Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-11-17 175 TOWN OF DANBY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Public Hearing 7 : 15 P . M . November 17 , 1993 McCabe / Jayne III PRESENT : Chairperson Nancy Weitzel P lanning Board Members : Arch Dotson , William Farrell , Don ~Schaaf Eloise Greene , Joel Gagnon ABSENT : Ken Horst ( Excused ) O thers Present : Code Enforcement Officer - Susan Beeners S ecretary - Carol Sczepanski Applicants - Cecil & Lorraine Jayne Members of the Public : Robert & Linda Howe , Patricia Addy - Schaad , Don Schaad , Christine D ecker , Ray & Joan Babbitt , Robert McBride , Douglas Makie , Sandy & N ick McCabe , Dirk Galbraith , Frank & Catherine Darrow Chairperson Weitzel opened the Public Hearing at 7 : 16 P . M . and the following Notice of Publication was read . NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the P lanning Board of the Town of Danby on Wednesday , November 17 , 1993 at 7 : 15 P . M . , 1830 Danby Road , Ithaca , New York . Purpose of h earing is to consider approval of the proposed Subdivision of D anby Tax Parcel # 8 . - 1 - 21 . 1 , seven ( 7 ) acres total , into four ( 4 ) building lots . Site is located on Jersey Hill Road , east of H illtop Road . Nicholas McCabe , owner , Cecil and Lorraine Jayne , applicants . At such time and place all persons interested in the subject matter t hereof will be heard concerning the same . A regular meeting of the Planning Board will follow the public h earing . By Order of the Planning Board Chair Carol W . Sczepanski , Town Clerk P ublished : November 12 , 1993 Affidavit of Mailing was submitted for the record . Mr . Jayne addressed the public and explained the proposal he submitted for the subdivision of Tax Parcel # 8 . - 1 - 21 . 1 into four ( 4 ) building lots . He said his intention is to build one ( 1 ) house at a time and to live in that house while the next one is built . The houses will be sold after the next one is completed and expects t hat the project will be over a period of ten ( 10 ) years . Frank Darrow - 400 Gunderman Road asked Mr . Jane to see a sketch of t he property showing the subdivision . Mr . Darrow said that it IIseems that four ( 4 ) places on a piece of land that size is high d ensity . Given the nature of the soil on that hilltop itself with ✓ espect to its ability to absorb run - off , sewage , and ground water , something more in the order of two and one half ( 2 - 1 / 2 ) to three ( 3 ) acres per building parcel makes more sense in terms of the ability of the land to take what has to happen if you have a ✓ esidence there . His preference would to see two ( 2 ) or three ( 3 ) n ot four ( 4 ) parcels . Robert B . Howe - 231 Jersey Hill Road - said he is a lifetime ✓ esident in the Town of Danby and built his home on Jersey Hill Road thirty ( 30 ) years ago . . During that thirty ( 30 ) years , ten ( 10 ) homes have been built on Jersey Hill , and all of them are single family dwelling units . This proposal suggests a strong possibility of a multiple housing development and would be 176 2 Planning Board Minutes Public Hearing - Janye November 17 , 1993 completely out of character in this neighborhood at this time . He is completely against this proposal in a low density area . Christine Decker - 256 Jersey Hill Road - said that the soil issues are one thing and how the ground percolates is important . Jersey H ill Road is a very country road with large lots of two ( 2 ) to ten II ( 2 ) ' acres . Aesthetically it would look out of place to for four ( 4 ) houses on seven ( 7 ) acres along a road where each house is surrounded by country . She is concerned that our beautiful country road and country neighborhood will end up looking like a suburban sprawl . Mrs . Jayne - asked what would be acceptable to the neighborhood . S he understands that the residents think four ( 4 ) houses would not be acceptable . L inda Howe - 231 Jersey Hill Road - said most of the housing on J ersey Hill is on large lots . She said to place four ( 4 ) homes in t his area on seven ( 7 ) acres is out of place in a low - density zone and out of character with the neighborhood . Don Schaad - 201 Jersey Hill Road - said there is not enough land t here for four ( 4 ) houses . The drainage is very poor in that area as it is wet even in the middle of summer . Chairperson Weitzel said that the Planning Board will not act on t his proposal tonight and asked members to look at the site before t he next meeting . E loise Green reported that she has viewed the area and thinks it would be advisable for the other Planning Board members to do so . Motion to Close Public Hearing : A motion was made by Arch Dotson and seconded by Joel Gagnon to close the public hearing at 7 : 30 P . M . Carried Unanimously Respectfully s bmitted ans./ Carol W . Sczepa s i , Secretary II I Il TOWN OF DANBY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Regular Meeting 7 : 30 P . M . November 17 , 1993 PRESENT : Chairperson Nancy Weitzel P lanning Board Members : Arch Dotson , William Farrell , Don Schaaf , Eloise Greene , Joel Gagnon ABSENT : K en Horst ( Excused ) Others Present : Code Enforcement Officer - Susan Beeners S ecretary - Carol Sczepanski Members of the Public : D ouglas Makie , Dirk Galbraith , Paul Norton , Diane & Neil Sherwood , Kurt & Jean Samuelson , Brayton Foster , Dottie Miller , Fred Wright , J ackie Fenton , Daniel C . Egan , Kyle O ' Connor , Tom Niederkorn Chairperson Weitzel called the regular meeting of the Planning B oard to order at 7 : 36 P . M . Approval of the October 20 , 1993 and October 28 , 1993 minutes was postponed until the December 15 , 1993 Meeting . Privilege of the Floor : McCabe / Jayne Subdivision Proposal Frank Darrow - 400 Gunderman Road - addressed the Board and suggested that it would be helpful for the neighbors to be notified when the McCabe / Jayne Subdivision proposal comes up again for consideration by the Planning Board . Chairperson Weitzel said that the Planning Board would not make a d ecision regarding the Jayne Subdivision Proposal tonight and the neighbors would be notified when consideration will take place . S he asked the Planning Board members to view the site before the December meeting . Review of " General Site Plan , Proposed Hillview Terrace Subdivision and Mobile Home Park Expansion " Chairperson Weitzel asked if there was anyone in attendance who could give an up - date on the neighborhood group and their well water information . Neil Sherwood - 2352 Danby Road - at present they do not have any information . Chairperson Weitzel asked when this information would be completed . Neil Sherwood said that it is possible that the group would meet with Mike Walter early next week on Monday or Tuesday . Kurt Samuelson - South Danby Road reported that based on the information supplied by the neighborhood group and the information from Brayton Foster , there was not enough information for Mike Walter to determine whether there was enough water or not . He will need more well data and tests done . J oel said that he is concerned that this be pursued with all d iligence and speed and four ( 4 ) to six ( 6 ) weeks was a reasonable t ime frame and expected the bulk of the information to be presented at this meeting . Brayton Foster - reported that he is the geologist that did the pump testing for the Hardesty ' s . He would be happy to talk to Mr . Walter and might explain to him further the water resources on property as we understand them at present . He said it should be Ii 178 2 Planning Board Minutes November 17 , 1993 e mphasized that nothing will happen there until we demonstrate to Tompkins County Health Department that there is adequate water . That is a prerequisite as far as the Hardesty proposal is concerned . At present the water wells generate a good working model for ground water withdrawal . The most important item to know is that the three ( 3 ) wells are pumped daily to service the present park and they do not influence the water wells at Mrs . Hardesty ' s h ouse . There are locations on the property between the present park and the Hardesty ' s or neighboring properties to drill additional wells and still not influence the neighbors wells . It is very unlikely that wells producing water from bedrock will interfere or communicate with a well within four hundred ( 400 ) feet . They will have to pump test any wells that are drilled and it is not a problem to test neighboring wells if somebody wants t hat type of confirmation . Mr . Foster described the process for withdrawal testing of wells and the how the testing is performed . Doug Makie - 73 South Danby Road - Is concerned about the water u sage at the park . He thinks that the usage of 10 , 000 gallons per d ay will lower the water table and will dry up wells for miles around . Mr . Foster explained that the wells are in bedrock and not gavels and the draw down testing on the wells would not effect neighboring water wells . Mr . Foster said the park had been pumping a well field of three ( 3 ) bedrock wells since the late 1970 ' s or early 1980 ' s and it has not influenced the well at her house in fifteen ( 15 ) years because the system delivering the water probably doesn ' t e xtend that far . D oug Macki asked if this was approved by the Planning Board to go ahead and drill new wells , who would be responsible to provide water to the neighbors if it did dry up their water supply . He asked if it was the responsibility of the Town . Mr . Foster explained that would not occur because the park would run out of water before the neighbors did . J oel Gagnon asked how connected is the bedrock water and is it possible to drop the level in the bedrock later . Mr . Foster said not well connected because the recovery rate is one ( 1 ) to three ( 3 ) gallons per minute . He said pumping on this property will not influence the neighbors ' water . D irk Galbraith - Attorney for the neighbors - addressed Mr . Foster and said Mr . Albern also prepared a report based in part on his findings and report he indicated in his report that at this time adequate water is not available from the water system for the present twenty - six ( 26 ) mobile home park to also serve the additional thirty - one ( 31 ) units proposed by this expansion . He said that he thinks the scope has changed a little bit since 1992 w hen that report was prepared . He asked if that would still be t rue today as this water system exists . Mr . Foster said that there is probably enough water there to run it but the Health Department is not going to allow you to operate w ithout a margin of safety . The Health Department is going to ✓ equire capacity in excess of what they already have for additional u nits . Mr . Galbraith said that in Mr . Albern ' s report he refers to the ✓ eport of Mr . Foster and advises that there is not adequate water from the present wells as they are now functioning . r! T 7 { 9 3 Planning Board Minutes November 17 , 1993 Mr . Foster said that one of the wells at that time was experiencing a mechanical problem . The well was only delivering three ( 3 ) gallons per minute and one pump at one well was not operational . He said he did a pump test to determine recovery rates at points of water entry and made recommendations regarding work over fracturing . Mr . Galbraith said that Mr . Albern reached the conclusion that t here was not adequate water to serve the proposed expansion and asked if Mr . Foster agreed with that . Mr . Foster said additional water needs to be developed to serve additional units . He said that the Health Department requires the system to be designed so that you can lose your best well and still be able to produce the required water . The present system does not meet that requirement . His recommendation at this point is to develop an additional well . Mr . Galbraith asked Mr . Foster if in his judgement that in order to provide enough water for the proposed expansion that the Hardesty ' s are going to have to drill more wells or to fracture the existing wells . Mr . Foster said that they will have to drill one ( 1 ) or more . Mr . Galbraith asked if Mr . Foster had actually tried to spot a well anyplace on the property . Mr . Foster referred to an aerial map and said that he could mark a couple of spots on the property that might be considered . There are additional locations that he could recommend for drilling if t hey are in conformance with septic systems present or future . Mr . Foster said that drilling was the final conclusion . He said he could generate models and talk about existing wells , their behavior , their deliverability , but because I need more water I ' ve got to demonstrate that I have got it . I can ' t go to the Health D epartment and say that I think I ' ve got it . He said that he must d emonstrate not only quantity but quality . Mr . Galbraith what the draw back at this point was of going out and d rilling a test well . Mr . Foster said that from his perspective , if we were to start spending a lot of money ( $ 3 , 000 - $ 4 , 000 ) to drill wells , that the H ardesty ' s should have some assurance from the Board that if we successfully develop the water the project will go . If we do not find the water the whole project goes down . S usan Beeners - said we had reported to us from some of the n eighbors ( but no specific information ) that there are about eight ( 8 ) shallow dug wells in the immediate vicinity . It was reported t o the Planning Board that some of them were of poor quality . She said she is not sure on whose properties these shallow wells are located , and asked Mr . Foster what would be the first remedial measure that a property owner with a one - two acre property would do who had a dug well . Mr . Foster said dug wells are a problem because the Health D epartment does not like to approve them . Dug wells particularly u p - slope from this site , would have first chance at the water . Mr . Foster answered questions from the public regarding depth of wells in the area to bedrock , how water flows and supplies wells as it flows through bedrock , brackish and salt water . Susan asked if for those people with the dug wells would the first remedial thing for those people to try was to seek water on their properties by drilling so that they were not using dug wells . 180 4 Planning Board Minutes November 17 , 1993 Paul Norton - 2381 Danby Road - asked if we were talking about enough water for the park as planned right now . He said he has h eard talk about town that there was a potential of one hundred ( 100 ) plus units planned there . Susan said that under the mobile home park zone on the SEQR form it asks what could be developed at a maximum potential . This proposal is for thirty - one ( 31 ) new units and five individual homes . Attorney Galbraith said that as he understands the process , the Town Board is the Lead Agency on the SEQR Application and the P lanning Board ' s function concerning the SEQR is advisory . He asked if Planning Board would make a recommendation to the Town B oard and the Town Board have a hearing . Chairperson Weitzel responded that Attorney Galbraith was correct . Attorney Galbraith said that the Town of Danby was in the minority because we have our own SEQR Ordinance . Most Towns do not , in fact t he City of Ithaca is the only other municipality in Tompkins County that has their own SEQR Ordinance . We have Local