But we need another meeting in there on the 20th. Yeah, I think that's Yeah, March Friday, March 20th. On March 20th. Um, that's February. So, what time you think? 8:30. 8 or 8:30. Okay. Is this room open at 8:30 on that? 8:30. We'll make sure it is. What time? 8:30. 8:30. Okay. on the 20th, right? Yep. Okay. Cassie, will you help uh help Sheila with call in number or whatever? All that stuff. Um I hate to do this. Okay, never mind. I need a motion to adjourn this meeting. I make a motion we adjourn the meeting. I'll second the motion. All those in favor? I Melinda Sabraski. I Fred Rushton. I Charlene Diaz. I barziki. I Sheila Bernett. There you go.
One of which is in construction and the other one is >> getting funding still moving forward. They just modified recently so that still >> Yeah. So it's like it's like they don't mention approved >> but not 40B projects and are those on their radar as well? Not everything's the 40B. >> So that was my question there. I don't think that one really that's one of the ones I don't >> think got answered to me. >> Yeah, that's not >> um >> Is that the first scenario though? Is that the fouse? >> Yeah. I don't um >> Well, there was really slow. I mean, that's the whole thing. Yeah, that might be the majority of it though because they're like what 600 units at Sirrus. >> They do like a median of it. So they'll add them up for that 10y year period or 11 year time frame and then they'll get you the median.
So you might have had one year where you hadund 20 units come in and the next year you had seven units. So they just give you an average. So my next thing was actually just the top of the next page and people Yeah. So and I think I like to take credit for this. I think they because my my my comment was I said this is a strange way to describe this and to introduce this section. It sounds bad that Ashland is becoming quote less well less wealthy but then encourages the development of lowcost housing which would seem to make Ashland even less wealthy. Is that what you mean to say? Right. Is that what you're is that you're trying to say? And I think the answer was no. That's not what we're trying to say. And so it seems like they later on in the text I was actually I think maybe on the next page I was like oh here's what you were trying to say which is something more like would being less affluent mean not economic decline but that Ashland would have a good balance of housing options including for worker class and the elderly that we need for a thriving community.
Right? It's like if you're too affluent, no one can afford to live here. The the you know the the emergency workers and the teachers and the the people we need here, restaurant workers, right? We need them here. And so the community is actually less vibrant even though it's more wealthy quote in quotes, right? So, I think that they um and I think they talked about that on the next page, but they needed it in the intro. Yeah. So, where all that red is, that's where I was kind of like, oh, here's where you explained it. And so, they moved it up. >> So, >> um >> I do like the the use of the language deep deep affordability. I think that's good. >> Yeah. >> In this document, >> this one they didn't correct on page or or change uh it's um this one uh standard 40B.
Yeah. So, they talk about um um the AMI low limit 80% for a oneperson threshold is $92,650. This means that approximately 70% of householders aged 65 and older living alone earn below 80% of the AMI. And my question was, I mean, and maybe I'm just way off base, but 7% didn't seem too bad to me, did it? Like only I would almost be like they don't see they don't comment on here whether that's bad or good. I mean, obviously we want >> obviously we want everyone to be above average, but >> but the rest of >> Well, like above Yeah. So, um, so anyway, that I didn't really get an answer. >> Well, I think the bad part here, this is like a thing that doesn't give you the truth, which is a lot of those people have left, >> right? So, so these are the folks who might have community support that makes it viable for them to remain.
So, it seems like, oh, there's not that many people who are in this group, but this is the group that essentially is on their way out. >> And that's why I'm wondering if maybe it needs an explanation because I read 7%. I'm like, >> no big deal. >> Wow, I thought it'd be like 50% or something, you know, not seven. >> That seems really >> good and fixable or anyway. >> Yeah, I think a lot of this data can be confusing because it >> what does it mean, right? >> This is also based on an old consensus. Yes. Census data. >> I mean, it could be um >> was it 2023? >> I mean, it's very very clear from if you look at the price point of average rents that people in that category cannot be here. literally they can't exist in national. >> So, but you have to almost like use your by the time you get to that paragraph, you have to like remember what does this actually mean?
This means that there's no people here anymore in that category. That's what it actually means. It's not a data point of like great only so many so few people are in this category. It's the exact opposite. >> Yeah, I think I just a few sentences in here. It just was unclear the way it was originally written. So, I just asked if they could restate it. So, I wasn't really getting the meaning or it took me a while to figure it out. >> Okay. Um, I'm at page 49. It looks like this. >> Oh. They're really good. They really They really looked at this stuff thoroughly because now maybe you guys know, but I had to Google wholesale trade like a sector wholesale trade. I'm like, "What's wholesale trade?" Right? So, I had to Google what it was and so I asked for a definition and they put in definition.
