:0 call the meeting of the planning board and the task force uh to order um remind you this meeting is being recorded um call to order Laura Tenny here Brer here oh Peter Morton here Suber here Chris here maryy here all the T fors to order as well here uh here sah here here oh Rich CHR only here I know Ann Harrison has got a cold and will not be here Sandy s Sandy should be here Mike Pratt Mike Pratt but we have a quum so we can sure so was everyone the task for the minutes from the last meeting take a motion to approve it so moved second all in favor thank you all right start you want to do plan Ste um why don't we just jump in the purpose of today's meeting we can start Mark yeah we're waiting for Mark resic to show up because he's going to be the MC of this event but uh I guess we can sort of talk about what we're going to be doing tonight which is we've all gotten copies of the draft zoning language we've all commented on them and we've all submitted those to Mark he has compiled all of the comments fixed all the typos made some policy changes that he felt were totally reasonable but he could expl them and one said he felt were in appropriate he did not accept but he's willing to explain that yeah because one of them that he didn't include we had discussed at the last meeting he included so that is definitely something we should yeah make that was a height restriction on the accessory struction oh okay because based on what's there you would have no height restriction it could go to to 20 stories on an accessory [Laughter] structure I don't think that's our intent good yeah so the way I think Mark intends to do this' like just he'd like to focus on General policy questions first I think you T to go Section by section and discuss various suggestions for Poli like sure so uh let's go on to picking your things out of the agenda acknowledge receipt of Correspondence were a couple of uh emails from Mar Yani I'm not aware of any others guess we could even go for some public comment at this stage for Mark does anyone from the public have anything I'd like to speak to while we're waiting um s Sarah Pi Sarah hi yes I guess I'll be the one in the public asking a question um I did want to know Sarah Paris n friend street are we going to be able to ask questions after these topics are discussed because I'm not quite sure what will come out of the meeting at this point Point uh yes yeah sure after we go through each section we'll ask for comments from we'll see how it goes if if if there if it isn't too controversial you may just wait till the end okay that would be great it's just hard to ask before you hear what's discussed but that would be great there'll be there'll be another public comment session okay thank you very much maybe we can just kind of take a couple of the first second okay we can we can yeah we can do that we can win it as best we can yeah you may have you want to do the minutes we done you know is efficient rly efficient and um Peter you have the latest version because you don't of the zoning is it the one on the site or no no a link sent to it yeah you may not have it we'll have to get your it was on the screen we've been trying to get them EMA your emails St and running oh that's why yeah I think 40 and in the M process I ended up getting all of Christine St Pier's Enos of which she was subscribed to a lot lot of things oh anyway it's not up on the I'm just trying to find it in my number of emails yeah um on Monday yeah yeah [Music] y then Emily sent a response saying she was sending a memorandum but I haven't seen that I haven't seen that either it was coming that after that work that work out for you I'm glad that nobody else saw it either sometimes you're not you're not alone I'm nothing at least not certain and Gail's very good about sitting that stuff she gets it well precondition but I figured Emily would send it every she yeah she might you never know what happens somebody and I'll be right back I have to grab I think there's a second file yeah there's a second file which is what he oh so what's making around making what email but I don't have thank you I think he kept one over there there is a spare copy there we go saying for all right all right there we go now the first document is Mark right actual change track it's what he sent us on Monday correct I don't I don't need yeah it's 324 on thank you yeah com y change what did you take a change on for those of you who are tuning in we're just uh looking at us Mark come back and having a reviewing a quick memal that need to provide us sure we'll be going through it yeah 24% we don't want Sarah one thing this writing is good but it doesn't correlate directly to these images will these images be part of anything sense the images will be on a map okay so the the the verbiage describes particularly your Beach Street C Street District needs to correlate to the verbiage in in the loing bylaw right now it's up are you suggesting just the name of the district or is it well it's right now it's called the it's called The Beach Street to C Street district and then you got Beach Street subdistrict SE Street subdistrict Summer Street so just just making the words the same on the graphic not on not on this Gordon is that in the FAQ or on the yeah yeah that's old okay let see I think Mark went to get Max okay so presumably a suggestion for clarity so oh it's important we've been changing the names all along so it's to confusion were was subdistrict one subd District 1B think people want to know where the were right so I think the names are currently the general area rather than actually trying to describe all of the boundaries thect okay so this may have already been changed has actually so it'll align to this right hopefully so let's um okay so um let want to start with okay we'll start with purpose because that's perect start and I Mark the version that you sent around of the bylaw is what was available to us on Monday is that right yes anyone else need another copy [Music] for tonight's discussion skinny well we can just just in case I just people awake well could you know takes a nap every so often so maybe it's for what what don't wake me up the ice don't wake me up okay G your hand up I need to lower that sorry all right I'm just just a test right oh yeah I've got things like new Contra all right Mark you ready yes okay so I have the latest version that you sent on Monday or Tuesday that's what I passed around I did not make any additional changes remember this is to be sent to the state for reviews or any other little tweaks or formatting spelling we can three months yeah well meeting this we can make small changes the purpose of this is to yeah just to get something ready to go hes with States all right so you want to walk us through I guess your memo that says what you yeah I explained we're going to be talking about policy issues first and then people didn't think right so I did not go through and write down responses to at little edits that people may have suggested they're either in there and you sent your comments so you know whether they got changed or not um I didn't change all everybody's comments I I kind of focused on the bigger issues that um could be uh language issues that might effective validity of something or how it gets interpreted or what it means so that's kind of what I focused on in kind of in reviewing this and then uh So based on um a couple comments related to purpose um I uh changed the end of the sentence so that it uh it reads um so that the purpose of the housing overlay district is to allow family housing as the right in accordance with Section 3A of the M laws um uh and preserve the character of the Town minimize the impact of the community and add options for multi family well so um so um does anybody have any problem with any of that are these me and it's likely or who knows but are is the state inclined to interpret some of our editorial you know words in an adverse fashion to say we're trying to uh skirt the law or in any way I mean I want to make sure that we got the best chance of getting this getting an okay on this I I don't believe so so if you say we're trying to minimize the impact of community I think that's like an obvious statement that might be in a bunch of other ones okay um you know I think pretty clear that towns are and cities are doing what we're doing overlaying existing dense areas so thank you yeah you just pass another walk then we'll all get together okay so we're done with 9.4.1 uh 9.4.2 um wrote in this section there were a couple comments which questions if special Apartments can still be allowed in the chod uh so special permits can be allowed as long as they don't relate to the uh the multif family use but are allowed for accessory uses which is what we're referring to um such as like Health Facilities uh or parking structures um or other types of commercial uses or home occupations so that doesn't mean that you can't build the housing just means these other uses which the state doesn't really care about you can regulate differently great um the definitions so was question um so in the sample State bylaw they recommend or they recommend as the were to define the purpose of subdistricts like why we're having certain subdistricts do you feel like that's not important um again Emily helped draft this as well and so since she is um much more attuned to what what how um the state reviewers are be looking at this that if she had didn't include it I don't think we need to say this subdistrict the purpose is you know because U there already some high density housing and continuing that development patterns uh in keeping with the character so I don't this find the purpose of the districts in that case too think I mean you never you never really see it in any other zoning unless you're creating like some sort of special district well we have a purpose district for the entire bylaw the entire bylaw relates to multi family housing so having other purposes for each of the little subdistricts I mean it's you can just basically say the same thing it's kind of redundant it allows you to do it so so I that's why I thought it was interesting that they specifically said that but um and then just to clarify for map this is um referen chod boundary map um are we updating our zoning map so as we do for overlay districts so we will adopt the maps that I passed out they'll be cleaned up a little bit but there'll be an official submitt of these Maps these Maps will Define the district they won't be overlaid in the gis system there'll probably be a separate layer that'll be added but on that map you you just can't um other it's just it'll be too busy so there'll be many zoning bylaws have little pullouts like you see if you look at the state of Massachusetts down this section on the side of Boston and whisker showing a little more detail so we'll have the same thing um I suspect Mary's question is there's this process that we have to follow when adopt a new map well there is and we have to make that's part of this just adopting these new maps those maps are part of the bylaw that's I just have and the question is prompted only because other towns do have the overlay in their GIS and they've adopted it as an overlay so I'm just curious why we wouldn't but that's that's fine it is an overlay and that's how we how it is being Greg told me that the assessors system can takeen overly instrict yes so it will have to be coded in okay so we are doing okay CBA is gonna require it I'll clue you I have a question which just may be my limitation but I've always been concerned about making it perfectly clear that what you can do in in the chart is applicable only to three families and you or more and you cannot in any way use any of the terms of the of the overlay uh for anything other than I know it says in in uh in 9.4.1 that purposes for but where does it does it is it explicit in here that a person who wants to make a change to a building that is not a three family cannot do anything other than the underlying regulations and Emily was supposed to be cons confirming that in the overlay District somebody could not apply for a special permit or variance that's not really what I'm asking well that's why you would do something different you'd need a special permit or a variance my question is a little different I think question is where in this language does it explicitly state that a three family excuse me other than three families um only the underlying zoning so if you if you had a house in the underlying zoning that you wanted to make a two family but you you would be doing that under the rules of the underlying zoning District that would allow two so it seems to me that number two underlying sewing district is an attempt to do that yeah and the question is does it do it I thought it's not super clear there either that's how they have it in the sample zoning I don't think it's super clear but I think it's kind of clear yeah it does say uses that are not identified in section 9.4 are governed by the requirement EXA this is section 9.4 yes but it says that what things that are not identified in 9.4 I.E not multif family are governed by the requirements of the underlying Zone District pered 94.4 probably it's pretty clear okay Sarah's right4 I'm I'm marking one up with comments so um so the next one definitions so [Music] in definitions I did make some edits to the definitions there were some additional comments about those U but on that were clearly already in the definitions the same way or things that couple that were applicable not really necessary um I did move um so then you added some modifications to section two which is the definitions of in zoning back at the back right yes just just to I believe so I have a concern on the definitions um because I think there's well at least six that we already have defined in our zoning bylaws and this is a different definition than what we currently have um which I had noted and so I think we have to be consistent and I think if we already have it in our zoning bylaw we don't need to duplicated here um and then with affordable unit that's not taking the full definition from 3A um I think it's missing a sentence or two so I wasn't clear why we didn't do that I left the affordable unit Al because that's how uh submitted by Emily so looks fine to me yeah and I didn't have anyal issue with it um and then what's the other one you said six AC crossed off so um so affordable housing is already defined in our zoning bylaw um multif family housing is defined in our bylaw and differently um multif Family zoning district is already defined and differently um residential dwelling unit we already Define but differently well maybe the definitions of this section right yeah so I was think think about that that challenge of the fact that there is potentially there might be we might want a different definition a residential dwelling unit for example in this section and in the other so perhaps the we could consider changing it to chod residential dwelling district and make put the CH in front of each of these and then it's clear um in section four that we're talking about the chod residential if there is a so so my feeling was for some of these other uh things that are slightly different which is what I didn't do is that for the purposes of submitting this to eohc they're not going to care that there's really a slight difference here that and that this these definitions would have to sit down with Emily in all in the two different versions and see if she um and I can H her out some sort of uh agreement on the language whether we can use what's in the current zelling report whether we should change it so um how how material are the differences and I think if you can the most part I think Mary's points well take if you can make it consistent with without without changing the impact why wouldn't we want to do that I thank you I mean I don't know why yeah it is why residential dwelling unit would be different right in this overlay as opposed to this may have more words in it it's the same weer this is the definition we use in CPAs yeah no definition wrong I'm just saying you know we may have I'll look it up [Music] online you know you got to get with the program sometimes Denny how much prog would I happily to be one what material changes oh um for which ones just as an example how about multi multi family is different and we have to use the definition that's required by the statute that's might be reasons to not use it that