okay all right so I'm gonna don't much of an audience but Richard you hear us Richard yes I'm here okay great fabulous so open the meeting of the um the May 9th Task Force at 6:35 I guess and I'll call the task force members to order Denny Harrison here Richard Smith here and I'm the chair Chris only and I'm here also and I'll call the planning board meeting to order uh Mary Foley s filb here Chris Sarah here um and Gail asked that we all try to speak to the screen because in this room it's hard to be heard otherwise so I guess Cathy if you want to um I thought you were saving the seats for join in but if you want to speak you have to speak to I'm just here so I can hear agre with that comment I can't okay microphone is a silver bottom with bar with the green lights at the bottom we talk at that thing okay the first item on the agenda I guess we're just going to co- chare this as we go along uh acknowledgement receiv correspondence there were two emails from um from missani I guess we all read them don't know if they need a response at this point and I don't think we've received any other correspondence scale have we one of the planning board did receive a time sensitive comment uh communication from the town I see that okay uh so updated schedule so just so we're all on the same page here um tonight we're going to go over the final uh District boundaries and the zoning parameters that are going to make this work with the compliance model oh and R moris just arve start now just sit over here here so uh tonight we'll be discussing the compliance model final boundaries the the the final zoning parameters if we all agree tonight um Emily says she can get us a draft of the zoning Language by early next week Monday or Tuesday I guess turn um and so next Thursday will meet again and review a draft of the actual zoning language great and if that all works then the following week we're going to have a public hearing on the 23d public for excuse me public forum um where the uh language will be discussed along with the districts and the parameters and the design guidelines and then at that point um the planning board can vote to um send this on to the select board for them to pass it on to the state at their next meeting we hope that can all happen by early June sure so the other thing I sent an email to the planning board we are not going to meet on a regular scheduled meeting on Monday because happily we our regular meeting seems to have taken a rest um we'll meet jointly with the task force next two Thursdays and the 16th and the 2es and then we will resume the um our second and fourth uh planning board Mondays of the month for plan board except that the first one is Memorial Day so it will be a Tuesday May 28th that's when we will restart the uh hearing with uh cell signaling um and they have been given the preliminary comments from Weston Samson and you're gonna if you haven't already you're putting it in our believe it's going to go in the meeting folder he'll let us know where it is the meeting folder we thought we'd put a subfolder in meetings not for a specific meeting but for self signaling so because it's going to carry over for a number of weeks so we'll be able to see the West Samson report there and um the we expect that the presentation that they will give us will reflect um their initial uh review of that the other thing that we asked them for This was um Mark and I talked about this is a um an addition to their package which is what would be completed in phase one only because their package is for phase one phase two so um we wanted to see architecturally what you know if they never built phase two what so that's that's where we're going to start with our meeting with them will be on the 28th and we'll then resume with our second and fourth Mondays with the number of being for Cy and I assume that we'll be able to organize the planning board at that point yes the 28th we also do a reorganization and um uh a couple other a lot of other things the planning board is also meeting up thank you um jointly with this board of Selectmen to appoint a new member and that time is we're still figuring that out when it's on the agenda because we couple of conflicts of course have you received any application yes we have one so we'll put that in the meeting uh folder Debbie P has it okay so that's the schedule so we're gonna have rather busy couple of weeks and then June comes and take a vacation we can take a vacation we all go talk about sell signaling sound like it yeah sounds like maybe July yeah well I'm talking about the test Force okay uh so at this point we can start talking about the the overlay districts again Mark has been making a few tweets here and there to get us into compliance and I think we have so Mark I'm gonna turn this over to you okay um I am gonna [Music] screen going to first just run through the uh District maps and just point out where there's been a few uh that's not showing by the way it's not showing all I'm seeing is your um he's trying to open them right now okay okay so let just do that's there you are there you go so this is the Allen to Lincoln Street District along Summer Street um there has been no changes to this District um you know what happened was this model that I presented last meeting um I forwarded to Emily with the map showing the subd district on HC Street districts so they then um wean the model you need to speak up oh they then reran the model with uh uh four districts including the the subd districts as well so it's a total of six um but it's four real districts so this one didn't change so this um stayed the same yeah easy just so I understand more Emily's kind of validated that or whatever she has to do with it that's correct I'll show you a couple things um after we run through the districts I have an updated chart of ours that has num and will you be able to send us electronic copies of that tomorrow and we're going to post it on the U MBT section well so um this is the beach and Street uh to C Street District um so the red the uh the subd district for Beach Street this did not change at all um the C Street subdistrict changed at the last meeting I had that we needed to add these three properties here to get um a little larger area um so they are shown up but there was one property right here on the other side of SE street because it was so small and it couldn't it was a zero uh multifamilies by eliminating that it helps uh helps us um to uh uh to keep our uh the unit the density up yes so that's the only changes to these districts here question will you at some point talk about what the regulations are for the different colored districts okay so the last district and this District there's been no changes to the various parameters that we we had uh talked about last time next District we can still go through those next district is bber Dam Road which is um no change to the parameters and no change um to the district uh I think I mentioned at the last meeting oh maybe I didn't because I I figured out that at the last meeting I was able to drop the density here from 110 units to put a cap of 100 units so um the model has cap of 100 units on this problem how many is that per acre um what I forget it yeah but it's just it's on the chart it's just slightly below and that's still at four stories that's correct District did have a few changes in order to um here so um in order to uh get the density up we had to uh if we eliminate uh properties that are below the 6,000 square foot minimum to do a multi it eliminates um it reduces the total area and since our area was over 20 acres by knocking off an acre it pushes the density per acre up so we eliminated several properties that showed zero the model as far as being able to develop mul BS but we were able to keep the Integrity of the unit of the district and meet the the total uh required size so there are two small Parcels here if you notice at the um the upper leftand corner here we cursor those two little Parcels were removed but we still have uh you know um the subd districts are are touching right here so we believe that still needs the Contin requirement those are two before brace Lane yeah um no after i l is right here or um then uh as go down well what's the street Beyond those two properties you exp are those in Newport Park they're across the street from Newport Park so there is two right here and what's the street right Beyond north of West of those it's the Newport Park driveway no I'm talking on the left side of Pine Street he deleted two on the left side of Pine Street so directly Bryce Lane is still there in the district it's the two properties just beyond I think that's a driveway is that a driveway across from the two private houses in Newport yeah that's somebody's d okay we eliminated these two small parcels and the other Parcels that were eliminated were um down here and they're very tiny so we'll zoom in a little bit um right here at the entrance to Morse Court we eliminated couple properties on either side of the entrance to moris court and and we also eliminated uh one here on Elm Street right here so how many court were eliminated I believe it was four okay it's like six and eight then we eliminated one on El street so those changes allowed us to get basically meet our density requirements all right great so um can I just um summarize what I