Sarah get there the plane board can me he asked me to open the plane board meeting in but I can't because we didn't have a point so uh it being 637 here sis and Harrison here Sandy bodmer Turner here s philbrick here Richard Smith I believe is online here all right Richard okay I'm Chris Al and I'm here also so let's get right to it we don't have any Communications to discuss so we're going to go right to a presentation I guess by Emily and Mark to tell us about the zoning language that they've been working in do you want to kick off do you want me to kick off KCK that off I mean I have the updated slightly updated zoning parameter chart um but U I had sent Chris an email after I got yours that we would have you run through what you did this afternoon because it's kind of the latest updated version and um just acknowledge that we have received comments from many several of the committee members for additional edits um you know Minor Adjustments to certain things and we do did want to change the name of the district from multif family overlay District or mod to community housing districts so the each so oh yeah overly okay CH so I need whoever is the host to allow me to share my screen and then I can okay I don't have my laptop Mark can you sign in as host um not sure how we can help you in the me pass on Cofe [Music] so just for people who are online what is going around is a combination of my original memo to Mark and Chris and then the edits that Mark made and sent to me yesterday I think um and then I Incorporated them into the the original memo today so that we'd have them all together and it sounds like there'll be some more comments to incorporate which is sort of what I was expecting it's great can you log out and log back in as on you're in you're in room two Sarah yep okay okay go you're in Zoom I'm in Zoom okay join meeting no log in I'm already logged in can you unlog in sure okay okay d a s i d e one exclamation and just make sure you okay so now you should be able to share your screen great and I can do that Sarah well last night I had to recuse myself from one of the applications and and nobody on the board knew how to make somebody a co-host so I had to go up to the to make somebody a co-host so they could present their okay so um as I said this was in a originally in a memorandum Forum form for Mark and Chris be passed on to all of you um I typically do it this way so we can keep track of the different versions as we go through the zoning because there's always multiple versions so um there are now four four separate portions to this um the first and I'm zo it in a little bit more see that people can see uh the first is I noticed as I was going through your zoning that your current introduction um refers to all zoning changes number two require approval of town meeting by a two-thirds vote and since you have other options that are 2third vote now I'm just recommending that you say as established by mgl 48 Section 5 which talks about the different quantums of vote so that your zoning recognizes it um we already been using that you probably have yeah exactly so it's the sort of thing I start at the beginning of the zoning and start working my way through to see if I see anything that might be a barrier so since I know hlc is doing that as well so the next piece um modifi 8.3 this uh is which is your regulation of marijuana businesses um I noticed that your um adult entertainment overlay and your marijuana business overlay are both over the LCD District that was called out in the AG's letter to Pembroke they also had a similar situation and I took a look at your adult entertainment District it appeared to be okay because the distances were from residences but your marijuana business this 8.3.5 point3 um it had shall be located no marijuana of business shall be located within 300 feet of a residential zoning District so I went ahead and just added the Beaver Dam Road subdistrict into that so distri all right we need to talk about that in a moment okay and you're calling it The multif Family overlay District instead of the comprehensive because I hadn't heard that change yet so we are now I'm going to what I'm going to do is as we talk if we have an immediate comment I'm going to go ahead has been make change so that's the comprehensive community community community District overlay overlay District okay can we put an S on the end of District district so that's what I wanted to ask you about because you mentioned districts versus subdistricts so I want to make sure that we're all on the same page because I had understood that you were going to have one overlay District that had multiple subdistricts within it and everything that we were looking at was a subd district of that larger District that was a while ago they're not connected they don't have to be connected you've got an overlay district and the overlay district has smaller so as as long as two subdistricts touch this e hlc will count those two together right absolutely but that that's what we I think at least my confusion was is that I thought we had where we had two subd districts we have to have a name for the overall district and then separate subdistricts but I I see what you're saying I think you my understanding is you can have one multif family district and then each separate piece as a subdistrict within that you happen to have a couple of subdistricts that are touching each other if you'd rather do it the other way the way that you had it in yours that's fine I just didn't realize that was the direction you were going in it was the law was talking about five con you knowers and contiguous right and when they were referencing districts so it seems like if the districts aren't contiguous they can't be the same overlay District that's where so then the way you had it worded in yours we need to we just need to talk about that I can change that can I can make it work the way you had it can we change the names of these districts so that they're yes clear yeah well we'll we'll get to that in just a few sections but yes that is totally up to you so community housing overlay District so here's here's where we're going to start this will be the community housing overlay District I put it in section 9.4 because that's where it seemed to best fit um so we have the purposes um throughout here if it's gray or yellow Tex text it's something that Mark brought in if it's a red cross out it's something that Mark deleted just so we we know where things are coming from I like there to trap input so your purposes comply with the requirements of of chapter 40 section 3A and then um uh for other purposes related to why you want housing IND the yes do you want us to jump in as we're going along or should we wait until Emily's finished I it's up to Emily what I think it's easier if we jump in as we go along okay us a dialog we can I jump in okay um so my view on purpose is we should delete everything after 4A in the third line um and the reason for that is that the only reason we're doing this is to comply with the statute and if we put all of the rest of that in as worthy goals as they are I think we take our eye off the ball um and I don't expect this to happen I think the state is going to Prevail in their litigation against Milton without a problem but people are already asking um so what happens if we pass this and then the law gets changed or the law is declared invalid or XYZ and so I think that it's important and this is just my opinion um to tie this this zoning that we're doing with this particular um bylaw change to the statute I agree with that I well I I I disagree with that because I think you I think we have to say that of course but I think if you don't give people a positive reason to do it stated in the zoning I think it's a mistake and I think I would suggest I think some of this is like fixing all the problems of the world so personally I would get rid of three um I you know I might get rid of five but I would say in two I think it's very important to to tie back this effort to what the town has said its goals are so in two I would leave it as it is and add so allow the production of varied housing sizes access to new housing for people with variety of needs and income levels as identified in our housing production plan and our master plan I I think it's a valid point uh Sandy however I don't think our committee would exist if the 4A law hadn't made it exist and I yes g g i i I completely agree and I think Honesty is the best policy here we're doing this for one reason if we were doing it for those other reasons we would not be doing it exactly this way we would be doing different things and we would be we would have a different set of uh of of guidelines to guide us through what we're doing we're doing this for one reason right well I you know I think that the state made us do it argument is I think it's a losing thing town meeting I think if you don't oh I do too because I do very much because if you don't give people a reason to vote for but you only say well we made you know they made us do it we've got to do it as opposed to saying look um the planning board has attempted to do to deal with the housing problem which has been identified for a number of years in the town and it has struggled to do that and it has failed to do it and so this came along is it the best set of tools is it the best opportunity no but it's an opportunity and so it gives us a chance it because frankly sitting here if if I thought doing what the state required would harm the town in some way I would vote against doing anything at all so I have a suggestion yeah actually uh I think it is a bit cynical to say we're only doing this because the state's telling us to but we're doing something else too which is we are attempting to preserve the character of the ten and I think we can say that as a as a preface here and we can say what you wouldn't vote for this if you if you wanted to preserve the character of the Town you'd vote against this because that does preserve the character well I think we can preserve the of the Town by selecting dense districts with small Lots we can explain the mechanics but do you think I think do you think we would have developed this if it weren't well I don't know I mean it's hard to say what we've uncovered in the process of doing this is a lot of Need for tweaking the zoning in the town to make things work better and I don't think that um this exercise has been fruitless and I think there are CH the thing everybody forgets is that one by one by one modest homes that you know modest well in this town you know that sell for 750 are being knocked down and replaced by you know houses that sell for several million dollars and so people who have lived in in town their whole lives their kids can't come back here and live because there's no way to I don't think this is going to change the pricing in menester in it I'm sorry well I don't know it may but it may not I don't I don't know the answer what we're zoning is to allow something other than single family zoning to happen but we already allow it in the G well s those are those are those are good goals but this is not we're not we would not be doing what we're doing if it were not for the state's compliance we would be doing something very different and and you can see that in the very decisions that we made we have we would not be doing and I don't think you can and I think you're G to get lost in an argument with people if you try to stick to anything other than the truth because what we did was as I think Chris pointed out everything that we could to do two things simultaneously one is is meet the state goals and two preserve as much as we can of the town's character and those you can those you can stand up behind but when you start to argue that what we've done is to preserve is to is to create more cheap housing if we' wanted to create more inexpensive housing we would have put 400 units out in the LCD we could have done all kinds of things that would have been much more effective at reducing or if they would have been effective at all would have done more to reduce housing prices but we didn't what we did was something quite different Richard I hate agreeing with you on anything