officially called the meeting to order I think that's uh good to roll all right um So based on our agenda I hope you folks got to kind of see everything if you didn't get to review it in depth that's totally fine um we'll start with reviewing District boundary options Rob and I kind of tinkered with two to start that we'll I'll share my screen in a moment um and we can you know make some decisions on that and you know again I think today the goal is to get as much of the information that we need about the the bylaw you know straightened out um and then talking about Community engagement so while I'm sharing my screen Rob did you want to add anything to that no yeah so so we'll we'll share just just what Taylor said um to not to not bury the lead on it too much the the district we walked away from yesterday's uh or whatever sorry couple weeks ago's meeting uh these These are smaller because it was well over the required you know unit capacity and and and these will be two um so we can we can talk about how we might want to even shrink these further if that's something you guys would like to see but the idea here is we we focus uh a potential District that more directly highlighted the PGA parcel and and so move further kind of north on than than the full district there we removed the southern parcels and so I'll give it back to you Taylor yeah could everyone see this excellent so um abely named The Steve scenario because this is based on the map that we were provided uh by Paul with is this the name of will this be the name of the zoning District that's what we should call it definitely um we'll we'll come up with a nice name for it but so this consists of the PGA parcel um as far as I'm more I believe this is a warehouse and there's a couple other industrial or undeveloped Parcels I think this is also PGA according to Paul um some of these yes small multif family across the street the 40b we did not include the roach Brothers um this elderly housing complex here and this series of subdivisions um townhouse style subdivisions and so again this is like Rob kind of alluded to very you know compliant so to speak or at least in our understanding of the actual spatial requirements of 3A this meets them all um it's very large it seems to accomplish the unit capacity and we'll go into the compliance model in a second I just want to kind of familiarize everyone with the district boundaries and so this is the first scenario we explored again just you know a very large or larger District um and then Rob and I also kind of toyed around with shrinking the district and just including so these are the two PGA parcels and then this Associated um one here and this is also you know according to our kind of preliminary analysis in the compliance model it would be compliant with some basic dimensional standards that we've input but again this is kind of all subject to change as we make make decisions I apparently did not rename the title but this we've just been calling the PGA um scenario and so again it's only three Parcels in size um and I think it's about half the size in terms of acreage and so does anyone have any questions about either of those boundaries before we kind of go into the nitty-gritty of the compliance model short version is both would satisfy their state requirements one is just bigger right at least that is our understanding with the itional um you know inputs that we have at this time and to elaborate on that a little much a little bit more we put you see in this model here what we did is we put in the same more or less uh input analyses for for both so right um I mean the the kind of deal breaker parameter here is going to be the units per acre where we try to hover both around 15 units per acre so you can't go lower so um you could shrink the district but you can't go lower than 15 if that that kind of makes sense right so yeah I'm just going to walk through I mean we made very minimal dimensional uh assumptions here because we want to again leave that up to you folks and the more kind of um I don't want to use the word restrictive but the more you know standards we put on this can affect compliance in terms of the unit capacity the gross acreage Etc so the assumptions we made just to start for both districts is 3 four and 5 plus family is allowed in both districts we did not set a minimum lot size um and so also for some context around this since our last meeting you know myself Rob and our colleague Aubry have been looking at a bunch of different 3A bylaws that communities have passed at town meeting this past year you know with intent to comply with 3A big asterisk here that the state has not made a lot of determinations on these districts um so it's hard to say but you know these are all in the spirit of what their the law is trying to accomplish so we're kind of working with some of that background knowledge and so again kind of moving back to this a lot of them don't set minimum lot sizes instead they kind of rely on other um you know dimensional standards to regulate the building envelope and the density Etc but this is not us prescribing this to you folks if you want to set a minimum lot size we are happy to do that um we assumed a building height of four stories uh I know we had talked about having a density bonus and whatnot we just went with the minimum for now just to see if at four um based on our conversation last time if those complied we assumed that there would be some changes in height you know a step down or something based on you know a proximity to uh an AB budding residential use we assumed a maximum lot coverage of 70% and you know if we ever set an open space requirement or whatnot we assumed that wetlands and other things would be allowed to be considered part of that open space requirement meeting that open space requirement um this the compliance model cannot actually like mathematically calculate what the setbacks do to the density but we do put them in here um sometimes if you just set them really high it'll flag it and be like that's a big setback but again spatially it's not considering that it's just something that we're assuming here um again this is based on some of the context we have about other 3A bylaws we've taken a look at we assumed 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit and we assumed a maximum dwelling units per acre of 16 um like Rob said we're trying to kind of like uh preempt the math here and sometimes if we set it right at 15 if the math doesn't shake out properly sometimes it can drop under and therefore make your District not compliant so we try and leave a little bit of a buffer of that one unit per acre just to ensure that the math works correctly um and so again you can kind of see that in this summary you know we just kind of walk through all of it these are the basics and so the way that shakes out um and we're ignore we're not going to even look at this bottom thing but if you do see it just know that it's a sum and we don't need to worry about that but for the first district which is the largest one um we are getting a final unit capacity of 2,870 units uh to remind you folks the requirement for Norton is 750 uh that acreage the district um dwelling units per acre gross density shakes out to about 17.8 so in this case it actually goes up a bit um and so so you know spatially it makes sense to us it's the right size it's about 180 almost 181 acres in size so from the three kind of big requirements of 3A which is meeting your unit capacity meeting your gross District um density and meeting your size it's doing that the smaller option again just to remind you folks that's just three these three Parcels right here also meets those requirements we're looking at about just under, 1500 units modeled by the compliance model shaking out to about 19.3 units per acre um against just the way the math is being calculated and then about 92 and a half or you know close to 92 and a half acres in size so both options spatially are getting us to where we need to be um again this is subject to change depending on what dimensional standards we choose to set and whatnot but just to give you folks kind of a rough idea of the scenarios that Rob and I have been exploring um and we're happy to explore more depending on what you folks want to see but we just kind of wanted to to start there and talk about the District boundary and you know figure out if this is making sense for us what makes sense for Norton Etc so I'll stop there and we can you know Maul and discuss right the the minimum standard right is 50 acres and correct 750 units correct State okay so we're roughly even with the lowest this uh the second option we're generally about twice the uh twice the the density by all mathematical parameters it exceeds the requirements and and just with the caveat Taylor gave if we wanted to start plugging some other stuff in there that those numbers might go down but with those parameters it is yeah sure so the idea is we could introduce initial requirements on either of these if we wanted to without worrying we were going to break the line correct if the lowering mechanisms here the levers you know if we're looking at it that way would be doing that or loing off another parcel right yeah okay so we can yeah so it's it's so that Gray Line to be reductive to Paul's comment that Gray Line needs to stay above 750 yeah exactly yep and then that anage is sorry and that's the other Gray Line right there yeah this has to stay above 15 this has to stay above 50 yep okay I can zoom in as well I know that my screen I see it I'm not uh I'm not blind yet um okay PA from your perspective from a planning and overall design standpoint do you think that the initial restrictions for lack of a better term that can enter my mind at the time that sered has put in here do you think those are good or do you think that there's adjustments that we should make at this stage oh I I think there're certainly well within the ballpark and they're giving us options to tweak them however we you know to you know standards that we might like to see it gives us some flexibility but I think these are you know looking at through these they certainly would me be looks like they would be meeting the state's requirements but you know the the you know they had some questions um and that questionnaire that you know I expect we'll be going over because I have some thoughts on setbacks and lots SI and all of that that I think you know would be helpful for us to go through and get a get a uh get consensus on those types of Standards but I think they've put us in a really good place yeah are there any this may be something that we do after we go through all of these questionnaires but are there any specific preemptive what if scenarios that we want to present present to the other stakeholders that we mentioned in terms of uh what if we say only each building can only be three floors right or something like that what does that do to the compliance model um that would be that would be like one that just jumps into my head as a what does that do to the number because obviously that doesn't change the acreage but it changes the um everything else it it would lower