##VIDEO ID:Fk5ciUUNTdc## um Manchester planning board oh thank you thank you not everybody um and um so I'm GNA call the meeting to order uh let's see Peter Morton here Mary Foley here Warren Brewster here Chris here and Sue filber here and Laura's on her way it's one two three four six excellent okay um for anybody joining us um online I can see myself up there um um we are uh going to be continue oh there we go um continuing the um sorry continuing the public hearing um for cell signaling um they have asked us to continue and and the reason um is that we're still working through some existing conditions as they develop uh do more investigation um and uh so it makes sense to take it as a package um of of conditions and and we don't really have anything new to add right now so um I'll take a motion to continue the self signaling hearing at their request to uh Tuesday November 12th um at 6:30 P.M so Mo a second excuse me or both motion second okay uh roll call vote Sue filbrick um do you have your hand raised no should it be oh you know no it's my cursor turned into a hand sorry technology uh yes Peter Mary yes Gordon yes I vote yes yes okay great so um um we are we're going to have a public hearing um tonight uh the um I know that there was a uh um typo on the agenda it is Monday and that went out in the public notice and Town Council has said no problem with us meeting tonight for that purpose um I think we can also uh take uh approval of the minutes which are um October 15th um people had a chance to look at those yes okay take a motion to approve motion to approve do I have a second second okay and um any discussion Mary was absent I believe yeah I just wanted to reiterate what my email said today um I don't have the minutes in front of me I've got a whole stack of papers at home um that I am part of that group so I have't been included in things I was included in the first one and then haven't been included in meetings going forward so um if somebody can get me up to speed and start including me again that would be nice so that's a separate matter than the motion to approve the minutes so let's uh I'm just talking about the details okay you can come back to that in a minute um uh um all in favor of the minutes all right so yes great um and one exstension great um and Laura is not here yet so exensions um I'll come back to that issue Mary in a second I also wanted to um is your is uh Shannon on yet and I'll see yes I'm here oh okay great uh can you introduce so uh we have a new admin person who's going to be doing uh working with the planning board as well as in the conservation commission right away his name is Shannon biani and he is online right now and um eventually he'll do at least the zoning board um moving forward um and then maybe some other other committees and land use related tasks moving forward um we'd like to thank Gail for her many years of service to the planning board um and she will will still be doing finance committee and many other tasks for the town as well so great thank you um Shannon do you want to say a word about yourself um maybe if you can put your camera on I can't see your uh sure yeah I just one second uh hi uh my name is Shannon bian um I live on the haunt uh actually serve on the theant planning board uh been on the board for quite a few years uh also am very dedicated to the open space effort out here on the Haun um and all things ecology and I'm happy to uh join um and help out uh for Manchester great thank you um and uh appreciate your um being willing to jump in we have lots um and I do W to um Echo uh Mark's comments Gail um jumped in she's did was already doing a lot of other boards uh minutes and we were struggling with uh the new hybrid meeting um format uh with a lot of um uh challenges I think that one year I think we had six meetings we had to cancel because of that challenge and she jumped in and helped write the ship and uh get our minutes done and I know she's done a good job for a lot of other committees in town so we appreciate her hard work and keeping us on track and uh welcome shanon so thank you um uh thanks very much Madam chairwoman um if I may just ask a favor for the first couple meetings If people could announce their name uh as I'm taking the minutes now um it's everyone's very new to me and so if someone needs to make a motion or a second that would be really helpful thanks okay good good thought so we'll try to all remember that um first of all maybe we should sue Phil brick wave your hands online hello Peter Morton at the end of the table here uh Mary Foley in Black uh Gordon Brewster Brewster name well I should uh and Sarah kraton and Chris only um and then we have Laura Tenny will be coming shortly um you know Mark um Emily and is consultants for the MBTA zoning and um we'll make try to make sure that um everybody who speaks announces themselves as well um yeah okay um back to Mary's question um if you recall uh Mary Gordon and I were going to go out to Atwater Avenue and look at sidewalk options which we did and then we came we were going to come back to the board with options subsequent so we went out we talked about it we made I think we didn't come back with any recommendations we sort of walked if if is that fair I think that's what we did subsequently as I explained last meeting what I've come to realize is that the negotiations with sell signaling or the special permit uh collection of things with sell signaling is an integrated set of things and of which Atwater Avenue is one and so at last meeting I proposed that Gordon because of his construction background and I meet with them to understand that collection with uh Town Mark and other staff like Chuck to understand the issues and then um come back to the board with a recommendation and so that's the work that we're doing um it's not a um it has to be done outside of a quorum and um so that's the the work that we've been doing I think that was the motion last time um it's it's a a collection of of items so um that was the rationale with Gordon with his construction experience and um so um so I'd be happy to meet with you and fill you in kind of where we are well I just you know again being part of a subcommittee and then um not being part I you know either an email would have been going to be more meetings so I if you want to meet with me we can go through what's been discussed and so that you can be available for the next meeting thank you it's better to say Mark no decisions have been made yet that's correct none whatsoever and every single conversation starts with the planning board is the deciding yes uh you know the deciding body here and we're just really gathering information so and understanding too uh one of the the issues is which are the planning board's jurisdiction and which your select board jurisdiction because it turns out that they're intertwined yes um and uh so we're trying to some throw some over the wall um so uh that's where that stands okay um any other uh updates on any issues U not at this point how about any um reports from any committees besides NBTA task force downtown Improvement committee have they met yeah they met last week nothing nothing substantive about of it just met met talked about all all the issues that they for continuing okay substantive how about uh finance committee updates um I'm not sure which meeting it was I think since our last planning board meeting um Sarah Mish put together the um MBTA Financial anal Anis that will go over tonight I guess um we just received that um the other fincom members had not had an opportunity to review it um but it was passed through and um so yeah so I mean I have questions but we'll go over that when we review it as a point great it was very interesting if I me softare very interesting yeah very really well um Sue any updates from the zba uh not really we we did meet um just one property nothing really noteworthy okay and any updates on the select board that you want to share um we're working on on the warrant um there had been some talk of trying to put together an Adu which would had to go through you and decided that there was not anywhere near time or bandwidth um and the chances that someone would under the new Adu state law that someone would announce that they had an Adu and that they were going to make it a short-term rental between February and April was slight and that if some did get couple did get through it would not be the end of the world okay um another question it's budgets uh just to anybody who just came in we've continued the self signaling public hearing till November um it being budget season did you submit a budget we haven't submitted budgets yet it's the only thing that was submitted I believe was Capital budgets and we didn't submit any capital okay we should put that on our agenda for the next meeting okay so that um both what we've spent this year and what um we should have for next year I mean you it goes through you but I think the board has traditionally had input okay on that so um any other uh sorry to keep everybody uh in suspense but we wanted to the hearing is starting at um seven o'clock um Emily is there any update from other towns you can share with us uh need them passed theirs last week um they had a two two different options for town meeting uh one was a base compliance and one was what they call the neighborhood plan uh neighborhood neighborhood housing plan which uh went for a number above based compliance and the neighborhood housing plan passed is that a town town meeting or representative a town me uh I believe that's a good question now that you've asked I think think it may be representative town meeting but I can check on that some of my others this fall are actually cities rather than town so they haven't gone forward yet uh for people listening cities have a different process for approving zoning ordinances in towns do so it's a um different timeline okay and then other than that um uh the state eohc announced uh a bunch of um updates uh starting with October 1st it's been roughly every week of the communities that are in compliance uh have been fully uh um approved and those that have submitted but are not yet um approved so that's still moving through as I said there's I think the first batch on October 1st and I think there have been maybe four since then and no one is out of compliance because the deadline is December 31st is that correct or for this year uh there's actually two communities are out of compliance uh right now Milton is one of them uh because their de their deadline was December 31st 2023 uh as you know the town meeting passed the um zoning bylaw but there was a refer and uh before the end of 2023 but there was a referendum in January of last year Jan J February of last year sorry that overturned that town meeting vote so they are currently out of compliance uh the town of H is out of compliance because it didn't submit an action plan which was the first step I believe their deadline is also December 31st of this year so they have until then to preventive compliance and then uh for those of you who have been following uh Milton and um the state are currently in legal disagreement and the um SJC heard arguments on October 7th of uh so just earlier this month I have not seen I I last checked at the end of last week I haven't seen anything about when the updates are for the next steps on that but I have talked to a couple of town councils and everybody sort of waiting but the if I'm correct the the subject of the um litigation was the applicability to Milton not the legality of the law it's not the legality of the law um I did catch most of the arguments and this will probably be the first of many times that I say I'm not a lawyer because I'm not but what was interesting as a non- lawyer was um that the questions were Mo mostly focused on the guidelines uh and whether they had the same status as regulations that was a lot of them there were other things that um were discussed but that was a big part of it but it was not uh there has not been a challenge to the law itself it's correct okay um all right any other updates people things people want to talk about remind everybody I did put something in the folder system called future meetings as I said I would I don't know if anybody's added anything to that document but um it is there in the SharePoint um so if you have ideas about things we should take up uh feel free to um to do that so um take a minute recess I think stretch our legs there's no sense sitting in these chairs um thank everybody online for uh tuning in um and um our hearing uh the CST cell signaling hearing has been postponed to November 12th at 6:30 um while they continue to do some investigation and we will begin the um public hearing on the zoning at 7 so yes I question yeah actually we should take any public comment as well thank you thank you for yeah sorry can you just uh we have a new um uh admin person so Stephanie Rogers 5 street thank you um I was wondering if we as the public could get any color as to why s siing keeps getting on the um the schedule on the agenda and we keep coming so that we are aware of what's going on and then they keep postponing it seems like last minute because we're not given the word before we show up yeah um I'm a little concerned like what what is going on is there a an issue going yep um good question and sorry that um that that for you that and um we should probably try to put that on the agenda sooner um there is nothing subur of going on basically with a project of this size um as they uh and the issue around um the road and um utilities negotiation National Grid those kinds of things they you know the things change so there are two ways to do that one is to have a special permit that's either three ways I guess maybe Mark correct if I'm wrong one would be a vague special permit another would be a the special permit that gets amended and the third is to try to get it right the first time and so the unfortunately the special permit hearing process has to be continued to a certain date we can't just say we'll take it up when we're ready we have to continue it to a date and then when that date rolls around we have to have the agreement of the applicant to continue it to a future date so it's um you know it's they haven't I'm not aware that there are any um catastrophes or unforeseen you know sight conditions or anything like that and I would say that the base of the project is as we have heard it we're simply trying to get the best deal for the town that we can mark do you want to add to that yeah I mean I think um some of the utility issues and as it relates to at Water R hadn't been fully vetted by CST prior to their submitt so they were kind of doing it along as as they were going trying to figure out what costs were what's the best way of getting um electric um you know Communications gas into the property what the challenges were what the costs related to that is what the impact app water AB is U what the town may want so they hadn't done any of that ahead of time so during the process these issues came up they hadn't been worked out they take longer they have to study the condition of a culbert for example they have to do Bings so there's there's numerous things and they are doing their homework it's just it takes time so another example just um the public input asked for um a bike lane extended bike lane so that requires an engineering look to see what would be involved how is even possible is it you know that's an example um so some of those things um obviously they didn't proposed a bike lane and they you know so that kind of thing is going on so another question is they already laid out you know all the road blocks and the the the piping um and it was my understanding I thought that the letter from the town was that it was going to be done in October and November I could be mistaken um ending like around the end of November or early December but it does seem like they're delayed in starting and so I'm concerned with winter coming um what's going on like I want to be able to plow my driveway right so that's you're talking about the um the uh water water and sewer on Forest and Mill yeah so um maybe Greg might have some additional that's not a planning board um uh that's outside of our jurisdiction that's a town um uh DPW but I can understand why it's confusing for sure I did get an email from the DPW I had emailed Chuck Dam about that and he had said that the water line work would be done in the fall and the sewer line work would continue until spring that's a little bit of dated information I asked about a month or yeah so we're we we share your desire and anxiety to make sure the water is done before cold weather sets in so we had that very conversation with the contractor other day right um so let's let's make sure we get ample crews out there they've been focusing on on the workout it's the same contract Pleasant Street okay so um they're they're about they're in a good spot on Pleasant Street they're about ready to ship their crew over to okay so it's more the the contractors behind and not that there's a delay that's going on those are separate those are totally separate okay yep but but can understand why [Music] you're uh Rand yeah say your name sou contractor been starting work this3 in the morning and I've been in contact with Andor BR has assured me that they're not supposed to be stud 8: a.m. what I was hoping is that you can confirm that is in fact the start date time excuse me 8 a that's um so you want to answer that please please have appreciate your comment the contract they do not have permission to start so whatever whatever thew whatever the bylaw time is they need to it's when they start earlier I believe thew has a techically they could be fine so Place have involved with that I can follow up with that thank you um yeah um um I had a question question on um the CST um post what time I know this is the third time it's been post um what time or what day did those um requests for our pooning take place received it on Friday so is there a way clearly people have a bested interest in this and we value our time so is and I had actually reached out to a member of the col family about this too and I feel like it would be better served for everybody if there was a way for the public to be leaked in when CST does request this from the town either CST or the town notify us like we now get um on the CSD old cory.com you have the blasting report to the blasting schedule kind of that same idea so that you're respecting everybody's time we'll see what we can do about that I think that's a I I understand your point and I think it's a reasonable suggest um Sarah I was just going to say that on the zba agendas if we know something's going to be continued we actually put on the agenda yeah just so that people don't show up you can amend your agenda posting and have that update yeah yeah and I don't know don't uh we are in I think we have done that in the past asked um we're between two staff members right the second so I think it's a good suggestion I think that we'll try to put it I think the best place is to put it on the agenda so you should check the agenda before we come if we can put it also with them on the their list or that seems reasonable appreciate it we also just updated the planning web page so with the phone number that wrs over at the planning office across the street so if you called that day we'll um let you know they're requesting the continuance for what's the date November