way underlying Z exactly so we in our current zoning make it clear which it is the state definition that multifam um is connected to the other units with fire separation assemblies such as walls or floors so we had to make it clear that you share a firewall for it to be multif family and that's not included in this proposed bylaw I don't is that important no I don't think it's important I think that's Overkill myself honestly I I I I had a reaction to the definitions and in general to the whole um set of bylaws which was it was fairly readable and clear and part of what we're trying to do is help people understand things that have been too complicated for our existing zoning leaves a lot to be so can you can you basically craft say for the purposes of that's what it says right at the top it says for purposes of this section okay but I do like Sarah Sarah kraton's idea of putting um multif family because there's just no harm in being clearer than you need to be that it's a different definition exactly I think it's R Done I think the purposes of section 9.4 says it and the more we glom it up with extra words that the more confusing ited between well am I supposed to compare this to something else this article cleaner so the other alternative is to to to move these definitions into section two I don't think here they make it simple and letting the to the purpose of 9 you try to change the bay zoning and you're never going to get anything okay yeah I just I I addressed the ones that were obviously unnecessary or were already virtually the exact same language so um these other ones try to again simplify this but still keep this here so okay okay you need to share these up by right here always gener your R did someone say we wanted to move underlying zoning in districts to the definition SE no not not this not um so under permitted uses as a right or a couple editing things but uh basically there was a comment about um allowing commercial uses on the first floor of multi family building however um that being um it's considered a mixed use building um but we don't call it that we and we don't um say you have to do that we just say we're not um uh you can do it if you choose and so um but you can only do it on the first floor is what we say and um I thought it was a great way to finesse mixed juice to get it in there and not get in trouble with I have a comment on that so the state definition of mixed use is different than our current bylaw so the state definition says I won't read the whole thing but it says including without limitation commercial institutional industrial or other uses so we specify in our use table what we allow in the G district for commercial so with this one saying without limitation that means whatever somebody wants in the General District as a mixed use would be allowed if you interpreted you're saying if you interpreted it as the state's definition rather than our definition we're not not calling next year building just saying on the first floor you can build commercial as long as it complies with our uses allowed in District G used of what's allowed in District G so what we can't do is we can't say you have to have commercial first floor someone just wants to build a multi-unit building so you can't have marijuana because that's not allowed in District G and we're not we're not referencing the states um mixed use don't want to reference the state's mixed use definition nonresidential right any other comments on this where are we I'm sorry 9 so uses um so accessory uses um would be allowed um um if they're allowed in our accessory use section but the called uh customary home occupation which is a home business um so in the Beaver Dam District uh it says specifically that it must be allowed by special perit board the reason being is you might have a 20 unit building right and so you living in a big multi-unit building of 20 or 25 units there are some allowed uses in there that I um not the best to have if you allow by special per at least there a review and and the bus and cols uh so that was added and then the the um uh the other uh change is uh the there was um concern about pools and fitness centers and other types of things so uh we moved that um to um be again a special permit and it should say from the Z board of appeals and as car would say that's in response to public comment that we received from the for yes he would we and we respond to public the com feel obligation and duty to do that go ahead on Accessory uses so we're um I proposed taking out parking garages by right in residential um we think that merits a discussion that um I guess I'd like a better understanding of what's being looked at or considered we propose for Newport Park um which I'm assuming this is referencing so so it's saying 733 units at Newport park is in the model and four stories would be allowed so that's a four-story parking garage I'm assuming a budding powder house so in the back so um so I'm having a hard time saying that that makes sense to allow a parking garage in a residential district by right so um later in this bylaw I have changed the definition of structured parking to basically mean a multi-level parking garage um and then u under the parking section I required that to be uh a special permit in the powder house and um Park District and E so that responds direct the m is concerned but what you haven't done is restricted the height on Accessory structures so as this bylaw is written you could build a 20 story high accessory structure and in our current bylaw we limit it to one and a half stories and 25 fet I really think we need that in this by I agree so I I guess I'm still not clear on the parking though it says um parking garage as an accessory use it'll be a single like a single family house you have a parking garage it's indoor parking right or one car under now many many multif family projects have a concrete Podium type construction where parking is underneath and and the apartments are above and it's a very effective cost effective and and it's very popular with tenants covered parking it's covered parking in the snow they go out and get in their car and drive away well it's also just a town home you have a sure the garage right in the front you just D in so would that be the first floor and then you have one and a half basic it's built residentials built on a Podium with parking underne okay all right so then so separated the garage from the structure you said but to Sarah's point she's looking for some diens structures to go on in the section on the start on line 121 because we talk about setbacks and so we can yeah we we I also concerned with this table under height it says Stories 2 and a half feet 35 it has to be the lesser of the two yes and it has to say Max right yes we sking to there now well wait sorry proceeding ahead dimensional standards um so I have accessory structures um accessory uses maybe it's accessory structures so let me hold that so we get um are we still on the table where are we so I'm okay so accessory uses and accessory structure are different are different yep okay so an accessory use is I want to have my Law Office in my house right and an accessory structure is garden shed is a separate building a separate structure okay so I want to talk about accessory structur when we get are we done with accessory uses well accessory structures is under accessory uses well accessory stru well structures is under the table accessory what happens in the building no I know but uses instruction no it's it's it's in the table under it's underneath in the table no I'm just saying here it says access uses and then we d right line 89 says accessory structur on the same lot and customarily residential and that's in our current bylaw access and that should be moved to number four into the table I think yes that's right access no it's not it's not we it's it doesn't allow a residence in it about an office yes yes so it have everything except a cooking TOs and if you have a 5,000 ft house your accessory structure could be 4,990 so our current definition of accessory is a building structure or use which is subordinate to and the use of which is customarily incidental to and is located on the same lot with the principal building structure or use to which it is accessory that's our current definition not changing it question is you know what can your imagination make of an accessory structure in the context of a multif family of what other things could this be just could be it's controlled by what you can do in the accessory structure is controlled by the accessory uses that are allowed so could it be a community center yes no I don't think that's allowable use okay could it be an amenity uh public uh congregation uh Church be like a community building Community Building allow it has to be accessory to the resal so if the residential is a family residential unit could there be a a child care center there there are the child care uses are in yes under the zon okay small um is do we need to allow access you know Garden sheds the smallest you know an 8 by8 garden shed by right or in a in the multi family District or should it be part of the site plan review from the GetGo because we allow it today I mean I don't see why you want to I I can make a suggestion where you might not want to um if I'm if I've got an apartment complex I might want to put up maintenance sheds storage sheds all kinds of things right for which we have not accounted for we might want to allow I and you don't need a building permit for under 200 square feet so three a three unit or four unit building could have four Garden sheds and a for lawn mowing you know or or um yeah carports I'm I'm concerned that we're extending yeah the definition may be adequate to our single and two family prominant community now we're changing it this is a very this could be a very different application and could significantly alter what the building looks like but if we limit it to the one and a half stories and 25 feet height you're limiting how big those accessory structures liting how tall they are not liting how big they are or how many well well and we've reduced the setback so now they're right at somebody's no it's the same setbacks we have today in the General District yeah that's what it says in so my my lar question is no change is actually do because they're allowed in the underlying dis underlying zoning do we need to allow them by right in the CH first of all just whether you think it's good or bad do we need to and that's a question I guess from Mar or my point I don't I doubt that we have to do it at all I Our obligation is to provide mul family they said we could do special permits for accessory yeah I just feel like they should be special permits because I think you have a four mean I lived in a seven unit Department in Beverly and we everyone had um like a accessory space it took up a great deal of coverage which you're still limited by the coverage requirements and the setbacks don't forget but I think well that's another story coverage requirements just says structures and parking it doesn't say impervious or the design standards includes the accessory structures as part of the package and if it's not done when the when the application is made so modific I guess the question is when there are modifications maybe to any of these structures that one gets built on in 2025 and then it gets modified in 2028 with accessory structures or with another Dormer how does that we haven't really addressed that is this the kind of minutia we want to get into I don't think it's such man why would we want to give accessory units here in this case when we don't have to we we're we're working on an overlay District or large Department buildings we're not working on General District or on underly Lots work on small lots and it may not be apartment majority of it is very small Lots we're not talking about those we're talking about the ones where they're going to build mother why would we we're not we're talking about this whole thing applies to what's your argument for giving it away we have it today we allow accessories we still have it today as we have it today you're giving it away in a different different agree that for a different use it's a different use there a big difference between a 12 unit apartment building or a 40 unit apartment bu only place that's going to be is out of Beaver Dam one unit house to a four unit place you know that's a big guess there's a lot of there's a lot of big change I I yeah I I think let's let's let them come back and ask for it right well I think we should probably take a vote on this how about how about that okay how many people want to have accessory uses structures only by special permit and how many would right in the site plan review in the site review oh that's good well it looks like the special permit wins for now than so then I should change um 89 to be a special per you need to move 89 over to number four on the next on the you have a whole discussion of accessory structures and it seems to me that that well I 89 should be merged with 121 we have accessory us lot by special permit shouldn't it go under three no I'm talking about yeah but that's the dimensional go I'm talking about the 8990 should be merged into that line one 21 I think it should be just under not a use it's a structure yeah it's you have it under use is it's not a use it's a structure and it's it's too complicated to go between the two areas I'm sorry Sarah I don't understand what it is you're asking so on line 89 there's there's conventional standards no on line 89 oh my it says accessory structures on the same lot and custom incident do Residential Loops such as storage shed gazebo and similar and that's under accessory use well a structure is not an accessory use uh so that should explanation should be merged into the 121 which talks about accessory structures yeah I've made note of that di don't know where that's helps us get it that's that we're also trying to get the P right right and so we've just taken away one more issue that Jud okay on this on the table I believe everyone talked about maximum height maximum lot coverage maximum minimum setbacks I guess that should be clear so it should say height maximum lck coverage maximum setb minimum setb minimum and the ler of for height this ask a question of Mark and one particular word on here on the second line down Mark it's called it says additional lot area for dwelling structure what is the what is the additional PL than you so in the model you have to set a a number for base number so if you set it at 2,000 square ft and then units two and three each have to have 2,000 square ft you need 6,000 square ft if you set it at a base of 5,000 square ft and then the traditional unit is 2,000 ft and you need 9,000 squ ft in order to do a three in building so and that's that's because that's how the model Works they want you to set a base numb so some communities will set a certain minimum size that so I misreading this say when the word additional sounds like I'm adding I got 6,000 square for a minimum lot this is pure interation then I see the next line says additional lot area per dwelling unit I think there's a good point there because in the model there is actually a base there's two different parameters one is base and one's Division I never life fact that made the base only two but that's neither here nor there right however I agree that it's confusing to someone who does not see the language of the base unit you see something labeled as additional unit I don't know what that would mean if I was a developer if I was going to be doing this actually doing something here this tells me I got 6,000 feet of lotter and if I added on one unit for additional I'd have to add another 2,000 foot to my lottery meaning 8,000 ft or 10,000 so is the word if is elimination of the word additional would that be appropriate or do you need another line for lot area for first unit yeah so maybe we need where it says minimum lot area that would be for um well for a three family no well could you just said the word Gordon would it clarify it if it said additional lot area per additional dwelling unit no it just could I see I see the word minimum if I was approaching this from coming into town looking to perhaps buying a house this is a good good size okay 6,000 sare feet great I meet that and now I if I'm going to put another when I put another living unit within that building that means that the lot size just increased