it but I don't know yeah obviously but if but the point is that because they're we're roughly even with the smaller of the two options we still could potentially be over required density count my dummy MTH says it would still work but yeah I I would I would think about you know it it would and and and as we are later on going to talk about density bonuses you know it's possible if you wanted to set a height of three stories but then go to four or five if we if they agree to certain bonuses or or you know public um yeah amities we could give bonuses yeah so okay so maybe I'm getting too far ahead of it and we should go through the questions first before we start dreaming of alternate scenarios I just want to make one point as I was tinkering while you folks were talking so if we kind of look at these different um options right right here uh you know it shows different it models different things and chooses the lowest common like you know the lowest uh possible number of units like what's the limiting factor in the zoning and so if we look here the modeled unit capacity is 9,000 you know you know 9500 to give or taken just over 4500 um this is based on the dimensional standards and that includes height and so if I go into the checklist parameters and change that to three and go back you can see this went down but the limiting factor is still the dwelling units per acre so theoretically in terms of what the limiting factor is it's not height um it's 16 UPA so I think you could go down to three and it wouldn't be an issue um but it didn't even touch the numbers yeah right it only affected this and you know these didn't change because this is what limits it but nonetheless um we can go through this questionnaire and kind of talk about the dimensional considerations and whatnot and like you said Circle back to the compliance model later point and figure figure out how that shakes out yeah just one thing I do think um Tim the kind of stuff you're you're talking about is appropriate now ahead of the questionnaire during it after you know uh as it comes up we're happy to talk about it and just as a frame of reference I think um Taylor I'm curious you might be able to explain this a little more mathematically than I can but the the limiting kind of it's not a limiting factor but the the context for a lot of these numbers is just that we've chosen a really large parcel so the compliance model is GNA like love everything a lot of leeway because of that right some of the the the trade-off for that is in in previous meetings we've talked about kind of like good um kind of like urbanist principles of small lot sizes and things like that I think that's all sort of a separate conversation and how this compliance model calculates it if you'd agree with that Taylor and that's sort of like that stuff gets into how we write the bylaw right and um we probably'll just need to run some of those ideas by eohc to make sure they don't think we're proposing something to owner it's an example I can give right off the bat is when we talk about if you and if you didn't want to limit the lot size you could limit the number of units per building which is one of the questions we ask I would wonder how the Commonwealth would look at it picking a humongous parcel and then saying you know a developer needs to build a bunch of four unit build they might think we're trying to do something that no developer want to do because the interest is ultimately even though you're not required to produce the units to produce a bylaw that at least would facilitate the production of units in reality um so just if that makes sense just kind of a bit of context for this whole discussion yeah I think what I'm trying to think about in terms of as we look I'm looking at one two 3 four five or whatever we think about here in terms of options we're going to have a recommended option coming out of our group and when we involve the stakeholders we say we also looked at all of these options all of these would be compliant in theory the difference the reasons we didn't choose these are x y z whatever right rather than getting into a discussion with stakeholders or public comment where people are kind of the spaghetti on the wall Concepts open this document up in a public comment period and being like this is how we're going to explain it I get it trying to avoid yeah yeah I agree it would there's there's complex math going into all of this we have evaluated a number of options here are all of the Departments and team people that have weighed in this is why we're presenting this to you at town meeting right that is the approach we generally take two like here's two options pick pick what you like or whatever and you know here's or here's why we picked this or you know because yeah the the infinite kind of thing is just it's exactly yeah I don't want somebody I want people to take come at town meeting and go this is a take it or leave it I don't want you to start tweaking stuff right um when you aren't informed as to the process that has gone into it over all of these months sure right because that happens a lot yeah I mean we we toyed never seen that before yes we we struggled with that a lot too when we first started doing this work where there's not a lot of leeway with certain things so trying I think you're on the right you know definitely on the right track and on the same page as us it's like how can we present this in a way where it's like this is what it is um and be like we made informed decisions yeah and this is politic to your point why I think it's important to have all of those other stakeholder groups around town to have gotten an advanced look at this so that they can uh speak to their different constituencies if needed right right to understand this is all the things that go into it I looked at this too I agree right yeah yeah and process-wise you know the sered team could be writing the bones of the bylaw while that happens because as related as they are yeah you know you've seen bylaws they're a lot of it's kind of the same no matter what we pick yeah do we want to walk through this ask a question in our packet we got this questionnaire but it was completed by somebody I don't know if that's because like it was editable um I'm guessing someone went in and took their own notes um this is just oh that was me sorry this was yeah sorry those were sorry I when when I you know when I saw that a couple of you couldn't see it I just immediately copied things over and forgot that I had added my notes to it so got it okay Paul let's walk through your put my thoughts in your head purge them from your brain no definitely we want to hear everyone's thoughts they're in front of me I'm sorry they're there we'll start with the District boundary you're already living in our heads Paul that's a scary place that's awesome um so yeah we'll just run through through this uh starting with the District boundary I mean we presented these two options I think there's even room to go smaller if you folks would like um so you know do you want to shrink from what we've presented um are you comfortable with one of the two options we presented do you have any thoughts or suggestions because this is a great place for us to start well as you could read my thoughts I mean I think both are good I'm just trying to anticipate where the Public's coming from and thinking the smaller we go the more likely this can pass yes the best district is a past District marage Point agreed yeah I think we're gonna get I me I want I do want to make it clear like with Steve I like where he's going with this I think I think this is a good tool to help us get more more housing I'm just I get leery especially we seem to be in a a no cycle and I'd rather give something that's got a better chance of yeah of being past but to I would say in the left map everything that isn't in the first map is either one Warehouse or is already residential and not single family residential existing right now or at least not some of those Parcels down in the left might bottom left might be single family but I don't think so I think you've got two I think it's just maybe these two okay yeah yeah those are yeah I can't recall one of them might be a the old bank property or the bank property and then something over there yeah so we're not encroaching on predominant single family neighborhoods in either scenario right yeah I don't see any problem building out where it's already built that doesn't seem like an issue yeah right um I I do like on the on the left on the bigger map that it has the apartments along Shoreway on the reservoir side where even if we were to pick a smaller the smaller map I would still like to include the apartments on the opposite side of the road sure they do feel like they belong in this discussion yeah absolutely yeah yeah I mean if folks are agre be great location for uh if there were to be Redevelopment there right because what we did lose when we went here is I know that you know there's the existing 40b I actually just drove by yesterday and I was like there it is um I was like this is what we're talking about but you know if we did do kind of like a middle ground we could have you know these three it would come down you know it's hard to see on this side but it it could come down the 40b and then do a little hook and come up to the apartments and um that could be a middle ground scenario be slightly bigger it's not really like a math thing at that point it's just you know what makes sense to you folks I think would the state consider that contiguous yeah it should be um it would I think it's really only an issue if it's like truly two separate areas um because if it's just crossing like a roadway you know we haven't heard any issues about that but if it was like one in Norton Center and one up here you know we'd have to worry about contiguity at that point even then the the PGA parcel is so huge it's clearly over 50% of the district area I think we're we probably fine on many levels I agree I I think the state's going to like this because I know a lot of communities that have adopted it have land that's not vacant and right you know at least we can say that we have a couple very large vacant Parcels that could have you know that could potentially develop out yep certainly not a paper compliance scenario here yeah definitely not so this is kind of what I'm hearing scenario two so again that you know the smaller one but including these small multif family across the street coming down and including these two 40b properties and then you know looping back up across the street and following the rest of the same District boundary are folks comfortable with that yeah could I ask what what do we gain with the small parcel on the southern side of of Arnold Palmer Boulevard this guy if it's just that section if it's mostly it looks like mostly Wetlands I used to work there and I've done a lot of wetland work in there I don't know how much can actually be built on that side to include that if we were going to cut down anyways but just just my take on that one paral unless we were going to do the whole District I don't know why if we need to include that side I think we