Planning Board: September 26th, 2024

001e e e good evening everyone and welcome to the Ashlin planning board meeting of Thursday September 26 I will call the meeting to order at 7:23 um first on our agenda is the clerk's report Kate thank you madam chair we had one email communication to the planning board since the last meeting and that was responded to by the town planner all right great just to report that issue was taken care of all right great thank you um second thing on the agenda is public comment there's no one online Mark do you have public comment good evening Mark Sony 119 Main Street Ash M I got I got an email notice about the town meeting I'm this wonder if there's anything on the agenda that's going to be in the book for Tom itself I think

002we plan to have MBTA zoning bylaw at the town meeting Mark okay and I asked before you guys before you guys came [Music] on the zoning is all complete and all set up for that MBTA be in front of the town meeting we are working our tail off to make sure that it's uh it's complete and it it will be in front of town meeting okay that's it thank you thank you all right so next on our agenda are the two um modification letters um I think everyone should have received them these are the two modification level two modification LEL letters memos whatever you want to call them can I speak to yeah for H Chestnut Street so I will let um Peter just review that so just as part of the packet um there

003was uh there's two modification letters one was for the irrigation which was condition number 22 Kate uh Jers uh planning board member Kate jeric did submit some comments um it is in your packet I printed it out it's kind of with the track changes on it um it should be in there yep right there um so that is in here um the original is in here too just for comparison I'm happy to bring both up on screen and then there were no changes submitted for the uh modification approval I do want to make a note uh Kate did make a note that the who made the motion and who seconded the motion those were corrected in both cases Anna made the Motions in one instance I believe celo mov the motion in for the facade

004actually for the irrigation and then Trisha moved the motion for the facade yeah but I withdrew my motion and then it an his motion yes correct you did you did withdraw your motion yep yep no I just double checked that today all right and I just want to make sure so uh both should both should read correctly on the voting uh the the only change was with the uh special condition 22 on the irrigation uh from K Jers so um so sorry if we just take the the first one first the first one is for the elevation changes um elevation modifications um so the voting on that one has already been corrected correct that one's already corrected yep um did anyone have any modifications to that deep you did you I was abent on that

005so I'm not sure oh okay um my name is on all these letters so I'm not sure you edit them your name you're you're there as a but you AB right y you were just absent I just put the a so a was absent and you a is absent and abstain is spelled out to make to be clear just to be clear that's and but the sheet next to that just has a formatted that's just a signature block so obviously you would not sign okay okay and we had already voted on it so we were just yeah we were just seeing that if this represented what we what we said because our votes already there we voted on it before so any changes that would be ready to sign that one okay and then the

006second one um so the second one is about irrigation it's Crossing out the town water and so Kate your change let's see is just the one in red at the bottom of the the second kind of print yes do you want me to read that record next one I'm sorry oh this one so the so as sent out to the planning board it read it read uh excuse excuse me the last sentence of the page the planning board found the applicant the applicant made a full faith effort to install a well on the site but was unable to capture significant water supply for irrigation purposes in vegetation survival uh with a comment from Kate the um the sentence will now read the following the pl Bo understood the information the applicant presented concerning the efforts

007to install a well on the site that was unable to capture significant water supply for irrigation purposes in vegetation surviv is the is um the planning board understood the information the applicant presented concerning okay let me start again the planning board understood the information the applicant presented concerning the efforts to install a well on the site is that that needed was the planning board understood I think the word understood is what throws me off a little bit isn't it should it be a that the under the planning board understood that that the information I I think comment is to say like we understood the the information that they gave us but I think we understood that the information confirmed that they were not able to get enough water isn't that kind of missing another word

008to complete it um let me just when I sent this in why so on the 100 Chestnut irrigation while attached the markup I I did not think that it was the basis of vote that we quote found the applicant made full faith effort we did not actually receive any documentation nor made any efforts to have an expert third party review analysis of that situation documentation for clarity I'm not saying the applicant wasn't believable it's just that for that kind of finding such a draft is written I would want some verification so right that's the like it's I I don't think it meets the bar for me to say we found so are we still questioning this I think that I think the wording just isn't quite right like it's hard to understand I I would

009what about something like um oh I might have just lost it hold on yeah I think so it sounds like oh you okay um what about um from the applicant's presentation the planning board understood efforts to install a well on the site was was unable to capture sufficient water supply for irrigation purposes and vegetation is that were made efforts were made okay so it would be um from the applicant's present ation is that what I said from the what from the applicant's presentation the planning board understood that what efforts efforts to okay yeah but it was unable to capture there we go how about that so um from the applicant's presentation the planning board understood that efforts were made to install a well on the site but it was unable to capture sufficient water supply

010for irrigation purposes and vegetation survival does that does that fit with your what Your is that yeah I might just repeat well in that second one like instead of it okay but it's not super necessary but maybe clear do you want me to do it again Peter so I have that from the applicant's presentation yep the planning board excuse me the planning board understood that the efforts to install a well on the site but it was efforts were made oh efforts were made yeah that efforts were made to install o well on the site but but the well but the well okay was unable to capture blah blah blah is the applicants an apostrophe yes yes from the applicant's presentation comma thank you the planning board understood that efforts were made to install a well

011on the site but the well was unable to capture sufficient water supply for irrigation purposes and vegetation survival good all right okay um and the voting there is good with everybody um my only comment on it is that it has approved it's my fault oh that's a good good catch Y is is the other one um you know what I caught that on the printed one okay we're all set so and do you do um okay that one was for zero because there's only four of us there and we all voted yes the other one should be the was four of us three Z I corrected it after it was put in here oh so so on your thing I'm on mine yeah so I'm sorry I printed I didn't want to go back and

012print more but are both of them 301 on this so did you catch both of them oh I got to put three1 do we need the one one's four Kain no so I meant both the top and the bottom yeah so the first one is just the first one's just 4 zero and then the second one is three zero one for yes no abstain okay sorry to make you print again no it's okay no the second one oh I'm so confused okay so on the elevations one we'll use that way on the elevations one the vote would be three one no three one 301 someone else do this got I got it I got it all taken care of and then the irrigation one is 4 okay okay I believe you guys okay so those

013um how many copies are there of each of those it's just three one will go the clerk one will go the applicant and I'll keep one in the planning board off so you'll lay those out afterwards yep okay okay so um so next on our agenda Because unless anyone has any comments and that we'll be moving on the next on our agenda is the a review of the actual bylaw um that reflects what we've been talking about um there are two copies of it in here you might want to take them out and put them side by side because the one with the green the one with the green on the front is the current copy so this went out and I apologized because I hadn't really had a chance to really go through it

014um and when I went through it I thought there was some things in there that we that we just didn't need right yeah the green is a little hard to read um through that but what the green is saying and making clear and there's two areas of green if you turn the page what the green is making clear is that um is that uh when um that anything not described in here reverts to the underlying zoning which is what we always intended but um but in some cases like uh 10 to 60 Main Street there's there's two underlying zonings right there's industrial and add so it's trying to clarify that the The Zone the underlying zoning we that that we intend is the ones out of section 8.1 of the ashin bylaws which are um

