Topsham Planning Board Drops Form-Based Code, Backs Piecemeal Revisions

[5:10] Chair (Planning Board Chair): All right, I'd like to call the Thompson Planning Board to order, because I guess one of you, Josh, are going to take the roll call. All right, Don Spann. Present. Scott Libby. Present. [5:21] Ron Bisson: Larry Brand. Present. Ron Bisson. Present. Gary Bickford. Present. Tim Dunham. Excused. And Marilyn Hunter. Excused. [5:32] Chair (Planning Board Chair): All right, so we have review workshop notes, September 10th. Did everyone get them? Do you need to do anything? If not, then we should take a vote on the minutes for the September twenty-fourth meeting. Do I have a motion? I move we adopt the minutes from September twenty-fourth and twenty-six as presented. Second. Any discussion? All right, all in favor. All right, so we're good. So those are anything we have to report for item D. No, thing to report. All right, and no discussion lines for item B. So we're to the road acceptance. So that's the brothers, developers Inc has submitted a brief acceptance application the turkey run tax map r06 and lot tens so is somebody going to present that oh would either you like to talk about it pretty sure that's the way i have to put down the phone there's only just something [6:53] Wayne Zazowski: Hi everybody, Wayne Zazowski, some of you know me, so if you don't, I've been building in Tops and living Tops in all my life, and my father started the Umanda Drive and Turkey Run Roads off of West Wind Drive years ago, and we was able to do one more lot, so we decided to extend the road 200 feet and do a right now there wasn't a real good turnaround and in the Turkey Run no place to put snow, no place for trucks to turn around, so we took care of that with the extension and Mac is all on board with me and I mean [7:34] Chair (Planning Board Chair): I read through everything, it's built to town standards, there's no issues, yeah, Dennis started [7:41] Wayne Zazowski: with it, yeah, and we did all the core tests and just went right through the gamut, everything that [7:48] Chair (Planning Board Chair): they then Mac finished it, good, any questions, see you don't, we have a motion, sure, I'm going to [7:58] Town Planner / Staff: the application for town acceptance for the extended portion of Turkey Run, advice for the applicable provisions of chapter 185 article 1a, the Thompson Code, and the Planning Board recommended with acceptance by the Town of Thompson subject to the conditions of findings identified in staff memo, did it look to repeat when the concerns, all right, do we have any [8:22] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Discussion hearing on all in favor. All right, it's unanimous. All right, thank you sir. Thank you. All right then, let's see what we have. So I guess I will take a motion to adjourn and so the workshop. I'll second that. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? [8:43] Speaker E (unidentified): Well, that's roughly fine. [9:01] Town Planner / Staff: So I am here at the behest of the select board to basically ask what the planning board would like to do as far as the recode. As you know you would have at your last meeting set tonight to come up with questions about form-based code which would then be forwarded to the consultant so the consultant could reply so that you could try to make a determination of whether you wanted to include or keep the form-based code that's in the draft of the recode. Subsequent to your last meeting the members of cpic have resigned so we're at the point right now that we do not have any advocates for form-based code and so and there were comments made at your last meeting that at least one person said they didn't think they could be ever convinced that would be useful form-based or to use form-based code. So we're questioning whether it's worth spending the three thousand dollars or so to have the consultant respond to questions at your november meeting if it's a foregone conclusion that it's going to be we don't want form-based code then it probably isn't worth spending the money to have the person come which brings us up or the next question is if the board does not want form-based code to be employed then we're at the stage where we've got a draft of a document that is going to need to be redrafted to put the pcds back in and if it needs to be drafted to take form-based code out it's going to be really significant drafting much more that staff could do. We're probably don't have a consultant that could do it because the person that did most of the draft is a specialist in foreign-based code and she's probably less than thrilled if we said we want to take it out. Planning director Salati talked to some other possible consultants in the spring see if they would pick up where things stopped and if they were interested in drafting and she was unable to find anyone that would do that. So if you decide that tonight that you don't want us to go down the road of form-based code our next Question is what draft or how do we proceed, I guess. Next one, the idea that I think I put forth in my memo that the select board wanted us to put forth to the planning board is that there seemed to be some items that there was general consensus around or consensus developing. So if you wanted, you could tell us what those items are that you want us to have staff in-house draft specific changes to the current code we've redlined and brought back to you, probably not a special dedicated meeting. Anymore, we just bring it in pieces back at regular meetings with the idea that we give you these pieces in the next few months so that you can do your processing of them, you know, as they go, but then do public hearings in February, March so that we could get things ready for the time meeting. Warren, from my attending your meetings, one of the things that you've all seen relatively