 Thank you very much welcome to the November 28th select board meeting, which is called to order at 616 p.m We have a couple more wrap-up things to do from the other night And I'm hoping to get the other select board members here before we take a position on article 19 So before we do that, we'll do a couple of the other things that we still have pending one of them is the parking and street closure request for Mary Maple there had been a Problem with the one that we had approved several weeks ago So we just need to approve the correction that takes into account some public safety issues that have to do with the horse rides So we will do that quickly this time. We'd like to make that much That the select board amending the select board to vote of November 5th 2012 to one prohibit parking in the entire Spring Street lot from 2 p.m. To 6 30 p.m. And to Resin blocking off that part of the North Pleasant Street as it is not yet necessary for the horse carriage horse-drawn carriage rides second For the discussion, I'll in favor say aye. All right. It's unanimous. Okay. Let's do Still waiting for mr. Wilde. Let's do the taxi license I move that the select board approve a new taxi slash show for a license for Edward the deuce on behalf of celebrity cab for the calendar year 2012 Second further discussion on favor say aye. Hi hardly paid Very beautiful time Okay, there we go When we might as well do the Chapter 61 right of first refusal. This is a parcel of land on Flat Hills Road That has been taken out of Chapter 61 To become a building a lot and we've dealt with these several times over the past several years and in fact, past several weeks, we had another one. We have recommendations from both the Conservation Commission and the Planning Board to not exercise the town's right of first refusal on this property. It is, as per usual, not something that has been identified on the open space plan. It doesn't have any particular water issues, et cetera. So there's no specific interest in why the town would buy this parcel. So those are our recommendations. Does anybody have any questions about that, Mr. Heaton? No, just a recollection that the other two lots that are almost next door have received similar recommendations from, well, all three of these boards when we get to our board. Correct. Any other questions? I just have a comment. It seems sort of contrary to the spirit of master plan to convert these lots into, basically, it's going to turn out to be a development. So I'm not totally happy about this particular use, but I don't think there's anything the town can do about it. Correct. And there's a member of the Planning Board who consistently expresses that viewpoint also that it is in an area that's undeveloped and hence not in keeping with the master plan for encouraging development in built-up areas. At the same time, the way to prevent that would be for the town to buy the property. And so buying the property is not in the cards. Right. OK. Yes, please. I move that the Select Board, in accordance with MGL Chapter 61, Section 8, to not exercise the town's right of first refusal to purchase Lot 1, as described on a plan of land entitled Plan of Land Located in Amherst, M.A., Perenn's Flat Hills Road and Perenn's prepared for W.D. Poles, Incorporated, dated January 28th, 2012. Second. For discussion. All in favor say aye. Aye. And I believe that was unanimous. Yes. OK. Good. All right. An Article 19. So when we left off the other night, we were talking about Article 19, which is some amendments to the nuisance house bylaw. The petitioners have brought forth a couple of changes to this, one of which puts property managers in the line of communication for violations that occur at their property. Another one was changing who was going to notify from the police department to the town manager's office. But in negotiations between the petitioners and the police chief and town manager, they all agreed that it's better to keep it with the police department. So that's not going to be a change. And changing some of the wording where it says may to shall. So when we left off Monday night, Mr. Musanti was suggesting that it gives the town greater discretion if there were to be an additional sentence added that referenced that discretion. We decided rather than be hasty about a decision on this the other night because we were already late, we would take this up now. So I think that's pretty much where we left off. So would folks like to comment at all on that? Ms. Spine. May I ask Chief Livingstone a question? Okay. Good. Who just happens to be here. Wouldn't it be easier for the police department after you've given two $300 fines and you're at the third one to just be able to say no? In other words, you should be able to say if you wish that or you should be able to say that response costs shall be assessed and there's no wiggle room. This amendment or this suggested amendment from the town manager leaves it in your hands to decide. The decision process, one of the areas of concern that I had when we were in the process and the discussion of that actual wording was that this is real, this really wasn't a one size fits all kind of situation because we have a number of landlord and property owners who are working very closely to make changes, you know, whether