015overlay districts and Special Districts and so in the other one when we're laying out the subdistricts then we're really clear about that right the underlying zoning is rail Transit District the underlying Zone in Ashland downtown district not industrial right so that's what we wanted to clarify in there um I think that's the only change on the first page obviously you can see I did my little formatting so I think it's easier to read so on that the the green that the sub so why wouldn't it be both underlying I'm I'm confused about that I'm sorry why wouldn't it be like why wouldn't it be like on on Main Street that's it's commercial and then it has an overlay of add so why do we only list one of them because we want I think commercial

016what is it what is it under um Pleasant Pleasant Street it's industrial yeah so base zoning is going to be industrial for everything really within add right so for Pleasant Street and 10 to 60 M base zoning is industrial then the other overlay District right is ADD which is the mixed use which is the mixed use we're trying to pull what we want to promote we're trying to pull from the mixed use right and not the base zoning right because in add we have uh you know principal you know standards you know the the performance standards how the buildings look the form the form based code formed code is all in add it's not an industrial so understand I so I guess I'm confused about this because me I'm simple mind it says subd districts

017I would assume you'd List It just I thought it was just a list so it's listing some of it but not all of it and so I I'm on page three of five4 where you say there are five subdistricts y all of which are shown the subdistricts are a Memorial Drive underlying zoning rail Transit that stays y b underlying add and it's I think a which we maybe oh right should say but I don't know if that's important but then I don't understand why it doesn't say the base zoning because we don't we don't want them to refer to the Bas we're saying which one will apply yeah if if you it's just still on definition so I guess that's um because this the the page prior to that for subd distri okay um but

018okay I just don't I don't understand why it we're directing them to the underlying B to the underlying Zone that we want them to yeah so we're trying to direct down when they do when when they submit a project right if they if someone ever uses the MBTA onlyon bylaw yeah and they submit a project right we saying you from a performance standpoint right from a architectural standpoint how you design your project we want you to mimic the overlay District right which would be for 10 10 to 60 main Andor Pleasant Street would be add so we're pushing people to add and using those standards rather than saying go to the industrial zoning District where really do not have any zoning standards besides setback and height right this is the end of the message the

019beginning of the message is on applicability where we say what is the intent the green part right and then this basically follows yeah it just follows that so the yes so the green part in the front when it points you to section8 though that's where all those overlay districts and special districts are in the bylaw they're all under Section 8 so once you read this first you you have the rules of the game and this is just describing yeah and I guess it's just because it's an overlay and underlaying and that's confusing and I understand why it's written that way I don't know if there's better underlying then you have two overlay no I understand but you're referring to an overlay as an underlying and I think that does get a little confusing but yeah

020underlying zoning overlay District yeah it's like you don't I know other words we can use open for suggestions but that's a term of Art in the in the document right an over dist that's how it's described in the bylaw yeah I mean it use it's used here and and most of this verbage which Peter put together is from a um it's from a sample byw it's from a sample bylaw given by the state and if you go look at like Westboro and Northboro it's like everyone's kind of using this sample language I mean I think it's the way that it's laid out is clear that it's saying the underline especially to Marcel's Point like if you're following from the green we're directly saying the underlying zoning that would apply in sub District a is rail

021Transit districts like so I think it flows in that way I think the question about whether would it be a Miss if we call that as an overlay District in our bylaws are called overlay indor Special Districts you know it's section eight of the bylaws they actually points out as they're actually Special Districts yeah like the um like wild wood is a special district it doesn't overlay anything it that's the that is the underlying zoning in Wildwood and I think rail Transit as well correct the other ones pwn Street um pwn Street downtown it's just pwn stre downtown the two sites those are overlay districts and we're pulling it right from the bylaw So reading the bylaw Section 8 titled overlay and specials excuse me overlay and special District regulations so that's what she's asking

022so can that Main Street be overlay District instead of underlying in page two or page four whatever that number is I think the reason you want to say underlying zoning is because we're and when you see the green part here we're saying the underlyings what we want you to use of the two options yeah and it won't be in green obviously but yeah that's a title that's used underlying zoning and so it's trying to say connect the which underlying Zion do we want you to use like this is obviously going to be a bylaw that is like meshing into existing bylaws and that's something I see a lot and it's hard to like do it perfectly but I do think like the wording tracks in this instance that but that paragraph is talking about zoning

023underlying zoning this is talking about subdistricts so I'm not sure if it's going to be the underlying zoning in the subd district true yes so those are two different things right the if I'm understanding the confusion like subdistricts is what MBTA zoning calls this like you can have a district or you can have subdistricts right so that's the proper terminology for these five Parcels we've pulled out each of those five Parcels have an underlying zoning some of it for two of them it's the same underlying zoning though they are a different District right like we have we have Pleasant Street and we have um Main Street right so we have Pleasant Street and 10 to 60 main those are two different districts um but they have the same underlying zoning so all this is doing

024is saying like per the my for my understanding and my read of it is and I think it's well done is saying if you are using NBTA zoning here are our five districts under the MBTA zoning provision and here is the zoning the underlying zoning in each of those subdistricts that we want you to comply with if you're using the MBTA zoning law and I think that that Stacks clearly and I think the thing about the districts is that I was going to say I mean um the two downtown ones are the same I think in every other aspect they're add but but I think because they're separated you have to call them a different District right like because different Parcels right they're not contiguous so this one has to be five this district has

025to be five acres and this one has to be five acres you can't say oh together they're five acres right they're that's why they're different districts so um I I think I have that correct right no you are 100 Sor Excuse me yes you're 100% correct because they're different districts are not contiguous you have to you're separating them up and so that's what we're doing from a from a zoning standpoint they are 100% similar in the terms of underlying relationship to add and where they're kind of go from that so do we have on the map because I'm reading the definition right above of subdistrict an area within the mcod so do we have to call the whole like everywhere that hits these sub areas and then the sub areas yeah I mean the whole

026the overlay district is all of them together it's like the whole bylaw no no no I'm talking about the map because it it's calling a subdistrict an area within the big District yeah I think what you're saying the answer is yes all all of them are one are are one one over District correct they're a one together yeah and different parts there are five different subdistricts within that one so not contiguous so therefore together they are one separate into five separate sub that's the map I guess makes that well that they're going to in the zoning map it will be represented accordingly with the same hatch or whatever designation 100% yeah yep and we have that map I don't was it sent I think was it sent I don't you know what I'll super easy

027to execute said no I can resend the map I think I thought was the map did you guys see the map was I did not see was it sent I mean it's not in here it's the map of related to the bylaw called see it maybe you can bring it up so it's it's similar to the maps you've been seeing but you know so just to talk about something else while we're doing that one of the things we debated a little bit about we you can you can weigh in here is the name of the zoning District you'll see in the first one it's mcmf O and I'm just like I thought that was a bit long what does that stand for MBA communities multif family overlay district and first I at first I took