but I complet I know I know it must go I know it must go you go it does but I 100% agree with you so I'd like to hear Emily take this I have a question which is is is this two two questions for Emily is this pretty much a boilerplate language yeah is this language that that the E eohc would like to see or don't or would it would it be sufficient simply to say you know we're complying with whatever that section is so the most of that language came from the sample zoning but the commentary when we did the sample zoning itself we left the purpose blank because it's really a policy statement for each Community but we had several examples and samples of I brought them forward because I knew we'd want to have a discussion I want to give us something to discuss right I will say though that when you were um starting when you were starting to cross off when I came in because obviously you started long before I did you we had did talk about the criteria that you were using for choosing where the districts were and you might want to you don't necessarily want to go overboard in a purpose but you might want to consider that are reflecting some of that in here I would I would like to see that in oral arguments I don't and that would be the other way that you I don't want to see right I think there are lots of opportunities for people to find something in here and argue that what we were doing had nothing to do with that and just make this whole process more difficult I would you I wouldn't I will vote for it even though it is just to avoid having the state take over and do that do their Z do our Zoning for us and I would suggest would you agree with Chris's point about adding a second purpose well I I I would suggest it on that first sentence yes um that you after the chapter 48 pan say while preserving the character of the Town under purpose yes so that instead one becomes just the it's not purpose say it's there's no numbers we get rid of as Sue suggested we get rid of the second sentence in the first paragraph and eliminate everything else and I'm suggesting that we add a clause to that first sentence I would agree with that at this part no don't bother that's gone so cross crossing this out not relevant Emily just okay that's all gone okay and the second sentence in the first paragraph so so like that on the screen and what I have in the comment it says while preserving the character of the Town attempting to preser attempting to preserve I'm good with that yeah are you okay with that yeah do you want to make it clear that it's the built environment that you're trying to preserve the what the built environment is the character of the town the architectural character the physical the character I think most people know that know what that is so the next piece is establishment and applicability this is where we can talk about the districts so we have it as this is an overlay District um identifying how much land there is um it's superimposed over the underlying zoning districts and shown on the overlay maps and once we've created those we will refer to them by name um how it's applicable which is an applicant can develop the multif family housing um the underlying zoning and its relationship to the underlying zoning so it is an overlay District um and what happens if uh this is silent uh so for example somebody's trying to do a use that is um uh not part of this overlay District they're doing it under the underlying zoning it makes that clear um so here's the question on the subdistricts so um you're saying and I'm just going to cross it out just so we can see that these are districts rather than subdistricts so let's talk about four districts okay because when I saw that in the text I think there were four districts and then there were still like five subd districts so tell me the four districts that you want and then which of them because you wanted to change the names as well so make sure we get all that correct I mean the the first district is not Pine Street it's Pine Street Elm Pine Street Pine Street to Elm yeah okay yeah I mean I think I mean you can develop a thing Pine Street to powder house yeah okay well no but powder house is its own separate thing no it's part the district it's a subd district uh that's right I beg your pardon so P Pine Street to powder house okay powder house is two words y okay and then so Newport and powder house subd is going to be a subdistrict of that and Pine Street is a subdistrict yeah and maybe they should be another level in if they're subdistricts yes I can't do quite that level of editing on uh this PDF but I will do I will note that that should be in actually maybe lower time so it's not confusing lower Pine Street great um and you need a carriage return after subdistrict powderhouse cter house with a capital H yes okay summer Allen to Lincoln so the next one would be is that correct beach beach to Beach Street to C Street Street okay somewhere is it well and then are you having Beach Street and C Street are separate subdistricts with Sumer street is the subdistrict of Beach Street to C Street then C Street is the other subd District editing is it's going to go PDF is there we Street and that means that okay Alan no Allen to Lincoln is still a District it is would be it would be Summer Street to Lincoln Street it's Alan to Lincoln oh so we get rid of that Summer Street at the beginning we we I think maybe we have a Beach Street summer District or Beach Street Corner summer District no we've got Beach Street in the Sea Street District right so I have so districts I have Pine Street to pow house summer Allen to Lincoln we're getting rid of Summer right we're gonna say saying okay that's what I I did not hear oh there you go that'll make it clear Pine Street to powderhouse Allen to Lincoln Beach to C Street Beaver Dam Road four districts correct and then two of our districts have subdistricts Newport and powderhouse F Street and then Summer Street and C Street yes beautiful I love it perfect okay good all right so definitions are now at the end so we'll talk about them when we get to the end I tried to keep this tied to the sample zoning because I know mik said he was uh going to go over that with you for let me let's back up just a little bit no backing up actually yeah we can back up Sarah's here so we now have air of planning sorry do you wna you want to open the plan [Music] board uh think we'll open the planning board meeting um Sarah cron pres Laura pres okay thank you sorry about okay trying to be in two places at one time always a challenge this we started with the discussion of whether we had one 37 acre non-contiguous overlay District or whether we have four overlay districts with subdistricts yes that's correct and 9.4.2 says the mo the mod which is the wrong name of course is and overlay District heading so I think so I'm going to need to rewrite that and I'm going to highlight it okay how are those communities doing it they doing it is one overlay district with all different various subd districts or are they doing sort of what we were talking about because most of mine have been a single district with multiple subdistricts most of the ones I've been working with I do have some variations though I have one where they've created a new District but they're using existing districts as part of their compliance um so we we what we did was we just did a boundary around the existing District and those are we have a sub for that one there's a subdistrict over here there's a subdistrict over here um but it's called one um this is the new one and this is just showing the boundary that we're considering this to be part of the solution that hasn't gone through hlc yet but it should from what we've discussed it should be okay for the others they have all been one um District I'm thinking of the most complex one I've written today um that was one big district and it had multiple subdistricts within it together they all formed you know there were there was together you combine two of the subd districts that did five acres or made go yes or it made the 20 acres and they allowed that well this this one like that one like you is going to hlc before town meeting so it it was submitted Maybe weeks ago so my my my concern is that if we start by saying there's one overlay district and then people look at the map they're going to assume that there's a contiguity and they're going to assume that that we are actually zoning stuff that we're not talking about because let me tell you the level of trust right now is way low I think that's fine I I don't I think um now that you've explained to me what you were trying to do and we've got it in the structure I I see what you're doing I think that makes sense I just need to reward that top sentence to take that into account I don't problem that the other issue I would raise is that all of the districts in our zoning today have leps letters so this is kind of complicated and do you want like overlay District P for Pine and then say that's Pine Street to powderhouse District you know overlay District B um a I don't know that's what I'm throwing up underlying districts are letters yeah okay this is overlay districts and it's like the water protection well D2 is an overlay District I don't think it is yes it is it's the first 100 feet in yeah except do say that well it used to I don't I don't know I think I think that situation as an says of low trust the simpler the better okay and saying Pine Street everybody knows what Pine Street is street is clear the only problem sorry is that it's not all of Pine Street we're saying lower Pine and and a should say lower fine a a should say lower that's not that's not all of each and there will be a map associated with it as well to so people will be able to see that anything else on applicability well we're going to do definitions at the end so the next thing that we're doing is permitted uses So a multif family housing B Mark you and I didn't get a chance to talk about so I'm going to turn this for the the text and yellow I'm going to turn this over to you um since we don't have a chance to to talk about it I don't want to put words in your mouth and let you um explain to the collected people on and offline uh so what we added this because um there are a few Parcels that overlay the G District which allows commercial so we wanted to allow someone to have a commercial use but still have multif family but obviously we're not allowed to write it into our zoning as a requirement so we wanted to specifically allow for that in the bylaw and statement so that's what this pris to do says you can combine the underlying zoning District uses with the multif family district and if that underlying zoning District uses a special ter permit you still need a special permit for that particular use but not for the multif family use so let's say it's a dry clean or restaurant I don't know what a special permit but if it was you would need to get that for what you're going to put on let's say on the first floor and and multif family would be by right but once you get that special permit rest of the project with you you I say so there's some things I like about that structure and there's some things I have some questions about one of the things I like is you're not having to say um well in the uh districts where the underlying district is this you can't do that but in the district where the underlying district is that you can because it just refers to what's already allowed in the underlying District I think that makes makes it um cleaner um you know the other way that you can do it um and this is sort of goes to my question um the other way you can do it is say in the following subdistricts these commercial uses are allowed as part of a multi family the reason I bring that up is I'm wondering if there's any uses in the G District that you would not want to be part of this multif family a part of a you know what is there anything that you wouldn't want to be with multif family in the G are all commercial retail uses pretty much permitted as a right in the G districts there well they're listed out yeah yeah I don't I don't have it in front of me so there's is that of uses yeah see I was trying to avoid going because if we went