could move it and probably Taylor I don't know it probably hurts our overall density denominator a little bit because there is so much Wetland is my instinct but I don't I haven't seen the numbers it's not it's interesting because it some of it is excluded from the density but it's not excluded from unit capacity so it's like there's a little give and take there um because you're still getting right right calculated out of it um but it's one of those things too where if you give a little and take a little like I I don't think the math here is going to be much of a concern just because of the sheer size of this one single PGA parcel um I think you can Tinker with the boundary as you see appropriate and you know is that one under PGA ownership as well Paul yeah both of these are PGA uh Charities but we looked um I've looked at this with our conservation agent uh these are a couple Parcels that we've been you know hoping to see developed um that you're right Steve there's a lot of wetlands there but there are still are some Upland areas that could potentially be developed so you know if we wanted to keep it in it's still some you know something could potentially happen there but if we take it out we're still over the the thresholds it looks like this is moving far away from compliance but I mean we were going to do Outreach to them to talk about this or give them a heads up about it right mean we could ask them if they want it to if we're looking at this and one of the parcels is definitely going to be in what we want to do do they want us to include them both and that would potentially be something that they would be like having them zoned differently would help them do whatever they want or not yeah not saying that we would do what they want either way but if they definitely would like a zoning change to help with that parcel then doesn't hurt meaning you're thinking they could build condos or something along those lines in there I've never heard of golf condos near a golf course it's true rarely happens what we could do on our end is um model both you know one with it and one without it I mean as you've said it's probably not g to make or break the calculations we have at this point unless we do something drastic so we can share both the just from like a workflow perspective it's annoying selecting a lot of little parcels and importing them but one it's really no problem for us to do if that's something you guys would like to see Paul does that Mak sense to you in terms of how we're going to do this over the next how many months three um well we're going to talk about some timelines at at the end of this too so am I not gonna like those conversations that's okay uh I'm not we'll get there but we need to know what our targets are and town meeting has we have put everything out you know the the select board did Issue the the um the uh it's October 21st and August 27th is when the okay the warrant closes but there are other dates but I'd like when we're done at the end I'll go over some of these with you we we really need to get those covered okay PA are they going to do a special in the fall as well like they do in the spring I don't know I haven't heard but we're going to be putting this one on the uh the Reg on the annual right but I'm saying if you put it on the special the special gets called later and it might buy us more time um yeah I haven't heard anything about a special yet okay but that's good to know we'll keep that we have to keep that in mind at the end of the day it doesn't matter which warrant it goes on as long as it's done by December 31st yes okay let's keep going Building height do we want to set it to four stories I four stories is a minimum for me but I'm in favor of going higher yeah Steve were you here when we were first diving into the Cals I know you I kind of caught on like I was I came in like five or 10 minutes late oh the short version is that we could do three stories and we would still be in compliance okay I the Paul's idea of having I mean he didn't expect say three but if we have a standard three but then bonuses if you you know yeah yeah bonuses if you go higher like you if you start adding amenities if you want to go to fourth floor fifth floor um I think I think that's a good way to go because that gives some flexibility I agree and and gives a smaller number for when we propose this that's right yeah the more incentivizing the better I I I like that tease it out of them so is that a yes to three or to four feel only good about three I think we're good with three but have incentive bonuses for higher okay cool um so I mean this kind of gets into what we just said density bonus do you want to provide a density bonus but the answer is yes we do do we want to determine how high the density bonus allows I think that would give predictability um work out new as well yeah I mean if we said say capid at five stories I don't know I'm just throwing that out there I would say six but that's just because I of two so uh what do we also have to figure out the what those incentives are we just let the perspectives give us ideas well we we had talked about um mixed use if they do a mixed use building I just threw in um give them the bonus for if they provide a say 10% of the units are affordable I good that way there are some public amenities that come out of it do we want to say the density bonus has to be above 10% so it helps us in our ratios we could I like it am I is that a bad idea I'm just because the ratio that we for the state affordable is 10% right I think I remember so if we're if we're giving them bonus for 10% we're giving them a bonus for net neutral not a bonus for actually it could be 10% then like an extra five if you go up to the next level like if you go to if you want to go to four minimum 10% but if you go to five now it's 15 then 20 or something like that like a progressive right like a tier yeah POS this question at the planning board in my recollection was uh the preference was for a 10% requirement which we're allowed to do if that's still how everyone feels so we can give a bonus for going above oh yeah that sounds good that works our afford housing thing goes up to 30% right for a density increase do we want to be within that range yeah so that was in our so here's something Steve's bringing up that's important so he's asking we we have an we have an inclusionary zoning bylaw and we do need to make sure that this is explicitly uh stating that that bylaw is not required here because the state would kick us out for it but what Steve's saying is pointing out is in that bylaw you can if if an applicant proposes what 30% affordable Steve yeah they can triple the density yeah of the development we can reduce setbacks and yeah it's it's Article 19 of our bylaw okay but you know the Steve's point that you know he he's pointing out there that the density bonus would give you um if you did 30% you could triple your density that's how it already exists but yeah what what do we want to say for a density of oford housing that triggers our rewards of you know more floors if 10% is the minimum do we want to do it at 20 do we want to match the 30% does it compound with the other 30% um there's there's there's a numerical aspect to this with affordability that you know the more units you require to be affordable that more units have to be market rate you have to add to offset the Lost Revenue that you would get from the affordable units and I'm just thinking out loud that you know probably setting it lower makes that makes getting affordable units more realistic yeah from a financial perspective um you could break out rentals as well to hit the 25% % affordable Target for rentals as a density bonus just just as a side thought yeah I mean is it is it possible we could you know just following Steve's thought here could we break it out by saying you know if you give us 10% you get X more units if you do 30% you get X 30% affordable you get so many more units could could I just make a try to understand a quick clarification because Tim if I your point you you would lean towards requiring the 10% and not offering that as a density bonus is that how everyone feels as a baseline or would we want to require 0% and offer a bonus the I would keep the 10% as mandatory that's what we already require I think the bonus would come either in increments of five or 10 or just at a level of 20 or 30 however somebody everybody else feels about that but I wouldn't go below 10 okay so if we if we do that then we we would say that this bylaw this this zoning is subject to Article 19 well and um does that kick us into a compliance issue with the state because would they look at that as a disincentive to develop it shouldn't as long as you stay at 10% and no higher um yeah our understanding is that you could even go up to 20% but then you're that's anything over 10% is subject to an economic feasibility analysis um so we would just there's nothing wrong with incentivizing over 10% but you know requiring you can only go up to 10% so they won't they won't uh view it as against us for compliance if we set a 10% that I would caution against going higher but I would feel generally safe at 10 is that how you feel yes so then we could do incentives to go higher than 10% I think you know 15 20 maybe no higher than 25 and the only reason I say that is just because of the fact that um you know that's where you hit that threshold on the Shi for rentals to all you know 100% of the units to count right that's just so tough for market rate to meet you know 25% of their units being affordable because you know they've got to pass those costs onto the market rate and that can just cause units to go up by tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars so we saying 15 and 20 or our steps I I'm cool with 20 I think 20 is a good number so do we want do we want to do the 1520 with steps or do we want to just do one bonus for over 20% 20% or over I should say I kind of like one simple one but anybody else feels differently I I I honestly like Progressive because I will you know uh like kind of Paul's Point not make things Skyrocket on on the developer so maybe like two floors you get five you know 5% more and then two more floors after get you get five five more percent or something something like that but I I think if we keep a gradual but NE you know logical progression that won't that won't scare away developers so then would we want to do a tier at 15% and maybe say if we're start like talking about three stories and and again you know we can talk about whether or not we want this to be stories an increase in units per acre both whatever beginning with that just for a placeholder I would say 15% of four stories and 20% at like five and six okay just just obviously subject to change but just just down so that would reasonable up to four and then up to six okay yes yeah that works and we can that's that can be changed um but we can write the language around that cool and honestly Paul just little with the bolon Article 19 I would still keep this separate even if they mirror each other to start with because that might get confusing if if if they're coupled together yeah