consensus around was the use table or the proposed changes, maybe it's still a little more tweaking, but that might be. Something that you say staff go ahead, you know, bring that to us. Planning director Slidey said she can do that, the spreadsheet sheet, and then we could just change it with the current code. She's got a memo that was included in your materials, and I'll, depending on what you decide, I'll turn things over her in a little bit, and then you can give her some instruction on what things you want to have planning staff working on. So I guess so the questions that I'll turn it over the chair to have you. Discuss or is one, do you want to us to still continue with having the consultant come for the November meeting to answer questions on form-based code, or do you want to decide tonight that if you think there's nothing that's going to change your mind, then maybe we won't spend that money, and then the next question is how would you like to proceed with a suggested method, be that you tell planning director Salati which items you want to see us staff draft specific items for the current code that. You would then process at your meetings. I'm happy to answer any questions and. [13:21] Chair (Planning Board Chair): I'll turn over the chair for a discussion. So essentially that you want to call option or alternative is what you did in your memo was option three, and I think those weren't. [13:35] Town Planner / Staff: Necessarily ultimately exclusive, I think they were kind of feeding on each other, yeah. [13:38] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Right, all right, I guess anyone from the board, I mean, I have opinions, but I'll let everyone else speak first, and then well, and I'll sit down, unless this question's coming, so well, are there any questions for the manager? Not at this point. [14:01] Town Planner / Staff: I'll let the resignation speech for itself, okay, it was, it was included in the [14:06] Chair (Planning Board Chair): select board agenda and things, but I didn't understand, I did not get a copy of the resignation [14:13] Speaker E (unidentified): definition, but I have heard and read parts of it. I think as a planning board member I was a little disappointed to see some of the comments that were made towards the planning [14:29] Larry Brand: board, and I'm just going to leave it at that, and tonight we're really focused on, so that's forward. [14:35] Speaker E (unidentified): I just wanted, I just wanted to say that probably I think our vote way back six to one vote on recode kind of spoke for itself, and I think you know flash forward here we are, I was under the impression that this board wanted to go forward with any problematic areas that are in the current code, and you know if there are changes that we would look at them and see what they are, why they're, why they're being proposed, thus the red lines, and then go from there, and we've heard that as the word is piecemeal, but that's really not a good word, but you know let's look at that, those little sections, and Tom brought his list to us and we looked at some of that, and I think, I think that's where we're at as far as going forward, so [15:30] Chair (Planning Board Chair): So you had passed on to Larry. Yeah, Larry, did you want to? Well, if you don't, it was just, I just started to say, Gary, go ahead, Larry, and then you went right ahead, which is fine. No, I agree that we should be looking at amendments to the current. And I, in my reading of everything that was in the recode, I mean, there are some parts that are, the idea was good to have things easier to find, easier to manipulate, you know, and go through. However, I got the impression that this is going way beyond what the last many years as fast now comprehensive plan was envisioning, and I haven't looked at the plan again recently, but it was like is there anything in there that says we should have one base code that was even in the ideas, so I guess I'm showing my age, but it kind of reminded me of the old Pete Seeger song and all the houses made out of ticky tacky and they all look the same, and I don't think that in most New England towns you Don't end up with a need to say, oh, it has to be this and this, because New England towns seem to develop appropriately just because we are in Wayland towns. So I don't see a need to be throwing good money after bad with regard to the consulting, and I'm I'm happy to be looking at the regular what we currently have and saying, okay, what needs fixing, what needs adjusting. Did you have anything you wanted to say? No, I like [17:41] Larry Brand: thing kind of like Larry. I like the old way, and why can't we fix what we did before? Okay. [17:53] Town Planner / Staff: Scott, I mean, I have too much to say to keep us all here tonight. I mean, I do think form is called form-based code was not in conflict, but it was selected as a tool to try and implement the big ideas that are in the government, whether it be walkable, bikeable, you know, a lot of ideas that people took a lot of time put together in the con plans passed by town. It was put forth by Rod is as a new idea to try and bring forward. I think Mark your note that you know there isn't a champion for it has been true ever since Rod's left in that, you know, we've had a lot of turnover for in the planning office. The form-based code is not something that everyone, none of us are experts on, but certainly, you know, Rod was pushing for it early. It got adopted as the tool we're going to use, see if they moved it forward. I do think that as in the in the goal of moving forward it without form-based code, there's nothing in this recode document that it really can stand alone, because it's not just you can't just take chapter two out of the of the form base, everything else revolves around form-based. The changes that were made, the rest of the growth area, are all based