it be adding security personnel, security lighting, making changes, landscaping to make it less attractive for students to hang out and make changes. So I felt there were a number of property owners who might be analyzed when they take that discretion away who would leave it. That was the discussion that we had. So does it make our job easier if there's no discretion? Certainly, but those were my concerns. So I would say that they're, I don't think that going from May to Shell necessarily takes away that discretion. I think that just like if you're going 80 miles an hour and you get stopped, you, you know, general law probably says you will get a ticket but you won't necessarily get a ticket. Maybe you'll get a warning or whatever. So, and I shouldn't speak to laws that I don't actually know what their wording is but is there, is there, is that a valid analogy? Do you know what a speeding law says? Well, I mean, there's always, well, not always. There are two laws in the book that really mandate that the only two laws that we find that actually mandate the law. But police officers do arrest somebody. So it's very rarely done, but that doesn't mean that in this case it would be workable or doable. So, you know, after further discussion with the town manager and some of the petitioners, you know, I'm not, this isn't going to agree something that really pulls things up in my opinion or above breaks the deal. Ms. Burr. And it doesn't sound as though it's something that is going to cause problems interfacing with our rental registration as we come up with it in the future, you know, that it's not of a particularly different tone than that. And again, I mean, this is at a third offense and I didn't really like the analogy somebody made to three strikes policy because it's very different than a three strikes policy. It's just paying some money. It's not that you're losing your house. It's not like you're getting executed on the common. It's just saying come on now. It's been the third time because we actually don't have very many repeat offenders after the 300 as it stands right now. And so we're saying you would be such an outlier that we definitely want to get money from you because you're just not getting it at that point. So I feel comfortable with leaving it the way it is not feeling like I'm tying the police up in knots and saying they won't have any discretion at all. Yeah, and I agree with that. I mean, it's certainly, you know, I think we all know which properties are the problem of properties and which landlords are the problem of landlords. And that probably will be the ones who end up getting addressed in the long run if it comes to that. So, you know, there'll probably be some false concerns in my list, or are there any more concerns? So I want to be clear that when we talk about changing and making these changes, the assessing the costs to the property managers, including them in the line of onus here happens on the third offense of a point we haven't gotten to yet, which speaks to other issues with the law. But it also changes the maze to shell for the first two offenses on the students. So I personally am really torn on this because on the one hand, I think it's really important that the town has and uses as many tools as it has at its discretion. And as a municipality, we only have so many potential tools at our discretion. At the same time, going back to that word, discretion. I think that the discretion is a really important part of this. So I would be happier with it being May on the first two and Shell on the third. Because really, if you get to three, come on now. Like, learn your lesson. But assessing costs, response costs on the first two on the students seems to me that's a little bit further afield. Mr. Fox, did you want to come? You're fine where you are. Well, Marla, just on the question of Shell, what we do have is that on the first response cost, they shall be assessed against the neighbors in the town. They have to pick it up in their property taxes. Somebody has to pay for it. So it is an expense of the town, an expense of the neighbors. Second public nuisance, it says Shell, in fact, to the neighbors and to the rest of the town. You will pick up the cost. So it seems very fair that on the third time, I'm talking about the owner, landlord, or the resident manager, then even if they include excuses, consider property, consider property, build it into their cost. At that point, you Shell, the resident manager, the owner, you pick up the cost. That seems a very fair distribution of responsibility. So I guess I hear you and I more or less agree. At the same time, I think that that's exactly where the discretion element comes in. Some kids, the fact that we've never gotten to three speaks to the fact that one, warning is typically very effective. Two sometimes is needed. We haven't gotten to three yet. On the same property within the same calendar year with same kids. So again, we've got some issues there. But there's a lot of evidence that it is effective per property, per student. I think that if we get too far down the line of thinking, well, we're all bearing the cost for that, then you could say when the police are in the fire, respond to the guy who falls off his roof or something, then you could all say, well, jeez, the