Planning Board — 2021-05-24
Minutes
MELROSE PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Regular Meeting Monday, May 24, 2021 7:30 PM Remote Meeting PRESENT: Beth Delahaij, Anne DeSouza Ward, Paul King, Carla Morelli, Sharon Petrillo, Greg Sampson & Jack Welch ABSENT: Robert Mercado & John Sadowski STAFF PRESENT: Denise Gaffey, Director, Emma Battaglia, Senior Planner & Lori Massa, Planning Coordinator The meeting was called to order at 7:40 PM by Mr. Sampson. Pursuant to Governor Baker’s March 12, 2020 Order Suspending Certain Provisions of the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A, §18, and the Governor’s March 15, 2020 Order imposing strict limitations on the number of people that may gather in one place, this meeting of the Melrose Planning Board was conducted via remote participation to the greatest extent possible. Meeting access and the general guidelines for remote participation by members of the public and/or parties with a right and/or requirement to attend this meeting was found on the City of Melrose’s website, at www.cityofmelrose.org/remote-meetings. No in-person attendance of members of the public was permitted, but every effort was made to ensure that the public could adequately access the proceedings in real time. An audio or video recording, transcript, or other comprehensive record of proceedings was posted on the mmtv3.org website as soon as possible after the meeting. A link was also available on www.cityofmelrose.org. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Planning Board Regular Meeting, April 26, 2021 Ms. DeSouza Ward made a motion to approve the meeting minutes. Mr. Welch seconded the motion. All members present by roll call voted in favor. None were opposed. Planning Board Joint Public Hearing, April 29, 2021 Mr. King made a motion to approve the meeting minutes. Ms. DeSouza Ward seconded the motion. All members present by roll call voted in favor. None were opposed. Zoning Subcommittee Meeting, May 18, 2021 Ms. DeSouza Ward made a motion to approve the meeting minutes. Ms. Morelli seconded the motion. Mr. Welch abstained. All other members present by roll call voted in favor. None were opposed. SITE PLAN REVIEW & AFFORDABLE HOUSING SPECIAL PERMIT Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 24, 2021 Page 2 of 5 Case 21-001, 52 West Emerson Street, 52 West Emerson Street LLC c/o Frank Barbosa Jason Jarvis, Architect, Rick Salvo, Civil Engineer, Jack Lister, and Kevin Carter appeared to present the case. In October of 2020 the ZBA granted a special permit to establish 6 units with one affordable unit, and variances for lot area, frontage/lot width, number of stories and driveway width. Mr. Salvo explained the site conditions. The building’s slab will be above the ground water table. They will consider the historic high water table when digging a test pit to make sure that they understand the ground water level. The soil here will drain well. With only six units in the building they may not need an accessible unit; however, one of the units can be adaptable as there is enough space in the entryway and bathroom for a wheelchair. Mr. Jarvis explained the building layout and said that there will be a roof deck that will be an amenity for the upper floor units. The Board discussed the proposed ramp and how it appeared difficult to use by wheelchair. The team said that the 1:12 ramp slope and landing areas meet the required standards. Board members felt that it may meet the requirements but practically it will be difficult to use and it is very long at 74 feet. They questioned why a ramp is proposed. The team said that there is no room for an elevator in the building. There could be an automatic door opener to make it easier to enter the building. An accessible space could be located in the front yard for easier access. Members said that they would have to see how this would work on a plan because generally it is discouraged. The Board also discussed: There is no space for trash storage. The team said that it will be inside the building in totes but they are not on the floorplan. The plans need to include the space for the totes and include recycling. A member said that trash compactors may be a good fit for this project. The parking layout looks difficult to maneuver. The trim on the existing building is interesting and should be salvaged. It is hard to see this old building be demolished. The team said it is up to the owner to see how carefully they can remove the parts of the building. There will be six condensers on the roof. They need to submit the specifications. They should explore MassSave incentives and look at the HERS rating of the building. Visitors can park on the street, which is allowed on one side, and in the nearby municipal lot. The garage parking spaces will be wired for electric charging stations with likely level 1 charging. Three of the parking spaces should be pavers or banked in another way and not constructed as proposed. The Board opened the hearing up for public comment. Scott Noddin of 39-41 Winthrop Street said that there a huge ground water and flooding issue in the neighborhood. The sump pump in his building feeds into a drywell that does not drain and the water is in a continuous loop. This project will make the flood issue worse because there will be nowhere for the water to go. A test well was done prior to the construction of his building too but it did not help to avoid this problem. His basement flooded after two months of living there. Finn McSweeney of 160 W Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 24, 2021 Page 3 of 5 Wyoming Avenue said that this development is in a central location and easily accessible bicycle storage is important to facilitate bike use. Richard Curl of 155 Myrtle Street submitted a letter with drainage and aesthetic concerns and also spoke during the meeting to say that the groundwater is very close to the surface. Joe Cramer of 56 W Emerson Street said that the plan at the ZBA meeting had trees lining the driveway, which the current plan excludes. Also, his third floor tenant will be disturbed by the noise of the rooftop A/C units. The Board received a letter about drainage concerns from the Kesak Group at 42-44 West Emerson Street. Mr. Salvo said there is a difference between the observed water table and the historic water table. They would use the historic high water table marker. Instead of putting condensers on the roof they could put them on the low side of the retaining wall near the multifamily unit building. Mr. Welch made a motion to continue the hearing to July 26, 2021. Ms. Morelli seconded the motion. All members by roll call voted in favor of the continuance. None were opposed. Documents: Application materials for Case 21-001 Architectural Plans dated April 9, 2021 Civil Plans dated March 8, 2021 Construction Management Plan Drainage Report Executive Summary Transportation Management Plan DPW Review SITE PLAN REVIEW & AFFORDABLE HOUSING SPECIAL PERMIT Case 20-004, 40 Vine Street, 39 Tappan Street LLC There were not enough Board members present to vote on the case. Ms. DeSouza Ward made a motion to continue the case to June 28, 2021. Mr. Welch seconded the motion. All members by roll call voted in favor of the continuance. None were opposed. ZONING SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT Incentive Zoning Amendment: Report to the City Council Ms. Gaffey reviewed the list of public comments received after the public hearing and the proposed changes to the zoning ordinance. Members found that this tool is a good compromise that will encourage sustainable housing and be usable. It balances the competing interests in Melrose. The State is working on changing the stretch code which will address development city-wide and the City is working on a Net Zero Plan that will include future action on sustainable development. The technology for such things as heating and cooling are also evolving. The Historic District Commission and zoning are two independent authorities; however, the Emerson and Main Street area, which is partially in the historic district, was removed from the zoning amendment and will be evaluated separately in the future. Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 24, 2021 Page 4 of 5 The Board received a letter from a member of the public about the loading requirements. The report to the City Council will include an explanation about why the loading section is in the amendment. Ms. DeSousa-Ward made a motion to send the City Council a report with the proposed changes to the amendment as discussed. Mr. King seconded the motion. All members by roll call voted in favor. None were opposed. Documents: Proposed Zoning Amendment May 24, 2021 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Board of Appeals Public Hearing on June 9, 2021: Case 21-014, 14 Hawes Avenue, M. Razvan & Tina Teodorescu Ms. Morelli made a motion to send a letter to the Board of Appeals stating that they had no objection to the proposal. Ms. DeSouza Ward seconded the motion. All members by roll call voted in favor. None were opposed. Documents: Application materials for Case 21-014 Case 21-015, 27 Temple Street, Joseph H. & Robin L. Higgins The Board did not support the application and recommended denying the variances. Members did not see any justification for avoiding the slope protection special permit. They felt that the majority of the land is not buildable without substantial land alteration and the resulting variances are substantial. Mr. King made a motion to send a recommendation letter to deny the Board of Appeals to deny the variances. Mr. Welch seconded the motion. All members by roll call voted in favor. None were opposed. Documents: Application materials for Case 21-015 Case 21-016, 735 Newburyport Turnpike, Pugh Management, LLC The Planning Board recommended that the Board of Appeals seek additional information on why the thirty-foot building height dimension could not be accommodated. Members were not necessarily opposed to the proposed height; however, there was no justification in the application materials for the need for the variance. The Planning Board had no objection to the entrance driveway variance. Although large, the driveway seems reasonable to them to allow trucks to enter and not have to cross into the travel lane of oncoming traffic. A crosswalk will be installed across the driveway for pedestrian safety. Members recommended denying the open space variance. There appeared to be an excessive number of parking spaces and reducing the number of spaces would free up space for more landscaping on the site to satisfy the open space requirement. Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 24, 2021 Page 5 of 5 The Planning Board recently received a site plan approval application for this proposal and it will be heard at the June meeting. Ms. DeSouza Ward made a motion to send the Board of Appeals a letter with this information. Ms. Morelli seconded the motion. All members by roll call voted in favor. None were opposed. Documents: Application materials for Case 21-016 OTHER Tripartite Agreement & Covenants for Swains Pond Ave Subdivision The land that is part of the Swains Pond Avenue/Hillside Park subdivision is being transferred from recorded land to registered land. The Applicants are seeking clarification from the Planning Board that the Board agrees with City Engineering Department on the schedule of values that will be in the Tripartite Agreement between the Applicant, the Bank and the City. The value is the amount of the bond available if the developer does not do the work. The Engineering Department increased some numbers proposed by the applicant. The final value is $5,488,090. Once the transfer of land is complete the agreement will come back before the Planning Board to sign it. The Planning Board was comfortable with the Engineering Department’s proposed values. It is within the Engineering Department’s best interest to appropriately cover the cost of the work since they would have to do the work if the Applicant does not finish the job. NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting of the Planning Board is scheduled for Monday, June 28, 2021. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 pm.
Transcript
▶ 0:00 Okay we are recording. Okay so this is a uh it's Monday May 24th 2021 7 30 pm regular meeting of the Melrose Planning Board. I'm going to read a quick statement about the meeting pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12 2020 order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law chapter 30a section 18 and the Governor's March 15 2020 order imposing strict limit on the number of people that may gather in one place. This meeting in the Melrose Planning Board will be conducted via remote participation to the greatest extent possible specific information and guidelines promote participation by members of the public in our parties with the right or requirement to attend the meeting can be found in the city of
▶ 0:45 morrow's website at city of morrow's.org no in person attendance members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time or in the event we are unable to do. we will post the on mmtv3.org website an audio video recording transcript or other comprehensive recording of record of proceedings as soon as possible that's the meeting the link to the meeting is found on cityofmelrose.org um with that so the first order of business are our meeting minutes i'm going to start with the planning board regular meeting of april 26 2021. i don't know if anyone had a chance to review those but if so there can be a motion related to the minutes that would be great move to accept as written is there a second
▶ 1:43 okay all those in favor or any comment or discussion all in favor we for minutes can we skip the roll call i don't know you i'll we i'm good with it okay say hi hi any hi hi hi hi all right any any any nays or abstains so those passed um then we can move on to the meeting minutes of the planning board joint public hearing on april 29 2021 with the city council hey sharon any motions for those approval motion to accept second okay all in any discussion or points of clarification all those in favor say aye aye aye aye any abstains or nays nones those passed and the last is the uh zoning subcommittee meeting of may 18 2021 move to accept as written any seconds you don't have to have attended to second
▶ 1:17:05 Thank you all for your time. We appreciate it and we will see you in late June. Okay, thank you. Thank you. So the next item. moving 40 vine street along with the zoning subcommittee report regarding the incentive zoning um the board saw that the zoning committee met last week um you know as everyone knows the uh the city council actually closed the joint hearing a week after we did uh we went to the meeting they so it was around um may 8th and uh planning board has passed issue a report within 21 days or the city council can act on the um ordinance uh regardless of the presence of our report so our goal at this point is to finalize a report to present to the city council um there have been a number of additional comment letters received related to the the ordinance and what's
▶ 1:18:18 Denise Gaffey: been proposed um i think denise is can i hand it over for to you just to summarize where we are or do you want me to run through it or um well i can i can start and then you can jump in um i will just summarize for the rest of the members the issues that we discussed at uh the zoning subcommittee last week um we pulled together the sort of the major issues and themes that were um presented to the council at the joint public hearing in april and then again at that follow-up council meeting on may 6th and sort of distilled it down to six issues um one the first related to green building practices and energy efficiency requirements the interest in more stringent requirements um there was a concern raised about
▶ 1:19:15 Denise Gaffey: the impact of the map change on some parcels in the local historic district um there was also a comment raised by one of the counselors actually the ward counselor interested in moving the boundary of the um map change in the um medical district the bd district further north um that was the third issue there was a question about um affordable housing and whether affordable housing requirements um were going to be part of this zoning initiative um there was a question about open space um and a perception that um public open space had been removed as a community benefit and then finally there was a comment about public participation and a sentiment that the public hearing was not widely advertised and that some additional
▶ 1:20:11 Denise Gaffey: stakeholders should be heard from before before the council were to take a vote on the zoning so we did talk about all of those issues and a couple of others at the meeting last week week. And we pulled together our revised zoning amendment. And Emma, do you want to pull that up? I'm a Lori panelist. Oh, Lori. Okay. If you don't mind presenting. Yeah. That was the proposed zoning amendment dated May 24th, 2021. And so we haven't attempted to start drafting the actual report yet, but we did take the comments from the discussion last week and try to incorporate them into the zoning amendment with some revision. So we're gonna jump ahead. We'll come back to the question about map changes and jump ahead to the first change that's highlighted.