on moving to form-based code. So it doesn't make any sense given that form-based code is not something that the board is willing to move forward with. I think there were a lot of good ideas during many years of discussion that we've had on this that could be implemented. We've already implemented some that have helped some of the big projects in town, and I think there's others in the document that could be carried over, whether it be some of the changes to the existing state use table because of what we've discussed in the new view stables for trying to fix some of the issues that Thomas brought up, and maybe some things beyond that. So I had hoped to see the recode through, but certainly work to see some of those ideas move forward. So I do think that a number of the whatever we ended up calling them, determinations or no, they're not Decisions whatever we had in the meetings really were conditional on the fact that we're working on recode. I think some of those decisions were based on the recode document itself, so we'll have to revisit some of those for the move forward with them. But let's move forward, let's try and improve the code and make it easier both for our town planners and our code enforcement officer and the rest of us in town to use. Thank [20:53] Chair (Planning Board Chair): you. I think we can get the ideas from the comprehensive plan as far as, you know, walkable streets, you know, some of the goals, the goals of the cost plan are easily doable with tweaks and changes to my current ordinance. Maybe I don't think it took form-based code if you got to walk into the street but [21:18] Town Planner / Staff: I agree, absolutely. I'm not sure it's easy, easily doable, but when we've made attempts in the past after previous pound plans to incorporate some of those with easy changes and they never resulted consulted in the changes that were envisioned, right, so I don't think Rico's was going to be [21:35] Chair (Planning Board Chair): a fantasy with that regard either. So yeah, so I'm, I think from a standpoint of, I think essentially we kind of have a consensus, we don't need to spend more money on consultants and so forth. I think we'd kind of like to move along with as Kerry said the vote, which I think aligns pretty well with what we've got here as option three. And I'm not just counting, there might be stuff up in the other two options. And we have kind of talked about, we talked a little bit last meeting, and I know they put together some lessons so forth. So I think we can really start going down through that. But I think one of the benefits that we really will see is being able to have a red line, because that's kind of what at least all of us understand, so we understand what we're actually doing to ourselves and changing, as well as when we talk about the use table, you know, we'd like to see the use table kind of marked up with red and a red line of the use table as well, right. But you're right, we actually went through and I think we've actually made some improvements to some of what we did with both the use table in some of the other areas, and I think some of what Tom has HAB-Jacques Juilland, This has talked about that needs just playing for their editorial not still need to be corrected in code, and I guess I don't know that I need to go through shopping list, but I certainly was. HAB-Jacques Juilland, encouraged. HAB-Jacques Juilland, if we can kind of go down through with some of the stuff that we kind of did form a consensus on. HAB-Jacques Juilland, and see if any of that is applicable to the system code and carry that forward to me. [23:24] Town Planner / Staff: Me, so it sounds like what I hear is we're going to move on to working and try to change the current code and then I'll, what I'll do is now turn it over plain debt to Salami and you don't necessarily have to give her your exhaustive list of every change you want us to do but if you give her, sounds like maybe the first one might be the use table, I'll give her the, you know, first give her a number of them that you want them to start working on, it can start getting things ready for. And I know last time we talked about the use table and we talked about the use table last time, I think we talked about just filling the blank spaces in the existing use table, so I would like probably a little guidance from you guys on what type of use table you would like to work on, if you want the recode one with the combined uses or if you just want our current use table and we try to make some, you know, more like we fill in the blank spaces and if there are other areas that are problematic, I. Think we wanted to get like a footnote in exempting food trucks municipal lots, a few other things, so I would probably appreciate if we're going to talk about these table, I would appreciate clarification, but if you guys want to go through my list of determinations that's also fine, I've got that here, I've got my notebook, I'm looking here what you have to. [24:42] Chair (Planning Board Chair): And that's what we can talk about, I think use table at least from my perspective it'd be easier if we take our current use table and basically do a regimen right, and if there's some things that we did with the consolidated use table that we did kind of combining stuff or whatever that we did, I think some definition changes which probably made sense right and would incorporate well into our current one, but basically the one that we're reviewing is our current one with the recommended changes so. We know exactly what we're changing and I'm not sure I could do that from the other. [25:17] Town Planner / Staff: Matrix, because it moved around. Would the board be all right if we take the current use table and put it in an Excel and then use like a conditional red formatting to show where there's a change? I only ask that because it is really difficult to edit the