November 12th November 12th okay so call that that morning or early afternoon um Sarah Pierce you have a comment we're taking public comment okay I just had I wanted to clarify is this public comment section just for CST or is this for the MBTA and the opportunity to talk with the consultant or is that for later so we're um the public hearing for the MBTA zoning will start at 7 as it was posted we're sorry I the beginning of that I'm sorry no it's fine informal discussion cell signaling has um uh postponed until November at least right now till November 12th no I know it's um and we will and there will be opportunity for public comment in the public hearing great thank you so much can I go over the um we're not listing correspondents again on our agenda can I go over what correspondents we've receed just going to do that so yeah great thank you okay um we had excuse me did we had two that were asked specifically for the hearing so if you can hold on those yeah um well I I'll just mention them in say we'll discuss um on 1019 we received an email from Lorraine iani um which referenced a bler Daily Times article um which included a quote from our concom chair that um discussed Manchester water quality and quantity is not receiving a priority um 1023 we had an email from Elizabeth Thomas um bloster Daily Times article that stated a special condition had been granted for the 6:30 um a.m time start um which was was not true um 1024 we had an email from Elizabeth Thomas um oring an email that she had sent to the police chief regarding I think there's been read to four times the five times that they've had to call for early construction times various um 1027 Erica and Ethan Spencer regarding overlay at Newport Park which we can discuss during the hearing and 1028 lorine iani um regarding the planning board and select board consider the postponement of 3A but we can discuss that at the hearing that was it great thank you all right now we can take a five minute stretch uh Shannon um Laura Tenny has joined us oh thank 654 thank you thank you so we're gonna just take a break for five [Music] minutes why don't we take this opportunity to get out some more chairs or are there me I don't yeah yeah a lot question request yeah okay so this change from the 6500 to 65 same thing it added like three units so that's how we balance what we lose with maintain that's the latest two the three at the bottom there we had to make those Chang we didn't change the maps and that I knew I just we did that before we noticed the public added a lot of how you do Em I'm fine how are you they were fil oh good okay all right it being 7 o'clock um I'm going to call the public hearing to order um we have a lot of people here tonight thank you for coming and a lot of people online um so I'm G uh ask that you if you are online that you stay muted until call up upon we will do our very best to get to everybody and if um uh Mary and Sue and um Peter as you as when we get to the public um comment piece if you see people's hands raised help me find them it's hard to see everybody um thank you everybody for coming tonight to the public hearing for the um changes in uh zoning and uh zoning bylaws and our zoning acts with the insertion of a new section 9.4 this point I'm going to open uh take a motion to open the public hearing so that's Chris Alney moved and Brewster second um a roll call vote Laura Tenny here uh Chris Aly yes Sarah Katon votes yes Gordon Brewster here Mary Foley yes and Peter Morton yes okay Su fil sorry I'm gonna do that all night here um as I said thank you everybody for coming um the MBTA uh task force has worked very hard we've had um a whole large number of forums and hopefully uh come on in it's going to be a long night to stand up uh there have been a number of forums to provide the uh a detailed look at the zoning changes so tonight we will be actually walking through the zoning itself and taking public input on the zoning but not um try not getting deeply into questions and answers um unless there are some common misconceptions so we'll try to run do that balance um we want to hear uh about the inputs from the public um so with that I'm going to just uh assume that most people have um been to one of the forums um daring hold on share post isn't allowing uh shoot sign in do we hold on sorry should have entered my email um does anybody know if this is which Communications this is this is going to take a second I'm sorry I this is a new computer uh I'm assuming you're on two oh it's usually three and it's not on the agenda no you know which one it's on there I I need you to help me with the um two you think it's two well we'll try sorry um and then I need to have the password sorry passcode no the password um sorry I have to go online oh do you know what they are I think it should be is it captain mhm exclamation No no [Music] um it didn't say on the agenda oh yeah yeah let see oh no she's got the wrong password oh it's a seaside yeah right I only use one one okay wait minute all right I was there we go okay thank you everybody for your patience uh that's a great way to start off okay so um welcome everybody um the public hearing we um we're GNA like I said uh start with a brief overview on the screen hopefully most of you have heard this before um and um so um okay so the um the state law as you know um was passed as an amendment to chapter 40 and uh this um actually if somebody can minimize touch thank you um it this slide simply uh underscores that there are underscores that there are many requirements in the statute and in the guidelines and um we have uh believe that our zoning draft complies with these um the zoning does a couple of things first it creates overlay districts that allow multifam with conditions and those uh districts were formed to Target properties um and zones that were least likely to be developed on small Lots in general and lots with more than one where where there's often more than one unit already um and to connect them in a logical way this is not um yeah come on in it's okay uh this is not zoning through the whole town it's really only um 37 Acres which is only a small fraction of the town the districts were ID were um targeted to avoid the historic downtown and most of the commercial downtown the idea was that we didn't uh want our commercial businesses like Crosby's turned into housing um and um by doing it um our way um means that we got to do it that way um and we don't know what would happen if if it was done for us um because the intent was to create housing near the MBTA station um and then we created or the task force um the zoning uh that we propos that is before us tonight creates regulations on size height setbacks parking um as well as affordability and design standards there were some guiding principles and those were to maintain the character of the Town preserve our businesses have a scale and style that um was consistent with the town and to minimize the number of uh units so would actually get built um by excluding the historic district and requiring design review um as I said excluding the downtown commercial area um including many small Parcels height limits and assigning a maximum number of units where possible and selecting Parcels where development was less likely and all of this went into a giant um model that the state uh gave us and we believe that they um these four districts otherwise called community housing overlay District or chods catchy name which will allow multif family units um with some uh restrictions um in terms of size in terms of setbacks and number height and so forth um and will require a design review for all multif family units that are taking advantage of this um byrite um use and um if you have a if there's a property in any of these districts the uses that are allowed today remain there are no changes to those um and as you can see it's only four uh areas of town um people should see have seen these um uh the other thing um to all of these things are on the website um I'll show you how to get to that portion if you're watching from home um you can go to the town website right on the front page there's a a um radio button for Manchester and BTA zoning and you can um there's a wealth of information fre frequently asked questions Maps uh a couple of videos um with a couple more coming that walk you through these districts um on foot to show you them um they are made by the members of the task force so um may not win an Academy Award but may might um and I really encourage you to walk through those districts with in the videos um which should be up uh two I think two are up now and and the others are are on um so the first district sorry oops um is the lower is the Pine Street District um well it's not all it's the um area as seen here just below um rice Lane um includes Newport um and P Newport Park and powderhouse um and lower Pine Street to the gas station um and this has two uh subdistricts um two of our districts are or chods have subdistricts so that we could regulate the height setback and number of units separately um and they uh were designed to comply with the model um in a way that links these together and as as I should have said in the beginning we submitted a draft of the zoning to the executive office of Housing and livable communities who has um given us some feedback which we modified uh the draft to reflect but um by and large they were um indicated that our po zoning did comply with their um regulations so lower Pine Street is the first district the second district is called Beach to C Street um it includes 10 12 Summer Street um which as you know was relatively recently redeveloped as I said before it avoids the commercial properties um and again has two uh subd districts with different um requirements in them and as we go through the zoning we will be talking um and getting your input on on the de those details um the third uh district is Allen a to Lincoln Street shown here um basically from Allen AB up Summer Street to just beyond Lincoln Street including the gas station and including the uh condos on Brook Street shown there sort of in the middle of the um of the screen and the last District um is Beaver Dam Road it's in the limited commercial District the east side of school street it's currently used as storage facility and it's about six acres and that um has the highest density these four districts are combined to uh meet all of those complex requirements that I fleshed before you in the beginning so it's a intricate math puzzle um if you take a um if you take some density away from one section you have to add it to another if he takes some make Bridge away from one section you have to add it to another because the numbers all have to add up so it's a basically a giant algebra problem um and um with that those are the um modifications so the um zoning article references modifications to the zoning map and these four districts are the modifications to the uh the zoning map because they um create overlay districts in those four areas um and then those overlay districts are given the multif family rights in the zoning um so the um I'm going to come back to table if we need to um there also is a um set of things in the zoning called design standards and site plan review for multif family units and that for all multif family units who take advantage of the um this uh use they would have to go to a um design review board and there is guidelines and um about uh Style um types of um roof lines scale um finish materials not to make all of the multif family um units look the same but actually in contrast to make them as varied as the um housing that we have in town and we were advised by some architects who live in town um who develop the standards and de and um a number of the folks who do development on the task force indicated that when you come before um a town and there are design standards you do your best to comply with those because that expedites your process um the other thing about um site plan review and this um design standards is that the butters would be notified and able to give input um to the to the developer to the or the individual let me I I use the word Vel ER Loosely because um if you own a property in this um in one of these um CHS you uh also you could add on two units for your family it's that this is not necessarily just uh developers we bring some chairs in from the other room there's some people out in the hall um we may want to just let me why don't I do the breaking point and and minute so take a second and do that um lastly I wanted just to point out that there are affordable housing requirements um these are uh registered uh affordable housing units um and the state allows 10% of the units to be affordable unless we have done a economic feasibility study which we did do and the economic feed disability study said that we have a need for affordable units and thus we can require the maximum which is 20% of the units and so the little table on the right shows um how that would work um a developer can build more and um the idea is that a higher density um as well as this requirement creates a variety of housing types and housing and that's the goal so um we are going to uh take public comment on the zoning I'm going to try to limit we have a lot of people and we want to make sure we hear from everybody so I'm going to ask that you try to limit your comments to be succinct um state your name and your address and uh try to create try to give us the um UniQue Ideas here and input um it's not that helpful to hear the same thing over and over but um you can speak it if you if you like um we're going to try to get to everybody um first we'll take comment from the public and then from the board and we are going to look in detail at the zoning at which there's handouts so with that I'll take a breath and um before we chug our way through the zoning which is dry and um tedious but I don't know how else to to do it um we'll grab a few more chairs if people want to grab some more chairs from the other room and uh squish a few more hard um so um I'm now going to share the zoning Sarah Pierce do you have a procedural question or um I'm try not to yeah well I have a couple of questions and comments so is it okay to ask them now proceed I mean um why don't we walk we're are we're gonna walk through the zoning and we'll um uh take we're going to take comments on each section of the zoning so okay um and um so just to clarify we're trying to get comments on the zoning after that we will also hear um later in the meeting the finan the fiscal analysis the propensity to change study and about the grants that are um in Jeopardy if we fail to pass this and we will then um be talking about uh um and we'll take an additional set of um comments at that time so try to keep your comments right now to the zoning um that we're going to take Section by section so um Mark I'm gonna turn it over to Mark Resnik who is our planner and um we were you going to show a table you said you were going to go back to that slide yep that table is in the zoning it's the table and the zoning um the table on Section 9.45 n 94.5 um we do have two guests tonight um uh Emily Andis um who has been working with us um on this and Jonathan Murray um from KP law who's Town Council um so that I'm going to turn it over to um Mark um who is going to uh sort of summarize the sections of the zoning we'll start with um purpose might start with purpose establishment and definitions okay um all the purpose of the um bylaw it says that we are um it is to comply with Section 3A of the zoning act and that um it's uh written in order to preserve the character of the town and minimize the impact on the community as well as ADD options for multif family housing which is what the law says we need to do uh The Establishment and applicability is the next section that is what establishes the districts um and remember the districts are overlay districts so we're not changing any of the underlying districts um the underlying districts still govern what you may or may not do with your property unless you want to do multif family housing in compliance with this um uh bylaw and it uh um establishes the poor districts that Sarah just showed uh on the uh map up on the screen uh and then the the next uh section is definitions that we have added specifically as a into the Zone in in to this bylaw as it relates to interpretation of this bylaw okay um so going pause and take any um comments on those sections [Music] um S Pierce please name and address please s Paris nine friend street thank you um I'm not quite sure where this fits in but this seems to be the appropriate place um I I know that we received a letter from the eohc at the end of September and there were a few issues with us being actually compliant with um the zoning mandate and I'm wondering if we at this point have received a new updated approval letter from the the eohc with all of those conditions or requirements they've asked us to fulfill um in addition I just would like some clarification and I have another question for another section but if it states on here that we are at a unit capacity of 559 units and I would like to have that confirmed by Emily inis as well as um if we have received an updated letter from the eohc because it states here that we are in interim compliance and not actual compliance okay um so let's I'm going to try to consolidate a few of those comments um I think we have we're not required to submit to hlc again right so we're following the process and we've made changes based on their so we won't get final compliance until after the bylaw is passed by town meeting and then re that final version that gets passed by the town gets submitted to eohc so the infim compliances things that they see as um you know red flags or things that uh that they identify as as meaning to be cored our issues were relatively minor and uh We've addressed those okay um Lauren bunker you have a comment I I'd like to try to keep the comments right now on the zoning um but uh go ahead okay hi Lauren bunker and I'm at 26 Pine Street I think that this has to do with zoning because I'm in the zone District so a developer bought the two lots next to me and my question is based on the Zone by right what I understand is he can put up 25 units so he can come in through Pine Street he can come in through de Hill Road there's one and a half parking spots where are people going to park if it's Zone by right what does that actually even mean like you said that you will tell him what it can look like but like what about the water runoff coming down the hill like what it I don't know is this a zoning question yeah um I think it's a question Rel relative to the map so um we did where are people going to park like where what about the traffic like all that stuff so let's say um we uh did make a change to the draft zoning um that the any division of land had to comply with the underlying Frontage and lot requirements so that would um and then will we get into your questions in some of the other sections as it relates to site plan review as it relates to parking and as it relates to lot division so just listen and we will your an questions will be answered right um so I could just point out to the the change that we made to um say have the underlying zoning be for if a lot to be subdivided that has not been verified through eh eohc yet so we won't know that until after town meeting and after we submit it is that correct uh other communities have uh restricted how um you