##VIDEO ID:OpnBE0VlEQQ## yes I'm here um all right um I'm G to call the meeting to order we are going to have to be very disciplined about only one person speaking at a time because of the audio and the um important um so we'll try to um run this through uh us to um so I'm going to call the meeting of the planning board for October uh 7th to or um take a roll call vote Gordon Brewster here Peter Morton here maryy here s fil here Sarah kraton's here and Chris only here uh Laura Tenny is out um okay I'm gonna call the meeting of the task for order and again we'll do a roll call Richard Smith here melish here let's see Denny Hall here Sandy returner here here here the chairman okay we're both in business great um so the purpose of tonight's meeting is to review the MBTA zoning language in anticipation of hosting a um public hearing tomorrow for October 28th um and um that's the primary purpose um for us tonight so um you all received a letter the copy of the letter from uh the executive office of Housing and living livable communities I think there were four material points um Mark you want to just respond to those four points okay so first uh item out here the first item had to do with ESS use so we had called out in the um in the draft bylaw um that certain accessory uses um for specifically for Bieber Dam District uh would require special permits schools fitness centers Community rooms um and uh those are kind of often typical accessory uses for large uh residential development so they felt it really should kind of essential components and it should be called out as a special permit requirement so we remove that uh the other uh the next uh question that they had had so we just um discuss uh can we just discuss each of those in turn sure um so it's section three in that in the Bible number 81 L 81 on thank you so I thought a little bit about this um and Sarah maybe you can help us on this one Swimming Pools by the underlying zoning do require a special permit so uh from the zba so it seems to me that that would still high except the zba would rather not have special permits for swim well that's a different so we don't see that as and if it's a big thing if it's an indoor swimming pool it doesn't need a special CL right right but the fact is that today if you were building 80 units in beaverdam Road and wanted to SP an outdoor swimming pool you would need to get a special permit from the zba so that one's kind of moot right yes because and we had changed it to planning board for that District No you removed it right so it would just be they would still have to go for a special permit because it applies throughout the town right and it's not full of a structure but we don't call it out specifically which is what they were concerned about so we just REM so then the second two which is the community facility and the recre fitness center arguably those don't fall under the definition of multif family right so arguably there would be some site plan review discussion um around that and so again I feel like I personally having thought about that seemed like we are um protected because the multif family definition doesn't say multif family plus Community Center in actuality they may be making the restrictions for Beaver Dam more strict You could argue well I think by taking it out it just goes under s plan right goes under s okay any other comments from I just want to make a Clarity on the swimming pools we don't allow swimming pools Neil CD currently um for the CBA approval it's a new that's because we don't allow residential well but so so in effect by taking it out they can't have a at this point in time probably technically you're right but we're responding to their respond respect to special okay any other comments on that one all right uh number two was uh number two is uh in the Beaver Dam Road sub District uh when they looked at the maps it doesn't show the road extending all the way to the property now although we don't have a frontage requirement for that District they pointed out well they wanted to make sure that it has legal access so I did go onto the registry and look up and I think I forwarded to everybody is the easan plans that were um recorded at the registry for right of access to that property and uh so that it does exist so those that information will be forwarded to the state when we submit our uh final version for approval from El hlc okay and the thir ask is that I didn't look at it is that in perpetuity uh it's in the deed yeah yeah the deed says in perpetuity I think that probably he bought the two pieces of land at different times my only question is is does the deed say easement in perpetuity I don't know I don't know it's a eight page document so um it's shown on a plan if it's included in the deed you don't have restrictions in the deed as the link of am easement like that okay a third issue I mean there is there's got to be language that pertains specifically to these I think to Mary's point should be Inu so usually it's the other way around if an easan is only granted for a certain length of time say what the length of time is otherwise you're granting as like our grants acrosses property he's granting those rights and per that's uh just like if he gives me a deed I get the deed of all of the property and everything that's described so that it's it would be only if there's something in the easement that accepts it for a certain length of time right so so if there's nothing in that easement so you have the deed to submit to the state also uh not that I didn't pull up the de but well I think you probably need to submit both the deed and the yeah I think I think it's from the 70s it's you have to go back to several I looked at it yeah okay so we feel in your professional judgment that we're fine on that one yes okay thank you on the ne and then the next one uh the next one had to do with the submission of the economic feasibility analysis so we did not submit the economic feasibility analysis when we submitted the draft Zoning for review and our draft zoning said 20% affordable so the state since then we've received the economic feasibility analysis which does justify the 20% so that will be submitted along with our um only work did that include the sample projects I'd have to look okay assuming that rkg has done these for a number of communities only assume that they had some performance in it pres we go yes yeah performance scenarios 80 units 100 units they have also in the back here so okay great and then the the fourth comment I had just with an acknowledgement that we only uh uh need to uh zone for 559 units not 585 so um so that's and that was there for okay great any um comments or discussion on the letter great thank you um so now the next item is uh to review and finalize uh I think finalize is of a finalize MVP Z language for the public hearing is the intention here this is to um have a have a um version that we will take to the public hearing on October 28th and um it's not the final language for the warrant so we might get comments or we might still review things or have otheres so Mark did you I think we were gonna Mark and I decide we would work from the everybody's had the redline version for a while um that we would work from the clean copy so that we can kind of walk through it um and so [Music] you are here unfortunately I can't share it with everyone well it's posted online right yes it is on online um great thank you um I'm going to take this um one uh section at a time and um details are important so we may have to make sure that we get these um uh correct um so the first is simply the TIC uh article um language um inserting a new section 9.4 and amending the section 2.0 definitions by inserting new definitions and incorporating amending the zoning map um to incorporate the community housing overlay District Maps um any comments on that section okay um so let's take uh section um 9.4.1 through uh through the definitions anybody have any um comments now don't forget this has been reviewed by uh executive office of Housing and live liable communities presumably they read it carefully um but we we also should read it carefully um in 9.4.2 can you um give us line numbers need to speak up for the I'm going to need my special hold on on line 7 does the inclusion of or by special permit need to go since we've taken away uh special in the bber dam um I mean their permits I I don't know how the uh Conservation Commission