think I we just went through just um not everybody was at the Forum so it almost like you had to be at the Forum to but we have four districts two of which have subdistricts all of the districts meet the require the collective districts meet the requirements of the state the subdistrict a district has zoning parameters and subdistricts of a um can have different parameters than the main than each other okay and that and the goal here some of the districts have density that is 15 unit perer and some is less and some is more but all total we have a certain number of units and a certain density okay do that so um so these well let's first go through these These are the district parameters so the acdes have changed a little bit uh particularly the Pine Street W part um the underl districts have stayed the same minimum lot sizes have stayed the same the new thing is the 100 unit cap DCd we've had the Caps before for four units on the SE Street pars and five of pars so in the subd districts which are more resti contain possibili is yeah so SE street is one limited to four yeah so so the Pine Street subd district is limited regardless of the slot size to five units and the C Street subd District regardless of the lot size is maximum for but they have to have a minimum lot size right Mark Rich Mark have we yeah have we eliminated the uh size for additional the square footage for additional units I don't see that here uh yeah I did not put that on this chart um but the the reason why we get to the minimum lot size is because we have 2,000 for the first unit and 2,000 for each additional so that's how we get to 6,000 under the minimum law you send one over to so um so that's how we have now that's doesn't mean that the parcel parcel still needs to meet the underlying zoning District I mean that's what will come out in the um in the uh text of the zoning that will probably refer to the underlying zoning District requirements for plot size except for Alan to link yeah Allan to linkoln we were able to boost that up a little bit and uh by having I think the first is um 2500 for the base unit and 2,000 for each I I just have a comment on that okay for ease of use of the bylaws I think it would be useful to have this information in the overlay section and not refer back to the underlying lot size because if we were to change the underlying zoning at any point that would impact this and and I just think for ease it needs to be included in the Zoning for the overlay District so show the underlying no no it's not underlying are are show that for the these overlay districts this is the minimum lot size regardless of what happens to other underneath underneath well no it's not the minimum lot size yes it is no it says minimum lot size is 6,000 square feet that's the minimum lot size it's 2,000 per unit yes so there's a 6,000 minimum lot size you um because you can't you're not in this overlay District if you're under 6,000 you cannot build the multif family right you're not you're not covered by the overlay District rules so it's a minimum each of those and I just think it needs to be in the zoning accordingly I I think that's a very good point I brought this up in an earlier meeting and uh I think we all agreed that it was important that the distinction be made that um this uh this MBTA zoning does only applies to units to to to construction that is multif family and that would mean 6,000 square feet that that would be good so Mark you have not really made uh any significant change to the um to the base lot size or the secondary lot sizes it's all 2000 2000 and I think you said one one section is 2500 is that correct that's correct so there is now a model that shows um the the uh number of units that can be built on each parcel in the uh spreadsheet I don't know I haven't seen that yet I I imagine it has not changed much at all from the previous is that correct that's correct okay thank you I want to be sure understand what you're saying about um not referencing this document not referencing the underly so there there was an attempt to do that for the Forum by putting little red Aster by oh which is fine as far as explaining it I'm saying when the bylaw is drafted get the all of these parameters should be included in the overlay District yes oh yeah and not say building lck coverage go to the underlying district oh I see because the underlying districts could change right and we don't want these change with them right that all this whole table should be included or that the top part it's a very useful T yeah should be included in theing change put it in as used the column that's called Newport poter house include in the in the red and blue that included Elm Street in the blue yes so Elm Street is four stories yes okay that allowed us to get the density up yeah I I I the last time I looked at it it was just powderhouse Lane that was that down yeah we had to shift down and uh because we eliminated a little bit on we need to talk louder Mark oh so we had to shift it down in order to get the density up a little bit so okay it might be useful to for example the minimum lot size instead of saying 6,000 you might want to say 6,000 ft yeah we need to put units all these building lot coverage 4 it's going to beiz be a good idea yeah and instead of building and parking lot coverage you should have building and Abate surface because that's and how is that different from Total lot coverage that's total lot coverage is structure plus impervious surface and what's the difference between that building and parking they're the same total yeah they're the same thing it's just different words than we use in our zoning we want to be consistent with it's because it's because that's what's in the model yeah exactly okay when we go from the model to something that we're going to present for people to vote on maybe we should eliminate some the duplicates got it if I can just uh point out one thing I'm I'm a little I I understand what underlies this table but if I were looking at this table without that knowledge I would not be able to tell how many units could be built on a two acre lot scroll down you have to scroll down he needs to he can't he doesn't have the table in front of can't see the bottom so yeah I I still I still would not know how many units could be built on on a two AC lot add in the 2,000 per unit yes what I'm getting at is that without showing the base that I know it's a confused couple of confusing numbers but those two numbers for the base unit and for additional units are the only way that you can determine how many units can be built on a particular size parcel right if you if you were looking only at this chart you would not be able to tell me how many units could be built on a 2 acre parcel at least I don't think you could e e e e for we've lost the sound guys okay can you hear us now yes now I can hear you but we didn't hear you for probably the last eight minutes can you see us now I it was after Richard Smith said possible future units and then we lost you oh gosh yep it's Richard's fault he'll be I I I would have said I would have asked if it was something I said but uh you couldn't hear me no no I think for the minutes you can say that we uh discussed adding a row to the table that clarifies the minimum area per unit and minimum lot size square footage for I think it'd be very useful in the presentation to have examples of how yeah I think so too it's confusing it is confusing yeah I I completely agree with that I mean when you try to explain that you've got a minimum lot size and you've got a lot size for the first unit and you've got additional lot sizes for subsequent units uh people's eyes glaze over yes but if but if we just had a few examples that would really help the the other eye glazing is that most people said when you say square feet you're talking about square feet of building and we have to be careful to say that this is how many square feet of lot you need to have a unit right regardless of the that was what people were confused up at the last form good reason okay so well it's simple you say for for Pine um for the Pine Street subdistrict you have 6,000 for three units 8,000 for four and 10,000 or more for five okay for for lot size instead of doing it per unit it might be easier yeah you know CU then you don't get the confusion between structure size yeah yeah there another table that says two two units yeah that's a good idea okay are you done Mark um I don't know if you want to go through the rest of this yeah we didn't finish this but it's pretty much the same as um as previously presented we didn't change any of the uh um Heights from the last time any of the coverages parking requirements um the because we changed the districts a little bit the model uh density has changed slightly for some of its districts um the capacity also changed slightly um and so so what we have is current model capacity is at 583 uh existing units are 245 so possible future units 330 and we can't get that total down it lower density ask you what the density because last time it was like 4.9 15.2 is that yes so it's pretty close yes yes K she and put it down I just lowered it okay clarify because the last time we met as a joint board um the height um was in the beaver Dan Road was five feet so it actually has changed stories five stories sorry um so it's it I think for