▶ 1:21:21 Denise Gaffey: And this was a comment from an architect that had been provided to me directly, a comment asking or suggesting consideration of more compact spaces as part of this zoning. zoning. And again, in this instance, we're actually changing. This isn't related to the incentive zoning per se, but this is related to the base zoning where we currently do not allow for any compact spaces. We have a fairly conventional parking space size and we frequently see requests for compact spaces and those requests usually currently require variances and we see a benefit to the compact spaces because they require less less pavement so there's certain benefits around drainage and um and in in tight spaces uh which a lot of redevelopments are in
▶ 1:22:27 Denise Gaffey: melrose it sort of it makes sense to encourage the compact cars so we talked about whether to increase to 50 and um i think there was some concern that that might be too many to allow for so we came up with this idea to allow for it um by special permit um by authorized by the planning board um so on a case-by-case basis if it made some sense um to allow for up to 50 parking spaces to be compact in size the planning board might grant a special permit for that so that's what that recommended change is anybody want to add to that feel free to jump in yeah i mean i think this was a this one made sense it was um you know changes yeah it made sense to allow a little more flexibility and and but have some breaks to release the special permit process so then if you
▶ 1:23:32 Denise Gaffey: scroll down um to page nine so here we're just um specifically calling out that the planning ward will be special permit granting authority to allow for that um increase in the number of compact parking spaces this is just the tool that will allow the planning board to have that discretion um so another another thing that was raised another point that was raised kind of a technical point is that um typically if you are allowing for a fifth story in a mixed-use building that first story um is going to be um have larger floor-to-ceiling heights in order to have a more pronounced um you know um thanks on the street um and which is what we want for commercial commercial use so we had previously had the maximum height at 62 feet which makes sense if it's
▶ 1:24:42 Denise Gaffey: a multi-family building at five stories um but since this tool is um intended in our smart growth or transit-oriented areas this tool is intended for don't come to mixed use the 65 feet height correlates better with the five stories so this is just a technical change so the other another big change is we heard a lot from some members of the public specifically members from the Energy Commission to try to make the provisions for green buildings more robust. They would like to see extremely robust provisions around green buildings. I think there was a letter that came in today which had some recommendations, language that they were recommending. We, you know, gave us a lot of consideration and thought this paragraph here that is labeled B that
▶ 1:25:58 Denise Gaffey: currently we have it struck out was actually going to be below the required provision. It was going to be one of the optional incentives or one of the optional community benefits that a developer might be asked to provide in order to provide, in order to take advantage of the incentives. So, we wanted to move this up to the required section of the zoning so that green building and sustainable design practices become a requirement in order to take advantage of the incentive tool. Again, the incentive tool relates to going from a 4th to a 5th story. And also the additional floor area ratio and the flexibility around. Interpretation of open space, so if. If a developer wants to use those incentives, this.
▶ 1:26:51 Denise Gaffey: This change would require that they include a package of green building and sustainable design practices. And then we list. Many of the many of the ones that have been mentioned. Including high performance building envelope and installation electrification. Area ground source, heat pumps, green roof, solar panel and electric vehicle charging infrastructure. And, um, and just around this requirement out, we acknowledge that certification fire recognized green building program is encouraged. And we'll ensure compliance with the standard, but we have, we discussed a lot, whether to require certification or not. And I think. Um, I think what we. Come back with is, um. Sort of a desire to have more to provide for some flexibility. This is we feel like this is a pretty rigorous standard. We know it's not as strong as some members of the energy commission would like it to be.
▶ 1:27:52 Denise Gaffey: But we feel like this, we're also providing. There are also a lot of other benefits associated with this tool and intrinsic benefits to transit oriented tool. Um, as well as the other community benefits that are listed in the zoning. So, um, we thought we were striking a good balance with this language. Add to it or. Yeah, I would like to, I'd like to at least add to that because we really agonized over this and we had an awful lot of input on this. And in addition to a little, this is a compromise. I mean, I feel like we took a big step by making it required and not making it just an option. Um, but we also did hear from. You know, a developer's attorney who said there's some negatives here too, and we want to be sure that.
▶ 1:28:45 The incentive is something that developers will use and not just say, well, why bother doing it? Because it's such a high bar. We're not going to do it. So. I think after a lot of agonizing, because it's, um. We probably all have our hearts in, uh, uh, you know, climate change and sustainability these days. It just felt like this was a good compromise. It doesn't. We know that these, this is going to change really quickly in the next few years. The state is talking about changing the building code. Anyway, the stretch code, um, there's just been new patient passed already about, um. Climate change requirements, so I think this by, but it was a big step. I think at least on behalf of the committee, I think on behalf of me on the committee, I think it was a big step to make this required and not just an option. Originally we had it as an option and to make it a green building package that we want to see more than one thing.
▶ 1:29:51 We want to see a lot of these sustainable design practices, but it keeps it open to what we'll accept. I thought it was a fair compromise with all the things that we're trying to do for the city. I didn't want to lose sight of the fact that we also want developers to be able to do this, and we also want to encourage housing. We need it. We need mixed use around our train stations. That's my perspective on it. We didn't make everyone happy, but I, I'm I'm support the way this is written now. Thanks, and the same goes for me. I mean, I think this was, uh. You know, we probably could go in a number of different directions with. This, um, I think, you know, again, we're really, we're really trying to promote.
