##VIDEO ID:SNS42M4NTT0## to the Tuesday August 6th meeting of the Norton planning board this is a remote only meeting you can join online via the web link zoom in the meeting agenda we can also view this on not and cable access channels 15 and 19 in addition feel free to email questions to town staff email listed on the agenda uh Paul we don't have any planning board business and policies bills and warrants or minutes correct uh we we do not so then right to voting on the draft decisions for the special permit modification and site plan modification for 108 southwester Street someone want to pull that up or does anybody have any changes or anything I read it I don't have any problem with it uh I'll pull it up right now um and I want to apologize I saw some uh copy edits and what I sent you so uh but I did make those changes but you should be seeing it now for waiting river is that appearing Wai River St got it y so there were just some copy edits um you know I pulled everything most of the conditions right from the first two decisions um but I added a couple of things uh uh including making sure they have Board of Health approval for the septic system and we're getting uh Water and Sewer Commission approval for extension of the water oh wait I I maybe getting two things the other one confused with it but definitely the septic system here um I just want to make a water line sign off here too yes oh we okay right thank you looping of the water line yeah right and then um I just wanted to point out and this will probably come up later during our MBTA discussion you saw some conditions in here about regulatory agreements and so forth for affordable housing uh just bear those in mind when we start getting into the affordable housing section because these are some of the provis conditions that we put in as you know to ensure that developments are are affordable that you know and anyway uh so we've got the Board of Health and the Water and Sewer Commission we pulled over a number of other things including this condominium Master deed we had uh direction of construction traffic and telling them don't bring your trucks through neighborhoods um take the quickest routes to get to the highway uh to the highways um these conditions come right out of Article 19 and I think that was uh and I added that a couple of conditions regarding the homeowners association that you wanted regarding no vehicles being parked on the road that and such that it blocks emergency vehicles and that they're responsible for maintaining the drainage system and then the this is still the record of the vote and uh it so chair I'm just as far as your action on this it's just to uh confirm whatever changes you ultimately want to see in this the conditions anybody else have any comments oh uh I'm sorry I just got a text from Jim reminding us that he was out so don't think we'll be seeing him uh I have no further comment on the document have we've been voting on these Paul do you want a motion and we can vote or yes so chair would entertain a motion anybody wants to make one for approving these this draft uh motion to approve the draft for with msp2 and S plan modification seg I'm sorry who made was that Steve that made the second there no one else it was me okay my voice has gotten a little deeper I'm sorry no just a little deafer get a motion in a second any other discussion if not I'll do a roll Laura yes Steve yes Eric yes and I will vote Yes iy that up tomorrow that adds up to seven I think you're good yep that's a good number then moving on to the next uh decision we have site plan spr5 and special permit sp9 for 299 South Washington Street uh I am pulling that up right now okay so we also approved this one um so let me just scroll down to the conditions the specific ones um again here they they need to receive approval from water and sewer to extend Town water to the site uh these are all pretty standard uh post occupancy the only we had here was the waiver of the scale of the plan that's it oh right yeah yep um yeah this was that's a standard no you you voted on that you voted on that already so I I didn't have any additional you know uh you all didn't really have any other conditions in here I starting to make the uh protecting the site triangle a standard condition so maintain vegetation don't plow into it um but there really wasn't anything else that was you know that was particular so we have just the same situation um we're just looking to vote on the you know to vote on the uh the form of this agreement I mean the uh decision motion to approve the conditions related to special permit number n and sight plan review number five as discussed in the meeting just now seconded we have Laura with the motion and Eric for the second any other discussion we go down Laura Eric yes Steve yes now vote Yes okay now just right so we are done with that next up in the agenda we have our proposed MBTA overlay District discussion with our serpent Representatives this lovely law that the state is forcing down our throats always a fun topic right um for the record my name is Taylor Perez I'm with sered I'm joined by my colleague Robert cabal uh Aubrey and Chris and some of you folks have already kind of been working with us as we've been drafting the Spy law um we can go through it in detail depending on you know how familiar folks are with it if they've had time to spend with it but we can just kind of give a high level overview and then make some discussion and then have you know decisions made about certain setbacks Etc and so I will share my screen in a moment uh let me just get that going Paul why be to share my screen yes yes you can I have the version up right now and I don't believe it has your comments Paul but that's okay okay that's okay I know Steve also made comments as well yes so let me share my screen screen can you folks see that excellent yes I'll Zoom a little bit too so just as a kind of 30,000 you know foot overview of this we are writing a multif family by right with site plan approval bylaw we are looking at allowing mixed use in the district as well as well as duplexes um we have written in a density bonus we have a maximum of 16 units per acre we have an affordability component that we'll go into more detail and that Paul was alluding to earlier and we've set a 5,000 foot minimum lot size to encourage subdivision and smaller housing typologies um and then I can also show The District boundary that we have been examining and discussed that um which is right here so in Orange right here this is the current boundary that we've been looking at kind of based on some previous discussion it's a compromise between a larger boundary that we had also prev vious ly discussed in a much smaller one um we have this PGA Charities parcel I believe both of these are this is the ice cream facility some small multif family and I believe this is a 40b so this is what we're looking at right now it's about just over 100 acres in size right on the Mansfield line next to the xinity center um we ran it through the compliance model with the information that we have in this bylaw and it's looking good um I actually think you folks could consider downsizing if you wanted but we can get into that later but um did you folks want to walk through this in terms of structure if you familiarize yourself with enough do we feel it's necessary I kind of want to defer to you folks on what will work best like U one thing in terms of our schedule which you recall when we last met we as you know we're we're on a pretty accelerated schedule while we do have this meeting and next your next meeting to you know make your recommend Commendation for the Warr uh you know to add it to the warrant um we really do need to settle on the parcels tonight because of the bylaw provision that says signs need to be in the ground three weeks before your first public hearing which is September 10th meaning the signs need to be in the ground uh think next week I well anyway I've got to look at that but it's coming up before your La your next meeting so uh so we really do need to get the at least the parcels figured out for the noticing requirements is there any uh provision or do we have to notify the land owners of any sort or should we just buy we do yeah we do and I have been meeting with some of them I've met with PPC and with New England ice cream uh I haven't met with the people across the way but we'd have to get the notices out to them but that's two weeks before the before that public Hearing in September the challenge is the signs in the ground three weeks before one thing we we did have a question about um that I know had been previously discussed is what warrant this will be on because I know that affected timeline and I didn't know if we had had any sort of definitive decision on that in terms of whether it was going to be a special or the annual there hasn't been a special called yet so we have to be shooting for the annual and um I so I need to be clear the signs need to be in the ground August 20th in order to be three weeks before the uh September 10th meeting so you have to order them tomorrow is what you're saying no no we got a little bit of time on that but a little bit I'll be working on them tomorrow and coordinating with uh Signs by Tomorrow but you know I need to put them we need to put them out on all the properties that are being rezoned and then we have to put a map on there showing where the rezoning is taking place Paul did you talk to TPC about that lot that's south of Arnold Palmer Boulevard whether they wanted that in there or not they're fine with keeping it um I've explained it to them uh they're not you know I explained that know this doesn't make that compel them to do anything but uh but they said f they're fine they're fine with it but they had no strong feelings one way or the other no no okay so if we were to drop it it it might be more palatable at I'm okay with that too cut it off right the road so get the southern parcel for TPC south of Arnold Palmer getting rid of that one I'm just anticipating why did you why is that in there when you didn't need it why is it bigger than it needs to be I'm fine with that it's mostly Wetlands anyways it's yeah PC didn't have a strong preference then I'm in favor of probably dropping it yeah I'm good with that mik okay yeah let's do that so we've noted that um we can remove the southern parcel is there any other changes to the District boundary configurations that you would be interested in seeing because again um when we ran through the compliance model with kind of the base dimensional standards that are in the by law it was you know in terms of the capacities you need to reach for the law very well over um so again just giving you folks the flexibility that there can be additional changes if you'd like to see them I'm comfortable with it as it is minus that parcel s of Arnold Palmer yeah everything else seems to make sense are are you all okay then with New England ice cream I talked to them too they were they were marginal about it I I would imagine I think we would keep that in the district and if it goes to Future development great it will be a long time before it changes yeah and if it ever does it's got very good Frontage right I would keep it in understood um okay so we can revise this boundary um and rerun it again I don't think it will change much of the numbers you know again too much it will change but this is large enough that you know based on our preliminary again it should be should be okay um going back to the bylaw again um I know there was some purposes that Paul you had added that I will make sure gets Incorporated here um they were they were goals out of the master plan for housing right earlier today um I just made some edits to wording for clarification purposes um it just shows as a guest editor I think so that was me thank you no I saw those I was I appreciated that um okay so those are Incorporated that's great thank you so much um I did have other things that I thought we should probably discuss um that I didn't feel most of what I made was just changes for Clarity in the wording not Material or substance within the wording um but everything else I think we should probably talk about okay so I suppose what no go ahead no I don't know did you want to just kind of go through them yeah that's what I figur we could do is we can walk through each section um if there's major edits uh you know I'll make note of those and we can ensure that those are Incorporated and so I guess we'll just start with the purpose it's you know really straightforward small paragraph here Paul has some additional ones that I will make sure get in here um again just from the the master plan Beyond kind of some of those basic ones is there anything else you'd like to see I had a question about amenity that promotes walkability do we mean within the town or within the parcel I would imagine at least within the area around it but if it's not something we're feeling strongly about given the nature it can be 140 is not really that walkable right um I was thinking maybe change that word with promotes Community or something a little bit more vague sure promotes sorry I didn't catch the last one Community easy all right I've got that there um trying to make sure there was nothing else there that I missed anything else regarding some of the kind of basic language here should we change shopping for commercial yes and then additionally Paul did you have your version with these purposes I can add them to this kind of working one um or at least we can just like discuss them just to ensure that everyone is feeling I'm sure they're they're fine yeah I just I guess yeah for the REITs we're talking about it again these were there's three of them that I just pulled from the master plan and one is to encourage smaller housing typologies and build a range of market rate housing to meet the uh the needs of sorry this doesn't scroll all the way over meet the need meet the demands of young families sen the senior population and firsttime