028out the MF completely and it was just mcod and then I realized in the sample that in the sample that the state gave they used MCM o you know and so I just decided to go with that for ease and Clarity like this is what it is it's identifiable so do you need the F no right so I took out the F that's what I did that makes sense okay still five letters but you know little shorter and then the other thing um so while we get to the map on page two if you go through this line of definitions um there was just one of them I think I think it was building coverage that um that we wasn't used in the bylaw again these definitions are from the the um provided draft bylaws

029and so but age restricted housing we do use and that wasn't in there so we added that in um another thing we changed was um here on on the first version you got it was called a residential dwelling unit but we always just refer to it as a dwelling unit the building code refers to a dwelling unit so I just took off the residential just to call it a dwelling unit um seems pretty uh self-explanatory yeah um I have a question on the one that as of right um um so as of right development May proceed under the zoning in place at the time of application without the need for special permit variance zoning Amendment or other discretionary zoning approval so I realize that that's um actually in the state statute because I was looking

030it up my concern is I I we don't control if that's what it is but like so now if if a lot would need a variance by state law is that overriding it or is it just like a unfortunately a bad use of the term of Art and it really is a legal term right so like if and is there any way to correct that if right so if you need a variance you go to the zoning board of appeals there's there's very tight conditions by state law yeah then is not as of right at that point but by them saying it's as of right does that overwrite that that's what I'm trying to find out I think it's the use this is all about the use um so I think you have to look

031at it um I assume if we look at it in context um use is permitted as of right so the following uses are permitted as of right it's not saying anything you want to do is permitted as of right the uses are permitted as a right so there is something but that's not what it says in the definition right but you have to apply the definition to the sentence to what it's modifying where's that okay so you you shouldn't have to ask a variance for your use right because the use is as of right correct and I can say I would say that you know in in many towns the zoning board of appeals are not even allowed to issue a use variance it's Ashen you cannot apply for a use variance it's illegal when

032you when the when the town adopted chapter 4A section 10 variances towns have the option to either to to to to take with it either the ability to issue use variances Andor dimensional variances town of Ashen as many other towns do only have the right to issue a dimensional variance we do not issue I I have never issued a use variance within the 10 years of me the municipal planner so where's the part that says it's only for use I guess I didn't see that it's just under permitted uses number five where that's that's why that term is there what does ADS of right mean it means you can follow the use is as of right it doesn't say the I don't know um whatever else you might need a variance for okay okay so

033it but yeah I guessin little sketchy but whatever that definition just when you get to this point if you have a doubt you will revert to the definition but it's relative to permitted uses but why couldn't you just say uses then and be clear because I think it leaves it open but whatever I can't rewrite whatever again this is the states I know it's a sample though I mean didn't say you have to yeah I know but I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of of that um you know so I read contracts when there's when there's not clear things that doesn't usually work to the town's Advantage so it it's essentially not clear but whatever that's fine I mean I think this is the whole point of 3A is yeah it's removing any

034hurdle that the locality might put in place to allow multi mul houses so like that the by right or like as a right use is like the that is that is the central right thing so I think not not that I agree with like the everything that comes with it but I I I think you know to your to your point like not every single variance that someone might need to build I think is covered by you have you have a right if you're using the zoning to make multif family dwellings or if you're in District b or c commercial use as Allowed by the zoning but that's the part that you wouldn't need the variance for not like some other random right thing that is there that like that requires a variance like a

035setback or something like like that yeah like I I agree 100% And I I you know the term variances I think it's thrown around a little bit too easily yeah to tell you the truth um what I have heartburn about but I can't and I think they're few and far between you know I think this comes from the state obviously yes they did throw it in but Appliance section you know section 10 of 4A what a variance is I just think you kind of have to accept what the state's definition is is move forward there there are municipalities where you can apply for right oh yeah there's there there are municipalities this is an umbrella definition of the state is using correct that needs to work for every municipality that's enacting a bylaw so correct

036when you have a use as a right say use that may proceed under the zoning instead of development and then that then it's clear can you repeat that again so in the definition as a right yep if you said use that may proceed under the zoning in place at the time that's exactly what you all are communicating that is not what the definition says I'm okay with that I mean this is the states yeah I mean I didn't check to see if that exact definition is the exact one like if a word got off I didn't look at that Peter if we it's pretty I did I mean I get it I'm just saying that is a conflict or not clear I should say more have they okayed our whatever we we submitted to the

037to the AG's office no we have not heard back okay so if like we changed that could that torch them approve it in time for time meeting they don't we wouldn't even submit it I would just you know if we made if we made that change I would I would run it to to council Lisa and I would see her take her take you know obviously her take on it and she obviously work as this has always evolved you know she's been kind of with us yeah step and step you know I mean you know there are communities C that have had that torch their exactly and if something doesn't pass you know and and to tell you the truth when a AG's office you know when they do approve a bylaw or they disapprove

038a bylaw or I don't I don't want to speak for eohc but for from a from a AG's office perspective they have past obviously they have made changes to wording verbiage right and they just they make the change and so they approve it upon this new language and so if they disapprove they could just strike it and move it back to development and then you say you're approved with that and sorry I don't mean like the typical AG review I mean the review that's going on like for these in particular to make sure like the math works and stuff I don't know if they're looking at all of this like little stuff no okay perfect and that's why it's taking once once hopefully we vote for this at town meeting it's taking four to six

039months before you even find out if you're good right because they're they're checking everything so but that's review process that happens after there is a review that because they looked at our spring one and said it was good yeah like the number crunching I think the number crunching number crunch yeah they're not looking at your whole bylaws you know that's a much longer process is my understanding okay yes so I'm okay with that because I think I mean number one leas will take a gander at it and if she says oh no way you know then it goes back if it's like yeah fine then we'll send it to this you know we'll leave it as is and if the state's like nope we don't like that word we'll change it and that it is

040what it is so is everyone good with that sure okay all right so here's the um here's kind of the big one use is permitted as a right and this is highlighted in yellow and this talks about the okay uses permitted as I've right one dwelling multif family yes that's the whole point two this is about the subdistricts for mandator mandatory mixed use determination but this doesn't really work with what we're doing is what we've found out do you want to yeah so I can kind of dig a little bit deeper into it so obviously we have been we did apply you know as asked for the um for the Mixed use of areas excuse me Pawn Street and along Main Street digging deeper um I have come to find that a mixed use District

041right when it becomes mandatory mixed use the units can count towards your total but the state subtracts that land area from your total mass right and so with that said to do the numbers appropriately is that right now we have 5 six acres all together including Pleasant Street and 10 to 60 Main Street of those is 14 of the the the 56 Acres we can apply I think it's 281 units to our overall total but therefore we have to subtract those 14 acres right and I'm still waiting for C I need to I'll confirm this with the state um from our total which is 56 that puts us under the the needed 50 acres so therefore we're running into a little bit of a a situation right Gap because the commerci because the mandatory mixed

042use is not a compliant subdistrict that's the terminology that they uses is because they because of the commercial use so they're saying because you have a commercial use it's not solely 15 units per acre residential therefore you cannot count the 14 units to that total yeah so here's the um this is from section 3A the fact sheet above mandatory misuse districts is a mandatory mix mixed use District a 3A compliant District No a mandatory mixed use district is not a 3A compliant districts section 3A of the Massachusetts zoning act requires compliant districts to be to allow multif family housing as of right mixed use development does not qualify as multif family housing because of the non-residential uses so I think even in our bylaws we have multifam as a use and mixed use as a

