##VIDEO ID:RdTGvNpH57w## [Music] he good evening I'd like to open our call to order the planning board 16th meeting of fiscal year 25 our December 12th meeting I'm toas the secretary and I am serving as chair for this meeting and we'll have members and staff introduced themselves so we'll start with you Jim Jim Davis member Sean Fahy member mfield member and then Cheyenne Cheyanne Frasier assistant director of planning and Julia Julia getman clerk okay thank you our first administrative items are approved approval of the minutes I um sent some edits for the November 21st but I have not yet reviewed the December 5th have you all had a chance to look at the edits for the 21st I'm good with the 21st and I was not here for the fifth same same right okay I'm good all right so then I will entertain a motion to approve the minutes U as amended for November 21st I'll make a motion to approve the minutes for November 21st as amend as amended second all those in favor I I there's no oppose and no extensions right and then how about uh deferral of the December 5th minutes yeah I'll make a motion to defer the December 5th minutes to our next meeting okay which is next week y second all those in favor I I Sean abstain okay um I should have abstained from the fifth I obain I should have we're just moving forward we're not we're not voting on it okay so that was three in favor of deferral and one exstension well you could call me I'm in favor too all right four in favor we're all in favor for in favor unanimous it was it was my absence from the meeting that confused me okay um next is uh our next meeting dates are currently scheduled for next Thursday which is December 19th yeah and then uh in the new year uh January 6 and January 23rd all right jary everyone's so good with those dates okay great got it next we will'll move to Citizen speak is there anyone in the room or on Zoom who would like to speak to an item that is not on the agenda this evening and cheyen will you let let me know if you see someone raise their hand please yep there's no one on Zoom okay no one and then are we we're exactly at 7:05 perfect so we will open the continuation of the public hearing for zero blue H AV which is parcel B- 7-5 site plan approval for the gardener school and welcome thank you so you um have submitted some revised design yes I see so you're going to run us through what you've done since our last meeting is that right okay I'll run through a couple of things and then we can discuss everything we give you and see if we can't move the forward from there great again for the record your your name and for the record my name is Chris fendon with Viking development on behalf of the gardener School great here to present the updated plan for you um if I could get promoted I would I'll pull up some plans okay one sec so cheyen can you oh is she doing that okay great thank you and then Shan if you could also promote Scott thoron please thank you okay okay so before we get into plans just a couple of things at our last meeting there was a bit of an emphasis on that advisory submitt and as you kind of alluded to um there's an ability there to shape a project for success in your town and we appreciate that we understand that and hence we went through we evaluated kind of everything we talked about and identified some of those main ideas and feedback items that we thought we could incorporate and and and make this a better project um the submitt that we have today is not complete or not not a full set of engineered drawings it's more of a a concept plan set progress set to really show our intent and hopefully get us more feedback and ideas that we can go towards designing these into final form some of those ideas and feedback items that we kind of Drew on uh there's there's four that we kind of keyed in on as we looked back on that the discussions we had uh the first one was that elevation and visibility of the building from the road um we talked about height of the building existing Topo those retaining walls um um the second was just sight layout strategy we had talked about flipping building and parking we talked about ramps you know tiered parking those types of items um obviously utilizing existing toppo was a big one um and how we could kind of fit it into the surrounding landscape and how that was a goal that you guys were working on your new site development plan bylaws and then the last one was earthwork well it wasn't maybe necessarily the the focus we talked a lot about volumes and disturbance and all of that and it seemed like that was sort of driving factor in the design we had put together there was a lot of focus on balanced earth work um I I bring that up because in this redesign we took that out of the main focus and tried to be efficient with other aspects uh understanding that earthw work may may not put us where we want to be so updates wise I think the biggest thing you'll notice right off the bat is the transition from a one-story building to a two-story building um that is not typical for us and the reason for that is we serve kids six weeks to years old um kids under the age of 30 months are considered non-ambulatory and so when you have a two-story building a typical two-story building that means the second floor operationally causes difficulties for us right there's no means of egress from the second story for so non-ambulatory kids it causes an issue well in this case we we talking about existing toppo and retaining walls we saw an opportunity to kind of set it into the hillside a little bit and provide egress from both levels and so that allowed us to kind of get past that operational Challenge and make this work um for for the overall program that we offer with with the twostory building we also get into footprint and location by setting it into the hillside using it as retaining we got to flip that parking to the front when we flip that parking to the front we saw the the efficiency of taking that that atg grade Pond and putting it under the parking lot when you do that would really shrink our our development area and our limit of disturbance even further um just to give you some numbers we went from 16,000 fet to 8,000 square fet um the width of our building went from 146 to 132 the depth went from 114 down to 68 doing all of that we were able to to distance the building away from Route 138 uh from 174 to 174 F feet it was 92 so almost double the distance away I'm sorry can what is the distance again now it was 92 and now we're 174 okay thanks that's to the building got a little bit more distance from our North a butter about 12 feet of extra space there um and then an extra 25 ft from the south of butter so again kind of two story change sight layout change really helped us sort of fit the building in kind of reduce its overall visibility and presence in relation to that existing Route 138 rideway uh I want to give a couple more numbers just um related to disturbance kind of showing you where we started and where we're at now kind of the benefits of what we've put together uh in the original design I brought to you we were at 3.03 Acres of disturbance we're now down to um one 1.91 um as part of all of this change when we were Ed that limit of disturbance uh this design includes now a undisturbed vegetated buffer area between blue hill ab and the parking lot so all those most of those trees will remain kind of screen us from the right of way um Chris can you just uh zoom in a little bit so we can see that plan or the folks watching can see that a little bit there you go so that and point that area of so all these all these trees in here so at the pinch point it's about 30 feet and then as you move uh planed South that it grows to about 110 ft of undisturbed buffer area uh earthw work um we were at just under 21,000 cubic yards we're just under 11,000 cubic yards now so a 10,000 cubic yard reduction uh that's in overall disturbance retaining walls we were at about 1100 linear feet we're now down to about 290 linear feet uh majority of that is is less than 6 feet in height at this point and then the last item slowly reducing number of trees impacted here we started at 4 171 we're now down to 352 so high level those those are kind of the important key takeaways based on our last meeting what the designs about today um thank you we have architect engineer traffic engineer I'll he for any technical questions can you run through the revised drawing so folks who might be watching can um have a look just as we have since it's in our packets sure so um looking at the site plan here the the Shaded area is now our proposed two-story footprint as you see the parking lot here placed in front of it I believe current plan is 46 spaces in our previous plan we were down to 45 spaces so only one one space change there the overall access point remains here in the north Edge uh not too much of a change there um playground's been relocated to the back of the building as I mentioned we kind of built it into the hillside so the playground is accessible from the second level um and then you can see a a Meandering sidewalk there that's kind of that egress I mentioned about um having second level egress that that opens us up operationally sight layout wise not not too different from before in terms of trash enclosure and Ada spacing along that front edge um we have a couple retaining walls on the north and south end of the building that's where we need erress from the lower level here's our grading very similar concept swes on each side of the of the site kind of redirecting um uphill drainage patterns then landscape wise you can see I believe the number is about 91 proposed trees we we've added some along the northern property line in reviewing kind of site sections and visibility we noticed a little bit of a bare area so we felt we could we plant that a little better to screen on the site sections what we did here was the the new two-story concept on the exact same section cut compared to our old section on the on the one story can you zoom in on again on the show that that top two sections and then the bottom two next okay great so if you I'm sorry can you just um explain a little bit the comparison on each of these sets of sections yeah so overall the New Concept has a finished flare elevation about 6 feet lower than the original so it sits about 6 feet lower initially um as you can kind of see here we've we've shifted the building back um you know roughly 100t or so so um so we've set it down we've moved it back and now when you look at it you know visibly in the rendering you know you'll see it it kind of sets into this the side a little or the slope a little bit better so here the what you have before is the drawing on the bottom and just above it is the is the revised design right correct yeah and again can just the top to the same thing right so what that bottom one is previous design and the top one is the current design correct cut on the same section same elevations all of that uh next document committed was just an updated earthwork calc um shows our cut fill quantities and our net export which I mentioned is increased a little bit but overall not a a massive increase from where we were before so this is the sight rendering taken from from almost the exact same spot as previously you can see a lot of the proposed trees um you can sort of see the retaining wall protruding out the sides there for the egress points tried to maintain the exact same tree line and vegetation behind the building as the original um to help kind of give it the scale and then the last item I have pulled up here is the updated traffic study okay so before we go to the traffic study um questions from the board I I just said one I I I do appreciate taking the floor plan of 16 condensing it to eight and going two stories I'm just I guess it's how does that affect your program with the back of the building having no natural light so it's not first floor yeah so it's not typically a problem especially when you get into um certain ages infants sleeping there's there's a way we can strategically and operationally place rooms in the right spot whether it's kitchen whether it's an enrichment room something where where daylight isn't essential mechanical closet mechanical rooms and things work rooms okay okay good good thank you so are you um I mean we we pushed you I think fairly hard to go look at another Direction I appreciate that you took a real um strong effort at that I um are you feeling as if this is um something that will work just as well as what you presented to us before I guess to Sean's question too that this the way that you've this design is presented now um is something you're happy with you would proceed with if you get the the go ahead to go forward yeah yeah this you know after giving it the thought of the egress and and giving us the flexibility of of two floors it it achieves the same as the original one- story plan um two story plans like I said are not our preference they also come with an added cost elevators stairs those types of things but we've overcome that and I think we have't made it a more efficient design that cost going down your building costs go up uh Maggie Jim do you have questions no I personally love it I appreciate everything you've done I mean I I feel that the that the that the topography in the land basically absorbs the building I think you did a great job I'm very happy to see no retaining walls um and I had scent around I know might be getting a little ahead of myself here but I had sent around a question about natural stone walls it's a sort of a veneer style Field Stone retaining wall you said you've used them before yeah and are you planning on using them here or so we haven't gotten into that level of of right okay detail given these ones are hidden I don't know that we would go that route um yeah maybe something similar to just a small block that that has a nice color Hue to it okay if it was exposed like in the original one I had submitted a that that product specifically in that original design great I I'm very happy with what you did thank you um so I too appreciate um all the efforts and I was wondering about how it's the the grade and you know I was thinking about like Cunningham school you know where you know my kids went and the the first floor is you know partially it's under grade so I to was a little concerned about the light um but if you are at Cunningham at the front of the school with the playground the playground sits a little bit low and there are full um windows that you can look straight into the under the really the first floor they don't call it a basement they call it the first floor and when you walk up you actually are walking up to Cunningham on the second floor and so and then from the back when you're um going into the school you you're you're going in at the the first Underground Level so I I I do appreciate um using the topography um and um you know I think it's a much better look from 138 um um so and reducing the size of the retaining walls those 14ot retaining walls were really um you know an eyore um so um so I think it looks it's vastly improved yeah um I feel the same way I I think I think Chris you found a balance between our hopes and expectations and our role representing the town in creating a a project that fits better looks better disturbs less uh presents better um and if you find it operationally works uh you know for the school that's great um if you could explain a little bit and maybe you might want to turn it over to your architectural representative we talked a little bit too about the architecture of the building um could you talk a little bit about what what you would you hope to present in that regard I'm just gonna let him start from the beginning I again for the record Sorry by the way apologize I'm working through cold uh my name is Josh H AR with nor architect engineering so I guess to kind of briefly talk about the architecture again um I know one of the the points brought up about was kind of the prototypical design of of the structure being you know very brand specific um if you go on and look at some of the regions that we' focused on um whether it's the the Denver area or Chicago um shapewise you know obviously you try to maintain some of the the operational aspects of those buildings but you really try to blend it in to what you're looking at so in Denver um we found that a lot of things needed to be brick um and in certain tones to work out with that area for Boston one of the things that we found out well Massachusetts area in general but specifically Boston and even into Milton there was a a real uh I'll say dedication to lap siding um that kind of took precedence over a lot of the materiality so what you see here is mostly trying to bring that into context um with I mean obvious viously a lot of the lap siding design comes from residential structures so when you get into a larger facade like this you do have to add a little bit of variability um which is where you see some of the different textures and and uh direction of of siding but we took some of the inspiration from that some of the inspiration from porticos and and entrances on residential homes for this entrance here and then obviously when you kind of change the footprint in this case it allows you to have more of a an elongated single slope uh roof that kind of acts like that that salt boox uh residential home that you can add a little bit of of design too with with the gabled shape um and then obviously one of the only other things here is there's a lot of residential homes just based on design uh Milton uh kind of particularly you look at the base condition of the house and and obviously some of it was done for for weather and and uh materiality uh sustainability but the base whether it's six inches or a foot is kind of set up off the ground just to have that concrete or stone feel um and in that case we brought it up a little bit more to act as a Wayne cot but we tried to draw the the materiality from a lot of your uh stone walls that appear on on the sides of the roads and and through the town so we took some inspiration from that as well as looking at some of the uh the window design obviously you gain a little bit of um operation sustainability a little bit of climate efficiency from using the the higher end commercial storefronts and and glazing but what it does offer you in this case is to use some different mutton designs you can see in the the gray uh lap siding there that act more as that that double hung look as well as detailing some of the the windows with some additional trim uh to give it that that kind of old schoolhouse feel if if that's