So, very responsive. I'm impressed. Are are are these their best comparisons >> because they're picking they're picking six figure s like a wholesale trade. You're right. What is a where do we have wholesale trade in Ashland construction? I can see that professional, scientific, technical services. I don't see anything about fire, police, school teachers, DPW, you know that those types of industry sectors by salary. So everything below that they absolutely cannot live in Ash based on salads. >> Yeah, that might be kind of what they're um >> Yeah, I mean it goes on to explain things on other pages, but I think yeah, that's what they were kind of >> pulling out is like what what pays the most for people who live in Ashland. >> It doesn't mean that these people are here. >> Yeah, exactly. >> It doesn't mean that these are the dominant industries.
just means that if you want to make good money in Ashlin, you better be doing one of these three things. >> Yeah. So, if if you go into >> it says it's based on the 2024 mass um DOE report that these are the top three >> but sectors by salary. So, these are the three these are the sectors by highest salary in Ashlin. >> But it doesn't mean that this is the dominant three three by number of people. >> Yes. Scroll up to the next chart. Scroll up to the next chart. Right there. See that? Now they're looking at um salary by sector in Ashlin. And now it really shows that variety that Paul was, you know, talking about like what you know what people get paid in in Ashlin for various um sectors. It's not saying quantity of people. It's just saying you know what if you're in this sector, >> you happen to be in this sector.
>> Right. Right. So if you happen to be in those three sectors, you're going to make the most money, but it doesn't mean that you're most people are. We don't know how this breaks down. I didn't even know we have wholesale stuff in action. >> I didn't even know wholesale was. >> I'm guessing it's like one person. >> It's just the person who who answered the survey. >> You know what I mean? If 12 people answered the survey, then that's what the information is. And you're assuming this data is accurate because a lot of people in surveys embellished the numbers >> Amazon or something. >> Yeah. >> Well, there was one that had like whole um had um warehouse work in there >> and it it looked about the right number. >> Yeah. I think my only comment in here, I did have a comment in here, but it was about >> in their um in their language through the document.
Sometimes they talk about the 40Bs as as present and sometimes it's future. And I know we're kind of right on that cusp, >> but I asked them to be kind of consistent in how they talk about it like in their language because it got a little confusing. Um, more questions about the tents of things. >> Did I see correctly 7,400 almost 7,500 households? >> That sounds about right. >> So the 7% would be roughly let's say 500 houses. 7%. >> 7% of what? Well, what Patricia was talking about a 7% factor on one of those pages. >> Oh, yeah. Talking about >> 65. >> Yeah. About people over 65. >> Yeah. So, it's not No, it was saying of the people that are over 65 that >> 7% of them were below the 80%. So, it have nothing to do with the total number of houses.
>> I'm really impressed. >> They really they really looked at comments carefully. Let's see what this is. Uh okay. So under findings or under number two, what internal regulatory factors impact development potential? It's number two. this what internal regulatory factors >> I don't know if it's above or below >> okay yes so I think it was right >> yeah I don't either can you go back up and let me see if you have some Um, it wasn't necessarily a change. I had a comment here regarding that first paragraph under findings. Um, talking about nearly half of the community's land zoned exclusively for residential, 32 for multifamily, 16% that permits them as of right. Um, so my comment was this might this may be part of the reason for Ashlin's quote small town feel that residents like and likely makes Ashland in high demand. What percent of zoning for single family is typical in other communities?
How does maintaining the small town feel balance with changing the zoning? Um, so again, it was those were just questions. It wasn't necessarily this is wrong and I don't know if that question was addressed elsewhere. >> I mean the good news is that question was was definitely addressed at the comprehensive plan drafting and this is the same team that drafted this document. I mean I I kind of look at this document with some it's a formality really for the state. Not that it's not a great serious document but there's a lot of sort of stuff in here that's already in the comprehensive plan. >> Yeah. >> Which is like yes we need more housing. Duh. This is why we have this plan. But the plan itself, which is sort of consider reszoning, consider streamlining permitting, consider different areas where there's develop, like none of this is rocket science to me.