043use but they're not the same so the and the the MBTA zoning is only multif family can we separate B and C and get there like how many acres is B is present how many AC no you can't the only way we could do it apparently is to take a little strip off kind of and and and Zone the little strip for mixed use but the thing is I think to me the effort would be for appearances only because the underlying zoning as per 9 to 49 I mean which is addc I think but you can already do mixed use in add in fact it you know encourages it and you can do it as a higher density than then than is allowed by the MBTA so you can do it anyway we don't need

044this to mandate they don't have they don't have to do it anyway they can you know if they want to do mixed use they they can do it under the underlying zoning they don't need MBTA to do it right so the danger is if someone the danger of everybody wants housing so the only danger is is having less say if it's if it goes the MBTA because it's by right having less say yeah because it's um it doesn't come I mean I I'm sticking up for my colleagues in the planning board I see how hard we work to make projects better right and so it won't have that process because they if if they take the MBTA zoning it's by right meaning they could choose to have a mixed use because the underlying zoning is

045there but that if they wanted to do 100% residential they can by right and then it's a a different process if we remove this right right that that so I'm not getting it because I can do 100% multif family bu right in under in the underlying zoning as well and put commercial to that right if they I know and you can get a higher density a higher yield yeah so what is it saying so if somebody wanted to um just the the simplest way is perhaps I'm using the MBTA zoning by right that is the whole reason the state made this to make less restrictions so if you take out the commercial now those Parcels that we would like to see commercial we've said that in our in fact they're starting out as commercial zones

046and the overlay is mixed use we would now be making them all residential allowing to be we are making it a possibility to be all residential is saying that that possibility exess under the underlying zoning as well the underlying zoning do you have your yeah it's right here the underline zoning allows that by right anyway at a yield of two so there's no change there's no change but the density is different it's just that including this screws us on neighor correct sorry for yeah I know you're 100% right multi family dwellings 80 it's included by right including the mixus for C it's a special permit because those are supposed to be less dense but ad days if we lose those is the most dense and you can do you would mixed yes is allowed bring

047in other words this is our attempt to like guarantee ourselves some commercial on Pleasant Street in Maine but it undercuts our acreage but it undercuts our acreage right 100% however when you look at Pleasant of main you're in add and your yield under add is going to be much higher using add at a at a at a floor area ratio of two right now Alvaro and I did the math today around four o'clock right and using a acre lot right um with 15 units per acre each each I think it was each um um each unit had a had a area of 1500 square feet you had a yield of a f of one right and so with this all said and done you're still going to have a higher yield of a Unico using

048add right and to to just to clarify anybody using MBTA zoning still has to go through design review still has to go through site plan review right we are not giving up anything within those twoo right we still have to go through those review processes for storm water for Ingress for eass for fire department safety those items are always still there right and so any developer is going to have to meet from a health health life and safety standpoint access in and out of site but then also they have to meet the storm water requirements of the state currently right and so I don't think we're giving up anything um but to meet the qualifications and to compliance you know this the the the mandatory mixed use does create a situation because it drops us

049down below now this was just learned obviously coming through um and I'm going to follow up to confirm but there is a situation but if you retract the mixed use the the the retract those mixed use we can plug along with the B that we have knowing that anybody that's going to redevelop in that area using add is going to get a higher yield and obviously residential mix res all residential development is allowed by R and for none of the public forums did we ever talk about mixed use we always just presented it as housing because that's the sure thing right that's that has to be there those 50 50 at least 50 acres right so um we never we never talked about the mixed use um I'm sure people be great with mixed use

050I'm not opposed to that but it's it's already we did talk about it being already in the underlying zoning I think if it keeps things as it is anyway like if this was just sort of like an attempt to have something be even better but it could be all apartments anyway like I my personal stance is that it's not worth losing the acreage I don't think we we in a way we C can't we can't use lose the acreage I mean we can't get below 50 we can lose we can lose the six by maybe kind of like I said taking a strip near the street because that's where mixed use would be and calling that strip mixed use and then having the area behind it residential but it starts to get really messy really

051quick seems like a futile exercise well that's what I'm wondering is it just like what what are we what are we gaining when someone could just take the underlying Zone instead of splitting their site they would just take the underlying zoning and do mixed use if they wanted or all residential if they wanted so if I'm a developer what is the incentive for me to take the MBTA is just additional density no not in the way we're doing it not in the way so you if I was just looking at my yield yeah I would be better off going with the underlying District anyways which is already an act because you can remember 9 to 49 which we just went through yeah is 0 91 Acres yeah like 29 there's 29 units on it plus

052commercial space yeah exactly so they did it using that so they did it and if you look at and that f is only no maybe with I think the F was about 9 to it was and this F is it's two it's double what it is that's this is kind of right for zoning changes because I think that's not what people wanted that's not what our zoning says it says miuse and I I mean I I just have heartburn over because you you kind of zone for what you want right and then we're saying all residential so it it's probably can't change at this point but I would like to see that whole thing Revisited because if we have some massive byright housing I haven't heard people say they don't want housing what I've heard

053people say is they don't want giant apartment buildings they'd like to keep a character of the town that sort of isn't you know totally agree but what I'm saying is that that's a part of our underlying zoning it's already oh no I understand I'm but we're the planning board we can offer suggestions about revisiting we should revisit we and that we we could but that's a double-edged sword too as we have seen mhm because yeah you can you can have your cake and eat it just so long because people if you say people don't want too much housing then you get 40 beats and P here is not worth it to to like blow up because you don't have enough housing enough affordable housing so you cannot want it until you get it well this

054the thing like I totally agree with the mixed use that's why we that's why we pursued 10 to 60 the way we did for so long and tried to get it right right we we agree with that this just isn't about that nor is it I mean nor are we making it appealing to do that could someone still do it yes but they can do it anyway like without this zoning but and like I said because because it didn't go through for whatever reason now we have now we're dealing with a 40b specific location yeah and frankly if we do 15 units an acre that's a lot less than they can do if they use the underlying zoning so yeah and we did those there's no there's no change really and from design point of

055view I think a developer would really lose value to a property but not creating that commercial aspect for a multif family housing um I think by default yes the scale of the commercial space may vary but I don't think any of the developers would do that by creating especially like Main Street where you're right off the busy street you would not want to have residential units on that level anyway so um I think the same is true for Pleasant arguably like yeah Pleasant has a little bit of kind of still that depth to that street is a little more wider but I think Main Street is too busy and has lot more walkability it will not be a great unit to be on level one it won't give you that privacy to that unit hard

056for him to sell so hopefully the same I mean c no one if this is like multif family and you're thinking about like you want families with no age restrictions things like that no occupancy no one wants their door opening out to a train track yeah true so there's already kind of built-in incentive to put put that coffee shop on the bottom floor right or whatever so um yeah so anyway that that's where that's that's that's where we are with that so um so our suggestion would be to just take out that yellow section and do what we have been presenting through the forums which is just talking about multif family and obviously when we get through well don't even have to get through comprehensive plan but start to look at these zones and see