can divide they've restricted it to the underlying zoning districts as well so um so that you can't create take a big lot and mul and chop it up into lots of smaller Lots um so we're not the only Community to do that so just my question is that was not part of the preapproval right um corre I also just want to Lauren you uh said that that that combination of lots could be could have 25 units and that's absolutely not the case so that I don't have in front of me the um the numbers but um but I know okay let's um I'd like uh Sandy R can excuse me Mrs uh Sarah could I you didn't answer my question I asked about the unit capacity and I had another comment and question and it does to do with zoning thank you we will do our best to answer questions as they go along I've asked Emily to help us record them and we'll try to take them and because a lot of them are related right so uh Sandy on the do you have comments on the zoning in front of us um yes I don't know if it's the right time but hopefully it will be answered thank you um uh Sandy Rogers 82 oldis six Road um I am a bit confused at some information that I've been seeing I know that the task force had purposely zoned um over some condominium buildings um under the idea that those would be more difficult to get everyone to agree to change um but I've also seen that the 3A law might override condominium laws that are in place and I wanted to know if you knew anything about that um Jonathan you want to just comment on that uh John the Mari KP laws Town Council U 3A and local zoning adopted by towns will not override condominium bylaws they will not override um you know local restrictions or privately held restrictions it is zoning just like any other zoning towns pass and so um it allows or disallows uses it doesn't inter with those private contract rights like condominium bylaws great thank you okay so the idea is that one one of the units if it's owned if it sells it still needs to adhere to condominium law thank you thank you okay um the um any other any comments on the definitions through sections uh um line number 67 um okay uh we will get to um other comments but um let's try to keep it to the sections we're talking about we will have opportunity for the general conversations um mark back to permitted uses okay permitted uses um there are three subsections uh the first permitted uses are uses that are permitted as the right and this is where we specifically say m family housing and um uh in the also we also specifically allow if you're in the General District to combine although it's not required because we can't require it to combine some uh commercial uh uses um to create a mixed use building with residential above um we also um uh allow accessory uses um as it relates to uh parking and uh home occupation and um and then we have a section for accessory uses by special permit uh this section has been recommended that we remove by Council because um our bylaw should not have any um special permit requirements even if they do not relate to the actual housing but they are in the bylaw so um it feels that it is uh it would invalidate our 50% uh passage rate and we would have to have a 2third uh approval at town meeting so he has uh recommended that we remove uh subsection three um is that something we can do now yeah so um Jonathan you want to speak to that to clarify sure sure um so Madam chair into the members of the board I'm sure you'll recall just until a few years ago 2021 I think it was all zoning amendments required a two-thirds vote at town meeting um when the legislature and the governor enacted what was the the housing Choice act which included the MBTA 3A Provisions they also amended 485 which is the procedure to adopt a zoning bylaw Amendment and they created specific categories of uses that um could be adopted by simple majority vote and so in the case of 3A it's multif family housing allowed as a right the C to that section is at the very end it says a simple majority vote shall not be combined with a 2third vote and the way we've interpreted that is if you combine a simple majority vote and a two-thirds vote the whole article requires a two-thirds vote and so I've given the opinion and my recommendation was um 9.4.3 accessory uses by special permit the uses listed under that section don't qualify under any of the simple majority categories in 485 so you recommend to include them the whole article becomes a 2third vote so if it was the board's recommendation to keep this a simple majority vote I would recommend taking this out at this time but that wouldn't prevent the town or the board someone else recommending at a future town meeting putting something like this in or something similar or uh you could always amend that later on but that's my recommendation at this time and then CHR uh so I was wondering whether that's appropriate to do right now can we well I think we'll do it as we when we recommend the zoning but we'll end but I think we would like so I think the the change would be to put a period um at the end of line 84 and strike line 85 through 91 80 so 84 84 because you want to say you want to strike the the beam district oh okay yep then that's fine I would say then then as part of your final motion motion you can note that change in the final motion so um so I'm going to take um comments now just on because this is the important permitted uses comments on two portions uh the permitted uses the accessory uses um and the um proposed change which is to put a period at the end of 884 and strike 86 through 91 85 85 sorry here yeah um comments from the public uh Christine hi thanks um Christine delissio 6 Lincoln Avenue so I guess just generally I haven't seen how this is actually going to be implemented so so the comment earlier was you know special permit so who is this going to is this going to the building inspector and then my second part of that is Mark had said that the underlying zoning is going to prevent somebody from chopping up a large piece of land but that's the essence of a subdivision so are you saying that any property in a district is not going to be allowed to be subdivided uh no it doesn't prevent them from subdividing but it does require them to follow whatever the current zoning requirements are for lot SI if they choose to divide the land whether it's through a form a application or a subdivision application that but that is the essence of taking a large parcel and chopping it up right so subdividing it so you're saying that you are allowed to do that you are allowed to do it provided you follow the underlying zoning District density requirements for Frontage and SS and if you were to do a subdivision you would have to follow subdivision rules and regulations in addition yes you would have you're going to put a road in for create Plage yes so okay um my second question was according to the special permit so you just took that out but Beaver Dam also falls over the water um Resource District so are we saying that we now are not able to um require a special permit in that District that's so critical to our drinking water uh yes so yes we cannot require any kind of conditions over our drinking water because of the not not that's not true um so we are in the latest section we have a uh where we removed the special permit requirement but they still have to comply with all of the um uh specific design criteria for that particular district and some others so we'll get to that in few more section so I just just to be clear I just want to hear you say that so there is no enforcement of a special permit in the Water Resource District correct that is not correct that's not correct that is not correct you can't require a special permit as it is written today no you can't require a special permit but you can enforce the regulations that are required for a special permit okay um other comments from um people um we as Mark said this this issue is later in the zoning so um see others okay um so the dimensional standards unfortunately this table goes on two pages um Mark uh I'm going to let you try to um summarize it um I'm going to suggest that you summarize the idea and let people read through the language okay so so the idea um or what we have here is all of the uh the zoning districts are across the top including the subd districts and then what we have in the chart is is um the dimensional requirements for each of these districts so it's the lot size that's needed or the amount of land area that's needed to um for to have a multi to be able to do multif family housing which is three or more units then there's a base slat requirement and additional square footage requirement so um if you have 6,000 square fet you're allowed to have three units um and um we have some caps for a few of our districts as far as the number of units that are allowed on a property um we also have as in all dimensional tables we have fronted B width um height and uh setback requirements um and lock cage requirements and so many of these requirements are similar too if not exactly the same as um our underlining underlying zoning District requirements um so then we have several other uh sections uh within um uh this uh 9 4.5 uh the the key one couple key ones to point out is number four which is lot Division and this gets to the previous questions um uh having to do with the division of land and referring to the minimum lot size and Frontage requirement of the underlying base zoning so um so you have to comply if you're going to try and create more additional Lots out of a larger parcel you have to comply with the requirements of the underlying District um the next one um has to do with accessory structures and um we did find another special permit in the first line that we should remove it says inless chard accessor structure shall require a special permit from the planning board and shall be set back from the side and rear lot lines as required in underline zoning District so I recommend that we remove the uh starting in the shell in line 106 and going up to um and removing the second shell so we remove require a special permit from the planning board in Shell remove those words so just says you're going to need the sh yeah we need one of those shelves keep a shelf we'll keep a shelf so in the shot accessory structur shall be set back from the side and rear lot lines as required by the underlying zoning District that's how that St okay and so then we have um exceptions for um chimneys and towers and other uh architectural features energy installations and then we get to the last one structured parking which also requires a special permit and so I would recommend that we remove number eight as a relates to allowing um structured parts you're recommending remove lines 125 through 128 that's correct the the model is based on Surface parking so removing that um structured parking requirement here and I believe in one of the uh allowance for speci for parking doesn't affect the model in any way we're changing this on the Fly here can you go back to the 106 accessory structures um which was originally requiring a special permit and we put a size limit on these we have no size limit on Accessory structures and if we're now increasing um in perious surfaces in uh like the Newport and powderhouse districts which uh 70% and I think in our current bylaws it's 50% so we're we're covering a lot more surface land um I think it makes sense that we set a reasonable accessory structure size well we have a u a limitation that they shall not exceed 25 ft from the ground or one and a half stories so we don't have a square foot requirement for some requirement is on that's instru I just think um to have a square foot um to address some massing issues um to have a square foot limit I think would help ease residents Minds that not every square inch of a lot could be built upon um if it was going to be required through a special permit process there would be some oversight and if there's no oversight um get that size I think we should stipulate it here you have a suggested size um I think we would have to uh think about that a little bit I mean I could throw something out but you know I don't know if it makes sense 500 square feet something like that um 250 square feet I mean I think if we want to if we're saying they're going to be sheds maybe 250 square feet I don't know what these accessory structures are going to be well so so the problem is if you're um building let's say just a regular you know residential parking garage and for three cars I mean just that alone is probably 7 or 800 square feet one one for each of let's say it's a free unit building you want to have at least one car for each unit under under uh under cover um so uh so I think that's a low number is my point and I think it's TR to start adding I think it it would fall under site plan review so it would be something that we would be evaluating through site plan review and looking at the um you know the layout of the property and how everything works and conforms uh and uh I think I I don't think I'd recommend a would lot coverage cover it anyway lot coverage would restrict the size of an accessory yeah but what H what we see happens is is they'll put gravel instead of pavement because they've built an accessory structure and then they'll say that's pervious and so there's there's all sorts of workarounds um and when things are by right um as long as it meets what's in the bylaw you cannot put conditions on it so we couldn't during a site plan review say oh well you know 500 square feet seems large we we want it to be 250 and that they would comply I mean if we don't put anything in here it's an unknown so I'm just making that recommendation um Greg is that your point about lot coverage was the right I think you're following the existing lot cover average maximums minimums so no not changes no that's not correct what has changed so the um so for the New Port and powder house which is um District D and G I think in our current bylaws it's 50% and this is 70% 40% 40% this is 70% restruction um so we those besides those two exceptions but this this is 40% yeah just 40 yeah so it's the same as the underlying zone so this is seven what am I it's um sorry to interrupt it's structures is 40 structures plus impervia surface is 70 yeah structure yeah absolutely your structure is still limited to 40 so that would include an accessory a house the house the accessory garage the you know three family house and accessory garage to use Mark's example um and any other structure like a shed all have to fit within that 40% and then the impervious surface is separate understood the um I'm referring to the structures in impervious surfaces so in the current it's 50 and now 70 so that's a big difference structure still limited to 4 I think we're talking about the structure which is the accessory structure is for ex there's no change for structures there could be your point is that there could be additional perious Sur impious surface than what is currently allowed but not for structures in those yeah um let's hear from the public on the um this is a big uh chunk here um uh ditional uh standards um and I do want to just point out to the prior um comment by Lauren bunker that this is where the maximum dwellings per lot comes in in this District uh Pine lower Pine to powderhouse District maximum dwelling units per lot is five um and uh and as Mark said um if they're divided I can meet the underly zoning so that's why the math doesn't work that large number that you see um okay any uh let's see um comments from the room two hands up on thank you um I'm I'm looking to for people who haven't we haven't heard from yet um uh uh Roland rolling P for first a general question curious how Pam with 100 units ended up being included in this it's nowhere near an mgta station read part of that Al yeah that's part of the algebra problem the thing is if we don't have a beaver dam we going have to put 100 units in the downtown so it seems like an easy trade off to us especially when Beaver Dam is already a successful development and is unlikely to be so that's why I was going how does it connect to mbca in three days so we have to create we have to allow 559 units somewhere in this town we have zoned areas that have 250 units roughly already but we still have to find more space for more units and the question is where in town can we put them we thought it would be better to put them not in the downtown and take the pressure off as as much as we can and you're consideration for the that it's right our water supply is not the there there's a a a storage facility next to our water supply now right we're not controlling it very well well that's a well but that's the point exactly you might make conditions better out there by having residential use so so uh so only the law requires only 40% of the units that we zone for be within the half mile of the train station the other 60% can be elsewhere we are anywhere in theit so um and we have to go by units parsal size yeah because we have to know for a particular density so after doing our other three districts we needed something where we could have approximately 100 units on a parcel with a certain build facility Foster yeah if if someone developed that it would probably again we have design control over the what the buildings look like and they may not be as high as the gler buildings but there are many examples if you drive along 12 where you see um multif family housing developments of um a cluster of larger buildings so if that ever got developed we would maybe see something like that maybe you'd see really nice high-end Town Homes think about where it is surrounded by conservation so maybe um that might happen but most likely nothing's going to happen because they're in the midst of doing a a an extensive expansion and clean up the property so at least for the foreseeable future it's GNA probably continue to be what it is so um okay I know if that helps but in the back than Rogers 594 so yeah along the um same lines on the Beaver Dam Road I'm concerned about I understand like okay where right in with there place to put this much C and I like the idea they been very thoughtfully done as far as trying to pocket smaller places every way um but then all of a sudden you're throwing this huge amount over on Beaver down which is also where scale signaling is going and so you're going to have 500 plus employees coming in and off on um School Street and the 128 exit and now the possibility of 100 units which I don't even know how many cars that means um coming in and out of there as well I can't even imagine the traffic that's going to go between Essex and Manchester um and that the traffic is my concern and coming in and off of those exits it's already pretty dangerous thank you um uh an stupid correction an Harrison an Harrison us 13 T Point Road um Line 120 um Vol solar thermal living no comment because living at other is one thank you okay uh Sandy Rogers great I have uh two separate bit of questions um one is if you get rid of let me see I had this up um 125 through 128 with structured parking does that mean that any location in any of these overlays can build the structured parking and then if they do where within the zoning do we mandate how high it can be etc etc that's my first question the second one is what I'm reading here is um Newport Park and Beach Street have only a 5 foot Frontage is that what it is now or has that changed because that is awfully close to the road for such high density thank you District the answer