Law # 2 of 1991 and what you have done is create some more restrictive guidelines than New York State imposes under the State SEQR O rdinance in the Environmental Conservation Law . This is a Type I Action and under both the State criteria and the criteria for the Town , Type I Action is the type that is most likely to require the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement ( EIS ) , which would involve a Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance . From what has been said here tonight , on behalf of the Sherwood ' s , I would ask you to consider A Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance and a recommendation that an Environmental Impact Statement ( EIS ) be prepared in connection with this application because : 1 ) this is a Type I Action . He said he thinks the law is that , he understands it , is that the majority of those cases an Environmental Impact Statement is required . 2 ) some serious concerns have been presented that should be explored fully . J oel said that the Planning Board is considering this proposal as a Type I action . B rayton Foster responded if ground water is the only item of major significance , would it be possible for him to address the issue of ground water concerns as Part III to the EAF . He said you are going to get the same information whether it is in a formal Environmental Impact Statement or whether it is simply an addendum to the Environmental Assessment . He explained that this would simplify things for everyone concerned if that is the only issue . A report can be prepared by him or by the Hardesty ' s engineer which would satisfy the water issue and would essentially be the information you would get in an Environmental Impact Statement . Susan addressed the Planning Board and said that they could consider an EIS , but we have been looking at the water issue for awhile and the assumption has been that the water drilling tests have been a voluntary mechanism that would occur after a re - zoning passes if the Town Board wants to re - zone it . Her feeling is that the Planning Board can at this time look at the specific re - zoning action and recommendation that must be made to the Town Board , consider water an extremely significant impact where there will be major consequences if it is re - zoned to get past stage one ( 1 ) . That is where a positive declaration and an EIS would be appropriate . She said her recommendation would be that supplementary information could be provided by Mr . Foster that could be framed basically on Part III . Maybe water is a potential large impact and explain how it could be mitigated . The questions e j 5 Planning Board Minutes November 17 , 1993 could be answered that are asked in Part III rather than getting into the long time frames of an EIS . Mr . Foster said that it is not an impact off site . Susan said that it appears that there are some adequate safeguards based on information from Mr . Foster , as an expert , that there would not be a depletion of water supply on adjacent properties . Chairperson Weitzel addressed the neighbors and said that the water issue was one of the reasons the Planning Board asked for their ✓ eport and it is urgent we have that information as soon as possible . We expected their report tonight . Don Schaaf said that we should move ahead because we have a check and balance . On October 28 , 1993 , Ric Dietrich reported for the n eighborhood group and he indicated that there were ten ( 10 ) dug w ells . He expressed concern about the resale of properties in ✓ elation to the availability of water on these properties . A q uestion was raised by a Board member as to the expertise and q ualifications of Mr . Walter . N eil Sherwood said that Mr . Walter works for the Hydrological D ivision of the GEO ( International Irrigation ) . We have a meeting with him next week . He reported that he thinks he made a mistake o n his well information . He has a drilled well of approximately t hirty ( 30 ) feet and has experienced problems with the water supply since he purchased the property . He said he thinks that water and t he wetlands across 96B were a major concern . Bill Farrell responded to Mr . Sherwood that he was not going to know whether the mobile home park was going to have a good well or if it was going to affect his water until there was approval and a n ew well was drilled . Chairperson Weitzel said that one of the things the Planning Board asked for from the neighbors was information on when the wells were drilled and how deep they were . That information was requested on O ctober 20 , 1993 . Mr . Dietrich was to obtain this information from t he neighbors . To date the Planning Board has not received that information from any of the neighbors . S usan said that request was followed up with a meeting on October 28 , 1993 and a communication of October 29 , 1993 with a request for t he outside consultant to follow up with information on the availability of water , possible impacts , problems on neighboring wells , and what may be some of the possible solutions for improving t he water supply either irrespective of the park development