town is paying for the fact that you were up on your roof. That's pretty dumb or whatever. So I think that you have to be careful about the idea of assessing response costs. If the third county falls off the roof, maybe you'd want to. Well, that's my point. That's my point. So on third, I'm fine with that. But the other two, I think that we want to imply the broader discretion. And for the record, I think there's discretion on all of them. I just think that the implication is stronger if you say may on the first two and shall on the third. It's really saying that it strengthens the fact that three is serious. And Ms. Stein. I could go along with saying shall for the second and third. On the grounds there should be no repeaters. And in fact, there almost never are. So that would be fine. Anybody who, I mean, we have had problems with students throwing cams and other weapons at the police. And I think the more stringent, the stricter this reads, the more likely it would be to have a positive effect that they wear after. I mean, we kept hearing during town meter, it's behaviorally want to modify. So I would be happy to have shall all the way through. But I could live with shall after the first defense on the grounds that they haven't learned it then they should have. So that would take an amendment from the floor, I guess. Right. So and in some ways, we might be splitting hairs and making this too complicated. So there is a sense that there is still discretion with shall. That's right. I mean, so there's an expectation that there's going to be discretion, but it does send a strong message to the students, to the residents, if it says shall and then the discretion happens from there. And you can wordsmith the stuff to death. We, in dealing with the university on getting them to unambiguously apply the code of student conduct off campus, it was the same kind of issue. They were saying things like, oh, well, it already applies. We're like, no, it barely applies. Your wording is such that it is just these big giant loopholes. So I don't believe we took away any discretion from the university on whether or not it applies, but we strengthened the language to give them more area to enforce it. So it sounds like you could live with this. So I could. Yeah. All right. How about if I make a motion? How anybody else have comments? Mr. Walden. A little, like you a little bit hesitant, because most people misuse shall and would and will and should in common English and legal English shalls are very strong. We're usually imposing an obligation. And I would be nervous about putting shall in the first case also. I guess what I'm asking is, I think if I don't want to give the police discretion in legal matters, I don't know who might do what you've been, enforcement matters, I trust the police to use good judgment. But are we playing a game here if we say the legal language obligates the police to do things, but they don't really have to? And we don't care. And then one of some citizens says, but you busted this guy three times, and it says shall and police costs. And the chief says, I don't think we're going to do that for very good reasons. Could someone then attack the town as not upholding the law? Yeah. I've asked that very question to town council about the use of the word shall. And town council has advised that even with the word shall, police do retain some discretion. But it certainly sends a clear message. Yeah. Who does want to put the police in an arbitration? Sentiment of town meeting, et cetera. I've made clear to the petitioners in a multiple times that I think overall the article has now drafted, strengthens the overall nuisance house bylaw. So with the knowledge that, well, it's not as explicit in the language as you might want to make to where I was trying to go last time, there still is some discretion to retain. But it certainly sends a very clear signal. And it particularly sends a clear signal to the folks' behavior we want to be deterring. OK, so basically, I'm saying I'm fine with the shall. Mr. Hayden. Well, I want to debate with you on being fine with it. The shall for the third offense, that's clear. I think we can all agree on that. It's an interesting, I want to introduce a concept I think is a little bit not as legalistic as we're trying to make this. And that is that, immersed because it is host to 26,000 teenagers, well, recent teenagers, we have, I don't want to say an obligation, but we certainly have the task of being part of helping them into adulthood. And the idea of saying, hey, you screw up once and that's it. I think it's not a reasonable one. For anyone who's raised a teenager, I think you may recall that the first time out doesn't always work. And the first time is not necessarily. Excuse me. You have to be quiet because of the ambient light. Yeah, it's not necessarily criminal. And we have made it criminal by putting a shall there. Even with all of the wiggle room that our lawyers are going to give us, I think it's a signal that, hey, we think the first time you do that, it's criminal. Now, to the neighbors next door, it probably feels that way. But as being part of a community, here's the fine. Don't do that again. Do it again and you shall. Well, basically it's just a way of increasing the fine. And so state law limits