home buyers provides more affordable income restricted housing and to encourage compact mixed use development at key locations the only thing I've changed here just um based on that initially is I don't know if we want to mention for stem home buyers just given that it's rental and mixed use um but if we want to just crib directly from the master plan I think that's fine um again I just refer to you folks I'll read the sentence again uh it's to encourage smaller housing typologies and build a range of market rate housing to meet the demands of young families the senior population and firsttime home buyers includ the same line I don't mind leaving it because it does you know um yeah young families could be renters as well and so could senior populations yeah and Taylor your issue was it might regarding first-time home buyers correct yeah I just didn't again just for the sake of describing the purpose of the district given that it's large multi family and mixed use but I suppose again there could be ownership opportunities in yeah they could be condoled so yeah yeah okay and then I'll make sure I get those other two Incorporated there I don't want to um make you have to say them seven times over but um is there any other ones beyond the ones that we just said that we'd want to see here what about instead of home buyers home owners because even sometimes if you're in a condo or apartment you kind of feel like the owner even if you're not necessarily buying it even that won't match the master plan though obviously oh it it doesn't need to I I mean the intent is what is needed I kind of like the word homeowner myself anyways it's more pleasant those are noted do we want to talk about what we want to name this District or are we okay with what it is I just couldn't figure out a a replacement for Avenue to make it mood nothing worked State mandated overlay District No or the Mansfield overlay District No we're gonna put it in Mansfield I mean could we could go as you know Mansfield AV 3A District it definitely describes what it's for I think the more surgical it sounds the less appealing it is you wanted mood right yeah it should have a vibe to it I mean if if anything I mean mixed district is pretty simplified but Mansfield AB is is good it it gives it a place the only other thing more Charming I guess would be great Woods overlay District I think we should keep overlay District in there since this is an overlay all if it's any consolation it does smell spell mod Mod's good retro it's a little retro yeah I I'm fine with Mansfield Avenue I I could go with great Woods if that's if that's if we're planning on never moving this District anywhere else in town then naming it for the location seems appropriate if we plan on putting this District somewhere else in the future we probably don't want to call it the wrong place that means not calling it the man so to have overlay District either then right right it'd be just like the mixed use dist overlay District mixed use overlay District if unless there something more Charming than that yeah but so I I well one thing I should mention I have been reaching out to a handful of stakeholders and one person did did not like the location and would actually prefer it to be on on taau naav around the Taunton line um I explained our reasoning for it uh this person's reasons was more about we should if we're going to get this developer should pay to extend infrastructure to a site uh I I stated that well the reason we were Pro one of the reasons we were proposing it here was because we already have infrastructure and this would be a positive for you know Water and Sewer revenues so just just bear that in mind um but I I I'm fine with Mansfield AV relay but I don't vote yeah where did the 140 Parcels end up in terms of viability on the sighting plan that serpent did I think we did when Paul Rob and I chatted about this um about like two weeks ago now we did take a quick look and um I can probably pull it up actually if it's helpful just to show um forever and I closed it and I can't find it any longer now if I recall there was some areas that were flashing as um highly suitable but I don't think it was nearly as substantial as some of the initial ones that we pointed out um let me go down here and take a look so going through all of this right so these darkest green areas we have the Mansfield Avenue area up here that we're considering now and then I know we presented two other options being anywhere in Norton Center or long 123 there's some portions along taunt nav that do flash this area in particular came up as highly suitable then as you approach the Taunton line it's getting a little bit um less so and I'm sure we could look back and figure out if it's water resources or any sort of other things that are kind of pulling development or at least suitability for development and any sort of zoning away from this but again this kind of key area is right around here yeah they they wanted it on the line yeah right mirroring some of the zoning down there too uh there's some industrial zoning but um as long as we can back up our decision why I'm fine yeah I just wanted to bring that to the group's attention because it's probably going to come up during the public process I I do kind of Wonder like the intention of this district is only to be this one spot or in 10 years from now do we plan on zoning another thing do we make this an adaptable District that we're going to use in the future for a part of our town planning in other locations and you know I'm not sure if we will but it's potential that somebody might request a an overlay and bring it to town meeting um so yeah I don't I don't know there's a lot of about a name but if we if we intend on making this an adaptable District I I suppose it needs an adaptable name but I'm okay with I mean it can be renamed at some point in the future too yeah yeah I mean it could just be as simple and un un exciting as multif family overlay District I mean because I know we mentioned a mixed use but I think that name sounds scarier than greatwoods so yeah I I agree part me honestly part me just actually think Great Woods might be the best option because it's you know that there is a great woods but isn't necessarily like I mean it we there is a limited in other places this would end up and having a pleasant name to it like Great Woods it kind of represents Norton anyways probably the most digestible um and reusable so I I I I think Steve's idea of Great Woods is makes most sense yeah think just adding to it when we were talking about the the um the dimensional standards we were really thinking about this area I me if we're talking about 140 on the Taunton line we probably would have different um dimensional standards I mean I I would certainly have height I think where we're proposing has a better opportunity for height you know taller a taller building than down there right this I mean honestly if it comes down to it what you know 10 20 years in the future we'll make another l l right right right fit that to whatever the specs are at that point so I I like said I think this is fine I think this is a good name that's easy to describe but also does give a location so I think it's the best of all worlds I like it confirming Great Woods feeling good about that I feel good about that okay just to give you guys um some background too as to why some of those areas were flashing um when we did our initial suitability analysis looking at natural spaces so core habitats critical natural landscapes uh climate so flood zones wet Wetlands Etc and then Water Resources all of these areas kind of along 140 um particularly again kind of approaching the Taunton line where flashing is unsuitable so just again to give you folks the kind of context as to why that was the case well this whole district will fall in what is already a commercial districts as opposed to being placed somewhere residential also right okay so name change acknowledge some of these purposes are we feeling good about these to move on um this is just legally this is the establishment um in the past we've also had certain sentences that incorporate um that the overlay only applies to you know portions of a parcel that fall within the district this really came up where we had the instance of split Parcels I don't think that's an issue here um unless for some reason you folks decided you only want to Zone a portion of that large parcel but if that's not the case I think it's fine um any no questions on that that's all fine okay definitions we reference mgl and then your section in your zoning bylaw that has additional definitions um otherwise these are all just pretty standard just to again give everyone an idea of what's going on Paul I know that you had noted that working with your consultant that they might consolidate these so again I I don't know if we want to include a definition section specifically for I mean I imagine we'll have to because I think the proposed edits and yeah work that you're doing is coming up in Spring yeah I think it would just be simpler putting it here I just wanted you to you know note that uh Mark barski is working with us to rec codify right so he knows it and he knows it too so um he knows this is coming so he'll take this whatever gets adopted and then just I don't know that much will change because he is well he's organizing it in such a way that things like this are staying together and not being put in five different parts of the bylaw they all going together definit yeah exactly but it doesn't M it's easy enough he can see it and then he can modify it okay great um as we kind of walk through and as you folks take a closer look at this you know today or after the fact um if you see anything that's not clear in terms of definitions throughout the bylaw please flag it to us and we can ensure to Define it here um or check and see if it's defined elsewhere in the initial definition throughout the zoning bylaw uh you know Basics here this undergo site plan approval um permitted uses this is again I think something we can discuss we had talked about potentially if you folks wanted to to allow uses like duplexes or things like that in here um and then you know obviously multif family dwellings excluding cluster development as defined in the zoning top of the shop housing as defined in the zoning and then what uses you wanted to include eligible for ground floor commercial development in a top of the shop development well I know you all were bringing up some good points about community space I mean it I mean unless we clearly Define what that means Rob did you want to speak to that a bit our active Community SP actually I think even Rob did in the comment yeah along the lines of what Laura is talking about we just just always try to be cognizant of people who might try to do something that really doesn't meat the spirit of uh an active ground floor and then try especially if we're offering a density bonus that they would claim something to be a community space that really doesn't offer any value when they get an extra floor out of it or something like that versus what this District's really trying to achieve so again I just try to flly those things as we look through it would we want to include entertainment I actually had under the artist studio one of my suggest questions was the black box theater it should fall within the less than or equal to 5,000 square feet galleries too it's a great one did we have any kind of clarifying thoughts on community space um I mean one thought I had was if if you could if space is for nonprofits I would that community space be like a oh oh now it's going what they do in Abington Farmers Market type area and stuff like that is that what we're thinking about so yeah meeting rooms like places where you know people could hold meetings uh movie night something something that's actively used and isn't just the the vestule of the building we can definitely take a look at that too another thing do do we want to limit commercial use to only the ground floor or can it be a a a multi-story commercial podium I think what we're doing ground floor makes sense that's just my opinion I mean I could be persuaded otherwise but I my vision was always ground floor if somebody wanted to put offices up on one of the upper levels or rent you know let's say you know we're building four stories and the fourth story is somebody runs a business out of it but you know a non-public facing type business I have no issue with that well because we we're considering going up six stories so you know that's a significant amount of floors I I drew a diagram and sent it over to Paul I don't know I don't think anybody seen it yet um of just what it says in our thing because we have six stories so I just drew six story buildings and what it would look like and yeah I I know the whole thing isn't supposed to be commercial we want multif family on top but I do know a lot of buildings do two or three stories where they do have commercial space that seems like a lot of Revenue we could get off out of that space too regionally I can comment from what what we tend to see well I think it is a viable option um but I don't know what what you notice uh on the board and Paul when you talked to developers but we unfortunately don't see a huge market for mixed use in commercial space in the sured region at this moment in time not to say it can't change um and I'm not sure if that even needs to influence what's allowed but um I think it sets the stakes a little bit that I think it's likely that we would probably only realize development on the first floor of this in you know this juncture in time again sometimes these bws are looking at a very long Horizon and I can't predict predict and none of us can you know in 40 years what what might be palatable what what happens to the modeling um if we made non-residential an option as long as this is our understanding from conversations Rob please jump in and correct me if from wrong or your understanding is different as long as multif family