or if t he park was developed . N eil Sherwood said that the neighborhood group has a scheduled a t entative meeting next week with Phil Zariello of the United States G eological Survey . Joel said that there are other issues that we could look at . If there are other concerns among the neighbors that we have not heard - - they should be voiced if they are to be addressed in the e nvironmental assessment . J ean Samuelson - 83 S . Danby Road - said she would like more information on the septic system , what impact that might have , and o n the wetlands . She would like to know if the DEC must give approval before the project is approved . J ackie Fenton - 740 Comfort Road - Would like to know more about t he septic system and if it would effect the wetlands . She assumes t here are regulations on how close development can be to a wetland area . 82 6 Planning Board Minutes November 17 , 1993 Tom Niederkorn - reported that these concerns need to be dealt with but we need to move on . Whatever these concerns are they are going t o have to be dealt with all over again by the Town Board . It is e ssential for the Hardesty ' s to know a date that a recommendation w ill be made and when the proposal can go to the Town Board . This h as been going on for two ( 2 ) years . He asked the Planning Board t o please make a time table and stick with it . The septic system is something that must be dealt with by the Health Department . The d evelopment will have no impact on the wetlands any more than there is right now . D iscussion followed regarding other developments in the area who may use large quantities of water . Attorney Galbraith - said that he is familiar with the Yellow Barns d evelopment in Dryden . There are seventy - five ( 75 ) homes operating o n four ( 4 ) wells in a similar configuration as has been proposed here . This system has been out of compliance with the health department forever . Mr . Foster said that the out of compliance is the health d epartments mandated capacity . That is an existing system whereas t his system must be up and running with the ability to take the best well off the line and still be able to carry the load before you operate . Yellow Barn is one of the few places that water is produced from bedrock wells on a twenty - four ( 24 ) hour basis . Attorney Galbraith - said that there are deed restrictions . E loise Greene - asked what is required before the Board can move forward on this proposal . S usan said that what is required is that the Planning Board finish ✓ eviewing the SEQR Part II / III and the text that is attached . O nce you have completed the material you will have a hearing at which time you will make a recommendation to the Town Board . E loise Greene suggested that we try to proceed with this because it is going to require more time with another public hearing at which t ime this information may come out further . We will be able to make modifications as to what was completed with Parts II and III . J oel asked what were the requirements for public hearing . S usan said the Planning Board will have a public hearing to consider recommendation to the Town Board on the General Site Plan and what accompanies it - - recommendation on whether they should approve , or approve with modifications , or disapprove . Before t hat you are attaching what is the environmental impact of the general SEQR . You are to hold a hearing once you have a completed application and a completed EAF . You recommend approval , disapproval or approval with modifications of the General Site P lan . That is referred to the Town Board and they will decide whether to accept and adopt that General Site Plan along with the accompanying data . You are trying to look at this whole action as a re - zoning plan and make a recommendation to the Board . H er feeling relating to water is that the essential thing that the applicants have done since the beginning has been to recommend a ✓ easonable number of draw down tests after the re - zoning process h as been ruled . Her understanding is that would be voluntary before a final site plan approval . J oel said his concern is there is nothing in place to indicate what h appens if a linkage is found or what kind of magnitude there would h ave to be before it wuld be a consequence . S usan said the drawdown tests proposed are an integral measure . If t he draw down tests would show effect , then no final site plan 1 .8 .3 7 Planning Board Minutes November 17 , 1993 approval or building permits would be issued and the final site plan would be dead in the water . Attorney Galbraith - said that is exactly why we cannot have conditional Negative Declaration on a Type I Action . We can only h ave that on a Type II Action which is presumably a lesser impact . W hat is being described here is Conditional Negative Declaration you can ' t do it under the law . The reason why you can ' t do it is what you just said here . S usan asked Attorney Galbraith that if this has been volunteered from the beginning for a re - zoning application and is not being imposed , then why would it be a conditional negative declaration ? O r why would you be looking at it conditionally . Isn ' t it just the same thing essentially as part of the proposal . J oel said , you are saying that it is part of the proposal . They propose to do it as part of the process . Attorney Galbraith - said the thing you are saying that ' s correct is that it is not a mitigating measure . If it was a mitigating measure , then it would be a conditional negative declaration such as , you do it because we think that this will mitigate the environmental impact . What you are saying is well you volunteered t o do it now do it and see what happens , which is contrary to Local L aw No . 