and Water Resource District and all that are characterized I those are special permits I would those are other permits but I would leave it in because there are a few special permits that aren't for the housing but are for other uses in those districts so I would that Chelsea letter say um for the accessory structures for the accessory uses allowed as a right that we couldn't do that yes didn't say that but that doesn't mean we can't have special permit [Music] well let's say the zoning was amended in the future to require a special permit for any particular use then look at 94 look at line 81 and we have access section accessory uses by permit right so we need to leave that special permit no it says here or access for or accessory structs for accessory uses Allowed by right in other subd districts other words if it's allowed by right you can't require a special permit for it but if it's something that is a special permit in other districts you can require a special permit for it as long as it's not related to the housing s ah okay for use as a restructured accessory to multif family housing so we can't require a special permit for an accessory structure correct we don't today okay I just when we get to those that section okay are these uh the district names are correct now let's make sure and that they align with the math you'll double check that I have some comments on the definitions let's just make sure the def names of districts are correct okay um definitions Mary go ahead so uh line to Affordable units um we already defined that in our definition from 2.0 in our zoning B and it's different so and that's the same with affordable housing so I don't know why we're Reed defining it here doing that if it's if it's different enough that it needs to have a different definition for this particular section definition zoning is pretty slim is what pretty slim it also is affordable housing we Define we do not aine Define an affordable unit um we um in the in the 2.0 definitions we do not well our 2 .0 definition is a little strange because the term is affordable housing and then the definition is a dwelling unit available for rental so or sound what that oh I just didn't read the whole thing yeah just just for rental so I guess my original point is I I don't know why we're doing different definitions in different places and then if if we don't have affordable unit in 2.0 um good and then this affordable unit says a multifam housing unit so you could have an affordable unit that's our 2.0 that is not a multif family right and I think the point here is that this this definition is for the purposes of section 9.4 so um therefore a multi it would be a multif family unit not yeah at some point in the future you can always true up those definitions right um so and I with affordable unit I would ensure that it represents as the Shi um as our affordable housing definition in 2.0 does because we want these on the Shi we sure do but but but I will tell you getting on the Shi is like getting into a you know Baseball Hall of Fame prough you can put that in your zoning defin do them 2.0 it says it's subject to a use restriction recorded in its chain of title that makes it eligible for Shi that's the requirement to make it eligible for Shi so think but you can't require that it be on Shi because that the town has to apply for that okay then we should change it in 2.0 but that's for future yeah okay so um maybe we can just uh put that on can we just put that on a list it we may need to just get Council to confirm that that this uh that it's okay to have these two different definitions we're not going to slightly different okay um other comments on um other definitions um so same with multif family housing you have a definition in 2.0 [Music] um and in the 2.0 definitions we clarify that they must be substantially connected to the other with fire separation assemblies such as walls or floors so I think either we need to do the same definition here or we just fall back to the 2.0 definition well we have we have to use the hlc's definition we can't use that definition it was Pur I think Town Council pointed that out but we had to have yeah it's different so as a question so do they have to share a firewall or we have different standards in different parts of towns different parts of the town for multi family it sounds like we have different standards because it can just be units on different levels and I don't believe un the fire code requires firewalls I mean the fire code might require it I don't know yeah that was a big thing in recodification so I'm curious why they don't um okay um on line 47 it says for the compliance guidelines it says um at the last it's as as further revised or amended from time to time so are we saying that we could be voting in MBTA zoning and the state could change the guidelines and then since we're in MBTA Community we just have to abide without going to town meeting V how are the guideline how are the compliance guidelines referenced in the zoning says here compliance guidelines for mot the zoning districts under 3A of the zoning Act rise so what this is appears to be saying is compliant guidelines that may be referenced elsewhere in the bylaw are the particular guidelines that are under Section 3 the zoning act so this is just saying that that's what compliance guidelines that there're elsewhere in here is referring to so this doesn't say that we have to I agree with Mary that this is saying we have to agree to any changes and I think we should delete that Clause no this is saying further revised or amended from time to time and it's referring to section 3A of the zoning act it's not referring to our bylaws but this is only the definition of compliance guidelines it isn't saying anything that you we have to abide by it we have to follow it there maybe um I don't even know if we have anything else in here that refers to the so you're saying it's just giving meaning to if the phrase compliance guideline is used this is saying to what it refers so there is no period I'm reading uh we waivers the only place where the words compliance guidelines Up is on 502 on the applicant request and subject to compliance with the compliance guidelines the site plan Authority May weigh the requirements of this section for9 94.9 and that's the only place that I just did a search Y and compliance guidelines only comes up there so presumably if the compliance guidelines are in the statute we would have to follow them anyway if they are amended no not necessarily we do to our Zoning for changes in the in the state zoning act we don't automatically change our bylaws because the zoning act changes right no but we do have to comply with state law even if our zoning is is Contra we as an amendment to our Bible Yeah so basically what the waiver is saying is that someone wants a waiver from the planning board Tak can granted as long as it doesn't violate the guidelines so as the guidelines change you riew the next development so I think the question that is being asked is can we strike as further revised and amended from time to time right so I think that's a question for Council I mean I think even if it they referring to the guidelin if the guidelines changed they change still are I think you ask Town Council I think that is if that's the case I think it's an important thing to highlight that once this is voted in because we've seen that the state has revised the guidelines already that we are then beholden to what the state changes so we might vote in 15 units per acre now but it could change to 20 units and then we have to abide by that no I think the only place that our zoning says we have to apply I think the only place that this zoning says that we have to apply with compliance guidelines is in SEC is in under waivers that's the only place that our zoning references that's a name it doesn't really have any I just think this is a can of try to eliminate La okay I think we can ask um Council about that because we've never our bylaws the only time are we have to change things because of a change in the state law or case law is through the granting of special permit we don't do anything by right changes due to changes in the state code but we do have places in our zoning that are contrary to state law right that we cannot but it's the changes are made during special permit process not through but for example the water protection district says that there should be no