and we can ensure that the language is clear um we'll review article 19 and you know if there's language in the inclusionary zoning bylaw we've had instances where we worked with other communities who've had language that appears that it you know would conflict with that that may necessitate you know a language clarification to that article if necessary yeah I I don't know if this matters tayor but the that the Article 19 six units Tri six multif family units triggers the 10% okay six or more and then we also say six six or more uh Lots subdivided Lots would but that also being Rewritten so it is well it won't be till spring so okay but yeah right barski is taking that out okay yeah we'll take a look at that and if we're seeing anything that needs to be clarified prior to when you know the rest of the revisions come in the spring um we can figure that out for sure um great Okay so we've got tentative density bonuses uh starting at you know base three story height limit you can go up to four for 15% affordable up to six for 20% or more um and we still also and we kind of answered the question below it in the question above it the initial question was do we also want to give a density bonus for ground ground for commercial right I would love it yeah I think that'd be great what do we want that density bonus to be um I mean the stores on the bottom be what one floor or are we assuming other commercial uses besides like storefronts I would imagine yeah first floor first floor commercial I would imagine the first floor is going to either be like retail or public Lobby space right so we give like uh we just give them an extra extra story for that or do we give them more than that I don't think we should make them have to do much for I think we want it yeah the other thing too once you get above I think it's three stories now you have to get an elevator and sprinkler system you know we might want to think about five six stories Ju Just For Now say up to six okay so basically they're was more forward about housing or give us some stores that's what it looks like or both or both I'll take both right if what if in instead of like at the density bonus of 15 and 20% up to four stories or up to six stories what if it's add two stories or add one story add two stories I had the same the same question so do we want to set like say someone did 20% plus density bonus I mean for commercial ground floor would folks be comfortable with that going up to to seven or do we just want to cap it at six regardless of what people do I don't think we can go beyond eight in this town with our fire equipment um so seven seems the safest maximum um but again like it's sort of like if they wanted to put like a ground floor and get a bonus floor and then put three stories above it I that' be fine if they want to increase the density then they get one more floor I see you're saying but but if they just do 15% I don't know if they should get the I I don't know if it means up to four store four stor because if then if they do 15% I'm just not sure how it all adds up by saying up to six St instead of just what you gain from adding it if we do you know plus whatever you could combine bonuses I suppose where you could exactly right you could do the 15% plus ground floor commercial and get three or you know extra store right plus commercial seven stories okay if that's under eight we could just do add one for 15 add one more for 15 to 20 or or 20 plus or whatever you could say and then add one more for commercial so if you want to string bonuses together you can get uh three floors people yeah just devil's advocate here we don't none of these we're not required to do any of these extra levels from a compliance perspective so nope correct I am just playing The Devil's Advocate and saying that we need to be prepared to defend them in our next session with other people right yeah in in my mind it's just 15% plus a floor 20% two floors and a ground floor commercial is an extra floor if they want to use it and that gets them to six I know if it we start with three floors yep just saying cool I do understand your point Tim um again as planning folks we all want this stuff I think it's all good planning practice but there probably and I'm telling you guys stuff that you probably hear every day but there's probably some person that's G to like run the math on this and say it's all these extra units like what you've done kind of thing just because we've all heard it before right is that what you're saying basically and I'm the chair who's probably going to have to introduce this so I'm going to be the the uh the Target and probably meeting so I'll be there with you Tim I'll be in the audience so be good be away from the audience well why don't we go a little bit more conservative then and do a plus one like you said um you know a plus two for 20% or over and then a plus one for ground commercial I'm okay with that yeah okay yeah because this this will still get us to that maximum of no higher than six yeah and that would actually still afford US one more rooftop occupied level that would be the technical like seventh floor if anybody wanted to put up like a rooftop ameni space I see what you're saying yeah so we should have number of stories number of floors and an absolute Building height too good point Steve we have written that before where we have exemptions for you know certain rooftop equipment and whatnot and we can yeah we'll make sure that that's clear um we know that sorry go ahead see I was gonna say the international building code on rooftop amenities just changed like like a recent year so so it's new guidelines for how you can access and what people do up there what you can string up for lights and that kind of stuff before it qualifies so yeah into Eric's Point uh that I think you brought up earlier we could we could just Define the height for you know a residential versus a commercial because uh commercial's a little taller we could do those kinds of things too if we want to get that nuanced yeah and then step it down if we have a you know in this case probably the mobile home park is the probably the most proximate residential area right um I guess while we talk about that what would we want our step down to be I think I had it in the compliance model it too and again it's that's not affecting the math from my understanding well it it's well we think about it our BAS is three stories but even a single family home can go up to that now granted the mobile home park is they're they obviously not two stories um you know would be you know we just want to be careful that that doesn't cause a a real problem with making a project um that doesn't interfere with the numbers for them to be able to do a project require a would people prefer a larger buffer space because Taylor couldn't we just run the compliance model on a portion of the parcel that takes into account a large buffer if that's preferable and easier under so we H we have something in our bylaw that says if you're a commercial building and you're going up against a residential zoning District which we're a little different here but it's a 50 foot wide buffer um of course the the the mobile home park is in commercial zoning but maybe we look at a 50 foot buffer and I don't even think we'd have to model that Rob because looking here in the compliance model they they already do have kind of an acknowledgement of like do you have an additional setback for a lot AB buding a residential lot and unless it was like a huge setback we might be okay with just you know leaving it as is and just acknowledging it here um so I guess so we have step down buffer or both I guess if we were to distill these into options yeah I would I think the buffer would give us give a developer a little bit more flexib ability and I think buffers would be protecting that you know that Community I don't say protecting because it's another residential use but a 50-foot buffer they're not seeing anything through the trees I and you could require screening yeah and I'm sorry require what Taylor screening if there wasn't any already screen okay y I prefer buffer to the setb I mean to the step down also I don't mind giving some architectural leeway is 50 ft appropriate to you folks I know that I'm just using that cuz it was thrown around but I'm it's enough to fit some trees they're in a commercial Zone they can only hope for so much they're going to be sandwiched between apartments and a concer area so it is quite an area huh yeah yeah let's not forget the Xfinity Center but so 50 feet sounds good to me all right so density bonuses have been outlined I think we know we want to require 10% affordable this big caveat here we got to talk tolc about this if this is something we desire um just because it's not something we've done yet before but if we don't if we're already saying no we don't even have to entertain if we don't want to have incentives or whatever for age restriction yeah I would I would restri no age restrictions for me no easy peasy yes and speaking as one who is soon to be qualifying for these age restrictions I'm okay not having it you'll skip this opportunity par I wish I could but time is not on my side yeah um 1.5 spaces for parking or do we want to do 1.25 uh uh some people might want to go up too but yeah 1.5 is in the middle usually from my vantage point per dwelling unit and that is per bedroom and that's per dwelling unit dwelling unit per dwelling unit and we could break it out by bedrooms too is that the minimum that's required or can we go lower than that you can go lower go lower i' prefer lower one per dwelling unit parking so I honestly me I wouldn't want to go under one and a half because I right right off the bat two working parents there's your two cars yeah yeah could could we even if they wanted to go higher could we put in that they provide a report justifying and subject to the approval of the planning board I'm sure we could have a clause that says something like that like any you know project proposing hire should XYZ y I think so too would we want to do that do we feel it's necessary sorry go ahead as say do we want to do this by dwelling unit or do we want to go by bedroom I think we should go by bedroom okay I'm just thinking of the the talk that we gave to whatever that Southwest project is the other day where he basically told them they didn't have enough parking and they had two per unit different development different designs but is one per bedroom fair so for one or less it would be one two two three or more or do we want to say one and a half per bedroom because that's going to get to three for a two-bedroom and for a three-bedroom it's four and a half though that's where it we could not scale it after a certain number of units too yeah if like you know depends like do one bedroom one one and a half per bedroom or three per unit or something yeah whichever's whichever's last or whatever is that so You' have yeah that would get minimum of that would be a maximum of three per unit but it would also mean that you have at least one and a half for each bedroom yes so four four bedroom three three parking spots still but but one and two it still