the Forum you had lowered it to four but but actually has changed since we met as in a in a meeting so just to clarify that um that was actually a reduction I think there was was there one other reduction some of the some of the other dense details did change some other details so for example Pine Street I was able to increase the setbacks to 15 ft on all sides without any changing the density as opposed to 5 front so um probably because lots are little bigger affect the density just like uh reducing the LCD to four stories didn't adjust affect the density as well great and we and the reduction and that density was in response to public comments yes thank you go yes Mary um a few questions um can we do maximum units per lot on the other districts and so for Newport andat Street and all um put powder house I don't think we want maximums on that because powderhouse is so dense already because it's all one parcel where the apartments are so we so we have 29 units yeah same thing at newp Park one parcel and there's we want to increase the density so we don't want to put a cap there and we also can't put a cap on the beach street because of the same thing we cap it there's I think what 40 units or so in that development there so we can't really and we want to be able to count them all yeah we want to be able to count them so if we put a cap that's lower then it changes our whole density okay and same Allan Allen to linkoln uh potentially you could put a cap I'd have to look at what the um the largest parcel would wow but if um if let's say the largest Parcels allow eight and we put a cap at four now that's going to affect our density overall density it will only cut off a few units so and the largest parcel the largest parcel in the alen to lincol is the gas station on the corner of Lincoln and um and summer which is a spot where reasonable D you could have reason reasonable density and not affect the overall neighborhood yeah but the question is can we and keep the numbers it's not you know well if we put a cap that would lower the density on that particular parcel I don't think it I think it doesn't improve the effect the impact on the neighborhood having a cap and it does reduce the density so you have to raise it elsewhere you would have to make something else denser and that corner right there would make a reasonable condo development and it's limited to two and a half stories so it can't be a big apartment building um the with the parking you can't obviously have a 05 parking spot so we haven't come across this too much in our bylaws because we don't have a lot of larger developments that have you know 25 units and so you're going to get a half parking spot the bylaw provides it has to be rounded up oh it does say rounded rounded up that was a question I had it does say that it requires that uh if you do three units you have to have five so our our numbers here the purpos of the model but when we actually write the zoning um and I'll go through like the outline of the zoning the sample zoning what we'll do is we'll refer to um our existing parking requirements so with the exception of the LCD where we boost that up to to two per one there may be a problem with doing that which is when EO whatever they reviews they're going to say we are requiring a higher number of parking spaces in this District than we do for the rest of the town and that's not allow if you have a reason well I mean it's just it's a potential yeah I mean potentially if they take it back we just don't say that we just move that little section can I ask why why would you want to increase that number it just encourages the development of uh properties that are more and more covered with Cars one and a half is already pretty generous well have to go somewhere yeah I think the the concern was is that everybody living there is on the edge of town and will um at least have one or two vehicles um so having um you can't walk to the training station can't walk really anywhere so um that they may have a higher number of vehicles at that site the existing parking is two family is one family is two spaces two family is three spaces three family is so that's one and a half three family is five right it's one and a half per unit round it up and the four family or more is one and a half per unit and it does say round it up already yes that was my point I mean the one and a half is in compliance with what we're doing now and um just questioning I I I agree though that the parking uh burden that would be placed on the core of the Town by this large acreage is is important it's important that we we account for it but one and a half is still a pretty good siiz number for what would be relatively small units well we don't know how large the units will be well we know that they're we know that when we're talking about these these Parcels downtown they're not going to be very big because they're very oh LCD I'm sorry and maybe I was completely off topic I have no opinion on the LCD okay that's the only place where we have two cars for Europe okay excuse me I'm I'm I'm uh I'm off track I think also we've heard over and over that people are concerned about on Street Park about units that don't have parking associated with them and um so I think that's heard over and over and and and the LCD anybody who lives in the LCD is going to be driving to everywhere yeah yes the only thing that might happen is it might be an elderly housing in which case they would not be spaces but maybe we can senior housing is specified as something L but then so senior housing is one for each doesn't matter it doesn't matter because we're saying two parking units two parking spaces per unit in the overlay District we're not we're not going with saying except for senior housing have less or something yeah okay okay about the district um so with Newport Park and Summer Street I believe Summer Street is Street 10 12 sum Park summer streen is Affordable but not age restricted okay um so how are those AG restricted low income at Newport Park protected um if a multif family overlay goes over it um by the owner mha requires there's a deed restriction on property right okay so no um so how do you put you so no multi filming can actually go on there oh sure yeah no they could they could the state would have to approve it and it would be good if they did uh to allow additional development there as long as you don't reduce the number of senior UNS that's what's the deed restriction says there are 32 age restricted units so it would be possible to add another 10 nonrestricted if the state of fre so that's my question so um so we're protecting the 32 that are there those don't get touched um a developer could add more age restricted or not um and okay so I just wanted to make sure that those 32 were protected yeah mean they might get rebuilt right get the physical building might change but the number of units yeah for example the second floor walk ups for seniors I mean that's not a good thing so maybe a Redevelopment plan says those 16 units get relocated to an elevator building service building somewhere else on the site on the site but the important thing is that the 32 age restricted units are you protected um and then one other thing with the age restricted is that rereading the definition it says you know even if we do the 10% or the 20% um that affordable at 80% Ami it's not guaranteed unless it's specifically um follows all of the eohc for Shi that it gets on the Shi so we would have to have wording that the 10% 20% hopefully all has to be Shi comp yes exactly there's a seem to be a loophole in that where you can say it needs to be age restricted I mean I'm sorry needs to be affordable um but that doesn't automatically mean that shi we need to have it in our be in the Z absolutely getting on the Shi is slightly tougher than getting into the Somerset no but it doesn't have to be to be honest Mary it doesn't have to be on the shr it has to be deed restrict and that's get on the Shi yeah but sure do no but I'm just saying that affordable is deed restrict yes but that doesn't make it Shi compliant so that it helps our does if it's deed restricted and you follow all the other rules marketing doesn't mean it has to be on the Shi well I'm just saying what the guideline definition says unless it's all of that compliant it it not qualified for the Shi and we want it to be yes want to be qualifi for thei it's gonna have to go to the lottery it's gonna have to do all of that all of that stuff but the developer is not responsible for getting it on the Shi the town is well we have ducks in order because we didn't quite last time so um correct question um um you clarify how the height um is determined when the Topography is very hilly I remember a side conversation about that and I just can't remember how that height is detered is it street level that you measuring up average around the perimeter of the structure preconstruction grade okay so in the um collateral that you're going to be presenting to people at the Forum um do you have um by lot how high something could be in that lot I will tell you on Pine Street where you where I live you know it's a hill right and so in your lower sections those those homes they're on the lower part of Hill so we're trying to understand what is the tallest that they could be where do you start measuring that 35 ft