057what we want to do differently right these bylaws were made I don't know when before our time and just to add to that point you know I think and I think what to Kate's point is if if the town wanted to drop that F from two to to 1.5 I think that would be a conversation to have right yeah be easy um that would be a good conversation to have um and I think that could that could be spurred on from from this obviously compliance of the MBTA and I think obviously that's what we're all striving for is compliance the funny thing is somewhere in the MBTA zoning an F of 2.5 was cons was was considered low like that was the lowest category 2.5 and Below yeah it's nothing right it's nothing yeah so

058anyway it was just kind of funny when I a Subway in a Subway District you to be 2.5 and so and that makes sense but here where we are we are so okay so the next yellow section um obviously prohibited abuses I the ones in yellow because I it got added at the last minute and it's different than what you received but we should have something about it is prohibitive to have um limits on the size of the unit it's the number of bedrooms the size of the bedrooms and the number of occupants that's um that's from the what's that yeah that's the that's the exact yeah that's where we would like to have control it's to it's to not um have something in there that can prevent you from doing family housing yeah stud

059you can we just can't say it has to be Studios and one bedrooms we can't limit the number of three bedrooms and right yeah exactly okay dimensional requirements there's a few things on here I don't oh uh okay am I looking at the wrong one hold on a minute no sorry I was looking at the wrong one I was looking at the old one um so um on the dimensional requirements um those are just highlighted from the old one because I have way too many copies of this thing I think on your original one that first 25 was a 20 yep correct um but when we went back and looked looked at the zoning it is it's a 25 foot setback um so Alo tried that in the model to make sure it works out

060fine it doesn't change our units so we put it back at 25 again just so we're just trying to stay with the underlying zoning scale yeah yeah we're trying not to change anything in here we're trying to just use the underlying zoning the same thing with the two numbers below that 15 and 15 because that other language comes from um the downtown now where sometimes you have you have a a lot with there's no it it's a party wall on each side right in downtown and so you don't really want to require a setback if someone rebuilds there so now you have this weird setback instead of having just buildings with party walls that are currently existing right so that's what that's what that is so anyway but in in in these districts if we

061think about Pleasant Street and we think about 10 to 60 Maine we don't need a zero side setback that that makes no sense there are no there are no common walls there's no party walls that exist so that's why we just put it at 15 and took out the zero because that's a little strange um the other part of this um which is something we would have to I'd have to have elro check is the minimum front yard 8 ft um in the in the bylaws that's 8T for mixed use which is why we had it 8T here and it's 15 feet for residential um so that's something I would want to change back to 15 if the model can accommodate it and I can speak to that I don't think the model will have

062an issue with that okay different things you've tried over the with the different things we've tried I think that's a minimal change and I don't think we'll have a kickback okay so we'll so that hopefully we'll go to 15 or as close as we can get it you know 25 to maintain a residential setback of 15 that's what it is for all residential in our bylaw so um the other things come out of they should look familiar to you like the 38 feet we talked about that a lot with 10 to 60 Main Street for the four stories on d and e um they are four stories that's um Chestnut Chestnut Street and 501 Pawn Street correct and so those were four stories um but we didn't really have a maximum feet amount so we

063just we made it um we looked at the construction drawings yeah we and then made the relative amount I I forget what that was like if you take 38 divided by 3 you get like 11 point something then we took that number and times it by four and so remember these are four stories but also might give room for a roof right a a gabled roof or something above those four stories so um um just going to say something else having to do with what I saw in the state requirements but um but I can't remember what it was but anyway so it made um kind of logical sense I guess and it also we went back and looked at those projects 100 100 Chestnut Street and 501 Pawn straight and generally they have a

064line about hey our roof Heights our roof height is like 47 or 48 ft but that's showing it at the at the most typical roof line and then there's stuff above it you know but those those those areas don't really have a height restriction so we're kind of putting one on um common open land we put in there I don't remember where that was from if I think that was kind of from our bylaws and not necessarily oh which one because I feel like so if we're giving res zero place fors I think and that would be people right but I think with this um you have to in the spreadsheet you have to allow for enough space to actually construct what you're saying you're going to construct at the density you're allowing so you

065would have to give a you would have to say how much space are you giving you know you'd have to be I think more specific about it so um but I thought the well I'm not the one doing I'm not sure I know they have when you're build you mean when you're building the model right yeah yeah when you're building the model up and you what I Alvaro is the one that's been doing all the GF where I can build the model up but when you do build the model up it is looking for these very specific things right um this is language but we've seen it I've seen it in a couple different B you know I've seen it here and and reviewing other things I think the word encourage is strong enough that

066and it and and obviously the other thing is I think when you when someone builds these developments you know they're going to want to make these appealing for rent right and so nobody's going to make an unappealing obviously development and so I think having a insane encouraging for open space I believe is strong strong enough um how it it affects I think you do have to build into the model you know 5% 10% what is that number you know I think you know I can't say we'll look into it because of where we are in in in the creation of this bylaw and in the model but we're we're staying consistent with with the state and in other communities I know encourag doesn't mean anything though I mean there's no teeth to it so it's

067like it's nice words but you have no way to get yeah remember you just have to remember that all these sites are everything we've set is either the lowest density we can or stuff's already built there so I yeah I'm I'm not saying that statement isn't isn't important or valid I'm just saying it it's just it's not really a worry like at this point like I said all either the either the units are that's so low that it'd be really strange for someone to take that path or there's already something built on the site right those are our districts that that's what we've chosen that was our the thing the whole time right to to control you know to not let this process affect development really that our development will be affected by another process

068the comprehensive plan it's really just B andc better question marks I mean could could we say the developer should have common open land because should is still is a little stronger than encourage but isn't shall I think for B compromise no I think for BNC you already have height limitations now you're increasing the side set backs as well um you need to make sure remember that these have to be viable from design for point of view otherwise you're going to have no progress with these properties and you're going to see what you're going to see in order to kind of create these boundaries we are losing out on what future prospects the town is opening up to so I think you already have increased the setbacks here side your s setbacks are increased here the

069percentage of openness is already kind of built into your setback so I don't know if that's really a realistic ask I just don't see how we can start to Define that so specifically when everything that we're doing is trying to direct people down to the underlying zoning I agree you know we're not trying to set up things here we're trying to direct them down to the underlying zoning and then later on we should work to change that underlying zoning so it's more of what we want like Wildwood I think some of these areas do have you know they encourage it there right and that's why we're directing them down to what was already written and established um so then the parking um again the Yellow Part would come out because even for mixed use you

070can't you can't have an minimal you can't you can't say there's any parking you can't require Park you can't require parking require parking for Mi for mixed space and and we're taking that out so the other thing is about the um like what do we want to establish for parking right now in our model we have one parking space for a studio or one bedroom and one and a half parking spaces for two bedrooms or more that is the requirement that's out of pwn Street um in the [Music] um and and I do uh have maybe one question about this in add they start out the underlying zoning I mean we're spelling this out but in the underlying zoning it starts out as two spaces for unit per unit but immediately goes if you're in