scales yeah am I am I is everybody aligned on that or am I going too heavy on anything or I'm always in favor of lower parking standards but I that's just my I would do lower I'm like one per bedroom and then up like Max it at the three per unit that I'm okay with like the maximum there or whatever but one probably enough okay and if I can muddy this up just a little bit could we give allow a parking reduction if they're providing affordability or a mixed use building I mean particularly the rationale with affordable housing is it's possible you know that they might not have as many cars as a market rate just because of the cost of the car but there's no Transit there right right no I I understand but it's and and I don't like it for Comm if they're doing mixed use cuz that's going to create additional parking requirements potentially especially if it's like a pizzeria or something where you need three employees and then three people coming in and out or I don't know yeah but I was just thinking too that there would be people in the units who might use those but I'm just throwing that out there because I'm I'm trying to lean more toward fewer parking and let them justify more if they need it no minim for uh commercial I mean living somewhere not having a parking space I could see being pretty honorous in this particular District just concretely uh but commercial you know oftentimes that's the complaint right that we require so many spaces and fraction of them are ever used so so it could be a middle ground have it on the commercial you guys think would the parking requirements we have by use across would those not be in effect for this Zone we have to set those specifically if we're doing this as an overlay for other uses I would say those are so Antiquated I'd rather have a a modern thought process to it okay is there any copy and pasting some other commercial requirements that we think are appropriate um we could definitely I mean for the commercial side if you have something that you think works we're happy to look at it um I will say like commercial parking is I think a little bit less of my expertise or you know something I think about versus residential so I'd be open to exploring that for sure Paul if you you think yours ours is really Antiquated if there's anything better that you want to crib from I have no objection well what we did with um The Village Center Corp for parking generation was to use the latest version of The Institute for transportation engineers and and which they they calculate parking generation per use and they they back it up with different models across the country we we could try to tie it to the it just a thought but I like the Simplicity of up to you know one per bedroom and up to three that's simple it it's it's it's clear I I think it's nice as that that's easy enough for me yeah and it's it's not going to result in over parking I just I had a question we brought up the thing we talked about the other day with the development and the requirement for extra parking it in this District can we mandate that there's some sort of public parking area there cannot be any public parking mandates I mean if somebody wants to put it in that's something they could propose but okay assuming that this lot is going to get carved up each individual project is going to be proceeding individually so there's not going to be one Central Parking Hub that's my yeah one way to to kind of do something similar and and again to your point to it kind of depends on who's proposing what and when they're proposing it is to encourage shared parking and leave that up to the discretion of the planning board so you know um couple buildings they might not be the same structure but if adjacent enough they share parking and that that's particularly useful in commercial applications too on the ground floor yeah we had something like that for the Village Center core right I'm sorry sorry what was that question we had something about shared or public parking for the Village Center core so we we do we do yeah they could if they yeah there's a few steps but we do make Provisions for it yeah like an add-on I still want like yep you live there you have a parking spot right available right is there a way we can incentivize parking garages as opposed to parking lots like internal parking that's I mean it could be a guideline I don't I mean that would be my inclination they costly yeah it's going to cost them half their floor okay yeah do we feel good enough about parking where it's at or no we can yeah I think so okay yeah um these are you know I think again what Rob was alluding to earlier that again these will require us to explore and think about this with probably with the ohlc because the compliance model doesn't really have a means to consider um these types of dimensional inputs uh do we want to control the building size via something like Max number of units per building or a maximum building footprint I'm a big fan of controlling the maximum footprint I would like to see more small buildings instead of one large building yeah I I'm the way I um I would a way we could approach that to get the smaller buildings because I too would like to see more I think we could help manage it by the the uh the frontage and lot size requirements thinking that if we if we set lower lot sizes and Frontage that could allow properties to Res subdivide and do into smaller Lots where you could get smaller buildings so I had just thrown out their 5 to 10,000 square foot minimum lot size are I think I said 50 to 75 feet of Frontage right I'd go right to 5,000 square feet do folks feel comfortable with an approach like that where rather than you know setting a maximum or something like that we're just encouraging subdivision through lower dimensional requirements through the lot size in the frontage yep comfortable with that I just I don't know Taylor what that does to the the uh the spreadsheet modeling I would assume most of your Parcels are going to meet those requirements um but we can check I mean at least in terms of the lot size requirement I would imagine that you know even in this most well obviously in this most conservative but I think even when we come across the street I I haven't seen the parcels I have seen them in person but you know I'd imagine they are probably 5,000 or over [Music] um if we picked one that you know let's say we pick 10,000 for whatever reason start that number out there one of those smaller Parcels is is 9,000 it would just flag that parcel as a non-conforming lot and since we're over all of the requirements I think it would kind of just have a null effect on you know would it wouldn't impact the model even if it did do the thing we're talking about right I mean here if I just to even Tinker kind of on the fly in this smaller scenario if I put the 5,000 in um again I don't think it accounts for Frontage it's just something we like describe here but um I don't think it's doing that type of math on the back end as far as I'm aware but if I go to the second district I mean we we're still you know because it looks like all of these Parcels are going to be you know over that and then if I go to district one and do the same thing we can even look at some of those smaller Parcels to see if they become non-conforming but you know it's kind of probably an unnecessary exercise like Rob was saying because of the fact that um you know most of these I mean here's all the apartments 4 to8 units and they are all about half an acre in size so I think you're going to be okay to go lower so given that where do we want to go 5 ,000 5,000 sounds good to me and and just to make sure I understand here too so we are requiring uh or we're setting a minimum lot size but we're not requiring a specific lot size for development or anything like that because we do have a really large parcel here I would like to as much as we can I don't know what we can do but I would like to make small logs I would almost like to prevent a large lot I don't think we can do that okay that just for record that kind of takes us back to the question of setting a maximum number of units per building or sort of square footages uh which is in a way maybe a proxy for for this idea because it's we're trying to be thoughtful because we know uh it's really we we appreciate the Instinct that that you guys have on this and we're just trying to find a couple ways to look at it too yeah I mean theoretically the easiest way to do that would have would you know be to Zone an area where there already is existing small Lots um but that's not what we have here yeah yeah sure yeah so yeah okay yeah if we set a number a maximum number of buildings per lot and pick a number that makes sense four or whatever yeah um clearly to get your money's worth out of this parcel you've got to chop it up into a bunch of little pieces so that's the I think if you wanted to do that that's the lever that you pull I I would pull that lever if we can if anybody else agrees to that I like I said bed and breakfast is four units so that's reasonable anything above four units becomes commercial Forest housing goes up to 11 and this District calls for 16 on an acre so like somewhere in that range of numbers is probably a good cap I I think you know another Factor here it's it's a fiscal thing but if we get smaller lot sizes there's less unused space and from a fiscal perspective those Parcels make us a lot more property taxes than on an on an acre basis than a giant apartment complex with giant parking lot which we don't tax the parking lot so I like the opportunity to if you know to to incentivize these smaller units on smaller lot sizes you know partly for that reason plus the design and look of it I think it would be much more um accepting by the public that's much more gentle density than a you know Monster yeah yeah I mean doesn't say someone couldn't come along and build it but at least we're you know making it very possible to do the smaller apartments or I should say smaller multif family we don't know exactly what that would be but and if we were going to consider this range including like the affordable housing type stuff it would it be uh reasonable to set the number somewhere around like a dozen or so like would would 12 be a triggering number or is that too low if we're offering maybe four floors up to six floors of building it's not really going to get full with only four units so do we go like 12 or 24 as a limiting factor imagine the full scale building I I get a little hesitant about that sometimes when we look at this from you know from that type of numerical I there could be some unintended consequences if we do it I I don't know I I mean I I I I get where you're you're coming from I just if it's over I don't know I I I don't know part of me just says I'd rather try to manage it through height lot size Frontage and try to manage it that way than a hard number of units I'm okay with that honestly yeah I mean I'm not I'm not like wholeheartedly disagreeing I just in my experience I just think when we get to that like when I was in Fair Haven they had a a restriction on up to 20 no more than 20 units in a building and I'm like why