the uh kind of direction we decided to take it are those windows going to be operational they are not operational none of them the whole front correct what is the uh what is the height the window Heights on the second floor the window Heights on the second floor I believe it ends up being about 18 in to to 2 feet above above the floor in most cases and top to bottom the opening size I guess is what I'm asking of the the size of the window you mean window yeah top to bottom of the window I believe they're about six feet so one thing I would say about the slope the pitch of the roof in New England is generally a greater pitch on a lot of the building so you got a fairly flat kind of pitch and I think to I'm just curious you're the the head height of those windows being over eight feet may maybe eight and a half feet at the um the header uh does that where your ceiling is or is your ceiling like a 9ft ceiling in in this in these uh spaces the second floor we're attempting to get a little bit higher uh operationally with us going to the two-story design that ends up being where some of our player areas are the more open areas for enrichment in those sort of sort of spaces so um the ceiling height ideally would be a little bit higher in that case um and I guess to speak to the pitch a little bit in in this particular instance um I know you guys in in zoning have a 35 foot height requirement so one of the things we had to play with in this case was balancing operational height uh and structure with the building to also kind of maintain design and keep it under that requirement so the height is also measured from the mean grade I believe right so you've got you've got a lower height at the back and greatest height at the front so what what you measured there is is that taking that into consideration it is not in this case we went with the worst case scenario just in case that was how you wanted to read it um we do have a little bit of flexibility obviously there's construction variability and things like that but um I know the height of the building was a a concern brought up and I think part part of it was just where it sat on on grade but we tried to to be conscious of that in this design as well I don't know how other members feel but um I think having a greater pitch and having the the rid or the ridge rise up a little bit based on what I just said about the mean grade um just appearance-wise I think would be better and you know the height of the building now as compared to before to it's pushed back further right so the perception from the public way is it's further back so that height will be perceived differently and that's we were just sort of yeah proceeding cautiously because truth be told this building still sits slightly higher than the old ones so okay I I agree with you Cheryl I think it'll look better yeah a higher Ridge yeah definitely it it it almost looks it doesn't look in scale right to the front wall of that building right the ridge being too low we can certainly do that I think uh in that case obviously we'll we'll show you the elevations from the the one-sided as well just to make sure they align but that would be one of the design considerations I do I do um I I happen to like um your your reference earlier was a Schoolhouse type of look I think I think um you know you mentioned Cunningham earlier in some ways it reminds me of Cunningham with you know the height uh right tall Windows multiple story of the tall windows it's um it the tall Windows bring the daylight into the space which is the way schools used to be designed with those big tall Windows is to get the the light in the depth of the space uh and you know I think proportionally colors changeing materials all that seems fine with me just the pitch seems to be the the one thing that seems to squat to me uh but um just overall I'll comment to overall on the the new approach IT addresses the things that we're we were concerned about um I think it's a much better approach to the site you know sort of what I think um comments that we made had to do with not having a cookie cutter that you bring in you know and use somewhere else on the site that's a lot different than a flat site so I'm I'm really pleased that you took the time and effort to to see how that could work for you and I I'm comfortable with you proceeding um you know to do the more complete package I would like to talk a little bit about the landscape plan um that you have just so that we can I I think I'd like to have that just um maybe thought about a little bit more along the parking lot it seems to me um there's just like a line uh of of um the same kind of plant material or tree material right following the edge of the parking lot and I think if we could get that to be more varied so we're not looking at a line that it will deemphasize the fact that that's a parking lot right okay so if you could give that some attention so changing in PL materials in depth as well exactly yeah so that you have something that has you know uh like what you might find different heights yeah you know like if that's all one height it's just going to look like a wall right so if it's something that's yeah create a layered look so I did I wasn't at our last meeting but I watched part of it and you talked about landscaping and Jim was concerned about the list of having trees and Evergreens and shrubs and you thought that could have been too much in one area but this is where it's needed so number one the site of this is in the Blue Hills and um so we want to create a natural landscape and it has Evergreens it has um trees it has shrubs all different layers I would be concerned a little bit with some of the plant material because you might have a lot of deer up there and even though Green Giant arbites are deer resistant they're not deer proof so um plan on the possibly the bottom six feet the deer grazing um I think six to8 feet and and not tall enough for starting um for your plant material I think you really have to be um you know 10 to 12 foot it is still a commercial building 6 to 8 ft is like homeowner grade um so I would go a little bit bigger than that um but the plant materials you know seems um you know pretty good it is a mix of all um different shrubs you have some natives um and you know to Cheryl's point it should be more natural looking um not like just a straight foundation planting along the street yeah understood the the that layer that we're identifying along that parking lot uh was the initial go at at screening it you know headlight screening all of that yeah and so maybe be thoughtful because um we're running into to a a similar situation at another school with the residents across the street so I'm not exactly sure where um homeowners are located on the other side of 138 but really make sure when you're placing your um your cting your Evergreens really pay attention um that it's blocking right into the windows of the neighbors across the street sure um so don't put a a deciduous tree um right in in line with someone's window thankfully we have more room here too um and existing um tree so you might also look at in some infill in there lower um infill Maggie like where within the existing tree that's being preserved yeah so some people think 3in Cal less than 3in caliber trees are not worth saving um but really um a cluster of less than 3in caliber trees create a natural um hedge so even though they might not have um you know Financial value a whole collection of of trees provide a valuable space for the neighbors and also for wildlife so really try not to just go in and clearcut to make your job easier because we have another project in town where that's what they did they clearcut everything and it's just um it's really disgraceful um so and I know it's easier to do that um but really try to minimize and just because you know it's a 1 in caliper tree it collection of them have it had does have value absolutely I we can add notes to the plans as well to to indicate protection of of everything along limited disturbance line where it would probably be um be nice to have a tree um preservation plan you know where um particularly where you're getting right at the edge yeah of your limits like which trees you're going to try and keep and be mindful of their canopy and be realistic you and say like what we've done with some is you know here's the tree we're going to try and save here's ones we're definitely going to save right knowing that that line is a little you know it's there's circles on the plan here but you know exactly where that limmit is versus the trees that are there right um exactly you see it right there zoomed in um I really um like the playground in the back by the way um I think it's going to be much nicer for the the kids to play in the back there the that um sidewalk down is an accessible sidewalk that's why it keeps it's and that's a work in progress we're looking at different options there okay all right right um other comments on these plans I know there's going to be some additional I do have a couple things for you to think about with the lighting plan that you'll prepare but anything mostly I'd rather see bigger trees and fewer of them you know it's not that much more expensive did you go with a larger size if you're were able to do fewer of them sure and then um especially the Evergreens they're they're the most important um um you know you're I'm more concerned about the Landscaping from the outside in I'm not as concerned about what your foundation planting looks like cuz the average Milton resident isn't going to be looking at that so the less landscape there is probably less maintenance for um um the site anyway and so I think you should concentrate all your efforts and plant dollars on the perimeters what about on that slope this it's you know fairly steep slope right all around um in the in the front but also in the back for for slope stabilization right you don't show plant material you planning for that to be like a grass or yeah I would imagine that that would be blanketed and seated would be my guess okay any thoughts about that Maggie well maybe not even just using like Kentucky Blue Grass you know you do a meadow mix maybe uh you know native Meadow mix um because again it would be less maintenance for you guys um than a than a straight like grass SE you'd have to mow right there's definitely opportunity for us to pull from kind of the the Blue Hills and and that kind of historic aspect of it here for that as well very natural landscape versus you know a a more what I would call maybe Suburban you know kind of landscape approach okay um are we good on the landscape plan mhm just have one last question on the building will there be any equipment mounted on the roof there will be yes so currently um I will say that the uh the sloped pitch roofs are not uh they're not fully gabled or or hipped anywhere they're going back about 3 four feet just so that we can screen everything behind it but still give the appearance of of the the pitch okay and I know it's really not up to us about coloring but I happen to like darker color buildings and they disappear rather than a white one but that's it's your building so I wouldn't want someone to tell me what to paint my house with you on that um but a darker uh it's all Personal Taste because I don't mind the lighter I know I will say the more and more I drive through Boston suburbs the more I see Whit side yeah yeah a lot of light uh when you prepare the lighting plan I we switch gears then they're good um since the parking's in the front now i' like for you to think about the light fixtures that have pretty low pole Heights and also dark sky compliant of course but ones that um don't look too commercial in their style and design okay so U I think the last one you had pretty clean lined um but there are some which have a little more of a historic look to that to them that might fit with the kind of character of The Building architecture as well okay um and if you need to or if you'd like uh to see what we've done on a couple other projects for those that we've approved the fixtures in particular we can ask Cheyenne to pull those for you okay but you're welcome to you know select something else too but I my recollection in looking at what you had was a pretty horizontal line and you know when that was in the back that was a little different but now it's kind of part of what you see coming up and um and the height just because um you know it's already elevated so just from appearance from the street um you know this will be these will be on obviously this time of year yeah yeah and then of course things like um having it be on a Time Clock you know so that they're um not on longer than they need to be uh security lighting would be um like us occupancy type sensors things like that so we don't need the building lit up when it's we don't want the building lit up right when it's not in use and so that's something that we've looked at with the other uh daycare centers that have been approved recently and if possible not sitting on a like a concrete footing sure not having the so rate being raised up so yeah we'll work on locations to where maybe we can can lower that to a very small amount so are we ready to move to the traffic the up traffic oh before we move on did any of the neighbors asked to see this plan or have they seen it or have they voiced an opinion on it or I wonder I I haven't been in contact and I haven't shared this update with them okay um before we move to traffic we can see if there's anyone who would like to speak um cheyen do are you seeing a hands raised I see one hand um Lou Evelyn I'll I'll love the talk hello hello your name and address for the record please yes my name is Evelyn castigo I live at 7eleven Blue Hill I believe that I'm the south of butter okay so we would move the plan a little bit Yeah up here okay um so I'm concerned because I don't know what this will look like from my living room window and when I walk out of my front door while I appreciate the concern for the public way and public perception of the project I'm wondering how it'll to me who has to look at it every day 124 ft seems really tall especially if it'll be right next to me I know someone mentioned that from Blue Hill if people are driving by and it's pushed back the perception will be that it's smaller but this will be right next to me um so I'm wondering what the screening is going to be from my property um and in Prior meetings I know that it was mentioned that maybe the play area was going to be turf or grass I'm wondering if that's still going to be Turf um and then how how is this building going to look from my house so that's um I want to make a correction um Evelyn the building will be uh no taller than 35t right now from its highest point I think the 124 feet was how far it is from the property line and um the building is further away from the property line than it was in the prior uh scheme and because it's tucked into the hill uh I think you could go to the elevation maybe on the side that the South Side like give an idea and then we can come back to the landscape plan so this is cut away uh to show the whole building but there's a retaining wall next be between the wall of the building um so that they can get out that door but the land would be sloping following that slope that you see on the left there so yeah if you want to give an idea with that yeah so there exactly so the that's following the slope so it's one story um on the left side of this and two stories on the right the 35 ft is what's allowed in um the district and what's allowed in most of I think all of mil in um 2 and a half stories and 35 ft so that's within the height definitely more reasonable sorry I said that's definitely more reasonable I did see 124 feet somewhere but I think that's the distance from the property line maybe that was uh or maybe you want to go ahead and explain that I I think that's the toppo that's the true elevation I see yeah so that's taking into account that you're not starting at zero you're starting up higher they're used say the topographic um elevation is that clear Evelyn what we're talking about with that we can go to the section you can show it there what that means yeah so that's what I have pulled up here and you can see over on the right finish floor 83 we have 665 at 102 um let's see if we have 711 here at 94 uh so plus or minus your home sits about 11 feet above our first floor about even with our second floor um and then this kind of gives you a rough relationship of um your house to to the development there is a a number of existing trees to remain as well as additional plantings to help fill in any gaps so can you go to the landscape plan again for that please so yeah what we've done here you can see the darker shaded trees would all be trees um shade trees and Evergreens to fill in fill in gaps and help with with screening um from from the angle at which the house sits looking at our property and our development it would almost appear as a one-story building uh given that you get a good view of the the rear there um looking at our elevations we don't change materials we don't change the look The the front and back of the buildings look very similar so it looks to be about 45 ft from the property line to the Do Not Disturb line and that part of the where the home is it gets closer towards uh Blue Hill LA but that portion yeah looks about halfway 45 50 feet so it's not as um it's about at the same grade as her as her house correct so it's not sitting up higher from from her house so based on that elevation based on the the sections and what's shown there know uh if we look at the toppo just to give you an idea um there is a little bit of a a ramp up um but I believe there there's almost like a burm in between the two to get the drainage soil in correct so that those V's are um showing a drainage soil that would direct the water from left to right right correctly and then further on the right you can show where that ends up yeah so that'll ultimately tie into an existing soil that's already used today okay does do that does that answer your question SN yes it does thank you okay thank you do we have anyone else Cheyenne nope that was it and there's no one else in the room so um I suggest we move to the traffic okay Scott you want to take it yeah sure thanks Chris uh Scott Thorton with vaness and Associates um and just a a few brief or just a brief update on the on what we've been doing the last month uh so there was the comment letter that that came from the town's peer review consultant that was dated October 29th uh requesting that we uh collect new