document that our current use table is in. That's fine. Okay, great. So you're okay with me putting it in Excel? Okay, perfect. I just wanted to check because you're asking for a red line and you can't actually do strike [25:40] Chair (Planning Board Chair): through some Excel, it's really annoying. So yeah, no, if yeah, just our existing use table in a Excel format, perfect, is fine, right? And then and you can absolutely reflect we do want 15 slide PowerPoint. No, and while we're doing that though, you've mentioned the last time if you know because we went through a fairly good discussion on batch plans, right, and we went through some discussion on a few others like that, but then I brought up at the last meeting, I think Tom said you need to fill in the blanks so yes, we have blanks that we can fix. I do think we should fill [26:19] Town Planner / Staff: in the blanks and there might be a few uses that I might ask you if you still want, like I don't think they're being used, so that might be. So I guess the question I would have is would you like staff to take a stab at the current use table kind of combining that with what you saw this summer a little bit? Okay, great, everybody agree with that? Yeah, okay, so we're gonna, you know, kind [26:39] Chair (Planning Board Chair): of use, it's easier for amendment purposes for meetings as say this is what's being done on the use table as opposed to this one's going away completely and this is now the new one and yeah [26:52] Town Planner / Staff: I really want to reformat it because we had something happen with the last one where a height or something was in the wrong place, we had to get that updated, so I just really want to throw that document away because it's a headache. So we'll do the Excel, staff will kind of mix what we did this summer and what the current one is and try to bring you something and I think the next meeting that we can do that at feasibly would be your November one if that's agreeable to the board. Yeah, no, that's fine I think first November, yeah, because your second November meeting is always Thanksgiving, right, you don't have a second, so we only have one meeting. Yeah, so that's fine. Yeah, okay, I think we should be all good to do that. So I had made just notes [27:41] Chair (Planning Board Chair): again last time tom's list right which i think you captured i said the bash plant when you talked about the blanks i'm going to sound like i'm parking on it but whatever the height issue for main street which tom was going to research that when the decisions were made to allow some of what was being asked for by eileen green that changed i think the way we measured the heist in main street and anyway i would just ask for that research so we can close that loop and whatever that problem was we get that fixed and it was brought up during the Aroma Joe [28:29] Town Planner / Staff: project. Yes, speaking of the dimensional table, we can look into the height. One of your determinations was something that you discussed last fall in relation to minimum lot sizes. And I know that was a discussion that the board had at the time. So I would like to know if you would like me to move forward with putting that into. I would probably like to put the dimensional table in an Excel format as well. If you'd like me to put that in there, or if you feel that was 1 of those determinations that only went with the recode and you don't want to move forward with that. At this point. [29:07] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Yes, I was and I answered a different one. I do think it makes sense to look at it, right, bring it back and bring it back. Yeah, as we as we do basically with any of that, right, we basically we'll try to reach consensus on what it ends up being after we have reviewed the red ones. and then we recommend that then we talk about all right we're all in the agreement and then you schedule a public hearing so we can do a public hearing and get town input to me right so i think oh sorry john i didn't mean to interrupt my only point is i think that 's not a bad idea let's [29:45] Town Planner / Staff: look at some of those things. Yep, I know that one that was talked about a lot, so I did want to explicitly call it out. Yes, I think I was thinking that since we're in almost, it feels like it's almost November, that it would make sense to do workshops through February and you would have kind of the typical way of public hearing in March on the things that we've pulled together. We have the battery energy storage, we're expecting to probably be able to come for May, I think we'll work on the use table. there is something else we want to talk to you about in relation to open space subdivisions but draft wants to talk to the conservation commission first because we figured you guys would want to hear what their opinion is if that if we brought it to you would go what did TCC say and then we would go back to TCC we so we figured we'd start the concept with them the battery thank you [30:34] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Much, because at the same time, at the last meeting you brought up the data center, you want them to look at that. I mean, I think we should look at it. I don't, you know, maybe. [30:47] Town Planner / Staff: It doesn't go to town meetings here, but you at least start the process. Seems like. Everyone is just doing programs on data center right now, is they, yeah, they're coming out, so. [30:56] Speaker E (unidentified): They're coming to the state report in January 29th, they have to report back to the committee, and this data center advisory council has just done their last meeting yesterday, so I think kind of have the carpet for divorce. Do we see what the state is actually saying? [31:12] Town Planner / Staff: Here's how we're going to go forward. All right, I'll put that in my calendar and check back in with