071add immediately goes down to 75% of that and and then if it's mixed use it goes down another 75% of that so that's the one thing I wasn't sure about here and it might be a question for Lisa that what what wording do we put in if we want this to say this is our our zoning it doesn't get if we want it doesn't get decreased in add now the state would love you to the state really would like you to say to put in maximums instead of saying a minimum um a minimum of one and a half parking spaces per unit they want you to say a maximum of one and a half parking spaces per unit like that's that's the reing they encourage right so to try to to to not so much

072parking right more open space encourage more bike riding um uh more common open space right that's what they're trying to they're trying to minimize parking a lot of this obviously both Cirrus 160 and Pleasant Street are all in nearby the train station so I I don't know my question is just a question where do we want to set that number I believe Alvaro said that two still works if we change that one and a half to two but do we want it at two would be kind of inconsistent pal Street and I remember the discussion because of course there's a point where people cars to and's where you cannot develop people right and work there it would be kind of inist have more here or maybe not I mean I think the difference there's nowhere

073else to go on Fant or M like you can't there's no right like what was so if you're talking about two bedrooms my first thought was two spaces for a two bedroom right so if you're thinking the purpose of this like you want they're trying to encourage affordable housing for families I don't I don't know what you do with one and a half parking spaces when that that contemplates having a second car for two bedrooms and above where does when there's inevitably not enough spots where does someone go on Main Street there's no right and there isn't I mean I would you know I know parking the major developers park at that build about 1 Point excuse me 1.3 parking spots per unit I'm sorry where was that I think on average talking about developers

074you know across Metro Boston You're Building at 1.3 parking spots per right I think in Ashland and I know we had this conversation with 10 chestnuts excuse me 100 chestnuts Street they were building their parking lot with a mixed use development 174 units 10,000 ft of commercial they had a parking area ratio of 1.5 spaces per unit unit right and and this is I'm going off of memory so if my numbers are give and take a little bit but they feel confident that they have enough and speaking with them they believe they overdevelop the parking area for what the demand will be for traffic I also believe strongly that no developer is going to build a project that they don't believe they don't have enough sufficient parking to rent those apartments out right and so

075I think this F fits the bill what we have we've kind of taken the we stole it from Pawn Street Overland yeah it's been tested it's been tested I and it meets the model and the model works out with this parking ratio I thought I asked um I thought I asked out I thought the either I think 100 Chestnut Street might be two but with no additional spaces for commercial like they're all sh or two bedrooms and above yeah yeah or two spaces per unit cuz I thought it was 174 units times two I thought that's what he and I determined but with no extra spaces for the commercial that they have it's all shared right shared parking so but I do think they thought I do think Peter's right and they thought that they

076had more spaces than they were going to need you know at two I remember that discussion so I with one and a half I mean at least that's not a guess yeah I mean and I would just I would just say then that uh we should look at how do we put a note in um to make sure if we if we want this that the the parking isn't reduced for isn't reduced by the 75 C by the 75% but wouldn't you be mixing I mean I thought the whole point of this was to try to make this as an overlay clear right but um but uh in the model but in the model you have to put in the the parking right you you know so you have to put in the park to

077make sure you have enough room for the for the units yeah so to have some things mess with those kind that's why all the dimensions and stuff are listed you can't have things in the underlying zoning that mess with the ability to to build the the units right so that's one of the things that he showed me where he has to put in how many units of parking and I guess you could put in you know you could put in less right or you know but but but I thought you were saying so I know that you can have that parking reduction but that's not this zoning so why do we have to say you can't reduce I don't I don't understand I just it all it all comes into the model okay but I'm

078just I'm just simple words I don't nobody cares about the model as long as it's used correctly I assume you're asking why do I why do I need to put in language says that says no you need to use a one and a half don't reduce it yeah and and that's a question I have like I don't know it's like okay it's it's in here and I I we work pretty specific about it um you know that it does it does say you know all the provisions of the overlay District unless otherwise specifically noted in section 8.9 which is this which is this whole thing so um so it it seems to make sense that we wouldn't need it it's just something I would like to ask Lisa like what are we saying here that

079you know I think that's I mean then it's more things probably be spelled out not just the parking though that's the problem then we have to go look at you're saying you they can't take the reduction of add right they're using the if they're using this develop this bylaw right no they're not going to use her right then this is the parking if but for everything else but for per standards and the design of the building we want that to take oh I understand because that's wrapped up in that correct thing so you probably do have to mention but there might be other things too so that's the problem it's interesting because then for consistency with what we discussed before would these be also a way to in people to go to the it would

080from a par yeah from a parking standpoint yes because you have you would have to provide as much parking yeah was woulding I 1.5 is tested it works um just for the for point of this conversation we have at 100 chest Street there 174 units and we have 300 we're going to have 357 parking spaces that's 2.04 parking spaces per unit two two it's not 1.5 pwn street is 1.5 correct we don't have parking spot we but they requireed we did Issue a special permit right for parking because right now their commercial space their commercial space would require 58 parkings total so we did give them a waiver for parking parking but if we're looking at a specific unit to parking ratio from the approved plans you know and saying for overnight parking when the

081businesses are closed you have two parking spots per unit right now obviously not everyone's going to be parking there you know especially in front of the buildings all night long right and you're also never going to out of 174 units each occupant probably won't have two cars right so there's going to be that Flex of mixed you space people parking so from that standpoint that's where they kind of said We believe We Built enough parking and so I think that's where it comes back to the point is no developers is not going to build enough parking because parking is is comes down to how you rent your building and I think also in the downtown we have a lot of assets right it's walkable you know we just did a huge downtown project it's connected

082to the train station and and so if there was an area in town where there was and it made sense to decrease the parking it is in these two Parcels in add that we have done in the past and that the bylaw has historically allowed so um we can come back to it if anyone has any um you struck out cuz I it was clear the ads here but possibly um any required takings for right away improvements including sidewalks or it got moved somewhere maybe it was under it was under common open land yeah I mean those things um I think came out of um these things I don't I don't think these were a part I think those um do you know where these came from I don't think these were a part of

083the were a part of the uh sample text I'm sorry I can't um I need to I would have to life you I don't know if we meant to take where is that yeah see that's um common open land so the um the common open land and the um required right of way taking um is actually came from um the Pond Street over District yeah and so when I read through that I'm like I don't we probably don't need I don't think we need this I'm just asking no cuz it's missing I know if we mark up can we just it's so much easier to do like strike through and leave it because like I did spend time editing know I just find it really hard to read you know after you know I know

084but it's just I know just difference just difference of opinion right that's why I that's why I provided the that I wanted the one that you were sent and also the one with kind of more editing so you can go back and forth we just kind of was non applicable yeah and so presumably that next one no storage or permanent displays of goods blah blah same it's from Palm Street right and we don't need it that's fine I just it just it sounded odd make sense to me anyway but okay good yeah um yeah now the renewable energy installation that is is from the state but and it seems like at least from the sample ones I've looked at from other towns it seems like everyone's putting it in I assume because the state's also