traffic counts uh due to the original counts being conducted uh at a an off peak time period in June June July um so we conducted those counts November 6th and 7th when schools were in session uh provided a comment letter responding to the beta peer review comments uh that was dated November 25th uh we updated the analysis and provided uh this updated uh Transportation impact assessment uh dated December 20 2024 in general what we found was that uh the traffic volumes in June were during the daily time period and the weekday morning peak hour period they were about 2% higher than the November traffic volumes uh during the weekday evening time period the traffic volumes were comparable uh so not much change there uh in general the project impact stayed about the same uh in terms of um operations at the intersections generally looking at about a you know one to two second uh change in delay overall uh whether it was the initial traffic study or this updated traffic study we also did um we analyzed the five-way intersection uh of of Blue Hill AV and Bradley and Aton Street um as a roundabout as was requested by the peer reviewer um what we found was that first off do did not have plans for that design for that for that roundabout so we made some assumptions as to the size uh uh roadway geometry um but what we found is that the the the roundabout actually operates better which is not really surprising um with less delay than the signalized intersection that's that's currently in place so where previously under the Future No build and build conditions uh we were looking at level of service C overall at the intersection with the roundabout we're looking at level of service B so less delay overall which again is is not surprising as that's one of the one of the uh reasons for implement in roundabout control um you know in terms of um overall you know not really much change in operations uh or or results or the conclusions uh shown in the in the original traffic study we had also prepared uh site distance exhibit as was requested by the by the peer review consultant uh that's included in the appendix um and uh I think that's I think that's it I mean if there are any comments that have been provided by the peerreview consultant on this update we'll be happy to look at them or respond to them um but I think I think that's that's it for an update of the traffic situation okay thank you uh Scott cheen has has this um updated study been U forwarded to the peerreview engineers I believe it has but if not um no I believe it has we had a couple email exchanges over the last week okay great thank you cheyen and uh thanks to Cheyenne for uh having to fill two uh seats right now we we not trying to put you on the hot spot there just trying to follow up and see where we are Cheyenne my opinion is she's doing great yes fastic job really you're doing great really impressed yeah and uh she's uh she's due for a little trip coming up which will be well deserved okay um I did have a question for you Scott and then we'll see what the other board members questions are too um when you in your profession when you say not a minor impact when I was looking at the report and the counts were going up from an existing morning trip of just over a th000 and then they were going up by 137 that I calculated that to be about a 133% increase uh and then I think in the evening was about 14% um I I drove down um yesterday was a pretty lousy day traffic is probably worse on a lousy day like that but I did drive down blue laa around 8:30 yesterday and I was just trying to understand think a little bit about making a left-hand turn because you I think your report had more people going north on um Blue Hill LA and if you're coming out of this drive you're going to be taking a left to go north and you've got to cross the other percentage that are coming south I think it was like 40 some percent maybe going south and it just made me wonder whether people are going to try and pull out because they can't otherwise get out um and if you had any comment about that in in terms of pulling out if there's anything just taking a shorter Gap uh yeah you're know going wait for a gap right but you know behavior is such that if people don't they they wait a long time where you say one or two seconds but I I think it's this the waight is longer than that um to pull out on a yeah on that road and yeah and I I think that you know the the more people are are familiar with it the more you know the more uh I guess the the the the more of a of a measured approach they'll take to to to exiting or to to pulling out we're we're not obviously we're not saying that it's it's a it's just a couple seconds you know you're not going to pull up and and you know there'll be a gap right there I think maybe some cases there will be but most people will have to wait uh that is one thing that that uh we noticed with the with the new counts before we were looking at a level of service C for for the for movements exiting the driveway on average which is which was about 22 to to 23 seconds um per vehicle and then with the with the updated counts uh we're looking at a level of service D or somewhere you know over 25 seconds somewhere between 26 and and 28 seconds so so I think there is going to be that that type of um that type of delay that'll be typical and people may um you know may structure their their travel patterns to to work with the traffic and and um uh and and not necessarily you know fight across the across the the lanes of traffic to take maybe a shorter Gap than than than would be prudent and did you look at the signals um this is between two traffic lights right this site location and so the timing of those signals is that something that could be adjusted is that that's a state decision I guess but I'm just wondering from a safety perspective if if they ever look at these New Uses coming in I I know the state is interested in moving traffic through Milton on these roadways but you know these uses are not as safe if you don't have these pauses that traffic lights can provide yeah yeah and um I mean there it's possible that they would um they would ask us to to do something with the the signal timing at um at at Robin Street um obviously at the at the five way they're they're looking at removing that that signal at least that's that that's been discussed um you know it may be it may be further off uh implementation of it may be further off because when we started we were asking for for comments we heard about this plan asked for comments or asked for uh plan designs and nothing was available and you know three months later still nothing was available so maybe that's that's more of a long-term um a long-term proposition but I guess to answer your question yet it it is it is possible to uh to to set up um set up uh the traffic signal timing so that gaps are created in One Direction or another in that case the operations would be better at at all the the driveways and the and the minor Street intersections between those two signals is this something where you could go to the state and ask them about it or you you said they could ask you but what would prompt them to ask yes so so they would ask us if uh or they would tell us really as part of the the access permit process okay so when you when you go for the curb cut for the project yeah y other questions I I just have a a couple Squad just on data um the data for your um generated trips was Wednesday Thursday is are those the days of the week that you find most reflective of uh accurate data counts yeah generally T we try to do counts Tuesday Wednesday Thursday okay in this case was Wednesday Thursday okay and and you're um and this I just need a little Clarity on this I probably am not following something here I'm missing something so the generated trips are expected to be 137 during the morning 131 uh during the evening peak hour which should be 268 if you added them together but on an average weekday you note that approximately 399 vehicle trips were expected to enter and exit the site uh help me reconcile between the math of 137 and 131 being 268 and the 399 yeah it's just that there's uh so the so the 268 is the is the total number of trips during those two peak hours right yeah and then but then over the over the daily basis or the daily time period it's it's it's 798 so closer to closer to 800 so what we're what we're saying is that the the majority of the traffic for the site is generated during those two peak hours MH and then the the rest of the trips would fall in in between those time periods okay okay all right great thank you sure um so I have a question about roundabouts just generally because I know that seems to be the trend and I understand that a roundabout will help slow down and make the actual intersection a little bit safer but are they really helpful for the rest of the Road especially for like this site you know as Cheryl was talking about but also for like the ladder streets and the neighbors so um you know we have another site in town on Route 28 that there um the state is really pushing for the roundabout and you know over 1,00 people signed a petition not to have a roundabout there because even though it makes the that actual intersection safer it's going to cause problems all up and down Route 28 and I do think leaving this site taking that left is going to be very very difficult um for um you know your clients um and I I I think if you can talk to the state I don't know if they listen to you guys or not because I don't think they listen to us but um to um really put a gap in because not only would it help this site but it would help all the other neighbors too so will they listen to you or take your um suggestions like yeah you know it's a it's a good question um related to the to the operations of the roundabout at this location and whether or not it's a it's a you know it's a it's a benefit for all like you say it definitely makes the the intersection safer because it it cuts down the number of conflict points so that you know the only you don't have vehicles Crossing you don't have vehicles um um you know going with the potential of of uh passing each other directly so it it really does eliminate a lot of the the types of accidents that can occur um and you know all the movements are restricted pretty much to right turns um so it it improves safety from that perspective as you mentioned it it it improves safety by reducing the speeds so people will will be slowing down well in advance of the roundabout uh because they know that they have to negotiate that at it may be 15 miles an hour uh maybe smaller um or a lower speed um but then they speed up as they're exiting the roundabout to make up for the slow down yeah I mean that right so could be I mean they they should be they should be slowing down on approach slowing down through the intersection slowing down exiting um but uh you know and and like I said this one is this one is kind of tough where uh where we haven't really been able to to get a lot of detailed information on the plan so um so it as I said it may be it may be a a really long-term proposition um we can you know we we can have the discussion we can we can try to find out what the you know what the impetus is for for the for the for the idea Beyond just improving safety I would say that if it's if it's if it's moved this far along in the planning phase it's probably going to happen and there's probably not much that you know that can be done to to retain the signal unless you know unless the the funding doesn't materialize well one thing I would say is that um there has been more constructed on bluehill La um maybe than when they first did their an initial analysis and you know it's one thing to move cars along when there's no other uses on the roadways but when you have these uses I I do think it it is something for them to consider so if you when you're speaking to them you know maybe you could pass along our concerns sure all right I just have a quick question for you Scott um at the exit um of your property there's a stop sign how did you determine that you needed a stop sign there you know exiting the driveway I think it was either recommended by the peer-reviewer or you I'm just curious why that would be there it's it I think it's just a it's just prudent to have that um for for for vehicle you know a it's really a recommendation just for just for safety purposes uh so that people because some people will say they you know if they if they enter the some people could enter the right of way without you know without slowing or without looking so um so the so putting the stop sign and the stop bars there are it's really just a typical procedure yeah now personal note when I was teaching my daughter to drive and we were coming out of Hawthorne Road taking a right on Elliot she didn't stop because there was no stop sign so yeah yeah yeah if you think it's going to work it's great I was just surprised to see it in a in a driveway and then making the um curb cut wider to 24 feet which I think is a great idea and taking down a few trees trees for visibility was that a result of the sort of second traffic review that you did or was that in there from the first I think that was in there from the beginning I mean the the the um the width of the driveway really is is dictated by you know by by regulations and also by um the path of the vehicles that are coming in so if there's if there's delivery vehicles or uh or or or trash or Refuge trucks that are coming in um we want to have them make as as little um uh caus as little drama to to the traffic flow on Blue Hill AB as possible so they can just pull in and pull out without any any issues and the and the width of the driveway helps them do that gotcha okay thank you that was a comment from fire at our prea meeting they wanted to make sure they had the maneuverability to not cross lines in and out speaking of fire um this is not necessarily for Scott but um is this a sprinkler building and therefore they don't need access to the back side of the building here it is a spr a fully sprinkled building yes okay and you'll have another um conversation with the fire chief with this new site plan Fair Point make sure we get hose PS and everything to the back side all right so um anything else Jim I'm good okay anything else on the traffic all right so um when do you think you'll be ready to come back to us knowing that we have a meeting next week and then our next one uh is January 6 and then January 23rd after that so I'm thinking the 23rd the 23rd I think the 6th with the holidays is just going to be tough to to finalize things that'll also maybe get us a little time um to get the traffic peer review comments back okay we have storm water peer review comments back but we'll obviously adjust with this design and go back again um so maybe by the 23rd we have a little progress there as well okay and Cheyenne um as far as the new public hearing for 10 Basset have we set a a meeting date and time for that one yes they are coming back on the 6th of January okay so uh do we have anything else um with a specific time on the 23rd no not as of now all right so then I'm going to suggest that we continue the hearing until the 23rd at 7 5 and I'll take a motion for that so moved is there second second all those in favor I I thank you thank you guys I appreciate it you H happy holiday yeah same to Youk okay next on the agenda sorry we had skipped um staff updates so I wanted to hit that really quick before we had you come up sorry I missed that no thank you please go ahead sure so the first one is the annual report is due January 24th Julia has been working on a skeleton so we'll we'll get that into um a folder to share out um as for future agenda items we wanted to know if you wanted to add budget discussions I know you wanted mapc to come back in January for zoning another public forum um so we didn't know if you wanted that on future agendas okay um did a the budget gets submitted in December I know we had talked about that uh previously and also a contingent budget I think there was some discussion about what that could be I spoke to Amy um I think you have 50,000 in like planning board and then like a th000 or something and studies we'll have to like confirm that studies but you definitely have over 50,000 that you could pull from elsewhere um I reach out to Josh just to see like an estimate of what a public forum and a couple more meetings would be I know Meredith said she wanted a couple more um so I'm waiting for him to get back on that okay so [Music] um cheyen I think um did we schedule Josh to come back on the six sorry it's uh yeah planning board has 50k in it and wait never mind I'm looking at mic I thought I had it here never mind sorry okay um so I know cheyen you won't be available next week so the next meeting after that would be the six did I I thought that we had um thought that MPC would come back on that me meeting is that right yes they're currently coming back on the 6th to talk more about the zoning um I know last last meeting Meredith wanted to extend it end of February but I was talking to her this week and she's thinking end of March to include like a public forum and a couple more meetings um so that's why I reached out to him just to see how much that would cost if we had money in our budget for him so and was she thinking that um the public forum would have to do with the the zoning language or and the design guidelines um we didn't go that deep into it but I think she wanted it kind of around the same time as town meeting all right just so we would or not like exactly around but relatively all right so um well we can talk um next week about oh just one last thing then so is a contingent budget um not being put forward for this coming year fiscal year um I don't know much about a contingent budget I just know I spoke to Amy and she said this is what we had currently so I thought we talked about like a $100,000 remember but that was for contingent budget so um all right well I think um we'll definitely need to talk about that further so as far as have you worked with um Meredith to set the agenda for next week Cheyenne as of now we just have um their nursy coming up and the public hearing for all of our articles and then do we but nothing official okay [Music] um all right so I guess uh maybe you could reach out to her and see if budget discussion should be on next week's agenda and okay um in the event that we need to have some kind of um discussion with MPC before the 6th in terms of their budget okay otherwise I I think other things can wait I think and the their contract extension I I'm I think Josh