residential is allowed by right alongside other uses you choose to permit that's fine we we model in the compliance model under the scenario that the district is built out as multif family residential but it's okay to have side by side other byright uses again as long as there's just no owner restrictions on multif family and that it's byright yep that's my understanding as well it's like the uh the and residential is the important part right so we might only realize first floor commercial but I don't necessarily see a reason we wouldn't want to permit another level of two of commercial if somebody did desire it maybe the whole district is built out with first floor commercial and somebody wants to go up another I think I I don't mind it but I think I would like to restrict it to office that's what I was going to ask is if you wanted to Define not retail just have another line under any floor and then have right office space essentially and not to over complicate this to to try to find a way that maybe meets what everyone's thinking about here um you could be restrictive on other uses in a 3A District like the important thing is to not be restrictive on multifam so if it's something you want to look at on a caseby case b basis and Grant the planning board more authority to decide what it SE yeah I think this area is good for byid but everything else could be special per really I mean we can just we we can let let the board decide after this I think that I I think that makes sense because we don't because I don't I I would be afraid to be too restrictive or or not restrictive enough I'd rather I'd rather have have like you know us actually look at it to make those decisions yeah Special permit everything except for the multif family that makes sense okay with that whole box right there the ground floor and the any floor okay right I think that would be by right and then anything else above and beyond they can talk to us I see okay so anything so obviously you know multi family we know anything top of the shop that meets these basic ones by write any additional ones by special permit okay just to know I that's kind of where we're heading right Fair that's reasonable because even if like oh sorry go ahead no I say for for when um the Warren article is produced just to know um that any sort of special permit inclusion again this depends on how the Warren article is written I'm sure you folks know this like goes to a 2third vote versus a simple majority so the way we've seen it done in other communities is they will separate out certain aspects of each bot to be voted on so you would vote on the multif family portions and all of the you know mixed use by right portions as a simple majority and then certain aspects of this bylaw will be voted on as a 2third so that's just something that we'll think about and have to kind of construct to ensure that we're kind of getting the best bang for our buck in terms of the voting thresholds is this kind of going to just fall to what's permitted within the commercial District anyways because this is an overlay so there will be by right uses there and there will be special permit uses there [Music] is there an existing definition for something like this that you folks are aware of or is this something we'd want to Define because I know right now we're leaning on the existing top of the shop housing definition I I use Podium development okay and you can just write one two or three story Podium right like that I haven't seen anything really Beyond a three story when I've been looking but we can try to pitch some ideas to to Paul to um share with you guys too about uh if we want to talk about office and we want to incorporate some some idea of a business like the key would be I think oftentimes like something bu an appointment just not General traffic to the second floor or whatever it's usually what I've kind of seen on that so like it's an office if it's an accountant obviously someone's gonna like visit that person's office to get their taxes done or whatever and line yeah Miss okay we will Workshop this um any other uses we want to address here either by right or special permit now that we're including a special permit section would you consider a bank a professional office I don't I don't know the only other thing I could think of is you know a a bank might be helpful under the line that says office but I didn't know if it was professional office or not we have it separate in the uses table I think as like a financial establishment we can uh cross reference some of these because these are cried from um the Commonwealth's existing model by law when they talk about how to incorporate mixed use um so what we can do is Rob and I will come through and and streamline some of these phrases to ensure that they're kind of matching existing definition so we can we can clarify that yeah even a best with an ATM I going to say vending yeah any other ones said like the farmers market thing do we want to put like vendors like is that a separate I would view that as renting out community space okay kind of a you know a public market craft fair type thing yeah yeah yeah but more of like yeah happening on a uh infrequent periodic basis other ones um I'm just making a note that this is special okay we also just have a clause here about accessory uses for parking surface parking parking within a structure Etc um can I ask you that last Clause where it says or other building on the same lot as the principal use is that related to parking or is that a separate accessory use meaning accessory building I would imagine an accessory building like a structure or something um Can can we make that a b then so that it doesn't look like it's part of parking right I could see somebody just coming to us and saying in this case it would be them confusing it for just being for parking but right honestly might be worth calling out to the recodification because we kind of talked about this last time too so it just might be worth just making sure uh he uh he sees that there too okay any other uses before we move on to Dimensions so this a lot of this is based on some of our initial discussion um minimum lot size 5,000 square feet initial maximum height of three stories with 35 ft building plus parking coverage for buildings with less than 10 units is 70% buildings and parking coverage for more than 10 units is 60 minimum lot Frontage 75 ft and then I don't think we settled on setbacks Paul I think I know you had some thoughts on it um and then you know obviously we have the adjacent to the residential use of 50 foot side yard setback um and then a maximum units per acre for residential mixed use of 16 well I put in some some of my thoughts I'll just throw them out here like um the minimum front yard setback I I offered up a range um just giving you know one thing I want to prevent is buildings going way too far back off the off the main road and just borrowing what we did with Village Center core we said 10 to 40 but then I realized if we're talking 10 feet off of Mansfield da that's probably a little close maybe we say maybe 20 to 40 feet or 10 to 40 I I don't really you know you know 10 might be a little close but I I think having a range would be it gives some flexibility and it prevents a building going way too far off the street I agree a minimum I mean why don't we just say 20 I I like the the buildings main closed to the road I kind of that's how I imagine it but yeah I I I just you know when I I wrote it and then afterwards I'm like well this is a little different than the Village Center core which we definitely want to pull buildings up but I don't know that there's harm putting buildings closer on Mansfield but I could see where people probably want to be a little farther away from the street there but I'm all for flexibility too this area gives us options to do a range of different development as opposed to other most parts of town which we have to be much more prescriptive I'm in favor of being less restrictive about putting a building closer to the road I'm okay with letting them put it further back if they want to I I care less about that I guess than restricting them from putting it close but I see the idea kind of force them to build close would be also like kind of create a Vibe oh it sounds like we're okay with 20 for that number I'm cool with that that's enough to park a car in front mhm so that would be the minimum minimum yeah okay I'm comfortable if somebody wants to put a maximum that's you know even if it's a big maximum like not more than a 100 feet back no long I I don't want to take away from the imagination of the uh the applicant I you know well we're we're gonna we're going to make him a Sandbox but I want him plenty of sand play with Once he's in there awesome 20 ft side yard setb minimum do we want just do half of the 50 do we feel differently 25 sounds good I mean in other other districts and I can't remember where I pulled the 15 feet from but um I think I was I think it was commercial I think that was commercial was a 15ot setback and then the sidey yard for an accessory building is 10et that's pretty common yeah for a lot of town I'd be fine with that I think keeping the buildings close together is a good is a good energy I think it creates a lively neighborhood so low minimums so 10 feet I'm fine with that yeah rear yard setback uh well it commercial it's 20 and then the uh for accessory it's 10 I mean if you were Imagining the minimum lot size imagine 5,000 square feet so it's 75 feet wide 66 feet deep we're already taking 20 feet off the front how far do we want to take off the back I'm good with 10 just okay right is there anything else you would like us to address here that we're missing the I think we're good here well um you had had the standard um hold on let me go back the uh oh where am I uh buildings adjacent to a residential use um how do we we had talked last time about a 50 foot buffer is that is that reasonable or is that it should it be something else I mean honestly it's the biggest not big yeah it's the biggest setback and I think that would make the residents happier uh especially if you know there's trees and stuff getting in the way of the view of what what's being built so I think I wouldn't go any bigger but I uh but I think I think 50 is a a fair number that'll kind of keep people you know seeing that we're trying to you know let let them have their house not being interrupted by like skyscrapers something that I'm just going to point out here that I was thinking about and kind of as I was rereading my comments is I think we will want to clarify here that this is an existing hey I I thought we lost you I got yeah I kicked off somehow we haven't moved out so yeah sorry I didn't catch any of the answer if you heard me what I said so I don't think we caught any final feedback it seemed like you cut off um we haven't moved on but it's if go for it okay yeah the 50 Feet I was wondering because if somebody has a house nearby which there are a bunch of houses nearby or if some is this just like a residential district or because it seems like it conflicts if somebody builds a residence now that have to be 50 feet away from it that's what I was just going to bring up actually was that I think we'll have to clarify here that this is an existing because we're writing this again with the consideration of existing residential uses prior to any new ones so I think there will need to be some clarification about what that means and how we Define it I mean I've seen in some bylaws they Define it based on a date um you know or again we can we can try and clarify that here to make sure that it only applies to uses we want to set it as like a a buffer around the district instead as opposed to a restriction on every building that goes in there I'm trying to think of how that might look for the Lots across the street in the event that they were redeveloped like in in my mind I'm actually kind of just okay with not having that in there because we already have restrictions about how close commercial uses can be near residences like so I I'm it just seems like a weird thing to to work with I'm not sure I can see I can see this invalidating some some of the Lots on the on the other side of the road there I can see where folks heads are on this um I can't fully wrap my my mind right now but like it could it could potentially make a certain if if a certain number of things happen and we don't write enough contingencies and it could make certain laws non-conforming don't you think Taylor yeah that was my thought is as I was kind of reading through this again was because I you know I know we we wrote this with the aspect again of just protecting you know existing communities and residential uses from again just like putting any sort of development whether it be small or large too close that's why I mean I guess again I'm kind of spitballing and I would I agree with you rob that I'd want to maybe spend a little bit more time thinking about it it could either be addressed as setting some sort of threshold whether it's date of existence or you know like year built however we do it upon which qualifies it as an existing residential use and therefore that 50 foot one applies or yeah it could be from the date of town meeting I was goingon to say just maybe as a placeholder think about it building adj to existing residential use as of annual Town Hall 2024 yeah that's I think that's what we're trying to say I just don't know if that's the best way to write it right but I mean yeah and and again 50 feet I know that's a that's a big one and I I get conflicted by this too because these are residential uses and you know why do you buffer and why do you separate like like uses I mean granted this these could be could be more intensive but it's certainly more of a political expediency that argument came up a lot when we had the other field project right where it was like the apartments uh and that that was the thing that there were going to be like three or four stories and that the residents