▶ 1:30:43 Uh, responsible development and trying to serve areas. So, um, that. This feels like the right balance and we. Where it spoke to people who, um, you know, the city is looking at a net 0 plan. So there could be additional actions that we take as a board through zoning in in the near future. Um, what when we see the city's plan and that. May, you know, may affect these districts, they could be more city wide, or, um, you know, could take a number of different directions. So, you know, this isn't something that's going to this is something that will change. But this felt like the right balance for this proposal at the time. And so I Beth and Sharon, you were on the call as well, you know. Feel free to weigh in as far as, you know, where you stand.
▶ 1:31:34 With the language we have now. I think the language is good. I think the overall rush to everybody thinking that heat pumps, the be all and end all to heating, may be putting the horse a little bit before the cart because one of the problems with heat pumps in general, in this part of the country especially, is that the temperature coming out of your ductwork and the heat pump is not as warm as it is with fossil fuel and you know you can get away with that in the slightly warmer climates but in areas where it's often down you know 10 degrees 20 degrees and the temperature coming out of your ductwork will in fact heat the space it doesn't feel warm because it's it's less than your body temperature and um until the hvac industry does something about catching up with equipment that
▶ 1:32:46 really is designed for the northeast and not even us just chicago places like that um you know um i think we're pushing a lot of people towards heat pumps that at the end of the day may not be satisfied with them yet and uh want to go back to a to a so uh to a um uh fossil fuel based system so um i think all of the elements that you've got in there are great um but you know at the moment we do have a i think an over an overly big rush towards heat pumps and anyone else from the board any comments or questions concerns again that you know the intent here is to to prepare a report to the city council. They're gonna vote on the amendments, the ordinance. So at this point we'll be suggesting the modification
▶ 1:33:49 to the ordinance to shift the requirement, shift this provision into a requirement, but it would read as proposed. So again, if anyone has any other questions or comments from the board, please let us know. I would just add that we spent a lot of time reviewing other examples of, um, you know, incentive kind of ordinances and other communities and we really felt like we wanted to make something that could work for Melrose. Um, and so just because we have different development pressures, um, you know, a whole, a whole host of factors. So just trying really hard to balance a lot of competing interests. So we've done the best that we can and I'm personally pleased with how it's turned out. Yeah, and I wanted to say that,
▶ 1:34:52 I definitely support the higher standards of sustainability and energy efficiency, et cetera. And I think the building envelope focus can help somewhat with some of the drawbacks of heat pumps. So I hope to see developers, especially including that in their proposals in the future. But given that the stretch code is set to come out in the next couple of years and should lay out a definition of net zero and such, I think that this is a really good compromise for us for the interim period. Thanks. Um, so if we could scroll back to the beginning, I just wanted to touch on some of those other issues. That were just that we discussed that don't necessarily show up as zoning changes. Specifically, if we look at the map.
▶ 1:35:54 Denise Gaffey: So, the map of the, um, this red area, of course, is the, you can go back to the right. Yep. Is the medical district that whole area that you see outlined in red is medical district. And there's only regulations in the medical district are very much driven around the needs for a large institution, like a hospital. Allowing for 8 stories and, um, generous setbacks and things of that nature. So, when we began our work on this Sony tool, we, um. We initially, we started to think a little bit about. The parcels around on main street in the medical district. Um. Specifically the parcels and how we might be able to incorporate. Um, those parcels into the zoning tool at the same time, so we could kind of encourage redevelopment of the parcels.
▶ 1:36:47 Denise Gaffey: I think, um, um, so we propose the area. Well, we originally proposed a narrower area, and that was expanded to live it on street. Um, at the suggestion of the word counselor, but. Um, I think what we. So, in the interest of trying to to tackle that particular challenge, um, and try to propose a zoning, um. District that was better aligned with with the parcels along main street. We recommended this change to convert those parcels to be a 1, which is the same zoning in the downtown. um it has it has been pointed out to us that many of these parcels south of emerson are in the historic district the historic district extends from um foster street uh downtown north to emerson and so um that was a that was a very good point it wasn't really
▶ 1:37:50 Denise Gaffey: it wasn't our highest consideration at the time because we were really thinking more along trying to align the zoning and what some people are concerned about is that we might be trying to what we might be telegraphing to developers that we want to see these properties redeveloped particularly the properties in the historic district which was not our original intent so we we talked about this quite a bit at the zoning subcommittee meeting last week Greg had a suggestion around addressing some concerns around that by requiring a developer who wants to take advantage of the incentive tool to go to the Historic District Commission first and get their certificate of appropriateness first, which is one idea.
▶ 1:38:41 Denise Gaffey: I think after giving it a lot of thought, I think we would also, I personally wouldn't opposed at this time to taking this zoning change out of the proposal entirely because i think we what started off as good intention and kind of a narrow zoning change has has expanded to include parcels to the east and also um some suggestions that we go a little further north that i think have got me at least thinking you maybe want to step back and spend a little more time really visioning what this medical district should look like because this zoning was put in place 50 years ago back in 1970 and i think this area has changed quite a bit since then so um that that's one one suggestion one other approach would be to to take this particular um map change out of the proposal
▶ 1:39:41 and move everything else forward at this time but obviously i'd be interested in um Anyone's thoughts about how about that? Yeah, I'll jump in here too. I mean, 1 at 1 of the. You know, and I, I have mixed feelings on this because I do, I think. I think the change to the, to be a 1. There's a lot of good reasons why that makes sense. At the same time, I think we keep coming back to the fact that. you know, there are additional parcels both to the north and to the south along Main Street that probably need to be looked at and reconsidered if BD is correct to the north and if URD is correct to the south. And so, you know, we could we could want to revisit that more holistically. You know, as far as, you know, as far as the situation with it being a historic district,
▶ 1:40:48 you know, with respect to the Historic District Commission, you know, I still fundamentally see that the lines, you know, the lines between zoning and the Historic District Commission's authority are distinct and independent. And so I think the development pressure in this area exists regardless of the zoning change. And so, you know, I, I don't, I don't think that there's necessarily anything fundamentally wrong about having going through the rezoning process, but I also, um. I'm okay if we want to pause on this and revisit it up and down, um. The street, so so that leaves me with, uh, you know, being on the fence as well as far as next steps. Um, and and I think this is kind of prompts the,
▶ 1:41:40 the larger discussion with the board to see you know if there's strong feelings one way or another if you want to pursue this as the ba and you know be in a position where um some future development of properties such as caruso's could could take advantage of the zoning change or if we want to see if we um take a larger look at this um and see if there's a more more extensive zoning changes in In both directions, I just want to, um, also having been on the subcommittee and talking about it. I just want to remember that we started by just proposing to rezone the properties. Uh, right along main street and not any properties, uh, adjacent, not behind them that up to Lebanon and then it kind of expanded and we were.