when we asked him he thought there was a little bit of budget left but and when he went back to look at it I don't know what he what he found so um it would be good to know uh if you if you get a chance to follow up with him about that maybe let Meredith know what you find out before our to take a thousand from somewhere else I still think we probably need more than 50,000 like I know 100 was on a contingent but is there any way and maybe this is a discussion for next week but maybe we should be prepared to to advocate for more than 50 yeah so we can um we can try and get clarity especially since we're not sure when um MDA yeah we we don't know what's coming ahead or you know when um Tim's replacement will be coming in and if we have to hire Consultants to help us okay all right um I know that um there was some discussion with the Town Administrator about consultant you know U but I don't know how that works in terms of consultant fees uh compared to salary you know in in the budget lines um and that would be in a separate budget than the planning board budget but I also thought that I know Tim had been thinking about seeking planning department budget and sort of separate from planning board budget and I don't know where that stands and so um so yeah we thank you Chey will for bringing that up and we'll need to have some discussion so um if you can ask Meredith about putting that on the agenda for next week that would be great definitely um last thing is regarding adus building department would love to be working hand inand with you guys um they were hoping next meeting or whatever meeting we touch on adus again um if we could invite the Building Commissioner Joe okay um I think that's a great idea we when we why don't we talk about that also when we talk about Adu down the on the agenda okay all right thank you no problem all right now um we will move to the agenda item five MBTA Community zoning discussion with u and I see that we have Zoe and Matthew with us tonight welcome welcome back thank you and we also have um JT from our team as well so if you're able to promote him to panelist if you haven't already that would be great okay I see that he needs to be promoted swe thanks so much all right I will go ahead and um share screen and um do a quick check here [Applause] all right so just the usual kind of anchor in case we need it for reference to Prior um sort of the original 2023 um uh warrant proposal dist subdistricts um what we have for you today is we're going to go through um some research that we've done on the Elliot Street Corridor minimum lot size after our conversation last time um we've also um gone through uh the Elliot Street quarter kind of boundary and looked at you know what might make sense as an expanded boundary if you were to for instance um opt for the 6,000 foot minimum lot size that's something that we can um sort of walk you through as a a case study of of expanding the boundary and then we've run the numbers for kind of an overall adjustment to the numbers um with uh the Elliot Street Corridor refinements in mind as well as um the request from last time to uh return um the granted of North subdistrict to um the level of density that it had in the 2023 warrant um and focus our reductions elsewhere um and then we'll close by showing a kind of a a second pass sort of looking at some of the alternative subdistricts um that we discussed at the last meeting with you um and we can kind of talk through kind of next steps relative to that so just sort of big picture what we're looking at is kind of that next step of fine-tuning to try and get the balance right between um the East Milton subdistricts and um Elliot Street Corridor and sort of the the other subdistricts excuse me other subdistricts within the overall approach um so with that uh this first piece I'm going to mostly pass off to Matthew to walk you through some of the test fitting that we did as a reminder the goal here was to really look at um this lowest tier tier one um which handles the smallest lots that are within the Elliot Street Corridor um to jog your memory in 2023 um we settled on a minimum lot size of 7,500 we've been studying this year um options to bring that lot size down that minimum lot size down um and we've also increased the number of units that can be permitted in tiers two and three from three units to four units um the we thought it would be helpful to bring back some of the visualizations that we did um last year with some minor updates um as well as some new ones that look at these smaller lot sizes so with that I will pass to Matthew I think to kind of run through this piece sure um good evening everyone um we again as we revisit and sort of fine tune the LA Corridor it was probably a good time to revisit um some of the little testing that we had done previously and then see how that plays out at some of the different tiers that that we're looking at right now um we're holding a lot of the basic um setbacks and coverage and height but we we have been sort of tweaking the F to sort of um limit the building massing to the sort of what the model is expecting u in terms of a sort of Maximum unit size so if you go to the next slide a quick note I forgot to mention that last time one of the focal points was the um open space metric so we've listed it in terms of um max building and parking coverage so the inverse Right is open space so 40% is the inverse so we've been holding since 2023 that 40% metric for open space and so that's part of what we were looking at in doing these Fest feds so um again this was the smallest so this um again tier one would apply for everything from u a minimum in this case 5,000 square fet up to 10,000 square ft um we've drawn from a kind of similar existing parcel based on existing patterns and you know um uh basic sort of parcel dimensions in this case it's a it's pretty typical 50 by 100 lot um explore two scenarios um you may recall we're holding a kind of U minimum sidey yard of 5T but U minimum total sidey yard left and right of 20 fet so in the left hand scenario you see that both side yards are 10 ft and in the right hand side you'll see it's five on one side and 15 on the other which is not an uncommon kind of condition that we seem to have observed um you'll also see that um the F here is at 0 6 so if you sort of do the math it it gives you a maximum building area of 3,000 square ft which is um the model will recognize as three units so um the the screws have been tightened a little bit there um in this smallest [Music] scenario um we're hitting exactly that uh that building in parking Paving coverage ratio uh up 60% um the next slide shows if we move it up to 6,000 square ft um again drawing from a similar existing parcel which also seems to exhibit that sort of slightly asymmetrical sidey yard condition um two scenarios here uh one a little bit more parallel to the street the other u a little bit more perpendicular um and again we've sort of uh nudged the f um down in this case to sort of hit that 3,000 square foot of developable area inside of a 2 and a half Story Volume and the next slide is I think one that we probably saw earlier when we were looking at 7500 um the these larger Lots tend to not be much wider just um honestly a little bit deeper um so it plays out in a very similar way in terms of how it fronts um but again in this case you'll see that the F has been reduced yet again again to to Max us out at 3,000 sare ft um if we're at that exact threshold [Music] um this is uh a sort of similar size parcel but of a different proportion um to see again how that plays out um you know similar outcomes in terms of building coverage and and Total Building massing excuse me matth you um in order for this to work out this way on the larger lots are you limiting to the F to keep it at that 3,000 square ft these are we can kind of add in that's so we had some FS that we had worked I think uh you had sort of helped us to arrive at those original Fs in in the 2023 um warrant through some analysis that you had done at that time um we're sort of reporting here like the minimum F that you can set that won't trip the model so if we want to tighten it up there's some room to do that and if we choose to okay and and there are other parameters we can introduce like maximum building footprint um you know other things but it's I see your question right so if if you go up to if you happen to have a 9,999 foot parcel obviously that fixed f is getting you more floor area so but there are other controls we can introduce if we really wanted to to keep it down well I I think it's something to pin and for the discussion yep absolutely once we have kind of a a minimum lot size that we feel good about we can you know focus in on some of those other parameters that Matthew's talking about to make sure that you know it's producing something that you guys feel is a good match because obviously um you the open space requirement in this case is doing a pretty good job at keeping that footprint tight okay um you don't want the option of one-story building that fills out that entire um exactly Dash Red Line um so that open space piece is I think doing a good job but if if it's a thing of concern we can you know continue to drill down other other metrics that would control that so that's the tier one um and then this is a this is a visualization you I I think we may have shared this with you before um um it happens to be on the 7500 squ foot deeper parcel but again that Frontage is very similar to the to the frontage widths um that we were looking at at the 6,000 and 5,000 so um it results in a similar building scale um you know again depicting setbacks side yards that are uh we we think fairly reasonable respect with respect to what a typical sort of condition is um the next tier is 10,000 square fet again so this is um between 10,000 and 15,000 um and uh moving up to sort of four units uh per parcel maximum um if you go to the next slide um this opens up the possibility um of uh having four units in one building or having um two units in two buildings um that latter scenario meets the multif family um definition uh according to the the the law the new law and um you know it's worth noting that it might be if a developer had a a blank SL a blank site like this they may elect to put it into two buildings um to avoid Sprinklers and all the things that come with the multif family code that kicks in at three units um but the the math sort of works out the same um both of these are showing open space at 62% um and again the F has been sort of calibrated to get us uh right to that 4,000 ft total area again at 10,000 sare ft but um if if if there were more lot area obviously that F number produces something that's higher um this is a slightly different proportion site um and uh it seems to honestly sort of work fine um again you could have one building or even two buildings even within that sort of 10 foot um setback and I believe on this larger one we're holding a 10t setback um but again that's a finer Point what kind of optionality we want on sidey yards um is is a finer point that we can continue to discuss um next slide shows a sort of a visualization of this right I was for about that uh again it's a little wider it's a bigger site um but I I continue to think think that the two and a half story limitation if it's truly you know two and a half stories um does a lot towards taming the the character of of a building that could potentially have four units in it great so I think with that maybe we can pause um before kind of proceeding to the next piece of work um just to hear any questions or comments you all have about this um I think the ultimate goal here is to see if we can get closer to deciding on minimum lot size that feels comfortable for that um smallest tier the tier one um and that kind of has a ripple effect in terms of other decisions so we've made for the sake of the presentation today we've made um a case study of the 6,000 um square foot lot size um as the minimum but it would be great to hear your thoughts having seen these test fits um of what that looks like on a you know a typical lot um at that scale I'm happy to toggle back to any of these that are you want to kind of spend a little bit more time with I think the for for me U the analysis is good at this point and then it would be interesting to see you know how many additional Parcels this pulls in at six how many additional pulls in at five and and then you know it'll be something um which we'll want to get community feedback on uh but as far as the analysis I think the analysis is good the question I had about the F you know for that those variable because 5,000 to 7500 you know at 5,000 you're getting the 1,000 foot unit but at 7,000 you're not right you're getting the bigger so um that's my thought anyone else no I don't see much difference between the 5,000 and the 6,000 actually the way it models out I think they both look pretty good and I'm with you I would like to see the overall density of the area the neighborhood yeah because we'll have to see you know how many streets and how wide these streets are and you know how many additional units it is uh but as far as the analysis I did I think at 3,000 square ft it it does meet the criteria we've said 40% open space the setbacks and the Heights and so forth so now it's beginning to put those all together what is it look like you know you know on a a districtwide basis and I I think we're going to end up looking at options for that and having that neighborhood weigh in that's the way I see it yeah I don't really have any comments I think I've said it at the last meeting that I feel um you know before the SJC makes a ruling I'm just sort of uncomfortable talking about it you know out of respect for the judicial process so I don't really have any comments at this point okay so we ready to move on think so okay thank you thank you Matthew great so this next piece um this is mostly content that we had in the deck last time um there's just one bit of new new content that kind of Builds on it but just so that it's fresh in people's mind I'll kind of run through it this is where we basically just did a mapping of those um how the parcel sizes interact with the boundary that we have um so uh as a reminder we started in 2023 we have St this Threshold at 7,500 um what you're seeing here is um in teal um or kind of blue green depending on how it's showing up on your screen with color um those are the parcels that uh meet the 7,500 um square foot threshold so they are buildable under this zoning the parcels that are showing as kind of a a gold color or kind of a a green depending on your screen um those are uh part that are quite a bit larger and that um based on our kind of you know manip understanding of how these numbers you know interact with one another those kinds of parcels will result in the density of your District overall um for the Elliot Street Corridor coming down so those will those will have kind of a negative impact on the density um for the district if we include a lot of parcels that are at that scale um it shouldn't be the driving decision but it's an important thing to be weighing um and then the pink Parcels are the ones that are smaller than the threshold and therefore will not be buildable under this zoning so if you get a similarly if you get a lot of those pink Parcels um that's going to start bringing your density down as well because you have a lot of parcels that are included in the district but that cannot be built on um under this zoning so that's kind of just like a to get you oriented so what we're looking at I think what You' like to see is as much as possible you're seeing that kind of blue cyan um teal color coming through with more of those happening within the boundary that we're looking at so you can see that 7,500 there's still quite a bit of the pink that's within the boundary you get to 6250 um it's kind of good gains you're seeing more of the blue um at 6,000 a little bit of additional gain from the 6250 just to kind of toggle between those that's kind of the gain there and then lastly um once you hit the 5,000 you've got almost almost all of the parcels are um eligible or buildable um so that's kind of that that represents kind of the the pattern of the smallest Lop sizes in this part of um the town kind of aligns with that 5,000 number um but obviously those Parcels are also smaller and and might be appropriate for different kinds of buildings than what we're looking at um so this is kind of the where we left it off last time that we spoke with you um what we've done this time around is we've taken in the 6,000 foot parcel size as a a case study and looked at um something that had been asked a little while back which is what if we were to expand the boundary a little bit for the Elliot Street Corridor see if we could you know gain a little bit there in a way that made sense and was aligned with the sort of broader planning principles so what we've done here is as much as possible trying to stick to kind of logical breaks in the um pattern of the neighborhood in terms of streets alignment um in terms of distance to um the transit stops um so what you're seeing is that 1,200 foot um kind of radius around each of these stops um so we took that as kind of a a proxy for like a comfortable walking distance for a lot of people um and then uh this is that half mile so that's the the um the distance that's relevant for the law um but this tighter radius um was a kind of seemed like a strong planning starting point for the the boundary logic um and then you'll also see that we're representing here the Milton Hill historic district that's been on all of the maps up until this point um that's you know represented there because we want to kind of as much as possible um limit the interaction between um these two districts so that we're not creating conflicts um so we've shown here kind of the places where we think it it could be logical from a planning perspective to make minor expansions of the boundary um and then we've used this to run some numbers just to show you um you know what the impact sort of in theory of expanding the Elliot Street Corridor boundary um would be on your compliance picture overall um so again there's you know obviously if we choose to do this there's a lot of subtle decisions to be made but we wanted to give you kind of the global impact of it um so with that in mind um these notes are mostly just for year reference if you're looking at the slides on your own without us so I'm not going to walk through every piece of this but um what I did want to start with is showing you the Elliot Street