you guys. Yeah, maybe other things to look at on the list. I do think we have plenty to keep us. [31:23] Speaker E (unidentified): Busy, and if there's any, you know, red flag problem areas that you guys are encountering, or the town's encountering, and mom's running into, I mean, I think that's what we want to see is, okay, yep, there's a problem, and it's in the current code, let's, let's look at it and fix it or change it if we have to. [31:43] Chair (Planning Board Chair): To, or whatever. There was certainly some discussion about Maryland brought it up, that the where the schools are was going to be converted to the school district right versus the current zone. Is that something that makes sense, and should we at least review that, or is it something we. [32:02] Town Planner / Staff: Just don't mean to touch on? I think I looked at this in the comp plan a little bit more. I think it's more in relation to a map that's towards the end of the comp plan, which kind of just separates the town into areas, and it kind of relates to growth areas. It's where the growth areas are identified a bit. And I think it was basically just stating that where it's called school special district, and it was basically, it didn't want it to be a growth area. It was effectively saying this is a special land use. This is a special area for schools, but I do not think that it was calling to make a special zone for them because we could make a special school zone by the middle of the high school. But then you'd kind of leave Woodside and Williams Cone orphaned. We did change the zoning at the end of the 2010s to allow schools in those zones so I think they are now allowable. I can look into it a little bit more, but it's not, they did a staff thing earlier this summer. I don't know if there's big issues with the school right now. I don't think there is. If anyone does know that I'd be happy to hear, but I haven't heard. No, I think it was a tool for exempting them. Yeah, I did, I did look into it and I think it was just a way of saying hey these are something different, like because the industrial zone was called out in a similar way to kind of say this is kind of something different. So what else was there in your list of determinations? I think the other thing that was somewhat simpler that similar, this would also be dimensional table, is there was a determination to bring the frontage in RCU down to 125 feet. Currently the frontage requirement in R3 is 150 feet and in CC196 in LI it is 100 feet. As it stands today the frontage requirement in the RCU is 200 feet which is quite large and we had landed on 125 as an in-between because it's kind of a gateway between those zones. I think that makes sense especially because the minimum lot size in RCU is 30,000 square feet and I'm trying to imagine lots that are 30,000 square feet with a 200 foot minimum and it's a little weird shaped and I think it would maybe be better to go down to 125. But you guys, we could, we could treat that the same as the lots or we could just put it in there and you guys could go ahead with it. I'd [34:17] Chair (Planning Board Chair): say consider a little with the lawsuits you know. I had some thoughts with compared to you know like the 196 corridor on the nature of that and so cut down the frontage then it changes the nature of that 196. Yeah, RCU buffer, I could see that it goes up from the [34:42] Town Planner / Staff: section that's R3 to the RCU but that, you we can talk about that at the meeting if there's concerns. Yeah. And then the other things were map. They're effectively just lot lines. They're not, I will say, I don't think these are probably having a strong impact and mapping is a little bit, you know, it's not quite as easy as me creating a red line in a Word document. So I did, but I did want to note that you guys made these determinations that you would extend the ally out to encompass Auburn concrete. And then the rest of these are effectively split lots along Main Street and the village zones. Which I think if you guys are still standing behind those, I would perhaps like permission to move forward with those when we get the chance to update the map, which is something I would like to do. But maybe we don't exactly expect it for May of 27 because I'm not sure exactly the timing on working with a GIS company on that and I don't want to promise something tonight that then is difficult to deliver to you all right are [35:49] Chair (Planning Board Chair): You good okay all right I think it was a good start [35:53] Town Planner / Staff: Yeah I think the use table will be plenty for us to work on especially if we're trying to combine the recode one and some of those combined definitions so I'm not I don't need any more from you come on I'm going to go around if you have more things to add I just meant I'm [36:14] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Not begging for them but we do have a lot of people in the audience right this is a workshop does anyone have I mean some of you guys are experts on some of this stuff do you have any thoughts on stuff that we should be maybe looking at well [36:34] Ron Bisson: Curt Newfield 14 area meeting Drive, maybe going slightly backwards order. I, think it reducing the frontage is a good idea. Just doing a quick math on my calculator. If you allow down to 125 and it's a 1 acre minimum, then they do start getting pretty deep. And in a rural district, you're going to have to find 100 feet separation between your well and your septic. So less than 125 would be problematic. Problematic but I think in this day and age it's a good thing to allow perhaps slightly more flexibility when laying out subdivisions and flexibility screen I want to say that as I just me speaking here as a civil consultant for years and years I think not pursuing foreign based code is the right idea I think everybody who put a lot of time into