to 8,000 Fe so maybe so maybe don't have a line for the b instead of saying additional saying maybe that's what we do we go instead of minimum lot area because no you need minimum lot area that's that that's to get into the game yeah that's basically but then if you if you have um lot area for first dwelling unit and then additional yeah and then lot area for each additional unit required lot area for each building unit but I think they're different for the Bas and for the additional the Bas is three to four in a couple couple places it's a little we happen to choose a base number that was the same as the additional unit not on every District not everywhere marks changed it so it's not the same across all this so I I think we need that so we need the line that corresponds to the model yes yeah like add aign for the base lot area which will be probably 22000 , 22500 and don't say Bas lot area say area for first unit okay well it's the first un or the first the first three it's the first three or four is multi family there's one for the first one number for the first unit and then there's different numbers for each additional unit yes in some of the districts okay so that can I on the notes can we say clarify that and um I've got if I've got a 6,000 square foot lot can I build three units on it yes this is where it's different this one that has the 6500 okay or 6500 that requires I can build three units what if I want to build four right you have to do it in two buildings how many more square feet no no you can do it one building just have to add another to have another 2,000 sareet right so in a way you want to say minimum lot area for the first three units yeah no that's not the way zoning works oh sorry you need to have a minimum lot area in order to qualify under this section of the code okay 5ot lot you're you're not covered in this section of the C we just need to add a lot need a line that says first three units what do that line first unit and then each additional unit what is that line going to say first three first unit is different first unit is different in the Z it's not as simple it's not as simple as each building that's what's in the model yeah it's not quite because it differs in it's not what we had Over Districts not all so you could only build calls you go to underlying zoning I think we need to CL figure out the Chad District in the CH District you in this here you have to have 6500 square feet for one unit or for three for three for three to play the game to be hidden to be covered under this section of the zoning to be applicable okay so let's let Mark figure outy you could say minimum wide area included in be considered a child yeah that's good so Mark you're going to don't screw it up that's the kind of executive okay in number two you have a typo can I ask a question about the U red multi just stay on on this for a second just ask a clar clarifying question about the heights why are the and this is probably obvious to everybody about me but why are the um the increments in stories different in one district from another is that an obvious question qualify what to qualify under the model to get it's more dense okay but also I think maybe Mark but also the districts that allow a greater height have potential of way the Newport Park Tu away a little bit visually and Bieber dam is okay it's actually a more complicated mathematical problem which is we have to get a minimum density across the board 15 units in some of the districts we don't want that much density so that's why we're doing thank you it was a good question question that someone like myself who has really studied this might ask but those are very good questions very in the beaver dam the existing zoning is 55 ft so you brought that down yeah yeah thank you everybody in response to public comment listen to [Music] can we um why have why isn't there a maximum dwelling units for Newport at powderhouse and Allen to Lincoln because um those right now are uh have um large developments on there so I can't uh um so for example um the Summer Street Summer Street that development across from the train station is 42 so I would have to cap it at 42 so which otherwi other LS could could then B 42 if they could make all the other numbers work so so we couldn't so it kind of doesn't make sense no I agree but on the other hand aren't they sort of grandfathered in a way or something and if there was was a new a new lot created couldn't we say well the max there is I think the real issue is that we don't make our density requirements yeah we don't that we lose the density that's the real issue okay okay I mean we've we've cranked up those densities is that those areas are not likely you know to be right redeveloped um you still have the limit based on the size of the Lots that's right which is a limit that's built into it but leaving those squares blank are they gonna say oh you made a mistake no you should have filled those no okay so and then I have two other comments um I would like to see um an open space requirement I know we have it in the model um but then it's taken out and I'm kind of wondering why I mean I know it's in the S State sample bylaw many towns that have open SP submitted have an open space requirement which I think is important I've seen some buildings in various towns that it's just all building oh we have that by default coverage we but open space is contiguous space you know if you have a patch of grass here and a patch of grass there and a patch of grass there that's not really open space um so I I I would like to see that and then the what language would you use Mary um I would just put a line in the table open space requirement and we come up with the percentage is it 20% What percentages would you use give us what you how you would like to see it sure I would like to see it at 20% so the where would the line be under in it could be its own line space that's one of my problems with the whole thing is that we are thinking when we think about this of some developer coming in and building huge structures and in fact in the in the primarily in the downtown district because we've been careful about selecting small lots and you are limited by the lot size you've got people who homeowners who want to make their single family or two family be a three family So 20% I mean come on I mean we're making very complicated require by default with the coverage requirement because you got 30 you can only go to 70% anyway coverage of structures and we got to change it from parking to impervious well so parking is is how the model works but we can the zoning can say impervious yeah it has to be impervious because be this would imply that you can have structures and parking and then you can add a patio and walkways and yeah it has sounds parking and people get around that by putting papage down or gravel down it's okay isn't it does it but this way we have nothing go the point about open space let let's take the most obvious place to Beaver Dam Road if you know we have the five acres and 20% would be an acre of that and the I think from my perspective I I like the idea of open space but what that does is it forces a higher um it it forces the more likelihood of a larger a large scale building as opposed to which which may be fine um but um it limits the design options which may be fine I think it's worse than that because we we've already achieved our density based upon what we said yeah there's nothing in the model that allows you to designate open space so right off the bat we would have put something in our application to eohc that goes outside their their their model and so they're going to have to look at that especially but the problem is that no matter what you do if you increase the Open Space over the 30% that we have now you're decreasing the number of units you're changing the density and we are back to the numbers um so there was open space in the model it was just backed out again so for each lot there was an open space percentage and then it was added back in so the model has lots of things that you can use and lots of parameters because like FS because communities use f we don't use f so we didn't use that as a way of setting density um we don't use continuous Open Spaces a requirement for development so you didn't used that we were trying to make as few changes as we could to existing Z so I mean and then remember this also goes through site plan review so during the review you'll have the opportunity to look at things like that and again what we're dealing mostly with small lot development so they're going to have the front yard might have a driveway they probably want to have a backyard it may not be contigous but they will um you have green space and um so you may not even be able to have 20% it might be 15 and 15 that's how you get to 30% and we do have public open spaces specified in the design standards so at line 455 through 463 there's basically public open spaces and that's I don't think that means anything that's in the Beaver Dam that's probably yes right which is primarily where you're thinking of it as opposed to some homeowner you know who wants to make a three family so it's fine I'm not going to get consensus here I I I think a lot of residents will look for that so I wanted to raise that and then so I would like to very much make sure that this say structures and impervious C yes we better to have that in there we're seeing violations of that all over town put it in even if it has to be a separate line um with the same percentages if if you feel you got to have the I'd have to check yeah but a separate line I mean you've got to have the maximum structures and because otherwise the whole lot can be paved over I missed that BR you're you're right I wonder what would happen if we put in we be interesting to know what what would happen if we put a number in there might not change little why well I think your number problem one of the problems is what is contiguous you have a setback all the way around the building so the open space is by definition going to be continuous anyway unless you're going to say it has to be with you know certain Dimensions which then gets to be impossible I don't exactly know what open space is Does it include parking no no no because 30% incl paring that we we've we we've limited our footprint to 70% but then we got par well our structures are limited to 40% our structures in parking are 70% and I'm saying or 60% depending on the location and I'm saying you need structures and impervious surface total of that same amount as you have for structures in Market think currently yeah that's like that's our current code and that's a very sensitive area we had two applications for zba last month that we sent them back over coverage violations um and said you got to re redo your plans and so besides parking what happening walkways and concrete walkways patios um and what we do is we make them use perious surface rather than impervious because we have such a flood issue that you need the impervious surface to drain it through sorry um so we often make them change out driveways to pavers instead of asphalt um I think we should have one I think there's agreement on that okay as well the collection oh they have that in um because one Water Resources districts have drainage requirements and then to clarify on to go to the accessory structure is there anybody objecting to adding a height limit the same as the underlying zoning which is one I have stories okay and then I had a question on that line on number four the so it's saying in the Bieber Dam Area that an accessory structure could be 15 ft from the side and the rear lot lines I think that's very close I mean that AB buts conservation land um and wetlands up there I believe um our current setbacks for there for front and side are 150 and 100 respectively so I think falling down to 15 is drastic but they also have to pay attention to the Wetland buffer and now they have to come for special permit for accessory structures based on order conditions from but if we stipulate 15 feet we can't say in a special permit 20 feet I mean it it it's 15 feet so I am voicing the concern I think that's very close what would you suggest um 40 ft well District a I mean it would be in the dark but I I think we currently have the 150 and the 100 be because that makes sense for commercial so if it's housing I mean I you know I don't know I just know 15 is very I have 50 and 50 and 50 for the for the multi family homes right this is saying that the access un structures can be closer to I yeah so typically you know larger multif family development they will have G rows of garages kind of behind the buildings so that some of the units people who want to have a garage can rent one as well um so typically you know the buildings have to be toward the middle of the site but they have the garages around the perimeter it's it's not too not to tough on the on the project to have a bigger setback for those garages it is because we limit what we can do with the site development to be responsive to the site conditions I mean these setbacks start to get kind of arbitr if they they've got done they've done the buling and the blasting to put the apartment building in the middle of the site it's actually more expensive to put the car ports you're assuming that you're blasting and bulldozing it depends on the I think we're limiting our flexibility through the special perment process to get to good site design by coming up with these Dimensions that are today our accessory structur setback um tend to be half of what our setback is for the primary structure so if you changed it from 15 to 25 feet that would be half of that would be consistent with the way our zoning is now and then y on 126 that say an additional 15 ft you adding that to the 25 that you're suggesting that's the front the front that's just the front right but why not make it just consistent what I'm saying is our we would have our existing zoning theory is is that accessory structures are half half the distance to the property line right than the primary so they're they're Closer by 50% of what the primary is so that is so if youve got 50 for the primary maybe if you had 25 feet for the accessory that's the 50% so the setback is met in a residential district to protect the neighbors I believe in this case the neighbors are commercial uses conservation yes well do have to get an order of conditions from the Conservation Commission it's not like they're going to so that wetlands are going to be protected one way the other and I can tell you that when they built their a zba special apartment whatever we had to give them for their new building comcom made them remove parking along the comcom side because it was encroaching too far so they made them pull it all back this for the storage fac Beaver Dam yeah um so concom is paying attention to that it seems to me that out there in my opinion is out there the 15 with a special permit that the 15 feet the low's point is reasonable and that we want we don't want to totally limit um the opportunities for for design options you encroach an additional point x feet you you limit the provide more opportunity for open space right yeah I think the other question that does that we don't know the answer to yet that that bears on this is if in the chod the there are no opportunities for a variance no opportunities for what a variance yeah so if you want to have a garage and you can't even get a you can't get a variance for good design to put it we increase it to 50 ft to put it at 40 ft and that knocks out the entire uh opportunity for a multif family house for to qualify then it's um me I was just suggesting 25 instead of whatever X whatever it is I think that we should I person consistent deal with it I do think that this variance question is extremely important and we don't know the answer to that right no I don't know what what was researching uh my opinion is is that in the Chad they cannot use a special permit or variance to go outside of the requirements if they want to do something else they would have to do the underlying zoning and I asked her to research that um okay because this is by right saying if you want to do something by right you have to meet all of these qualifications which would say okay then you can't get a special permit or a variance so for so for for example uh we set like 25 ft garage and then they say well along this side it would be better if we pushed it back another 5 ft so we get