is about to be voted on in the state legislature, whether it makes it through or not, I don't know. But the vote is to maintain a kind of home rule approach to this issue rather than to submit to state regulation before such state regulation has actually occurred. Thanks for that, Jack. Mike, I'm wondering your reference to being skewed to developers. Where are you getting that from? Because I think that the intent was that Massachusetts has an economy that needs to sustain. If there's not development or housing, people aren't going to live in Massachusetts. There's an analogy where if Amherst can't provide housing, we're losing residents, potential families. It seems like it's a partnership with developers in some sense, I think, and I'm just wondering what your thoughts are about developers. I think there's some evil connotation that you're referring to. I'm not sure. And if I could just cut in for just one minute here. I did review the proceedings at the last meeting and I just want to gain a better understanding of what the options here on the table are. My understanding is that the proposal is to reference the zoning by-law in the planning board rules and regulations as the standard for the voting requirements. So my point is that this conversation can and should happen, but this might not be the exact moment to have it unless there is someone that's proposing that we do something different with the planning board rules and regulations at this time. Because if we do want to pursue the approach that has been recommended by someone on this board, some staff, that we revise the voting requirements, that needs to happen at the zoning by-law level. And that needs to be a future conversation. As I mentioned, there was discussion at the zoning subcommittee today about that. So we could discuss that under the zoning section of our agenda. We could make it an agenda item for a future meeting. Is there anyone that is proposing we do something different with the planning board rules and regulations than was described? Christine? I'm proposing that we go with what legal counsel suggested and what, you know, reading through all this and just it's not about following the rules, you know, from the governor or new bill. You know, when I read about what is a site plan review and it's by-right, it's not about developers and how much control they or we have and whether or not they can or can't bill. The whole process of a site plan review is by-right. And that's why the usual is simple majority. So I propose and the following is that we still have to follow the zoning by-law until that is changed. But by changing our rules and regs, it sets a tone to prepare for some of this smart growth building and changing our zoning and such so that it can be better for Amherst and we can fix some of the problem zoning. So I think we should make a change where we can make our change and send that message to the council so that they can start to think about it. And as this bill and other things and as you look to other towns and look to our own building, then the zoning by-law can be changed down the road. Because even if we change our rules and regs, it doesn't enact now. It's just a start to something better. Chris? I think it's going to be confusing to have the planning boards rules and regulations differ from the zoning by-law. I think you'd be better off having both of them be aligned with each other whichever way it goes. I tend to agree with that and I think we can set the tone for what we want to recommend in terms of the zoning by-law when we have that discussion. I don't think we're quite there yet, but if others are really wanting to explore that option, we can do that further at this time. Are there further comments, discussion or emotion? Michael? Yeah, I respond to what Jack said a minute ago. I agree that this is a partnership. The developers are an important part of building houses, maybe the most important part. They put up the money, they find the constituents and they make it happen. No question about that. I am concerned that whatever development occurs, have the support of a significant body of the town residents. That's where the partnership comes in. It seems to me that the likelihood of large-scale town support is more likely if a large, not a supermajority, but a two-thirds majority of voting on major site plans is maintained. It seems to me that with the appropriate wording and development of requirements that will be part of whatever new zoning by-law we end up approving, as long as those criteria are carefully written and are appropriate to the town's interests and are reasonable to follow for a developer, that's where we want to end up. Not just opening the door to, quote, by-right, unquote, developing without kind of having reasonable requirements which are part of the by-right process. By-right is not you can do anything you want to. By-right is you can do what needs to be done within the context of the zoning by-law. And that's where I think we need to be. And that's where I would hope that a two-thirds majority would get us to the point where we are all in reasonable agreement with whatever we end up doing. So I still favor an approach where we resolve this immediate issue by amending the rules and regulations to say that they'll correspond when it comes to voting requirements with the zoning by-law. Since the conversation has started about what we might do with the zoning by-law recommendation, I would say that one of my main concerns about the current situation we're in, where SPR has become more difficult than it otherwise would have been under our prior form of government because of the way that the math breaks down on the voting requirements, we want a range of tools that we use to permit uses in town. And if we have by-rights, we have SPR and we have a special permit, the nature of these changes means that the site plan review applications have been given a higher threshold for passing, and so our range of uses of permitting paths has diminished. And we talk about development when we're talking about site plan reviews, but I think