considering and evaluating I'm looking at it I commend all of that effort but I just don't think it's a good fit here and I say again since we're still Working on a project in Standish, I drive by parcels that are in a form-based code district that have been not active for 10 plus years because it's a difficult thing to do. And I don't know, folks probably hear about, has anybody heard a bad word about Market Basket? I've never heard a bad thing about it, and matter of fact most people I heard say it worked out well. All I've heard is possible. I think our current code has got a lot of good things going and it can be improved, and yet the give and take that goes between a board an applicant and a big project like that working back and forth, you manage the developer and deliver a very good project right here in Thompson. So I wouldn't say that not pursuing everything that CPAC had considered is a failure when we've already really got a good system going and we can tweak it and make it better. So I commend everybody who worked on it, handy here was the TDI, you came back and reported, it was a long effort. And I think it has generated a lot of really good ideas. But I do as a consultant say, not pursuing it is a good move. I'll try to keep my ears open as the rest of the code revisions come up, and if there's any other questions about an idea, if folks can reach out to me, if I, you know, I'm not here, by all means thank you, good evening [39:18] Andy Surgeon: I'm Andy Surgeon, 42 Turn on the Drive. I think in keeping the spirit of having an early exit to tonight's meeting, it would be best if I addressed my concerns and my suggestions in writing. I think I'll try to get those to you in a couple weeks, and instead of trying to just throw some things out here tonight, just like it, I'd like to reach out to a couple of our consultants yourself to see what we might be able to help you with. Thank you, welcome anybody [39:49] Chair (Planning Board Chair): else. I'm Dave Monsalvo, 34 Bay Park Drive, I'm also [39:54] Board of Appeals Chairman: the chairman of the Board of Appeals. My only involvement with Recode was to look at some of the administrative issues with two waivers and variances, but as a person who was on a conference of player group years ago, I guess my only concern would be that you guys kind of hit on it on and off is we did get some inputs from the people of town and we need to kind of address that though is because there will always be somebody in the town meeting will fight you on it, they didn't think their ideas were incorporated that they thought they were going to be cooperating. That's kind of, I think that the approach is good, you know. Again, we do, I think this town has always done a good job of planning and getting development, you know. There's not a bad looking building that's been built here in the last 30 years, so good luck. Yep, it's very clear what you want to do. In New York has to be five, three, five, three, six. [40:56] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Anyone else? And Skye, did we give you enough? [41:02] Town Planner / Staff: Yeah, that's a lot of them. Yeah, just to go over what I have is that really, I think the biggest thing is we're gonna try to get you a good use table in November, at least a good start to one that combine, It's a red line version of our current table that maybe brings in some of the good things that staff like about the recode use table that we made this summer, which staff already worked on. So it shouldn't be super hard to do this. And then planning board can weigh in and let us know if we missed something that they liked and we didn't put in, or that if we put something in and they're like, I'm not sure about that. So that feels like plenty for me. Me. We'll also try to pull together, I think, an updated dimensional table, and I can bring back some of the tools that I used in the fall of 25 about the lot sizes, because I will note, you know, the reason we're proposing that is just because half of the lots in R1 and R2 are currently nonconforming due to minimum lot size. So that was why that had come through as a code cleanup thing. So we'll try to provide you some maps so you can see things and stuff and I will probably task Tom to just double check on that height issue if there's anything and we'll we'll touch base on that and report back to you so I have I have height use table dimensional table lot frontage etc and I will wait on data centers because I don't want to do the work of someone else's so does that sound good to everyone here it sounded [42:32] Larry Brand: Some of Tom's stuff too, right? So Thomas, I'll probably pass Tom without his mom. [42:39] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Tom's list of what he wants to have a surprise, they also have to revisit streams. [42:47] Town Planner / Staff: Larry, we need him, don't give him a heart attack, not long, we're good, no, Tom and Evelyn are working on the math for shoreland, but I don't think that'll be coming in November, they're thinking maybe December, January, because it's basically just a representation of what's in the text, which we've gotten a pretty good green light on, so we do appreciate that. Yeah, and Skye was telling Josh the buyers. [43:13] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Developers for one of the projects that you looked at today, they sent me a note and said that they had a really positive meeting with you guys. Oh well, that's great today meeting, so thank you. Yeah. [43:24] Town Planner / Staff: I actually told, I think I was speaking to my fiance earlier and I said we had a great meeting with them. They were really lovely to work with, so it's nice to hear that it went both ways. [43:32] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Good, all right, anything else before we all right, this is the real adjournment then. Thank you.