you know especially in area you know it just seemed like if we can get more in an area comp and and in that in that context it's also a very compact place you know why wouldn't we allow that okay so just for again kind of s for placeholders I think lot size 5,000 ft good place to start and then we can change the uh Frontage to 75 feet just uh just we have a number there that we can think about okay that sounds good to me um excellent we'll put these in as placeholders anything else about that before we go on a green space I would just say as a you know I just want to be respectful to some of the aspirations that that we that we have here is that there is nothing limiting um a really large building here from from going in which um I just want to be explicit so there's no surprises when yeah people talk about it or whatever you know yeah yeah I think I think Paul's inclination to incentivize instead of forcing is is correct so that's I but I think these numbers represent that do we want to require Green Space if do but could I go back one thing just the frontage could is it not impossible to go down to 50 it's like a 75 a 5,000 foot lot with a 75 foot Frontage is 66 feet back not sure how that plays out I don't know 66 fo building width it'd be 66 feet deep if it's 75 feet wide for 5,000 foot lot I don't know if how we want to do that if we need to require 75 or go down further than that or well 50 would be a 50 foot Frontage would be 50 100 I don't know like I said to me these are kind of like placeholder numbers 75 ft to me is like three driveways worth of Frontage so I mean I I I'm not I'm not to any of these numbers but it's just I I just want to have enough so we have a starting point so next time we have the discussion we can get into the details more if I can encourage people maybe to go um over to wonet the road that go around there those Parcels are 35 to 45 feet across they are jammed in there I think 50 is just a really small number we're going to wind up with kind of the Grove is all 50 yeah if yeah if you want 50 foot frontages that's just all the growth is 50 foot frontages basically but if we're encouraging multif family yeah your loading with would be a 50 foot wide building generally I would think and so what is that 3,000 something 3,700 50 yeah sorry bad of math 37 I mean I'm like I can't do this geometry in my head right now if you just made a 75 foot Frontage by 50 foot wide which is a fair you know because of Windows for multif family building um it would come out less than 5,000 I guess is the only point I'm trying to make commercial could be wider or some kind of Lobby space downstairs could be wider but that could make up the other you know would fit but then you had to figure out parking too so right you've got no room left for parking once you put the building on there which is fine if you've got you know if you want to do a townhouse Style with a you know basically the front yard is a driveway going into a garage that works I've seen it but not much else is going to work and that's only if they stick to 5,000 not 5,020 so right if they hit the exact minimum lot size yeah so all we're doing they could asking build that yeah I mean we if I'm just saying like we're canceling out anybody that would try to build that less than 75 I don't know if we need to restrict it because if they feel they need this space for their building they're going to make their lot bigger but are we restricting the lots that can do it smaller I don't know if you know I think the fact that none of us can see a way to improve this is is a sign that it's a good point good point to to run through the model cool because we're both trying to change it in different directions so it feels like it's in a happy medium cool we could like mock up a quick sketch of a hypothetical square 5,000 square feet thing and you know even outside of the model and just take a picture of what that might look like to for visualization that' be appreciated sure I'd say I was told there was G to be no math but that bridge was crossed an hour ago only ma well so for now let's leave 75 in and um we can Tinker as necessary I think I think it being a placeholder is appropriate for now um is everyone okay with that okay Green Space so going back to the compliance model again um the way we've handled this is we set a maximum lot coverage for me I usually think it's kind of one or the other where you either set maximum lot coverage or you do like a green space requirement which you know dly limits the lot in a different way um that's just the way I kind of think about it but I defer to you folks um and and what you would prefer and if you do want a green space requirement what that percentage would look like and is the lot coverage number that you CLE with that be exclusive or inclusive of parking right now I believe it is X exclusive of parking okay but I know the compliance model does calculate parking it makes some like basic assumptions based on the number because it removes parking area so that is considered um so you have yeah building parking and then you need to have whatever percentage of% over 30% left is that what you're am I yeah we have one for building coverage and I'm going to kind of defer to Rob here because this always kind of is a little bit confusing to me um and you know might even be confusing your Rob so sorry I'm not trying to put you on the spot but I know I mean they have one option building plus parking one that's just the lot no that's just the building so I mean we could pull any of these three levers and then they have again the separate open space requirement and we can Tinker with these yeah I tend to lean to the first two because I don't understand the Third one you know you have your building then you just have your overall impervious is the way I look at building parking right so move the 70% to the maximum building plus parking coverage percent yeah we could see if that makes a difference Paul do you like that approach yeah that's good I mean I see no change or at least no noticeable change no change I just looked at the gray numbers I'm sure something changed I think this it this model went away but this wasn't eff okay so that's fine um but yeah so I mean we could either go you know with one of these two levers or an open space requirement I think you know or again however you folks want to do it I kind of feel like we should have an open space requirement multif family dwellings deserve dedicated space for the people inside of them to have an outdoor space they don't have individual yards I think also the compliance model does assume a 20% open space requirement just by by its own it's just programmed in that way so it does remove open space um is this just an open space for the whole District or is this going to be for each development I think I in my head as I'm saying it now would understand it to be on a per development basis on which would reference you know the the proposed lot in question that they are whether it's through a subdivision or otherwise I are you thinking the same thing right Rob that would be my my understanding um I don't know that the model is actually assuming any number of subdivisions here I think they're just throwing the grand total at it but I agree with that um we can ultimately we can write the numbers we put here in the bylaw on a per development basis would be right way I I'm curious as to how it would affect development on small lots to put a requirement for like an open space area that's I'm just wonder set a threshold for which the open space requirement triggers I suppose um because we have actually encountered that before when we had another bylaw that we wrote where I think that was flagged to us about the open space requirement because I believe you know the one we wrote it was like 30% per the you know per the town's request and um that was brought up like you know what's that going to look like for a two or a three family if that was what someone wanted to build right for example because when you're thinking larger multi family building you know especially one with more an active Street you know in a mixed use area like the entry could count as part of that and that's an important thing to think about I think but um if we're expecting smaller smaller buildings it's obviously very different entry experience and different shared use spaces like you're talking about Steve so it it I don't have sorry it's not really an answer but I'm trying to think out a lot about a little bit right I like the threshold for larger buildings yeah I think like for for family be like 20% anything bigger be 30 or something like that I was thinking that we have we're having the lot coverage the lot building plus parking requirement that's already in there yeah and that can go away if you wanted to just to be clear too like that was just I I like that as a baseline you can say and for properties over 10 units we trigger an additional green space requirement of X based on extra Green Space percentage of or that requirement needs to go to I don't know 60% I'm making that up that's a big number well we're going we're just losing 10% So in theory you're going a bigger building you're cramming more stuff in there so you have more space around it to cover the lot so you're just going higher oh yeah that's what I'm envisioning is that um so if you're going to go with a bigger building we're going to require you to give more green space because you have more bu people crammed inside and nowhere to go yeah that makes sense I just I 60 65% something like that yeah yeah go from 70 to 65 60 yeah yeah something like that what do you like 60 or 65 better I I don't know Steve do you think that is the concept that you were thinking about in terms of having open space for multif family buildings like this did we lose Steve we lost Steve I think we lost Steve uh quick let's change all the things I know right why don't we just set it for 60% for now because that's going to be a large area and then again you know could you so was that 10 developments in excess of 10 units that's what I had thrown out there yeah so if it's more than 10 I view that as a big building yeah that's really apartment building at that point which case in apartment building you should have something okay yeah over 10 units in a proposed building your that means your building plus parking coverage Paul am I being too mean there or is that good or um I need I don't know I want to think more about that one but let's go with it for now okay because I'm getting hung up on you know if we do smaller Parcels as we're talking about um then this doesn't matter yeah it gets challenging but let's put it in there let's just let's okay let's put in a require you know put in a a requirement for it yeah am I reading this wrong I'm not saying add an open space I'm saying that just building okay right yeah basically and it becomes open space in theory if I have to set aside 40% of the the lot to not be parking and building I'm probably GNA put something there yeah right if if you know couple ifs if this passes and if we get the um the grant award to do uh design standards and guidelines we can kind of the point