we've largely overlooked what actual uses are regulated by site plan review in the town and what uses would be made more difficult. Medical offices, grocers, bakeries, delis, tailors, governmental offices, reservoirs, other governmental uses, convenience stores, philanthropic or charitable medical or residential facilities, public parks, churches, these are a range of uses that I don't think we necessarily want to be making more difficult to occur in the town. And so I think that if there are certain uses that are deemed needing more regulation, and I can say that the mixed use building category, which is currently site plan review has been a topic of much discussion, we should have that discussion. I don't think we should have a discussion about making it difficult across the board for the uses such as the one I described. So that's my line of thinking when it came to the zoning subcommittee's recommendation today, and I'll revisit and expand on it when we have that discussion. Are there further comments, questions, or a motion? I don't disagree with that at all. I think that's, you've hit on exactly what the issue is, which is the mixed use building. And those are the, that's the concern that I think will be the central issue in terms of discussion relative to these zoning changes we want to make. And we got to get that right. I think I absolutely agree with that. I think there's many others that would like to see that section of the bylaw revised. I have grave concerns about modifying all SPR uses and how easily or not that can be achieved just because there's a concern with one category. I think we should address that one category. And that has been a priority of the zoning subcommittee. It was mentioned as a priority of some members of the CRC when the zoning subcommittee met with them recently. So I think it's a high priority for the town in general. Sorry. So are you suggesting that we hold on, hold off from voting on the issue right now until the zoning subcommittee has had time to deliberate further or? I'm suggesting we resolve the planning board rules and regulations issue, which is the topic of this hearing now by amending them to say that the voting requirements shall be in keeping with the zoning bylaw. Jack? I also feel like you put your finger on that particular issue. So, well said. And I agree with what you said. Michael? I will move that we resolve the issue. You're reading about keeping the rules and regulations referencing the zoning bylaw. I think that's exact. I think that's the way we should go for now. And I would so move. Does that motion include adopting the changes relative to the other issue, which is the, I believe it's the cost of, sorry, Chris? It's in reference to third party review of projects and what the appeal mechanism would be. And the town attorney suggested that the appeal mechanism should be to the town council rather than to the town manager. So those are the two matters before us. Would that motion include those changes as well? I did not intend it to, but it certainly could. Where is that, Chris? I think I sent you his email and let me find it in the text. It's on page 11 under administrative appeals. Initially when we had gone through this and made suggestions about how the wording should change to comport with the charter, we had suggested that the town manager would be the entity that would decide on an appeal if, say, an applicant did not like the third party reviewer or had a problem with the amount that they were charging or something like that and they wanted to appeal it. We had suggested that it be to the town manager and our town attorney has said that it would be better going to the town council because they could act as a quasi-judicial body and the town manager cannot act as a quasi-judicial body. So that's as it is redlined in the, on page 11 in our current. That's correct. Yeah, I would definitely include that. Okay. I have a motion and a second from Pahri. Thank you. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor. All opposed. All abstaining. All right. So that passes five to one. All right. So we'll move on to the next item on the agenda, which is the zoning subcommittee report. The zoning subcommittee had a very productive meeting with the community resources committee of the town council a few weeks back. And then the zoning subcommittee also met earlier today. And as mentioned, zoning subcommittee is working on three zoning articles. And today it's made recommendations to the planning board on all three of them, those being the supplemental dwelling units article, the marijuana buffer zones article and the article just discussed, which would be a revision to the voting requirements for site plan review. And the zoning subcommittee has recommended that the planning board take town council's advice and recommend that wording, which is that any site plan review applications will require the concurring vote of at least four members of the planning board, that the planning board recommend that change to the town council. So I believe that we have only one of these articles in final form in our packets, which would be the supplemental dwelling units. The planning board would need to hold the public hearing on any of these that it's going to recommend to the town council. And that's an action that we could consider taking at a future meeting. So the zoning subcommittee would look for responses, reactions, conversation from and with the planning board about these three articles, which we may post public hearings for soon. Chris? I don't think that we put those articles in the planning board packets, because I wasn't sure that they were ready. But now that you recommended them, I would put them in the next packet. Can we set a date for the public hearings prior to our receiving the packets? Chris? I think it would be best if we let the zoning bylaw go through its paces with the town council before we propose, before we hold public hearings or propose any changes to the zoning bylaw, because we want to have a base level that then we can amend. So I understand and partially