through the entire list after on each of the uses we would have different groups of people have different opinions about whether a restaurant should be allowed versus retail versus a dry cleaner what you could do in this wording is change it to reference nonresidential uses ah so non-residential per uses that are allowed in the underlying zoning District well Shish Landing is allowed right right I try to do that oh actually people do there's Child Care is allowed in every District so you would change it to say non-residential permitted uses and the underlying and just leave it as it is otherwise that's what I'm it's a nice finesse it's a nice finesse to get around two examples that might be relevant would be a swimming pool maybe a small pool I don't know in G I'm think of G District use but it's the but it's a by special permit and the other one is a parking garage so I have parking garage is an accessory unit uh use rather um and I wanted to make sure we talked about that as well adding a swimming pool and are there are there other accessory uses what about accessory delling units it's an interesting question you allow that drawing units with multif family use well it's very restrictive but but would and it fell down at the last town meeting to change it um it's you've got to have double the lot size and and um employee no no that's separate it's very nature multi is accessory right yeah I mean no such thing as an accessory you have a PO unit could you put the question is could you put an accessory unit no that's not accessory that's that's out yeah how does this apply to the limited commercial District question that's a very good question so so if you had a commercial use in the an office building or it's probably most relevant in the LC so so gley could put uh housing above the building GLE is okay because you can have doctor offices pretty much any but he's not in this overlay the LCD that we've got is the warehouses and the could could somebody put in um you know a biotech company with housing above it correct that's example good example you would think if you were putting in a biotech company you would just go under the underlying zoning District but not if you want not if you to have the housing well and because this does allow multiple buildings on a site this this is a good thought experiment could you have the biotech company in the front of the lot and the housing in the back of the lot is that a good thing is that a bad thing I like a five acre small retail you know mini Linfield mall where you have some retail it's only six acre lot no no a mini you know a specialty gas station G need one of those after we get rid of athletic facil Athletic Facility with housing on top of it like a gym or a yoga studio say say a convenience store atic facility with with a with housing on top and by the way any use in the LCD under the underlying Zone requires a special burnit so right okay so here's the question and the reason I'm calling this out is I absolutely see why you put this Mark there it makes perfect sense I don't normally mix the underlying zoning with the overlay District I would usually sit there and say okay we're doing this overlay District these are all the things allowed on the overlay District if you want to use underlying zoning you need to go to the underlying zoning you're not using both of them and this the L the intent is great the language felt to me and and I wanted to check it with all of you just like it was maybe mixing the two a little bit too much and so I wanted keep about so so one of the reasons I think this happened was people on SE Street said wait a minute if you're allowing mixed juice with this multif family house does that mean you mix uses on C Street which is resal and we say no because the underl doesn't allow commercially so if the only place that you would want this to apply is the General District which makes perfect sense because it's already well we may not want it in I I wouldn't you brought it up I wouldn't not I would exclude the LC I think so too I'm wondering if you exclude everything except the general Maybe several properties General District Beach well Beach Corner commcial El Street has several properties and some Street has several properties so but if we talk in terms of the underlying District then it's really only G that we want to allow this so then what I might do is reference the subdistrict your districts not your subd districts your districts that are already in the G district and point that to those parts some of the districts underlying G District just specific yeah I think great idea okay and I think that is now instead of being I think that's now called District G District G rather than the General District always was great all right so we will Wordsmith that to make sure that works accessory units so parking in surface parking and parking structure so we're going to allow in sensory uses as we do for other residential uses that's my question to you is or should there be other access swimming pool if that's considered an accessory not everybody calls it out on their like a swimming pool out in their um table of uses so sometimes it's done we require a special permit we don't want to require a special permit but we do it's a very sore point so if there's anything else I mean I I think one of the things that's an accessory use that we want to limit is sports courts which sports courts um because of the pickle ball challenge I'm trying to decide if more communities at this point are talking about NBTA or pickle ball because honestly it's been hitting uh every town me pickle ball is starting to hit town meeting oh boy no leers so then let's let's think about um uh the implications of which of these districts would be more likely to have something like or want something like a sports court or a swimming pool again if you don't already call these out in your zoning there's no reason to put them in unless you want to have that restriction well they require a special per today all right list of the accessory that we allow four borders four borders that uh uh one commercial vehicle gaging of maintaining more than four automobiles tenants Court well these all require official permits since you already have them we could just leave within the accessory uses okay I don't think accessory use is going to be a big customary home occupation customary home occupation is and and the examples are kind of um 19th century but um people you know people work from home right absolutely and I think we need to make I think it we should allow people to work from home from the newly developed units how about Family Daycare small Family Daycare I think by State Statute that has to be allowed by right I think that's we changed it we separated large and small so wait are you suggesting we basically just refer to the accessory uses that are in the code I think so I think that to do yeah the ones that are just Allowed by right Allowed by right Y how about the one um accessory uses or structures on the same lot with customary and customarily incidental to the pered in use so if you had a l you know particularly a larger you know for multi unit building you could have a couple of garden sheds and a garage or um so to me that's helps to keep the main building perhaps smaller and smaller scale perhaps on the flip side it also might uh allow uh us to if you had four garages for four units right that are detached it adds more building it might add more building and more mass and more uh impervious surface so it's going to go to the coverage issue so that's included in the coverage by structures larger lot um do do we need to allow accessory buildings whatever those might be unforseen accessory buildings uh by right because I think of for a three family home if they want to build and the underlying zoning would allow it by right so I guess we can't restrict it again if you're choosing to go under the exit under the overlay the should only be looking at the overlay so they can't pick and choose so if they say so and it's one of the reasons I have parking here is an accessory use but if there's anything that you do want to make sure is allowed it within the over or prohibited within the overlay it should be in the overlay itself you don't want somebody coming in saying well I like this in the overlay but I like that and underlying I'm between the two I think if all those other use is clearly we have very defined right we have very defined districts with very defined character um and most of the accessory uses Chris just read don't want anyways because you with small logs and so aside from parking structures and customary home occupation I mean anyone think I mean why do you want to expand it yeah I don't understand that yeah no I'm not saying expand I don't want to do anything I want what I want to do is make sure that you are all happy with with in there yeah want to expand the scope right it doesn't make sense to me I think you'd want as much control over what the accessory use might be and you have it under the existing zoning so I think pointing to the existing zoning but maybe with one or two I'm not sure that we want to you just made a very good for not and I no what I what I meant was don't say just go to the underlying zoning by pointing to the existing zoning I mean you're pointing to a specific section and saying c section XYZ table of use as accessory these are also considered rather than saying just let the underlying zoning govern when we're silent we're saying in the overlay District these specific accessory uses as shown on the table of us are allowed I don't have the table of uses in so I I do it's one two three okay four five pages long right and and some of them some of them are by right and some of them are by special permit there actually 12 of them gu where I'm getting is you you're talking about accessory uses yeah but there's all the other uses too the non-residential uses that we're we're just talking about exory okay I guess the reason I'm bringing up the accessory uses is because you've got two different types of housing going in right one in the LCD what will be Beaver Dam one everywhere else if you're talking about that limit of a hundred units in Beaver Dam that's likely to be a different layout and format than the four units here the four units there do you want to allow them to have amenities that would serve a up to a 100 unit complex that are maybe not also in the not in the other subd districts I'm trying to get yeah exactly I'm trying to again get the character of what's being built in The subd District in the different types of districts rather one other thing that you probably should include is small child care because it's required by law yeah um I you know it very much depends on the Town Council that I've dealt with some of them say that the those section three uses should be in an overlay District some of them it's because it's an in the underlying they they just say it's in the underlying it's allowed us of that as an exemp use but I'm happy to put it in yeah I'm a firm believer in exactly is this a topic we might narrowly Define it and ask for public input to help us no maybe that just confuses this is this is a can words okay we'll come back to this we we we'll continue on we can always come back to abused today and if you pull it in it's going to be abused in the overlay District so you would you would suggest having a specific table of uses for the overlay District if there's specific accessory uses we want to pull in we we list them because like today we don't limit the number of accessory structures you can have right how many sheds and garden sheds um and you know and the Adu is an accessory um and and I think we just gone through and don't want adus in the right right okay and I wouldn't I would eliminate sports yeah I've taken I've taken down some of the the suggestions all right table of dimensional standards this should look very familiar um uh because this is what we've been working on so the thing that I added was the um the sort of went back to your existing table of uses and put this in the same order and format so you've got your lot area your additional lot area per dwelling unit minimum Frontage and lot width I took from