us to $300 for a finable offense. So this is actually a way around being able to make that fine a bit bigger. And in some ways, I don't have a problem with that either, that the fines have proven to be very effective. And the higher the fine, the more effective it is. And I was just part of a big thing today about party registration in Fort Collins, Colorado, and how they deal with it. They went from a fine of $100 to register a party to, or rather for a violation, a party violation, to $1,000, like 1,000. And yet still, that wasn't quite effective enough. But there's a lot to be said for high fines. So that part's not particularly compelling. Mr. Hinn. Part of our role, I imagine, is maybe soulful, not only pugilistic. So I'm going to, again, speak strongly for keeping the May for the first one. Just to be clear that we are accepting these folks in town. We're going to accept that they can screw up. And yes, that will cost them. And if they do it a second time or a third time, it will cost them more. And I know they're not going to like it, but sorry. I have a question. There are a couple of things. First of all, I think the police chief has, and will continue to use his discretion, he frequently gives students a verbal warning. And sometimes that's absolutely the most appropriate thing to do, and perfectly adequate. I believe he only gives a citation of some sort, when there's additional violations. So it's clearly illegal, alcohol issues, violence, disobeying the police, something of that sort. He's not out there handing out $300 fines at every possible noise instance. He's already using his discretion, and I'm sure he will continue to do so. And I don't think you need to worry about that. And secondly, it's going to be very difficult to separate the first and second responses in the Bible, because the first and second responses are being treated in the same way. So we would have to re-write that book, an amendment to re-write that thing. And I think, as I say, I think the police give verbal warnings even before this even comes into a range of play. And also, they get tremendous amount of education and knowledge that these things are not approved of, and that they need to, you know, ask their neighbors if they want to have a party or let them or something, just like the rest of us do. So I don't think this is an issue, really. I think this is non-citizen behavior that I expected from him, and I think this shouldn't put his people at a very good about handing out warnings and telling them to shape up. I think kind of the bottom line here is we're all agreeing that there is discretion and that Shao sends a certain stronger message than May, but does not reduce the discretion at all. So, because I don't think we can both say that Shao obligates on one offense, but doesn't on yet another. Like, so I think we're agreeing that Shao Shao maintains discretion. You think it means discretion? There's still discretion. Shao means discretion. Shao does not deny discretion, that even if it says Shao, the police are, just as you said, they still have the potential to do a warning or whatever they have to do. But what we're doing is sending a stronger signal with our intention that these kinds of responses, we don't want that response, we certainly don't want it repeated, and we have the ability to find you in multiple ways for, in these issues, in these instances, rather, Ms. Brewer, and then let's. And the fact that, you know, as we talked about, and then the town managers talked about with the town attorney, we, there is no personage who's going to say, oh, police, you are bad because you didn't, I mean, there could be neighbors who say that, there could be individual people who said, why didn't you do, there could be bloggers who say that. But there is no means of saying, that's illegal, we're going to sue you for not doing that, blah, blah, blah, blah. So it doesn't have that kind of ramification, so I don't feel like it's putting people in an unimaginable position. The other thing that, although it sounds like maybe in an ideal world, it would have been written and cannot really, at this last minute, be written as may, Shao Shao, which may have solved all this, is that one of the things that's actually, I think, good about the response costs and leaving it at $300 versus some of them, that's huge refines, which again, I'm taking that somewhat out of context, but we know there are larger fines for other things at the places, is to realistically portray what it is, it isn't just we're sending you a big bill, it isn't just let's put a number out of the air that sounds bad, it's, this is what it costs us to deal with this. And so that's one of the things I actually really like about this, is developing the response cost so that it's not, it doesn't go in 5,300, 750 or something, but it's actually related to real life. And I think that that's a much better instance of why we're doing this, as opposed to we're just trying to rip students off. And why wouldn't we want to, to wear appropriate assessment of those costs? Like, why wouldn't we? I mean, that's good for everybody. When that's considered the appropriate thing to do. Mr. Hayden. Yeah, because the first time you fall off the roof, it's because you were stupid. But that's not my question. I'm wondering