anrs in the water protection district that's not Li that's not illegal right but anyway I think this is a definition you know you don't you don't have to adhere to the guidelines that they amend them from time to time you you have a separate choice to make but it's simply it's simply making reference to the initial uh body of what was presented and then they may choose to amend it we may choose not to agree right we'll ask Council about that all right other um definition comments um oh 61 subdistrict I just had a question what sub District allows a different use it says the rest of the district by by use or dimensional different differentiated from the rest of the district by use use by one of the three use standards guess the point is they're all allowing multi family actually the Beaver Dam one is slightly different in terms of use because it's that's not a sub it doesn't say that it's different by use it say by Difference by use or dimensional standards or developmental standards and they're definitely different by those three m is it material it says from the rest of the district by use or or these other things okay fine I just didn't think we had different uses um I the only other thing is I would recommend that we put in a definition as I've seen in many other towns for what a half story is that seems to be a um a talking point in town for sure and I think other towns clarify it with you know its roofs certain amount of height I believe that is in our in our definitions here in our in ouros there a definition which is at the height ofet two3 of the sare footage of the okay so that would apply here as well um and the next actually the next um I'm sorry go on any any more definition comments it's not in definitions it's later yeah okay so uh comments on permitted use and actually this is an example of where the subd districts differ by by use where in B by 68 the CH districts that overlay the General District non-residential uses latter the right com the faulty family hous that's an example of a subdistrict that has a different use than other districts just to Circle back to the prior com I have a question if um could somebody clarify underground parking Allowed by rights and are we allowing laughting for one level two levels what what's the what are we allowing because we're not triggering an earth removal bylaw or swim or well blasting is a removal blasting within the existing General and and and uh zoning bylaws are allowed whether you're building a house or a shed or a any structure any structure so um how would that be different for a for um par parking structure that is set into B um I think that if you look down at a line number 118 it says the structured parking shall be allowed only in Newport pohouse District or beaverdam District structured parking I'm talking about the underground by right parking that's the structured parking you know PR things this says parking including surface parking and parking within a structure Sy attached or detached above ground or underground parking so I'm just trying to get a sense of what types of underground parking are we allowing so is there a problem with underground and asking what typ of underground parking we're allowing are allowing so you could go two levels down if you wanted to wouldn't that be a structured parking uh well we Define structured parking as um no structured parking is above ground above ground ground and above to find in the next section so okay so we have no limits on underbound park that's my question no cost cost cost yes cost um that's not entirely true there are um there are requirements that uh structures be a certain depth a certain distance from uh mean mean uh groundwater levels sure there' be a whole bunch of environmental things right so and that pretty much that's what Mary's asking Mary's asking is there any limit in this law no but there are plenty [Music] of underground parking is a good way to reduce height and reduce Mass okay um I have another question um why would customary home occupation be allowed as a right in all the districts except for be d uh because primarily um a lot of people probably if that gets developed have 20 30 unit building so sure that not impacting your neighbors above Below on either side susp reasonable things for so our home occupation definition is customary home occupations including photographers artists home cooking dress making millonary hairdressing software developers other similar occupations by a person resident on the I think that thought was in a large if you had a large development and somebody you know had a lot of traffic a lot of foot traffic in and out or coming dropping off supplies or that kind of thing yeah because it includes things that could have a lot of you customers coming in out deliveries coming in and out most we had two different isues one is off allow that a under certain conditions and then have home occupation what the more impactful we don't have that yet and we're not rewriting your zoning right now just trying to work on so I guess I to me that would make more sense if we did it by you know 30 unit building but in the LCD it could be three town houses connected you know and having 20 of those right so that's no different than development elsewhere in town but then wouldn't the planning board just issue that special permit without a lot of push well but I I exactly so I don't see why it wouldn't why would we require a special permit if it was the same so that it also covers a larger go and it it still would be a very even if it's develop it would be a densely develop area again these are things that we can you know address at a future time and change and really wouldn't affect um viability of this bylaw b m family housing the other thing we've done an acccessory use to your earlier Point Mary customary home occupation conducted and dwelling by persons residing on the premises is currently not allowed in the LCD and thus we wanted to expand that with some guard rails barel which is not like anything else in town right or anything else in our zoning so right clearly an outlier right it's the fact that they're not it's not allowed in section the table or use table okay um any other uh discussions around four 9.4.3 okay let's take the dimensional requirements I guess the question is um first Mark you you made a few changes from the prior version um you want just run those run explain those prior version are as a result of um the we made the CH five pars done common CH five pars that were in the um Newport and how to house subdistricts um removed those into the lower p district which means there is a change in the in the number of units on those five Parcels so what happens is we get a loss of 14 un so in order to make up those units I made a small adjustment to the um uh Beach and C Street districts and the Allen to Lincoln Street District some of these changes already discussed and are in um uh on our our you have a chart where we riew the districts um and couple but they weren't in this bylaw so what we did is we changed the first floor base unit from 2500 sare ft of land necessary um to 2,000 square ft of land necessary and then we still have our 2,000 square ft of land necessary for units three two three four Etc so basically we just changed lot size to 6,000 square ft and for those uh three areas the Beach Street subd District the CC sub district and the Allen Lincoln so what that does is we pick up 15 units we actually oh so we actually the net is one unit so um that's uh the change the chart here so we going to get a new chart that shows the yes I've already big should have it yeah yeah I did not send it out I want to not send it out until after tonight but I will send out a new chart which will have the adjusted so a new one of these yes the impact of this is pretty subtle because it just changes a few Parcels correct I look through in look at those and from my point of view it was kind of a non-issue there were most the condos um although it did increase the density down there on Brook somewhat but have a better idea so as you think about the goals that we set forth is in trying to keep that um those couple of parcels in the scale um of the of the neighborhood that's correct was it was specifically the comments about the height on Pine Street because the two properties are ones that are directly in front of Park Street and people were concerned about that extra ttin to hide correctly on P Street so