around that did not want that so or at least potentially have something that already kind of protect them there we have to consider that the the the residents that this is AB budding also are in the commercial District they can also build three stories immediately they could build a three-story Warehouse right today so they are also allowed to grow I it does seem like it's just a tight restriction that we're working around I I don't necessarily I like the sentiment of it originally but I'm not sure how it will apply the other option know would be to reduce that sidey yard set back maybe bigger than what we are already what we have for the minimum side yard but something less than 50 I I like the reg I think the whole District should be built with a 10 foot like the 10- foot sidey yard I just if we're going to do like a a buffer against the existing structures there I think we should just call it like a a buffer against the existing structure somehow it I don't think it's a rule that applies to all the buildings throughout it's just got to be on the edge of the district if that makes if if we can do that I mean the idea that someday maybe one of those buildings might want to just grow and be part of this District also I I think um for tonight I I want to give this some thought um and maybe just circle back on this maybe first thing we talk about next time because yeah I gotta think about this because I mean you might be right maybe shreking this whole thing out because we don't need it but I I would have to give us some thought and uh look at I got a I would have to review the current commercial restrictions to see if we're being overbearing here anyway well this was mirroring the commercial which was about a 50 which was a 50 foot yeah oh then if if it's already mirroring then we don't need it so but but this is not a commercial use this is well this is under the overlay so the the commercial standards won't apply so maybe maybe I have some wrong thinking cuz the in my head like if it's apartment buildings or you know basically it's some form of apartment that you're going to rent out to me in my head that's that's commercial but I might be I might be thinking wrong on that um but uh because that's that's kind of was like I said it's kind of how last time we had a similar discussion with the uh with the people in Norton uh it sound like they were treating it like they were thinking it like in a apartment building especially a large apartment building a large apartment complex they're seeing it as commercial so um at least at least when it's in their neighborhood so uh that's but I mean if I don't know I I need more time to think about it it is technically commercial it's taxed commercially anything technically over three residences is commercial from a building perspective but we view that at in the zoning code as in the zoning bylaw as a read resal that's where it can get confusing yeah I I think I think like I said I think we should probably move on from here uh just give us some serious thought um I actually like what how I know we're G have another meeting so I guess but like uh when does this part have to be done done like the uh the final draft so your next meeting will be when you vote to transmit it okay uh which will be August 20th because then August 27th the warrant closes and then it's a point in midt where the the language cannot change so this really on August 20th really needs to be 98% done you can make minor changes at between the closing of it and the and then when the warrant goes out for for publication okay so I really want to have a decision on this by the next meeting yeah okay all right that gives us a little bit of time I'm leading I'm leaning towards striking it that'd be my opinion if we honestly get rid it right if we had to make a decision tonight that's what I would just say is get rid of it but actually maybe that's why don't we just strike it then for now and then if if we have a different argument we can just bring it up next time and I think we should just make as many changes as Tim's not here since the Chairman's not here might as well we can play oh good point perfect Rob did you have any thoughts on that before we move on just uh in terms of process would would it be helpful to the board uh and Paul if if we at serad kind of look around at some other bylaws and see how they handle this kind of thing maybe one option that that looks at a numerical setback like this one that I you know I heard your approach Steve that we're really talking about that one large parcel on this we we could kick around just to for Simplicity sake throw throw three ideas at you and we don't have to land any one of them but just for context if that's helpful if you want yeah I'm okay with it I'm also okay with just being confident in our decision tonight okay we're here to help you know whatever facilitates for sure if next definitely no I think unless you guys see something crazy that no one's ever you know this is in every bylaw or you know we're kind of out of line by doing let's bring it back up again other than that let's stick with nothing great I think that's probably the simpler route um so okay I've Incorporated that um just clarifying here in this overlay District Lots may have more than one principal building is this fine yeah um we have some exceptions again this is kind of just like standard language that we've Incorporated doesn't you know height doesn't apply to chimneys ventilators Etc Etc um we also added a clause about renewable energy installations um that the height and setbacks maybe wave to accommodate things such as this um and then obviously some kind of nuisance Clauses and whatnot here uh and that you know these installations don't provide additional habitable space is this fine I'm fine with it anyone else feel strongly I will also um you folks if I recall correctly do have a solar bylaw that I have not skimmed okay um ground mounted okay that's what I wanted to ensure because if it's just for ground mounted then this shouldn't be conflicting with anything um okay and then just a clause here this again I this is kind of where we get into a lot of like caveats and whatnot as to we want this to go under you know undergo legal peer review to ensure that we're writing things in a way that you know isn't circuitous that people can't circumnavigate in any way shape perform um as we start to talk about density bonuses but acknowledging here in the exceptions that the planning board May wave the height restrictions def find here should they meet the conditions described in the density bonuses section and here's where we kind of get into the nitty-gritty and Steve I know you had some edits to this I did take a look at them um I haven't fully digested them but I know they came through and we can talk about that here uh Laura I know you Incorporated some language here I believe but again acknowledging you know the purpose of the section sets conditions for which we can you know make certain waivers providing you know projects that provide additional Community benefits amenities Etc that otherwise wouldn't be provided that folks can combine density bonuses unless otherwise stated uh and that we set forth conditions here and again this will you know be word smithed by a lawyer um to make it nice and clean but we discussed just some kind of basic density bonuses here about the percentage of overall growth square footage of the ground floor related to top of the shop what this bonus is which is an additional one story of height um and then I know I think Steve you had some kind of breaking down here of some of the percentages because our second condition or second bonus was for the provision of additional affordable housing where we start with 15 to 20 and we go to more than 20 I think I saw that you had Incorporated starting at 12 um and so again conditions here he um should the should be the excluding common area stairs Halls elevators vestiges I think so okay we kind of used at least here um we worked a lot off of Mansfield's existing uh or I I guess recently revised Tod bylaw which has incentive zoning uh provisions and some of that was kind of worked into here we can review that as well and then um we'll take a look at some other ones again just to ensure that this particular condition is very clear um okay and then did we want to talk about affordability thresholds yeah I I uh sent over another thing to Paul I'm not sure if anything went out or not um I did mention going down to 12% on the first threshold uh just due to the rounding up on uh how many units you have to put after 10% it doesn't really you don't add another unit till after 12 trying to find where I saved your comments I know I saved them I have it Taylor we can share it if you want yeah okay okay I assume everyone's seeing that should we start talking about it I'm not sure about anybody um it was two different sort of expansions on our proposals one is about how many ground floor commercial stories in the podium I did one two and three and then um with with a bonus for each uh Podium and then I added a density bonus the 30% on top of that um just about the building size because we added an extra floor uh well two extra floors after the original Three but then we allow six so there's kind of a missing floor on the full Residential Building I guess in terms of our end um I don't have any I guess immediate thoughts Beyond just wanting to I guess from our perspective again ensure that the language is clear um and that we we kind of cross check it but again I kind of defer to you folks what you how many bonuses you'd like to go for and what what you envision said it kind of lands on whether everybody feels comfortable with the idea of up to like a maximum of a three-story commercial use Podium and then three stories of multif family above that in in some combination whether it's made between a one two or three story Podium and some combination of affordable housing but that no building itself would be able to go higher than six floors regardless of the combination let's just say density bonus a where they can have commercial La 75% are you anticipating commercial and residential being on the same floor then I assume the 75% must be like exclude uh mechanical rooms and staff areas or something like like I I suppose just non commmercial but nonresidential sort of like I think it says right there that parking garages and stuff don't account that might be within that 25% no but I'm saying are you expecting people to live on the same floor as commercial property I was not I was envisioning the floors would be separated okay then what do you do with the rest of the the 25% of the other two floors I I don't know if it again does that does the 75% dedicated to commercial use and then there's 25% not commercial does that have to be residential or does that mean that like what else I think the initial 25% threshold that we wrote here again working kind of off of Mansfield as a model they set that percentage and I imagine it's to accommodate potential other and this might require some clarification commercial space but I don't know if it's has to do specifically with the publicly available aspect of it where you imagine that there's like office space on a portion of the floor or when we talked about community space um and if we're feeling like it's not clear here it might require us to go back and do some wordsmithing and add some additional definitions but that was kind of the basis upon which this was was started I sort of Imagine like a big Lobby doesn't count as the retail space so maybe like a like if there was let's say like a a two or three story open Atrium in the middle of this retail space I I don't know if that would necessarily count towards the percentage I and the percentages might have to be changed I just made a graduated level sort of dangle the carrot but in my mind it it the 25% would be whatever the building developed wanted to put in that is not for commercial but maybe staff rooms or something like that that doesn't have anything to do with the retail area you've got 50% of the ground floor and the Second Story I mean the wording might have to I imagine 50% of I mean could mean that one of yeah I guess 50% of the of the the whole thing I'm not sure if that I'm not sure off if we're offering anything worthwhile if there's you don't necessarily want to put apartment on the same floor as commercial I think where're I'm on the top of the shop I get it when we're talking about a affability because you know when you add more affordable units you need to disperse allow the developer to disperse the income cheve can you explain a bit more because I'm I'm I'm not sure what the financial like when the case of affordable housing you're giving more of an incentive financially for them by building more but where here is that or maybe I'm looking at this looking at this wrong I don't see there being a practical use for there to be an incentive for the top of the shop development I think it it I think if you wanted to restrict let me put it this way if you wanted to provide a density bonus for increasing it on the ground floor only I'll listen to that but allowing commercial going up to the second and third floor where you've got potentially 50 to 25 25 to 50% that he's going to come up with some other creative use for that from a practical standpoint I don't be that working but if you wanted to talk about increasing the density bonus by increasing the percentage strictly on the ground floor I'll listen to that okay I mean I I I hear you on that I I I guess my only thing was the idea of building more than one story of commercial use whether or not the minimum goes up like the 50 or 7 maybe it stays 25% for three stories if it doesn't increase that does that seem but you've got 75% if you're using all three floors for commercial you're going to limit who is going to be attracted to the residential on those floors it's going to make them less desirable people people want to live with other residents they don't want to live