▶ 1:42:34 Thinking because it's downtown and this is main street and it feels like we would want the development, you know, right on the sidewalk and. Parking behind and sort of looking like main street, but. Um, as it got bigger, and then we. Historic district was pointed out as a little factor that we should consider and. And I also sort of was ignoring the fact that. It's not really a continuation of the BA 1 coming up from main street and in fact, everything changed to for a little bit. And so then we'd be changing back to be a 1. I, I am, I am pretty much persuaded by the planning staff's recommendation that maybe we should rethink this before we jump in. I think it was driven a lot by thinking about.
▶ 1:43:25 Caruso's and the bank building and how those really should be more BA 1 developed, but maybe we should rethink the whole medical district, how we want the corridor along Main Street to look and at what point we stop and switch back to sort of medical uses. So, I think I'm pretty much persuaded it as much as I hate to set up more work that maybe this is something that should be taken out of this project this piece that we're trying to accomplish and do it in the, you know, address the whole thing more holistically in the future. Thanks, and anyone else just to add that, um, the housing production plan that we are currently working on Greg is on our committee. Um, you know, that can give us. Probably a really good opportunity when we think about potential development sites, which is a requirement of the housing production plan. You know, I think I think that's a good opportunity to.
▶ 1:44:36 Have our consultants kind of help us think a little bit more about. This specific neighborhood, so I guess they can toss it out there differently. Does anyone have. Reservations if we suggest. in our report to forego this district change. Yeah, so does anyone feel strongly that we shouldn't put that in the report? Okay. It sounds like a rough consensus. Denise, anything else we want to... Actually, Denise, I can't think of... We don't have a report to issue Or to vote on, so I think that it's kind of, we want to capture that. Discussion and just be in a position to issue the report. Right, right, right. I think I think the other discussion points we'll put into the report relate to affordable housing that concern.
▶ 1:45:48 Denise Gaffey: Um, I think it appeared it appears to some people by looking at the proposed zoning that we are. I'm striking a lot of position provisions around affordable housing, but the provisions that are being struck in the zoning are actually provisions that are redundant and were written into the zoning back in 1970. And that now are redundant to the fact that because we have an affordable housing, we have a special affordable housing tool. So. Any project that gets redeveloped through this incentive tool would require would be required to. Provide affordable housing at 15%, which is the requirement across the city. So, so we'll just clarify in the report, but that's the case. We are that if anything, we would expect to get more affordable housing through this tool because.
▶ 1:46:42 Denise Gaffey: You would be incentivizing a little more density. So, I will clarify that and we'll also clarify the point around open space. There was concern about. The way we would allow for open space to be. Interpreted with a little more flexibility, acknowledging that. A lot of the parcels in, um, in these transit oriented areas are very dense and don't have. Oh, there's not a, there's not a great opportunity for traditional open space. Um, and in fact, the open space requirement is only 5% as it is. It's a very, it is a very small requirement, but you would. The point would be, um, would have the discretion to allow for, um, balconies and green roofs and decks and things like that. And so we will just clarify that in the report.
▶ 1:47:38 As well, I think there oh, sorry. Is that there also seem to be a misconception that the open space was public open space and it's really for open space on the property. Usually, just for the people that own the property, I. I had a couple other things that there was a misconception about front yard parking. I'm sure we have to put all this in our letter and explain that. We just took out it. Set it in 2 places and we're leading 1. But I wanted to raise that we had the letter about loading spaces. Oh, yeah, that's a good point. And that we should probably respond to that. I mean, I don't think anybody brought it up in the public hearing. It was just a letter, right? Yeah, a letter we've just got. Yeah.
▶ 1:48:32 Which is closed, but it does become part of the record anyway. Oh, sure. I mean, until the city council will vote on it and open meeting. So, you know, they can, they can accept it, but. Um, I agree that it does it's whether your response, I mean, Paul, the letter just came in today and it was from the, I think the Corey street. Property owners who have concerns with our changes to the loading. Um, you know, it, it appears to suggest that we're. Being, um, that that we should be required requiring more loading. Um, and that are changed possibly could allow, um. Less loading spaces to be required, um. You know, we can, we can look at it and but and generally speaking, I think our. Our changes, they are really just to clean up how it's been administered in the past and whether it was, you know, a per use calculation or.
▶ 1:49:33 you know per building and so we're trying to clean that up and then you know most of the most of the time that's worked out through site plan review anyways it's not specifically like loading a delivery space is that it yeah yeah i actually been thinking about myself because you know say here in my house i watch deliveries come around you know whatever you know and you take that and you concentrate that in a very small location one development i don't know 40 units you know that could be a number of deliveries a day really um and it's concentrated that's the thing so and it's and if it's always going to one place it may make sense to have some space for that to occur now i guess you can get a little too detailed on that and what what size what size
▶ 1:50:17 truck delivery you know what i mean because there's all kinds of delivery vehicles small large these days um but it does get more frequent and you know i think as a function of a building it's a thing that it generates it generates concentrated deliveries um you know as opposed to a neighborhood where the deliveries are spread out you know um i guess you know certainly something worthy to think about it again just another thing to try to add in the mix of very small sites that have to accommodate a lot of things yeah you know it's a tough balance yeah but i think certainly something worthy of something to think about though if if it you know the best you can make it work i guess is how we should approach it off but we do have site plan review so yeah we get to
▶ 1:51:06 use it like that we can make it work right and i think these changes were only for commercial loading plate spaces not residential is where we're seeing the need for amazon yeah yeah yeah Yeah, that's true. I mean, some of the large developments I've been working on have, you know, Amazon delivery rooms that are, you know, include cold storage and for everyone's, you know, prime deliveries that are… Yeah, people get groceries now, you know, you know, frequencies could even increase as more of that occurs. But I think to Ann's point, you know, that doesn't necessarily, You know, we, we have to address that through site plan review. Um, in it, you know, the, the. The loading space itself is our use is not necessarily a change that I have concerns about. It's really just a clarification.