of those will be to help you know you folks on the planning board make certain of decision so we can work together about the specifics of what that leftover land could look like we want to encourage want to discourage that kind of stuff it could be a basketball court it could be an open field it could be anything that's kind of yeah EXA throwing ax throwing no ax throwing out that out there only near the wood only near the woods excellent okay well we made it through our questionnaire um so this is a lot which is great this is perfect for Rob and I to start working off of and writing and you know constructing a bylaw um and we've already been informed about timeline and I don't want to get too ahead of myself we'll talk about that at the end um but you know this is good for us to work with and so now I think the last thing at least in terms of an actual agenda item would be Maria if you want to talk about Community engagement and you know our strategy over the next couple months for sure uh do you mind if I share my screen of course let's get into it um it lets me to Sor okay right do you need permission no it's making me restart my thing so do you mind insuring it thanks is it just the community outreach strategy document yeah yeah I think you all all have it and I think yeah oh look I think if anything the big thing the key dates is not a big deal but I wanted to talk about where the main talking points um if everybody was on the same board so this is really mainly a consolidation of everybody's thoughts of a lot of stuff from the previous planning documents that we've had uh and just other kind of success stories Paul spoke with Sarah Raposa in Mansfield where they had kind of a similar situation um I think Paul please chime in a big part of it was convincing folks that this is a very small part of town um and again revisiting what we want to really think is the goal whether the goal is just to have one community meeting potenti poti Al or maybe other engagement opportunities we're still new to figuring out how Community engagement works with things like MBTA communities so open to your feedback or other good density examples in town if you guys if you guys wanted me to talk through it in the same way Taylor did I'm happy to do so um but if there were any preliminary thoughts the big part sorry that my cat is meowing in the back um but if there are any if there are any the the big kind of talk things that I wanted to talk through were the the the section where it said main talking points and I think a big part of the decision that comes from that is a lot of what you guys talked about today of what the district will look like the other good example is the stuff in free town which is why I wanted to share my screen um I think that was a big result of how the district shaped up at the end of the day but again um I I revert back to y'all if y'all had a chance to to look through the document I sent today if not I'm happy to talk through it I would say in the main talking where it's from my perspective I have no objection to this first one I would like to have a secondary point in this section talking about the stick that the state is waving in everybody's face to basically say the state is requiring us to do this well are they really requiring it yes the state the state has said that communities that do not comply by December 31st 2024 will lose X okay so that was a another key part and I think Paul talked to that that he'll help us kind of quantify what it is the grants or what it is kind of the money that you guys would be losing um as a result of not complying with 3A that would just be that would be my request to add to the the main talking points there is that you may not like this it's a requirement and there's a big stick and here's how big the stick is with a big dollar sign in front of it the other like I think we were also like kind of keeping an eye on the town boat that recently happened too so I don't know if any of that kind of applies to it you don't think so I mean it does but I don't don't think it changes my opinion of how people in town would look at this I think it's um it's very people don't like change this is a change that a sub that a segment of town will not like so to say this is this is why we're doing it yeah you have had many this is your opportunity to weigh in and suggest your brilliant ideas if you can't come up with anything then please vote Yes yeah so uh again I I hit the main talking points here with the and I think that was a good one the other part I think where if there were any other density examples these again this is a big consolidation of all the ideas that have already occurred um and then at the end here we have kind of who are Target from my background in political organizing we really like to split people in voter universes so if there were any folks that kind of in your head identified in these kinds of subgroup so local Champions I think the last time we spoke we spoke about people from the EDC uh former select board members people on the zba potentially interested parties or untapped groups this is kind of a better way and then it again Tim I know you mentioned maybe the best way to do it is just to have one public meeting and call it a day um but if you think that there are any other better ways or any folks on this call think that there are any better ways to reach out to folks and open um to think that if we need to do tabling or if we need to kind of like do a conceited digital campaign and a conceited like kind of uh educational campaign again I think we we could use um the Norton Media Center to do a short five minute video okay and that way they can blast it out and then we can put it out on social media it's one tool I think that would be good I think and I probably need to start doing office hours or I'm happy to join you Paul yeah okay yeah but if we W to be able go ahead Paul just proactively get out there plus we've got a few other initiatives um it wouldn't hurt to try to do them if we had to at the same time I you know certain things you know certain things will be focused entirely on this but um yeah we're looking at we're looking at October right Paul mid October we're looking at October 21st town meeting three months yes and we want and we want any language we want to be in final final draft I will say at least a month ahead of time yeah I'm going to show I'm going to show you the exact date we have to have it yeah so I'm thinking we pick one date and I'm going to say early late August early September I know that's a terrible time to do it we notice the heck out of it and we do that and we have an videos in advance and we say this is your chance to weigh in if you can't make it this meeting please send your comments in writing here we are happy to review them all okay because I don't think we have time for let's do a tabletop session yeah and then let's do a meeting and then we need to we have a month to plan for whatever Al maybe six weeks to plan for whatever session we're g to have period yeah so I think it needs to be big and loud and once yeah and can tell you from personal experience no matter how many different ways you advertise it and get it out there one it's going to be poorly attended yeah two people are going to complain they didn't know about it no matter how much at the end of yeah yeah at the end of the day this is going to be fought in the battlefield of social media no but what I want what I wanted I want the people I want the Bob Kimbell Steve hornsby's and Kevin snyers to all say I knew about this I looked at it and I don't want any of them to get up and say I don't like this I don't feel that this was an inclusive process or I didn't think that they listened or I didn't they not an inclusive process but they still don't have to like it they can say I knew about it talked about it I understand what the what the what the board is proposing here I understand why they did it yeah yeah I think but they could also say I don't think I don't like what the board decided we shouldn't vote in favor of it thousand mailers and I will say Bob you were at the meeting you had every opportunity to propose a different idea we're here yeah you didn't yeah yeah so I think it's our job to make the decision that doesn't put the town's funding sources in Jeopardy yeah if you want to sit there and be the peanut gallery feel free sit down so I think I won't actually say that but that's the like I think the results of this meeting specifically too is the conversation you guys had prior to me speaking is deciding on the District boundary and again providing that information and as soon as possible like I'll get to work probably in the next week to try and develop this messaging so we can put it out in the community to say you've had I don't know at this point three months to weigh in and you haven't said anything that's kind of my thought process I think if anything in this memo too that I wrote it Taylor can yeah can scroll down to that last point is planning that like informational meeting that folks um can kind of say so if you want to think about that in September I think that's a good amount of time if the vote is towards the end of October to kind of have that I want the listing session incorporate anything and I want everything final I want the language that we print in the warrant to be the exact language that we're proposing which means it's to be done by whatever date Paul's gonna put up on screen yeah that's what I was I think this is we might have to think about what Paul is gonna talk I'll stop sharing here Paul if you wanna okay um oops sorry I didn't mean to put you on the spot there with like a sudden uh nope I am ready so I have to start by saying I hate town meeting um I hate it it's so aric um and and part of this is because of how long you have to go back to actually completing your document town meeting is not set up to help zoning changes or planning it's just it it it constricts our time frame so much so anyway oh got that off my chest um but be that as it may we are going to hit the timelines August 27th is when the placeholder language is due so it doesn't mean it has to be final language but what that does mean for the planning board is I'm going to need you guys at one of your August meetings to be voting to transmit this to the warrant and again this is an opportunity for the board you know the board members who haven't been here to be able to have their conversation as I think your timing on the meetings makes sense perfectly okay I I just presented at the first one we can emphasize I would emphasize when we send out the whenever we have what we want to share we emphasize it in advance and I would say give it special attention I would even a separate email outside of the agenda email to say this is going to be on our next agenda please review in advance yep so that people don't look at it the day of to go what am I talking about tonight okay and then go oh this is hard and keep in mind we're not this is not the the public hearing where we notice it that's going to be in September when you all make your recommendation on it okay but these this you know the series you know maybe