agree with that approach. I also recognize that when we made the same action in December that we made tonight, we may have thought that that would be resolved in short order. And it took a little bit longer than expected. So I think an approach could be a hybrid where the planning board makes its approach and recommendation, but perhaps with a sensitivity to the timeline of the town council as to when we actually deliver and ask for any sort of action from them. I would hesitate to wait to have this discussion amongst ourselves until the changes that we discussed earlier, the adoption of the new bylaw goes into effect. Chris? So with that in mind, you could hold the public hearing in July. There's a July 3rd date and July 17th date. Or you could hold the public hearing in August. There's an August 7th date. So do you have a preference about either of those? Well, we have a larger quorum available on the July 17th than we do on August 7th. So maybe July 17th would be a better choice. Shall I notice the public hearings for July 17th? Yes, I'd say so. Any further discussion of the zoning subcommittee report? Any public comments on the zoning subcommittee report? Any other planning and zoning issues? All right, moving on to item six, old business topics not reasonably anticipated. Are there any such items? I don't believe so. Item seven, new business 7a, signing of letters to registry of deeds and land court recorder regarding signatures of planning board officers. Chris? So this is something I've been meaning to do for a long time and it came to a head last time when Ms. Gray Mullen signed A&Rs and it really jolted me into thinking that we better get these letters signed. So the idea is that you authorize the officers of your board and currently the officers are Mr. Stutzman is the chair, Ms. Gray Mullen is the vice chair and Mr. Jempsich is the clerk. You authorize them to sign any documents related to subdivision and these letters go to the registry of deeds and to the land court and obviously if your officers change we'll need to do this again but we really should have done this probably six months ago and I apologize for not taking care of it earlier. And so those letters are here this evening? So I'll pass those letters along to your signatures and again there are two of them. All right thank you. Are there any new business topics not reasonably anticipated? Would this be a good opportunity for me to report on the meeting last night? Yes please. So last night we had a very lively meeting. It was attended by probably about 45 people. It was very good. It was at the Woodbury room of the library and the topic was chapter 40R which is commonly known as the smart growth program. And what the smart growth program is is it allows a city or town to develop an overlay zoning district that allows denser development in exchange for providing either 20% or 25% affordable units. So in some ways it mimics a 40B project which goes before the zoning board of appeals but in the 40R case the town actually has a lot more control over what happens. In the 40B case the developer comes in with a proposal and the town reacts to it whereas in the case of a 40R the town decides what it wants to have where it wants to have it and it can set up design guidelines to control what is built. It can also if you want to use the phrase form-based code that can be used as well and you determine how many units you want to allow per acre or per whatever size of your district is and then give parameters for the type of building that you want whether it's a mixed use building or whether it's all housing and you also you need to find a location for this overlay district. You can have multiple overlay districts. I think Northampton has at least two if not more. Belmont has one very small one and only has 18 units but it's a start and we don't know if they're going to go any further with it but in any event there are places that are being considered for a 40R development and I've given you each a map showing three potential places so after a presentation by our consultants Karen Sonneberg and David Eisen we gathered in small groups and looked at places in town that might be suitable for creating a 40R district. Some of the criteria that would be used are that the district is already a mixed-use neighborhood that it has public transportation and public infrastructure that it's big enough to make this reasonable that apartments are by special permit if not by site plan review that there's already a build-out capacity for the site. There are some outdoor amenities that the owner of the property is patient and isn't eager to sell immediately and then there are some other criteria as well. So the three places that were proposed by the consultants in consultation with staff were town center and it was actually a pretty big area of town center you can see that in the middle of the map that you have in front of you. North Amherst and again it's a pretty big area that would have this overlay zoning district on it and the Pomeray village area which is Pomeray Lane, West Pomeray Lane and Route 116 or West Street going through South Amherst. All of those three areas are already developed they already have access to infrastructure and utilities they have transportation that the some of them have a lot of open space which wouldn't necessarily be developed but these are overlay districts they sit over the existing zoning so you don't lose your ability to develop property based on existing zoning it just gives you an opportunity to do a different type of development that might be more suited to the town. So we had a great discussion many more places were actually not many more but several more places were suggested one was University Drive one was the Atkins Corner area and one was East Amherst in the vicinity of the Florence Savings Bank on College Street so those are all under consideration those are actually places that the town staff had talked to the consultant about earlier. So people came up with reasons why any of these places would be good places and why they wouldn't be and rank them and