you know a bill a business below is fine but they want to know their neighbors right but again I wasn't originally imagining that the floors would be a combination like they don't necessarily I would imagine the three stories of commercial use I imagine the other 25% wasn't going to be residential that's that's I wasn't interpreting that as being residential I imagine that was Lobby space and accessory space that's not like I didn't picture that being Apartments yeah but when you get to the second and third floor you're very much limiting the developers use for the remaining portion of the floor that is not commercial if you see what I'm saying I I guess so but I you know I I don't know I imagine if how much of the floor like a second or imag if there was a second or or third commercial floor and it was office space would they want to make it if it's 100% off of space I have no issue with that and I think that's sellable more sellable well that's not restricted I didn't say it can't can't be more than 75 it just says it has to be a minimum so it would be 100 like that seems more normal they would use 100% of the space I'd rather them use it on the ground floor may I ask a question um this is just kind of like something that I've been thinking about even when we were writing the initial density bonus for top of the shop um now that we're considering the inclusion of specialit do we want to think about just changing the dimensional standards for some of these you know mixed use with second floor inclusions do you know what I mean so rather than trying to do like a density bonus for the provision do we just want automatically say you could go up to four stories or something like that I don't know if it simplifies it or if it accomplishes what we're seeking to do um I'm just trying to kind of think of ways that could be I guess easier to interpret or easier to streamline especially since that underg goes a special permit process based on how we've written it but I don't know I I again I defer to you folks I don't mind the idea of adding any restrictions on what uses can go on what floor or to what degree that they need to be changed I was just in the mindset of creating a way that we could allow three stories ofal development in some form that's all if if parts of that need to be tweaked or whatever that doesn't seem reasonable but to me I don't I don't necessarily see the idea that there wouldn't be any developer that wouldn't put three stories of commercial and then there could be apartments above it I don't necessarily think they have to be mixed together but my preference would be to see a incentivization to increase the percentage of commercial on the ground floor you're going to increase traffic to the area I don't know if it makes sense but can you do can we do ground floor commercial by right second third fourth floor commercial use by special permit I would be happy with that as an option that's what I was wondering and again it doesn't have to have the increase of a minimum I just figure the more we require as a town the more benefit it is to us but that you know if you had the right kind of building we the whole front of the building say was commercial and the whole back of the building was residential right that you would be fine I mean I can see even just one floor divided the whole back of the floor or two is residential you know you have two or three floors say couple different combinations at least special permit we have a little bit more bite at it I don't know how hard that is to write in that's Taylor's job right I think it would be clean to write it in that way to be honest because the concern with this right is is somebody subverting the intent correct bylaw and so if you have control over that obviously everyone's going to feel a little better so that's when I thought of it when you said going around the bylaw and um if you want I can actually go I pulled up Mansfield's um incentive zoning they have a little bit if you if you want I can share it just to kind of walk through some of the ways it seems that they've approached it and what we think might make sense for us and it doesn't obviously we're working off Mansfield here it doesn't have to be just Mansfield if we find some other good examples but I just know this is a recent one that did pass town meeting so it seems like a good place to start um and just Also to clarify here again now that we have special special permit portions of this bylaw I don't know if we want to you know all of their incentive zoning is special permit um just something to consider right now I think we have it written as a part of the site plan approval process to receive a waiver but if we want to do it under special permit we can I think the more we can put on a special permit the better we're doing well according to Mark bosski anything that requires a waiver is the special permit do you have thoughts right and then Taylor just to to be clear on your on the point you brought up too we would just be separating that out as a two-thirds vote so if we is that how you would feel about that too right and so if we game if we game out the town vote on that you know it's it's conceivable that folks reject that portion of it you know the thing passes by 55% or whatever both of them let's say so that would just ultimately mean that you get the buite three stories maximum but but the folks Town didn't like the idea of going up to six with a special peret or something that's like one possible scenario you know from this that that we could game out right and I hate the idea of having to present this two different articles I've seen I hate I don't know our to meeting I can just see it being a problem it's a little bit Arcane and confusing I I understand at the very least to have the special permit inclusion of um that we've already discussed uh if I go back sorry I I think we need to do it I just say that's it's just a pain yeah yeah yep yep we can reference some other ways that folks have done it and um you know try and figure out the best way and and coordinate with your folks Town Council um what' you say Taylor you're GNA present it a town meeting for us thank you appreciate that I'll be there no um I won't I'm sorry you heard that Paul right thank you she said she'd be there she said she'd be there don't approve those minutes um well so nonetheless though what I think Rob brought this up earlier about set facts we can do a similar thing here where we'll do some workshopping we can also look at some other you know incentive zoning um bylaws and again just to reference the way kind of Mansfield addressed it here we don't have to go through this in detail but we have some kind of diagrams about the different ways that mixed use can be accommodated but if this is feeling complex and it's just not necessary we' rather just make it a special permit and and go from there we can do that um you know a lot of the other incentives that they have here are about actually providing streetscaping Etc they have an affordability one um you know there's a lot in here that if you folks were interested in any sort of other additional ones it could be could be examined but for the purposes of this conversation um just to kind of continue moving we will kind of do some workshopping here on this first initial density bonus thinking about you know the special permit permitted uses and how that might change some of these dimensional standards as long as that sounds good to you folks and that can be reviewed at the next meeting okay if that's a good compromise um I like it okay for density bonuses related to affordability this I think is a little bit more straightforward if we just want to change the percentages for um St yeah I don't mind changing that 15 to a 12 if that sure if that makes sense to the developers the 12 just fits the rounding up I makes sense you're going to have to hit 12% anyways at 10% well then would we why not 11 I think because that's where it rounds up 11 is still I I think it just hits at the 12 is the next triggering Mark for the next unit when you're at 16 and then I think the next time it f is at 26 units you also just say over 10% but no less or no greater than 20 or something like that something along the lines to accomplish that I understand what we're trying to do here and then did we want to set something between 20 and then have it over 30 as we saw there I I I just put like I said I I put 12 20 and 30 because if they don't build a Podium and they only have two floors then they only have a fivestory building and they're allowed six within that District or let's say one building with a Podium wants to convert to all multif family then they have a floor that they technically can't use with it I don't know it's a weird combination it just gives an option for um a fully multi family building to reach the six story Mark and it's it's the next level is at 30% that matches the affordable housing I'm not sure about using the term Podium anywhere either Podium is a term of a construction style where you have Steel on the bottom and Wood Construction on top um is generally where that term is used I'm not sure if there's a better way to put it I think we stay away from it yeah I would I would get rid of podium yeah you could hypothetically be on on Podium on the street if there's a parking garage under it or something yeah to me the podium is just a construction style okay I'm fair with that I'm fine with that I was just using as like I know what you're saying I know ex I know exactly what you're saying I'm just saying that the term Podium comes from the the way it's built yeah so in terms of um just leave it just circling back here do we want to add the 30% is that like to achieve the next floor AR we maxed out already if we're capping it at six stories no because it's three stories and then two additional stories you got one you get three by right one additional for top of the shop and then two potential additional or greater than 20% and that La Laura no that um top of the shop is separate from it so if you're getting you can combine it right but if you didn't if you wanted just a multi family you would be limited to five it's just a way to have a full multif family at six or top the shop at six like I don't want to a full six story multif family if somebody's building six stories I want commercial on the bottom given that then do we want to just for the Poss again considering the possibility that we have a full multif family residential applicant looking to apply density bonus B to go up to I mean this goes up to five is that where we want to cap it I'm okay if they go to six if the bottom floor is all commercial right not it's only 25% commercial and I I also was just thinking I mean in the event that we add a third condition of a greater affordability threshold than 20% you know as that would assuming add an additional story and like you're saying therefore it goes up to six for an all multi family residential development so I'm just kind of gaming out if that if that's not something we want to see I wouldn't add that's yeah the whole reason for the incentive bonuses well yeah I'd like to incentivize more the commercial so in that respect with these idea I'm okay with adding a bonus for increasing the amount of commercial on the first floor right okay um and we'll revise this section to again ensure that it's clear about what that increase looks like um but again I guess just coming back to in the event that doesn't happen we keep just two I don't know I think we need somebody else's opinion Laur is against it I'm I was advocating for it so I I think all the equal all the buildings being able to be built to equal size is appropriate do you have any thoughts Rob at least from our perspective about incorporating this sounds like a statement of values to me like we could provide to technical expertise on how to achieve it but um you know if sounds like a judgment call on what people want to see in town more to me than than a technical thing right might it also seems like if there was a fivestory multi family building they then they would not convert to a commercial bottom floor probably because they're not going to achieve that bonus they're not going to build on top of their five story building where if it was a six-story building already it could likely convert to a commercial bottom floor cu the structure is already there I don't know if this is additional context that's helpful if we just I'm going to skip through some stuff just to go down to this affordability requirement just to clarify here we have written this to only apply to mix residential mixed use projects with more than 10 units just as a clarification if that's helpful um acknowledging that the purposes you know for the purposes of this the existing article is not applying here and and I would just to to bring it back and this is you know kind of reductive But ultimately we want to see more subsidized housing if we offer the bonus and I do agree I think you know maybe this is a little bit oblique in laur's point but if we offer the uh first floor commercial you know the idea is to incentivize that with with the second story because I I do think again from from my perspective what I've seen around the surad region it can be tough to realize that mixed use building so offering the bonus and making that a clear bonus is you know is a good one that that applies to the mix use if that's what people really want to see in town make make that clear and and require that first floor commercial like that so again it's just that threshold of how much tradeoff do you want for um how much multif family do you want to require to see a floor I think that's really what it boils down to also have to think about what we can sell at town meeting and when people start figuring out there could be a five and six story multif family we're going to have issues they might even even if it's a mixed use building there there will be people who oppose that um didn't we have this conversation with the village CER core we did at