what sort of discretion we're talking about that shall give. I mean, if you assess the $300 fine, then we shall bring administrative costs in. That's, I don't quite understand the wiggle room that that leaves. And I'm wondering if that can be, in the remaining 30 seconds before we have to adjourn the town meeting, I could help you help to understand that. I can't recite the legal terminology that was used. It was just a very clear opinion expressed by council that despite what you might take away intuitively from the use of the word shall, that there is discretion that is retained. I really can't. Because my concern would be that if that discretion is deciding not to offer the $300 ticket and do a verbal warning, when I think we would want it to be the other way around, then that's kind of defeating the escalating costs here. It's talking about potential assignment of the response costs, not that $300 fine. That's clear because that would be. A different kettle of issues. Whether this happens in addition to the third $300 fine. Miss Stein, did you have another comment? No. I thought that discretion, well, I was just gonna say that discretion comes with the assignment of any fine. And the costs on top of it, I think are a very good idea for just the reasons of this is that it has to be clear that what they're doing and their behavior has cost the town and we're seeking reimbursement. I think that's almost better than the fine, but it goes along with the fine and that's just fine with me. Fine, fine, fine. All right, so I'd like to make a motion. I would love to. I move that the select board recommend November 19th, 2012, special town meeting, Article 19, Petition General Viola and Newson's House, including the following draft amendment for consideration. Oh, where is it? We just do the one. Yeah, we're just doing the problem. Okay, yeah, stop after Newson's House. So as it stands, in other words, or I'll read it again. I move that the select board recommend November 19th, 2012, special town meeting, Article 19, Petition General Viola, Newson's House. So we won't say as amended because you're going to be making an amended motion on this with the changing the. Yeah, yeah, right. Let's say as amended by the petition. As amended by the petition. Second. Mr. Hayden. But I want to be very clear that we're not going to be charging people, for instance, maybe the BID for doing the merry maples, inviting the police to come and control traffic. We're not going to be charging a minister of cost for people to put their car in the ditch and might need a policeman to direct their traffic around. We're not going to charge beyond the ambulance fees for when you come tumbling off of your roof, that we're only going after students. Public nuisance. So. What? So I think that what Mr. Hayden is saying, I think is trying to illustrate the point here. So the point is that we need to, as the costs get considered, what is a response cost? What's above and beyond what one is entitled to as a citizen in a town where there is public safety? There's kind of an above and beyond cost maybe. And so the things that you're talking about certainly fall within the areas of things we're already essentially entitled to as citizens of the community where we support public safety. So maybe that factors into what this cost schedule looks like. There's a certain amount of response costs that you're simply entitled to through property taxes, et cetera. But then there's this extra. That's because you've done something that is really pretty bad out there. And that's the response cost you're getting assessed at. So how does that feel to you as a concept? I think it's the point. I mean, I don't know when stupidity slides into nuisance. And that's the question that I want to keep before us even as we take our vote now. Okay, further discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye, and that was unanimous. Thank you for helping us tease through this. Right, Mr. O'Connor, I see you're here, but we did not expect you. So we've got like just a couple of minutes to deal with this. I provided a copy of the motion. I did it on behalf of the neighborhood organization that asked me to speak to this and after we had gone and public hearings to revise the proposal so that it would meet the objections of planning board and the concerns for the need for exceptions that were articulated by the public hearings. And I've done so. Again, if you have the, I made some notes underneath. This is not something terribly complicated. The only thing is we have passed a button up in that position to the bylaw that is numbered 3.14. So the motion will be 3.15 because 3.14 is already taken by previous action to the county. And there are two issues really. One is to get ahead of the curve in terms of McMansions so that people can't demolish houses to provide it. And provide an exception for people who buy a small, run-down houses and want to demolish the houses. It's something that's appropriate in the neighborhood and so forth. And there's the second paragraph provides an exception in accordance with the existing processes that because all demolitions go to the historical commission and then it says that the planning board can grant a special permit if it's as long as the, to add more residential square