085trying to promote solar so I I don't think I found that table I went to 89.7 is that that's this right here oh that so this is the new one and it's is not is it labeled 89.7 though I just um yeah says it's dimensional requirements okay so it's the okay yeah so 8.9 is I I think what we're thinking the whole bylaw will be correct and then seven is dimensional requirements yeah that's the overall bylaw thank you yeah okay and as you recall renewable energy installation is allowed by right as a under the Dober act in the state y so that has to be allowed I was just looking for the table I that I went I thought it was referencing our current zoning I I'm like I don't think we have that table

086so we don't have an 8.9 yet it's just the one above so and then all of the affordability um I don't know where that text is is that from the state things or from other things we have used nope that's from Lisa fill that in that's sorry sorry um that is boiler plate affordable housing stuff um we did put in the 12 the 12.5% which is the Pond Street which came through the study that we did the economic analysis study we did in the in the I think you guys got that backwards from the study it on the economic study so I believe Pawn Street had to stay at 10 because it's over the four stories that's allowed so if we we should look at lowering it to three stories so because we want more

087affordable I I believe um so I think that's completely reversed that pwn Street's over four stories it's four stories four St and so I I probably remember because I asked a question I live near there and I said well why can't it be why can't we say up to three stories you have to make it you can make it economically viable at 12 a half% we paid an economist and they said you can't because the four stories is a different type of construction that's more expensive so I'm I looked it up today on those slides too I believe that's 100% reversed okay okay so I'll double check we can double check that if if so the 12.5% might be applicable to everything but P Street okay I also thought too only one District qualified from

088okay yeah no I I mean from from that report it was everything but Pond now I mean I don't I didn't maybe we have to Rel details but I remember being disappointed that we couldn't get more than 12.5 but yeah that's an important point I I I understood it this way but I I'm happy to double check no I looked at the slides at lunch too to make sure so yeah no I'm not saying you're not wrong I'm just I just remember being disappointed that only 12.5% versus something more substantial right so no that'd be great that that would be that be yeah better yeah well I can double check that that's not a problem um then the the rest is boiler plate um yeah and then section nine site plan approval review and then

089the applicability would be section 4.9 4.6 that site plan review and design review and then the findings here come from the state uh from the decision in final permit granting Authority which would be the planning board those are those are those are different right now from our site plan review RW findings because it was found by the Attorney General's office last spring that our fight our site plan review findings are do not work um they were too strict um and so therefore that's why we are supplementing in the decision and the final action with the template that the the three points that the the state put in their template bylaw so and but um just know that from the original version that it it's no longer going to refer to 9.4.2 and 9.4.2 is not

090going to be changed that if you looked at that separate sheet so yeah there's a different set of conditions for MBTA District which is per the state to not create roadblocks to the housing they're trying to create so oh yeah okay yep aren 9 C1 um I'm I'm not sure what what's the comment but now it says it's by the design standard this section which okay like oh it didn't say about standard I don't it's not okay is this this is the section that you said was boiler plate from the state yes but I can show a point yeah you can say as noted and obviously and I think if we can if if we need to go back up top and and add those performance standards and those design criterias for each specific Sub

091sub District then that would clarify the answer no but we don't need to add those in here no all we need to do is because it already says applicability site plan review 9.4 9.6 9.6 is design plan review 9.4 is site plan review so um so all we would have to say is the Criterion design standards set forth in this section of the zoning bylaw you know and the corresponding under under Ling zoning yeah or something it's a good ad sorry y yeah oh I'll go get it yeah he'll get things you need to sign and then yeah you can make your Escape Yeah so basically it's approval and then approval with conditions and then disapproval because of the reasons of an incomplete application now I talked to Peter nro about that like what does

092that mean you know and obviously we were discussing that we assume it means that we' interpret it to mean that an incomplete application if if say there's a thing in the bylaws that you have to um have a the lighting can't shine into buildings right and if you present uh a lighting plan where the light shines into buildings it's incomplete because you didn't it says it's not supposed to shine into the buildings right so it would be an incomplete application because you didn't actually fulfill what we asked you to do so um his implicate incomplete application kind of sounds like you didn't you didn't put an address on or a phone you didn't give a phone number somewhere or whatever right so now I mean similar to the site plan review where we took off

093the mixed use do we have to take off the mixed use from section 8 a the first line as well yes thank you yep thank you yes we mixed them in we mixed them in and then and then didn't find them all to take them back out again yeah yeah yeah yeah and even this there's no back to all right so we will um go through obviously those changes hopefully tomorrow if Alro has I don't know what's scheduled Al 26 bre no way Al is turning 26 and he's taking the oh wow okay A Car 25 oh well good for Alvaro Alo is uh but I will be here but these are pretty in a way pretty ex except except for going into the model maybe um are very simple so Monday latest text tomorrow

094um Monday you know double check on the the the number crunching okay um all right but does anyone have and and it's kind of you can still kind of comment on it if something you know we need to wrap it up soon because we'll need to post for the public hearing which we'll need to yeah so just for clarification we will not well because of these changes um we will probably read vertise um and we will uh we can meet on the 10th of October Excuse me yes our next meeting is on 10th of October uh but uh just to make sure that the changes are not rejected be I mean the bylaw is not rejected due to the changes in consistency with the posted bylaw that is out there right now that was in

095the Metro West uh newspaper this past Wednesday that I will repost the edited bylaw I'll will also have to send this to all abing towns the state and dacd and so then we will open open the public hearing on the 20 excuse me 24th the 24th of October so the first public hearing will be on the 24th of October and that would give us the second one if we want to do it is because we don't need a second one we thought maybe we could do on the 7th of November um usually in November we would meet on the 14th and the 28th but we never meet on the 28th because it's Thanksgiving so we thought maybe we would meet on the 7th we usually switch it so maybe we meet on the 7th instead

096and that would give us still a twoe break before before town meeting so same thing we just same amount of meetings just switching one up further away from Thanksgiving I guess um we don't have to have a second public hearing the it's really just to get to where we during those public hearings we need to vote on a on a zoning change um so if we do it in one meeting we don't have to have a second one but the second one could be do good obviously just informationally or you know so so the advertisement is for the 10th but now the 24th and then if there's another one we continue it or how is that I'm just I think if so if on the 24th we're like the the planning board you know and

097Community response and we're like this is good we got this we can we can vote to we can vote on it we can vote to approve or disapprove whatever vote to support vote to support as drafted and then you would all then then we have to go to town meeting then typically the planning board will make a report at town meeting like normal and just say the planning board on such such State voted to support and we could add any other language that we would want to state but if we but if on the 24th we can either not vote and leave the public hearing open to the next date we want to of course make sure we have it where we have enough of us to to vote and make sure we get a

098chance to do this otherwise we have to call another meeting or we can vote on it but we can still have it as a forum on the next meeting just to allow more explanation more public discourse more talking about it we can't change it at that point anyway we can only decide yes or no right in our kind of in our if we're choosing to support it or not so but uh and then just to adds to another note November and December are always the toughest meetings to post in or meet and so the question is in December do does the plany board want to meet once on the 12th and then take the Hiatus and I don't want to skip over this the MBTA stuff but just from a scheduling standpoint we should think