from well it's where where the structure is going to be in reality they're not going to be building the structure on the hill so therefore it's the average around where the structure is going to be which should be on the low part but you would like to see visually I think that'll help because some of these areas that are in the district they are hilly and you we wouldn't want to um mislead anybody or have somebody assume something that isn't true I I I worry about our putting out a lot by a lot well understand but I think you because we may assume that people would put it in the easy to build area and somebody might decide that they want to put it elsewhere and so we would have been misleading so I I I think the best we're going to be able to do is say that it's the average of the preconstruction grade around the footprint of the building so when you say around the footprint of the building you're not going beyond the lot itself you only at the structure you're not going based on the lot proposed Foundation LW okay and that's the grade the average of the grade of the foundation okay so on a 6,000 square foot lot when you're measuring figuring out that average you're looking within that 6,000 square feet absolutely I think that's just important to clarify for those of us who live on the ups and downs and it's within the you know you can't go out into the setback either you can't count anything where the building is gonna go yeah so there is a definition in zoning I think it would be helpful clear the height of the building is the vertical distance measured from the average rate of the existing ground level adjoining the building at each exterior wall to the highest point of roof we need a simpler explanation well that's that's the one simp that's why I say the aage theimer pretty specific many T I'm glad you think that a lot to get this was just changed one more Point um so I was looking at the model and then I created my own spreadsheet because I can't unlock the model but anyway um there and it might have changed but if you add up the actual Acres of the number of lots um versus what the model says there's a one acre difference because they're including streets so it's important that residents know that the actual density will actually be more because you know if if you one acre is 15 units so now those are going to be spread out on the on the Lots they're not going to be in the street so I don't know exactly how that works out I forget actually what dist now but um I think it was but this density percentage of the um but so there was one District that had that one acre different so the like a crust across the street [Music] um yeah so just that the density will be more than what people are visualizing because of that extra full acre that was the road which seems awfully High to me but that's what the model and that's included in these calculations yeah but it seemed to do it in one district and not the other district county road so I don't know and I would also say talk to Mark about this is that I'm not exactly sure where the state gets there lot sizes because it doesn't match up to our access Gis for Patriots properties so um and again there it could be a whole acre off so for example Beaver the um Warehouse property and our GIS is is actually 6.8 not 7.6 so in reality if somebody were to go and build um even though there's a cap at a 100 now the density will seem more because there's less space work so and and again you know if it's the states verifying their State numbers which again I don't know where they get them um hopefully they can't come back to us and say you gave us these numbers but the real numbers are this from your access GIS so now you're not we're using their model using their model no I know but their model is some madeup numbers that I don't know where they get I don't know are our numbers made up or are their numbers made up I wouldn't want to guarantee either one the ones that are collecting taxes I don't know the the model you one I know I'm I've already had three no can I just I'm just gonna um I think everybody in this room knows each other except perhaps people don't know Gordon Brewster Gordon um is the person who has submitted his application for join the planning board so appreciate your interest in the planning board and um hopefully got a call from Sarah from walk through the parking lot Billington skier after d say would I be interested great so at at the end everybody can introduce themselves having been part of the construction the elementary school of the high school you are signing up for more signing up also next oh gosh okay Mark so the the only thing is um this is uh what's up on the screen now now is the um outline or the table of contents of the sample zoning that they provide e hlc provides so our zoning on right is sayens this it kind of generally follows this format or but it'll you know um so there'll be a purpose and establishment of the districts and how they apply there'll be some new definitions but what we we will do is we will move the definitions into the regular definition section of our bylaw so um because everything was Consolidated when you get codification um there'll be the permitted uses but primarily that'll Define for each of the districts um the densities that would be allow um the dimensional standards which would be the setbacks for each of the districts the height limits building caps Etc GF street parking again probably look at referring to the um existing uh parking requirements in the zoning with the exception of a reference to LCD District again I would suggest we don't want to refer to the existing Zone we want this to be separate because we don't want to be precluded from making changes to the existing Zone but it would be helpful if she uses exactly the same format same language same language same format so that um so that there's so there's so there's consistency but I think um and if she can use tables to the extent tried to get away from like okay um and then there's General development standards here optional that's basically uh similar to what they have in their sample zoning performance standards which is what you have already under site plan review so we will compare the two and then maybe add were necessary for development in the overlay districts um affordability requirements this is where you put in the requirement for 10 or 20% affordable and things that they have to do um site plan review we will require that they do have to go to site plan review um site plan review regardless even even for a conversion of a two family to a three family because that's in the underl I would suggest that I don't think I okay two two to three is in the General District but let's imagine that we're on Pine Street okay yeah now I think I think we need we should not have site plan review across the right I would agree it's it's it's overbearing there's no way the planning board can deal with that simple considering if you can assure the public that every thing that's uh get built into this overlay district has level of review I think the public will be a little more assured that well your point there if they're doing from two to three in the G they go with our current zoning they don't do it based on the like um Ann is saying pin stream is not General underl well they' have to do it through the overlay bylaw and so then yeah but why if they go from two to three in the existing structure do you want different rules I me it just makes no sense well it's the existing structure with no exterior changes it seems the site plan review would be would be pretty simple it could be sort of a I personally I think that the public will be much more comfortable with this if they have if they and it's a we have so many things things that vary across the districts to the extent that we can reduce those or minimize those um that's that could be removed at some future date but I think for the purposes of um getting this pting the tast and having people comfortable with it having site plan review for anybody who's exercising their new rights new right under this has to go through site plan review every Monday where does the architectural you know the design guidelines go that's where we in site plan a lot of people you know really want to have you know design guide but that would only be in this zoning it wouldn't be in the underline zones it would just be as it applies to the family under rels so true I um know that we're going to talk about sign guidelines I think later but um in terms of where they go in the zoning at one point Emily said that those could be um outside of zoning and adopted as regulations is that first of all is that true regulations planning for it or it's the problem you have Sarah is if certain things are within the zoning it's manag if they're outside of the zoning it's completely voluntary so if there's important things you want it in the zoning so that people feel comfortable that they'll be I think that the I'm all for the requirement for site plan review the question is the criteria under which site plan review takes place should that be in zoning or can that be in regulations and the reason I would like to suggest that at least consider it to be in regulations is that it's a whole lot easier to adopt it or to change it that's the problem and that's that's exactly the problem people