▶ 1:52:00 Denise Gaffey: Okay, I think we have consensus then if, um. Well, we'll prepare the letter and circulate it then. Yes, do we have do we have to vote tonight to send the letter so that it gets there within the time period? I forget what it is. Yeah, technically the 21 days would be Thursday, which. You know, we can aim for that. I'm not too worried about them acting on it before getting. The letter they have given us flexibility in the past. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. But you still need a motion to send the letter or are we all set? I think a motion just based on some discussion we've had. Yeah, how about a motion to prepare with the discussion we've. I'm sorry, I think somebody's in the chat. I think that wants to make a comment.
▶ 1:53:01 Did you guys just see that pop up Susan Murphy? I think. Can you see that? Yeah, it's not a public hearing. Um, yeah, I think this. Okay, so we, I mean, we've had, we, we have had comments and comments can continue to be supplied to the, um. This is just to finalize the report, so any comments you go to the city council at this point. Um, so I guess a motion to issue a report consistent with the discussions. At tonight's meeting would be good. So moved. 2nd, 2nd, all those in favor. Okay, hi, Jeff. Hi, hi. Hi. Hi, hi. All right, so we have. The last items are related to. There's ZBA cases, so the 1st case we have is board of appeals case for case 21-014-14 HAWS-AV. The applicants are M. Razvan and Tina
▶ 1:54:40 Teodorescu. I can go through the brief quickly. The owners would like to subdivide this land Into 2 lots, it's combined for zoning purposes, because it's less than the 75,000 square feet required. Um, so the 2 lots would be, um. 6,600 and 6,400. Um, square feet and the existing house lot would need relief for a lot depth. front yard setback, rear yard setback, and then the proposed second lot would need lot area, lot depth, the lot width at the rear building line, and then it would comply with all the setbacks. The building inspector also noted that they would need relief to have tandem parking spaces for both of the properties. They would be coming back to you for the subdivision, and you can take a look at the extension of the road that's needed to actually access this back lot here.
▶ 1:56:08 So, our staff review, the lot sizes will be undersized, but they seem to be compatible with the neighborhood. And they would the 2nd, line would have adequate frontage. And then, you know, as I said, that. Proposal would be back before you for a site plan review to look at. I'm sorry for the subdivision to look at more of the details if they've got that far and more just to be clear on the, um. The front yard and regard efficiencies. Those are pre existing anyways, right? Yes. So, does it does anyone have any questions comments about this 1? I mean, I, I think this. Is personally 1, I'm fine with the, um. Looking at with the standard letter. Do we have any, sorry, do we have any idea where the road is going to go? I'm just concerned if it's now, if there's going to be a road going from Haas to that back lot.
▶ 1:57:39 You know, abutting that other property. Like, I know the extent else here. Access from from the road from not not from pause from from Al's out. Okay, so there's no road going from. No, oh, I see where it is. I see where your pressure is. Okay. That was my only comment. Thanks. This is Carla. I, I tend to agree with you. I think that. These lots are very close to being. Compliance with the requirement. and keeping with the size of the lots the other size of the lots in their neighborhood and i think it's best also i think it's like best left to the zba and the well of the neighbors we put the neighbors okay anyone else if that's a motion i'll second it carla sure that could be a question okay we've got a motion in a second all those in favor
▶ 1:58:48 Paul King. Aye. Jack Welch. Aye. Carla Morelli. Aye. Beth Delaney. Aye. Ann DeSouza-Ward. Aye. Sharon Petrillo. Aye. Greg Sampson. Aye. Okay. Lost my agenda. The next case is Case 21-015, 27 Temple Street, Joseph and Robin Higgins. Vincent. Vincent. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Joseph and Robin Higgins, and this is 1 that the zoning board saw on a different form at the beginning of the year. It's another subdivision proposal. The original plan had to dividing this lot into 3. so there's an existing house and then there would be 2 new houses. The zoning board denied. Enough pieces is a broken out decision or broken up vote and design enough of the requests that they're, they're back with a different application.
▶ 2:00:05 To divide a lot into 2 and build 1 new house. So, this proposal, they're still asking for a variance from their slow protection special. Permit or slow production regulations, I should say, so. Um, the lot areas are listed here, but the land that's less than the 25%. Slips area is is in this 2nd row. And the front yard would also need a variance. Um, so, uh, there is a note here about the residential driveway with cannot exceed 20 feet. I just today received that plan with a reduced width of the driveway. So that wasn't included as a, um. Request for a variance for that, but they originally had the 26. But why driveway so that that note can be eliminated. I did post the revised plan. If you're looking on the city's website right now, the site plan.
▶ 2:01:12 Um, so this proposal does reduce the number of variances needed from the last proposal by a lot, but the amount of buildable land is still very small. And so, um, we wouldn't recommend that. You know, recommend to the zoning board to grant a variance from this little protection and. They didn't provide the house plans for the slot. Just the. The footprint, um, so it's hard to know in terms of the, the building form, how it would fit into the neighborhood and be compared compatible with the character. What was our, what's our recommendation when it came into the 3 lots? I felt like we. Did not recommend it across the board or did we support. You know, a revised proposal that would get to 2 lots.
▶ 2:02:17 It did mention that, uh. 2 lots, you know, maybe, um. They may be able to fit 1 house as opposed to 2 additional houses. It was not, you know, a strong, strong letter in support of that. I can pull it up if you'd like to see exactly what it says. No, no, it's fine. I just trying to call. I mean, I, I think I, I, I personally agree with you. You know, particularly the variance from slow production problem should not be granted. It is strongly feel that way as well. And then, you know, it's hard to really react to anything else at this point. Greg, I'm sorry I was going to say, I agree with you. I don't really see any difference in this between. A single lot owner coming to us with undeveloped land and really from the zone from the slow protection permit and 1, that's subdividing their land. I think if resulting in area.
▶ 2:03:27 After considering the slope in excess of 25%. Is so minus minimal. That we can't imagine putting a house on it. I don't see why there should be any. Relief granted or the exceptions made from that. Okay, anyone else what I'm not clear on is if we, if we. I don't think I support granting a variance from slow protection special permit. There's not enough here to come to. Why we would want to do that. Yeah, but. Um, I mean, even from a planning perspective without the whole variance standards, but if we didn't. If there was no variance from slow protection, special permit, are they just asking for other variances for lot area and. You know, front yard setbacks and saying, then they maybe could still come in with a proposal for a subdivision that.