those two houses were removed are just in the regular M Street district and then the um the height looking across Sal Brook from all the neighborhood along School Street and then they're going to be looking at buch T building so what we did those three pars put it in the Pine Street District so it goes back to the regular height that currently exists and so that's where we lose each property lose you know one two three units so that's why we needed to make up Mark are you saying that we made these changes in response to public input yes yes we did specifically regarding okay any other comments on that thank you Mark on the table uh the dimensional standards um table um so I see you reduced the height from four to 3 in two districts yes that was the other but the the same the he St the same but we would it from four stories to three and a half which means it falls under the definition of a half story now which means still have Beats but you don't have you can't do a full 10 foot over theability because might be 45 rather than your whole it changes the massing of changes roof makes yeah but none a box you it would be hard to get a story box it would be uniformly it's typical around town of how people get to three stories which is they do Dormers and mans grps change again it's a it's a it's consistent with a goal of the aesthetic and the architectural okay and it did did not affect the density because still build on that okay thank you um comments on the lot coverage and setbacks um do we have a definition for Bas lot size it's minimum lot size we B lot size we have a definition B size zoning defition we might want to add that to our definition section what you see s the back the definition yes so it do does the um MBTA zonings have a Bas or regulations have a definition for Basel I would guess they do somewhere by the way as is also includ that's just y like you don't the base lot size for first unit at all you can just have additional lot area l no that's only because of the fact that you made them the same number well these are the numbers that will be used by anyone who is Computing the number of units that they can build on a particular parts and these terms cause confusion within our group we were first discussing and so I would question what people are going to make of them adding a defition of those two B size the lot area what about calling it first unit lot size but but it's not it's very to me it's very misleading so then we should definely yeah it's a number that it's a phrase that exists only for the computation of the number of unit to go into a dra that's the only reason it exists does have anything to do with for building would have to do and then he does it to check it yeah so is it in the state code building code no all you're doing is taking the total total size of your lot dividing it by 2,000 to figure out how many units you can have it's as simple as that well not exactly you're taking your parcel you're taking away unit one lot remember Beaver Dam's different right and you can't just divide by the 2,000 because Beaver D's different well Beaver D you subtract out the 4,000 divide the balance by 3,000 correct it's not very complicated but it may be confusing but the this Waring is confusing yeah so let's add a definition of those two um that is clearer for the purposes of this I don't think we need to do it tonight we think we do that before we um we're including additional lot area because I that it's at least as confusing as the first on the ones that don't have maximum delling units are we saying that there's no Max what could be built except for what the lot size allows exactly so do we have though even in the modeling like what's the max for every lot so why I guess why don't we have a Max on these other ones because they didn't run into it was an issue it were smaller Lots because the max depends upon the Lots on the parcel size so you can't put a maximum in for the others a parcel that is two acres has a different Max and parcel that's one acre the only reason that you put in the limit of five and four is to force a particular District to have a maximum building size and if we were to put that into these others it would break the uh density completely back so for instance Brook Street um that's all one lot and if you had a maximum number of of units you wouldn't be able to count all the units that are there same thing as true for Summer powderhouse Lane Sawmill Circle so if you had a lot that was 24,000 square feet yep could you subdivide it into four lots for 6,000 and you could do five five5 no it depends on you only do three units on 6,000 it's the smaller of that Max number and the calculation from the base lot and additional l size so a 6,000 foot lot would never be more than three even if the maximum size for that District was five okay so you could do 3 three three no okay if they have the frontage the FR frage and all the other okay so not that it's misleading but so we're not looking at okay 24,000 square feet you can only build five we're looking at what could you subdivide that two and the max will be three well that's a conversation we need to have I think people need to understand that because they might look at these Lots going up and down Pine or wherever and say oh okay at least we know only five could go there but really on some of them says the max is like 13 I've made the suggestion that we should put another clause in with respect to subdivide and point back to the original underlying something underlying Zoning for subdivision yes correct is that in that's not in here no that was my suggestion maybe yesterday I think well then that bumps it to not by right no it doesn't yeah okay so let's stick with the um the tables I think we we've suggested that we um need to add a definition of base lot size and additional lot area um uh lines 90s and then we will come back to this topic maybe right after this um uh 90 lines 93 through1 yeah so I go back to line 105 and I believe that we had agreed to increase the maximum height for accessory structures to 25 fet like it is did we skip over the the chart I asked if there were any other com so it's our 2.0 definition for height the same as height here yes okay it's it's the lesser of Two and a Half stories or 35 ft accessory dwellings are the lesser of one and a half stories no no no how you how you measure height yeah yeah yeah average average me okay so uh Sarah's um common accessory structures shall not exceed 20 feet from the ground or one and a half stories so you say in our on our underlying zoning it's 25 ft yes and we've discussed it at two prior meetings of AG to make CH it just missed it out okay out of the final so 25 feet from the ground or one and a half stories yeah okay so that's aligning it with our existing Zing any anybody object to that any other comments on um lines uh 92 to 121 yeah 108 through 109 we had agreed to delete the Clause of and do not constitute more than 25% of the ground Fort area yeah you're right we don't have that in okay strike and do not constitute more than 25% but then I'd say we in our we have a limit of 10 or 15 ft so we should put that here and spiders Etc I don't know I there's aight oh there is yeah so why yeah we should okay so not exceed 10 right so limitation the height of building shall not apply to chimneys ventilation or Towers or other ornamental features of of uh buildings that shall not exceed when we do 10 feet that's 10 feet from the roof going up okay above the [Music] roof Peak roof okay all right any other comments on that section going to I'm sorry say that again I can what line are you through 121 um nothing um okay let's um where we should take up your comment um there about the the vision of land I think so rest gets pretty quickly we're getting into well let's finish with parking and we'll talk about that your suggestion so off street parking section 122 to 132 so what do we do we not specify I don't think we probably will get much but for um multi use mixed use um paring I think it's dictated by the number of this section is dictated by the number of multi family dwelling units but we wouldn't require any more well mixed jues mixed juice p okay because I thought that this referenced the 6.1 and then that was taken away and so I'm just it's just unknown that it goes back to that this is actually just we decided I think what we decided is that by referencing 6.1 6.1 change then the parking requirements in