enough row what 20 ft or or 30t 20 ft so we go we need a variance of 5T for this row of parking garages right that has nothing to do with whether you can fundamentally build the housing or not it's an extra accessory structure um why couldn't they apply Tor of variants for that well we've changed the accessory structures to be a special permit yes but if they wanted but if they wanted to build it within setback it's a dimensional variance right I I just it goes against the whole theory of this law well I think this is what we need to find out em supposed to be researching it for us the more specific example is if you have a 6,000 scare foot lot and the best place to put your three family multif family unit is within 10t of the of the side Lot you need a variance or even but you know that just that but even if you allowed a variance then you would allow Lots less than 6,000 square feet right and then or if somebody that's contrary to the law right so that's but I think the setbacks are the the gray are going to be the place where people are going to push I think people will understand that the minimum lot size is minimum lot size but the setbacks to me place where given the topography things and the rocks that that people might say the right place to put my multi or to to expand my existing structure is to go one foot in the setback and the question is do does that Now bump them out of a ch right and or do can they go to the ZB and we don't I don't think we know the answer to that but I think that it to me helps me understand whether we want to be uh generous or depending on the definition that is of we effects but are we talking just about the accessory structure so the parking garage of the shed of the Gazebo which has to have a special permit isn't that where you can discuss maybe what makes sense diens under a special permit you can't um let them go further into the setback so the setback is pretty pretty yeah if you're if you're going to violate any your dimensional requirement it's got to be a variance unless you're already non-conforming and within you're already violating the set back well and a variance is hardship so it' be tough to prove hardship due to topography yeah we need to find that out yeah or due to the number of cars which we're requiring in Bieber Jam that's not that's not for variance no but I'm just saying if you're trying to make that layout and you want to build a garage and we've made sitb backs that don't work with that plan right I'm just cautioning us to try not to make it so that you can't it's so restrictive that you just can't make a good site design I agree with I need to ask a question back on the table as I were look something um we brought up the base unit in the models that I received the base uh unit size is 2 200 ft in three of the districts right and that does not show up on this table at all oh it's there that's what we're saying he needs to add yeah we didn't no we we didn't make clear was the fact that Beach Street SE Street and uh Allen the Lincoln have a base unit size of 2500 that really changes things that means that 6,000 feet is no longer so that number is wrong it needs to be 6500 um which it doesn't it doesn't mean that the minimum lot size is 6500 it means that you have to have 6,500 to build yes yes you yeah I mean my feeling is you couldn't have you couldn't start building on on a 2500 flot I don't think that's the issue the the problem is that the model itself has a specific base unit size right for three of the areas which are it is 2 200 feet and that doesn't show up anywhere you were saying minimum lot area is still the 6,000 right yes that doesn't change so he's going to add a lot okay so you're saying the additional lot area for those three should be 25 the first unit is one number and then there's a different number for the additional units that's what she just said yeah no she's saying the same for I'm trying to understand so maybe and that's the line we talked about earlier of adding in but Richard that minimum lot area would would change to 65 not if it's not in the model that way well I know it's not in the model that way but it would automatically change to 500 because if you need well it wouldn't change wouldn't change that number it would the densities are already computed based on the 2500 so we're okay well but that should match minimum lot area should match what you can do for three units I don't think so well that's well I don't know but I don't think so well you you couldn't uh then you couldn't have three units on three units I guess I don't know exactly what minimum lot area means in in yeah that's I guess that's how I got to that let me ask a different question which is should the model if the model was made is that base unit as 2,000 so that we go back to 6,000 square feet for three for three family family does that allow us to reduce the density in Beaver Dam or uh by four sorry no okay this should reflect answer this should reflect the lines that are input into the compliance model whether they make sense or not it should reflect those numbers and if we input 6,000 the compliance model but had a 2500 for the first lot then it should say that all right moving right along I think we're at oh I have something I'm five exceptions 25% is way too high we have nothing today and we had one out on King's Way that was probably maybe 15% we made them cut it back because if it's 25% they're going to be using it for living space well I can sure yeah okay check on them Chris we don't have a percentage in our current but if we're going to put a percentage in I would put it more at five or 10% I would even step back and say so our current zoning doesn't allow ventil ventilators silos or other ornamental features so I don't know why we're not being consistent with our current right I agree we just make it consistent so can I just go back to the sorry the um real quick the the 15 feet setbacks and accessory structures if we want to stay consistent with our existing zoning why wouldn't we have that be at 50% of 50% to 25 I think the idea is not limit because because the assumption is there's not a variance process okay where if you have underlying zoning and you wanted to P slightly into your setback because VAR a hardship here the variance process if there is the variance process for the chod then I think I change then I would like to come back to think about that or I think then the variance process I would suggest maybe even talking to some of our architectural friends to see if if you went ahead and put the impact if you if you treated it the same way and the setbacks was 25 ft I think that would make sense I don't think it would materially uh change the design characteristics but you know that's not taking into consideration the topography which obviously so at least it gives it a little more of a buffer under five can I build an apartment building with with an eight story uh viewing platform no well it depends how big your how we limited them to 10 feet high 10 feet above the roof now well I don't see why I couldn't right under this you're right well it's 25% of your ground floor area so what's your ground floor area I'm going to have a little Target a little Towers like ten can go up and see the ocean well and that's the thing it says you know so I had a note here too like so could you have roof decks up there yes no that's that's happen living there you're just that's happen okay our current definition is chimy spires or Towers not used for human occupancy may may exceed 10t feet above the height limit so we have a 10 foot restriction today let's just do it what what definition is that it's under um he it's page TW the top of page 28 under 5.5 height regulations it's the first paragraph on that page 28 of the version I'm looking at 5.5 yeah 5.5 height regulations yes okay end of that first paragraph not used for what let's put it in here yeah are you saying to leave the 25% of the ground floor no get rid of it 10 foot high yeah it's not in our current zoning and anything else a any piage to start the how about renewable energy installations we don't we I believe the build they're looking at the height of the roof not the stuff on top of it today we don't have restrictions you can put solar on um you know solar bylaw isn't that large right but on residence it's the height is the peak of the RO it doesn't reference and I think that those things that are going on I don't know this we don't have anything like this currently it seems like Overkill to me but I so I I would agree with you on that this is boilerplate out of the sample bylaw um I didn't understand so one we don't have it so I don't know why we would add it here and two it's saying the possibility of waving height and setbacks um so I don't know what an air source heat pump equipment or energy storage like what that would be that you'd have to wave the setback so I think getting back to like if it's solar panels that's one thing but if we're talking about utilities condensers they're like What's on the porch out here you know condenser units and they could be not on the ground but up on the building side of the building the intention is to allow for more green buildings or Greener buildings I I would assume which is not a bad idea wouldn't all that be addressed in a site plan review I would think so but it says he all it says here is the site plan reviewer Authority May wave May wave so there's yeah it's not saying you have a right to do this and it's going to be this way and also says it will not create a significant detriment to a bud right yeah maybe it's fin and that's right out of the model B yeah okay so we done with that section take comments right after I think before s review take that make sense think so yeah it's pretty exciting okay after parking a street parking um aside from some little editing I didn't make any change except for adding structured parking um that would be traditional multi level parking garage so I use that term and that should be allowed by a special uh permit from the planning board um so which would probably occurred during the site plan review process so uh just in the Newport powder house in the Beaver Dam Road district is construction parking and accessory so that's that's the thing is that we got to this is that perhaps we should in the definition which is a little further back perhaps we should allow a certain height or structured par or structure from the accessory structure exactly which would allow you know three levels more than one level exactly and then we can all discuss whether three or four levels table rather than the definitions yeah that makes sense to put in the or just this is part of the same section added to this just saying add it to this yeaha it's only allowed in those two districts so but you go looking for that table for dimensional standards and if it's in there you can find it I think it's inconsistent put it in grow in the so move it up to number seven table one table of dimensional standards put it as a note there no it's they're not notes number four accessory structures has the height limits in it so that you can move this structured parking up to number seven right above the 9.4.6 right so You' add us right move it add something like that L 13 doesn't exist yet you have to just move structured parking up to line 138a I and have a height restriction in that yes so what would you like for a height restriction how many levels what height that's all depending how many are you going to depends if one level's under the ground you got grade one elevated level and two elevated that's a lot of parking spaces we got it's going to be subject to special permit doesn't matter you still have to have the restrictions for a special permit well certainly shouldn't be higher than the main building no shouldn't so we have the main building at four stories and 4 5 ft in those two areas what about how about what did Denny and gar advise if we did it um one story lower than the primary um structure so in Beaver Dam and Newport park it would be three stories and 35 ft and and half a story above grade for the park you to require them to allow it allow it so could you you could have you can have an underground garage it's not really an underground garage it's no I'm saying but you could well under underground garages are great they're incredibly expensive and up for a space you know you'd have to be charging $88,000 a month of rent to we have no problem doing that in Manchester very common okay so height restrictions on the parking um structure structure is basically a story of a parking garage is different from a story of aight I know you just can't you can't pick an arbitrary number and say that's the height of the parking garage and make it you could say three levels are not greater than you know so if they stick one underground they can only put two above but if they because of let's say granite and they need to build it on top they're they going to blast the granite away and they have to go up a little bit 35 ft gives them enough room to to build the structure and still have three levels all of our um definitions of height are from pre construction grade so it would allow a level underground plus three above if you're going to say three stories well but you could just say we can write it 35 ft above grade r energy installation that's if you're building a structur parking garage that's likely to be where you're going put that stuff right yes so that should maybe apply to both and then the New Port park or it's the same dimensional for the prim for the building U four stories and 45 ft okay both the same all right okay we on 35 parking uh no we did have a comment me she I had a before we go to public um so on the surface parking which is not for the Bieber Dam but for all other cha districts we've got currently 1.5 spaces minimum and I want to ask the board to consider a minimum of one and a maximum of two per unit because I think that will allow more flexibility on these small dense Village lots to where we don't take up the whole lot for a use that is surface parking and nothing else I mean it's one less tree you can plant it's one more tree you got to remove it just really limits the flexibility of people who have a house and want to develop a couple of in-law departments to say I got my parking spaces as required for my house and then the additional units if I've got you know two units I've got anywhere or if I got one unit I've got anywhere from one to two and you got three you've got anywhere from one to four but the rounding up so effectively we're getting to two parking spaces every time we do an additional small you know potentially small unit on a dense lot I just really think we ought to consider having a range that gives us more flexibility through the site plan review and gives the people who own these places and are trying to accommodate you know Nana who doesn't drive so much anymore or Nana and you know daughter who Moved home and they're sharing a car it's just like a little more flexibility to do responsible side design that case makes a lot of sense for Nana but it is problematic to me when I think about three families putting more pressure on Downtown parking we've put the Lion Share of this development uh potential development in a very crowded area downtown and people don't have one par unit anymore I mean it's just very uncommon so I'm worried that we're going to push more load onto very crowded Downtown parking streets worried about the historic character of our village and the density of that and the model that was developed before parking and then making assumptions about people who have more than one car live in a certain kind of place and just an expectation that it might be different for these kinds of units yeah you can share some parking space is it the process for all of these things for any multif family unit to go through a site plan review it doesn't matter so wa wait but if you have a if you have a a flexible one to two in site plan review it's considered and you can consider the particulars of the situation you're G I also had a completely astonishing conversation with a resident who said g too much parking don't make so much parking there's already too much parking it wrecks the village and you're going to you're going to hear the opposite because people are going to go yeah they have five spaces at this existing three unit building but when they have parties guests whatever they're all over the street but you're not making parking