that Sarah has provided that the that is the underlying Z for Frontage front setbacks to answer that question she's checking your General District district D and District B so that is consistent with the underlying zoning District D so um is that what the district D is 10 ft right that's right only G is five feet the G which is each street is five and Newport Park is and powderhouse are back Newport Park doesn't have Street front right doesn't have Street I can't hear I'm I'm sorry it's hard to hear what's being said well Newport Park doesn't doesn't really sit on the street on bind street so it already there would the setback wouldn't matter okay but there is a setback there yeah it's like 30 feet I think so it's now 30 we're reducing it to five doesn't have but it doesn't have FR doesn't have enough Frontage on Pine Street to allow a building to be placed five feet away from the street it's 10 feet and be Street me streets in the General District so it's 5 feet um Emily can you help us uh a little Mark with the question of um parking structures absence the chod wanted to build a parking structure for business for a use today it's I'm just checking the the uses unless you allow it okay so you would want to look at 2A which says parking including surface parking and parking within a structure such as an attached or detached above ground or under the parking lot parking garage on the same lot as the principally used so that is now allowed as an accept for use um the structured parking in 8 which is line 125 uh this was limiting it to only the newpt potterhouse sub District in bber Dem District with that special permit from the planning board so if you were wanting to uh put in any restrictions on it uh we would want to think about modifying this paragraph if you wanted to remove the option of structured parking then you would need to take it out of a line um 81 880 sorry it's actually in line 82 I think the question is do we want to allow structure working we can't have it by special permit and then Mary's point or somebody's point should allow it should have if I if I recall the discussion from uh um the task force and I think a little bit from the planning board as well uh the question was being able to differentiate between uh an accessory garage uh for example the one that uh Mark mentioned earlier for say a three three family house or a five Family House versus uh a structured parking garage for larger scale uh development such as a de gam size development so I think you would want to think about the idea of a garage that was attached within a building like a townhouse that has a garage um that some there was a concern as to whether or not that would follow the definition of a structured garage so I think we would want to look at the definition of struct garage in aant zoning I think it's there's there's a definition on page 580 for parking structur yes and it's a little it's unclear to me the difference between a parking structure and structured parkings but the intention in that definition is to make a difference between a multi-level parking structure and a single level whether it's above ground below ground sorry and tell me where that is 580 line 580 additional definition very last page Madam chair can I acquire the town's consultant um to the extent it's a separate accessory structure too it would have to comply with the 25 foot exact height limitation the one and a half story height limitation and as we discussed the maximum uh structure uh lock coverage in the table as well so there are there would be some built in yeah the other thing is that um in our current underlying zoning garaging or maintaining of more than four automobiles when accessory to a dwelling um so that might be a garage for eight Vehicles is the um is requires a special permit from the zba and so so the question but not um in the um is not allowed in the lcv so me just check the parking lights in here um we would just need to double check that was not precluded Anyway by requirements in here I don't think they are but we could double check that if we got a sense I think from it is yeah but we could double check um given a sense board Direction about okay so um that's the the change at hand what our recommendation is for this amendment to the yeah moving this and the otherr completely take them out of language it's not necessary for our compliance a model is run without structur part and you allow for it from the zdi we allow already say have requirement for more than certain number to go it's already in the zoning so it's already covered plus it also has to comply with the one half story 20 lot coverage requirements there a lot of checks and balances on okay I'm gonna ask that people um we have a lot of people here that we try to keep any chatter to the to the minimum we can everybody can hear Who's online thank you um so the recommendation from the planner is that we remove this reference to structured parking I think the reason that we wanted to consider it was particularly in the Beaver Dam district is that if you allow a structure you reduce the footprint of your impervious surface and so um uh and and similarly that in those districts and that was the rationale is that to have a structured parking might particularly in Bieber Dam um reduce your amount of impervious that was the rationale so the alternative there is to just remove a special permit requirement but we also could um don't forget we want to have a compliant model here this could be added a very simple change to the zoning table in a springtime meeting just allow structure that garaging in the LCD with a changing yes to a zba in this table and that's what I can John yes John round green Bri wrot so by removing that that means the maximum height for a parking garage could be 45 ft no no accessory use because accessory requirement okay so because it's 45 for the building there right but only 25 is an accessory right all right okay so um let's continue to take comment yeah I I just want to say I think that there needs to be regulations on those kinds of structures somewhere by special permit to be reviewed because they are different from the housing so be sure that it's in there thank you thank you I'm sorry Christine are we gonna talk about all these changes at the end because this is a lot um yes um Christine so I did ask before earlier and I didn't get an answer on it I wanted to see like where the procedures are if you wanted to ask for a special permit or a variance like where are those outlined and I would like to hear from Town Council after several years what's the criteria that this um board could deny site plan review Madam chair um to answer your first question what are the procedures for for special permits or variances those are the existing procedures for special permit and variance in the zoning bylaws so that would still to the extent that those procedures were applicable to any project you would use the ones that you currently have um as to your second question about when can you deny site plan review site plan review is non-discretionary review by local Municipal boards not to prohibit a use but to regulate um aesthetic site circulation environmental um design guidelines features of a property that would need some sort of site review um the the case law and the Massachusetts courts have said that the proper way for a board to deal with site plan review is to allow it or allow it with conditions so that the proposed use and the proposed project um can move forward because it's for as of right use there are extremely extremely rare C circumstances and I use the word extremely twice there to emphasize the point that you may deny site plan review but they are so rare that it's it it has to do with safety issues and not being able to reasonably regulate and as of right use they're so incredibly rare I don't want the impression that this is a tool in a site plan reviewing authorities toolbox site plan review the purpose is to regulate as of right uses boards May condition them but they generally in almost all circumstances can't deny site plan review and can you speak to the um site plan review as a way in the bylaw we're about to get to for the the uses that currently have a special permit in particular uh the Watershed sure so uh the feedback my office has got from eohc I'm sure em Emily has gotten the same feedback is that uh when it comes to special purpose overlay districts so Watershed protection and water supply protection and there's a a few other examples that uh cities and towns can't require a a separate special permit connected to the as of right use under 3A so you can't require you can't allow multif family housing as a right but then require a discretionary special permit or a non-discretionary special permit what the state has said though is that you can take all of those criteria that applicants are are need to comply with and put them in your 3A site plan review process so a proposed use a proposed application comes before the site plan reviewing Authority they have to show you that they meet all of the criteria if they don't meet a criteria according to the standards in the bylaw the site plan review Authority May condition the site plan so that that criteria is met or mitigated and then if that condition is violated you would enforce well not you all the building inspector would enforce just like any other condition a condition to a special permit or a violation of the zoning bylaw the building inspector is the enforcement Authority for town they would enforce either by fines or seeking a court order can I um because we asked for your opinion but we never officially caught it so I have a lot of questions on this can you um give some clarity around conditions so maybe an example is better if we have designed guidelines y um and we say we want certain um structural architecture you know whatever it may be um can we condition a site plan that basically says if if an applicant does not abide by these design guidelines they do not get approved so it would be the answer is yes but with a caveat for clarification so you would in that theor in that in that example you just gave you would issue a site plan approval with the conditions that you must comply with the substantive criteria in the zoning bylaw and so that would be the design review standards that you have in here so that would be a condition of your site plan if someone came in and built a lead box that didn't meet the you know the design standards then the building inspector would be tasked with enforcing your condition on the site plan review and what's the enforcement fines under either criminal or non-criminal disposition that's chapter 40 section 21d or zoning enforcement order under 487 I would say that's probably the more common route and so that's a ceasing assist order or an order to comply with the zoning bylaws that order is appealable to the zba and um if there is no enforcement we go into Superior Court or land court and seeking a court order requiring compliance with the order so do our current bylaws have that fine and in place yes um and with the Water Resource overlay Earth removal flood control in the bylaw can we just reference those bylaws or do we have to list out all the criteria so I think the way that you all have it here and I'm just going to look at it uh this would be 947 d starting at line 238 and um I'm sorry 240 for the purposes of this section 94 the criteria for granting a special permit for each of the districts below are incorporated into the planning board site plan review process as described in 949 the applicant for development within the CD is not required to apply for a special permit for the purposes of the uses listed in 94d and then it talks about your Earth removal flood control and uh ground and surface water overlay so those criteria by virtue of this second section are incorporated into your site plan review for 3A uses as to how you formulate your decision or conditions that's kind of a board preference on how you'd like to do either reference or state them specifically that's that's up to the board on their preference on how to write your decisions okay so so at the end of it you're saying we can enforce special permit conditions in a site plan condition um the thing that a special permit allows is an appeal process for a Butters or um party a site plan does not no grief Pary can to not to our zpa to to court to court to State cour same process State Court yep okay um and so can I just because I think the wording is really important so it's not special permit conditions it's criteria of the zoning bylaw so so what we're not enforcing is special permit conditions it's the criteria of the earth removal bylaw the criteria of the flood control and the criteria of the ground and surface water overlay that's what get gets conditioned in your site plan CLE it's not special permit conditions because that would necessitate the issuance of a special permit so it's the substantive criteria of your zoning bylaws which which can still be enforced can still be conditioned but via site plan approval which has to be approved okay and then to another question that was asked so is the process they must come to a site plan approval before getting a building yes okay so it might be a for meeting process here before it ever gets to the okay so um okay and where is that laid out or that's just an that's the that's the normal so right yeah so under the State Building Code which is 780 CMR when the building inspector gets the building permit application he has to make sure that zoning is complied with so one he would look to make sure is this a use allowed in the district does it meet the dimensional requirements and then if your bylaw says this use requires a a site plan review a special permit whatever it may be he has to check that box off before he signs the building permit application if he gets an application for a 3A multif family use that hasn't gotten site plan review he he could the process is he says either denied or he refers it back to you all to say applicant wants to do this use but they need site plan approval first okay and just to clarify and they also need to have the design review which is part of the site plan yeah separate process okay thank you that's helpful thank you all right let's um go back to the um comments on the trying to keep it we were on that section with the um my name is Bob meil am I am I in this meeting or not you are in a meeting of the um zoning thank you and when I want to raise a question what do I do why don't you go ahead are we still on zoning we are I would like to recommend that we do not vote in favor of the zoning and we should postpone the vote on zoning I think we're lost in the details we should postpone the vote on the special town meeting on 18 November okay and it's forever vote if we vote Yes it's done we should not vote Yes we should postpone that vote the grants are marginal in all of this the grants have average $6,000 a year against the $40 million budget per year the grants are not a major issue we can handle that more housing will lead to financial disaster for Manchester more infrastructure not enough taxes we will lose the quality of the life we have here already traffic is a problem it's going to get much worse we will have major water issues and I think the select board is not doing a good job of explaining this to the people we are lost in the details and you've led us into the details everybody's got details and nobody sees the for us through the trees that's are my comments thank you very much okay thank you um can you give us your address please 14 Beach Street great thank you so much um okay um I wanted to bring up an email that we had that I referenced at the beginning and they weren't able to make it tonight okay go ahead it's in this section um it was from Erica and Ethan Spencer um and the planning board got it I think everybody reviewed it but it um they live on Pine Street and their concern is um for Newport Park impacting the conservation area um and that they never thought it would move beyond the footprint of the current buildings um and the proposed changes are asking uh so kind of the the Pine Street area which includes lower Pine Newport Park and powder house to Bear a disproportionate share of the burden of complying with 3A and so if you do add up the numbers that that section of Pine Street is half almost half of the 352 proposed units um so that is a lot in that one dense area um and they had concerns with powderhouse and the wetlands there um uh there is um the affordable housing trust is doing a land survey there right now um I don't know for what development but she mentioned that as well okay thank you um and we all did get that um the entirety of that email thank you okay um other uh people we haven't heard from on this section okay I'm going to move on to um uh the next section which is the off street parking um section 4.6 I'm sorry the pack are a little bit out of L but use the um the line numbers uh yes so uh section 9.4.6 off street parking these are the requirements for us street parking um in the SE Dam District we have uh increased our regular parking requirements to two spaces per residential unit uh that's primarily because it is not in really a walking distance to any anything else so those people would have at least one if not two cars uh and then um in the rest of the community uh we kept with our current uh requirement of one and a half spaces per unit so that is consistent with the zoning uh we added little section with bicycle storage saying that in multif family developments 20 Bal more or can require that adequate bike storage to be available so U and that primarily would apply to the beaver Camp Sy okay any comments on the parking requirements which are the same as our underl um okay uh site plan review we just talked about that um Mark anything else that you want to add or em on that portion it is a confusing um uh section um it just LS out the than plan review process refers to our current design standards as well as the newly adopted design standards um so again it's not just the design standards that you see here that they have to comply with they have to comply with the design standards uh that are are in our current zoning bylaw as well and go through the design Rie process so okay um the other thing I just wanted there was a question about the process and this section references our existing site plan review process and procedures so that question is answered here we have an exist referenced um in these section those section numbers get properly Ved check okay you got a question over therey go ahead um just the existing site plan review process require notification ofs my understanding is it does who does process yes um that's usually linked to a special permit in our bylaw it says a site plan review may receive a public hearing from plan board right but I don't think we require in site plan a Butter's list what to say yes or no yeah yes or no I mean Mark is it yes or no my understanding is site plan do not special permit does planning board shall hold a public hearing to a consideration of application to site plan approval the first sentence in our current zoning 12.63 do you have H notification we notify uh while a public hearing shall be held in accordance with the procedures set forth in N General law section 4811 is that to not yes so that's the requirement for special permits which is um a notification of the buts okay so just be sure I'm clear so it does