the underlying District because the model doesn't do those height obviously stories was in the model and it's tested feet I went and looked at what you had for those same number of stories in your there's a problem with your title on Newport to powderhouse well I'm going have to fix all of those because this is not Newport powder house because that would include Pine Street these were all districts that were up above obviously this going to have to get yeah um I don't understand on the height for four stories why you're using 50 feet I would use 45 because one of your zoning District LCD has 55 ft and that's the only one right we talked about dropping that to 45 feet so it's it's on the updated chart that I put together yeah just because 50s and the other thing is there's typos in the coverage by structure oh yeah it's way high it should be 40% not 70 okay so that's what's in the parameters so I've updated this here okay with um the updated uh lot coverages building coverages um setbacks because I made a few additional changes which didn't happen to adjust in the model so ah see I took this from the last Model um yeah yeah so so I can just give you this and you can update it I will also then need to update the model we never had 70% the model it's like th those numbers those numbers are in the model those numbers are in the model by structures and impervious surfaces yeah those numbers are the the correct numbers I will need to have okay and when I get that I can double check and the what I did also did just everyone knows I made the uh setbacks for Pine Street at 15 feet and uh instead of 10 and I made the setbacks for Allan to Lincoln and 15 feet as well on all sides and C Street is 10 on all in the front as well and that did not change any of the uni counts okay so do you have that to pass around yeah yeah it didn't print out in color but I have rear what are the rear sets you what what's the rear setback uh for which district uh rear setbacks um well are 15 feet for Pine 10 for Newport on Powder house 10 for Beach 10 for C 15 for Allan and 50 maybe the still has the 70 Miss coverage did you get one i' got an extra an extra CH didn't get one I don't all right great so Mar we will we will double check all these terrific and using these in this paper Mark you got the numbers that you've seen before yeah the little adjustments I made didn't change the unit counts in the model because I did it in the model okay did they change the densities no it didn't change unit counts I have a question on the the um the the minimum um additional lot area per dwelling unit with three ,000 um 3,000 per per dwelling unit for beam Road um If I multiply that times 100 I get um what 300,000 right and is the lot that is the district 300,000 square feet it's 200 well no the minimum is the five acres but the lot itself 43,000 Square ft so it works out to 110 units but we cap at 100 units is what it does yeah but I because I because it's a minimum five acres it uh looks like you can't get the 100 but you can yes so I actually had a question on that but before we get there um Mark I'm not seeing the additional lot area for dwelling unit on your table is that still yeah I didn't I don't have that I just size yeah okay so but you still want it in here yeah okay all right I just want to make sure that I'm comparing app yeah because we don't have caps on some of the units right I mean and some of the districts sub districts what what the only we have a cap onet everybody else is a cap of 2,000 except for D 3,000 was my other question on Beaver Dam Road um I know you're modeling it with the minimum parcel size being five acres uh I just wanted to double check that that was the intent you didn't Envision it being subdivided at any point you would assume that was well that was the point of doing it so that it can't be subdivided okay because that I believe is the minimum lot size currently in the so you know we're trying to change as it made a difference to some of the other things I was looking at if you subdivide it then you're allowing 100 per subdivided lot and we just want to cap on total of 100 okay uh multi-building Lots we allowing more than one principal building uh building unit caps uh we have on the chart uh Mark had put in thank you Mark because I forgotten to do that so um had put in the tax that uh how many units were allowed for lot or saying per okay the first one is building the second how did we come up with the four units Max per building I thought we were kind of talking three well we had talked about yeah we had talked about four um so that someone would have if they wanted to do five as the cap on B Street they would have to do two and three or they could do one for unit did you check to see that those lots would allow enough buildings to get to the capacity so for example just I'll I'll make it up say you had a lot that's showing a capacity of six but you're only allowing four units per building and the lot itself can only hold a single building you're losing you will have a restriction where you're losing two units well the cap is in the model so yes but it's on a parcel by parcel basis I have to go okay I'll have to go back and just double check well how do you model do well the model's not necessarily going the model doesn't look the way the model works is it's not going to look at you know can you have a building footprint and a building footprint it's just calculating the total area so if you're saying that your limit if if the if the model says based on this I can get eight units on the slot and you're saying but you can only have four units per building and the lot can't have a second building on it it's not going to fit then you can't get to that capacity of eight units so I don't think we should have a limit building I know I agree why do we have you can LCD if you want but not in the downtown area I think it's Overkill building unit caps seems to me to be Superfluous because do we really care if they're caps in the number of units per lot do we care how many buildings it's in well yeah because I mean if you're trying to maintain so in Pine Street where you will over time have a fair number of new units and if you don't put a cap on the units per building you will end up with several bunch of large building no we're liing to four units per lot no it's five units per lot oh five units per lot so if you don't cap the size of the building um the numbers of units in the building and spread it out into two buildings so the per the example I've been using is right across the the canal here there's a bunch of houses that were built uh what 20 25 years ago oh the buildings are much older than that they're older than that but they're clustered together they're probably what two unit buildings maybe three in some of those four I think some of those but those some are clad boards some have shingles different roof lines they fit in as if they were here 200 years ago well the M's building probably was was okay but the rest of them the the big one came over on a barge from Salem and 18 but his point I think is that they are of they are multi-unit buildings that are that are small because they only have a few units per building yeah so I like the idea of and isn't it of having if if my parcel is is this size you know I can put a big building on aren't we saying you can put a big building on it that is for we we're saying should we allow a larger building that's four or if we have four that has to be in two smaller buildings which is that sort of scale that is small and I I think it's a good how would the model figure out whether you could do it you can't that's what's worrying me so so the state might you'd have to do a fit study to I mean I don't see what we're gaining by this I really don't and we've got our our little building with seven units in it right so that would be but you have some bigel you have some big on Pine Street that would allow for some big buildings but we're limiting it to five units on a parcel so the max units you could have you can have a big building five units I don't see building for four units is going to be much smaller I I don't see if you put it down to three maybe um well you could do it three so someone has to do two and two or two and three that that would be that would work even better and we we never discussed that everyone seemed that four was great we didn't ever discuss structure so well I can go back and look at the model and see how many Parcels it might have fact and that would be worth doing so in those areas but it how does that model do it matter if I have a 6,000 foot building lot and I and I a unit in the model is a th000 square feet is y so I can put up a 2,000 square foot building and a if we're allowing five per per and a 3,000 squ foot building so with each of those you would have a th000 foot foot footprint right you have to have parking and access you have open space requirements and building coverage requirements so we'd have to figure outes but I would argue that your footprint is essentially the same if you're limited in height to that same 2,000 square feet U but just a larger Mass um in a single building in a single building and so but to Mark's point the market is for not thousand square foot buildings it is you know it's most of the market I think I'm not a developer but it seems to made at a 2,000 squ foot I mean I talked to Lee aler about his things over in if switch wherever they were and he said nobody wants a th000 square feet they all want 2,000 square feet or more with all kinds of amenities so your five units now is a 10,000 square foot building which in order to sit within the height limits is a large footprint but you've also got building coverage so 6,000 foot I like the idea of scale maintain the small scale the 40% coverage in on a 6,000 sqt lot is a 2,400 foot foot it's going to limit it yeah but you can't you only have three units on a on a 6,000 square you can only have three units on a 6,000 no we're not is it 2,000 per yeah you can only have three units on a 6,000 so you need 10 so the question the reason I'm raising this question is you put a lot of restrictions on here at some point the restrictions start to cancel each other out potentially cancel each other out for those smaller Lots we're not the only ones who are looking at this so before it Go and the good news is you are sending this to hlc before you're sending it to town meeting so if they catch it you'll catch it before you go to town meeting my point is if you put so many restrictions on it that it appears that none of the units would be could be feasibly built then hlc is going to call that out and so I'm just trying to call it out in the discussion before we get but I would argue so for a you need 8,000 square feet for four units so you do two twos each Footprints a th000 square feet in the model yeah so that's 2,000 square feet of building coverage Which is less than 40% less than 40% 25% but why you I still have an issue why you're using four units if you're GNA to doc three and two why not use three units as a Max in instruction well that's I I that's even better is my point is that that's even better for maintaining that the character of four and three and see what happens y you know all this makes me think of a walk down Magazine Street in Cambridge where you walk past a six family and then you walk past a three family and a six family and those six families are huge bloming structures well so are our single [Laughter] families right next Theo Street okay yeah well you got you got a point there I mean all right so so we will look at that and come back to you with the answer on that you've got the no more in the Pine Street subdistrict you have no more than five units maybe constructed on a lot in C Street no more than four units on a lot and be Dam Road no more than 100 units on a lot um we have setback requirements for accessory structures um uh which pulled from the zoning Mark mentioned that he um adjusted that all of those are fine we have a different set because Beaver Dam and this is why I was asking if you were looking to subdivide right because um Beaver Dam Road is much larger District so we have different um uh much larger um setbacks uh exceptions for chimneys