▶ 2:04:29 Builds according to a slow protection special permit. Is that asking for the. The lot size variance and. A variance from needing to follow the self protection regulations and lot lot B would be actually. 2,939 square feet. That's what's buildable. No, I'm sorry. That's. Yeah, right. Excluding the land. That's. Not slept, that's all that's buildable. Wow. Unless you could show special permit, I mean, there's still a way to build right? If you could meet the special permit criteria. Right. Yeah. And I think I think you're getting to the point. Do we, do we even support the. The variance for a lot area, right? Right. Right. I mean, you know, that that that's a good point here. I. Given given the slope.
▶ 2:05:29 And, you know, I, I, I tend to feel like. They're asking too much for the 2 lots. And I don't see the justification for. The variance for, I mean. The front yard is a little more of a, you know, less offensive request because. The existing single family house is deficient, but I don't see the justification for for the lot area as well. It's tough seeing the amount of slope and it's difficult. Even though I've always been willing to let someone make a pitch or how they were going to build in accordance with the protection permit. So, any any recommendations and I just think I don't think we should support it. I don't see anything. Positive necessary to support in this thing. Okay, so the motion to to recommend that.
▶ 2:06:45 You know, a letter saying we oppose the granting and the variances that are requested your 2nd. 2nd, okay all in favor any discussion. Oh, sorry, go ahead. I think we should at least make sure we make clear in our letter, you know, that we opposed based on. What we've talked about the fact that the majority of the land is is not buildable. No, good point. Good point. Yeah. Yeah, the variances are just too substantial. We can't have such a substantial approval of variance. And also, I mean, you have a single family that right now, I think, complies with zoning. So now they want to split the lot, they're going to knock that one into nonconformity and the new lot is going to be nonconforming as well. So it just
▶ 2:07:48 it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense as to why we would support that um okay so i think that's a motion it's been seconded and you know we've had the discussion that we've had tonight so um so all in favor of that okay hi jack waltz hi carla marley hi that's jelena hi anderson's award Aye. Chair Peter? Aye. Aye. And Greg Simms? Aye. We have the last scene of the case is Case 21-016, 735 Newburyport Turnpike, Pew Management, LLC. Okay. This site is on the corner of Melrose by Malden, Riviera, and Saugus. So, I have the site is in Malden in the proposal. I have a question with the address. If you Google that address, you don't get anything near this place. I know yeah, it's on Broadway. Yeah, it's yeah, so it's across from garden remedies, right? But the address is new addresses in the room 1.
▶ 2:09:23 So, Broadway is new very important turnpike. No, one is the new report turnpike. Yeah, referenced all 3 ways. So, yeah, it's crazy when you try to Google it. Yeah, you get the sketches up the road. Yeah, so, but yeah, this is the site next to the cemetery so that the plan is to demolish the motel and the restaurant and the auto. Sales on the site and construct a warehouse. And so the zoning applications for variance from height. 30 feet is allowed. They're proposing 42 open space required is 20%. They're proposing 12 and a half. And then the entrance exit driveway, maximum is 24 feet and they're proposing 44. So, the, the building height variance seems. Reasonable to accommodate their modern warehouse.
▶ 2:10:38 It's an allowed use in the district. The driver entrance is large, but they do have a sidewalk crosswalk across it. And, you know, they're saying they need that in order to get the swing into the site. so they're not crossing onto the other travel lane. The number of parking spaces seems excessive. I didn't see a good rationale for that in the application materials. And some of that, those parking spaces could be made usable, or not useful, but even just open space to accommodate the 20% that Melrose requires. And the planning board will be receiving an application for this site To look at the more detail in terms of the site plan and building. Yeah, we've actually received it. It will be on the June agenda.
▶ 2:11:34 So, anyone from the board, you know, feel free to speak up a minute. Yeah, if you read their application stuff as. Um, and I mentioned it's, it's half and no, I'm all that half. It's funny, because I think this thing conforms to all the Maldon side of the regulations, but not ours. Like, their height is much higher in that lot than ours is. The driveway width as well, so it kind of complies with the Maldon regulations, but not ours. And it would kind of split them in half. I kind of like the idea of taking the advice of the planning stuff and I wouldn't object to the height variance for the driveway engines. They both seem reasonable given what they want to do. And it's allowed use. I think the only objection we'd have, or.
▶ 2:12:45 Or, at least to be neutral and say, we couldn't support would be. Well, actually, possibly the open space, because. we we would probably like to see a decrease in the amount of parking and and some landscaping to accommodate the open space space requirement i agree with that i do can are you done are you done in yeah oh yes yes yep okay i just had a question what is the modern warehouse because it seems like the height requirement is related to the fact that it's a modern warehouse what does that actually mean oh i i just used that term i just meant you know i i knew you know proposal for a warehouse i'm not sure what okay i didn't know if that was a term that i just didn't know about okay um do you know is this warehouse going to be affiliated in any way with garden remedies
▶ 2:14:01 Denise Gaffey: do we know anything about what type of a warehouse this will be no we don't at this point um i don't and answer your first question i i'm not aware of any affiliation with garden remedies um and then in terms of their you know who the intended end user is they do not know they um they're yeah it is unclear which makes it a little tricky without a doubt um but they don't they do not have anyone currently um ready to sign a lease for this game do you think that we could if we if we do a neutral letter or even a letter in support do you think that we could um have the zba you know request that the zba asked the applicant why they need 42 feet as opposed to the 30 foot height for the warehouse i'm just just curious we put that in
▶ 2:15:10 our letter that we want to put in the letter that you wouldn't support it if you unless you knew the use no i would like for the zba in their consideration of this application to inquire to the applicant as to why they need 42 feet in height as opposed to 30 as opposed to 30. because i'm assuming if our max height for a warehouse is 30 and you know that's an extra 12 feet that's pretty high so i'm just wondering why they need it that high i want to know what with the justification for the height variances. That's all, really. Yeah, so Shann, I'm fine with having something in there. I think there is some justification in the application materials that they're looking for a 32-foot clear height,
▶ 2:16:09 which has to do with the type of, it's the height of a typical industrial property now, the clear height. Um, but, but I'm okay if we want to, you know, maybe the, the suggestion is. You know, um, we, we would, you know, we, we, we recommend that the, the, um. Be sure to, you know, get adequate justification for the height variance. Um, you know, based to the extent it hasn't been provided, you know, or something along those line. I, I see what you're getting at. You know, in some respects, it almost looks like they're saying, well, Malden, let's just do 42 feet. So can we just do 42 feet in dollars? That's not compelling to me, but if there's a real justification, then I'm, I'd be okay with it.