stories yeah I'm remembering this exact conversation at some point a little different area different context um but similar similar but I would say this area has is a higher or more dense context than than the Village Center core but I just want to make sure I'm clear so there really are three different bonuses we're talking about one is if it's just a uh uh top of the shop no affordable then we have the affordable options and then we have this third one that it's the combination of the affordable plus the uh top of the shop which that one would max out at the top at six stories right with the now right so just top of the shop itself is four stories you could go up to five stories um with affordable but six gives you I mean to get to six you'd need to do top of the shop and then uh the higher amount of affordable units right to get to six so that's a pretty high threshold um there's a lot of public amenities that come out of that but yeah there'll be people who are going to be concerned about it um but we're I think there's there are justif there are public amenities as as tradeoffs for it I think that's the the theoretical formula right Paul I agree that it's like is it enough public benefit for the story you're offering does it achieve enough good for the district and for the town well if we're talking 20 to 30% affordable that's a that's a that's a pretty high percentage it helps yeah I guess like again just kind of going back to acknowledge your point Laura that including that third potential density bonus opens up the door for a six-story exclusively multif family residential development and if that's just not something that we think is palatable again just acknowledging that that opportunity is possible here if we do that yeah I'm just saying it's six stories or five stories no matter what but it's 16 units per acre it doesn't matter how many stories there are there's a density so regardless of whether it's five stories or six stories it's the same number of people but I think the way the the way that uh Paul framed what we're trying to do would be would be more palatable you know B basically if we can frame it so that's like we're we're asking for things that will definitely help the town like amenities or you know get getting us a buffer on our affordable housing is just easier an easier sell um than than honestly anything else we we we spoke about this project is you know trying to it's so I no I think Paul's framing is correct for for where we should be going in this section it's also 16 units per acre by so when we're talking about waivers and density bonuses and things like that um to my mind we could potentially be adding on um because because what we are required to do to bring it back for Simplicity sake for 3A is 16 15 effective units per acre multif family bite all this stuff is trying trying to represent the town's values out you know via a 3A District but it's not the core of what we need to achieve um by the Mandate Ju Just to kind of reframe that which is not to say we shouldn't do it but just to say that that's sort of the parameters we're looking at here and again it kind of comes back to that if we game it out we have those bught things that'll get voted on simple majority and then this it's possible that people like it and don't but it wouldn't if we if we if we do that confusing thing of separating them out um you may still your I 3A district with a simple majority or or none or both would it be helpful for folks to chew on this a bit longer and then we can discuss or folks can discuss at the next meeting and make a decision just so again not like if we're feeling unsure we can do some homework on our end if it's helpful if we're comfortable with what's here we can keep it I just want to give folks options as to you know what they what they would like to do I do feel that that this comes down to to to the board and Paul your your thoughts on what works best for for the town um you know I I hear a healthy debate going on here and again to me it's sort of a question of values more than like a lack of understanding of you the technical side of it right yeah I I I I like the conversation and what I'm about to say I can't say personally I that I like what I'm going to say but I think six stories people are going to have a hard time approving that and I I think where we're going with it is the right way to go um I think the area would be it would be a it would be very compatible with it but I I'm just concerned that six stories it's now two stories higher than our most intensive Zone District what how many sorry Paul sorry to interrupt how many stories is that 40 be that's what I was wondering I'm BL I'm blanking right now I'm counting at least five in I think it's four I think it's four stories I can't I don't remember course that's a big that's a that's a the massing of that is pretty large and that's that's what I'm kind of picturing in my head you know how what's what's it this is yeah I don't think oh okay five five yeah I guess we waved the height for that I don't remember but that was a couple years ago but that's I I like the building but I think that's what we're trying to prevent here we're py trying to prevent that so close to the road so ominous on Topia I think is what we don't want is that what you're trying to say well it's just a very it's a large for for Norton a large building particularly the depth of it yes and I think the depth of it affects the the perception of the height cuz it's it's just it's just big the proximity to the street doesn't help either because East Main Street looks perfectly fine and they're all set for their backs well not all of them there's one that's pretty close to the road but yeah yeah they they just didn't have room because they're you know they have the reservoir behind them here so I I just the massing is what I I I think the standards we do we have a good job of trying to prevent that type of massing here but I'm just I'm I'm not saying what we're proposing is bad it's just I think that's something we really have to factor is how acceptable will this be to the public and I just have concerns about that you mean just six stories in general regardless of what's on the first floor yeah and I I often times get over L cautious and that has taken me in some wrong directions in the past so I'm not saying there's no way this isn't passing I just think we better um really be thinking through it talk with some people about it and then uh you know if we feel like it's the right thing to do then we we part of our Outreach needs to be these are trade-offs there's a lot of public amenities we would get out of this a lot more affordable units we would we would require commercial space um you know maybe the three more voices at the next meeting will help also or potential three more opinions I'd be open to the idea of making the uh affordable housing uh bonus more restrictive where like 20% to get one more story like is the essential goal here is that we want to get a a commercial revenue and not an abundance of housing out of ratio that's our goal right we want to we want this to be a profitable district for us not a net negative right yes so the more we can promote commercial use and the more we can kind of tease but hold back too much housing the better like if we just took the the 10 or 12% off and just bumped that right down 20% get that next FL I'm okay with that I'm also okay if we want to talk about increasing the minimum requirement commercial on the first floor to get that bonus I was just thinking about that too because you're you're right about it the way I was thinking it stacked as movie story even if it's not but to entertain that if it went the other way if it was like 75% on the first Flor 50% if you do two stories 25 if you do three that way we promote commercial upwards and they got more space to build out that might be the more appropriate scale so I I made a note about looking at increasing that threshold um I just want to go back to the height conversation because I do I um I agree with your initial feelings Paul about wanting be more precautious especially and Rob please jump in and add anything if you feel it's you know necessary but given the kind of issues around this topic to begin with it's already going to be contentious and you know the viability of a passage at town meeting is only compounded by again what other contentious things are included in this Beyond just the fact that you know the topic at hand that we're addressing if that's the case and we really do feel concern about something like six stories I mean we could adjust to try and at least mimic the maximum being that 40b which is in the proximity and included in the district at five which would require us to remove um at least you know again kind of gaming out the possibility of options if someone did top of the shop development meeing a certain threshold to get one additional floor now up to four we would probably only want to have one density bonus for affordability for an additional floor to go up to five and and cap it there rather than setting incremental additional bonuses and that could at least match the existing housing precedence there it's a it could potentially be an easier argument for you folks when it's definitely an easier argument because it's precedent for it already in the district yeah yeah I like it Taylor and then you think about like if we set it at minimum of 20 not that we have this but that's the 40R right District minimum I know it's 25 for a 40b I don't want people confusing this with 40b which I'm sure people will we probably need to come to think of it put that in our put that in our uh Outreach packet that this is not 40b but I think if we're to give a bonus they should be going a bit above the 10% yeah you know I mean I want to make sure I'm careful commercial I I definitely get I I appreciate where Steve's going with this and I think other their circumstances I would say we should do it that way but here you know you know still feeling bruises from town meetings past I think yeah I think if we set that 20% it's going to make it more palatable do you remember what Mansfield was for their height restriction I think Mansfield is higher um there's an existing downtown is really high yeah that's what it feels they're bigger than us oh absolutely no I was just trying trying to think you know know it's got to be like six seven stories for some of those it has to be yeah one thing to even point out this is we're kind of just like getting not not super tangential but I just want to remind folks we uh we started looking at densities way back when we used Mansfield's to existing developments as one of the um examples here and so you know this is ador's one Wall Street and so going back it's in the higher end somewhere here this is mansfields this is right by their Tod you know there's vacancies still on their first floor commercial just something to think about you know um same thing in wallp wallp has a similar development a lot of vacancy on the first floor and this is it looks like probably four to five stories um with some underneath parking but just something to consider and this was built I think prior to the updates to this I this was definitely built prior to the updates the recent updates to their zoning um right yeah I could examine I mean again just pulling their bylaw back up so we got a they have two subd districts it looks like a 60 foot for subd district a and a 45 for subd district B I don't know exactly what those subdistricts are um but I know when we worked with them in previous times they had some existing underdeveloped or underutilized properties that they had been looking at to zone so there might be some considerations there um but circling back again just giving the existing precedent of that five stories if that's something that you folks agree on and we we just prefer to write it that way with only two additional density bonus options up to five we can incorporate that I'm very comfortable with that me too okay yep so we'll clarify again some of these top of thee shop conditions um we will only keep this more than 20% threshold for affordability for an extra story again clarifying that we can't go higher than five and this may not be necessary I know Paul and I talked about it I've only written it in here to acknowledge if you folks ever wanted to add additional density bonuses kind of per the conversation we've been having um so it's not bad to State just for the avoidance of Doubt right okay parking um the way I had I I kind of realized after I had written this that um it wasn't actually fully acknowledging what I think you folks had initially desired which was that one to three depending on the bedroom and I can definitely rewrite it to be that um the way I only wrote it initially was just to conform with the the off street parking standards of your your zoning which some my initial first pass seemed appropriate but um again I do want to give room to acknowledge that yeah and we had our discussion on on parking with bosski last week and you know at some point when we we need to do another major update to the bylaw and especially parking so it just makes sense at this point to refer to it but I would say for number two I would do a way I would delete the uh by 15% in the first sentence and even the second sentence because if if by chance they they had off you know they had shared parking who cares if it's 50% or not or more or you know I think the goal is is if they can it's probably not going to be needed here in most of these Parcels but it why would we limit it to just 15% right I mean I'm not I don't vote on this board but I just want to throw that out there for the board's consideration I understand what you're saying Paul I mean to again to to bring it back to the most gerain aspect of it right I guess if you're living here you need your parking spot you need the right number of parking spots for your cars but if you're visiting that's where we can really get into a discussion about how many people are going