2 and the State regulations . J oel said that his point is that whether or not you made it a condition it is not a mitigating measure in any event because the outcome doesn ' t change anything . Attorney Galbraith - " on that , I ' m now agreeing with you . " E loise Greene asked if that would be the health department decision t oo . So it is not really pertinent ? Arch said it was pertinent but not conclusive . D iscussion followed regarding whether the health department would approve the project if a linkage was found between the new wells and the existing wells and the neighboring wells . J oel said that he has seen nothing from the health department that said if there was an indication from drawdown tests there is a linkage , that it would necessarily result in not approving the water source for the mobile park expansion . Mr . Foster said that wells can communicate and still deliver adequate water . Fred Wright - 2350 Danby Road - represents his mother and in 1963 an eighty ( 80 ) ft . deep well was drilled for the barn that produced enough water at that time . In 1966 a twenty ( 20 ) ft . deep well was drilled for the house and there have been problems with salt in the water . At times it is necessary to watch water usage as both wells are low on water . Chairperson Weitzel said that the Planning Board requested that the n eighbors supply the Planning Board with the information on their individual water supply for tonights meeting . B rayton Foster said that the problems reported tonight seem to be t he usual gamut of water well problems with dug wells or perhaps wells that were not drilled deep enough to wells that have e ncountered marginal water supplies . Some wells last forever some n eed repair work . ' They don ' t come with guarantees . He thinks t here is help available to solve some of the problems . 84 • 8 Planning Board Minutes November 17 , 1993 J oel said that as a member of the Planning Board he is hearing the n eighbors saying that they have marginal water and the concern has been raised early on that this marginal water might be adversely affected by the demand that would be created by doubling the usage at the mobile home park . Is it possible to address the n eighborhood concern about the adequacy of the water with a backup willingness , to extend the water that is developed at the Mobile H ome Park to the neighbor with the problem . Arch Dotson said only if the deterioration of their water was caused by the Mobile Home Park . Chairperson Weitzel said that some of these problems they have now t hey need to look into . D iscussion followed regarding the responsibility of individual property owners to supply their own water . B ill Farrell said if your well doesn ' t work you need to drill another one . Susan said that there are options for property owners if they could n ot get adequate water on their properties . Review of SEQR - Part II / III and attachments : Item No . 5 Groundwater Impact Susan said that more information is to be submitted by both parties at the next meeting . ( Residents and applicant . ) Chairperson Weitzel said if there is not new information submitted t he Planning Board will proceed with what we have . Item No . 10 - Impact on Agricultural Land Resources 1 ) Text - Page 3 of Text - after groups I & II , but among the • best soils in Danby which has mostly II - V ) . 2 ) No . 14C - Other Impacts - Transportation ( 3rd paragraph ) delete the word " road " insert " cul - de - sac " . 3 ) 18 - B - Municipal Budget - discussed - approved as is . 4 ) 18 - F - yes - small to moderate 5 ) Text on pg . 10 - discussed - no change Susan asked the Planing Board members to carefully check the text attached to Part II / III and the attachments . Any additions , corrections , or suggestions should be submitted at the next meeting . Public Hearing - Hillview Terrace Mobile Home Park Expansion and Subdivision Proposal A motion was made by Joel Gagnon and Seconded by Arch Dotson to schedule a public hearing to be held on Wednesday , December 15 , 1993 , 7 : 30 P . M . at the Town Hall , 1830 Danby Road . Purpose of the hearing is to consider recommendation to the Town Board with respect to a request for Site Plan Approval of a General Site Plan for the Hillview Terrace Mobile Home Park Planned Development and Cluster Subdivision Proposal . Carried Unanimously Motion to Adjourn : On a motion the meeting was adjourned at 10 : 15 P . M . RdMt(I/C ectfullynsubmitted 2 a G� /' i Carol W . Scze ski , Secretary MEMMEMMEMMEMMEMEMML