Corridor with the expanded um boundary that I just showed you on that map um what that starts to look like in terms of numbers um so what I want to kind of call your attention to here is is two things and then I'll go into kind of the next level detail the first is the overall number of units that we're showing um this is using all the rules that we had talked about last time so we've tightened up the f a little bit here to you know more closely aligned with what would produce that um you know for instance in the um smallest tier that 3,000 square foot um building that would deliver you three units according to the compliance model that's kind of getting it as tight as it can be while still um you know delivering the unit numbers that you need out of those um Parcels um so these parameters are unchanged from we spoke last time the thing that's changed is the the area that it's being applied to so it's being applied to a slightly larger area in each of these cases um so what that means um is that because these are lower density districts in general in comparison to the other districts that compose your um your overall set of MBT communities um subdistricts increasing the acreage of this results in the density of your overall townwide com you know set of districts coming down because there's a greater acreage at a lower density and that's starting to skew the the overall density numbers um and so if we kind of hold everything else constant what that means is you're your this scheme with that expanded Elliot Street quarter comes in below the 15 units per anchor density threshold and it's it's getting significantly more units than the number of units that were included in like the 2023 warrant for example um so it's sort of it's skewing the overall picture in a way that's not actually particularly helpful in terms of you know trying to just uh stay very close to those compliance targets um so that's kind of the big picture which we thought this might be the case but we wanted to go through the exercise of actually testing it and seeing what the impact is um if the expansion of the Elliot Street Corridor is a little bit smaller the impact would be less dramatic but this is kind of the basic logic that would be true no matter what degree of expansion you opt for is that expanding the Elliot Street Corridor will generally result in more units lower density um and we'll start to kind of require you to put more units elsewhere in order to get that density back up um so I think the the big message here is it probably doesn't make sense to expand the Elliot Street Corridor much um if any uh what does make sense is refining the parameters within it um and if there's any kind of you know subtle you know but important changes in the boundary to kind of make it feel more aligned with specific pattern PS that people observe in the neighborhood things like that that's absolutely something that we can do but um we should try and keep the acreage of It kind of close to where it is now and not increase that acreage too much so so we have a question I think do you know how many Parcels were in the district before and how many Parcels were added in this analysis of the expansion of the district it's a great question I don't know that number off hand but I kind of you can see a little bit graphically when we were when we were running the acreage numbers it expanded by um like a margin of of 04 so like 40% more area than um what was included in the um 2023 warrant boundary um JT can kind of while we're talking see if he can kind of run those numbers behind the scenes and get you an answer on the um Parcels partial number because they're kind of a little bit apples and orange is Right acreage just and a perfect proxy for for Parcels okay great any other questions on this or comments at the Elliot Street Corridor expansion I think it's good analysis thank you yeah um okay so moving through this um so that was the sort of test of you know what would the impact be if we expanded the Elliot Street Corridor if we do not do that we hold to the 2023 boundary um the uh changes to the parameters do gain us a little bit of um you know they rebalance things in a way that's productive in other words they're slightly increasing the density the number of units that are coming out of the Elliot Street corter which enables you to then um see reductions elsewhere um similarly uh for granite AV north um for this District we restored that to the um the set of parameters that we had in 2023 um because there was kind of a broad understanding that that that there was a lot of aspects of that that made sense um but we have you know kept the reduced numbers that we talked about for grad out South and we've um in this case as an offset from kind of regaining the capacity in granted AV North that we had reduced previously um we've looked at you know what what would that look like if we were to reduce the East Mountain square numbers a little bit more um to kind of keep us riding very close to those um compliance targets so you can see here that um we've got the East mm square at 22 units per acre um 286 units and a density of 13.9 um and just for comparison if you look back to 2023 um we had East M square at 30 units per acre it was carrying 423 in unit capacity um and had a density of 20.6 so that's a a a decent reduction there that um you know if depending on preference that we could focus that reduction in East Milton Square we could focus it in Granite AB South we could split it between the two um but that's kind of it does give you um there are some benefits to this added refinement of the iiot Street Corridor parameters in that it's it's enabling you to um have a little bit more flexibility in thinking about how to um sort of right siiz the districts that are elsewhere in in the town so does that approximately like 450 units out of East Milton and yeah so actually okay so this is if you kind of take that as a snapshot of you know where we are right now in terms of fine-tuning these parameters and we use those those parameters for the Elliot Street quarter as well as the sort of um companion changes that we made in Blue ville's Parkway to keep those um you know aligned with one another um that looks like having an additional 393 units that are being carried um along the Eliot Street Corridor um and Blue Hills Parkway um and then a redu C of 445 units in the East mil the collective East Milt subd districts including granad of North South and East Milton Square um so that kind of that's the rebalancing that's happening and then in addition to that across the town as a whole um this is a reduction of 52 units um from the capacity that we were showing in 2023 and we're not looking at 701 Randolph a or St Pas with this right not yet so we do have analysis on that for you today um and that's using this as a baseline um so if we kind of assume that you know we'd be making some version of these tweaks in in all cases and if then if we treat that as a Baseline and we try and use these alternative subd districts to achieve um kind of one of two goals either further reducing grad AB South and East Milton Square or fully replacing East Milton Square what is the impact so we've done it the next sort of layer of that analysis for the alternative subd districts using this as the the starting point so um so going back to the um the height on granite AV South yeah and did that change we have not changed that um right now the 25 units per acre is the primary constraint on it okay um so I suspect I have we haven't tested this yet but I suspect for instance if we brought this down to 3. five it might not have any impact on the unit numbers okay um I have I haven't confirmed that yet um but that's my sense so we can we can certainly look if there's more kind of building form changes that you want to see for granite of South we can test what that looks like um with these kind of broad unit parameters so just generally speaking then with this kind of density reduction you're going to have a lot more open space if you if you reach that height right correct yeah okay yeah so there's some benefit to continuing to allow that height because if somebody were to solve their site plan with that height in mind it would enable them to have more open space okay and we're still not looking at Net News anymore this just these numbers are just are just a shuffle right yeah we're just the the in this um uh presentation for you today we don't have any um net new calculations um but we can do that um we've we have the like the method in place but we haven't run it for this presentation yeah I think when we get before our public forum we should really have net news for everything okay you can do that I'm good okay all right um so um this next piece kind of shows the those alternative subdistricts we spoke about last time um we've kept them all in the running for now um just to kind of give you a full picture so just to refresh people's mind there's three different variations on the Randol AB sites um Randol AB one which is kind of this the largest of the three um Randle 2 which is just that upper portion and then Randle 3 is the lower portion um and then we also have 7-Eleven Randolph a 1200 Brush Hill Road St p and Shan Parkway um just a reminder that used to 1200 brell Road in state Pas might run into spot zoning issues um and tumman Parkway still has kind of a a contiguity question that we'll ultimately want to raise with the state um if we choose to include it um so with that background in mind this is the analysis that we have for you today on these um the uh the ones what we've done here is we've basically taken these two goals which you see on the left so one goal is what if we use these new districts to reduce gred F sou and East milon um and just to enable this to be like a really clear comparison we've just plugged in some placeholder numbers of like reducing it by how much just so you can kind of see the relative impact of these different subdistricts so um what we're assuming for all of these subd districts is that um we're uh bringing granad AV South down from the currently modeled 222 units to just 154 units that's a reduction of 68 units in that location we're also assuming that we're bringing East Milton Square down from the currently modeled 286 units to 250 units um so that's a reduction of 36 units there so certainly you could you could reduce it by more you could reduce it by less you could change the balance between two but again this is just to kind of give you a picture of like you know if we're going to move forward with like one or two of these to test them further which ones are the best candidates to do that with um so kind of holding that constant we then tested what the impact would be for each of these um candidate uh subd districts we similarly did the same thing for um a different goal these are independent of one another um to completely replace East Milton Square so in other words you know remove East Milton Square from the MBTA communities 3A districts as a whole um and substitute in a different alternative subdistrict that we're evaluating um and so something to just kind of be aware of is that these moves are have a very different relationship to the overall um sort of uh puzzle piece Dynamic that your um subdistricts have so achieving a reduction granted out South and East Milton Square um as soon as you do that you kind of brought the overall density down so we're playing kind of a density game here of which of these subdistricts is able to contribute to boosting your density most effectively with the least sort of um ballooning impacts in terms of the number of units overall um and then alternatively for East Milton Square in almost all of these cases it's really just a unit replacement in other words we need to get back up to the the unit the minimum unit Target um and so density isn't as much of a driver and that's why you see the same number recurring over and over again because that's that's the unit Gap that you need to get back up to your unit Target the only one that flips that is Randle Fab one because it's such a large um subdistrict that it actually does start to bring that density conversation back so with that kind of Preamble or backstory um you can see here these numbers the plus or minus is the impact on the townwide unit capacity um so if you were to use Randolph A1 for this purpose it would result in an addition of 288 units to your overall townwide capacity number in order to get to that density of 15 units per acre inversely if you were to use Randall 51 to replace East Milton Square um it would result in a reduction of 21 units from the overall townwide unit capacity um so we kind of went across the board there you can see that the numbers and what we've done is we've kind of highlighted the ones that um have the least uh sort of impact at a townwide scale um in terms of adding units um and kind of balancing that a little bit with the the these new candidate districts themselves in order to serve in that role what would they need to carry um so for 7-Eleven Randol a um if you use that to reduce gr South and East Milton Square you'd have you'd see a addition of 92 units townwide um in order to to serve in that role 71 Randolph a would need to carry 196 units at least um and it would need to be at a district at a density of 30.6 at minimum um so that's a a you know it's a relatively dense District but it's not you know if you kind of compare back to like these as a touch point this is the the current numbers for granad AV north south and east M Square um so it's a little bit more than the density that we're looking at in granad AV South right now um conversely um for St pas um that has a slightly smaller kind of overall um impact on the townwide unit capacity um a gain of um 90 units townwide um and St Pas uh would need 194 units on that site in order to serve in that role and that is translates to a district density of 30.8 so similar kind of density level so both of these would be coming in at a density that's slightly higher than gradov um South and would be carrying slightly fewer units than gr adav South but kind of a similar order of magnitude um so maybe I'll pause there and then we can talk a little bit about the East M Square just because I know this is like a disneying amount of numbers to digest at once so just to be clear when you say the current granad AV South it's the current reduction that you showed us tonight right yes that's a good clarification thank you yeah without the American Legion Hall right correct yep without the American Legion Hall correct and the and the lower number of units right so which is kind of driving a little bit why you need more here right well yeah because it was dense as hell correct the original yeah I mean we had asked if this could be 15 units an acre and the answer is no it looks like uh in order to meet other parameters now um it's because you're adding land area is my understanding of it is that right yep that's right so essentially by reducing the number of units that um you know or the density of of great out South in East Milton Square right that means that um you know we're then looking at adding other districts those carry more acreage you need a certain number of units for those that new acreage to not drag down your density numbers yeah so if you use these it's if you want to try and keep your not add too many more units you're looking at a swap probably meeting it more one to one or or something Sim there's some truth in that um and at which point it becomes a question of you know when you think big big picture in terms of planning you know Logics which of these is the best site for multif family housing you know by comparison I think my my inclination is that grand enough South carries some additional benefits but I think in terms of the the multif family unit logic um but obviously that there's other reasons why you might um prefer some of the other candidate subd districts I think that it's you know it might be productive to think of it in those terms yeah and just to clarify none of this is good planning logic no it's not it's always element of opinion and that I think you're each entitled to your own opinion yeah and I can share mine when you want it so we um I think we want to focus on the analysis for tonight um we're anticipating getting the you know the uh Court decision before long so this is really helping us be prepared for that you know having done the analysis so whether one of these is that the best idea or not I don't think is really what we're going to focus on tonight I think the idea is just to to take a look at the analysis and ask questions that that's my understanding what we agreed to last last time right okay so let's keep going then Zoe y can do so for East M Square um so this is a different strategy this is thinking about if we added a district and used it to um enable us to remove eat milon Square from the picture um what would the impact be what would the Ripple effects be so um you can see here that um Randol a uh one um again because of that larger District area um it does still result in a reduction overall um townwide uh of 21 units um but then these other ones you know all result in a greater reduction of units and so in looking at these to pick between all of these numbers that were the same the metrics that we used was which of these districts um serve in this role in other words result in that townwide unit reduction of 73 um but themselves are at a a lower density um you know compared to the other subdistricts so the two that stood out in that respect were Randolph F2 and Truman Parkway um that's because these are each um on the larger side and so they're more analogous to the um the acreage of the East mton Square District itself and so they they are able to kind of carry that a density that's more analogous to the density that we were seeing at East Mountain Square um versus the higher density that we were seeing up here so Randol A2 to serve in this role to enable us to replace East milon Square it would have to carry 213 units um at a density of 18.8 Truman Parkway if it were to serve in that role um enable us to uh take East M Square out um it would also need to be at that 213 unit number um but it would be at a density of 26.3 again because it's a slightly smaller site um so that's kind of the the picture there it's it's a it has a very different impact in this case um and you could expect that this kind of um profile is is how other kind of swaps or replacement um might go they'll each be unique to the district that you're swapping um as in you know granted F South is serving a particular role in the