ventilators Towers Etc um exceptions for renewable energy insulations yes 3% is that's a chunk of Lo yeah we don't allow that I think it's 10% we don't have a percentage we don't have a percentage but we we're very strict on it um we can't have any we we've had we' forced people to to make them smaller so can we put a percentage limit on it because it's a lot easier if you can check a box to it was Matt there can't be any living in right yes it's it's no it's not allowed for living purposes it's not allowed for um uh habitation I can move at 10% I don't know what that means exceptions renewable energy installations are we fine with those there's no percentage solar array e roofs energy storage Etc okay um off street parking two spaces for beer Dam 1.5 for the rest obviously I need to change the subdistrict can you um that 1.5 per residential dwelling unit they have to round up Round Up fractional share is rounded up that's quite important fair enough I ask a question about that yeah I'm sure there's been a lot of debate about parking have we ever talked about a maximum number instead had it as a maximum originally did have a maximum yeah because there is a real estate cost here of leaving Saving Town and reading more service parking I I I think the challenge with the parking is that's a hot button in town and so we're better off leaving it consistent with the existing zoning I had two applications last night all we heard about was parking um you know and the problem is is based on one and a half spaces per residential unit would s plan be a place where we could maximize I don't think you want to I I just it was the very first question at that Saturday Forum I'm not saying to includ it in here I don't think I don't think you want to go there I I'm sorry every application that comes before us there's issue over parking because the streets are overloaded with parking and the fact of the matter is the people complaining about it are the people with four or five cars parked on the streets and they don't want anybody else to park on the street I think the problem is I mean I think it has been the the number one issue that people have raised and their first reaction in opposition to this I think also as I've I've thought about this is that people move here purchase a house and the number of parking spaces at their rental or owned property does not determine how many cars they have right their number of cars is determined by other things in their life and then the LA other thing is I know um housing living communities has said oh because we're near MBTA we don't need parking but I think with a Regional School District and um um you know a small town with a small commercial and just going grocy shopping yeah that that that's that that is um unreasonable for most people um so that most and that if you want to buy a pair of shoes you got to have a car right so um right so I think that I mean this is saying we have to round up if I'm understanding then effectively we're providing two car spaces and not everybody is a two car family I get it for one but no if there three if there are three units it would be we have to have five five spaces for three units that just sounds like over Jil well I think if you look at the excise tax um bills you'll find that there is more cars than drivers in this town that's true but we're talking about single family housing right now is what we have this is a new kind of I I'll defer to the task force here I just wanted to say my piece because I think we're writing into our zoning C code provision of more service parking which has an impact on the built character of the Town a negative impact I envir we want to address parking and put in maximums of parking it needs to be done outside of this um I just think it's a hot right and I I think also given I don't disagree with it but yeah given the market conditions here in Manchester Builders are going to max out the square footage in the unit which means you'll get two and three unit uh bedroom units and which means you get couples least you know you get people with two cars you'll be getting um you know a single mom with a teenager in these units they'll both have cars um parking will continue to be an issue and you're not really in a the cambrid or a place where certainly not suggesting we're in Cambridge just saying there's different kinds of families single family single par of families couples who are happy sharing a car somebody takes a train in so I'm not going to belabor it yeah I to the work the task force is do and I'm just raising it for awareness this is an evolving conversation obviously around parking yeah it's an issue yeah uh speaking of of other transportation we do uh recommend that for larger developments which is probably going to be your beaver dam that they have to um that the board can require adequate bicycle parking that's integrated into the building so that cover Emily is the language adequate specific enough or do you need to say you know 25% you bicycles for 25% just have to be specific I had had a percentage in there earlier so go back to that can we will they accept adequate I can't answer for them I will say that I we put in bicycle storage and it's very popular this is in Austin Quinsy Cambridge you know Central Square and chambri the part everybody wants a bicycle storage and and so it's a very it's a very you know it's an amenity didn't have bicycle storage we might lose a tenant which would be the end of the world for me so so what percentage bicycle storage do you have based on 100% okay one per unit correct okay but that's Market driven is it you bet so do we have to require or is it just going to happen can we require bik ccle storage in any in any way in multif family yeah so that that's what so we've got for multif family development of 25 units or more you can change that number number of units um and you can specify a percentage if you want I think originally I had it um I think I'd had it way way back when I'd have a 50% and developer said that's that's unlikely to happen in the market they were in so we dropped it down to 25 but it is Market I guess my point is can we have it for all to sort of Laura's point to try to discour to try to you know encourage bicycle use rather than cars can we require that multif family you units have B bicycle storage yeah I mean well the other question is this is this outdoor bicycle think about or indoor because you know we have indoor bicycle larg developments 100 units 315 units yeah you know the larger developments those rooms are packed you bet but um and three family but in yeah exactly most of everything we're talking about three three unit buildings and four unit build I mean I don't think that's reasonable I agree that's why I thought it might be most likely it was going to be the buber gam subdistrict because of that and the language says for uh a multif family development of 25 units or more so it excludes the three automatic I I mean the thing we're trying to do here is to craft something that goes between the requirements of hlc and our desire to get it past in town right exactly and if putting in 25% bicycle because it's specific helps with hlc it seems you might as well do it because they can always put in more right exactly right if the market Brides them to put in more they can put in more we say is there any advantage saying multif family developments of 10 units or more there might be several i' just leave it at the 25 and do what do we say 25% storage 25% of what of the total number of units so if you have four units you have to have one no no well you haven't actually so we're doing it leave the language as is because you're really talking about larger scale okay I mean they'll have an a size that they will be comfortable with for the number of units they be building whether they're building 100 units they're building 50 units they may only build but if they're building you're not going to yes build indoor storage or outo exactly yeah that's why you're going to take your thing up to your room all right your 10 foot room because it's a th square foot so site plan review um uh we have it at the moment that it's required for all projects is under this so that would mean three family on up um just want to check that that is I think it's Overkill I I think doing review what it's the arbitrary what you draw the line be consistent I you're letting people get something extra here so you need to sell it to the community that what you're allowing is going to be reviewed it's going to be people will have an opportun to ensure that you mitigate any impacts you can gu screening review design guidelines whether it's 22 unit buildings or eight unit building or a 25 sales okay all right uh perming authori is the planning board um so the procedure and submission requirements so we're starting to get into the section where I um you know reviewed your existing zoning requirements and I'm pointing to it and if I'm not pointing to it for a reason I call it out so here we're saying look you've already got this these will apply and we're going to add some additional approval requirements below and basically that allows us to put in the development standards or design guidelines or both later in the document and have them say that they apply that's all what we're trying to do here um and then we're basically saying you can site plan review for you can have reasonable conditions and the applicant has to submit the required fees and information so no sneaky complaining that um you have to give me my site plan review when I haven't paid my fees or given you all the information that you requested um and the project also has to meet the development standards that we're establishing later on and then the other thing is that you can phase the project again this is probably more likely to be Beaver Dam but you have to submit everything all that once you can't come in and do a little bit of the time so that's also important for the affordability requirements General development standards so um I had this allinone and uh Mark I think you cleverly moved it to the end so that we could talk about how some of that integrates with the design guidelines that are being worked on but what's remained in this section is what happens with some of your existing requirements especially those that require site plan review so what I did was I went through um and any of any of you who know your your um zoning bylaw even if there's some I miss please let me know but I went to look for all of those things that might have an impact on multif family housing so for example there's performance requirements for indust industrial uses and the LCD I'm just making it very clear those don't um out um parking there's some parking requirements there you've got table sit mostly your parking requirements are great I'm just saying that your table of parking requirements is superseded by the one in here but this doesn't address the other aspects of the parking right exactly you've already got because you've already got standards for parking spaces Landscaping all of that I'm saying all of those are good you get to keep those those stay yeah those stay I'm just saying your table of um table 6.1 which is the number of spaces per use is superseded because we have that's what's in the underlying zoning right just clarifying it we're not doing the same yes sure no no we were talking about districts the underlying Zoning for districts we're keeping those separate but for things that apply everywhere like off street parking and loading we can point to that because that applies to all districts equally so that's what we're doing for example we under this we're requiring two spaces in the and we don't allow we don't require that already in the LCD okay that's a change okay um your general standards uh your topic graphical changes fiscal analysis standards um I'm calling those out those don't apply because fiscal analysis is not one of those things that's allowed under site plan review it is under the special permit so I'm just making that clear and then you have certain underd here you have certain sections that uh require a special permit so Earth remove room filling flood control ground and surface water resource overlo