are not going to be happy if they see that the planning board can make arbitrary changes to theing all that but on the flip side of it as you said before we can change it later true yeah I guess um um my argument would be that um it's easier to change it it's it's it's even easier to um strengthen it as well as weaken it so but if it's a hot button with people you want to make it more difficult to change okay that's my opinion that's F could somebody clarify we can change it later s i starting to get the impression whe we're going to try to pass MBTA overlay zoning and then change things later so she's saying if it's in the regulations well I think you can always amend zoning that's the I think that's the what do you mean this the the question about design review and whether it's a regulation or a part of the zoning law doesn't really affect our certification as complying with 483a this is something that we're doing to protect the town and to convince the people people in town that it's the particular case that I was talking about was a conversion of a two family to a three family when the town is comfortable with with the fact that things are being built well be slowly I they will be and that the planning board isn't doing isn't overwhelm we could come back to the town and say because the design uh regulations are complicated we'd like to make it a regulation so that it can be adjusted to reflect current Tes or whatever um that's not going to change our our uh compliance but we adopt something that's more strict and then if it seems appropriate we go back to the town and say this is really strict and we're having trouble enforcing it or whatever town are you willing to change that so it's not that we're going to change something in a committee it's if our experience is that this is more strict than is necessary come back after you've asked the state if we can do that no since it's in the overlay bylaw you have to get permission from the state plan review won't be in the over District I thought you said what the overlay district is going to say the overlay district is going to say site plan review by the plan board the site plan review process is laid out in the rest of the but the design review has to be only under the over so that yeah there'll be an amendment to the site plan review regs which will be part of the package which will say the following design guidelines and the following multif family zoning overlay districts shall we you know which makes it unenforceable whereas if it's in the zoning it's enforceable yes that would be in the zon in the zoning section cine no it's got to be in the overlay District zone I agree with you we're not gonna decide that let's get this thing drafted and look at it then when the last thing is separability um which we have a separability clause already for the enre Z package that that's the basic outline that we'll see next week from em so she's actually writing up she's writing up the overlay District Gregs she's going to be looking at uh some of our U other regulations so if something requires a special permit it has to get a minut for this overlay District so it's not required to have a special permit because you can have special permits for any districts well say that again so for example you have to check the rest you have to check the rest of your zoning to make sure there's nothing that requires a special permit in the overlay districts so even though your overlay District regulations will require a special permit is there something else in the bylaw that might require a special permit for the development of particular yeah the existing few of these districts are in the water over Lake right and if that requires let's say a special permit to go over a certain lot percentage it has to be Exempted so we have to adopt something as part of this package to remove that special permit requirement in the overway district so for example big one no I don't think it's 70 Parcels it's the it's the LCD it's um Allan to Lincoln and part of it might be part of the be street or C Street I for one um the Allen Lincoln is in oh it's in the water protection overlay District so that you can't do more than 2500 sare feet in Fus or some such thing [Music] um that needs a special permit from the planning board so that would have to be eliminated for the oil that's our water protection distribut think can you bring the requirement for that up to the overl so that it's like a dimensional it's not it's not done to a special permit but it's just done standard you have to look at the model so 6,000 so if you LEL 6,000 square feet lot and you have 40% coverage by structure that leaves 3600 not covered by structure so I thought that the underlying zoning like that was still remaining because it was not um you can't have any special permit process it's it's it's underlying zoning is remaining if you choose to not function under the old the overlay is just by right so means so if you have a water protection or um but what I'm saying is I think that the coverage requirements are strict enough that you're not GNA have an issue yeah I'm I'm also wondering whether even under the ndta zoning that Environmental Protection is not way right yeah but that's that's a different thing the conom do not have permits oh they don't they have other things that they do instead environmental law still yes right so I don't know how that works an overlay District I don't think having an overlay me you don't you don't have to follow environmental regulations right but I think the Water Resources overlay is a zoning B so that's different so I've read probably 30 towns their um response from eohc and a lot of them get Ki back for that we need water protection district or some other special permit District but I think we have to look at and see are we really impacting because we won't have non-conforming lots the minimum lot size and the maximum coverage which will protect us whereas today we have nonconforming lots where it can be much higher we have that byw I seeing so we can't answer this tonight we're gonna have to go look at yeah we'll see what we up with I know that District so the question then is how many properties within the overlay District have underline zoning that would require special um yeah or or the thing we could try and see is what's the difference between what like is required let's say you want a Resource District a lot coverage versus what we're requiring in this over overlay district is that difference yeah if it's 10% it's so those 15 Parcels you know get get a benefit of an exemption go get a special permit and and if they're gonna be subject toy that I would think that' be a hard cell waving our Water Resource protection I think again I think it depends are we really waving in or are we restricting the coverage enough on in the overlay zoning that it's not going to be an in right the issue is you can't render impervious more than 15% impervious of any lot without artificial recharge need a special permit for that so the you could exempt the special permit but still require then then the underlying zoning of the 15% still again you just the issue is you can't require a special permit for it right so you wouldn't be exempting the compliance You' just be exempting the special permit right right so those are two different things yeah so the building inspector would say oh you you weren't complying but you wouldn't have to have a special term right it's not that easy I know that's so you have to change the bylaw for that we're Exempted in the overline I me we don't even know how many properties tin hang on until we see what she yeah okay um any other questions about sing language so let's move on to the design guidelines so there's been uh a copy of what the Architects have proposed circulating around and there is also the MPC language for the LCDs floating around I haven't heard a lot of comments from anybody on any of this because they just floating around so how do we get from floating around to to get coming up with a a real draft well I mean I have some coms but I I I think a lot of us have been very much focused on what we need to present have the planning board approved and what we need and and the select board approve and what we need to get to the state in June yeah and and I can speak for myself the the the design guidelines didn't seem to be in that group and well I mean we were pretty close were we not up for the design guidelines I thought we talked about discussed them and what the guys came and talked to us and walked us through we haven't had detailed discussions but I think that maybe before next week if people could look at them and say are there any pieces of it that they want in the zoning itself so which would deal with that and then which which components should be in the regulations so we can get the zoning done so the design guidelines which would be applicable for all the districts except for the OCD close closer to a guideline that you adopt as part of like part of Zone it's more specific I mean some of the language needs to get adjusted a little bit changed um to be more regulatory but um there's there's some clear um requirements here you know like for example here building entry should be clearly expressed with by design elements build for ptico so that's a very specific thing and so those are the things that