this section would change and so that we should list them separately so that the so it's deliberately um that even if 6.1 changed um to that this would um I think we did take out the reference to 6.1 and and multi-use is not allowed by right right okay any other com this section of the zone so that kicks it back into it is in the General District 9.44 point1 districts that overl the General District non-residential uses allow as right maybe [Music] comb but in the general yes there is no parking so there's a restriction on parking yeah I just want to make sure we're bouncing back to our 6.1 commercial use would require any nonch I mean this spe specifically says parking for residential units yes the underlying yes I think you would refer I think the commercial use would be this lengthy able um okay Sarah do you want to bring up before we get to site plan review because I think um your question about the division of your suggestion um the division of units right how would we that so questions people have raised questions about subdividing Lots particularly on Pine Street and how many units you could have um and under our existing Zone zoning Pine Street is District a and then it's overlay with D2 within 100 feet of the street so if you're more than 100 feet from the street you're at 22,500 foot for a lot if you're within 100 ft at 6,00 000 square feet per lot but under the existing zoning in order to build a two family home which is what's allowed in D2 there had to be an existing structure on the lot on May 6th of 1991 so therefore it made no you couldn't divide a lot because the second lot wouldn't be buildable because it didn't have an existing structure so you were really Limited to the existing Frontage of the lot and the frontage for district a is 150 ft the frontage for Zone here and in D is is 60 feet so my question was well can't we say that if a lot is to be subdivi a lot that's subdivided must be in accordance with the minimum lot and Frontage requirements of the underlying zoning District wouldn't that already be the case no I don't think so if you div if you came and divided it um if you have separate regulations for Frontage and loot size in an overlay District those see what the underly district so we have 60 and 6,000 that's why we have I and so that would supersede the underline dist right and I I personally wasn't thinking that way so to me it's an unintended consequence what about other situations in which a S Division might make a difference like don't we have we have a maximum un size over on Sea Street as well right only a maximum right it's right yeah it's it's the Pine Street and the Sea Street which would be impacted right but does Pine Street Pine Street I think only has about two yacht two lots MH that have enough Frontage to create two unit two lots because You' need 120 ft of Frontage to create two lots no matter what size your property is um now the so there's 34 Pine which could be divided into two lots um 30 Pine interestingly is on the corner of deerhill road and it doesn't have the Frontage on Pond but it has the frontage on de de road to go to three lots do that do do we we don't have a rule that says the frontage must be on the Main Street no no the rule we have is you must meet Frontage requirements on both streets oh and the reason is is because the frontage requirements are more stringent than side and rear setb okay or then s okay so where would I think there's agreement that that's a good um I mean the state might throw it out let's um so how do that protect Street daen Street's limited to four units and I don't believe that lot has the frontage to be um subdivided it's pretty big I don't know it's 19,000 yeah but what's the frontage yeah it's so but that's in District a that top 34 to in has to have 150 Frontage to subdivide so it's a big Delta right big Delta between 60 and 150 what if they're on different streets it doesn't it's not on um SE Street there's no entrance from SE Little House owned by people across the street on C Street and there's a long narrow portion they don't have 300t there Ong the railroad track okay so how many units did you say could be developed on 30 and 34 well it depends on how you divide it um in order to maximize the space you've got to merge two lots because you could divide 34 Pine into two lots which would be 10 units instead of five three 30 you could but wait sir if you merge the two lots you can only do five right no no no if you merge the two lots and then sub them because in order to have enough square footage on 30 Pine you need the back portion of 34 Pine because 34 is a bigger lot it's very complicated yeah but doable yeah yeah so how many at 30 same to well it it could be up to three five but there's a Maxx under what we have now would be five if we make the change I'm suggesting it would be four under current zoning they could have three lots because they could take the back of 30 Pine and the back of 34 Pine and they' have the 22,500 square feet the front one was 6,000 they could do six no no no maximum five no no no under current zoning Sarah Sarah what's true under current zoning I'm very confused okay current zoning you have 34 times which in order to do a two family you have to keep the lot as it is one lot okay so you couldn't divide it into two under current Zone okay 30 Pine you you could take the the front part of that lot and subdivide it for a lot but you could only do that if you have the back of 34 that you add to the back of 30 to get the 22,500 square feet and so you could only get to three lots if you own both Lots between the two of them yes can I just ask how did you discover that did you say someone brought that somebody raised it those two lots happen to currently be owned by one person that's next question so we're trying and so somebody raised it so I sat down and I did the calculations it's really good that they did because it's an un it's a it's a hidden trick underneath this maximum lot size right you think you've got a maximum unit and there's very few lots that are covered that are impacted there is a maximum of three units per building right and so it would have to be small buildings yeah there'd have to be a big building and a small building they get to five one with three and one with two yeah yeah it wouldn't look like a 10 minut no no and it's restricted to two and a half stories yeah yeah is it a simple exercise to which Lots this affects because I think it's fair for residents to understand this I think we looked at Pine and we think those are the only two on Pine that are impacted Pine and tap ta's not impact oh tap Tapp might be too itself only has 996 TR empty lot next to it line and get that's the only just a question so that doesn't sound like it would be obscenely uh terrible if someone did that on Pine Street right I mean we are in a sense here we are after some more housing so if it happens in one place is that the end of the world I mean in that area Pine you do have you're very close to those brown buildings across the street right which have three units in each building and there's there's two buildings with three units each and then there's a building with two units I think the issue so I think you make a good point that we're not this is a house but on the other hand the intention of the task force has been counter to that right and so I think in keeping with the goal statements and the intention of the task force we should make a in that section um I even if it only affects a few livs yeah you're amping down right the concerns of residents so I'm going to suggest a amendment in the dimensional standard section try to keep us moving along here okay I think it will Beed what line are you okay um I'm thinking it will be uh renumbered in the dimensional standard section does that make sense Mark that will say I want to make it an affirmative rather than a negative the division of property Lots in any chod shall meet the minimum lot size and Frontage requirements of the underlying zoning District say it again please the division of property Lots in any chod shall meet the minimum lot size and Frontage requirements of the underlying zoning districts where does this go it'll go somewhere in section uh 9.4.1 I would suggest we kind of reorder these because it would probably go after four or something so it's minimum size and fr go yeah um yeah that's great because that's what we I mean trying consistent with what we were trying