require notification yes it does okay um uh let's talk about the design review um committee um briefly and starts on section1 um process oh okay so the planning board uh for the review of uh the building design can appoint a design Review Committee uh which consists of three members uh two of which there'll be from the uh architectural or um not necessarily Architects but uh design Professionals of some type as well as a planning board member and they uh shall review the building design in conment and make recommendations work with the developer want to tweet you know feel it need some adjustments and then uh make a recommendation to planing board on the final design so so there is a a process um for review of the architecture building okay um any comments uh from the public on um uh the design review process recite plan review burning down the heat here I'm not seeing any uh comment on okay uh General the development standards 9.4.1 um to summarize those for us please so these are um just some general development standers referring to um they would have to comply with the process plan review and the design the the current design SE review design process in our zoning bylaw which is section 9.4 um and uh you also have to comply with not the special permit but you have to this is the section where it requires that you meet the criteria of things like your removal control in our Water Resource Protection District s um it was my understanding a change was going to be made um 225 to 227 to remove the planning boards right to reduce the required part parking by no more than 20% during the site plan review the planning board May reduce the required parking by than 20% I thought that was going to be eliminated so um I think U do the resident yeah so um has recommended uh leading 225 227 during a site plan review planning board May red the required and I think the reason I suggested that was because there were people on Pine Street that were concerned learned that if the parking was waved that people would park on the streets and was not it's a major road and it's not good for on Street parket whereas if you require it on site that okay um I agree with that I think we shouldn't wait we're not we're not um we're only in that District requiring 1.5 cars per unit and just from um the number of each stickers we send out we have like 2.5 cars per household currently so it's safe to assume we're going to have two cars per new household um and the Overflow goes to the street so if we can lessen that I think that sense I would recommend taking that out okay any other comments or public comment um uh Christine I see a hand up you have a comment on the parking uh on these development standards I have a comment okay great go ahead thank you Christine delissio six Lincoln Avenue um my question is could you just outline what out of these are wable and which ones are actually required for strict performance um Emily or Jonathan these are standards and maybe you can help us understand how they get a FL so um the standards actually mostly point to your existing bylaws the standards in your existing bylaws um looking at the general development standards we do not have a waiver in there I'm just double-checking the architectural standards I believe we took that okay so the waiver was okay we do allow it so they can require we they can um wave the requirements of 9.49 General de development standards in the interest of design flexibility and overall project quality and upon the finding of consistency of such variation with the overall purpose and objective objectives of the Chad and what that would mean is that during the site plan review process which does allow uh for that public um uh that that public hearing uh the planning board if they found that there was um something in these uh development standards that was preventing a uh um a development that would happen or requiring it to be a less good development than it could be has the authority to wave those to allow for a better design you sometimes see that if you're talking about a lot that has sort of an unusual configuration and the strict letter of the development standards not the dimensional standards and I want to make that very clear the waiver is not for the dimensional standards you can't waave the height you can't wait the sent backs or any of those other things it's more with the development standards in terms of um the materials uh it includes the design guide oh I'm glad you asked that question General development standards are 9.4.3 the design guidelines are 9.4.1 I think the intent was to allow for a waiver of the design guidelines because the waiver is in the design guidelines section so given that if the planning board agrees um this section 9.4.3 General development standards cannot be waved it's the design guidelines in 9.4.1 that can be waved I think that reference development standards didn't get caught when we um when we uh did the um division into two separate sections so what line are we changing it would be 514 change that I would recommend to change that to design guidelines n section 9.4 design guidelines the remove the period after the number nine is that right no it would be 514 of the section 9.4.1 period General development standards with design guidelines okay line 514 it's unfortunately that state l okay site plan review Authority May wave the requirements of this section 94.9 section number is correct the description should be designed guidelines oh so doign so delete General development standard exactly and say so it should be comma no comma just point because it's section 9 point4 yeah actually n design guidelines we split the section into two and it wasn't but we um allow waving all or any standards in 6.3.3 and if we're referencing um um our site plan in our regular bylaw then by that default we're allowed to weigh under your current bylaw yes but we're not adding a new section in here for the velopment standards just for the design guidelines so you have the permissions of your current bylaw so I think she could correct but I think part of the question was with that being in here and maybe not here but are we a how much are we able to weigh the limitation of your current bylaw at that point so yes so no change in other words to your current practice Yeah so I want clear anything can be waved I just want to make sure that abundantly clear our current guidelines basically say anything can be waved except requirements hold on um maybe Jonathan should help us but I think our current waiver has specific criteria right in order you know these waivers here that um we're talking about in 512 to 516 requires a particular finding by the the board in order to issue the waiver to the extent that there's a waiver under the normal site plan review process and I apologize I don't have that in front of me but but yeah there's a there's existing language in your existing site plan review process to issue waivers but those also require specific findings so the process would be the same yeah they whereas it's not inconsistent with public health and safety and where such waiver does not derate from the purpose of the section right so I guess it's public health and safety yeah and the purpose of a section which is site plan review and this which is bigger than the than health and safety it's Aesthetics landcape emergency um they use andas other noise those are standards that are in that section and again you have the existing waiver for the development standards we have the waiver that we're proposing for the design standards you do not have a waiver for dimensional standards you do not have a waiver for parking if yeah out that 20% okay um any other comments on the design standards uh section do you have another comment sorry I was on mute sorry follow up with this why was views and Vistas um taken out it was we did not specifically exclude VI and v um so if you look at section six uh if you look at line 228 C performance standards section 6.3 performance standards for special permits and S plan review shall apply to all developments under the section 9.4 that are required to undergo plan review the following components of this section do not apply and Views and Vistas are not listed in the sections that do not apply so it would still apply so VI and Vistas remain among the criteria um views and Vistas is In 6.3. N oh um I'm sorry I thought it was a separate one I think because it's covered in the design guidelines we took out the aesthetic standards because you were adding a new set of design guidelines so are the design guidelines addressing view sheds shs to the design [Music] guidelines I'm checking because the design guidelines are quite exciting yeah I mean I just know that's a big um obvious deal for for people that if if height is being increased and it's blocking their sunlight or view um that can be um obviously upsetting others it is in under 63.9 athetic so it does talk about in be reserved or enhanced byop so didn't we take that out no no this is in the current Zone did took standards out replacing so just to clarify your Mary's um scenario that scenario if if my neighbor builds something in front of my view today that's not I don't have a protected uh right for that I think the views that are in our special permit are about uh sort of the the larger macro view of large development so I'm not sure they're two different things so the criteria that are in the section we were just talking about the ones that were specifically excluded are because they were part of the py plan uh Psych the special permit process where you do have that public benefit in there and Jonathan jump in at any point um and so the aesthetic standards that were in there were more towards the special per type the design guidelines were intended um in much more specific uh level to substitute for those under the site plan review and your new design you have before so maybe we should consider putting back in 6.3. N um so that during site plan we do review for people who sheds and Madam chair so so six 3.9 correct me if I'm wrong at 261 262 um says shall apply to all developments under this section 94.4 that are required to undergo stime review so the board we accepted the following components on 23131 yeah the following components of this section do not apply um I I hear absolutely that the concern is about new shuds I would recommend putting them into the design guidelines of this um zoning so that they're part of the overall design review and then that recommendation comes back to the planning board as part of the site plan review rather than having them separated out from the other design compartments and I I appreciate you wanting to put them back in I think that that should fall under the planning board and not a an appointed side committee that's reviewing know architectural detail of of buildings um they don't have to have a public public hearing the design guideline committee and the planning board but their recommendation is advisory to you so it would be up to the planning board anyway and the final um uh the final vote on the site plan review is up to the planning board so they could include the vads as part of their overall review so you're suggesting that a committee have 6.3. n added to their guidelines and may review a a bylaw I was going to suggest that it be added to 9.4.1 just because only because the rest of the design guidelines are there but it's entirely up to the board if you feel that just reinstating it in that section I'm fine with that unless there's a 261 26261 26 oh thank you Jonathan I was looking at the wrong line you're absolutely right it's we just under designed guidelines already I'm so sorry I Mard you no no no yeah so correct me if the process wise these are Under design guidelines so they would at the at the first level get a review by the committee who would make an advisory report report to the planning board as the site plan review Authority and then you all could take their advisory opinion into account could yeah you know give it give it wait not discount it whatever you want you still get the ultimate authority to issue the site plan decision but they just get the first by the Apple to say we took a first look at it this is our thought yeah okay is it okay um is it confusing to take it out on one page and then the next page put it back in I think it was I mean I'm happy that I was consistent to my recommendations but I think that's actually why we did it was to bring the aesthetic uh um components into the design riew so they be all together yeah okay I I will stand by my point that I don't think that is a appointed committee role um to enforce a site plan bylaw but they're not enforcing anything well not yeah I use the wrong word enforce not the Rie um regulator well not even regulatory because I plan is regulatory okay let's um any other I think we have worked our way through the entire uh zoning affability affordability oh I'm sorry well let's see what section um affordability um Mark um starting on line 520 but um 520 let's do affordability and then come back to uh so uh section basically requires that affordable units shall uh meet the requirements so that they can be placed on the uh subsidized housing inventory and this is also the rection that requires the 20% uh affordable um and it also requires that the units shall be integrated into the overall development to not be um substantially inferior to the other units um yeah payment in Li of of uh providing a unit is not allowed that you actually we have to want to those five units let's say in a district that uh allows you to build five units one of those five have to be an affordable unit so that would be 20 okay um we have any questions on this section I just point out that my L 544 to 548 was supposed to be deleted 54 to five 544 yes you can I man a question the planner all right um the T did hlc approve the EFA they did not have the EFA at the time middle of so I would recommend keeping this in just in case hlc comes back with a a negative determination or a lower determination on your approval of the economic feasibility analysis uh you want to have at least 10% affordable so I would say keep it in at the moment oh okay so we might so this is like with the underlying zoning this might come back and say so when it comes to the affordability um requirement 10% is the maximum unless you get an approved economic feasibility analysis in which you could go up to 20% so it's my understanding that you all got an EFA of 20% but what we don't know and Emily might be able to correct me the community the other communities that I'm doing this with haven't received an EFA approval yet I don't know if anyone has thought I'd heard so there's I think they're not very quick about it uh we don't know what they're doing with them so this is bootstrap language that I've recommended to say to the extent that in the rare circumstance or or whatever circumstance it turns out to be that hlc says we're not approving your 20% this whole affordability requirement doesn't go away we at least maintain the 10% but if hlc comes back with yes we approve your 20% Then this is this is fine okay and then the the analysis that we got because doesn't eohc require real life examples yeah yeah did it include that yeah um just looking at what so the consultant from that was rkg associate substs and uh I believe they real life analysis they've been doing a lot of the EFS so consistent with the format okay um any other any comments on the affordability section um okay um what I'm going to do is summarize the Amendments I hope um and I'm gonna uh so this is go ahead are we gonna discuss the Amendments yeah try to summarize the Amendments the first is to remove uh Delete uh Lines line 85 to 91 84 85 to 91 is the first ones um that's the special permit for accessory uses yeah um 106 then remove uh 106 to 107 the language that it says require a special permit from the planing board and shell REM moove those from 106 107 on Line 120 um it says um a comma after living I don't think we have a to be complete uh line 125 to 128 we want to remove section 9.4.6 which is is um restructured parking section number eight number eight line 125 to 128 we have to change yeah we we're g to remove line two two5 227 starts during plan review the planning reduce the required parking by no more than 20% remove that last sentence strike uh General development standards oh yes and replace with design guidelines and there's also um 580 582 we deci we're leave you might want do you want not want to keep the definition just oh right then I'm sorry I skipped over addition definitions in section it just add to yeah just add to our general definitions we want it and just note there is a designed standard for structured parking which Mark suggested we remove I suggest you might want to keep it in in case there is ever a speci request that standard it's not allowed otherwise so it's not doing any harm there but just okay um so I'm going to ask the if there is discussion on any any of those um yeah can we them all well start with um La had a question one of so is it time to discuss the Amendments yeah taking that U jurisdiction from the planning board given that we also in the table at line 134 fire the fraction next number I think those two things combined um take some of the flexibility from the planning board to be sensitive to lot development wanting to uh limit the lot coverage of service parking if it's appropriate um during the course of site plan review I think it's um it makes sense for the planning board to have that discretion and um given that parking is not just about impervious surfaces or impious surfaces it's also about tree cover and other U things that contribute to the overall character uh of the town s you want to just that at all yes I I I think that I reive numerous comments from residents concerned that if the parking was not enforced on off street that the streets being selected such as Pine Street um Summer Street between Allen and Lincoln Street are both major arteries and and if you don't force the parking off Street then you're creating an on street parking problem and we already have on street parking problems in the downtown area of agreed I would say that in the interest of and as we have been listening to public comment and making adjustments not only to the language but to the Maps as as we've had our hearings um and public forums that it's from technically a site design perspective it'd be nice to have that flexibility but I think in in in listening to the public it's one of those things where I think it's important that we make adjustments to reflect uh concerns people have forward in interest of time what I'm going to do is I think um uh well first first all before I close that out Sue do you have any comments that I haven't had a chance to hear from Sue bber no she different time okay um uh so I'm gonna actually take a vote uh um on each of these and I just like again my perspective the things that we can take out to make us easier for people to accept and I I recognize that tree cover is important but um at the moment getting getting this fast and and in the site plan review there will be opportunities to work with the developers um on on minimizing the disruption caused by the par okay thank you I think what I'm going to do is um uh uh take uh the recommendation of the board we still have the hearing open and we still have a lot of work to do tonight so um in the interest of keeping us moving um I'm going to take a motion to remove uh