it was a very lively discussion and Miss Graham Mullen and Mr. Burt Whistle were already all also there so they may have their own point of view to share with you but I thought it was a really good start and the next time we look at this we're really going to be zeroing in on which area do we actually want to designate as a 40-hour district and then starting to talk about design guidelines and form-based code. Thanks so much for that Chris. Is there a next meeting scheduled or tentatively scheduled as to when that could happen. There's no next meeting scheduled we're going to have to wrestle with summer in Amherst and the fact that people tend to go away and how much time will it take the consultants to get their work together so I think the idea is the next thing we're going to do is meet with them staff is going to meet with them or have a phone call with them and kind of talk about what are next steps and where do we go from here but we'll keep you updated about when the next meeting will be. Great thank you was anyone who is there like to like to comment all right thanks so much so our next item is eight any form A&R subdivision applications. No A&Rs. Okay upcoming ZBA applications. Ms. Field Sadler is going to report on that. Yes please. I will. I want to let you know that the herbology group went in front of the ZBA earlier this evening and they were requesting two special permits one for recreational marijuana and one as an off-site medical marijuana dispensary and both of those special permits were approved and on June 13th Echo Hill Townhouse Condominium Trust is going to go before the ZBA requesting a de minimis determination for a change to condition five of their special permit in their hopes to improve sidewalks and lighting in the area of Bedford and Chadwick courts and the other new one is it will go June 13th and that is there is I'm just going to see them out 1530 South East Street there is an existing non-conforming lot that they are proposing to allow a single family home on the dimensions are okay and meet the requirements of the bylaw except for the building all right thank you are there upcoming SPP SPRS UB applications I think I've told you about some of these already the town dog park has already been submitted by the town and that's going to be a very exciting place when it gets built over on Belcher Town Road and then we have Amir Mikchi who's still interested in proposing a mixed use building on Southeast Street he's very close to submitting his application so I'm expecting that at any time and we have Amherst Media coming back on July 17th great if I could ask as reminded by Amir Mikchi's project about the status of that tree hearing Chris so it's still a little unclear what's going to happen the town manager I believe is wrestling with whether he or town council should take on that decision making and it's I think that the recommendation that we've received from the town attorney leans towards town council but that hasn't been completely decided yet so wait and see all right thanks again planning board committee and liaison reports PVPC Jack um there is nothing to report except for the you know meeting uh next week next Thursday what's the time of that five five to eight thirty okay I think we as a board received an invitation to that so I'm gonna did you get your invitation I received an invitation I think I was the only one it was addressed to the chair of the planning board and we discussed it last time but the time was not noted on the invitation so 5 p.m. next Thursday the 13th and it's at the following street of the arts trust yes excellent all right CPAC no report ag commission all right design review board design review board has not met since the previous planning board meeting same as true for the affordable housing trust zoning subcommittee we've already discussed and downtown parking working group has not met all right no report of chair any report of staff no report of staff thank you all right then we're adjourned thanks everyone we could talk about the schedule it appears that we wanted to get a handle on when people were available so July 17th it looks like oh excuse me Ms. Reahi just said she wouldn't be there on July 17th so we're going to cross her name off this is a very useful thing and are you still here for the summer I was asked to complete my availability and I did so so that would affect the number so I need to find out from town council whether Greg can keep sitting on emmerced media I'm hoping he can because in the past it's always been true that if you're on a case you can continue till the end of the case so without him that would be a difficult case to manage and yeah I think what we're going to find is that having seven members is going to be a challenge it's going to be difficult to maintain our quorums so but we're going to do our best and this is a start to try to get you know some sense of when people are going to be here or not so Ms. Riahi just told me she's not going to be here on the 17th so that means we only have one, two, three, four members and if Mr. Stutzman can sit then we have five members to sit on emmerced media and the way the current voting requirement is all five of you would have to vote yes to approve that project so you want to talk about any other dates here I'm thinking maybe you won't hold a meeting on Wednesday August 21st because it looks like not many people are going to be here and I'm not sure if you're going to have any business to take care of on Wednesday July 3rd so that may be a date that you could cancel but in the meantime you don't have to decide that tonight we can decide that later that is true yes you want to change that July 3rd emmerced media has to be on the 17th because that's when they were continued to so six on July 3rd not even if Greg is there or not whether he's there or not sorry you're saying the public hearing for the no emmerced media is the 17th it's got to be the 17th because you continued it to the 17th so the thing that could move to the 3rd would be zoning if you chose to do that so that what you'd like to do yes okay