function districts I'm saying that the criteria still apply but they apply as part of the site plan review process you don't need a special permit for them so and that I hopefully should I because I imagine that some of these are of deep concern to a lot of people especially the third one yes and I have talked to hlc already about this idea of taking the criteria but just making it part of the site plan riew and they have to date been fine with that okay yeah and so things like um lighting we're going to get to that in a minute yes we're going to get to that in a minute so so as I said there was there was originally one large section we've split that up into two so this is pointing to very specific one I'll show you lighting and signs in a minute affordability requirements do we have to use the 80% so let's talk about the um affordability requirements I had had 10 or more um marq suggested five or more so that's what's in there now did we I'm sorry did you change the the to the business about the Earth removal flood control and the Water Resources no they're the same that in this draft it's just in the site plan review rather than a special permit yeah right but you there was one area where you had in the draft I saw you proposed that um artificial recharge can meet and the groundwater Sur yes that's still there that's still there it's some under no no my my concern is that you had um said this the requirement for a system of artificial recharge may be met with equivalent low impact design development and that may be a best practice right but it's going to that's going to be like a that's a lightning rod oh okay good good good to hear I mean good a bad lightning because people have feel that the that the underwater the the underground surface the under ground detention systems are critical for our waterers shed protection and to feel that we are lessening that standard uh we are already reducing the standard by saying you don't have to have a special permit you only have to have site plan riew and now to say that something other than the strict definition that's in the Watershed protection district is going to we're going to allow some other thing got it is and I'm not I'm not disagreeing that it might this might be a better state-ofthe-art but let's fix it in the underlying rather than have a call it out just trying to understand not try right now we allow we require that if you have um more than a c that if that you have to have these um underground structur structures struct and you can't do it with a landscape based strategy which this is going for this is allowing a landscape based strategy and we don't want that I I don't I want the the argument about what the best way to protect our water to do not happen in this yes and there is a a um I'm not judging it but there is a strongly held belief that our current Watershed protection districts strict and prescriptive standards is the best way so I don't want to have that argument as here if we should upgrade update our water protection standards we should do it in that section and have this simply say that you don't need a special permit but you still need to follow the requirements of 10.3 fine with that by the way get rid of the sentence that begins in addition yes because that is a lightning rod and I and and I'm happy to the discussion about what 10.3 should have for Best Practices which may very well be something other than those there I will just point to it we say all of the criteria are part of site plan View and then I agree don't mix don't mix the discussions basically that's fine thank you for bringing that out I was gonna put out a typo but it's in the Clos of discuss trying to digress for no I'm glad you caught it there because otherwise we might have missed it um affordability requirements so I had 10 or more Mark Su said five or more um uh you mentioned so what we've got now is still affordable to households earning 80% of less of Ami I had had the 10% of units you haven't yet done your EFA right um but Mark you put in 20% because that's that's the goal and that's fine for now but just know that whatever you do here you need the EFA first so really this is a placeholder but do we have to do the 80% what were you thinking something lower you need your EFA so I mean if you want to put something aspirational in here that's now that's fine but just know your EFA is going to have to justify either a deeper level of affordability so it could be either say yeah so the planning board at the last meeting voted to have the EFA completed yeah and and so i s you I just got the contract I'll let Greg sign it send it back and get that underway it's okay as it goes through can just keep in your brain the maybe we can go less than 80% right now does the EFA kind of recommend that you can go as low as X um I think what you're going to do is you're going to ask Eric to test what you want him to test I don't like speaking on behalf of somebody else's you know procedures what do we want them to test so I have the same comment as I did with the prior one that we should uh reference our uh is it nine uh which section 9.3 9.3 and get rid of section D which is fee and L right because I think we want to have a discussion in another time on the fee and L of performance um we want to because that's been a problem right we don't we we don't get enough money for fee and Lou right and we don't have the requisite data right to come up with an appropriate figure due to lack of sales right so question so we so the way to so I would like to see us again and I think people are increasingly aware that that's a a shortcoming in our 9.3 so maybe at the so we're going to try to adjust the underlying zoning adjust so question then right now I say it applies because you have it so I'm saying it already applies D do you want me to say that it should not apply for now if we could say it doesn't apply or it seems to me there's two choices one is to say in this case it doesn't apply but then you're putting different requirements on different things so I would say just be silent about it and then have a separate article that fixes it strikes the whatever the fee andl provision is in the existing 9.3.1 whether [Music] it's on another day right right but um we know all not going to be alive to see all these other days okay that's a good thing so that's fine so I'll just strike it out and believe me I have a long list on another daybody is somebody writing this down okay so what do we want instead of 80% we're going to leave 80 until we get the study ah but what do we want to ask that probably 6 yeah can it be 10% at 60 and 10% at 80 you might come back with something could be 10% 60 or 20 20% 80 well we'll see what the St says I'll tell I'll tell you even to have 20% the units at at at 80% is a tough sled in today's world that's absolutely right I mean it's building costs have escalated to the level of it's almost unsustainable problem right another day well it it it could conceivably be our problem because somebody needs to make it talking Richard uh it could conceivably be our problem because let's say for example you make 20% at at 60% I realize that's an extreme but you're now putting constraints on what the Builder produces and it is inevitably going to affect the quality of the buildings that get put up I I I I think you have to keep that in mind um while I'm talking I had another question about the dispersion of about the size of the units it it mentions in there that they should be dispersed throughout the construction I understand that but it also said that the size had to uh be in line with the size of other units and I I just wanted to question is that a is that a requirement by code by by by Statute or why exactly are we saying that I think it's required in order to put them on the Shi yeah you're not supp okay I thought that I thought that might be the case I I just wanted to make sure yeah this this this particular section in the sample zoning so the sample zoning went through a lot of legal hands and a lot of um state agency hands as well and um know that um uh the the groups at the state who are responsible for things like um the the 40b regulations so the subsidized housing regulations looked at this part particularly closely I also know it's general practice that you you should not be able to tell where an affordable unit is by its position in the building or its size relative to the other standard prti exactly so that's where a lot has be same materials exactly can I just make a clarification on intent I know the T Force has been working diligently good faith to make a regulation that is feasible and complies but also can actually be built and so I think I know we're just joking but we should be actually when we look at the EFA and do this calculation we we should be trying to come up with a percentage that is buildable and res results in good quality housing so and I know nobody's not you know we're not trying to not do that but when we joke and say it's not our problem right that's just the wrong tone to set here I think we really are trying to make things that are result in good Community he I say it's not our problem it's the developers problem well but we need to set a regulation that a developer can comply with and also results of quality we have to trust the EFA to tell us that's fine I think we can do the EFA but you know let's just remember that tone is important here EFA is not GNA conclude that we should build it shiny building to make it but you know Laura makes a good point that if we really that that the market conditions even if we could require 20% we might uh be shooting ourselves in the foot and get no no affordable units no nothing because that bar is too high and we might be better off to say 10% and get some affordable units and some let's look at the EA right I think that's a good point um I think yeah you you can hire the consultant trying to uh impose the 20% of affordable I think will preclude in the near term at least any development so yeah the town does not have a great record me said have you said that in producing affordable units okay it's tough out there what Denny's saying is absolutely right and I think we all would like to live in the world of the ideal but there's no's no guarantee however that a first class building is going to be buil by anybody correct they could build crappy stuff and have it all Market R well that's that's that's true POS but I think the other the other factor to sort of keep in mind is if uh the last time I looked 80% of Ami in in this in this area family of four the income is [Music] $100,000 is it up to6 yeah so the rents $3600 a month it's not bad I'd like to get $3,600 a month then you can build it uh it's a push you know if if you want to have it out of the ground earning 7 and a half% on the cost that's tough to do out of the ground today the return is about three okay then you borrow money at seven that's and that's called reverse leverage that's the case that's the case regardless of what the rents are well no the rents aren't high enough to justify it so you're not going to have any production that's the problem in massachusett we don't have enough houses is the 80% rate is pretty close to market rate that's what's really happening uh it may be close to market rate but it may also I maybe arguing against myself here there are a lot of units in Greater Boston that rent for $1,800 a month okay because they're old decrepit most of Boston's housing stock is obsolete terrible let me quote a man named Harold Brown who was a big customer of ours when I was in the finance business and he was famous for having living rooms that had a bathroom in the corner a toilet in the corner of the living room and and those are cheap units that students could afford to live that's aw well I did want I did want to move this on to the design guidelines so just for today's purpose because I know we're not going to sit here and go back and forth between I had pulled some of the development standards from the sample zoning um uh I think marq and I both realized that there's some overlaps there so rather than try to reformat everything I I'm just going to let you know what I pulled and then we'll make sure that we pull them