to do correct okay any other any um I have a question it was a friend of guards that raised those give him credit just look at those two lots that Mark had up here and there about I don't know maybe uh like 50,000 square feet you can take up the two lots you you put them together yeah you could subdivide that multiple different ways is what you just said with that limit the amount of development on there yes limited by the front limited by the frontage so this is on this front's on two roads so they could conceivably it' be interesting to see but this is the only one that is a situation so far to Peter's point is that a bad thing though we get a little bit of density in it's 55,000 that's 27 units well you do have access and you know remember this is a pretty stable na yeah a lot of single families and even the the wind over things that got built and it's a it's a pretty stable neighborhood and I think for us to turn our backs on the existing zoning rules it's really not not great for us and we also have in that J you Newport Park and powder house you know my point is this is this a big deal and apparently it is and I agree like that so this limitation that verbiage will limit what they can do if someone decides to buy those two properties they still will have a limitation of what they can build yes okay it's a limitation that's consistent with the character in The yeah looking at it I agree the density what thought plan was through this whole process by limiting it to five units we were saying five units on a current lot right and yeah you know and this gets it closer to that can I ask you a question though so do you need me just oh okay so you're chairs you're doing the underlying zoning a because they have a larger percentage of the L and we actually yeah we actually could say underlying zoning District debt well no because I'm just curious if there's other Lots in District D or G for that matter that you know the underlying zoning is 6,000 square feet so g g is 6,000 with um the 60 foot Frontage so it's the same as the CH yeah our zoning does say that if you are in two districts you're um the lar the the area your your most in the is the uh governing Gover yeah I'm just my question was is that there could be cases where the underlying zoning would match what this dimensional standard is and so then you could potentially subdivide and so even though we say max four or five here if you divide but the max the areas with maximums are in District a the areas without maximums are not in District a they are in General District well no but a little bit Street in A and B and C Street is in a but that's limited to four units so that we're that's a so we're we're restricting the subdivision on C Street well but I'm just saying if you if it's it's four for that but if you subdivide then you've got two fours so but you've got to have the 150 foot of Frontage under District No property in that district with this chain okay and and those lots don't I don't believe those lots have 300 feet of Frontage if they did they could have subdivided them today yeah right it only Built yeah two right right yeah thank so we've made that change thank you do you need to run no I think you're done Sarah one last question so that was discovered just uh fortunately yeah you said SE street is unlikely to have any thing that qualifies and would allow them to do that have we but C Street is also District a so it would go to the underlying zoning and and so the only way somebody could subdivide under the CH is if they could have subdivided today and the largest parcel in that district is the 34 town and it doesn't have the Frontiers with right thank you yeah so mark it seems to me where we put this I would say it goes it becomes number four and then you reum four five it's after building unit caps yeah somewhere in this list maybe just put it as or just put it as 94.5 I think there I was suggesting after line 97 well I was suggesting it as part of 9 so I'll make it number four and then re y great that was good catch Sarah okay um put from response to resident input moving um any comments on the site plan review section that is I okay so this was a question I um raised to the task force U hoping we get Town Council um input is after doing a lot of research for as of right site plan review is limited to the use and thus if the use abides by the bylaw site plan review must be accepted so the by rights goes to the building inspector um so if you still speaking sorry um there's been court cases and I can send you all the links happy to um the point being is that I think it's very important and I have a a good Town Council um review from Belmont that studied this as well for their MBTA overlay that um site plan is very limited and so when we're taking things like um the water protection overlay District in the Bieber Dam Area uh Earth removal um a touch of flood plane in the General District and we're not and storm water management we're not doing any special permitting of that there is no enforcement in the site plan for those types of things we can regulate vehicular access and and motion on a site we can look at some lighting um uh we've actually taken out the views and Vista section in here um for site plan so I think it's just very important for people to understand that site plan is not going to have a lot of say that is not true and I would love Town council's opinion on it well we can ask Town Council so the point of this is is that there are a number of um performance St standards and criteria that have to be met in doing a s plan review but if the developer doesn't provide the evidence of conformance with those requirements or if the planning board is unable appr make the findings that they're in conformance then the site plan review can't be approved so what I as I said so with the water protection um special permit Earth removal we had nothing in our site plan being force that well are these environmental issues waved by virtue of what we're doing here well not don't we still have environmental well for concom or D but we have um a we have a water resource protection overlay District so we do storm water management we do underground recharge systems in our special permit that since we're zoning in that are area we cannot do okay so that is my concern but if a site plan on its face damages the environment and or you know the drainage of the entire neighborhood are we obliged to say we don't care I don't think so well I think that's why the state encouraged towns not to zoom in those areas that we have special clarify so um essentially you can still require I was trying to point out that that they need all of the standards it's just not a special permit they don't need the standards either added as a condition to the approval or you deny it and yes you can deny site plan approval most site plans bylaws early one wereing a py plan Rie and they didn't have approval requirements they were like like we were talking about just kind of General let's look at stuff you know board would have a short time period requirements weren very stri but um if your bylaw is written well and tight um you can deny it for not basically you're saying that like Chris pointed out they have not met the performance write that in your but do you need to change this wording to say they're not required to apply for a special permit but the conditions must be met in the site plan review because I I think Mary saying so I I what I'm and I and again I've been asking for Town council's opinion on this for a long time so I'm I'm anxious to get it because other towns have hit up against this and their town councils are giving reports that say the opposite of what what is being said here so I want Clarity um I think that's very important especially when we're waving special permits I don't want residents to think that there's something if there's not um I know we've taken out in this bylaw some of the site plan um and one of them being the aesthetic standards which addresses the views and Vistas and making sure it's compatible with the neighborhood so I think I think they're just need to be a lot of clarity around C so I think that the state will not let us use special permit for this use so we have a site plan review requirement it's the only tool we have and E hlc has said that this are those three so let me so the criteria for in section 12.6.1 are include a whole bunch of things including protection of adjacent areas