overall townwide picture East M square is serving a slightly different role so when you swap for those districts they'll have a different impact or you you'll need to have um the new subd District play a different role um in order to sort of successfully swap in and Rand off have to can you go back to that map please just yeah to refresh so that's kind of the corner here um from Hillside Street to Randolph Avenue it's it's both the parcel that's kind of at the nose there and then the one that's um the next one down along Randol so that's at 15 acres and then 7-Eleven is how many acres 71 Rand F that's 8.1 so it would you know you could would still um make use of this it would still have the same townwide impact but um 7eleven Rand app would have to be at a slightly higher density than um Rand a okay would need to be both of them both of them have a um I I presume they have enough Wetlands that we're getting a significant bump on the density denominator yeah that's a good thing to point out thank you Matthew you can see that some of these 's no there's no Wetlands there's no difference between density denominator and total area um the density denominator is what drives the um kind of uh the final density calculation so um it can be helpful to you when you you have that that sort of Gap there ends up boosting your your density numbers which is a big um factor for Milton so just to clarify that you back out the wetlands area in 7-Eleven or in all of them but in 7-Eleven Randolph I haven't used 6.4 is your density to that's that's a good thing correct yep so it means that you know you're dividing by this number which means you're you know if you have the same number of units you divide it by 8.1 you get a lower number than if you divide it by 6.4 yeah great I so we would have to just overlay 7-Eleven Randal f with a few more units to get the density up and see see as it's already being built the likelihood you'd have to you know to serve in this role so there's kind of this one is pretty easy to kind of do in your head kind of because essentially you you need 213 units so for to replace the kind of the Gap by that you get from East milon Square um and get up to the um the minimum number of units um so if you kind of do the math here it's basically 200 you need to get 213 units out of 7 11 off app to hit your minimum Target and that would be divided by 6.4 acres in this case okay got it so I'm just do that now so I would be at um 33.3 uh if you choose to put all 200 on 7-Eleven Randal F right but you'd spread them around town that's kind of the tricky thing right is so I think you know in order for it to you know have this impact in other words like a townwide reduction in units it would need to be denser but if you want to spread it out then you end up with more units overall in the town because you still have to get to that minimum density of 15 yeah or if we looked at other 40 BS that are approved or other projects that are being built capitalize on those in the same way that are not on this list I'm just thinking out loud I'm sorry no no that's it's perfectly fine I mean I think that's the um there's an opportunity to spread it around um but it needs to still collectively get to that 15 units per acre minimum so there's going to need to be some because you have toggle back to the um overall calculation here um so because there's some you know some of the subd districts and you know the eli8 street quarter is really important to your overall strategy because it's what enables you to get that the minimum Transit area percentage that you need um and there's other kind of it helps you with contiguity as well um but it has lower densities and so that means it's somewhere else in your mix of districts um apart from the mandatory mixed use ones that you have so excluding Milton Station East excluding Milton station West you need some districts that are going to be at a density that's above 15 units per acre in order to counterbalance the impact of having the Elliot Street Corridor at a lower density yeah or get Elliott down to 5,000 squ foot Lots so the density goes up com certainly that would help it would give you a little bit it would make the a less of a dramatic um issue I think you'd still need to have some districts that are you know um carrying that higher density but it's certainly if if we feel like Elliot Street Corridor and if there's you know enough public support for it if that can go down to 5,000 foot um minimum lot sizes there that will really help a lot with the density um that you're getting out of Elliott Street Corridor I'm tracking Zoe sounds good okay I think that's in terms of just the analysis work that's all we have for you tonight um we're happy to stay on for any other you know questions or comments especially that you want to have and if there's anything in particular that you'd like us to run as a followup um analysis I know that you're kind of um preparing for eventually kind of uh coming back to the public for a public forum um but I understand that might be something that um you know where the timeline is is more tied up with the SJC decision as well I I think at the our last meeting Zoe where we discussed this um we we wanted to bring we wanted to bring you in and and see the analysis that we had asked for you to do but I do think we're probably I think we agreed that we would hit a pause on further analysis because we're expecting that decision yeah you know within the next few weeks really I we keep we've heard you know probably this month but maybe January at the latest and we want to be mindful of uh you know the resources fin Cal resources you know that are available uh but you know one of the things that kind of prompted us to continue with this is that this is where a lot of questions were asked you know previously is um you know what if you did this location or that location so I think this helps us um be prepared for what does come and what we need to do next with it um so does this seem like a good pause Point um from your point of view as well yeah I think so I think there's a lot of value to you know resuming once there's greater Clarity around what parameters you'll be held to um and I think you have a good foundation with this work to sort of um be able to make decisions more authoritatively um once you have that that sort of um broader context in hand um I don't know Matthew if you have anything else to add to that or feel differently yeah I I agree that there's you know there's still um at least 40 dials that we can adjust still but I think big picture the the critical questions are are we tweaking the districts that we had in 2023 or are we adding another district and replacing replacing one that was there before and I think we have a very good foundation of what what those numbers look like if you do that um so I I feel like you're in a very good place to be ready to at least initiate a pretty substantive decision-making process if if in one you need to so our thought was we would have a public forum uh also after um as you know we postponed it um after we get the decision and so I think one of the next things that we'll want to do um upon receiving that decision is bring the public you know up to speed and so hopefully we can think about a date in January I'm kind of thinking for that Forum so um exactly what that's going to look like in terms of content I think you know we'll still have to look at or discuss rather but um maybe that you can be thinking of that as sort of the next step is uh you know kind of how how will structure the kind of bring the public that hasn't attended these meetings and thought about this much in in the months that we have okay yeah absolutely um just a quick note that um schedules for January are starting to book up with um meetings so we will do our best to accommodate whatever schedule you'd like to aim for but as soon as you do have a sense of a date please um let us know and we'll all do our best to hold it and um make make for it okay so we'll have um Cheyenne be in touch with you um as soon as we U better understand what our schedule for that would be I think we should also allow um Meredith as that chair to be part of that conversation you're doing a great job tonight leading the meeting but I think Meredith belongs here for us to uh make any plan you know to get back together on that topic okay so I think unless there's other any other questions or comments I have none no I'm good all right thank you so much team M happy holidays and uh we we'll speak in the New Year I'm sure all right thank you all happy holidays to you all thank you you too Merry Christmas okay on under old business um at the last meeting Meredith and Jim and I um discuss that in detail this site plan approval bylaw if you watch I think uh Maggie you said you watch some of the tape um you see that we voted to submit that um well with edits though right weren't there some edits that we're going to go around and we're going to look at a clean copy and then submit it well we I think we voted to submit that but um I'm happy to you know run through it pull it up on the screen talk about the edits um Rick because I understood that you were going to make a few but it's before we submitted it on the site plan approval one or um or that was done as is it was totally done I thought we had to well from again apologize for missing um the meeting but um I thought don't we still have to have a public hearing on it yes we do so and at that public hearing there could be edits that come from that public hearing there my experience with any of of this zoning is um um you know if we can if we can submit something to Town Council which we said we were going to do to get some feedback on that so that yeah then we will we will you have opportunity to edit it further and of course we wanted to get Maggie and Sean's input on it as well so um the but the public hearing next week on the zoning Cheyenne is for the map Amendment does it also include site plan approval or just the map Amendment so it had all three but I think Meredith was thinking of pushing Adu to January um that's where we left off on that yeah so that's a good call yeah I was just going to make note of some of the new information on that when we when we get there so I I think what we could do since we have the public hearing next week and we have a draft in the in the Box uh in our shared Drive um um Jim I have to go back and look at what I said I was going to amend last week since there's nothing one of the things that I'm not pushing for edits I'm just saying if there is this is not how I remember it that's that pops out to me and we don't have to discuss it right now but was um the time frame so you know I'm extremely sympathetic to the length of time for applicants you know cuz it took me like 3 years um however I am a little bit cautious um that I don't know if we should box ourselves in by having a time frame because I think jimy you talked about it was it six months or 12 months and I would just hate from the town's perspective if um you know that that we could be sued because we're not meeting that deadline and I'm all for moving things along Expedition expeditiously but um you know what are the consequences if we put a time frame limit in it and we don't meet it and partially I'm looking at you know this moment in time when as a town we're severely underst staffed you know the planning department is in transition dpws in in transition our building department with short staff for while cuz um people are out on medical leave our engineering department will be short staff so you know um and then if there are applications that then also have to go to concom and zba and go to peer review I just you know and again I I I want to move things along but I just am afraid of putting in um an exact time frame so I don't know if there are other towns have have like how do they um yeah Lexington I know has it and I think ni does too yeah but we were going to ask Town Council to look at it I remember but then did we mostly take it out we left it in yeah I can um is it do you want to um pull up newon has time limits but that's related to appeal but Lexington I think has it or do you want me to p up 9334 are we going to discuss it now okay thanks well we can just look and see if that's in there I'm happy to discuss or you know we can think about it that was just one of the things that kind of popped out on me oh yeah for a minor so Lexington is tiered for their minor site plan they they give it 60 days a receipt of the application PL written decision within 150 days yes I mean it it is in other zoning other towns and if um Town Council I mean I'd love to have it in there Town counts going to whip up something that's that's legal or maybe it's it's you know 120 days or 160 days with extensions yeah so maybe that's it maybe it's something like there's um a time frame but there is wording in there that allows for more time yeah yeah that makes sense getting a yeah I mean we put the what's in the folder included that uh Cheyenne made edits live at our last right so you know what's in there now um in paragraph o um says in general site plan review of projects of average complexity should be completed no more than 6 months after the submission so it's not a hard fast requirement and it's giving an expectation so that there's the board and the applicant have some if it you know obviously that implies that if it's less if it's very little complexity it should be done sooner and if it's highly complex it should take longer I mean I think that's implied in that language but so six months if the planning board meets twice a month you know 6 months might seem like a long time if we're working on things every single day but when we're only meeting twice a month six months doesn't seem like a lot if there are other things coming forward I'm just trying to take trying to protect the town on this um you know um of course I'm sympathetic to the applicants but I I just think in this P perspective we're trying to protect the town so in that case it's probably just worth asking Town counsil what he thinks this language does yeah right yeah because it you know we we did talk about this I was not on the last me either and I apologize for that as well but um we we don't want to disadvantage you know all future planning boards uh from being able to do it however I feel like and I think this is really well written I think we've created such great structure here that there's a really good opportunity to accomplish you know all approvals within 6 months because there is so much structure here you know the the definition the definition that anybody that you know um chooses to come with a site plan approval that they have here I think we will probably create an expeditious process the one thing you never know is how many you could have all at one time know it's almost like our you know our zoning board when they faced all of those 40 BS and they had a split the zoning board up to be able to you know conduct the hearings you know that are required by law um so you you can't you can't imagine you know how many applications you might have but um you know I I I feel like the six months is a good time frame and I I I can see both points of view Jims for making sure that we have something you obviously went through this process you know and uh and I I'd hate to think that we position any future planning board you know in a position where they're they have a hard time meeting the expectations but um you know probably the best thing to do is just what you said charl let Town Council tell us how restrictive that language is and if the language is is so restrictive then maybe we have to consider you know loosening it a little bit but but until then um you know probably probably wait for Town Council to tell us one thing I'll say about the this current draft I think we all looked at other towns at least a half a dozen and they all had some form this kind of content maybe not the exact language but this kind of content and also I'll point out that on the uh design standards those were included in the MBTA zoning that had gone to hlc and um you know what we remember about the MBTA zoning was it's as of right right so that's the same as site plan approval and they Tim had said that they didn't um have any objections so I feel as if the content that we've laid out in here uh should hold up um but having Town Council review it and then obviously it'll it'll get sent out but um the other thing to point out I'll I'll point out again is that there has been legislation proposed um to include site plan approval in the zoning act but remember that's it's not there now it's something that each Town adopts itself versus like being in the zoning like special permits are so um that's got to be where it's going though I think it's getting the next 5 years right that I'll point it out because that's Adu went that way right and and multif family housing has gone that way so and um yeah just as long as there's flexibility you know that's all that I um would like to see um then the other question is site plan approval is just um simple majority correct correct um we have that a vote of three yeah okay so did and I'm not sure if I read this in another um somewhere else that it could be a 2/3 if it is specifically stated if it's tied to a special permit if it's tied to a special permit it's 23 because the special permit requ requires 2/3 okay and you're you're granting them at the same time okay yeah just um clarification you know U it would be interesting to know um this you know the the applicability here how many that would have triggered in the past year right how many how many site plan approvals would would we would this now capture that wasn't previously captured I don't think it captures additional I think what it does is set out a better framework that sets the expectations for everyone because what we have currently is we don't have um adus currently of course but the multif family is in there um commercial is in there uh any of the parking loading services in there so what this added was this idea that we talked about with something where you're expanding the use intensity so like a bar like a much increased seating of a restaurant or an entertainment use so something that's like 10 Basset Street that's they had exterior changes so they got triggered but if they hadn't had exterior changes this that use change would trigger it because you you know the intensity of site use is a lot different so I think you know that we had that discussion about we should include that and that language this language I'm pointing to my screen it's I think on the