I'm going to take we're going to vote these one at a time so that I think we've heard the arguments um waiver fking remove section uh lines 225 to 227 motion move um uh all in favor yes I'm gonna abstain I hear the argument on both sides that's fine okay so that one will uh pass next one is uh to delete um lines 85 to 80 the uh special permit for home occupation and accessory uses do I have a motion to do that that as well uh Chris onlyy moves so second W Brewster second on discussion um so that's okay um all in favor yes uh that's um voted by all um the next one is to delete uh I'm going logical order I apologize 106 I'm just trying to get to a version that we can uh to the the line that that the shall uh require a special permit from the planning board and um in 106 and 107 um do I have a motion to remove that and second uh Gordon roer seconds um any discussion all in favor uh okay that's pass 7 to zero and then um striking liing they were just likeing the comma I think that one's an editorial I'm going to take that as editorial um 125 to 128 the removing of structured par game um this all me moves seconds and I'm going to just make a comment that I do think that we should put on our future list uh to modify the table in the the section for table in the LCD in a future time okay um any other discussion what L are you looking this is uh 125 to 128 removing the structured parking allow um okay uh any other discussion all in favor yes to zero thank you um and 54 to 548 they leaving that's the affordable than um if anybody want to make a motion 54 uh 514 I'm going to take that can we take that as an editorial change well okay make the change on 514 changing General development standards to design guidelines moved and second uh only moves Brewster seconds any discussion all in favor yes all Mary did you vote on that one okay seven uh voting in favor and then 544 225 I did yeah 544 um recommendation is to leave the um 544 to 548 the H um about it would revert to 10% if our um study was not approved does anybody object to that want to make a motion to strike that hearing no motion I will leave it as as it stands okay so that is the zoning um yes go ahead which one you did okay that was the first one first I took out of order sorry Sor okay um Alan Wilson go ahead um I I just had a question in the in the vote on 9.4 point4 point3 I think I heard deleting lines 85 to 87 but that wouldn't be correct I don't think 85 to 91 okay I'm I'm sorry I just misheard it thank you thank thank you um okay um I think we have um uh there are two more things we're going to do we're going to vote to um recommend to the board of Select board that we put this on the warrant and then we're going to hear from about the um afford the uh don't you want to close can I ask a question before you close the public hearing I have two questions I have two questions and I've been waiting to ask the consultant personally because she hasn't been here for a few months go ahead okay I'd like to know where it is written in the law that if the town votes this down that the state has the right to come in and zone for us it's not in the law it's not in the law okay well that has been repeatedly said throughout every public forum that the task force has presented to residents so sorry I can try to answer that it's not in the law but in the complaint that the state filed against the town of Milton they asked for certain remedies one of the okay but I'm asking about the law we're not going to use Milton in our favor now okay this is something that has been used as a tactic by the task force over and over again second well I'm I don't want an answer from Chris I wanted one from Emily thank you for your comment on that I'm going to ask Jonathan to uh clarify that um whether the one of the remedies can you what ask by the a okay and I just would like to ask my other question when I'm when you're finished hold on let's hear from Jonathan Mar one of the remedies requested by the Attorney General uh could be if the court allows it uh to allow the state to have some say in Zoning for local municipalities so I would agree with the member statement okay thank you Sarah you have one more comment uh yeah just a follow up with Chris's it's it's a recommendation it's not written into the law but then I would also um like to just clarify in the letter from the eohc it does State several times that Manchester whether it's built or not has has been issued to be able to build 559 units over 37 Acres so I just don't know and 15 units per acre so I don't know how our local zoning takes over the states zoning and also as this is by right so it's confusing to the public so if it's even if we don't build them we have the potential to build 559 units and I would just wonder if Emily could weigh in on that if that if allowed could be built with your permission I'm happy to discuss the um requirements from hlc so in the compliance guidelines if you go to hlc's website um uh they have the compliance guidelines uh each City and town the of the 177 has um certain requirements uh and those requirements include a geographic area uh and a unit capacity that uh is different for each town it's Spates partly on their designation are they a rapid transit are they a commuter rail are they adjacent um and it's also based on their 2020 units uh housing units um so the 2020 is reference to the US Census and the housing units that they had there and there's a mathematical calculation and the guidelines go into it so the numbers that hlc are referring to are the requirements for uh Manchester to demonstrate that the zoning has a capacity that's a unit capacity of a certain number of units has toate meet a geographic um requirement of a certain number of Acres Mark alluded to earlier that a percentage of those acres and a percentage of those units have to be within the station area which is the half mile from the station area um what hlc was talking about in that letter is they had originally made a mistake in the require requirements so if you go back to some early task force meetings and some early meetings when I first joined there was a discussion back and forth of which numbers applied they were just confirming which numbers applied I do want to stress for people that the unit capacity is the amount that is calculated by the clients model which is a GIS geographic information systems and Excel based calculation model it is not a production Target so the town is not required to produce that number of units and in fact the private Market is not required to produce that number of units it is a calculation designed to understand whether or not the uh town has passed zoning that is sufficiently compliant and one of the measures is that unit capacity so I hope that helps Okay it definitely does help just to follow up I do have the letter in front of me and it says number four we acknowledge that a data error occurred cause eohc Publications or tools to incorrectly list the town's minimum required unit capacity is 585 units the correct number as previously stated is 559 units so where this letter is being issued by the state I'm just wondering what kind of recourse do we have if in fact the L the land allows for 559 units to be developed I think it's a short answer it's the compliance model is the smaller number right the the the the the unit capacity T that you are required to show is the 559 so that's just that number I mentioned earlier that's within the model all that letter is doing is confirming that it's 559 and not the higher number so the the compliance 300 well could you just could you just confirm what the compliance model reflects it it it reflects that you are compliant on the lower number which is what the recent comp model Mar changed it I like three is it like 300 something three I would I would follow up with Mark oh there you go was she asking how what's the future units yeah what what's what does the number of units I think it's 352 says that new I think so it modeled for 586 possible future units is 352 okay so there so thank you Mary um 352 okay thank you so it's not like 34 or something like that it's 352 okay great thank you so much take a motion now to close the public hearing um the board will still have time to um discuss is that is that what my right next moved do I have a motion to close the public here I move then we CL CL public hearing Wy moves Brewster second um roll call vote uh Morton yes F yes yes Kon yes only yes and tenny yes thank you yes sorry okay um so I'm now gonna um suggest a motion Ard vote um chair yes sorry one just reminder in addition to making a vote on recommendation of the article I recommend that the board also make a separate vote that the overlay districts as proposed are eligible locations under the zoning act and if you want me to read off that definition I will it goes to confirming the simple majority vote okay so my suggested motion was to ask the select board to place the following Aral on the warrant and to confirm that the districts as proposed meet the requirements are eligible locations as defined under the zoning act are eligible locations under zoning as defined as defined under the zoning act thank you thank you um so I'll take a motion to uh ask select board to place the following article in the warrant and he said we are we gonna get so I'll take a motion first and then we're going to discuss the motion so I'll make that motion all right gonna second it thank you okay discussion are we going to get a revised copy to review I think we we will get and submit it with the memo to the select board in the maps so that they can place the amended version on the war is the select board having a public hearing because are they having a public hearing for 3A um obviously 3A goes beyond just the zoning bylaw there's grants there's financials there's things that are in the select board venue so are you guys having a public hearing no why not public hearing is the town meeting so the the board there's no requirement to do an additional public hearing right M has been what you're doing here however the task force is going to have a public forum to discuss disc more information okay we have a motion on the floor here um specific discussion around the motion any other discussion around the motion we will after this plus the uh determination that the zoning districts are eligible locations as defined under the zoning act or eligible locations as defined separate motion if we so then the second we will take a second motion to recommend the article we've heard from the Greg and the fincom and subsequent to this so this is just to put it on the on the warrant okay so with do we have to say though with the as the amended uh right the amended um zoning as as amended tonight see if okay verion dated October 28 right right and to uh Rec or was to see this place the following article and to advance or to put the um zoning bylaw amended October 28 sir what is that what is the number six as said four six below this from the um you're picking up some you always picking up some um some St on the side page okay um if it put it on the warrant the amend and the amended version sorry I trying to5 yeah I'm sorry I'm sorry for my confusion the eligible location can be in your recommendation okay I apologize right so we're asking simply to put the amended version on the warrant um that is the motion we will y okay um any other discussion about putting this on the warrant um okay I'll take a vote um roll call vote um Chris Aly yes Laura Tenny Yes W Brer yes Mary py no uh Peter Morton yes Sue filb yes there Craton votes yes six to one thank you okay so uh next part of our meeting is to hear about three studies that I think we all have uh have in our packet I'll ask um Sarah melis just to summarize the fiscal so the the finance committee looked at um a a number of pieces of information um obviously if there was a specific project like there was for SLV it's pretty easy for us to do in this case it is um what it's unknown how much development will actually happen um so we based our fiscal analysis on uh various pieces of information one is propensity of Change Report prepared by rkg one is the economic feasibility analysis prepared by rkg um enrollment and budget information from the Manchester essics Regional School District and the finance committee financial analysis of the SLV sh Place Hill um so basically the um in looking at the rkg Change Report um they looked at the cost of acquisition and construction and post construction value um and determined that it was financially feasible to only build 34 additional uh units Within the um CHS inside of Route 128 or the downtown area plus 100 at the Beaver Dam location um so we looked at the assessed value U Manchester assessed property value in fiscal year 20 and again in fiscal year 24 and the reason we did that is because for the Beaver Dam project we're starting with the analysis made at SLV regarding um assessments and we needed to look and see how much the assessments had increased since fiscal year 20 um and they've increased uh 35.4% um and the fiscal year 24 property tax rate was $935 and then we have Auto excise tax of $25,000 um and we assumed that the value of a vehicle would be 15,000 tried to be conservative um and that the number of vehicles would be equal to the number of required parking spaces so we did two calculations oh and the other piece of information is that today uh we have 2,433 existing housing units which is a number certified in the information from the state regarding this um community's Housing Act um and the compliance module 75% of those are single family 10% are two or three family and 15% are Apartments um for the Regional School District um the enrollment information they provided they provided us with pre-certified October 1 124 enrollments they knew what the number was but they have not yet sent it to the state certification because they gave it to me before 101 um and so the number of Manchester students in the school district as of 10124 is 6 151 on 10120 there were 823 Manchester students in the school district which is a decrease of 172 over four years or 21% an average of 43 students a year um based on the fiscal year 25 operating budget of 16.3 million it costs us 2,099 per student and if you include the capital budget it goes up to 20 9,279 students um looking at the existing number of housing units and the existing number of students we determin that 27% of the units have a child in the school district um in addition we looked at a study completed for the Essex Elementary School um dated June 24th 24 and they did an enrollment study and in that study they projected there would be no increase in the school population over the next 10 years that's as far out as they went um then looking at the fincom SLV analysis when they did that analysis it was during the lit project so it was when there were 157 units projected and it had an estimated value of a little over 46 million if um it also assumed that 31.8% of the units which would have schoolage children which was consistent with the numbers back in fiscal year um so what we did in assuming the assessed value of the units within the downtown area um we estimated 1,500 1500 square feet per unit um if you have a 6,000 foot lot and use the 40% coverage and create three units um two of those units would be 2400 Square ft so the 1500 is not outlandishly large and we assume used an assessed value from Sawmill Circle which is the most recent multifam housing in Manchester and that was $350 a square foot which comes up with an assessed value of 525,000 for each unit within the downtown area um so then if we we calculate that out based on the last year's property tax rate um and then do the CPC tax calculation and do the auto excise tax calculation at the number of parking spaces we came up with taxes per unit of about $5,500 per unit and then we did two calculations um one calculation was assuming the 34 new units based on the propensity for Change and the other was the total buildout units which the number we had then is different than the number we have now um so that was 224 units and so with the 34 units it would be annual income of 188,000 um with the 224 it be 1.2 million then we did the calculation for Beaver Dam based on the SLV analysis we had done and so Beaver Dam is 63.7% of the size of SLV we just you know Beaver Dam could be housing for the elderly it could be anything but we just said okay let's assume it's a it's something similar sov um so therefore um taking that original assessment increasing it by the 35.4% increase in the last four years we come up with an assessment of 39.6 million and property taxes and auto excise tax assuming two parking spaces per unit um for the 100 units it comes up with estimated total taxes of 41,000 um so when we add that to the 34 unit Cal it comes up with a total of 639 639 th000 if we add it to the 224 units it comes up to 1.7 million um and then we looked at it realistically and said it's reasonable that this development would probably spread over 20 years um for instance bliman Circle took 10 years to build out and that's what 12 10 or 12 properties um so if we spread it over 20 years it would be an annual um increased Revenue up between 32,000 and 85,000 not a huge amount um and then we looked at the school district impact and if we use the number 27% of the units might have a child um for the 134 units it would come up with 36 students um the finance committee wanted to be conservative in case there were younger families so they upped it to 50 potential students which happens to be the same number they used for s any though they didn't really think about that when they came up with the 50 um and so then if you so that would be the 134 units if you look at the total buildout units it would be about 90 potential School AG children so we're talking between 50 and 90 um if you look at the per student cost that would be between 1.2 million and and 2.3 million however we didn't feel that calculation was realistic because not only have we lost the 172 Manchester students we also have over 80 school choice students and theoretically the school choice students they come from other districts and they're to fill open spots so theoretically it doesn't cost us money they're just adding a student to fill out fill out a classroom and on that we receive um 5,000 from the state for each school choice student um so then we looked at the impact on Town Services um and we looked at the percentage of new units to the existing dwellings and under the um 134 units it would be 5.5% under the 324 units it's 13.3% which spread over 20 years would be 7 to 16 new dwell dwelling units per year which is 0.3% to 0.7% um so we didn't feel the additional units would have a direct impact on the town budgets but we decided to be conservative and do a calculation um water and sewer since the water and sewer rates are set by the select board to cover the expenses we assume there were no additional expenses for water and sewer and the DPW advised us that there is sufficient cap capacity in water and sewer to cover this new development in addition the law allows us to deny a building permit if there's insufficient infrastructure so you always have that in your back pocket um so what we did is we took 5.5% and 13.3% for the two points for DPW public Public Safety and general government as far as the fiscal year 25 budget um and we said potentially it could cost us that we don't think it will but but we decided to include that number um so that cost