together but in general um with buildings place right this is all site plan reviews and how the buildings relate to the principal Street standards for if you have multiple buildings on a lot how they need to talk to each other um standards for Corner lots for infill Lots um thinking about how parking relates to it and then something that I I find is a useful thing is if the applicant and the site plan review Authority both agree that there's a better way of doing something because sites are not rectangular flat things but there is the ability for the site plan review authority to give a waiver as long as it meets the other parts of the zoning so um so we've got that in there as well so as I think Mark you said everybody's giving you comments which is terrific um I will will start making the adjustments that we talked about today and then our next step is to reconcile the development standards with the design guidelines to make sure that we got one consistent piece I I have one grave concern in this under bwii and c i yes that you're requiring paved surfaces ah okay um we are requiring zba is requiring permeable perfect service now y love it yeah I think I and it's very easy today for people to do it didn't used to be but now with the pavers you can easily do it it doesn't cost you that much more and it makes a huge difference and I think also if you want a residential feel yeah even a you know stepping stones or something like that I WR I had that yeah I'd like to go back to the design guidelines just yeah for a sense of the of the of the meeting um having the design guidelines under the control of the majority of the planning board meaning that if they can be changed arbitrarily is not going to be a selling point of this plan right there there needs to be certain I feel there needs to be certain design guidelines in in the so that's what we were talking about sorry yes sorry specifically talking about putting it in the zoning in under the no under the development performance standards okay so we have in the zoning special permits and site plan review refer to the Performing standard so there'd be a new section for design guidelines in the performance stand so anyone filing for site plan review has to comply with the performance standards which would include okay but those are not approved by town meeting the L no it does have to get approved by town the site plan review Authority May adopt and amend by simple majority vote yeah no that that's been crossed out that's that's all cross out I've lost track I thought cross out was red are you looking at the hang on where are we exactly right oh yeah sorry that that that should have been moved out that I C that was in two places I crossed it out at one I didn't crossed it out on the other so what it happened is see where this additional conditions for building starts at 4 and we were originally talking about pointing to the places that were special permits this part originally was with that so what Mark did was he moved it down to the bottom because he said these overlap with the design guidelines I want to call these out so I just moved them down for the moment so yeah I'm sorry that I had that site plan review of already piece and he had it and I crossed it out on my end but not on his end so the thought was that we would be putting these into the zoning and that there would only be zoning no that was my fault for not Crossing it out of both places too confused and distressed no need for distress so I'm going to note that this is to be struck out here so is the design review board in part of the guidelines well um that's something for the planning board to or everyone to discuss um whether there should be a design review like sub Committee of the planning board board with maybe one planing board member and two general members to look at the building or whether the planing board itself should just be the ones that look at the design of these buildings I think you need a subcommittee person one with Architects on it that's something that you that's not something you already have okay so we would have to add that in somewhere yes yeah and I would suggest three members one year term by board yeah one planning board member and to design profession just leave it at that because you never know who you're gonna be able to that language of design I'll have a look see if I can point to something it's even better but I think just to sell to the town I think the design has been a huge issue and and um I don't think that necessarily with every planning board you're going to have the requisite expertise on it to do a design review sometimes you may um sometimes you may not okay and this board would be advisory to the right exactly make a recommendation yeah which you can use follow or not follow okay the mark q and I can work on rework on the formatting and the the overlap and then I'll look up some good language for sign you I'll double check and see if you've already got something no it's can I while you're thinking in four yeah General position relative to principal Street yes we have lots of buildings in town that do not face the street right and it breaks up if you got a bunch of houses and some sideways it kind of breaks up right and so I I would not like to have us require that they're a bunch they're oriented to the sun they're oriented to the sun they're oriented to and and and deps configuration of the lot front door more usable yes um because facing the street you pull into the driveway and you go in the through the through the kitchen y so and and I think you need to be careful with the surface parking because today we allow within five feet of the property line I don't think you should make it any greater than that not that I've had parking issues recently on the CPA so yes all of these are just to start the conversation they can be tweaked in any way that you want so as long as they're specific enough that it's easy to check off and say yes we did this so and of course the materials that was one of the sort of the materials and the link the aspects that came up yes well there's a lot more specifics in the design the came up with you're incorporate those blend them together so that we get one and then I'll format it so that it fits with our performance standards as a new section is it okay to have illustrations in it yeah and I think rather than being specific regarding materials more that it looks like something yeah keep up with technology they say they say the traditional materials are yeah so Mark just to be sure this additional conditions for building is essentially going to turn into the design guide yes that we have that the group has Rich group has already compiled many of many of the things in that are in Deer so just different language are there going to be different guidelines for the LCD or kind of needs to be different but we kind of need to look at what was presented to see whether it's it can be when made specific enough so that it's not as big there's so we'll see but it should have something specific for the LCD that's different than it because you know it's going to be a different style of so it should have different Styles or buildings and have different styles of design guidelines so so yeah we'll work on blending the two okay the the thing that I think is interesting is this definition of applicant oh sorry thank you property owner we didn't we didn't go all the way down to definitions I AP yeah no no no I was thinking we were done with the design guidelines I forgot I moved the definitions but um yes it's got to be a property owner well should can be anybody as long as the property owner signs off on and a lot of people because you're talking about using smaller Builders so the applicant may be a builder who won't own a property yet until he gets his permits so um but I think we do currently at least in Sub in in divisions of land which it has to Property Owners sometimes the the the we in subdivisions that I've seen the applicant is the developer who hasn't closed on a land but has a agreement at there's a some sort of a legal agreement and Sal subject contract owner cont own yeah so one thing to note in the definitions um and I've got it in the comments but PDF to print out the comments is you have some of these defined already but they're not quite the same so we just need to resolve so one of the ways I've done that is rather than having all of the definitions go to the main definition section if there's something I tend to prefer that all the definitions be in the main definition section but because this is the MBTA communities that um in some cases there are some definitions that you might not want to apply everywhere else so for example I have some clients where multif family is defined already but and they've got Zoning for that but it's slightly different than the multif family in here and so we haven't wanted to same thing with some of the affordability requirements and all of that so I think we just need to go through and Mark you and I and just double check what can go in the main section and what you might still want to be in this section only well I was wondering if we were modifying section two would that be a 2 third uh vote I um and th I think it so and therefore we need it we probably need to keep the relevant definitions in this section and leave the others for another day but we need to we unless there's a conflict we we've been doing so I've had a couple of zoning pieces that have gone through where it's exactly the structures you've got like four different pieces of the zoning that you're modifying but because it's all for the purpose of housing that their town councils have deemed the the simple majority so as I've said before we need to just check with Town Council so if it goes into one Artic so my thought was this it's one article one article Artic one is the new section yeah and and you know and you have different pieces we've done this before of course it all has to be two3 in the past but you're modifying a whole series of different sections of the zon in order to make some new District work right and so I my thought was although I'm not the town's lawyer my thought is if it's all in one article and we need to make adjustments to other things to make it work okay then it all should fall under so and that's what we've been doing in other places make a recommendation for optic sake we don't leave off of the marijuana yeah no we I was just doing it in the order that it was in your Z yes I'm fine with putting it at the end at the very end well on the Quantum of vote issue I mean it's really going to come down to making that determination before we have our public hearings and making that clear and then also making sure that our town moderator is absolutely clear on it um right because I have watched uh just clips of some of the Town meetings and there's just been this confusion with some of them and one the Town Council stood up and said well you're changing the zoning map so no that needs to be a which is completely wrong but we just want to avoid all of that kind of that is for sure point and our town moderator is is more experienced at dealing with non zoning issues so yeah agree zoning meetings have been Town meetings have been a challenge yes and he and I have had some interesting conversations about the Quantum of pH so I think we just need to make sure it might be a pre meeting ear not just the the Sunday before but like several weeks so I I'm wondering if at the next version if we should uh ask Town Council to take a look at it so that because I think that in the past that has been a question in the public hearing as Council reviewed this and even though um even before it goes to um the state so that we get some and and the moderator as well perhaps um and then so that's just one thought the other question I've had I have maybe no one here knows maybe it's a is there any way to dissuade or Pro you know sort of present an article so it's an all or nothing kind of thing so it can't be amended there's no way to do that Manchester tamy likes to amend things so and then you know it's a house of cards right you take out one uh piece of the district or one density the whole thing is going to collapse because it won't