it's one night maybe it's two but this is where the board gets to full Board gets a chance to look at everything my goal is this is where between the working group here and then the board meeting this is where you put your work in and then hopefully when it comes back for you to review the version that's going to the warrant the conversations are really focused you know you know we can't be having amendments after a certain date because we don't want to be not doing it yeah I you know can I make a suggestion yeah okay so I just went and looked at the last five years in the last five years three of the five fall Town meetings had a special warrant I think you just go to units you get a special they will call that much later and it buys us significantly more time and the 3A bylaw just goes on the special warrant it's possible I mean I can ask him about it but at this point this is what we have so it's not a bad idea Laura I don't know I Mike has other things he wants to put on a special either so if there's already gonna be a special talking to Mike about it let me make that note it could buy you like six weeks I um I actually asked recently folks in the Commonwealth if if towns have had success with that strategy and and they they felt that it it is a good one to use if it's appropriate for a town like Norton well la saying even if you do a special at the same night it's on the same the filing deadlines are different yeah so they'll call the special town meeting warrant or they'll call for a special town meeting like a month from now and then all of these dates move up but it all happens on the same night we just have two warrants so there's always a special and a annual in the spring and then in the fall there's usually a fall and then sometimes there's a special if there are things that they know they need to buy more time for yeah I'll I'll I'll talk to Mike hopefully tomorrow Laur and see um just but based on their schedule for the annual September 13th is a big day because that's when they forward the warrant to fin the moderator and the Town Clerk and basically this is has to be doesn't have to be 100% but at this point minor changes but then was pretty close yeah yeah um so October October 1st is when the final warrant yeah Steve just emailed me of something I'll get to it in a second but I think he said he lost power real quick yeah yeah but October 1st was the final draft for publication so that is the that's it October 1 so so but one thing we've got to figure out because then select board this is where it gets a little crazy so the warrant goes it's forwarded on September 13th on September oh I better change this September 12th the select board recommends the article to the planning board September 13th we forward the warrant to fincom and then right now you tentatively have scheduled uh September 10th and the 24th for your public hearings since uh September so we we could do it you could meet and have your first public hearing before the board of Select board forwards it to you or we could you know add another meeting on you know on the 17th but can't they just send it to us earlier um Michelle told me that that they are scheduled I think it's going to be the 12th aren't they gonna be I think they're there's going to be uh I think they're going to have a vacation period so there's nothing prior to that uh no they've got something coming up this week or next and then I think they're off for a little bit but I can I'll make a note to confirm I I'll make a note to confirm with Michelle unless there's a procedural reason that we can't talk about it before they forward it to us I have no objection to that I I don't she seemed to think we could she seemed to think that we could do it on the 10th perfect especially since you guys are the ones of course we we don't want to rule out the fact to for the board that there could be you know some resoning request that comes in that you'll have to review too so we'll want to put all of those on the same meetings sure that's fine I the more people the better um so anyway so these are their you know the the key dates I mean you know really the 13th is our is a biggie so if we're able to meet before then um yeah the placeholder language not it it's critical for us to submit it and to be able to say that this is the NBTA zoning give them what we have at that point but then yeah uh the 13th is a couple weeks later is when we have to really have it done yeah so we'll be that first September meeting on the 12th or the 10th which ever date that was 10th that's the that's the biggie well that's when you're making your recommendation to town meeting yeah that's it's got to be done before then okay yeah so it's really the August meetings where you really get this thing 95% done yeah so and then we we have the opportunity in between between then and and the the 13th to you know have the public meeting make whatever changes you know because you're still going to be within that box of this is the NBTA stuff so yeah that's what I mean it back October it's not really October hey guys sorry I got kicked off for a minute we had a power outage done his that's no fun yeah Pete got kicked off too he messaged yeah Steve I was just going over the time frames I'm not sure when you came back on but I can um I'll share this with everybody once I I want to just finalize something but it it's Steve the main point here is we really have to have things the the you know the the mapping location and the language done by September 13th or before then that's when it goes the warrant goes to the to the moderator fincom and town clerk yeah a big and loud in August okay yeah yeah August is going to be your it's going to be planning board time when the select boards away the planning board will play you know what I think based on this I mean you know Village Center core was was very similar to it and we got it through you know gonna get it done this is this already has bad PR going for it it it does it does we're fighting yeah we're fighting we're fighting uphill but it's you know I think we can show some reasonable aspects to this yeah but I know I saw a month ago somebody complaining about it we had haven't even talked about it publicly yet on on Norton neighbors so and I don't even look at Norton neighbors much so if I see it that means there's more out there well I look at it this way there's probably a lot of misinformation going on and we can show them this is what we're proposing it's this limited confined area you know oh we have done everything to yeah yes but I I don't mind if people have a if if people have a misperception and that's what terrorizes them and we tell them no this is what it is it hopefully will calm them I mean I realized at town meeting like Laura said a lot of people are going to show up don't know the facts and they'll vote on it and you know that's the challenge of town meeting but um we have to you know I'm confident we will put out a good product here I I don't disagree I have just given up prevailing to Common Sense in all scenarios planning board and work related and otherwise ah all right I said 10% left on my earbud so if we need to schedule meetings can we do that now I'm sorry Laura could you repeat that I couldn't hear you she wants to schedule any meetings that we need to my batteries are dying on my ear buds then I I can't charge them while they're in my ears you want to schedule meetings oh let me stop sharing on our end uh we have a hold based on that schedule for the planning board meeting on the 6th um I guess it's up to you folks if you would like to meet between now and then and then you know I understand that this is subject to change in the event that we find out can you know go on the the special town meeting warrant but given the timeline now um if we wanted to do a meeting before then before the 6th two weeks out could bring us to the 31st um but I kind of defer to you folks on how you would like to handle this I'm okay with the 31st to meet again I'm okay with it 31st of July is that yeah we've got planning on the 30th and we've got a bylaw meeting on August 1st so that would be a three for that week yeah would you prefer us just meet at the planning board meeting on the 6 or do you feel yeah if that is the first intro to it that's not a bad idea that way that way the experts are introducing it to the planning board not that's Layman and what we could do before then too is if you folks I mean we you know we'll ensure Paul takes a look at it and um you know however to distribute it to whether it's you folks or who remember prior to the six that can happen um but I like if that works okay yeah let's so let's just plan for unless Paul you know that that meeting is gonna be a a blood bath with other things I I don't think so then let's do it and I I don't think we have a choice well no you would know if there was a lot of stuff coming so I say let's do that no no um every new thing we have is g to be on everything we have new items that we have will be on next week next week or two weeks whatever it is the 30th two weeks yeah not next week two weeks um but no new no new applications have come in we've got a couple you know floating out there but they haven't come in yet but obviously we've got to get this done so yeah if we do this as one of the first as the first meeting let's do it we'll get this on the agenda and that's that's a great idea that way we can we so Taylor we'll have the draft of the maps and the and the length which I think that was our goal Rob and I know on our end um the three of us myself Rob and you Paul have a meeting next Friday to check in um I know we had wanted at least a draft set of language by then that you can review so that hopefully we can bring like a final is draft version um by by the sixth Rob does that timeline still work for you and make sense yeah okay um I just want to confirm for our internal scheduling those are usually 6 pm at the Norton Media Center correct is it 6 um4 tell okay a location not sure it is at the media center H it is at 6:45 gotcha okay and since there won't be a big sporting event we should have parking okay August 6th 6:45 Norton me yeah I well yeah and we do it hybrid as well so so if if by chance any of you had to the Olympics will still be going on by the way so there will be sporting events oh you're right is it at that time okay I think we'll be okay I don't think people cram the bars to watch swimming but yeah and it probably was video recorded it was probably taking place five hours before it actually we've see it but yeah okay so we have there's no we have a there's no dream team in basket is there yeah yep excellent we it's all good um any but then we just have to we have just have to figure out the date of the you know not the not the planning board hearing but a a listening session M yeah yeah so serpent staff have any questions before we finalize not right now thank you though for everybody's can I have a motion from planning board members motion to adjourn second all in favor yes I okay thanks everyone thank you folks thank you guys have a nice night everyone good night have a good one yeah guys take care of a great rest of the week take