would range from 510,000 units to 102 million and over 20 years it would be 25,000 to 62 2,000 um then looked at Grants um in fiscal year 24 the town had 4.2 million in Grants 3.5 was that mass Works to to do the water and sewer um the town's 25e Capital plan identifies about $250 million in capital projects for infrastructure to the town of Manchester Water and Sewer climate and storm resiliency um and the town does plan to seek assistance um through grants um fewer grants may we feel fewer grants may be available to non-compliant communities increasing the tax burden to town residents and every 3,00 300,000 in Grands equals 1% on the tax um so we oh and the other thing is affordable housing projects rely on state aid and state and federal low housing tax credits for 80 to 90% of the cost of their developments um 30% of the grants and 50 to 60% in tax credits and the funding is controlled by eohc which is the same entity controlling the community housing act um so even though so without this funding there won't be affordable housing projects built in Manchester because the developers won't be able to get any money so that's just kind of another aside um so we took the revenue numbers we subtracted out the costs to the town um we subtracted out the Lost school choice re 75 67% of the Lost school choice of Revenue to the schools because that's our a porate piece and we we had for the 134 units over the entire building cycle a cost to the town of about 38,000 and over for the 324 units benefit to the town of 189,000 in additional in addition over the projected full buildout we projected a loss of Grants of between 20 and 40 million um so then we said okay let's take those gross numbers and say if the development were to occur over 20 years what would it mean per year and so in that case the smaller number would cost the town about 2,000 a year and the larger number would benefit the town about 9,000 a year and if we lost um two to4 million do worth of Grants a year it would represent a potential tax increase per year of 6.7% to 13.3% so that's and um as I said we we assumed no impact no additional cost for the school district because of the huge loss in enrollment thank you very much so that's where we came your consulting fee will be in the it was very painful and um I believe the finance committee did they make a recommendation as well they voted a to recommend yes by a vote of 5 two V to recommend to recommend the warrant AR thank you um I have a lot of questions on this so before we do that let me just let's just finish this whole thing out Greg did you have um any additional uh information about grants that you wanted to share sure we can okay like to hear be great yeah I'd like to just get on the obviously Sarah went over a lot of numbers and just remind people those don't have to memorize them tonight right the report is online under the MBTA zoning under the studies section the study stud section thank you so people can take a deeper dive onto it from there um so a lot of discussion in town about grants and how much and which ones qualify which ones don't it's an imperfect science because the state is not uh definitive in which ones um may or may not in the future so it's a bit of a guessing game um the law had four four specific Grant sources that were identified Mass Works housing Choice um the local Capital then what's the fourth one housing Choice housing Choice work yes um in addition then the guidelines that have most recently modified I think had a dozen or so additional Grant sources um so I can talk about three different categories of Grants if I look at just the four in the law for the last 10 years we received 6.2 Million worth a grant money um over the 10 years those four specific categories if I broaden the categories to include the 12 or so um that were in the guidelines that 6.2 goes to 8. 8.3 round again over a 10year period so can you argue well that 8.3 is is is exaggerated because you don't have confirmation that every one of those might have been denied fair enough um it's somewhere between 6.2 and and 8.3 that we have earned that would be sub subject to elimination if we are not in compliance um and then the third number is just total grants all said and done so if you again you look at 10year period that number is just North of 20 million um so that includes federal grants that's not um you know that's not subject to 3A compliance but some people have asked me well what's the what's the what's the bottom line number for total number of Grants so that's that's the number so three buckets over 20 million in total grants over 10 years um if you look at just before bucket the four law the four grants that um are in the law over 10 years that's 6.2 and if you expand that to what's in the guidelin lines that goes to 8.3 again over over a 10year period um so um again we can debate the fine- tuning of that number we don't have perfect data we often don't have perfect data we often have to make decisions with imperfect datas but that's the best that we've been able to determine based on guidelines and based on agencies that come under those various guidelines how about few future grants Greg future grants um so that's in the hopper right now we have um a library Grant that's pending um they've delayed that announcement based uh waiting until uh first of the year because they want to know who's in compliance and who isn't um so that is a design Grant initially at 150,000 and then if we were awarded the 150,000 it would allow us for up to three million in construction money um we have um in line to apply to the um cport Economic Council which is part of mass work so it's part of the four and we have a um uh anticipate a two million the $2 and half million Grant request for dredging and then another million for tux points um I'm sorry is that the Rotunda the Rotunda yes yeah the Rotunda um we also be seeking um just under 2 million in czm money for the Rotunda that's in that group of 13 or 12 it's not technically in the group of four but the state has included it the grou in the guidelines so the next year or so you know there's um multimillion four four five million just clarify the 6.2 what that made up of is um I know the 3.5 and I know we did 500,000 dredging and 100,000 housing Choice Ste um commission so I don't know what makes up the other um SEC money Cort Economic Council money which one does that fall under under massw Works those are considered massw Works funds okay so the state shifted that I'm sorry did the state shift that under Mass works from prior no they didn't shift it they said it's always been under Mass okay because I know when we did the when you and I back and forth SEC but we didn't have we didn't have all the SEC money in there okay so that's recent grants I'm sorry that's recent grants SEC no that dates back the 10 years okay cuz you and I have had emails back and forth I'm just trying to get clear so people can understand and it was always just that 600,000 over the last 10 years and then the 3.5 with the 600,000 did not include the SEC funding correct so that's the difference yes that's why I'm wondering where did it come into play that it is in the four buckets because the state told us that SEC money is massworks money okay so I'm just saying because it CH a year ago it had changed okay thank you thank you so you know when it changed I'm sorry he answered that question not me he was looking at you no because um I wasn't involved with the conversation of confirming that the SEC grants were in there so okay because I'm just saying it must have changed within the last year because do you know when it changed I don't know when it changed I certainly don't know you know the the the background but I know I'm I work with the community on the South Shore and just last week we got confirmation from The cport Economic Council that all of their grants are going to be contingent on they're going to take 3A into compliance so I don't know if there was a change or when it was but I can confirm as of my email last week that okay it is it is a criteria that Eed is using okay so it seem it shift with within the past year or two that I don't know that he can is that true what you just said that if we don't comply with 3A then all that monies are in Jeopardy for for future monies cor you would not be able to apply for Cort Economic Council monies that has been really the driver of our Harbor projects that's been the major source of funding for us over the last 10 years in the harbor and that would extend to Future monies too that we even know about yet wow well W so far it's just been for dredging correct no it's paid for Reed par it's paid for morch pier it's paid for the docks that tuck point okay so if you look at the if you look at the what's on the website y 10 thing if you look at all the SEC numbers yeah um there was I can mute them to you if You' like but you can you can see no I'm just see some of them say SEC some don't but that's fine they say they say cport Economic Council or SEC one or the other okay okay that's just a change and I keep U um okay so what I'd like to do now can I ask for the um financial analysis question I'm going to S what I was going to suggest is we've heard from our experts um and what I would would suggest is that each um board me um we have some questions I guess we should get those answered um but I'd like to keep them we'll take a few minutes to ask questions and then what I was going to do is go around and get a allow each board member to give a statement about whether or not we should recommend the passage of this article and then we will take a vote to do that it's my suggestion so Mary why don't you uh ask some of your question your questions and then there yes ma'am now you probably spent a lot of time on this so thank you um I'm just going to start from the back page going forward and see what I can get through um so you have I guess just some basic numbers you have C buildout at 324 units and it's 352 correct okay why because the last number the the number the finance committee was provided was a 338 number minus the 14 units which were being removed from Pine Street we were not provided with any additional units when we worked on the study okay so these numbers will Shi yes okay um which apparently will give more money to the town if the numbers are higher can you so I know you went and I have a lot of questions with the school numbers so so basically if if um for your assessment comparing to SLV which I don't think is a valid comparison but you said that the taxes would be around $5,000 and it's $5,000 to educate a child it's about 50 no so the per unit in the downtown area was 5500 um but then in the 100 um for so just to use round like let's even say 10,000 in taxes right say say you get 10,000 in taxes and it's 25,000 to educate a child so that's um 15,000 that then goes into the taxpayer bucket that needs to be covered correct well no because because the Assumption we made is that a 25,000 number is not realistic when you're looking at a decrease in the Manchester only student population I'm not looking at total of Manchester a decrease in the last four years of 172 students and then 82 school choice students that have been brought in to fill slots if you don't bring in those school choice students and you use the new students from this development that's probably going to be spread over 20 years so you're talking five or nine students a year then the only cost to the town is the 67% of the 5,000 per student they're losing from the state for school choice that was the Assumption we made but you know once you Tak in school choice you can't say okay now you have to leave like you have to keep them through education but we're expecting that we're not going to have 350 new units in a year can I just add that the school choice students are spread over K through 12 so there's a chis there's about one or two in each grade mostly they are taking people students in in the ninth grade no no the number of students currently of school choice are spread over all the grades and there's about one or two per grade at this point well it's more but there is a tu however it works out it's pretty pretty even across every grade yeah okay that there are My overall point is so we I don't agree with this development is going to happen over 20 years but whatever so so let's just do a capture in time of today and we've got the school choice kids right right or let's do two years and we're have an average of 43 students a year we've lost over the last four years and if you spread this development over 20 years you're only talking five or nine new students a year but a lot of the kids my kids include just leave the school system we don't leave the town we're not paying for those students the town isn't paying for those students still tax dollars no we're not paying for your students in private school we don't pay Town doesn't pay sure oh I I pay I know you don't pay for my private school but so that doesn't cost all in private schools for whatever reason okay let's try to keep going no my point being though is that we have to when you do my assumption is when we do school numbers we take how many kids are in the town that are school age not how many kids are in the school at that point in time but anyway that's not what the finance committee felt was realistic okay so we're gonna have a difference of opinion can you tell me what makes up 20 to $40 million in Grants that was an assumption we made based on the infrastructure needs of $250 million including you know climate resiliency the fact that the state has put up about 300 or $350 million in matching money to secure more federal funds which then they're going to allocate to the towns and most grants in Massachusetts are discretionary so even though a grant is not restricted in the law the state can include non-compliance as a factor so they don't deny it but it's a factor now all of a sudden so with our projected 225 million plus or whatever it is capital needs we're going to look for grant money you've got to fund that you've got not all of it but you've got rock for the money for the DPW garage no other towns getting money for the public safety Bill no I I understand all that I mean the way I look at Grants is it's it's a lottery we don't we can't say we're going to get them we have no idea I mean I take it down to my own home level I don't say I'm going to wait until I hit a scratch ticket or win the lottery to repair my roof right like this is cannot budget based on this was a reasonable assumption based on future Town needs and the fact that over the last few years the town has substantially increased pursuing grants okay so it's a guess at this point oh yeah it's a guess okay um the I know we went back and forth with the number of housing units um and I think I emailed this to Ann because after I because we every report the town does we have different housing unit numbers we have the fiscal year 2025 budget book that says 2100 households we have the school numbers that calculate based on 2100 I don't know what's certified by the state the 2,433 means 2,433 were the numbers included in the 3A Community act for the number of housing units that Manchester had in 2020 where did they get that data I don't know my job was to use certified information provided by the state and not to question it okay because I question because theyve they don't have the correct acreage in their modeling either for a lot of the Lots so but I can tell you that the school numbers don't include any of the apartments and we have over 300 apartments in Den so what I did find is we have roughly 250 what the state calls vacant housing units which I'm assuming means it's not a primary residence right so we don't they don't have school kids here they don't um vote here so I'm just questioning if we should just do a blanket whether it's 2400 or 2300 right like I think the finance committee chose to include okay the units certified by the state okay but we don't know how to St that okay what of the material differ just and I you know and I appreciate Greg speak yeah Greg you have say get is from the assessor now assessor data currently shows us at 25 52 I think the number is for for but I got the assessor data that's what she gave you right and it those numbers did not match up but there are material years my point that was four years ago she just sent it from 2024 the state number is based on 2020 yeah no I know that so that's the that's the thing I guess the question for you Mary is materially when you you you take the higher of your numbers or the lower of your numbers is there a material yeah I guess I as opposed to trying to challenge well I'm only challenging a few points because I'm just it's a lot of um guess work and and though I appreciate Sarah taking the time and doing this I think this is why we asked from the beginning for the task force to do an independent Financial Consultant report we voted that that the funcom was going to do that so that was your opinion and we no it was not no we voted the funds to get it done um and but we voted at the beginning when we established the task force that that is one of the things that would happen it didn't happen so here we are and we're and I just think that it's it's a lot to weigh on saying guessing 20 million here guessing 2. milon and saying to Residents that this is it's it's not aity it's not numbers we picked out of the sky it was reasonable estimates based on the future expected cost reasonable estimates based on the expectation of how fast the development would occur based on past history it was reasonable es you don't have a project before you you can't have definitive numbers and I understand that I just I don't I don't think 20 to 40 million is a re reasonable guess we've never in our lifetime of Manchester received 20 to 40 million in Grant so all of a sudden we're going to be getting that 10 period in the last 10 years we've received over 20 million and she's projecting 25 years so a number of 40 million is very much in line with what we have already Reed four bus of projecting two to four million a year Mary no one has let's stop here I want to just um say that that one of the other things is if we had had an independent consultant it have gone to the fincom and the assessor and the and Greg and gotten the numbers and made their own assumptions maybe they would have been different maybe they would not but this is the pro the this is the process we chose and so uh we're grateful that the fincom has spent all this time um are there Mater do you want to sort of present a material alternative besides the fact that you think that the grants are overstated so that's um your opinion um are there another um specific rather than nitpicking the I don't and and I'm not nitpicking Sarah I know she probably spend a lot of time on it I listen to the fincom meeting unfortunately the other fincom members didn't have a chance to review it before they voted on it Mary they got it right before the meeting er no no the fincom members have had it since the beginning of October but how how other boards run themselves is not my only point my point is is that I I think some of these numbers are not accurate it's not an accurate reflection I disagree that this is the route we decided to take we decided at the beginning to have a financial impact analysis and however months later it didn't happen and then when we when the task force decided to try to make it happen rkg else was not available so we didn't decide