comply I have seen um trying to remember who it was I might have to go back to my notes I think there's been a few communities that have done it as an up or down vote because the problem is the compliance mod right if you amended on the floor town meeting and you amend the wrong thing right you may now be out of compliance I mean you can explain that to to the meeting but um for sure and um but so what happens with that is people say I can't imagine that it's that the model is that sensitive to 30t versus 35t whatever you know and and a reasonable person would agree yeah but I mean and I can sit there and say you know I can give you a sheet beforehand or however we're doing it when we get to town meeting is these are the things that if you change it on the floor of to me I did have I did have somebody ask me um what happens if they want to take change the geography on the floor and I said no no no bad bad and they said can we caning but we I I looked at the model it looks fine we can just run it on the floor of town meeting I'm like oh my God yeah no wait how many nights is your town meeting because you could table it to like the sixth night yeah so no that I don't I don't believe that one over well so um the others you would at least need to know is this likely to change compliance or not so so a question on that is let's say the worst happens okay and then we have to correct it is it a change that's significant enough that we're not barred for two years from bringing it again right yeah exactly oh it's only a planning board bring that's right okay few sorry I'm getting all the ISS mied up if we try to argue that it can't be amended the people who are arguing that we should put it on the ballot are going to say well if it can't be amended you know it's an up or down put it on the ballot well there the two-year thing should apply because they've already tried that yeah that provision was General bylaw and not a zoning bylaw doesn't matter it's still a zoning issue it was a zon it was May not argue about that okay thank you um I think but I think you know that's where first of all you've done a great job at at getting a lot of information out I think it becomes the approach to town meeting right it's you know what information has to get out and maybe some of that is the this is why you shouldn't be changing this on the floor do you have an objection to this now before we get onto the floor of town meeting because we'd really like to hear it you have time because you know you you've got a schedule so while this is going to hlc you have time to continue to talk to people thinking about oh we thought we were getting three months off we're we're thinking about a town meeting with um 900 people or more yes yeah um 00 yeah um um cuz Allen is concerned um I forgotten one of the towns recently Rockport Rockport had a 600 show up yeah and yeah they're moderated in amazing job rockport's bigger than we are oh yeah like 8,000 really or 9,000 yeah we so they only had 600 so we that sounds well this also has to be the only thing on about on yes I can't do that either yes you can no we can't yes you can if somebody comes up with a citizen petition and if the town has a financial issue that needs to be meetings but this will probably be the only zoning thing I hope so yes uh yes I'm not planning on not yeah even if there are even if there are things to fix there are another day L yes that'll be another day okay are we kind done with all this yes yes I would say I got clear Direction com Mr G have a couple [Music] we have on the attic floor appears that he's demol one half to the and his build a shallow surface with the DOR from one end of the room to the other thereby I'm sure violating the three sorry two and a half story building room the resti however the purposes of converting an existing building for 4 A purposes it might be worthwhile considering changing that requirement in order to create more living space in the same basic footprint provided a civil engineer will agree with nominal pitch to The Rope on the third floor which would exceed the LI another come to mind I see speak on and new hiding houses [Music] yeah we might have if it's feasible sto these and chase them to existing building um perhaps with a covered passageway to [Music] preserve the others suggest is special town meeting that all the citizen residents of the town be given an the thumel noses the state government and say we don't want 40a as milon has [Music] done we can we can the town does not have to vote for this they can all vote against it if they want there will be repercussions however and we should be aware of them if we say we're not going to comply and and one of the repercussions might be that the state comes in and does the zoning for us so would you rather have us put the Z together or would you rather have some court appointed Master do our wait till see what happens with those we're not going to know before meeting what happens with the rock C suit approve their town they approved it press from the get-go you have been trying to scare the public with the lawsuit piece and we need to let the public speak speak at the Town Meeting thank you of course of course the public can speak at the town meeting everyone's going to have a right to speak that's what town meetings are are there any other public comments um see is it possible yeah can you see if there's any hands raised um there's one shot which I can there are no hands raised No Hands raised okay thank you and and someone spoke out SAR Sarah Pierce thank you okay I guess I move weour Mr over there next Thursday we have the public forum schedule the following Monday excuse me Tuesday the 28th tentatively we have for the planning board to vote to send this to the select board so that they can review and possibly send it to the uh state for their review um later that week after the select board meeting because the select board need to vote to send it for review does the committee want to have and it's going to be tight to find a time to meet either before or after the the no before after next Thursday 23rd 23rd would it make sense to delay the presentation to the cyc we can we could we could delay it two weeks ready you know if if I mean it is a bit rushed but that was what we said knowing that we might put it off so well my thought was if we invited the select board to the for Forum um on next 20 on the 23rd that at least they would have an opportunity to start to come up to speed I'm not I'm much less concerned about the select board not being up to speed because i' I've made an effort to keep them up to knowing what's going on I'm more concerned that what we have here now is not final it's not ready isn't ready so maybe we maybe we put it off for two week and and and we get the material to the select board a week ahead of time so that we don't end up spending Sunday night until midnight readings because that makes us scratchy the thing is I I would at least my opinion and and you can disagree with me and for sure if you want um that the intent that this is a um a vote of intent to so that it it's yes that we're that this is directionally the right thing that we authorize the task force and the planning board or whomever to make you know small modifications to further improve it and you know it's really a um living doc living a little bit of a living document this isn't the final going to the warrant a different thing so I think it's intentional to say we support the sending of this to hlc H hlc um that's at least what I would Envision is that you know that this working draft is going to hlc for their input and that we'll continue to work on it and that's the vote that we'd be looking for rather than word Smith trying to Wordsmith this by the by um Mid June deadline so that that would be my thought is that's the kind of vote that we'd be looking for but I don't know if that's if is there a specific format that a vote needs to take to to um to send it no because it's a it's basically it's an informal review so I haven't seen uh I haven't seen to date anything that specifies prod basically saying it's check this out right authorizing the planning board and the task the town whomever to send it for informal rep so the format of this is the Town Administrator would send a letter saying that there's a there's an application form online that basically says we're asking for pre-approval we should get that application yeah I think there's a pdf version of it and so you're sending the model you're sending the Z excuse me there's a hand raised oh it's mine you're welcome you have a meeting scheduled on May 30th um so you have um everything you need for a room reserved on May Thursday May 30th that helps you at all would yeah that's why I asked the question because I didn't feel that really was ready to ask the planning board to vote to send it to the select board on the 28th it's a bit Rush yeah so and we have no we have a lot to do on the 20 so yeah and yeah exactly so um okay looking at the calendar we do have a public forum next week we should be able to have have every all the drafts completed and sent out to um this group by the end of that week so that on the 30th we could do another round of review including the design guidelin so the first part should be rather quick which is what we did tonight and the design review might take a little bit longer and then the planning board will meet on the 10th of June at which time they would vote unless they felt comfortable on the 30th but vote to submitted to the select board for the 17th that does give another week just in case this committee needs to meet again there a week in between if I hope there's time to post a for meeting for the 23rd 23rd yeah next THS Thursday yeah Monday to have them come to the inviting them I see I see um what has been our practice is if it happens that a forum is present at a at a meeting of another committee we just say okay go talk but this is not one where I want to have us have us not talk yeah Gail would you remind me or remind somebody I'll I'll remind GA a Debbie would be the one who would be setting it up but I can I can do that I I just I do something else on Mondays okay I I'm another scheduling um for the planning board 7 o'clock with the select board on Monday for a a review of the applicant for the open slot and I know you're gonna be um not there so have a no so the meeting on the 3D goes to the 17th probably something inun there's [Music] LS can you meet here Monday you might be able to zoom in no the middle oh you be driving yeah okay that's fine well maybe I'll talk to Mary and see if she's if not we'll push we have to push up for only then till the 23rd the 23rd unless we could the select board could vote and we could vote at our next meeting we have to have it by self signaling that's the issue yeah well we've already adti for the 20 days I know so unless planning board and the select board put it on the next Thursday's agenda and meet 15 minutes earlier to discuss that one item are you gonna be yes I can be before that person can be appointed they have to take the ethics they can take it so you know no that's will not swear you in unless you've taken that ethics well that's a different that's a different problem well it goes to the timing yeah but the the the that's a problem that can be solved the Quorum problem is the key we we'll have to figure that out so let's post it on the 23rd and on the 20th let's put it on the agenda for the 23rd in case the 23rd in case on the 20th we don't have a forum but you're not gonna be here on the 23rd probably I can do the 23rd but I just need to know what time because I gotta get back early so we're well 6:30 will be the joint meeting but we can do the appointment 15 minutes or well we could do it fine I can make it work I you just need to have it on to other members and be in touch well um we need a full board soon okay oh if we did on the 21st then we the Quorum issue go the 23rd the quum issue goes away it's easier to get a quorum we'll have yeah have an an an elected person assuming that they get through like um all right we may have to take two votes you guys vote and then we vote Mo weour yeah play board uh motion to adjourn so move favor everybody