for guests right we don't allow parties no Pary but my my my point is is that um you know the three unit building you have someone with two cars and someone else with two cars and someone with one car um five works yeah but if you if you only allow between one and three and I'm a builder I can get away with putting three units three parking spaces well but you're going to be subject as a builder to site plan review but have that flexibility yeah I mean I think no but you can also you know you're marketing it to BU cost money right so it makes the cost of that unit go up and so if you're marketing to someone who says I only have one car I don't really need a car then you know the the market will reflect that and you can all and you can have these unit and not require so much surface parking I mean we have this beautiful downtown Village we're trying to create more surface parking that's not what makes this reduce the number of cars in the downtown by changing the number of units of cars that the Builder has to put in you're not going to change the number of cars you're just going to change the number of parking spes because people are going to people are going to have the cars that they're going to have and some of them might have fewer than we but I thought that we came up we decided to keep the 1.5 that we have in zoning today because of public feedback there was a lot parking public feedback about it's the first thing at that Saturday uh seminar at the high school the first question I got asked over and over is how much parking are you going to require and so I think I I don't disagree with you Laura except that I think that people come that the number of parking spaces available to to their in their unit whether renting or owning does not dictate how many cars they own and they buy how many cars they own based on what they believe their needs are unfortunately I think people um you know we have two drivers in my house right now and two cars and so it's and so I don't think we change car drive car Habits by limiting the number of parking spaces and heard and we want to pass this thing I think parking was the number one thing that we've heard I I understand and I'm just raising it here because I think it's irresponsible to keep maximizing to to require these minimum parking spaces in our Historic downtown and I think that providing a range of one to two provides choice and conversation and it's not all developers coming in like people own these houses that they want to convert and I wouldn't want to convert my house to five parking spaces you know I want to have a yard and I want to have places to I want to plant trees and I want to do other things besides Park all over my lot and that doesn't equal open space in my opinion but I I just will say that I think we're we're not thinking like we're we're trying to provide diversity of housing choices that also means diversity of Lifestyles right like if you don't want a single family house with multiple parking or a parking garage you might just be happy with a smaller unit you don't want to you got one car you don't want to pay for the expenses of another car you know one of you takes a train or you're a single mom like I have been and had one car for much of my life like there there just are other models out there and we're trying to create housing for those other models and other options and the parking kind of goes along with it so it's not about Behavior change it's about understanding that there are different units and family units and this this is a way to accommodate them so Sarah just Laura Laura your name is Laur Sarah s um just anecdotally I have seven units yeah I got two tenants out of the seven are two person TS and five are one person tents yeah I have seven parking spaces we've never had a parking problem every one of those apartments uses one parking space and they're fine yeah they're fine so it you know I don't know whether it it's self- selecting or not that could be to some degree it is right marke got one parking space you know get somebody that's my experience for what it's worth yeah and I think if you allow the flexibility and have site plan review you could you've got a choice there and I think a lot of times people asking about parking are thinking I mean when this whole project began everyone was thinking about ah we're going to turn this down into ran street it's going to be big apartment buildings there thinking about developers smashing things down and I think there is some lingering about that but I think talking when people think about their own property and what they have to do to make that property available for someone who's going to allow them to stay in place in their own house and they want an employee who's going to do that and all of a sudden they have to have three parking places and there's no place to do it without Paving over everything so I have I I think the problem is here is that we're trying to solve a bigger problem than than we have this the capacity to do maybe this is a topic that we should be discussing for the entire town not just for I think got a cop out frankly we're talking about smaller dense you know dense areas we've got to get this through town Med I'm just saying my piece here but put putting in a Range does not change that I you have a range you can't tell the developer you have a range of three to five but but you've got to have five and you can have three site plan review cannot dictate the number we could give a waiver for one bedroom apartments I suppose who you to it's a one bedroom apartment that has one car it could be a two-bedroom apartment I can tell you I lived for 20 years one house with there a lot of zoning across the country says one car for one one bedroom and it's written in 1970 like we're in a new but it's it's not our zoning it's not our zoning it's again we were trying to keep it as close to existing zoning as we could to with the hope of getting it ped and if we start trying to make changes it's not going to go through so if that's the reasoning then you know I not saying you can't do it so parking space is defined as a dimensional whatever dimensions are so 18 by9 I think 18 by9 so you can have two parking spaces for three that can be you know like RVE all live I we're not talking about an 8,000 foot lot I mean you can't fit that you can't put five parking spaces in three units it's like it's not going to work dimensionally so I'll leave it I'm not going to keep pounding this work in the model it works works have you actually test fit the that's what the model does yeah with the amount of structures not gonna have much left over but 30% ledge around it yeah so anyhow I've said my piece I just think it's something we should be thinking hard about particularly when we're talking about housing choice this is not just the unit but it's the can I ask about um still street parking um do we need to reference our current bylaw so that we are pulling in the parking size dimensions and trying not to back out and all of those things um I thought it was mentioned somewhere else in the back and I can't find it but I thought it should be mentioned here as well refence 6.0 can that be done under site plan review that would give you the flexibility you have a certain number of parking spots and under site plan review you could consider making them smaller if you wanted to for subc compacts um you know have some flexibility in the parking layout on site plan review and not pass it in concrete here just have the number of spots and then site plan review can look at the backing up and all that stuff can you have it different in the site plan review that we reference in our current bylaw for for this than we do for other site plan reviews so um hold one second so later in here in the performance standards the general standards under number 2 B says the requirements of section 6.1 oh yeah line 2 thank you 250 the sections of dep of section 6.1 of street parking oh shall shall apply with the following exception which is the table um right is superseded by the the section in this Cas so the other standards in the section about setbacks parking area plantings bik parking all these locations all app okay so we don't need to reference it here it's reference on line 250 okay and then did we need um to Define parking for the Mixed use or are we referencing the 6.02 we're not we allowing people to put in commercial that is an interesting question so we don't require apartment it's not an apartment it's not an apartment is there yes yes there is it's per like one per 300 square feet of that's my question are we referring back to 6.0 properly there is there is separate parking requirements for reply I would reply if I'm if I am constructing a twostory commcial apartment who where do I see my exact it said the based on a number of residential units so does it say residential units so does it meet the lot requirements what have off Street what I could do because the table 6.1 is broken up into several sections as residential section Community facility section accessory use section commercial section what we could do is just exempt it from cable 6.1 the residential section so all the other requirements would apply so if you are going to do um you know a great retail space on the first floor you have to provide parking for that that would that's a good but you're um a residential requirements which essentially are the same reason well our current ones just are convoluted because they they do the rounding up for people and may get more complicated rather than really saying residential parking requirements from table 6.1 is superseded by this section want to um in s jump to the line 250 in the site plan revie you include [Music] ability in process based on want to give ourselves that flexibility and site that would probably be the place to do it I'd say yes I mean if you're redeveloping the cargo block putting housing on top of that right you don't want to tear down a section of it so they can put a parking spot in right seems to me that that would be a place to you said it's mixed use just saying under the plan review you would have the right to wave wave the requirements W the requirement to reduce the re um which gives you the flexibility yeah I think a good idea I would just remember that much in favor of the uncertainty of what may be waved in the future right so my opinion with that is that's problematic I think people's concern is that if you don't require off street parking it just goes on the street and um so you're not really helping the town character or maintaining the downtown area you're just exacerbating an issue soes to downtown character I the opposite of character you have to actually think about the districts right the layout of our district so the layout of our big district is along Pine Street where you're going to see most of the properties being redeveloped you don't really have on street parking on Pine Street yes you do do you oh yes but only much not much not much fluid it's very hard to predict how many cars in Department complex is going to have I mean I we we wrestle with it continuously in our properties it doesn't have so much to do with unit size own either you just found them and yeah it it depends on who's who happens to live to if there's there's turnover there's sale there's I've had cars when I was single I think if you wanted flexibility the place to put it is in the site plan review process y the ability to reduce it input and there might be really good design character of the planning board selected if people don't like what the planning board is doing then they don't reelect people if they're doing too many reductions in parking so Sarah I like your idea of giving some flexibility this is a little bit like our goal sometimes we'll look at a piece of property and we'll say well that that property is not going to be reeled um it's GNA be too expensive to develop that but you don't know that things change but we don't have to Grant the waiver either right well for the reduction should we vote on this one I think it's a vote this is a vote okay who is in favor of allowing some flexibility in the site plan review process for part reducing the and opposed looks like the the reduction so I need some sort of standard or some sort of um can be reduced to something no l one space per unit no less than one space per unit provided the one space is our one bedroom units or something like that no no no no no you can't do that because it's got to be for families but a developer would every developer if it would ask for the one so if we say we can reduce it marry that I don't think that's correct well I could I finish sure so if if we say you know a condition like that that reduce it to one based on whatever I think every de developer will reduce that to one off street parking per you can say no inide plan first you can say no you can't say no to one if you have reasons some some standards or something written in order to either allow it down or require more I'm resident worried about parking and I look at that language I'm going to assume that these units are going to be getting reduced by yes that's I think never well again Richard I think you're making the same error that Bary is developers are trying to sell their properties and if you don't have enough parking no I'm not I'm not making my assumption about what the developers going to do because I have no idea but I'm making my assumption about what a resident would feel if they look at the zoning regulation they're concerned about parking on those streets because it's always very tight there's no room in the little parking lots it's it's very tight and it's going to now it's going to get tighter and I look at the language here and it says well they can have fewer parking spaces than I'm allowed to have I wanted to convert my house in a General District to Three Families they're allowed to have fewer parking spaces which are inevitably going to push into this so I I mean I I we lost the vote I know it's going to to to to Cy with you but I just would Echo Mary's point that you put a specific minimum in there I think a it's a flag for everybody that's concerned about parking and B it's a target for the developer and uh I think for our purposes we we have to look at the developer as not necessarily being our friend we hope he is we hope he's a wonderful developer but we don't not a developer at all maybe it's your neighbor who's a family you know who wants to add some space add an apartment neighbor developers aren't always uh good neighbors I don't think we're assuming anything about the developer I think we're assuming we have a general downtown area that's tight and it has you know walls up to the street with not a lot of interruption by parking and so we're encouraging that kind of wall that street wall and our businesses will we're encouraging business on the on the commercial on the ground floor and allowing residential use limited and it's not in the CH and the areas in the downtown are not in the CH yeah okay I think the to Mark's earlier point think about where our districts are you got Pine Street so Newport Park y you've got um Beach Street to Summer where there is on street parking and 10 Summer Street has put the parking hidden it sort of behind um to keep that character and full of those buildings for the street and then you go down you know sort of think more about the districts alen a is there's no parking along Summer Street Summer Street there so I think um you have you don't think of it as the downtown because that's the that's our next hurdle is what do we do about commercial and residential and keeping our commercial four and that character that's not what we're talking about for this fair enough we do have one down right so there is the downtown the SE Seaside variety or whatever ja too but um that is right downtown in the core I and that is right downtown and uh currently has a fair amount of impervious and parking that's right up to the street right right and our site plan review does say bring the building to the street to the street with the parking behind it um and I think to Richard's point if I were you know a theore developer in that case I'd say there isn't on street parking in ample we're already know that downtown on that hot July day is parking constrained or in a snowstorm or whatever that it would be hard pressed in my mind to give significant reductions in parking we're not talking about publicly available parking we're