footage but not an additional units. If the, as long as the replacement structure is consistent with the scale and architecture of the street scale. So it protects neighborhoods from having 10,000, some of you buy it, they're gonna have a 10,000 square foot house on your block, which is the McMansion problem. And then there's an exception to that that such a permit wouldn't be available until the process that a local historic district is going through would be completed. So that's, it's my feeling pretty straightforward designed to meet situations. One that is happening in other places but hasn't quite reached Amherst, the McMansion issue and to the demolition thing we've seen outbuildings are proposed and to be demolished and we have some very aggressive purchasers of single family homes who are asking for permits that as a result of our action in town meeting already are going to have to get not just site plan review but special permits and we don't want the special permit application to be a simultaneous filing for a demolition permit that if you don't give me the special permit I'm gonna demolish the house and build something else. So we wanna control that possibility by restricting the number that you can't increase the number of units and with one, with the exception that's in paragraph two that you can increase the amount of residential square footage. Okay, so let me ask for questions or comments from select board from Mr. O'Connor. Mr. Heaton. I'm going to, when it comes time, suggest that we recommend referring this back to the planning board. I understand the intent and for seven years I was on the planning board trying to figure out how to regulate against McMansions and couldn't really find a way to do that and maybe this is the way, maybe this is the key but I'm finding, as it's presented, two things, one is that it probably is okay to make this amendment because it reduces the scope from the original thing that's in the warrant now. If I was the moderator I think I would find that. But second, it has often been noted in when we're dealing with even the smallest zoning amendments that there are tentacles, there are effects intended and sometimes unintended that do need to be thought through. That the public hearing process, for instance, helps us with that. Also, there's a lot more resources that would be available through that process to squaring this with the rest of the zoning while this is not quite, this has got some little things that don't look right to me, don't look like they fit perfectly. There's some things that don't exist yet and it also doesn't protect a lot of things that I think it intends to protect. Thank you, Ms. Stone. We did get extensive comments from the staff and the revisions were made in light of those comments to take them into account and when we have not gotten, since the planning board got this a week ago, Monday, we have not gotten any further expressions of concern from the planning staff. Okay, I'm gonna let Ms. Stein comment or question. I do have a question. I wonder why other than by an act of God is left in there because that would mean a lightning strike takes something down and then you could build a 10 story house if you wanted to, no? And the reason to do that is that I think that those, I actually know of a situation where a lightning strike did take down somebody's house. I actually did some very small amount of work on that house and my recollection was that the residential square footage was increased. It would have been, I think, an owner's process to have a person get a special permit after suffering. One, the destruction of their house by both fire and then water and then also the incredible process of dealing with the insurance companies. It's a process that I wish on nobody, absolutely nobody. And so that was in there to simply unburden somebody who was that lack of fortune from having to get a permit from the town. I'm wondering, I share Mr. Hayden's concerns about this being considered kind of in a vacuum and without the whole process connected to it. We've been making a lot of effort at increasing residential density in various areas in downtowns and in certain ring areas in the village center districts. Not the ones that we haven't created yet, but the ones that we have. So I'm not sure that this would be consistent with that and I don't wanna take a step backward from that situation. We know perfectly well that the question of student housing, for example, comes up all the time. I wouldn't wanna do something that has unintended consequences of, say, tying our hands to create an ideal student housing place sometime down the road that involved having to knock something down and then put up something very dense. Or I wouldn't want to have to deal with the fact that there are places in town and just outside of downtown that even the gateway process revealed a ripe for redevelopment. I wouldn't want this to unintentionally tie our hands in those ways. I don't think we can answer those questions satisfactorily right now. I think it needs to go through a whole process of considering how this fits into the other plans and zoning bylaw concepts that we have approved lately. And so I would support Mr. Hayden's idea of referral so it could be considered more fully. The only thing is that