U you know would be that you can evaluate a proposal against right so that's that's what makes it kind of regulatory document so this is is pretty good it made some adjustments it's not everything in here is like that but it's Mark I was I was hoping we were going to get some feedback from Emily as to which of these regulations in her opinion will get past eohc as regulatory entries because there is always that question that we may be guessing what they're willing to accept as a regulatory but she probably has a better idea than we do the PC one that you no this is that's oh it's different than what you sent us oh this is for Bieber Dam Bieber Dam okay I I read them I thought they were pretty good yeah the one for downtown is you know they talk about different elements of buildings and but do we do we have anything in there quite multi-use which we need for M Street there is a little bit y there there's quite there's a fa amount of detail I mean my only complaint about the LCB really is it reminds me of the first draft of the guidelines for downtown where it had no images you know so you really had no idea what they were talking about exactly as soon as they added images to the uh guidelines for downtown it made a big difference did we get pictures for the lcv I didn't when did we get the guidelines for the LC I put so the planning board members I put what ver meeting P sometimes I'm left off so the LCD which distribution list it is no the the LCD has not been forwarded from me to anyone thank you because I do not have it I don't know how I got it I went to the meeting so the LCD guidelines those um really not necessarily in a regulatory format it just talks about tolls about pedestrian uh experience connectivity pedestrian experiences a lot on that we're talking about a bunch of we're talking about the dense development on Seven Acres so um all of this discussion uh integration with nature and sustainability principles and it's exerted from something right I I have no idea talking about Native species and Wildlife and you're talking about a site that's already 100% altered yeah exact so no nature nature been long ago so they've just been forced to restore some of the wet ones with the most recent building they're adding so now when they get down to page seven the h talk about um but again it's kind of all over the place they talk about multiple styles of the part quties um but then pictures of larger multi buildings that we talked about maybe desirable to have because they be elevated buildings um to allow for seniors abilities to be able to navigate you're not be able if you're going to be putting 100 units roughly on Seven Acres you're going to need Arch and building so um uh and you're not going to be able to get any sort of density with the buildings on the bottom though here are some of the ones in the middle but the goal here is to give some direction to a developer who might elect to build 30 units there instead of 100 so um our goal here is not to it's just it's just create a vision and I don't think it's a problem to give the townhouse visual because it might help people who come in thinking they want to build a big box to think well maybe a townhouse that's more expensive for some 20% affordable is a is a good path so I don't think we have to have design guidelines that steer you to the maximum density um but I agree that the bill that the Beaver Dam district is very uh subjective at this moment that's could we start by doing the guidelines for the all the other three districts um perhaps and and maybe Gale can forward this too yeah actually yeah can you fire them both at the same time that would be helpful and we I can as soon as I receive them I have I've forwarded everyone the desired guidelines and they've been part of your meeting packets they've been they've been included as a link in the meeting minutes but I will forward both of them as soon as I get the design guidelines for the LCD I actually put they're in our meeting they're in the planning board um meeting packet for today they're not in for the rest of us planning board meeting I just put it up today so I was trying by all right and then the so just one point of logistics so Dar um has no and Sandy they have no access to share right so task the task force we have to have two Communications CS one for planning board and one for the task force then all of these things the task force cannot have SharePoint right because they do not have emails that are Town email addresses well some of us do yes but several several do not but us is second class citizens I don't care okay so okay yes question design guidelin so our current zoning byla does not contains only guidelines correct gu not but so if we enact design guidelines with our MBTA zoning overlay districts is that going to be acceptable to hlc since we don't have them for anything else good question well my feeling on the design guidelines and I may be wrong on this was it's great to have design guidelines but if somebody comes in and they're building an as of right in an overlay District according to the plans but they don't quite comp support with the design guidelines I don't think the planning board this is me can say sorry no building per I don't think they can do they're just guidelines unless you have specific things in the bylaw okay I think that's this is the point I was trying to make earlier some portion of those design guidelines I believe can be placed into the zoning requirements and that's why it's important to get some feedback from Emily on this yep to your point gar though I think that many planners have said across years not just on this that when you give designers guidelines they want to work with the town and they often will do their best to comply with gu even if they're just a uh a guideline or even a conversation that's our experience we try to report follow the sh guidelines TR even though it's we know they're not going to turn us down if we don't do it we still try so it's sort of an intentional thing and so if you if we succeed in 80% of the applications to steer them toward a particular exterior material or whatever or away from a particular highly modern whatever it is um that then uh that's uh the goal a realistic goal so going back to Sue's question so in the site plan review section of the zoning byla that is in place now there are a number of performance standards that the planning board is supposed to use in reviewing a site plan and in fact there are a couple of architectural um references in the performance um standards but they're very brief and so what this is doing is saying I guess in addition to those very brief ones we have this much more detailed fil and the other question I have for everyone is we've been talking a lot about design review board and the design review board would be a group of design professionals who are residents of the Town who could advise the planning board in reviewing the design guideline or revie the project to make sure it complies with li generals the question is do we formalize that or do we just simply say the plan board May uh convene a informal group of advisors to help them review these I would formalize it I think we have to be careful with that because um it's clear from hlc that you can't have any there can't be anyone who can stop a project like the they can't have any authority to do that so if we're going to have them and have them formalized recommendation advisory yeah advis recommendation to the planning board I think if you don't formalize it then it's not going to happen and you can't go out to the public and say we're going to have these design review guidelines because I'm not convinced that you're I don't know if you have now or with it plain Wood's always going to have people who are experts in archit Ure in order to make do that review internally so I think by you know formalizing it then then you know then public knows it's going to happen and they're just making a recommendation um and clearly it's to work with a developer and and you can't deny it if it's just in regulations yes Bary I would say that the um planning board is more than capable of doing it as part of a site plan um review these are very basic I don't think you need Architects to look at these um and I think if you do one more step one more committee one more group that does make it more onerous and um to a different level than what we do currently um so I would just keep it all one meeting with the planning board have the document um I don't think it's a good deal but I think it is because you can't a developer an architect based design review board can talk to the developer's architect and probably get greater changes than the planning board would be able to list I don't know that there's going to be a lot of back and forth because again then the you know I don't think the planning board is going to have multiple meetings on [Music] one so my experience I've never worked with the design review board but most towns I've been in has adopted some basic design standards as well as perform other performance standards under pych review so my experience is that again it depends on the Personnel of the planning board um and how receptive the developer is but generally um they are successful in having major changes occur to plans and buildings based on what their standards are but