talking about people in the units right parking is resered for them I think what you see is if you don't if you reduce the parking for the residential units in in that area they're going to spill on the street and it's they have one car and they live a minute across the from the train station like all they have to do is walk across the street at that point so is there any flexibility you know in those districts we make a decision I think we voted that Mark's point is that we need some sort of yeah some I I I I know this has been put to bed but I'm going to raise it again can't we say if you got one a one-bedroom unit you only need to have one parking space and is that discriminatory in some way or is it anti-am or what happens if you have two working right people in that one bedroom unit one commuting to 495 yeah but remember these are supposed to be familyfriendly units by definition okay well they can be familyfriendly and if they're two bedroom units they have to have two parking spaces and that's familyfriendly we don't have anything in our zoning today that even looks at number of bedrooms I I don't think we want to introduce that I would agree with that I agree with that okay how about just trying to light in the darkness that's all simar to say something like the site plan review May reduce parking um requirements by up to 20% just put or x% whatever it is sure that's good sure that's great so that means five units could go to four yeah right it's a little bit that's really you know that's that's that's sort of what we're talking about your neighbor so up to 20% um and that that okay everybody that's good me still round it up bu byy up to 20% up to 20% reduction yeah all right I'm gonna ask if anyone from the public has any comment this unfortunately uh her comment I didn't see was she wanted us to scroll through I apologize to I didn't scroll through the Sarah Mr Gates Tim gates to do I've looked at the fall 3A and it starts out we want family friendly units with children and I've already pointed out before the habitability rules for health or of Health state law state regulations there a basic number of 470 square fet and includes master bedroom and two single bedrooms and that's the absolute minimum unit plus apparently about 20 square ft from a bathroom which is not in that 470 and the additional thing is the limit of 50% of the existing main residential unit as a setting point to achieve that number of 48 990 You' got to have a basic value over the 4 900 square fet cap on these additional units under 3A y so you're are you discussing accessory dwelling units no I'm problems with everything you folks have been doing you can't have a development up in the other areas of the LCD units don't make these family reord the the the compliance model assumes 1,000 square feet per unit and that's what all of our calculations are based on and that's what we're required to do and so Beaver Dam you can build a 100 units and have to be a th000 square foot each and they fit and one final Point Mr Gates we're not building anything we're not required to build thing what we're doing is changing our zoning you already have 6,000 square foot minimum lock side before you can do anything they going to have to have 2,000 square ft for an addition unit means they have to start with an 8,000 foot unit no building downtown res no we're building a it would be a 3,000 square foot structure containing three units of a th000 square foot each on the 6,000 fo right and it only needs a th000 square foot footprint that's what the regul that's what the compliance model is using we're complying okay so um thank you for that that's been um we're going to try to keep our comments we keep moving to this hold on we're going to try to keep our comments to the that was about three minutes town meeting and we try to do two minutes so if you have um you have another comment we'll take it later in the meeting but this is only a very short one okay not even two minutes okay great but you were talking about Pleasant Street were they're going to be one of the districts no no no no not pleasant fine we're not talking about Pleasant not okay great thanks comment on screen no but uh she she left if anybody on screen that I'm not seeing has a comments please speak up I don't see anyone Sarah okay thank all right okay do so side plan excuse me S plan so there was several comments related to the first three items of the section so I made some edits to clarify these sections and address some of the concerns um first one isation moov the consistency section that that goes later in the where it talks about approvals that's later um then the permitting Authority will site plan review that is we don't need that um and then review requirements oh well that's where I added it um I just moved it that should not say Tred to remove all the permitting Authority good save planning board and so that's the rest of the section and just some spelling and edits to you get to number six references the actual site plan review clarifi this some several people commented about A and B what's that mean is all you have to do is pay the fees and so that that's kind of meet some of the so I took that out um get a project phasing um there was some comments about the fact that um there's no limitation on how long P of a Project's good for so I said um you know the unbuilt phase was valid for two additional years after the issuance of an occupancy permit for the first phase um and the planning board May extend those approvals of the unil phases for onee periods provided the phase is still in compliance with this bylaw get permitted on comment there it's a grammatical comment okay and it regards only on line 232 and actually there's another only and if they're in the wrong place they can change the meaning so on line 232 I'm going to suggest we just strike the word only say the unbuilt phase will be valid for two years not valid after two years yep so strike only and strike after will be valid for two years and then forgive me I'm just going to back up to stru parking which had an only in it which I think contains the meaning and that was line 150 just either strike only or say shall be allowed only in the Newport powderhouse District the only than the wrong place be allowed only in the district okay thank you I have one comment um and I I I like that the section got cleaner in terms of the language but under site plan review Point number two procedure and submission requirements um I think it would be worth when you refer to this other set of sections that's in the underlying zoning law um I think it's worth adding a phrase or sentence that says something to the effect that this procedure will require notice to a Butters because it's something people have been very nervous about and I don't think you want to put that in there that's controlled by the state is probably already in the it's in those sections Sarah it's already in the in this what we got here and the other thing is if you take out specific things you don't pick out the other things okay that can be dangerous Min question comment uh line 206 site plans elevations wall sections what do we mean by wall sections are required a site section or is that a wall elevation building elevation I think it's an elevation let's call it building elevations and sight SE I think it's a section it's a it's a view from it's a slice a horizontal slice through the building wall but could be a vertical could be a vertical elevation is looking at it is looking at it a section is it isn't it rather than a wall section isn't it a crosssection think give me a s section the walls are the in a section the walls are the pre primary thing you see because you're looking at the defition so you have site plans building elevations and site sections I think is going to get us what we're looking for in terms of information well the building section the building just to understand the that came from yeah I don't know what we wouldn't be i' never heard I've never heard the term wall section I know a section of a building SE of a building is wall is literally the construction of the wall how that wall is built sand that it's made out no value we don't want that has no value to this process so but site sections do because we can understand the topography so we need to clarify site sections so we change that to S Building elevations and section so where is the section building I don't think sections is section plan plan that's a plan that's the site that's the site plan yeah elevation is you don't want floor plans floor plans Flor yeah floor plans should be there too sense section SLI through the build so I guess the site plan SE Mar is it too much to ask for schematics at this point yeah I mean typically mean like FL FL plate plans for each can I can I answer that questions we had to submit for this type of thing side plan review we did building elevations all four sides of the building and root plan how the building sits on the on the property itself is it gives you an indication of how the building will be sit and how it's going to be used oldway access all in the only given that we might want a floor plan because you need to determine how many units there are ba we get floor plans we get elevations get S this site plan review or is it the are you now but is it um a three un building or a or it'll tell us what we're looking at building inspector with yeah simple so but they're not detailed drawings right so you would add a floor plan yeah you would add floor plan to the language okay we get detailed your point here you want site PL site elevations building elev s sections I don't think you need it no grade change of more than 10% say the next sentence yeah so I think it's okay to just put site sections in there in the general Roundup in that first sentence and then it describes what you're using the site section four 10% or more so um and plan yeah and sometimes when people do submit multi-unit buildings you don't get necessarily detailed floor plans particularly for larger buildings is there they may change call schematic floor plans yeah they might change it around and more two bedrooms one bedrooms instead or we could call it a representative yeah sometimes they might give you something but not exactly but for what we're going to be revie most of the time they're going to have and it's I think it's perfectly acceptable to require FL because you'll be reviewing smaller projects 90% good example this by the way the site signaling VAR set that we' love them revie and they do show building plans building elevations just just schematically showing you how the building will be sitting on side and they do show a site section which which is the standard but you you need you need floor PL so you know how many units there are so you know how much parkings required well but generally they're yeah but a lot of times it's not exact particularly for larger bu right right we still on this or so where are we so um are we at General development standers yet or are we still on under um [Music] 9.47 um it's referencing sections 12.2.3 through 12.62 which is appeal now in our bylaws the appeal references Mass goo 48 section 17 which is appeals only for special permits what is the process for the appe for appealing an administrative py so how would somebody whether it's the Builder developer or an abutter how would that appeal and I don't know if we should include 12.6 administrative decision goes to the zba no site plan review does not go to the C okay that goes to through the court okay doesn't go to the C Mark goes to lpor I believe do you know what the process is because it wouldn't be the process for 40a 17 would probably be the same process as if you're appealing a zba decision that goes to the courts can I ask about um 94.8 point1 it development standards in the CH are applicable to all multif family development within the CH so if I own a three family which I have right to convert doesn't this sentence say that I'm subject to this CH development standard if you have a I have a three family in General District and by right I mean I have a I have a building a house in the in the General District by right I can convert to three within the footprint of the building under existing Z the sentence says that under existing that multi all multif family development within the CH is subject to these standards I think you've missed the under the underlying right applicable right but you're if you're doing something to your house you're not in the CH you're not doing it under the CH you're doing it under existing zoning I understand your argument and makes sense but I think this is confusing L are you at Richard I am I am I mean my house is in the CH 242 if my house were in the 242 development if we said development standard in the chod are applicable to all chod multif family yes insert CH really thought we were gonna be able to get chowder somehow chder I don't think we resolved um whether or not the appeal um section of the zoning is correct for S plan review and maybe we can leave it for you to figure out whether that's applicable or not what is what line is that yeah what line is well that's 9.47 Mark you're gonna find that 162 162 162 162 that's the appeal for the special that section from the beginning till the end which was show by extra things yeah so we would have to appeal it through the standard appeal process for site plan review so this is saying everything from the beginning of site plan review number three because I think number one and number two are like and the other purpose so I just kind of um skip to number three so it was from 3 to 12 so it appeals the same way as any other site plan which you through records I I never I have never heard of a site plan appeal so I just I don't know me everything's appeal B but it does not go to the zba it's not an administrative appeal like a decision of a building inspector uh he interprets something some way they don't like it that gets important but the decision of the planning ver course but for when you did driveways that came to us well that's that bylaw might byw does it say I don't know all I know is it came to us no it it doesn't say specifically but it did go to you the the I'm talking about the one on our Bellum yeah yeah that the planning board denied a a driveway cut when it came to the ZB special what no special permit no yeah it was special per with the driveway come yes oh okay that's why okay so in re review requirements it references um section 6.3 of our bylaws and section section 6.3.6 says that the standard described in section 6.4 shall apply to all applications for special permit or site plan review and that's the Earth removal um I thought you put in another section that Earth removal wasn't going to need a special permit um so question where are you Mary I don't have line numbers but line 166 and 167 backwards no you're saying in the planning boards development standards yeah there's Earth special that's within no it's not a special permit it's just criteria their performance standards so those would be applicable yes exactly what's not applicable is is a special permit for it was REM right but you said that's in a separate section not in the development start from it is is ah there are standards for R removal in the in the in the performance standards 6.4 is Earth removal but I'm referring to I think 6.3 at 6.3.6 topographical changes yeah oh you're saying standard describ 6.4 standards apply but not the special per right yeah language is tricky even though it says the standards described in 6.4 shall apply okay where are we we're design guidelines but I have a comment on that but I don't think we're there yet what do you have a comment on S under the um that 2C so starting line 214 are we there or not there I don't know where we keep going back and forth [Music] okay perance performance standards um so my comment was I thought we should list um we list 6.3.3 6.3.6 I think we should add 6.3. n which is aesthetic standards because it's really amorphous and um I think that I think we should exclude that because we're saying the following components of this section do not apply and I think aesthetic standard 6.3. n should not apply well because we because we've got you're online 257 16 no 253 the start of performance oh that's an old one I'm sorry yeah the line changes really sorry do with each other 253 yeah so two that starts 253 I think we should add um addition 63.9 6. 