to whatever commercial establishment and whether you know requiring X number of parking spots per table or square foot really really meets we've seen tons of examples in the commercial side I guess I'm saying but it it feels to me back to the walkability question we started this with we might want to be more rot with the residential parking requirements to make sure people can park their car if they live here which is to say we can be really flexible on the commercial side to me not 15 go above 15% but that's my two cense at least all right I know it's getting late but shouldn't we strike that whole last sentence yeah that's we would we would eliminate that whole sentence if we eliminate the 15 okay okay um so we're comfortable with keeping the parking standards referring to the bylaw just again given that it's going to be revised I want to confirm that or do we want to go back because I missed it too in my review and I apologize but I think what we talked about is one space per bedroom up to three was that what we had decided during the work that's what I recall when I realized after the fact but if that's something you folks are planning to address in the parking standards I don't know if it's redundant to State it here and then it could be revised at a later time to just now point to the newly revised parking standards um it's up to you folks how you'd like to kind of handle that I don't mind being redundant if we want to as a placeholder until we confirmed where it needs to be placed it's going to reflect in the bylaw anyway I think so I don't know if anybody else is comfortable or has a suggestion I don't mind having it written there yeah having the placeholder for now it's going to get folded in with the rest of the stuff later so and it'll it'll probably just be a referral at that point say I'm okay with that okay um so we do want to keep it clear here here and then update at later Point sorry if I misunderstood that just ensuring yeah we'll update it at a later Point okay understood I will make a note about that oh she's typing if we go to electric vehicle charging stations I'm not sure we have the definitions greatly of a EV station but technically anywhere you could plug into a 110 wall outlet is an electric vehicle charging station unless unless it's designated by amperage so I mean you can plug into a regular wall outlet to charge your car and that's that I I don't I'm not saying the change I'm just bringing it as a point we could it if that's I I I'm not I don't want to I I I spend too much time dealing with EVS on a daily basis but EVS a charging station is anything from a wall outlet that can charge your car in four days to a 480 volt 100 amp outlet that can charge your car to 80% in 20 minutes right that's just a very very broad definition I don't think it would be difficult to set a kind of base definition if there is an an existing one I I don't I don't think we have anything I okay so why don't I can look into that um yeah I don't know if there's anything better and then you know again at the time of that recodification when reworking those definitions that can always be incorporated um so we can at least look into something here that would make the most sense for clarity sake um bike parking I know this is kind of something that we've been trying to think about this is again something that the model bylaw considers and something that we you know would like to see but I understand the location um and then acknowledging you know we right now it's written to have any multif family project has one secure bicycle parking space for every five but that can definitely change if we feel it's appropriate I just feel like M sorry go Laura go ahead please I I just wanted to know what was meant by secure I imagine that it it can't be moved it's bolted down right and again if that's unclear as to what that means that's another thing we can clarify um what is one bicycle spot like isn't like a bicycle rack made to like four or five bicycles anyway yeah yeah yep it' be like one spot on the rack would be my understanding that would be my understanding as well I just question the need for it with multi family only I I I you know I would just think people are going to bring their bikes into their housing guests might bring it to their housing into the housing I I just don't see a need for it with multif family but if it's mixed use and Commercial that's different if I showed up at somebody's house with my bicycle I probably wouldn't bring it in their house I'd let you in I might not let you in Steve I'll let your bike in fifth Story apartment I guess elevat like if we're think if we're Forward Thinking from the good planning principle side of things we always want to try to encourage greater amounts of pedestrian and biking and walking infrastructure whether that's incentivized through you know making it easier for residents to own a bike and then hoping that the infrastructure comes later or vice versa you know that's kind of Up For Debate as to how you want to handle it but um I mean if it's something as simple as a bike rack I'd like to imagine that it's a developer but I would imagine it's probably not a super heavy lift but that again might require some clarification to say that and the threshold might need to increase if we're still feeling like one for every five is substantially overshooting what's realistic if it's one for every I think it's overshooting completely yeah yeah and I'm not suggesting that we fall on our swords for this on multif family I just just in general don't agree with the with the principle of it but I would think it it should definitely be outside of a a store or something more likely than the multif family but I would be fine with requiring it at all buildings in the in the area yeah it's not gonna kill a project it won't kill a project I would go overboard with it I would say like more than one for it's a bike rack I like I said one bike rack is like five spots so just make them put one bike rack one spot for every unit if it's they need to put two bike racks next to their apartment that covers 10 units like it it takes up a lot of space though you also don't want to it's it's definitely cumbersome it definitely takes up space if we wanted to mimic again this is just for for Simplicity I don't know that I have any direct reasoning behind it but if we wanted to mimic the EV where we have one for every 20 I mean again it's just like that's ratios of parking spaces to others so I don't know if it says Like Apples to Apples as bike working to units but I feel like like three bike wrecks can fit in one car in space I don't see how it's at all cumbersome but it's it's so minimal that like if if it's units there should like I I would imagine half the people might want to buy it it would suck to bike and then only like everybody's piled on one one thing it's just such a little thing to add I can't imagine why it would be an issue for a project oh it it I doubt it would I again this is one if this is a requirement let's put it in there and to be it's not to be clear it definitely isn't so it's it's really at your folks discretion if you think it's appropriate and if so at what int heing three three pass forward here one is don't worry about the bikes two is the real place people would ride a bike is in a commercial context so tether the bike requirement to commercial ground floor and three is do we just set what we think is the right number of residences maybe fewer maybe more so those are the three paths I'm hearing for it I I'm of the mind that more is better get get bikes going around the district people getting used to locking them up at different spots and being able to move around with it I ride my bike up there from The Grove like to that area all the time I people will come and go definitely tied to commercial makes more sense but I don't see why mixed juice shouldn't have it available or I'm old shouldn't have it available outside people will want a spot for their bikes especially if they're in high of SW because I I would be okay it just a commercial to be honest and keeping the 50 number CU it's like again I want to I want to give these these people a Sandbox if they think it's appropriate for their project to have bike racks we should give it to them to be honest they probably won't see it for for residential only because there's no real good place to go besides you know trying to cross a highway so we probably would want a pedestrian bridge at some point to make that make sense but no I I could see get it to commercial but not not the uh not not multif family the thing with the commercial is we just got to select the number of bike spaces because there's no units to go by right or it have to rely on like the number of parking spaces in a similar way that EV does is that what we'd want to do we could look up best practices for for something like that what other 3A have done if that's helpful yeah I think that would be helpful I mean I could just strike this first sentence for now and we just have this initial one like you said mixus and Commercial should have one for every 15 parking spaces and then if if 15 seems inappropriate in this context we can change it yeah be my suggestion as well would 12 be better because we have a thing in our bylaw that at 12 parking spaces more than 12 it requires like the planning board and a review it has to be marked out under 12 I think 12 is when you have to put lines down if that makes sense for you folks I don't see an issue with it I have no argument so sure any other other thoughts on bike parking okay um I know it's getting late we'll do our best to kind of work through this and make it make sense um some of these are ones we've written in based on your bylaw some of them are from the model bylaw similar to the way that EV and bike parking were Etc so lots of room to kind of signage we've just referred to your article on signage um this is a straightforward one from the model bylaw just providing pedestrian amenities along sidewalks and in landscaped areas um it's in the model bylaw so we deem it appropriate crosswalks are constructed to be ADA Compliant Etc um I know you folks have a lighting bylaw I actually haven't taken a look at it Paul you pointed me to this um I can revise this to ensure that it complies with this but I imagine it be similar to just being like this will comply yeah just I would just refer to yeah that article uh same thing with Landscaping complies with the Landscaping bylaw unless for some reason you folks feel otherwise um new utilities are placed underground again from the model bylaw seems appropriate unless you folks feel otherwise or have any addition uh additional language in the zoning you'd like us to reference um Paul I know you actually fixed this here it's not showing here because it's in a separate document but this again is just you know I will incorporate your edits it's just pretty straightforward um yeah uh just I'm sorry Taylor apologies uh John Thomas our conservation director uh I gave him this language and he revised it okay make notes to make sure that up in here because I know I've seen it um commercial uses on the first floor maybe place close to the street obviously within the realm of the setback uh long this and I'm going to kind of defer to Rob here if this is still appropriate this kind of is crib from a previous Bight that we've written just to break up facades greater than 100 ft um if this feels appropriate gets into that question when we looked at that the 40b building you know yeah if it if it's one large structure you know it tends to be more like a thing you'd see in a larger City but if you get big buildings you definitely want to break them up architecturally usually from an Urban Design perspective architectural perspective so it is really just an aesthetic thing it shouldn't change much about the program or the height or the scale of the building itself right same thing regarding penetration um not quite my area of expertise but understanding that we want some breaking up in the you know mixed Houston commercial side of things um buffers and screening I saw this borrowing from this section thank you I will make sure that gets Incorporated um again acknowledging just Expos storage jeries Etc and then a waiver Clause directly from the mono just it's mostly in comp like in acknowledgement of the compliance guidelines and the section 3A portion that certain aspects of these can be waved in interest of you know project viability again particularly from the 3A perspective but beyond that is there anything else you feel we missing in these development standards things you'd like us to consider or change okay okay we've already gone into the affordability requirements quite a bit so I mean we'll just summarize here acknowledging that affordability you know restrictions here deed restricted will qualify as local action units under the local Initiative Program with requirements defined in the code of Massachusetts regulations and the lip guidelines Etc will be eligible for inclusion on your subsidized housing inventory and then acknowledging again here for the purposes of this bylaw the requirements of article I believe this is 19 affordable housing shall not apply which may result in the need for you folks to acknowledge a revision to Article 19 if it is prescriptive and doesn't say something like you know not contradictory as elsewhere in the zoning etc etc just something to note um again applicability acknowledging that this applies to projects mixed user residential with more than 10 dwelling units Etc and that folks can't circumnavigate these affordability requirements by phasing Etc um you know again setting a 10% thre hold not fewer than 10% and that we round upward um relying on this definition of affordable housing units you know again just to describe the area meeting income describe the regulations and you know Huds requirements Etc these are all just basic development standards a lot of them are pretty again standard and also kind of I did my best to harmonize