you don't necessarily get sometimes as if you had Architects some of the much finer details which you may in most of the towns I've worked in before they didn't really want to drill down into the exact design of the window frames but as long as they were framed and as individual Windows as opposed to just b plck class thing they were reasonably satisfied broke up a certain way and they didn't want to drill down into those PIH details like I historic commission reviewing historic building so the question is really is what level of detail do you want feel comfortable going down or do you feel that the planing board is can sufficiently review these things without Architectural Review to subties so I so I have worked with design and what I found is that design guidelines probably will prevent bad design or at least mitigate bad design but a design view board might Foster a great design a much better design than what a developer might consider and I I don't know how the town feels about that whether another layer of review is worth some better buildings that's an interesting question I I'm wondering if for the purposes of MBTA zoning which is what we're trying to get to we might fairly simply reference that that these uh by right projects must go to site plan review perhaps that's all we say for for Stark for now that might be layer one and then perhaps there is where we layer in a simple statement in our site plan review which applies across all projects that is um particularly focused on the downtown like not sure how we think about the LCD at least that has some of those key parameters and then in terms of um I agree with Mary that the planning board should do it at least at this juncture and I can sort of Envision that the planning board might have two Friends of the board who are architects who we call in to give public comment in that process as a as we develop it and that we don't have to design review another layer but that we can um be thoughtful and have some of the members who have helped develop the guidelines when when we have them when we know something's coming we say would you like to take a look at this and give us some comments at least to start and that it's kind of a little bit more advisory to the board you get some architectur VI that way at least it's kind of in a scale that is consistent with um what we're doing now and the other thing is that that you know one member of the design design guidelines committee gave us ex a lot of design review on the high school and like to the you know like trace on the plans um and you know so Architects like to do that and we all like to whoever we like to give advice to whoever's our colleagues in our profession right so it can kind of go too much I think um so I think that there's a way to introduce this have the first layer is those um multif Family byright Properties are subject to site plan review if we only do that and then to aand site plan review to add some of the design guidelines as they've been presented in in a regulatory way is a a compendium and then that is something we can revise and strengthen or weaken or my my concern is that I think people in town will be happier happy about the zoning changes if they think that there is actually design review as part of it looking at design review as a kind of control control character of the downtown and I think particularly in Newport Park and powderhouse where they can go to four story yes I think I think the the thing here is that we we know we're we don't know EXA we don't know exactly where this Z zoning change is going to take us but we do know that there are pro properties very visible in our downtown and a large number of acres in our core downtown and if you look at some of the larger Parcels like the one on the corner of U summer and and Beach or or along uh uh Summer Street as you go out of town we have the potential here to see some fairly significant visual changes to our downtown I just hope uh and argue for us going as far as we can to provide protection for what right now we cannot clearly Envision as the final result we just don't know how fast or how slow or how or what direction uh will be taken with the zoning that we're going to be doing you've got some big Parcels that could have some big developments and it's going to take uh it's going to take some real uh feistiness to uh uh to encourage developers to go the direction we want to go you think I can imagine I think we can all imagine something getting built uh that we would not be happy with well you think Sarah's suggestion that um the planning board has site plan review that that would be adequate to allay people's concerns about somebody taking down seab breze variety and and and hiring Frank garyi to design something to go on there I I'm not sure that I'm such a a good judge of what people's attitudes will be but I I would say that I would rather have um some architects convened in a formal structure to be able to communicate with Architects during the design process um I'd rather have lawyers talking to lawyers and I'd rather have Architects talking to Architects I think we got to this has to fly through the EO hlc too right well yes that's why I keep saying that I I think it's important that whatever we do we get some feedback from Emily on this but clearly it is possible under uhlc to have um to have a formalized review process and we'll have a proposal for Monday or I mean for Tuesday in your package whether we'll see whether um she thinks it'll go through bohc with a um whether it's a subcommittee of the planning board architecture maybe with one planning board member a couple uh local design professional s SCH ter something like that um as part of put a very simple structure to it maybe it'll fly or maybe she'll just say yeah okay right kind of try and go in between a real super formal thing and for opinion can I speak sure of course so haven't spent 35 years in an architectural engineering business representing real estate developers all over everywhere starting is starting as real estate developer working and then working as architect is the project manager form um we often we did when we moved into a new Comm new community we were planning on building whatever we were planning on building as a representative for the owner here we often welcom exactly what Sarah just said and actually actually what guard has said too meeting with the architectural representatives of the community to have a better understanding what they would accept and like to see as the architectural features finishes materials uh besides the zoning the height the F and all the other stuff like that so I I would suggest that you do exactly what Sarah said I know those people that we went to early on to discuss it with here and actually we did it with the high school we did it with the elementary school too and we had our own design Review Committee within the town that worked with the architect to come up with what we felt as a fair representation of the building configuration so I would be a a strong advocate for having a formal design Review Committee not not burdensome not not that would slow down the activity and see it as a stopping point but as as some point as a point of communication between architect architect that would be very helpful thank you okay on that note uh I'd like to move on to I think the most important topic of the meeting which is uh the to go ahead with the study to allow for 20% affordability and I think you all got a copy of The Proposal no oh long ago it's from February but they'll resent it this week and I think I think had to she had to resend it oh okay by Gmail Gmail I've got it and couldn't expand the PDFs in it go this proposal doability study yes it would allow us to get to 20% of so I'm perfectly willing to yield to the Judgment of those who have actually read it I would like a copy of it I I get very frustrated when different people are receiving different pieces of information just it makes it very difficult yeah it's not very long it's also dated I mean did it recently but you you probably got it back in February which is when we s of much of it I'm sorry but I couldn't find something from February if I tried if we're going to discuss something I expect to get something contemporaneously not from February unless somebody gives me the date of a February email well uh I propose Chris Chris isn't isn't this almost moot I mean if we want to have 20% we've got to get this study isn't that the is that the case I propose subject to further input from other members of the committee that we move ahead can I ask a question sure what's the timeline for delivery yeah that's a good question very quick yeah weeks like a week and a half or something so they're obviously cranking this is our kg spoiler plate top A Different Page here's the here since this was in February they say we could begin work starting March 4th and complete all analyses and reports for the town by March 22nd so that's basically a little bit less than three but is it the same now know that's very I know that they busy right now some was 15,000 but but we've already engaged for some of it right no no no so this is $155,000 and um Mark what budget would this come would this come out of the this would come out of the planning board budget uh if would we take it out we have a line item improvements