3.9 exclud yeah it should be in this list of exclud this section does not apply General standards topographical okay um fiscal analysis I think should add aesthetic where is aesthetic 6.3. n because we have other aesthetic requirements in our design guidelines yeah is that yeah and better to be clear any objection to that no I'm sorry I don't completely I don't understand you we have design guidelines so it's you don't we we're adding I I don't even really understand why these are excluded just under the existing zoning and special permit special permit requirement so when it says the following components of the section do not apply they don't can't do special permits under facil I see right got it when we you list out the 5.10 performance industrial performance standards for the um Beaver Dam I do think that is very important that's the drainage um bylaw that um that is in the water protection district your said clean review standards refer to your storm water byy law having to comply with that so you're covered there you don't ground and surface water resource overlay protection districts yeah that's what it is well that's in here but where so what do you mean 271 in in your zoning bog under 6.31 land no no no I'm saying it's important that we review drain it it's and it's here it's inde it says other sections requiring a special permit right for granting the special permit for each of the districts below are incorporated into the site plan review and it includes section 10.3 ground and surface water resource overlay Protection District so those standards don't I don't know I can't find it in the S is my I know it says it but I can't find it in the S it's not it's not saying referring to the saying that we have to apply the requirements of 10.3 even despite the fact that we can't require a special permit we don't have to ask so the site plan review must must consider the requirements that would otherwise be per compulsory so those criteria are picked up into the and that's a question I had I didn't hear back to that um the state is very clear that we for as a right we can only look at vehicular access and on street parking and things there very limited what we can deny um for Emily said we can include these no I know but my question has remained if if they're not giving proper drainage or they're not you know following our Earth and things like that I don't see how we can deny it with what the state has given us so Mary I think the way to explain is is as granting a site plan review as we did with Cornerstone Church we put a bunch of conditions on our approval and so unless if they refuse to agree to those conditions they don't get the site plan review approval so all these things will be conditions attached to the site plan review and I understand the concept of that I mean that was under Dober which is getting closer to the as the right you think of this as Dober that's what Dober is right but but that's a developer that wanted to work with us I just don't see in anything that the state has said that we have much say if the developer says to us we don't really want to do that so if the developer goes to get his building permit and refuses to comply with the site plan review conditions he's not going to get a building perit so then he'll sue the town and the court will work it out but he's not getting I just would love to find where that is because I haven't read anything for that because all of the um I have them all here all of the E eohc letters back to the towns have said you know you need to review your site plan with your Town Council before submitting to us because you have more stuff in there than we allow to be reviewed so I'm just trying to say I don't want ours kicked back for the exact same reasons um and I haven't seen anything to say that we're doing anything different than these town that might happen yeah that might might that's why we're do that's why we're doing it so it happens now not in December so has Town Council weighed in yet not yet because we don't have this St yes going to go to council when when this group's done with this this point okay where are we now guidin guidelines Guin my big takeaway and I know that Mark it look like you took my suggestion made others as well on but not all places and that was I thought it should change shall to should it's not everywhere not everywhere but there's a few that I specifically wanted to keep where it talks about his shell meet the character and the architectural uh some of the some of the you all all the the ones that are specific pieces of buildings and elements for Windows roofs yeah those things I changed to should thought about it and made but you left the building entries as shell 287 287 because that's a relatively simple thing and why do we change sh to should generally because what if because then guidance it's guidance it's not it's guidance as opposed to you know they have to start listing specific waivers and3 ft you know without change the side I have some comments on this section and I've try to map my previous line this one so hard I'm going to start at line 292 multiple buildings on a lot where parking blah blah blah connected to minimize curb Cuts onto public right away with the exception maybe of the LCD and the Bieber Dam District we don't allow minimum we just spend time knocking out multiple curb Cuts so these to be also subject to the same single curve cut I think minimizing curve Cuts is too allows too much the only thing I would say about that is in this again for good design I was wondering I I kind of thought that we should leave it that way because it's possible that the topography or whatever might mean that you could you know have one of your par faes to the right of the building and the other one behind the building or something just to create to limit it to the single one which I know we're trying to do in general but I was pite plan review is going to give us some some input and um a little flexibility there to minimize surface do the oppos they should instead of shall they require just one um well would that bump it to a special permit or two Herve Cuts though no no I mean I don't think we can trigger a special permit in here these are designed guidelines that's in our current bylaw if you above one yeah it goes to special permit right now and and frankly I don't see that as being a benefit generally to the site if you're talking about these kind of Village areas having multiple curve cuts and the impact on the headed pedestrian environment and the safety of pedestrians so I would just say they need to comply with the one curve rule would got everywhere else but what would you have it say Laura I would say when we possible parking and loading areas shall be connected to minimize um P Pape surfaces not have to be about curve c um so you would get rid of curb Cuts I get rid of it all together and just be silent on it and let the underlying zoning say um line 302 The Pedestrian the buildings adjacent to the public Street show have a pedestrian entry facing the public Street this again is about sort of site design flexibility I'm thinking of Newport Park where you might have a collection of buildings that are oriented towards the courtyard maybe they're double loading buildings and you're not there's there's actually a phrase that was used unless well we've actually got it we've already got it on 336 so we're covered by 336 so why don't we just there someone in conf so if we go to 336 it says the primary page she'll face the principal Street or Courtyard unless there's a reason for a play driven reason for a side entry so maybe if you want if you want it in there change the shell to a should because I think it's I would leave it I would take it out just do confusing yeah I think it's confusing they're they're kind of in Conflict so strike section four 302 30223 build yeah okay and then um then then my next comments are in material so I'll pause and wait for other people and then go on to materials because I have a bunch more comments in there comment about um cor see if I can find going between different things um okay so it's a line 308 on the new version all facades visible for public right away she'll be treated with similar care and attention I mean shouldn't it be offici because we got to think about the neighbors right so why isn't simply offic and I think somewhere else we about Al facades getting similar levels of care have to find that Clause so you're saying strike from a public way right visible I'm all facades visible yeah that's right that's intended to be for a corner corner lot right but they're going to be neighbors on the other sides of it right I mean so you you want everything all to Expos them two sides then treat them treat them both like what that's intended to do it's under Corner Lots not because I understand that but a corner lot has neighbors that are not yeah but often your back is different than your front but you want the same care anyway no I appreciate what you're saying I appreciate what you're saying but that that's particularly for the two Street facing elevations of the building but you can't have one that's there is no real back two sides you have two fronts and two sides so I think what you're saying is that the side it's the neighbors there's no back that faces the woods face the neighbors so why it's a small Point can I can I ask I mean these are all sort of niceties here but what are we trying to get to as a group something that goes to the planning board on to get the planning board to approve it yes to send it are these questions I I my question is are we taking our time in the most economical way tobly not I you pass your meeting limit I just raise a question about that so um I provided these comments in mine and they weren't picked up in the um in my comments that I ported to Mark and they weren't picked up in the other sort of collective comments so that's fine but I do want to have a forum to discuss these so if it's not tonight's meeting that's fine but I don't want to just say and I like it's true it's not the stuff that's going to get the state you know this is this is about design standards but these are important for the expression of the is going to yes it is I think the point is that we very much want the EC to see everything what we're going to be close to final you don't want cause a bad surprise risk okay and you're you got you probably our design I'm interested in hearing I have more comments my my opinion of these things is it's very detailed and it's very very specific anybody reading this is planning to do anything in this in this pwn in this District here this is very specific this is basically saying follow follow this model that mold is really cast right there and if you follow this in terms of penetration material selections entry points ptical material facies offet everything is isal I I don't I'm certainly the state the state isn't going to take issue with anything we put in here there may be there certainly may be some fine tuning necessary to be done here but as far as for our discussion what we're intending to do I found the design features to be quite enlightening this thing I thought it was actually pretty good and they were based on I believe the work that three Architects did Richard yeah having read the stuff that Gary did you know read very much like this in here and good it doesn't say You must do this you must have 4in exposure on your clabber wood seat or clabber side it doesn't go into that level but it does suggest follow the design Motif that's already been established within the town at large and within the downtown to so I think I think frankly they're fine for what they are they're not they're not not controversial from my perspective so I'm curious to know what additional thoughts has okay yeah I'm agreement that generally they're good I'm just making some adjustments and I don't think it's anything the state's going to care about but in the spirit of trying to get it all out there um so let me jump ahead to materials which is line 385 and under materials get my lines to match up here uh it's actually under section 9 which starts at 405 so under section 9 where we're talking about architectural elements we said the use of natural materials were feasible strongly encouraged we talk about what types of materials those are sorry I jumped down to some under materials so um I think that's all good we don't we're silent on it applying to Landscaping so I think we want to add the Clause to architectural and Landscaping and we may want to prohibit vinyl or plastic fencing and Gates and other fixed Furnishings um and to to prohibit newer technology including plastic you want to see plastic fencing well there's some nice composite fencing that looks like wood and it lasts longer there's cheap stuff and there's good stuff is the problem yeah I think I think that this isn't going to discourage you I mean we do we handle this in the historic district easily if you have a material that looks exactly like yeah the original natural material it's generally right which yeah um so maybe if it if we stay away from what materials are prohibited and just apply it to architectural and Landscape elements in a building in natural just think of this line 531 s rition materials includ fabric brick concrete ma wood C tious fiber board manufactured Limestone cat Stone B and so on and so on and so on just stuck out maybe apprpriate so they did Venture away from the traditional materials and go with more contemporary materials well and then maybe more affordable material and I yeah I think that's all okay um I like your suggestion about landscape I would just extend it to landscape so we try to we try to communicate like we not necessarily want to see Shiny like final fencing anybody object to saying architectural anding elements okay thank you I'll keep have that in our site though this is CH specific which is more and Laura's into Landscaping so let her have it we mixing and matching though sometimes we say go to our gener yeah so we're just not this is so mean to your point this this design what we do these design standards are unique you they're very specific about what so they're saying for this this limited project you have to follow these guidelines but for everybody else in town you're yeah they're going to be some townies that they had to apply those place they building it's gonna be a major Point got double Ed SW elsewhere we have to be very careful to make it clear that just because located in the job does not mean these stand have to upgrade it to these standards you're just one question I keep thinking the Practical aspect you got me got me thinking so if I have a house and I have the house is big I want to convert it to make it two or three units in that house here do I have to now and it doesn't fit the mold of these design standards no do I have to change my design no change the materials add a front if you're if you're converting to a multif family which is three or more units yeah you'd have to apply you do unless you kept the same footprint and you were in the General District that's right if you're in the General District you you don't need to you already allowed to do it okay if you're not though if you're not if you're on Pine Street and you're I thought these Des guidelines we can't say you have to they would be for changes I would think not maybe that should be under applicability we should development standards in the chart are applicable to all multi all CH mul family development uh except those with no exterior changes or something like I don't know let's about that don't get don't get burdened by if somebody comes in I'm not changing the exterior of my home at all then I think not loseit these are guidelines they're not mandates right okay so if somebody comes in and you know he's in he's in this District but that's a contemporary home yeah my house like a double wide so okay I keep going get out of here 479 under sight lighting you changed the sight lighting should you shield in and full cut off fixtures I think we ought to take that back to Shell we could use the word dark sky compliance I think we use in site plan review elsewhere I agree I'm on a campaign to get rid of all the lights that shine on the Harbor yeah 79 change should to shall and well okay so let's change it now sh use shield and full cut off pictures I would go so far as I suggest we requir dark sky compliant but that is an additional level of kind of I think in the performance dark okay so we're going to add that to sight lighting um line 