screen to there under applicability Cheyenne um is number three um maybe you can be yeah uh it should be on page one there in the middle um if if you can just zoom in a little to make it a little bit bigger please um that's the one that's not in our current trigger be under replicability I'm reading that on my screen here too yeah yeah I can we can all say it is way better than what we have oh yeah and you know I I've seen we've put in new zoning we've gone and amended it more than once just to fix things yeah not that there's that many three families in town but number one is going to flood is going to create a lot of site plan review right the multi families the two families won't be counted in that no I no not twos but I'm saying threes I think there's no fours in town There's maybe one four in town but it's condos anyway I mean it'll yeah condos would get covered as well as rentals so it doesn't the ownership or is not triggering but the the idea is that this would apply to MBTA communities and a three family falls into that right oh I get it so everyone that came to speak to us was said that we should have site plan approval on the three families too um so I I think the existing three families unless they change something that applies to this they not subject to it right it's the new ones construction Redevelopment or expansion of multif family residences in ad use that's not new that's if I want to remodel one right I'm not I'm not fighting it I'm just saying that that's to Sean's question I think that's going to drive this board to be busy with cyclan intereview but I see the value in it I'm not taking anything away from it that's all yeah yeah I mean that's the question is I I don't and I I don't think our question is we we're not saying to reduce the number that would come before the board it's just a matter do we have enough time to be able to you know can we anticipate that a boy could within six months accomplish yeah no matter what oh right yeah accomplish the approval process that's that's the only question right yeah is that that that's really what what you started with earli so so I I think coming back around to what you suggested earlier Cheryl it we we're pitching this to Town Council to say is it is the is the time frame so restrictive that an applicant can expect absolutely a decision within six months or does the language allow us a longer period of time but give them give them a reasonable expectation of time not a fixed one gotcha see what they say and we can see if anyone in the public has any comment on that provision at our public hearing next week yeah because that will be advertised and people become aware of it if they're not aware of it now yeah and depending on which end of the table you're sitting on you have a different of of an opinion right now I'm at this end of the table yeah and so I'm I have my town hat on yeah one thing I say though is really it's somewhat dependent upon the applicant as well like the applicant earlier it took the comments that we provided the first time didn't make a lot of adjustments but then the second time made a lot so we've had three meetings with them and it could have taken longer if you know they hadn't taken those comments right to Heart right so I actually think the pre-file opportunity with the board not just with the staff will help in the timing too because you know we could have maybe even on that one cut a back a couple of meetings right so some of them can go even they're bigger depending upon well being clear here right like being clear with the what we our expectations are I found it pretty interesting because that particular applicant is not one that's familiar with working in Milton just came and you know went through what we have on on record is our requirements had the the pre- meeting you know with the staff and so forth and it shows you how we need this yeah right and we may be getting more of them yeah you know so even if it's not you know even if there's room for improvement I think it's good to get it on the books yes yeah I agree to I definitely agree with that all right so let's um I I think have the hearing next week see what other changes may come out of that and then make sure we we click the one or um hit the ones that we talked about the last meeting sound good great okay and who gets it to Town Council cheyen or it's already in in front of him um how quick can he turn this around normally yeah um staff would um submit it and sometimes um it might be after the the public hearing but I don't know Cheyenne if if you have an answer on whether what the timing of that is so I believe he already has the site plan and the zoning Amendment um he's going to come back with any comments great um he didn't say like a specific date but when it comes in I'll send it to you guys great thank you good job all right on Accessory dwelling units Cheyenne mentioned earlier that the Building Commissioner would like to be involved with us um we also um received an email that a LC has issued um draft guidelines and a process um I have signed up for Monday's um information session with them um I haven't I've read the draft guidelines it makes me think we have to revise what we're what we're doing uh because in particular um design guidelines um can't apply to adus if they don't apply to the primary residents which we don't have design guidelines for single families um except it says in the case of a historic district um so that's something I think we're going to need to to think about I'm going when it goes to the historic district is it um the a local historic district or is it it's the local historic local historic the national park on we don't have any in Milton yeah although they're I think bringing that back to town meeting the study committee is right um let me just call up I'm I highlighted some things in what we were given I'll just call it up on my screen here yeah I was on the one on the 10th at 9:00 it was an hour okay yeah I was I got on late to that too it was all right yeah but they did say that we talked gross floor area that's measured from the exterior faces of the walls I thought that was interesting but they also yeah go ahead I was going say they also said that we have the ability to limit adus to one per lot yeah we can write that right in our zoning y so I'd like to push for that to be honest with you yeah okay and the other thing I I know that um someone else who attended uh the meeting or the info info session uh this week said that um they're going to have a model bylaw and it looks like they're trying to get this all done by February 2nd so I still think it makes sense for us to have at least a framework like and maybe take out some of the things we don't think we can have but hit the things that we know we want like we don't want short-term rental right you know if if we said we wanted to limit it to one on a parcel I think we could definitely put that that in you know um but we're going to have to pair back some of the other things I think that we we thought we might be able to include it is a little it's it's a tight time frame like the you know public comments December 20th January December 20th to January 10th for the whole state and every resident and every planning board of every 350 communities to have a comment and um I don't think hlc is doing the communities any favors by having such a tight time you want have that conversation right now and I understand that the leg the legisl put it in as a February 2nd deadline so like again our legislators did not do us any favors and where were they advocating for their constituents absent I think um so it is a lot of work in a very short amount of time and um I did find it interesting that uh on the meet the webinar the other day unlike the one previously you couldn't see people's comments no they didn't let you see the comments so like at the other info Marshall you know in the chat you could see what all the other 200 people were commenting on and they shut they shut them down you couldn't see it and I thought that was kind of interesting it's it's just nice to see what other towns are thinking without having to call people from other towns to find out what they're thinking it just the state what questions are coming yeah yes one of the things that I flagged is that this we can we should think about and we can talk about this with Meredith next week um whether we want to subit comments yes yes one of the things that I flagged was not just is it apply to any zoning so if you look at definition of single family residential zoning District it's any zoning District where single family residential dwellings are permitted or an allowed use those are allowed in our business districts so you know now um the adus would be applied to our business districts because the single families are allowed there so is that something that we think is a goodidea idea uh and then the other thing that for me was this pre-existing non-conforming because it does say here it it doesn't really address accessory you know like if you're I don't think I and maybe they did at the hearing or the info session and I'll learn more on Monday but if you have a carriage house or a garage that's meets the accessory building use but not the primary residence use so setbacks are different for accessory building but that's an interesting one cuz I was thinking about that so setbacks are different for accessory dwellings because they're typically not habited right it's a garage it's a gazebo a Pool's house now if you start putting people in those and they're 5T off the lot line I mean I don't think that's what the neighbor signed up for so I'd like to see the accessory dwelling units if there were a converted Carriage House maintain this the same setbacks as the principal dwelling so my question would be though can we require that a proposed Adu be allowed in a an existing Carriage House or something that's non-conforming but by special permit so it can be looked at on a Case by casee basis because and I think that's important because there are have a tear down of stuff yeah there are so many pretty car Old Carriage Houses that would be great for an Adu that I'd hate to see torn down exactly um if it's you know has significant value but um if it's kind of just to your point if it's not anything attractive or you know it I think it the our setbacks should be um enforced if if we can do that special permit to us or the zba well I would think to us but normally non-conforming goes to the zba so I'm not quite sure how that works jurisdictionally but um and right now uh our temporary Apartments go to zba yeah and they're going to come to us right well that was one of our questions well that's the other thing the other question is what do we do about what happens with the temporary Apartments I think you had asked Maggie whether those that provision could just stay and that's a question I think we said Town Council would have to answer you know whether we have to whether whether we would be required to remove it based on this and um I don't I don't know that I have a strong opinion on that yet having read through this any comments is that question whether you could have both an Adu and a temporary pment bylaw keep the temporary pment bylaw that we have well I don't think that it you can put those restrictions on that are on in our temporary apartment bylaw but if for some reason it didn't let's just say like right now it's it says it's in a single family District but we have let's say a property that's not Zone single family that somebody wants to put an Adu in or temporary apartment they can they still have that right I think I I'd have to go back and look at the temporary apartment language actually yeah it would have to be a true temporary apartment though you know as intended for Elder Care or something or to have an an there and that's what I was thinking with this you know the 900 square ft cap is great but let's say you have two elderly parents and you want them living with you and you need more than 900 square F feet that's why it's nice to keep our existing Adu bylaw or temporary apartment bylaw in place and then have this one as well yeah I I I definitely uh want to think a little bit more about this but I I can see Merit to having both yeah because the temporary apartment bylaw as I have seen it used um is for the basis of what you just described it's often I've seen it used for the basis of elderly parents that you know needed some support and um it would be different it's different than an ad you it's different it's generally for a shorter period of time or anticipated for a shorter period of time and it might need a different level of flexibility it's also required though to be ripped out or converted pretty honorous well that's the beauty of it because you don't have to go ahead and follow the building code for a two family where you have separate Sprinklers and Fire Protection walls and all that stuff and two means of egress you could literally screw a door shot and put a egress out your back door easy I don't think that they're calling this a two family though are they with the Adu but I think should I 100% think it should follow the same code as the two family building code because people are going to get into landlording now we're getting off subject but um with the Adu it's easy to revert it back you know there's not much to rip out so I guess it's just it's just a reason to have two bylaws right department and and I Pro I need to think a little bit more about this like I said earlier but we want to create flexibility for the residents that if if someone had a situation where the temporary apartment bylaw was less restrictive for them to accomplish their intended need that they had it and they could utilize it and not force them into an Adu set of guidelines that might be more restrictive and difficult for them right I guess that's really what's on my mind yeah because my understanding is anybody who's ever applied for a temporary apartment has never been denied here in Milton so zba has always been um generous and the and the only drawback to the temporary apartment it is a um term limit I think of no more than five years but you can extend it right you can extend it um but um it has come up fast and are quick are sometimes overlooked it also has a maximum size of 800 sare ft yeah and and onethird the area of the dwelling not the half which is in the the new one and um it requires um you know owner occupancy and family member relationship so it it is more restrictive in terms of and you so um I'm not sure what the benefit for some people would be in that scenario but we we should ask Town Council if it's even allowed is my my first thought yeah I mean the benefit is you just have you just want it for your family member without having to go through as Sean said all the um the requirements you know so you might not get a full kitchen or you might have to take it out but it's for a shorter amount of time and and you won't have to go to site plan review right have to go site plan well you have to go for a special permit to the CBA but that's much less obtrusive than site plan review that we're passing right I don't know and I'm just thinking you have to have plans so um you have to you at everything the site plan review makes an applicant submit versus the temporary apartment well the question got be easier to get a temporary apartment the other thing no but the other question is whether you can even subject it to the what we have for site plan approval right now because you can't subject the adus to more than you require for single families and you don't require site plan review for single families oh well there's a lot there's a lot in there to um I think mull over in terms of um it says you can do site plan review but who has site plan approved site plan review for single families I don't know other towns that do so I think we need to think about what comments if we want to submit formal comments to hlc we should think about what those might be um before the deadline which is let me see December 28th to January 10th January 10th January 10th is the public hearing and so they won't accept any before the 20th yeah they'll accept them but they won't consider them jary 10th is coming PR closes right so two least productive weeks of the entire year yeah it's ridiculous well I think they're working with the most important pieces of legislation right I mean this is a big deal anyone in the state can turn their house into a two family it's like and you don't have to be under occupied I think the concern that the concern that um every town should have isn't the 900 square ft or half of the square footage of whatever the residence is it's it's the minimum size there is no minimum size right and what could possibly happen without a minimum size I think that was a miss you know bu or either intentional or unintentional you know not establishing a minimum size there are there are there should be a minimum size I think there just imagine I'm sorry to interrupt you you can just imagine how some small homes could potentially get carved up and and really uh you know have some have some pretty less than desirable outcomes yeah one thing so Brian F spoke at the last meeting and he was talking about tiny homes and you know I'm not a big tiny home fan but you know you roll this thing up on Wheels this doesn't allow you to have on Wheels has to be on found yeah so mer was talking about a permanent foundation so that structure has to be on a permanent foundation it's got to be a permanent structure but I don't know what the minimum is for a bedroom you know for the building code the I think in the it's in the public health um could be in the regulations that a bedroom size should be in the building code a certain size right if if I the building code has that too yeah I dep I'm not sure about the Department of Health but I know the building code does and the building code also has the requirement for a bedroom um and I'm definitely a bedroom and I believe living space to have access to Air and light so you have to be able to open a window yeah yeah but Melanie her first apart my wife's first apartment on Beacon Hill was couldn't have been more than 200 square F feet it was an efficiency Studio had a bathroom and a room and a tiny little sink with a fridge on it that was it yeah yeah well you don't know if it was legal or not you know this was legal but still the point is you can carve out pretty small units yeah in a basement I mean anywhere yeah that's that's one of the concerns that I have but that's why it's good to building inspector exactly yeah I mean it'd be really good to hear