between this and your existing Article 19 without being super redundant again just acknowledging that we're saying it doesn't apply here but what we say there is is good um as we want to say here so again just you know can't concentrate the units must disperse them Etc um you know proportionally among size etc etc acknowledging local preference is a possibility um and then acknowledging you know the need for an affirmative Fair Mark uh housing marketing plan um this should say conformance and then Paul we kind of talked about this this can change if it's still not accurate but just in terms of enforcement that it's the building commissioner at this point yeah and that's Article 19 The Building Commissioner is responsible and then but Taylor I I would just uh going back to your note up above about adding the income restrictions I would say we should and also the um the the the limits on the resale right that we can pull right from Article 19 because that's again what we were showing in the when we started the meeting uh with that one project that has affordable units that's our way of of ensuring that you know uh projects remain affordable for people at income levels that are within the ranges established by the state right which there are going to be people there are people who are uh they do not like what the state has for income levels and what they can set for rents and but you know we have no choice over that and that's going to be another that may be something that comes up in our in our conversations but a couple people have said that that's HUD right that's not you folks that's no we get lumped in with the you know Subara of Boston and yeah $1,500 a month is considered affordable yeah yeah I mean with that occurring at the federal level that's kind of always what we hear it too we just yeah it's without it's out of outside any of our jurisdiction um and I think that's kind of where we end I mean obviously just some basic again legal EAS inv validity exemptions Etc uh for municipal uses and that is the bylaw in its current form and we only spend just under two hours on it well I I hope with the work that you guys have done today and then the few other the couple other meetings it's it's more of a pay me now than pay me later that we you've done you know the the work up front modified a town meeting yeah having Having learned that painful lesson a few years ago uh hence that's why we started doing working groups was to not repeat a a a very bad outcome before I stop sharing my screen any lingering thoughts or feelings no I mean we only have like one or two really open points to discuss for next time if I remember right okay I got one question before we go um hasn't been brought up yet but uh occupied group decks where if somebody wanted to provide rooftop access for likeing like looking at the sky or like that kind of thing um that often counts as a a full floor legally if any of its components are taller than 48 in except for accesses um do we need to provide some sort of provision where like say a fivestory building provides rooftop access that is legally a 64 if that you're still governed by your height restriction okay I'm but that's 65 is that 65 ft or we're down to 55 now aren we if you wanted to handle it I mean I imagine the where where to do it would be here in this exceptions portion of your dimensional standards where you could acknowledge that we'd have to figure out the best way to do it but if you wanted to I think that's on my initial read where it would go okay I I I if nobody has any objections to it I I would like to make a provision to allow for people to go on top of the roof if they if the developer designs that sort of facility for it that's going to change a couple then if it's not if that's going to let you exceed your maximum um height the district there's another couple lines you'll have to change because there's a there's a line somewhere on the height that says we you know the planning board cannot exactly it does change a few things when Paul showed you that document earlier that I wrote out I actually did put a little provision further down in the document that addressed that just like another sentence down at the bottom I my concern with that is just again keeping the is kind of simple and palatable I I'm not sure adding that will will help our caruse I mean I again I'm not sure if it's something we need to really like point out more than anything it's just more like it it goes up with again if somebody provides an access to the roof and and then just puts a canopy up now it's a they still have anything has to be under the height restriction [Music] okay to get up to that to get up to that top floor you're going to need a elevator so now you're going to need to elevator room now you're going to need to elevat a Lobby right well ele elevator like access hatches and elevators are excluded from creating another floor but any other fac but you're still limited to your top your your height restriction you you can't have you couldn't have a you know a 50 store a 50ft building and then have another 10 feet with the roof deck in the elevator you'd be above your height restriction right I in my that height restriction the building inspector looks at that as you know as Bible you cannot it doesn't matter nothing can go above that minus what whatever's called out spires Etc if unless there's something specific called out that is allowed to violate that restriction well that's where I think we would put occupied roof de like featur structures associated with an occupied root de would it be helpful for us to just look into it between now I I think that would I if there's G to be anything like that then you're gonna have to and I'm not against it I'm just thinking it out you'd have to set it say it so it's set in from the edges also um so you're not see see it you know hanging over the side of the building yeah you're in the you're 10et in from the edges of the building you know you can't really see it from the the ground I'll just make a note here that we'll examine this and we can give you folks some options to look at at your next meeting and decide at that point in time if you deem it appropriate or not unless rob you have any other thoughts on it no I'm I'm following discussion here it all it all makes sense to me how how we want it because I was thinking that same thing is like you know the other side of it is the if we're concerned about line of sight into the neighboring properties and stuff the the roof deck sounds good in most cases but is that a oneoff where someone might not like it and then the the step back that Allen said might might make sense for you set it in and you don't get that so we can try to see how other people right navigate all that yeah that's fine yeah it is a commercial District next to a concert area I can imagine a lot of people would want to go enjoy the night life sort of preview of the EXP Center if you're close enough I've definitely seen a lot of buildings lately that definitely are doing more and more roof decks so okay we'll take a look at some language we'll present you folks some options um most likely under this exceptions section and we can try and figure out again how that will make sense and if it's if you folks seem it appropriate we can include it awesome other than that I'm good any other last thoughts on the language confirming before we go removing this parcel keeping everything else okay yes um I'm going to try and give my two-minute elevator pitch about what's going to happen next just so we can all go I don't know stare into the night sky or something um we are going to make these updates we will present them to you folks you know give you the whether you'd like us at the next meeting or not just let us know um I know Rob will be on PTO so it'll just be me um that's fine with you folks but um once we incorporate these edits and you folks feel good about it there are a couple review processes we could undergo between now and town meeting with some caveats that we you know there's kind of no guarantees that we'll get the feedback we need in time or whatnot and the two review processes I'm alluding to to is one through the Attorney General's office um and then one through the executive office of Housing and livable communities both looking at separate things but also kind of the same thing um the idea at least in terms of the eohc review is to get prior to town meeting some sort of confirmation that or or at least if not confirmation some feedback that your bylaw will be deemed compliant upon passage the review period is 90 days um that's where things in terms of timeline kind of get a little weird because things come quick and we might not get the feedback we want to hear in time but it's something I would still suggest you folks do just to you know check your boxes and then the Attorney General's office yeah I'm sorry Taylor Sor I was just gonna say the Attorney General's office my understanding is a little bit more of a kind of all-encompassing review but I as I I don't think that they can provide any sort of determination on compliance my understanding is that's not within their at this time yeah correct but they can get it to us in 30 days is what they told me so that would be helpful for any sort of like legal any other sorts of implications or things we might need to address um and then I suppose there is technically a Third Avenue of review that we will pursue which is we work with a law firm on some of this you know 3A related work just to do an initial preliminary review of the bylaw and we would likely do that here as well um we've already kind of you know put that on their radar that this might be coming in and we've confirmed with Paul that there shouldn't be any sort of conflicts they're not working with you folks um and then I suppose once the review processes are over or at least submitted um we move on to engagement and that's where kind of you know our colleague Maria who's not here tonight but whom some of you have met in the past really comes in and we kind of start to think about what will work for you folks in terms of Distributing information information sessions in in person Etc do you have anything to add Rob no no that makes sense and yeah and our our legal folks um like I said they'll take a a pass at this so we get that peer review um you know some some towns have their Council look at it we understand that that's not on the table right now for dordan um but you know if that's something that that comes up and becomes viable you know we're we've done that in in other towns as well it's it's never a bad thing to have them look at it so B basically we we we want to get other independent reviews of this wherever possible um we want to get the legal side because we're pretty good at the planning side but that's how we have that lawyer um on retainer to help us with that aspect right would bosi pour over at once since he's looking over everything else anyway H he's not scoped for it but KP law will look at this but not until the warrant is pretty near done so not as early as we would have liked in this case but I talked to the town manager's office and they just said no we'll just keep it as we usually do with them and we I mean fine at the very least we will definitely lean on your Town Council considering that we have special permit Clauses now and what not to structure that warrant uh article appropriately and you know we can kind of try and get some feedback on that from our end as well and figure out what that'll look like to ensure that we're getting again the best bank for our buck in terms of voting thresholds yep yeah and and what that means is we just the goal here is to get the parts that comply with Section 3A as a simple majority that's really the the big picture thing we're seeking out with this this Pyon hope to achieve if you in your spare time would like I mean if again if I'm being redundant I apologize but one example that we've seen in recent times where they have done something like that structured on the warrant was in seeon um that could be an example to to kind of take a look at that we're you know somewhat familiar with and um we'll also be considering as we think about this any other thoughts for us re MBTA overlay Etc okay okay um we have our mission and we will you know communicate with Paul probably I think Paul will meet this Friday to discuss a little bit further some of the edits between now and then that Rob and I incorporate um and we'll kind of get us set up to prepare you folks for the next meeting that you will have about this I want to say thank you guys too for for you know all the great feedback on this it makes our job a lot more productive and a lot easier um so we really appreciate appreciate the debates and and and the feedback and just um the eyes on this it's been extremely helpful for us so so thank you all absolutely so what do we say Paul we G to have them back on the 20th is that what we decided sure I mean you all wanted to we have there are some revisions that we need to bring back okay great well thank you folks we appreciate it like you know Rob said the feedback is always super helpful and makes our job so much easier so we'll see you folks in two weeks or so and we'll talk about some of those revisions then sounds good thank you you great thank you thank you have a good night thanks good night everybody a good one Paul you wanted to talk more about the uh priority development and preservation only if you all do but I believe it was really Rob that but if someone else wants to we just put it on there because we hadn't closed it out last week sounds like the chair is looking for a motion yeah I I had some questions about why some parcels in one area weren't included but I'll just send that to you directly okay okay and I do have a question for you Paul after we adjourn so don't hang up okay okay motion to adjourn then seconded motion to adour a second any further discussion Laura yes Steve yes Eric yes and I'm a yes all right thanks everyone have a good night