I I think it's pretty standard stuff. >> Did you find this one? I think this is just a >> So, I wouldn't overthink it. I feel like we need to vote it, approve it. >> Oh, they took out that whole thing. Okay. >> Okay. I had a comment in there, but but they took it out, so maybe they put it somewhere else. I don't know. See 60. Okay. Interesting. Yeah. So my question here because they were talking about the highest and best used of land. Um and I had my question was Who who's saying it's the highest and best use of land or you know maybe if someone thinks their garden is the best use of land then it is for them right so they put in that the consultant team has determined you know like what things are in their experience I guess which things are underutilized and which aren't so fair enough right um 62.
Yeah, they keep taking out that that one. The statements about the photo photoic. >> Yeah, it must have been it. It just it just they didn't just have that understanding correct. So, they keep taking it out, which is great because I keep calling it um see lots of maps. this. Okay, let's see if they changed anything on this or they're talking about parking. >> Well, they uh looks like other people had comments on parking, too. I'm at the end of the thing where it says >> actually the next even the next yeah where it says for example I'd have to read I haven't read through the corrections yet. My my point was that >> my point was that I think people want the parking requirement high to reduce on street parking and control the size of proposed housing developments. Can you better frame the argument for less parking?
How does allowed density relate to open space in dense areas? How do you maintain the small town feel? How do you pair development with open space? So, I haven't read through that and I don't know if other people commented about parking. I mean, this raises some interesting questions that are not addressed, which is like, okay, now we're an MBTA community. Whole concept is you're supposed to benefit from that. In theory, maybe we don't need so much parking. required in that radius. Maybe maybe that allows for more density with open space in partnership because in theory you don't need to get, you know, you don't need to put down that much parking. You can have more, you build taller, denser, but leave the open space. you don't need as much parking. Maybe there's balance there, right? In theory, I think that's what the state has in mind.
The state is imagining that right next to every MBTA, there's gonna be a bunch of tall buildings. People just kind of live and walk. Creates economic growth and affordable housing. And in theory, you don't really need to park anymore because you're right there next to the train. >> Yeah. I think that that I think they're putting more it looks like they're putting more explanation into it, you know, about so that people can understand the give and take between parking >> parking versus housing. >> Yeah. And parking versus open space and density versus open space, you know, type of things. Those those kind of pluses and minuses. >> You scroll down a little bit on historic. Mike, >> they just recommend we redevelop the opportunity for growth. >> I was looking for where if they um >> lumber house and town. >> Yeah. So here they they talked with the community demonstrated an interest in preserving historic resources.
So that was kind of my comment there because they didn't seem to mention anything about the historic district that at least had a proposal in front of you know that there is a an interest there. page 74. Oh, that was a little That's Oh, yeah. So, let's see if they took out this thing. Let's see where it said to address this issue. Oh yeah, go down a little bit. Stop right there. To address this issue in 2025, the town approved. Okay, that's the >> Yeah, >> that's I'm like what? Because it said the town is debating a zoning amendment. I'm like I I don't think we are actually because that should be in front of planning board. I have to say I did not fully grasp a quarter of our town flooding building parking lots. Okay. And then the next thing is right after the picture of the Mind School is that Yeah.
Yeah. Uh, so this is where I was asking, you know, because they said again, Ashlin's water and sewer systems has sufficient capacity. And, you know, my thing was like, we're underwater use restrictions every summer and people are commenting on this. So, explain this to me. Explain this to everyone reading this how those two things can go together, right? But it might be the same. I think they're using the same data that they did before on some of it. >> But this now reads a lot clearer. >> This is This is better. I think this is better because it gives you context, but could be wrong. >> Yeah, this is this at least gives some context of what's coming, right? Because we had no idea before when it >> after these projects, >> right? But it it said only the 80,000 or the 10,000 gallons per day.
But we had no idea like what was that good or is that bad? Like how many could that handle? So now it's giving the other ones. >> Well, the way I take this is if you the developments we have out there right now, the major projects that add 1300 bedrooms, once those are done, our capacity is going to be down. Oh, so after those projects, we're still going to have 80,000 gallons. >> We're gonna have 80,000 gallons per day or 10,000 per mass assumptions. This is the part I don't like I don't fully grasp what that means. Like what does it mean that you're going to have 80,000 under this guidance or 10? Like >> isn't the water there? It's either there or not. Why does the standard change? >> Madam Chair, I don't know if comments would like to Uh, great. >> Sure. You can you can jump in with a comment.