▶ 2:17:07 I'm not opposed to it just for the record. Yeah. Yeah. The only thing that worries me a little bit is, I always thought it really didn't as long as it wasn't allowed you. So. I did not think variances were granted on the use or not the use, but. It's warehousing, so yeah, it wouldn't hurt to ask and explain, you know. I would not be opposed to having put that putting that on the letter. Yeah, so so the letter essentially at this point, and someone can make a motion, but we would be, you know, we. We don't necessarily have objections to the height, although, you know, we'd ask the board to to consider the justification and rationale. The applicants presented in. You know, as far as the entrance, it seems to be.
▶ 2:18:10 You know, reasonable request, but we don't support the open space and it seems like there's, you know. Possibly could be could be achieved particularly if. The parking was more reasonably justified. Reasonably designed. So, any thoughts and anyone want to take a stab. Emotion this is when we need John here. All right. I'll, I'll move that. We send a letter as you outlined. Okay, 2nd, I'll say. Okay, all in favor. Okay, I. Hi, I'm early. Hi, hi. Hi. And great. All right. Okay. Um, the last. Item is a tripartite agreement and covenants for swings pond out of subdivision. Yeah, and, um, I almost apologize for sending all of those materials to you. 37 pages worth of contracts. Information and easements and, um.
▶ 2:19:59 Denise Gaffey: I think all it will ultimately be relevant, but. But at this stage, I thought I got some clarification from the attorney today that. So, all of this land in the subdivision is being taken out of. I just recorded land into registered land, and that's happening this week. And so 1, that once that happens, there'll be a book and page. Reference that can get incorporated into the agreement and the covenant. And, um, and so then the documents that require signature will come back to the board for review and signature. Um, tonight, what they really wanted just clarification on was. Was that the spending board agrees with the city engineer on the schedule of values. But I had sent that later in the day and.
▶ 2:20:52 Denise Gaffey: The engineering division spent some time reviewing the. developers um schedule for the infrastructure work and the roadway work associated with this subdivision and um they've also they beefed up some of the numbers based on um their own calculation of what it would cost to complete the work if the city needed to do it which is the purpose of this um and so and that total came to five million four hundred and eighty eight thousand dollars in the four hundred eighty eight thousand ninety dollars so um if the board is comfortable with this value then the applicant will insert that into the tripartite agreement and once they have completed the um the transfer of the land um as registered land we'll have those documents back and from the board for
▶ 2:21:47 final review and signature so i think you know typically the planning board takes You know, it's usually comfortable with the engineering division is comfortable with the, with the numbers. But, um, just want to confirm that. How recently? Oh, a couple of weeks. Did he say, I, yeah, I agree with characterization. I, I think that. It's definitely in the department's best interest to not prove work. That's not in place. And put themselves in a vulnerable positions. It all looks fine to me. Nothing. In the past, we've always accepted their numbers because they're the ones who would have to do it. If the work didn't get done. That blasting number was jumped out to me 2 thirds of the cost. Oh, I know, but I know, but yeah, I, I, overall, I'm.
▶ 2:23:14 Comfortable with the engineering numbers as well. Do we need a motion then Denise on this or is it. I mean, we're not approving it, right? It's just, I think the quantity of that blasting is a number that scares me at the price. 54,000 cubic. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know if you need to make a motion. They. They, they just wanted your comfort level with this number. So. So, this is a number that they come up for what? So they have a bond in case they, they don't come through and the city's got to. Yes, come through and build it. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sure they're not going to sell themselves short, hopefully on it. So. Right. All right. So they won't get a chance to review the final documents later. Yes, okay. I think that then takes us to the.
▶ 2:24:13 Denise Gaffey: The end of the meeting, and we have a next scheduled is June 28th. Um, it just looks like it will be busy. Yeah, so we will have the case we were just talking about the warehouse. As a new public hearing, we will have a continued public hearing for buying street since we could not. Discuss that case tonight and then we will also have continued public hearing from. Slow protection case, so I, that's why we pushed the 52 West Emerson. I just figured that was going to be. Enough yeah. Yeah. And stay tuned on any instructions that might come. Our way about holding public meetings. Um, in, you know, back in. City hall, I'm kind of hoping we have a little sort of. Race period that it just doesn't happen on June 15th or something like that.
▶ 2:25:17 But we'll have to stay tuned and see what the governor does. Wow, that's a wild thought back in the conference room with all those people. I know, I know well, the, the, the emergency order to have to spend the provisions, the open meeting law expire in June 15th. So, that that's the concern when, if we could meet in the council chambers, if they don't have a meeting that night, just because our room is really tight. Yeah, no, we can say we've considered that the problem is that our meeting nights conflict sometimes. So, sometimes we could, but sometimes we couldn't so. We'd almost have to that we're going to be our plan moving forward. We probably have to change our meeting. Yeah, don't they take the summer off? You're right. They do go down to 1 meeting a month and they have less frequent community meetings. So.
▶ 2:26:21 Denise Gaffey: You're right if we are required to go back into session. Right away, we could definitely try to. And I go that space, we might feel better doing it for a little bit. Yeah, just until we all get used to being around people again. I know. I know. Anyway. Well, there'll be more to come on that. I just, I just wanted to throw that out there because I know. You know, being discussed. Okay, when is the, when are the city councilors supposed to vote on the new zoning or do we have any idea when they intend to take it up? No, we don't. I mean, they have 90 days from from May 6. oh, wow. I, I don't expect they'll take that long. I think that would bring us well into the summer months and. We would discourage that we're hoping they'll take it up.
▶ 2:27:16 You know, in, um, in June or, you know, yeah, in June. Okay, yeah, we'll keep you posted. Okay, do we need a motion to return? So move second voice vote voice vote all in favor. Hi, hi, thank you. All right thanks. Take care. Good job. Everyone. Good night.