this actually was submitted, the article was submitted in mid-September, which was a month before some of the planning board articles were finalized, and this language very close to this was submitted the last week in October in response to the public hearing on October 17th. So we did, you know, it's been around and there has been very extensive communication, email communication between the group, primarily Professor Adams and Mr. Tucker. So I'm just here because I was asked on behalf of the group to advocate for this article. I don't think it would have impact one, the gateway project across that land belongs to the university and we don't control what they do on their property. Right, so the gateway process, though identified different parts of downtown for. Also, I'm very much of the mind that rather than leaving the door open to demolition, I really believe in the conversion process. And I, whether you want to convert a large single family home to four units or however many are allowed in the district, I'm fine with that as long as it's well managed and so forth. What I'm concerned about is demolitions that affect not only the density of the neighborhood but the sort of streetscape and the feeling of it. So I think we're in agreement with you, it's a question of unintended consequences and we need to wrap this up, Ms. Brewer. Exactly, agreeing with what everybody else said, throwing in another reference to the master plan that everything we've done since we accepted many of the precepts of the master plan has been to de-densify things rather than densify them. It was like we're continually stepping back away from that. This has good potential. I think it can also be discussed in the context of the local historic district that we have barely gotten off the ground. We're nowhere near close to having a second and third local historic district at this point. So I think that as of these things continue to work through this fits in with those and continue to work on the historic demolition permit that it's worth working on and it's worthy of referral not to kill it but to keep it in mind as we're working on all these other things together. Can you suggest the time when you might ask that it be returned to County? Because my experience is that articles that are referred to the planning board often don't come back except if the petitioner brings them back or petitioners bring them back. So I think that I don't want to personally step on their prioritization schedule and I think that they're prioritizing might well change considering the whole rental regulation thing that we're going to be coming up with. Who knows how much of that is going to be specific zoning bylaws that need to happen. So no, I'm not personally willing to add a timeframe to that as anyone feel differently. Mr. Walton. No, I'm on the same page of it again. I wholeheartedly agree with the intention which is to prevent unwarranted tear downs in appropriate structures but I'm concerned about the density question. I'm concerned about ad hoc tampering with what's really a messy, ugly beast of a zoning bylaw that doesn't work very well with the master plan and this should be developed I think in accordance with, in cooperation with the historical commission and historic preservation practices and research. And as you said, the local historic district committees aren't off the ground yet. So I think referral is good. Okay, Mr. Hayden, would you like to make a referral motion? Yes, I move that we recommend to town meeting to refer article 18 back to the planning board. Is there a second? Second. Further discussion? Just one brief addition. We've seen articles like this before and we have been reminded by town meeting that there are lots of things that really should happen before we begin to tackle this like the housing study and then some other things that town meeting has asked us to get done first. So further discussion. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye, that was unanimous. Thank you very much. All right. So it is now seven o'clock. Did we miss anything on the motion sheet that we have to do tonight? I don't think so. Yes, we did. Am I supposed to adjourn? Oh, we can't have that motion yet. But practically. So just so you know, we are expecting town meeting to end tonight but if we're wrong, then all kinds of crazy things happen. At this point, we're assuming town meeting ends and that we'll have a regular select board meeting back at town hall on Monday evening. How do you want to do that? If anything else happens because of whatever happens tonight, I will inform you about our select board plans for Monday. If they have to change, if town meeting is still going on. That is all I have to add. Mr. Hayden, we're now right here. I would like, oh, sorry, Ms. Burr. That's the comments section. Who's speaking to 19 and 20 or 18 and 19? What do we do with Mr. Hayden? Would you like to speak to 18, the referral motion that you spoke eloquently to here? And would anybody like to adopt 19 Newsome's house? Oh, doctor. Yeah, that's fine. Okay, so that will probably be tonight that you'll speak to that. Okay. Not much to say. It's not a big challenge. Okay, then now Mr. Hayden. I'd like to move to adjourn. Without objection, this meeting adjourns at 701. Thank you very much.