this path we did vote to have fincom do this we after we had no other choice here we are um you have any other comments right now on the on these two um what's the other talking well the the presentation the grants you've made you've and the income analysis no I think I've made me so now what I'd like to do um is um I'm going to suggest a motion for the board and then I'm going to ask each board member to speak on that and um uh so I'll share this hopefully I got the L which joh you can help me um oh no that's not right sure sure are we taking questions from the public or no um we're gonna have a motion first and then we're going to take um we'll take some brief public comment that Sharon okay so tell me if this is the right language and I left it in draft mode so I could um the motion is to the board planning board recommends pass passage of article said number to amend zoning to add section 9.4 um and amend um and section two uh definition and the associate amendments to zoning maps in compliance with check chapter 40 section 3A the board finds the community housing overlay districts are eligible locations uh as defined in chapter 4A Section 1 a and then period one correction is up top it's uh chapter 40a section 3A thank you okay so I'll take a motion for this then we're going to discuss it I'll make that motion that okay I bet Sue fil wants to Second it second he does okay the hard work of of Sue and Chris we want to um okay great we have a motion on the floor um and what I'd like to do uh is um uh I guess we'll take some brief public comment and then I'm going to ask each board member if they if they have anything left to say um and then we vot So Christine you've had your hand up patiently go ahead I will add that this is your six time speaking so um please try to keep it to new material Chris you're on mute sorry so this has to do with Sarah's presentation on the financial analysis and I had a question and I needed some clarification so Sarah said we don't know what could be built up at the LCD so when you look at the LCD and the use chart housing is not allowed in the LCD so the only thing at this point would be housing under this chod and it can't be age restricted so I'm confused on why we're saying that this could be senior housing and we don't know what it could be if in fact we do know that it couldn't be senior housing under this bylaw no I think that the the law you can't require senior housing but a development developer can come in and choose to put in senior housing there instead of family-friendly housing there's nothing in the law that requires them to actually build familyfriendly housing if I can just add we could have I can can I I think you could can I if you think about the junction over in Essex or um Som Circle or something with Junction over s which is 10 tow houses that are high-end that could be built there so I think that's an example of we don't know what's going to be built there we can't build it can't be age restricted so it can't be senior housing it can't be age restricted so we don't know what could be bu there we can I need to correct it the law is confusing if you read the language in the law but the guidelines make it clear that EA hlc whatever they are yeah the alphabet agency they will find a zoning ordinance to be in compliance as long as it does not require age restricted housing so you're going to call it age restricted but a 40y old could live there you don't doesn't make any sense Chris but can I just clarify your larger point or Sarah's point which we don't know what's going to be built in the there's no housing allowed there the only housing that's going to be allowed there is under this bylaw which is units or 10 units that are condos some or zero some this bylaw is silent as to age and to number it doesn't require a full build down that's my point okay go ahead um other could we ask Town Council because I I mean I think it it falls back to if if the Milton case says the guidelines aren't admissible or whatever you want to say if we have to Zone based on the law does the law age say you cannot have age restrict when it says it shall be without age restriction and it shall um um ordinance it's with without age restriction zoning doesn't require or allow doesn't require that it Be age restricted that it be senior housing in that way and that's what it's not allowed is that the zoning be restrictive so our zoning is unrestricted but as a property owner if you wanted to place a restriction on your property and make it that way you so 3A specifically says provided however that such multif family housing shall be without AG restriction so it's in the law so so regardless of Kyle bsgc comes out on the Milton case in regards to the guidelines it's still a statute requ so that it shall be without age does it say it can't be developed without age restriction or is that just a zoning just Zing the zoning it just says that shall not shall be without age restriction so that's talking about zoning not the actual building right it's it's an open question okay okay so it's an open question because that's just like saying that you can only build a single family and then you thew the bylaw says that and then you come in and build a two family because oh that was just the why is it okay let's um continue to take uh Sandy Rogers has a comment hi thanks um I have a question regarding how many of the you how many of the properties that are in all of the districts that can be built over four units so if you take the existing property lines how many of those properties can be built to five units or more way would be to go through the model and look at each individual property and how the model uh determines what could be done on each of the property within each of the districts so I don't have that information but we can't say Sandy that to create five units you need to have a minimum of 10,000 square foot lot and not be in a so about a quarter of anre this should have been looked at you should know this by the back your hand because we can only mandate affordable housing to be for you uh properties that are that can be built five or more anything under that we're going to go way over our ratio so we should have we should know that number okay thank you for that comment um anybody else I'm not seeing anybody else with comments so therefore I'm going to invite the board members if um people would like to speak we have a motion on the uh table I don't think I need to put it back up it's we recommend passage of article um to men zoning and add section 9.4 and amend section two definitions and the associated amendments to the zoning maps in compliance with 40a Section 3A the board finds the community housing overlay districts are eligible locations as defined in chapter 4A Section 1 a okay um so Chris do you want to say anything uh I just want to say that there are three members of the task force besides me here oh four because Sue is here also sorry Sue uh we have been working long and hard on trying to put this together and has spent an a lot of time in community meetings asking people for comment responding to questions and changing the language of the zoning by and the requirements as a result of public input and I think we finally arrived at a place The Sweet Spot where we're complying with the state law and addressing uh concerns as best we can to get there there probably a lot of other solutions to this but I think each of them is going to have its own set of of um difficulties and problems and we'll be back arguing about school kids and everything else so I think this is probably the best we can do right now it can be changed it's not set in stone we go to town meeting and we vote on it if we decide we don't like it after a couple of months or couple of years we go back and change it great thank you um Mary would you like to com what's the question question uh would you like to speak to the motion on the motion um I'm a no and this is why I think especially at this point with the Milton case um being undecided a lot of unknowns um just our most recent with the what does the actual law say with regards to shall be without age restrictions there's a there's a lot of unknowns um there's a lot lot of room for error I appreciate the task force taking the time um they had many many many many meetings um unfortunately I think it was a flawed process I think we should have done the financial impact analysis the first step and then drawing conclusions from that and proceeded forward for the past 18 months or whatever it has been um I think we're trying to back into a solution that um is going to ultimately not be good for the town um I think there will be development I think the um propensity for Change Report the consultant didn't have a lot of the data that there's Parcels of land sitting waiting to be developed um that would highly have increased that increased that number I think people are grabbing on to that 34 units um which is false um so I think that we we as a board have not done our due diligence with having in one place all the water and sewer number capacities all the financial numbers the impact schools Etc um if we can't answer that simple question of how many Lots could build five units or less um we haven't done our job and I know I ask a lot of questions and people get very irritated with that I think if I had documents and answers I wouldn't need to ask so many questions um I've been at this for a long time and I'm vastly confused the grant data changes every day um there's lots of reports out there that don't match um I try to help residents to understand and it's very confusing um so again I don't think as a board we've done our job and um for that reason and for the impact to the town Town character traffic density um tax increases um I'm a know okay um Laura I am supportive of the work done by the task force in the fincom I think the U members of both boards are appointed or elected because they have the expertise or they um certainly the fincom has been iCal transparent has um uh you know the reasoning that they use as transparent and I think it's not just a matter of people spending time on it and working hard on it it's really expertise and understanding the subject matter and um illustrating in a way that is um defensible and transparent so I also think that this um that the town continues to develop whether or not we make this zoning change um single family housing brings change to the town as well uh and I think that this is um a good thing for the town to be thinking about how to uh make some um more choices in housing and um develop responsibly and slowly and make these kinds of things possible so I am supportive of putting this on the warant okay and uh Gordon or Peter you jumped right in um I I'd like to talk actually so i' I'm one of the new New Kids on the Block but I've had the opportunity to see the task force prepare the documents and go some of the editing process myself and uh I I'm methodical by Nature so what I do is I mirror much of but large and said listen to the task force go through this process analyze edit change respond to comments continue to edit and all the basis and all the protections all those things that you mentioned right away in the beginning the goals of what the study is intended to do I think they've met those goals that it does protect the town and having been in the real estate development business for a long time from a design and construction in it uh I do think a 20 year period time that you suggested Sarah is not unrealistic particularly how the study has really been curated to define those areas money of which we probably have no chance of development because they already are Vel they're already maxed out to what they are there's a few opportunities uh but I still waited I still waited for the propensity for the development test and the financial stuff that you just did and the propensity for development of a 34 units so so whether marry whether it's 34 units or whether it's 54 units or whether practically it's 75 units over a length of time which will be given to development here I think it's it's still a very minor amount amount very minor amount and I forget what you what you just said Laura over time this this town is going to develop a lot more than just those particular areas that we talked about I think that is true the I I read your financial report when I got it I looked at my looked at my phone I went oh my God but but it it's it's it seems like it's based on and it's predicated everything is predicated on some basis that has re solid basis like the I happen to be on the school building committee for Essex and we've gone through the school numbers we know exactly what much of our msba filings and the school building authority uh is based on those school things so I understand exactly where the population is going and how it's dropping down where those money comes from where the choice comes from and the idea of $350 per square foot for a building for building a living unit is very much in line having been in the building business I just did a little building three or four years ago and it's gone up significantly since then so I'm well aware of it so I I thought everything you did and results that you came up with were well founded and having worked with with Greg or known Greg for God pretty much all the years he's been here been I have I have no doubt that that the uh the grant numbers are correct and the grants looking forward is is correct as well and uh the sum I I think we should I recommend this be moving forward completely thank you Peter um thank you not too much different from Gordon because I'm new as well and I came in here late to the game in here for five months and as a resident of Manchester for 32 years um and paying attention during that time I was overwhelmed and impressed with the level of detail that went into this work the task force um Sarah y vom's study I think I agree with Gord as well it's it's very thorough I've done a lot of projections and budgets over my career and you have to make assumptions and I think your assumptions are based on very um reasonable data and and in informed by by Greg who's been here for a long time and is the authority on grants which I think is a big piece of your assumption overall I'm I'm um I think that hearing those School numbers I was unaware of that frankly and that's that's surprising um and we have a really great school system that is not a capacity for students and I think that if this plan results in more families being able to afford our town and uh and fill up some of those spots in the school that really not significant cost to us as residents I think that's a really great thing and I think there's been a lot of talk throughout this entire process about structuring this so there's not too much development and while I totally agree with that as you said Gordon if it's 34 units if it's 75 units I still think that that's not a that's not a terrible thing for our town and demonstrated by fincom and the task force we have the capacity to support that type of growth in this town so I would I would support recommend pleas right I'm going to leave Sue I'd sort of let the book the task force book end this comment um so let's who close it out but I wanted before that I wanted to say three quick things want is thank you so much to the task force to our Consultants Jonathan to Greg everybody has done um a tremendous amount of work and as I said the other day Ron Master Jack would be very proud of us and thank you also to Mark who has uh pulled it out of the fire a couple of times here for us so the um and I don't want to focus to on tonight's um work but I do want to point out that um our volunteers on the fincom I think did an excellent job and it's an example of um you know it's hard we we had a consultant do the propensity change study and we don't like the consultant report but then we have internal people who know the town do something and you know you can find fault with that so you know this it it's a in incomplete science in imperfect science we have the best data we can get uh you know and we can find F I'm sure on all of us could fine on small little things on that uh last bit of data but I think to Chris's Point we've done a good job of or the te the team has done a good job putting forward a a plan that um meets the law and I just wanted to also say um this is the law and um the the guidance document says MBTA communities cannot avoid their obligations under the law by forgoing funding nor does the law provide any mechanism by which a town or city May opt out of the requir and so I think we're a um town that complies with laws and um like them or not you know sometimes I speed but the law is still have to go 20 um and down Fine Street and if I get stopped I okay my ticket um or go to jail or whatever happens to me um so it's not there uh Sue uh thoughts well you just ended with what I was going to begin with um that you know the number numbers are one thing we can go through the grants and the details the financial impact on the town and dispute the numbers um but whatever the numbers are this law is going nowhere and the law applies to our town and um that might be a little simplistic um but I think it's a really important thing to remember and it's what um I tried to um have as part of our task force discussions you know the task force had a variety of views on the um well whether the law was welcomed or not and um you know like most state laws in every state you know it's not the best drafted law um does it accomplish what the legislature wanted I don't know but but it's a law that applies to us um and we took it and I have to say the public showing up at our forums and our meetings and our hearings they had a huge role in how these four districts ended up being crafted um and most of the people who showed up uh the majority not all um but especially in the beginning the majority really did not like this law and wanted the town to just turn our backs on it um but we didn't we worked through it and we listen to the comments and we incorporated as much as we possibly could and I think what we've crafted is so tight um and does apply very uniquely to our town um and I would hate to see us not following the law um have a much more dire effect on our town um and you know of course the financial impact is one thing um but there could be legal ramifications and we shouldn't be spending our money uh the town's money on legal fees uh fighting a law that some in our town don't like um so anyway I'm proud of the work that t Force did uh particularly in the beginning with those Like Richard and Sarah and an who are so good at figuring out the details of the data um and it's complicated but I think it's a terrific result and I don't believe uh getting down into parcel by parcel I haven't looked at every parcel in town that's in the districts and looked at their acreage but I've looked at about three4 of them um and I think it's just a a really tight well-crafted um answer for Manchester to comply with the law um and I fully support it okay thank you um so I think uh I'm going to take that as um uh I think we just all voted that's your vote I think does anybody I have a six to one vote does anybody if I his character that everybody to spoke to their vote um thank you everybody um I will uh take a motion to ad guess I'll move that too all in favor and thank you Jonathan for with us tonight thank you everybody thank you everybody who tonight appreciate it I'm not sure I right