against detrimental or offensive uses by light sign sou sight sound dust vibration convenience and safety I'm paraphrasing adequacy facilities for handling disposing of refuge and other products environmental features resiliency and adaptation to climate change promotion of uh arrangement of structures within the site coordination Improvement of kinds of things including Wetland water courses water supply drainage and compliances with all applicable sections of this bylaw the broad that 13 procedure and submission requirements requirements 12.63 right and 1262 so that so that the site plan review section of our bylaw applies and it's while we might like to have special permit it's not allowed what I I may be dense but my concern is these sections are not in your site plan review those are sections of the bylaw that are being referenced correct 6.4 10.1 and 10.3 and it's saying you won't require a special permit but I'm saying shouldn't which is Mary what Mary said shouldn't your site plan review include includ the requirements of sections 6.4 10.1 and 10.3 so that you have the write under the site plan review to do the same review as you would but just not under a special permit I think it's done it but it doesn't hurt yeah I think that's a good idea I think that would thank you Sarah I think that would move a needle I think we need um Town council's input on and again I'm happy to send everybody the the other Town council's opinions and actually eohc saying site plan review can only go so far um so I think it for me it's a huge area of concern we we've said that we're um not including sections of our current site plan which references the general standards fiscal impact rical changes Earth removal and filling exetic standards and fysal Analysis so we're not applying any of those site plan approval sections in this so I think this becomes very light and I think a lot of people are saying in town that don't worries a Butters have will have rights and they they kind of won't so um I think that's very important to clarify okay so the sections that we should add site plan review will consider sections are we doing that I line 226 performance standards is a list of things so I think if we're going to add it we have to say doesn't it say following components this section do not apply 233 it says for the purposes of this section the criteria for granting the special permit Below in sorry okay we're good it's not in sight plan in our bylaw that's all right it's it's that's what we were trying to this is bringing it into the site plan we could still get Town Council because I don't think it has any but absent saying that the standards apply to say plan review we don't have a special permit ability so I think we're what it what other this is the strongest tool that we can use in this particular and I and I understand that and I understand its limitations and I'm I'm saying that's why the state advised not zoning in areas that would require these types of special permits so I I think we need to make sure we're covered what do you mean make sure we covered well we're doing all sorts of special permit for cell signaling which is right next door to Beaver Dam we're having um independent Consultants come in um for storm water management for um storm water um for the overlay what Water Resource protection overlay district and so one the next lot over we're saying we're not going to require any of that not that's not true because storm water is all in the general dialog so you can require Consultants on just site plan review yeah so control or uh and U storm water storm water is definitely the general bylaw so that's you can do the the exact same review it's just not a special perit just not discretionary you just can't say can I just ask a question is there an issue with just getting Town Council to review it and the only reason I ask is because Mary is citing voices in town that have an issue with this and if we're able to just deflect that by saying why wouldn't we do that already no not a review a decision of how much say site plan review will have the question is we don't have another tool I understand that but Town Council to say how much information can you ask for from applicants under site is it the same level as you can asked for under a special permit you're just not issuing a special per correct and how about since Mary's offering to send us Links of other decisions in other towns we just take a look at and decide that I mean if it's if it's a precedent that's set out there why would you just review it suggestion I will send can you um send them to Mark Mark thank you um thank you Peter uh design guidelines section 9.4.1 um a number of uh mark and um Emily made a number of in the red line copy a number of sort of editorial improvements um hopefully you review those on line C for there's a stray f your um we no longer have a 94 okay any any comments hearing none thank you um okay any um so that brings us to um 9.4.1 affordability requirements line 507 I had a question um I don't think the numbers but in 9410 what line number 523 new9 523 um I just there's a the bottom down here says um I think it was just putting a placeholder in if we were doing the 10% or the 20% would look like that and I that we've already line 533 right so that should be 20% do the building inspector could be at least right excuse me for interrupting yeah does the building inspector currently do the administration of portable housing no so this will be new for them you're not doing Administration to this I mean the the when somebody anything that requires an affordability Factor today I believe has to go through the planning Bo so it says the inspector building shall be respon admin two people asking so let's start by if it's anything that requires affordable housing plan okay um okay so my question was the section three says that the building inspector will be responsible for administering and enforcing requirs as as entire B so my understanding I think through gar is that probably a lot of paperwork a lot of followup a lot of no I I I don't think this applies to that the only thing to building inspector would be responsible for is to ensure that the building permit being issued requires the requisite number of affordable units it's up to the developer to deal with actually right if it's a five unit building one unit has to be affordable that's basically what have Town side make sure that happens because I know we've had issues with like powderhouse and things like that well that's matter sh out is a different story um I think that we in in this thing we say that any units less than four units don't have to have an afford yeah over four units 20% has to be affordable five five or more yeah so so I think the building inspector when he looks at the plans he says and and the affordable unit is and when we have site plan review yeah it will be I think but he he does not uh do the third party advertising for affordable marketing purposes that's the developer um yeah and I guess that means there's going to be a lot more for unit in five exactly fine I guess I was just questioning who on the town side makes sure that then it gets on the Shi and Batman Gord just got a okay would be it would be a condition approval that they follow through just like you would write the 40 do the whole all the work um just kind of monitor to make sure you probably need to create the town probably needs to create some type of form that the developer would be required to submit to the town planner um to show to demonstrate with all the paperwork they've done so then the town can apply for the okay any other changes um through line 552 I have one one just suggestion I'm looking at the Beaver Dam building there'll probably be a larger more tighter massing massing this and we allow for flat roofs on those are here but yet yet the r of you know this is a really picky point but the type of material where last flower for roofing is not amenable to a to a flat roof and do we can we have a flat roof and does it have to have overhangs does it more often than not buildings like that having done a couple myself were metal panels siding and they weren't clabbered they weren't CTI they weren't the typical thing but they were appropriate for buildings of this type in size we don't make mention that not that that's a big deal but I'm sure that some developers not going to build a colonial Mass housing up in the corner of nowhere