490 nature sustainability there's no objection I'm going to say we add slash resilience to that title because there are a couple of things that I'm going to talk about in the section that are also dealing with that topic is the line 4909 integration with nature sustainability resiliency oh the yeah just adding a word okay line then under planting and trees I'm going to get a little Botanical on you all okay so species native let's not say New England let's say eastern North America things are getting hotter and if you limit it to Sugar Maples in New England were it going to be and um so let's say eastern North America line 491 okay um see do you have enough to spell can you just say dtive no I would say no there um species native to species native North North Eastern Eastern North America um with a goal of contributing ecological benefits such as species diversity adaptability and habitat but do you do we need no do we need to add that since we're ring out invasives I think we do because if we're talking about monocultures like we're trying to actually create our canop in town that is diverse and will withstand some of the impacts of pests and disease and would you like to join the friends of man talk to me when I get off the planning La the sentence is yeah I can I mean I emailed you okay all right let me just read it and then for the record so um eastern North America with a goal of contributing ecological benefits such as species diversity I which I mean tree species adaptability and habitat and then trees shall be located on the site to provide shade and passive Cooling to pedestrian and vehicular circulation what L is this this is just uh 494 I'm adding a sentence okay um now I'm going to Street trees 495 actually 497 40 feet I'm going to change that to 25 feet 40 feet is way too far apart to get a continuous canopy and Prov M shade and then um line well sections four and five storm water biod retention areas which may be used I would change that language to are encouraged or are strongly encouraged there are you again I'm on line 507 storm water bio retention and then I'm on line 510 and instead of saying may be used I'm encouraging them to be used and I would say bio retention line 507 bior retention areas and landscape-based green infrastructure are strongly encouraged dot dot dot okay the only the only emailed you you got all this oh you got all this comments on the 30th um and they just didn't get picked up in here some of the yeah some of the smaller ones right I know they're small but when it gets to design review I want to see this stuff happen and I want to get more I do I do have one question thing that going back up the street trees yeah because um yeah now that we're talking about Rose the street tree shall provided on both sides of all streets and driveways along areas of developments at inter B Dam district is this only in Bieber Dam yes this is what there's not a single tree in the Beaver Dam Area not [Music] yet trees are and then 511 just write the word large during large rain events want to capture small rain events that's actually where the pollution happens yeah okay and then that's my last comment under the materials and I have one more on the document I I have one under buildings down online 515 so this is my thing of the state saying the developer has to know exactly what they have to do and when we say um the development shall include a variety of styles and typologies compatible with traditional New England architecture I think that's a little amorphous I agree so I don't know if we want to eliminate to or just take out compatible with traditional New England architecture well remember that we're we're this not mandate I know and what you're trying to do is encourage let the development know that you're expecting the building is going to fit in with the town and isn't going to be a three-story flat brick facade flat roof uh but the rest of that solves the flat roof not really how about if it's said compatible with other existing existing buildings in the town isn't this what we want no we don't necessarily want New England so just just to be clear this is when you have more than one building on a single lot that's what that refers to it's not referring to adjacent Properties or developments only but that lot so if you have three buildings on it's in that little you want to have not the same building bu three little look okay that's not how I read why is that a bad thing that's not how I read that but in the Beaver Dam District if they do let's say a large 20 un building that has details and blackboards and the windows for it's a nice looking building why wouldn't you want them to build three or four of them if that gets you to 100 um one really different from each other but what's traditional it's not a big deal why why is that that's more compatible with what the town looks like at the end of Beaver Dam Road where only a hiker no there are there are neighbors we want them to live in Manchester yeah yes but I mean if the building is not suggesting they do it suggesting just they should consider it whatever I think do you change shell to should the fact is it's all my problem is what does that me traditional New England AR I just think people understand what that means I think it doesn't look like Cuba okay doesn't look like Mediterranean I mean okay that will there it does I can show you some things we don't like I like one more picking comment on the that particular thing because if it says a development consisting of more than one building so are we if somebody builds one building it doesn't apply if they if they build just one building but that's not well everything else we're doing is saying is it discouraging them away from one building yeah well and it's calling for a facade articulation and roof lines and I think there's quite a bit pretty prescriptive about architectural I'm just asking why would we say consisting of more than one building I think it is about because that's the specific thing that that we're trying to Target if they build more than one building they should look good right we're trying to get them to build more than one building but the standard only applies a development cons uhuh so I had something in the waiver section um 541 I prepared with the thing you guys got line um it says may wave the requirements of the section 9.4.6 but we're in section 9.4.1 are you bumping it up to the full sight plan or are you staying within the 9 [Music] 4.9 and then the overlay acronym is the you need to change that is3 9.49 94.7 ISC and then 4 545 is just be the CH not the M CH start a new M what's the mcch it's the Scottish CH get fre burgers for drivethru drivethru the last one on affordability requirements 4.10 are we going to add a clause that says payments in L of affordable housing units are not not permitted yeah that's what I want there y that's a great idea payments in Le of providing are not allowed yeah I recommended we also got rid of the have the units off site where's that which we currently think that matters look at what um Street no I'm thinking of um wind over the the cluster housing out on upper summer slim and circle yeah instead and for their affordable they bought a house on Central Street which makes much more sense for affordability yeah I don't have a problem with the offsite I have that was offsite so in this case or what what are we trying to achieve we're trying to achieve hous we care where it is we care where they are hear that they're distributed not right yeah we don't want them gang well we say later in the standards that it's integrated with the rest of the development and shall be compatible in design appearance so that's assuming that it's all one thing right and this just for five are up right right not talking about the two the yeah and that I mean that to me that is a slight concern so it it's so we're not going to get any affordable units in the Pine Street subdistrict the Newport Newport I mean I'm sorry not in the Pine Street or the SE street right yeah probably so that's equalent of like Street there some large parcels got a four five five if it's five yeah so why not provide it on the site I think it should be provided on site I don't think there should be a waiver but that's why I said we should discussing it's hard to tell exactly where we go if we don't require it on site whereas if we do require it on site we pretty much know what So 20% of five is one yep didn't we say way were rounding down yeah it says that but 20% of five is one unit so you have one affordable unit in the five unit so on Pine Street you have one affordable unit if you go to the five units okay but you wouldn't C Street because there's only four units I hope everybody knows how problematical and affordable unit is what it means from a management standpoint a leasing standpoint it is backbreaking for the owner of the property that's why car it's not our problem it's not our problem but just you know we can't say we're living in a dream world we say well if it's a five unit thing it's there going to be one affordable unit uh I don't think so they'll build four units you bet that's not a chance because the the back breaking you know you do care if you if you are trying to create some AFF if you really did care about it which we really do we really do want to create some affordable hous percent is a is a pretty big number which is what we're trying to get to it's cl to 10 right and likely building sites are the bigger sites yeah yeah yeah so so we make it to 10 and then all but I think I want to make like even take that up a higher level which is State ma Manchester wide countywide Statewide Nationwide this is a problem yes so we're trying to to do something about it but we can't entirely solve it right and um the cost and and the cost of construction is one of the underlying things so you're saying that the cost of an affordable unit is the other the the project cost and that is a construction cost which again is regional and National not the not the construction I'm saying the operating cost of having an an affordable unit is prohibitive well because you're underlying construction costs no no it's actually it's not construction it's a certification I'll give you give I'll give you an example we have we man a ton of affordable units we have a a division of people who are charged with one one responsibility compliance when you have a market rate unit you have a management company on maybe a couple of of uh maintenance people that's it we have you have reporting requirements to all these agencies you and if you don't comply the penalties are BR really severe so you have a whole layer of administrative costs that you don't have through the market R what about leasing tell them how complicated leasing maybe that's beyond what we I would like to know about that but let's try to what'll happen is they going to contract with har or something to do it for I think what's going to happen is that you won't have smaller properties with a affordable units right I think you see that already in town which is where you'll see the affordable units will be in the LCD but we'll at least get 20% out house yeah yeah you get St yeah okay wees anybody got anything else they like to just one last question on that that so so when it says the administration of it is the inspector the administration of what of the compliance with the affordable house so he's not doing the like submitting to the state no so what is he doing he's making sure that one of those units is Affordable 20% is that in our existing zoning no no because we don't no why would we make the building inspector responsible do it the Town Administrator the town planner currently doing it nobody nobody having somebody do it well we'd have to have it in our we have to Define that here in this zoning Clause can we let not this a different issue yeah it is all right let's um ask you can make the affordable housing trust responsible don't enforcement probably I'm guess so I guess I mean to me that's a big question that is making sure that it gets on the Shi is that the town planner no how about nobody but that's the problem right and so that's what happened with absolutely that a different not a zoning problem zoning town is responsible for getting things on the Shi but who the town the town the to that person the town it is a problem but we're not going to solve it particular document right not at 10 o' at night okay there's just a typo if you want the typ um I don't have the line numbers but 9410 a where you say developments with five or more five or five or more or more just you do or more twice double you want to double more okay I do have one thing and that is I don't know if we have to deal with it now but it's the Quantum of vote issue and so the the way this is structured right now is as one two three four things that are under one warrant article and that's not how we should be drafting it and presenting it it should be for separate articles um you know our change to definitions includes much more than multifam housing or what is listed under Section Five which allows a majority vote um and the marijuana one that that certainly um is not eligible for a qu for a majority vote um the I think it's important on number three to spell that out with a little bit more detail um but that should be its own warrant article also um to one reason is to notify all residents of the change um because it's still in our bylaw that it says 2/3 and we're trying to change that so we should spell out a little bit of the language of section five that's what I agree I don't think we can where would that go doesn't go this [Music] doc talks about the zoning enforcement officer it should be set out Artic 12 that's a good thank building any other comments I do have comments to say right they're not substantive so this is this is not going back into the content of what's written here it's I'm looking at what the order if I was to read this the first time I'm on I'm on line 153 I see site plan review okay that's the heading major heading s plan review and then I go into see what I got applicability procedure submission requirements design Review Committee which is basically that's the community that does the architectural design is that correct that's it's part of it but it makes it look like it's happening early and then the next thing we go into is design review process so I'm no longer mentioning site plan at all is it is it not the site plan review process not design review process it is a site plan review process and the design review is part of it so this committee is is giving comments to the planning board no I I I I got that but I I go from site plan review to design Review Committee design review process and then I go to site plan approval and then project P not I'm not seeing that that link of the takes me all the way down to the path and all I'm saying is just literally rearranging I've moved the design Review Committee after what I call site plan review process so site plan review applicability site plan Rie process the design Review Committee and then the site plan approval giv rent to there and then standards okay it's it's I hate to say it but I just tried to see that logic as I walk my way through I think legally it doesn't make any difference I'm just thinking Some we're trying to sell that's we can also do in next subsequently if we can yeah so I'm not suggesting doing and I think there's some of that probably throughout you need the Common Man sanity check all right okay anything else we adjourn when's the next meeting should we rej or shall um so I think that um to the answer that question is this planning board will discuss this and take a vote to move it to the select board on Monday but I don't know that you need to come and I not sure when it is on the [Music] agenda after the yeah okay we'll do that and then um uh Gail has her hand rais um Gail if you could approve the meeting minutes that would help since I don't know when you're meeting next oh my gosh I missed it sorry no problem and then the second then it will the select word will vote on a week from Monday and I think uh a few people can go and represent yes but I don't know that we're g do presentation there and then so if this if that happens the task force really doesn't have to meet for a while good when forever um all right motion to a j PL word Mo all in favor and motion to adj so I just have a question how are we going to be informed about the various Community engagement things