what his concerns are right because he's the one that experiences this on a daily basis not us as planning board members he's probably in and out you know one of the other comments I have and and I'm I'm looking off the the draft that Cheyenne has in our folder I I'd like to discuss this language that says encourage the permitting of properties that over time were converted to Temporary Apartments without approval I don't think it should be encourag yeah I think it should be require there's I don't think it's fair that someone should have to go through a process you know to get an Adu approval and yet somebody who did it without you know did it illegally is allowed to keep it that to me seems like you have a standard in your town that's not Equitable to everybody so if someone's going to have to go through a process to be able to have an Adu somebody that currently has one that didn't go through the process should be required to make it legal absolutely okay just not fair no it's not so and it sets a terrible precedent for the next guy to just do it illegally and the other person I was thinking we should invite is the um chief of police to um come and maybe he needs to understand that there are not any um requirements for parking you know if you're within a half mile of um a train um or bus line or yeah and so I don't I think I've said it before as I don't want all these residents moving to town and then applying to the police department for a hardship permit so I think we need the police department to be on board um with not allowing them because this is all supposed to be closer to Transit um doesn't really matter though if they're not on board because the law says that we can't do it so I guess what they're going to just have to enforce the laws that exist on the books in Milton because they can't say no to something that the law says we have to do right but if somebody who um somebody Builds an edu and they only put one parking spot because that's the requirement in the law that you if you're outside the half mile you only have to require one parking spot so an Adu gets built they provide one parking spot but two cars come you know a resident of the Adu has two cars there's not enough space for those two cars so where does that other car get parked you're saying not to for the traffic Comm who who grants the the police department the hardship dep perment yeah you can apply to the police department for an overnight hardship permit so I don't think the police department should Grant um hardship permits right to Adu um dwellings yeah it's a good point so was it any bus line or is it just the bus lines that were that uh the MBTA bus lines I'm sorry the MBTA zoning I think it said MBTA yeah that's that's how I read it too I didn't think it was any bus line yeah so the definitions bus station a location serving as a point of embarcation for any bus operated by a Transit Authority a Transit Authority any bus for roots that for roots that allow flag stop locations where passengers May signal for a bus stop at any point along its designated route the entire route shall be considered a bus station and of Route 28 yes I was going to say so on the um on the Monday's meeting it's interesting that hlc has expanded the definitions of um you know MBTA zoning and Rapid Transit all of a sudden they have they've expanded the which I'm not sure if they legally can do because all these definitions are State uh you know they're State defined by our legislator legislation and then all of a sudden now they've expanded it they can do whatever they want until someone takes them to court yeah so that was that was kind of interesting yeah so um I'd like to be able to think about the draft that we have after I attend the information session on Monday yeah so and if you two attended and you have ideas about what we can do maybe if you want to work on that draft that's in the folder but um if we even though we don't have a public hearing on Adu next week I think we Meredith has said she's going to keep these three items on the agenda under the old business so I think we can we can pick up this discussion then did she say when she wanted to invite the Building Commissioner um no um I so I think um do you think she' do that for next week we may as well see if he has thoughts about it right now right right away I think sooner it' be better so um cheyen do you mind um speaking with Meredith and with um Joe to see about him attending next week's meeting can we also open it up to maybe Walter White because Joe's relatively new and Walter's been here a while I think really knows the code since he since the commissioner reached out to cheyen I think we should go to the commissioner and see who he would like from his Department I'm sorry that's what I meant yeah exactly could we who he thinks should ask him yes good okay sorry sh go ahead I was just saying I'll do that to W fantastic thank you thank you and the zoning map Amendment um so are we good on Adu then okay we're good um on the zoning map Amendment um you sent out a revised map that alen Bishop prepared which seemed appropriate now um so sorry about the map um I had got a new map from Allan um regarding I think it was let me pull it up Milton Village I got a new map for him on that and then I had sent all of those maps to Nick then he came back regarding Brook Road and he wants that one to be a little bit different so Alan did's going to work on that tomorrow so instead of that full red parcel that we have that red line it's really just going to be 95 and that was my question fantastic good okay so we don't need to take any action tonight then on that we'll need to wait no okay so just um on the other one where you sent the scenario one and scenario 2 for the Milton Village Central LA I wasn't I didn't quite understand I'm looking in the at the map in the that was in the folder there just one map I think do you want to pull that up I thought that scenario one and scenario two and the and the dash lines were different so it's I think it's that one which shows all of uh JD Wild's property in the Milton Village District right so the central left District starts at the end of his property but we were just concerned with why it was in purple and it was just to show own I'm sorry there it is yeah yeah right right you're you're right the intent was to have all of his property um in the village District right in the district that's the way the language I okay so right now I guess might this maybe I'm just old school um right now um how have we always how has it been designated why is there is there prompting a change it was an oversight okay so uh because this is my understanding other what we call them overlays in Milton Village and Central LA what they really are are plan unit developments and they don't have a map associated with them they just have criteria and the criteria were crafted to be very specific to have only certain sites meet the criteria so that was Mr whiteside's way of doing it you know before so um for example there's the one overlay or PUD that allowed 88 Warf there's the only other property that would fall under that is uh Extra Space Storage and the other overlay that had a smaller minimum lot size is what allowed for 36 Central and 131 Elliott so they were kind of just tailored they met the the the size requirements but they didn't have Maps associated with them Milton Village was done differently and so apparently when we when that zoning was drafted we had a map apparently we didn't adopt the map Amendment at the time as a procedural matter okay so um how come then we were presented with two scenarios are we choosing them M that was my understanding was they want somebody wanted our opinion to which scenario we should choose because the boundary on scenario one was Morton Street and the boundary on scenario 2 was between Morton Street and High Street so my question the language sorry go ahead yeah my question was um what's the be benefit of being in one as opposed to being in the other well it's really not even a a a point of discussion it's like it needs to the map needs to match the words that describe the boundaries and what's on the screen right now is what without the purple lines I'm not sure why the purple lines are there but otherwise I know why in that it's JD Wild's property but the the map itself doesn't need to include that purple line but otherwise that is the boundary of the district so the the dotted the dotted red line at an angle on Morton that angle corresponds to the the language the property line oh okay so it the I the reason it extended that far down was to incorporate that property it's a you think it's just a small parcel where uh the web Mill building is right there but that parcel has a long tail and so rather than have that parcel have part of it in the district and part out of the district that was brought over to there but then it doesn't include the any other properties along Adam Street until you get over to high okay so so that's what when I was you know talking with you know a couple people I said oh in your mind where was Milton Village and where was Central LA you know I didn't I didn't understand it was all because of this one piece of property I just thought like growing up in my mind Milton Village was you know Adam Street and halfway to like Milton Hill House and the central a district was kind of the like steel and ride down but now I'm understanding It's really because we're trying to incorporate that one part in its entirety okay MH so it's scenario one is what we're going with and just a question on that you know I understand the logic behind it so that we don't have we don't have the village line we don't have that property in two different Villages right but is that a good enough reason it's not even that we the district boundaries are described in the zoning so it's not like we can have the map not match the zoning you know that and it's described to be inclusive of that parcel oh it is yeah I've neglected to read it I keep saying I'm going to every week but I just I don't but um we should admit that on TV I don't know why because does this scenario one um you know this parcel being in Milton Village does that allow it to be more dense does it allow it to have higher taller buildings will that affect the people like on Morton those were just my questions we've run into this problem before if you look at um the Milton Marketplace that's in two different business district a residential district you know and there are different triggers so by by putting all of this in one area are we creating a problem my my understanding is it's we need the map that matches the language it's in the Z and whether you like the map or the district or not is really not relevant at this point in time it's because we're not it's still eligible yeah okay so that's why I was just confused understand that because I think one of them was just wrong oh okay and that's that's the okay um yeah and I think maybe the one with the purple showing the parcel e22 is to show the logic of the line I think that's why it is there I think that's why it's there that that helps you understand why that red line is where it is right yeah it's only there based on where that partial ends right and but I don't know that that belongs in a zoning map honestly so I don't know the purple or the dotted Red Line the purple I don't think it they were suppos you don't do that with any other parcel why would you do it with that one yeah Allan Bishop was supposed to take it out and give us a new map right so that's what I thought we were going to have is a map that doesn't have that purple but matches that red line so the red line me is such that the central AB business district doesn't is not included in the Milton Village one so yeah and that was always my understanding Seine yeah so that Line's in the wrong spot though cheyen that red line Red Line yeah that one should be to the left on that solid black line it should be where that angle is yes okay so I had told him um he gave me scenario one and Meredith had mentioned at the last meeting that she did not want the purple called out just because she thought it would be confusing um so I'm not sure how the red line got brought up more maybe to like I'm not really quite sure but while he's working on the Brook Road I'll have him work on the M Village as well yeah cool yeah so then basically it's scenario 2 without the red line that's yeah or scenario one without the purple it's a scenario discussion that line is in the wrong place yeah but the black line is correct yeah scenario one without the purple I think is easier to it's confusing sorry I see you're reading from the the file name and I was looking at it for on the title in the she which doesn't exist yeah all right okay all right so I think Cheyenne understands what needs to happen there right she's trying I'm sorry I was confused I thought we were picking yeah I was confused on the Brook Road parcel but now that Nick's looking at that so yeah it's the whole thing is confusing but all right so if we're talking about brck Road and it's probably off topic but that building is like very hazardous I think it's condemned is it is it cond if it was condemned shouldn't it be torn down I think there's a health department and building department question that hand okay um because I saw where the health department condemned a building on Smith Road and then I think it goes to the building department after that so can I ask a question on that brck road is 35 and N coming out of that overlay that's the only place that the overlay applies all the all the parkway stuff's coming out in the gas station too okay so yeah I mean shame hit the gas station out but the wording doesn't include the gas station no and that this is something again where the board had discussed this larger District but because there was someone who was actively interested at the time in number five to expedite it it was selectively just those three the the challenge is the minimum lot size requires you to have ownership of number three and that was sold someone and they renovated it and live there so number five can't even apply I mean it's a map cleanup but the zoning needs to clean up and I still think that's great for MBTA own let's do it we but we didn't talk about the Blue Hills Parkway District this yet but I do want to come back to it because it um this par so I agree with you this corner should be looked at there's three families right there yeah yeah um but this is a cleanup y of a map I do think we should put a zoning amendment to this on the agenda and that's a good this is a good learning experience that whenever you do zoning you have to attach a map yeah I mean again just going back to the idea that even Milton Village was written to be a plan unit development that's because that's what this board and and prior members were comfortable with but mapc at the time said you know you really should just do a clean overlay and I think that's what we're doing in Milton Village I mean East Milton Square now and so I think going forward we need to think about I'm not sure the benefit of a PUD versus an overlay and it might be that a PUD makes more sense like for something like this but this is this requires the map um so it's a good conversation to think about down the road to but so do we have a consultant for this one or was this just the board this was Tim uh coming to us and I I maybe Cheyenne recalls how it got brought to his attention but he did describe it as a an oversight previously and a cleanup that need to happen yeah that's I'm just trying to think of um our protocols and who writes our zoning you know I know you're doing the heavy lifting on all of it but I mean eventually should we have a consultant or a lawyer on Rainer yeah that's why if you ever step off the board we're dead in the water right so it's great because it ensures you a spot on the board which is awesome I I think we should hire a consultant and there could be some residents who happen to be attorneys who might um want to yeah but we have which is yeah I agree with that but we should think about protocol for every zoning article we do well because you want to set up a system that works I think we first need an overhaul of the zoning byow itself it's a mess and then once you get that cleaned up then you can follow a structure right now um well how do we know the zoning by like we would have to give the zoning bylaws to somebody to look at right we wouldn't do it no we we would that's why we I think we put in for 40,000 for basically um I think the person that we had in mind isn't uh has a lot of experience writing them I'm not sure if that person's an attorney or not yeah I don't think um but the um you know a well a very experienced planner who writes zoning could do it um I think the building department knows a guy also yeah and so I think I mean we were trying to hurry up and do these for the February town meeting ideally it would have somebody to do it I mean I think you did great and I don't want to take any of that away from you I'm just saying in the future we should have a protocol in place so that one of us isn't around oh things business keep keeps moving as right because I'm not going to learn to do what you do I you're great at it and I you know would never find the time but I just think as we write zoning we should be able to have our go-to lawyer or our go-to consultant look at it edit it or we just sit around we come up with great ideas give him an outline he or she writes it yeah that's what I envisioned for a I mean the ideally I mean that this is a little bit off topic here but ideally we should have draft decisions a template for a site plan approval a template for a special permit and um and be able to move through those and not require or not rely on the applicants attorneys to do it for us so that's something I've said that in the past but these are all things that take time for someone to develop and um so that can be a topic for another agenda yeah cool I see SE packing up that's why the plany Board needs more needs a bigger budget yeah and I'm just planting a seat or planning department you know so planning department could hire someone to do it all right so um we are just past 10 Sean's packing up and adjourn is the next item on the agenda so Sean are you making a motion I make a motion that we adjourn the meeting second in favor Cheyenne have a great trip and happy holidays where you going happy holidays oh I'm going home to California California California have fun all right great otherwise we'll see others next week yes thanks bye thank you [Music] oh [Music] he [Music]