of um that has $1 14,917 122 from the zoning law rights were carried forward and that's from this fiscal year we carried forward it says here on this from 20,000 in the fiscal year 25 so um so I think this is a vote of the planning board um to Mo vote to authorize the town to enter into a agreement with rkga G Associates for a uh feasibility study for um the amount of $155,000 um and to authorize the planner to negotiate a new schedule of work uh that complies with our time frame and to fund it from uh the uh planning board remaining funds in this fiscal year basically um so I make that motion sure I'll make that motion okay anybody second second okay discussion um discuss my wish there were Alternatives that's my only Alternatives uh that she would give us alter right that this was that rkg is not our only alternative but since they are our only alternative and we need it done think we should do I thought rkg was part of the contract with them are um I would agree with that and does this not have to go out to bid I mean are we circumventing oh but it was part of our original proposal oh it was oh oh but but it was an ad and it's it was funed The Proposal was the state gr the work that we've already done yeah the whole package was supposed to be under a grant including rkg well that was only $50,000 our grant yeah beyond that but [Music] we're put you on the spot yeah financing well he's looking that up but I think it was part of it was an alternate in her initial proposal and she was selected through a competitive process then the um given that I've taken the Attorney General's training on that I think okay I think it was an add-on it wasn't the original proposal so I you know I don't know all the ins and outs I agree with Sarah that it was supposed to be all inclusive Aid and then chunk that's not so now we're 15,000 which I I understand that the visibility setting is always a separate at all and that could be um but I think that it was supposed to have um some economic analysis done with the original contract economic analysis I think is different so that doesn't even 15,000 doesn't even include that now this is just for the affordability portion right yes a guys are putting in 20% in our plan right the only thing I would do if I were doing this for me is I go back to rkg and say I tell you what we'd like to go ahead we're gonna pay you $8,000 that's it that's what I do but that's me we canly ask our planner to do that can always ask hour um any other discussion um a roll call uh Chris yes Sue yes Mary and I vote Yes okay you get that um Gail it was three yes one obain the the other thing is I believe there's more Grantland right if we apply for it yes there is well so so for some of the other studies um as Housing Partnership has made un available for this kind of work so I was talking to Emily and she said that they maybe opening up another round shortly okay so is suum C in the loop uh well not yet I just spoke y but I would have Su in the loop so she can pursue she's good at that okay uh say just a quick report from brick on the communication sure um so since we met last um we updated and revised our FAQ document uh we had it available at town meeting and we received great feedback on it um we're reading it and we also Ed at The Forum and actually um discussed it a bit at the Forum it's on the MBTA page in the website um if you want to take a look at it um The Forum was on Saturday the 27th attendance was light but it was a well informed uh attendance for the most part a good input and questions uh Chris Emily Mark uh presented we had breakout tables for each district slides density chart uh District Maps which Mark has discussed feedback um concern that we pass this and then the state imposes additional housing requirements in the future uh confusion about the size of possible units um so several residents came who live in the SE Street Tappen Street area and they are concerned about the larger parcels and how many units they would be able to um hold under the new overlay District they were concerned about the history with the history they've had with the owner of the storage property they brought up the fact that they think there's a stream running under the storage property they're concerned about the number of stories in their subd District but were seemed happy with the two and a half um they are were concerned about getting notification um of Butters if the owner of that particular property applies to develop the property under the overlay district and they're concerned about parking there was conversation about the old Cricut building and why we're not including that um I think that was answered uh to people satisfactory um other comments uh the line that we have been hearing objection General objection to the state coming in and telling our quain community what to do um there we also got compliments even from people probably not going to support uh the MBT St zoning they complemented the task force for the quality and professionalism of our work um and and they really appreciate the product that we have come up still somewh support us but that's okay um at least they won't be throwing Fireballs in town meeting um maybe maybe not uh remember what you said back oh our next forum May 23rd think Chris already uh talked about this the idea is a virtual uh before the joint planning board or as part of the joint planning board task force meeting um additional public information education sessions in the summer we will plan after we have submitted to hlc and the Attorney General's office um next question of the week in the cricket will be a combination of the faq's number 26 and 27 whaton overlay District um and then our next subcommittee meeting is Thursday the 16th at 10:15 a.m. all are welcome excellent Gil and hand up yes I did um the feasibility study proposal was forwarded to both the planning board and the MBTA task force Tuesday at 2:26 pm. I just wanted to confirm that it was forwarded thank you g thank you um question for an I get Kathy's left but um an we were thinking um the I think in the I was only at the communication meeting for part of it but there was a thought that um on the 23d public forum that it might be uh strategic to encourage or even have a joint uh with the select board because then the select board comes on board comes um up to speed at the same time here's the questions and then it will expedite or negate a lengthy presentation at a select board meeting or you know shorten what we do at a select Bo okay do that doesn't sorry does matter to me be here any um I I think that's a good idea seems like it um I'm just just worrying about it's two days after the election it's but yeah that's that's okay we can get a new Bo SW in I think okay well I think that was sort of the also the the ethics thing this year to take the ethics we didn't do it last year yeah you have to do the ethics before you can be swor in wow and it's every other year and we didn't do it last year so it's going to be this year okay so anyway that's technicality but they can come okay they can certainly anybody can come do we all have to take before I believe so okay so if your appointment if you're being reappointed if you're in existing oh existing term you have more time so I'll I'll extend an invitation Chris and I will extend an invitation to the s Court um and the thought was also it's after the election so new members after the appoint can come up to speed well new member can certainly join us even if he right so there's no voting had to be done on the 23rd but encourage so yes but we can talk about that somebody better tell Debbie I yeah okay you will and then probably Greg my Greg oh because she have to be there if I we can talk about we can you have to file the public meeting sure it's a public meeting and we need to have minutes and we need to have y it's one set of minutes yeah okay we can solve that we under some circumstances where we've had a quum at somebody else's meeting we have agreed that we just won't comment so there's no question of deliberation but I think in this case you just assume have a question right I think that's the point okay I will I will I will warn the committee we can um uh what time this is 7 6:30 well the the Public Announcement was for seven okay it was in cricket today May okay in the select board section but I just think that changed we expedite the number of we we minimize the number of actual the length of meetings not the number okay uh people ra to approve meeting minutes from April 11th and April 18 I move do we approve minut second in favor Richard say I Richard says I too okay uh any comment from the public anyone wish to speak maybe just no don't follow us anymore that case I'll take a motion toour so move and a motion from the planning board to aurn so move second all in favor thank you everybody they're supposed to be coming I was at aori service we brought I helping clean up Department it was good was very good I mean financial [Music] analis and you know on the together met long ago with thank you for volunteering first one he came back asking he was the you were the one car buing of you I agear always talked about asking if he was going to get divorced or anything during you see my note about I said asair of the finance you know I didn't see him at cgo this year we W up here very much and I that's