they're probably going to build something that's more I have some thought but you guys have thought about this IAD I guess my point is these are um design guidelines and that our architectural team you know would like to see it be more of a colonial look even up there yes yes and right that that's the feedback we've had and that um there are guidelines and there's a design review board that will weigh in on whether or not metal panels I get it for metal panels is what's being used almost every to build else always that this this is to get the best we can for our town and the people live here not for people who want to come and right okay just just complying under duress we're complying under dur meaning the letter of the law and hlc didn't say you have to requ you have to allow metal panels and B right they didn't have any comments on the design guidelines yeah no no nor would they nor would they it's just it's just my opinion here something built up there would be you know it's it's out of the Town it doesn't affect it there is no neighbors except except for it's all signaling well you were you here during the SLV 40b I was here but not really here I guess yeah so question but I think to your point at developer could easily say what's being recommended is cost prohibitive I'd rather do the metal something steel frame metal panel multiple textured on deciding ministration varies a little bit from a colonial or more traditional pattern but nonetheless I just a lot of we allow flat roof so anticipate that something will happen it's and probably to go probably not probably not you get the full full area again but nonetheless it's just just just a point question I think what it does do is give us a little more leverage [Music] yeah I'm not saying change anything but anticipate if someone decides to build up there they'll probably want to be building what they have built in the past what kind of contemporary look okay great thank you any other questions or comments on this um now we have the other thing uh we have is any comments on the additions to section 2.0 was this did you take for btim what Town Council put in or this just maybe oh see yes that's correct okay um any comments on that great um so the other two pieces for public hearing that were in our packet where which I believe we had voted to not move forward to town meeting with the general language to amend the general bylaw the zoning bylaws um preamble and the marijuana we want marijuana Amendment we determine that was redundant not appable a lot of other places okay so we don't need to move that forward here okay so what at this point I would like to take um so I I just in summary I believe we have uh asked to add get um Clarity on the affordable definition affordability definitions we've added um wanted toid some typos adding a definition of base law and additional law area and um ask for uh Town Council just to help us understand the limits um and of site plan review as they apply um and um that doesn't affect the language we didn't make any suggested changes to the language and then we are adding the Sarah malish amendment of um the division of property block and charge meet the minimum size and fr requirements of the underlying Zone District I believe that those are the only substantive uh changes as well as the making sure we have 20% affordability in those two line 533 um with if I'm correct I would like a motion to um ask um Mark to make those changes and make it available to public and poost a public hearing to uh review the um article community housing overlay District on October 28 at 7 pm or 6:30 7 let's do it at 7 just in case you have public hearings typically are at 7 let's do that um do I have a motion to that effect so yes I just want to point out that the task force really can vote on this but we don't I'm really asking for planning so move okay second um is there any discussion from the um task force in particular on the motion um and I guess um any other discussion from the planning board just ask a question I I don't know if maybe have to answer it after but and um and as of right appli for a variance a buite I believe yes expr before setbacks I believe the answer was yes we the much to my con yes okay thank you um the other thing I my comment would be that right a year and a half ago or whenever we asked task force to come forward with a zoning bylaw that complied with Section 3A that we've I commend you for your hard work to do that so thank you to your all of you all Barry and Mark for all his hard work um that um I'll take a roll call vote uh Chris yes um Sue yes uh Mary no Peter yes yes and uh chair votes yes and uh Laura is absent so thank you um the next item on our agenda is any other um MBTA updates that we need to be aware of I don't think so okay um any public comment um if you're on zoom and have a public comment feel free just to unmute and speak up can also raise yeah make sure if we another screen or something okay um hearing none uh Gail do we have any minutes tonight uh no neither of you okay um any other business can I can I ask one question absolutely the uh the next steps were literally minutes away from on public something what are they just just for my edification obvious out so uh so so the next step is onid hearing notice in this uh these edits full version and the zoning map and Zoning Maps entire package will be filed with the town clerk so then the public hearing comes out for paper notice we public hearing we move on where would that public hearing be in minut like a regular public hearing like a like a cell signal may I ask a question about that will that be a uh a dry run of of what the uh a mon town meeting will look like no no it will be a public hearing about the zoning we kind of walk through boring zoning well and with us um I think that the it's my opinion that the Tas maybe a quick summary of the very quick summary but the task force has held so many public fors s that I think um it'll probably be similar to tonight where bylaw take comment on each section we have an audience both in person and and as we get through it and at the end we close the public hearing the board would vote to submit the um bylaw to the select board um for to get placed on the work for PA town meeting that would be your vote and subsequently the planning board would have to vote a recommendation to town meeting um could be that night usually right after public hearing um be the board report to um select board would review it we vote to place it on the warrant for the count meeting already know public hearing there will be a public forum after the public hearing probably a week after I think we have the tenor date of November 7th and that's a much more informal tell us what you think back and forth explain it questions ansers questions and answers not presentation if you will by by us not not all of us but by us of what it's all about yes and then that will be somewhat repeated at the town meeting as well well there time constraints at the town meeting three minutes to I mean we we will have more than that unfair no he has indicated we'll have more than that but there are time constraints I can tell me Reas I ask is this is this is a complex issue I mean I just became on the planning board what three or four months ago and been set in amongst of these things and I'm not unaware of all real estate things but this is a complex issue here and hopefully hopefully the uh I mean I read Greg's right up on the paper I think was fascinating reading Greg thank you for that that that was very good at clarifying what needs to happen you know one one simple one page front thing was it was great it's the it's the big it's the big presentation are you volunteering to do it see okay we'll see um okay any other um business I just like to Echo what you said Sarah I am so impressed by the dedication and honest anded efforts of everybody on this task force in getting to what could have been possible so I'm it makes me feel great about being a citizen yeah well can I say something one of the things I think that made the task force successful is in very different places all members came from if they didn't have that diversity of Interest and backgrounds it would have been very difficult to do so my heads off to everybody else pitching in and pulling together something that looked [Music] impossible set record here and a motion to okay thank you everybody for your hard work thank you