099about that um fairly not to we don't have to think about it tonight but for the next meeting we should just iron out what how where we want to meet in November and December okay I jumped the gun I'm sorry no it's okay I just wanted to answer Kate's question okay so that's all I I I don't know rather stupidly was thinking that maybe we wouldn't need a meeting and then I realized that we really really do I don't know what I was thinking um but I would like to keep all the other stuff to a minimum um but I do think Kate maybe had a few comments she wanted to make on the document that she sent out unless not unless it was just for our records Kate I don't know um no I

100what I've been doing is just as things I hear things I've been adding them like I added tonight I didn't know that our site plan review standards were not approved so that will become 20 on the list I think didn't you say that that our our current site plan review standards were not approved or something by the state no our current site blue excuse me our current site blue site review standards right site plan review standards as held the state when determining if they could be applicable to the MBTA found them to be too okay um I get that so I you know for a lack of better terms there were too um they could be seen and you can kind of come to a consensus that um it's too restrictive they were too restrictive

101so therefore that's why we were going to were different for that okay they were different and so that's why we're going to apply the states to MBTA to get over that hurdle but we're not going we are not going to change our existing okay that's what I okay um so I just want like I've been collecting like for instance 19 got La after the last meeting that there were projects changed and I think we also we probably should figure out a process for that um so I added that so I I hope to not just keep making a list and I we're not I know we're not doing it tonight but like pick things that we think we want to put attention to I did put um just updating for when we said um town

102meeting we a couple of them we did say we sort of need to or want to um have to maybe the pl plane but maybe we can pick pick away some so can can you say that again um so like number nine I don't I think that's helpful to the planning department so I think we're targeting spring of 25 the Adu I think we said we want to because if we're going to have some standards around Adu but number nine did you you mean meet with the design Review Committee is that way no I'm sorry I'm I can't read it's late at night okay okay sorry that's why I was confus and then um 18 I think Peter said has prob should be on Spring yeah I was actually on a call about that today

103yeah okay and so that that's a sample bylaw to tell you the truth our bylaw dates back to 2014 in the F plane overlay District the town of action sits in two different F planes it's in the conquered subber and then it's in the Charles River this time the Charles River um flood boundary is going to be updated but bylaw since the last adoption and so it makes sense to update our waterways ke why don't just throwing this out there why don't after I get this bylaw straightened out with Peter why don't you and I get together like maybe prior to our October 10th meeting um but maybe at the beginning of that week if or over the weekend if maybe you and I can meet and um try to rank these or say 2025

104or you know to give some kind of structure to it and then that'll be a takeoff point of discussion for October 10th when we can more dig into these I think we can I think some of them are obvious and we could put put that on it um and uh like I said it would lessen the load people can always disagree but it would lessen the load for the 10th is that is that okay yeah and I think some of them like three or four Anna committed to doing some research and she said fine if the board doesn't support it but it'll it'll Move It Forward by saying maybe yes maybe know what else can we assign to Anna while she's not yeah exactly um well so I think my only ask otherwise I will

105be happy to keep doing this I Tred not to put something just in my head but maybe at some point I do have one more and I didn't and we're not going to talk about it tonight but there's one thing is there a way to put it on the agenda does anyone have other things they'd like to see and secondly at some point in the agenda like if we're are we just going to keep calling it this or can we pull out things and like make make some time I think we are at the stage doing this but I think hopefully we're going to be like yeah I mean I mean I think some things are going to like meet with water sewer department yep let's put it on the agenda for 2020 early in

1062025 and yep you know or even even in December if we have a light meeting you know it'd be a nice relaxing thing to talk about sewer okay cool no that's kind of I I will keep doing it until it's not accomplishing anything but I'm hoping it will accomplish no I think it's a good a good list so um okay um so anything else in that regard back to my agenda so like I said uh we will integrate the corrections and modifications with the byw and send that back out again I would say end of the day Monday latest agreed yeah um so to get elro birthday boys uh spreadsheet stuff in there um so I was not looking to go through any of the reports tonight it do you I don't think anything has

107really changed if there's anything that's actually that's nope nothing's changed um the biggest thing is I talked about is the November and December so just get in your you know what people's times are they want to meet they don't want to meet um we've had a lot of meetings especially with comp Kate and Anna so if if uh if they want if you guys want to slim down a meeting in December you know for Old St Nick I think it makes sense so for um but for the meetings we'll we'll meet October 24th that'll be the public hearing correct so the 10th is kind of open now um and then we were looking at doing two weeks later because we have an extra Thursday in there and maybe doing November 7th as the second public

108forum I'm going to be away on 10th and October 10th and November 7th okay I'm traveling okay I'm traveling on 10th but 7th I'm I have another okay and it's usually and it likely will be it may just turn into we can kind of see it may just turn into a a forum in a way so um but we will keep that in mind how many special permits okay I mean we can keep it we can keep it the 14th yeah we can keep it the 14th I was just trying to back up from no the seventh makes sense don't schedu it based on me I I think that that's but that I think I will be at the October 24th meeting still barring a very early entrance um but November so you are out

109the 10th the 10th October 10th I'm traveling seven I can call in from my event for the voting purpose but so if needed you could call in yes okay we'll have very bad audio around me but I will kept calling by vote by text I can do okay you did how how was it okay okay can I have just a quick thing on the comprehensive plan yeah so um we're meeting yet again next week but um early November and I do not believe we have a date there's going to be um they're calling technical review sessions if you had if your presentation and um we are expecting to want planning board reps so we with the general agreement is like we're representing the planning board and all the boards should have a representative at these

110but not the people on the comprehensive plan so people will be reaching out for that so hopefully we'll be able to staff that okay and those those will be on various nights not just all at one time is no yeah I think uh yeah I don't oh yeah they would be on various nights uh they would all be via Zoom oh um okay and and yes okay um and then we also I will last thing to say about that we we are looking for recommendations for people to um with the topic Economic Development Transportation housing historic cultural so reaching out broadly to the community um we don't want it to be the same people Etc so if you have recommendations I can add them to the list can you send out the list of those

111um topics topics so that then I can think about it I can they what we it's so the state statute but you might remember I asked um Jen Goldson to put that those lined up with the five core themes so I can send that yeah I just figur having it a a list on an email or you know something where I can then give it some thought so I can send that to Peter and to the board okay so yeah I I actually I have that I have that I sent that to you have it he made it he was he was our scribe last time yeah I think rry I sent it to Michael rry and Stacy and they had it and they were going to add some things and then they were going

112to send it out and we're looking for people not necessarily residents but stakeholders ashon stakeholders is that who we're looking for or could be Regional or what it could be Regional if it's an expert on the topic or I probably don't Passover homegrown people I mean both I think we're at the stage where it can be all the above get evaluated by the committee okay um to to make and you know it's it's 20 but we can't just put 20 names because people we don't even have a date to tell them so we have to go over that so I think um okay we're still kind of at the stage putting names but I know your name got put on so um doesn't mean you have to do it but I hope I'm not an

113expert in planning or or bylaws no I don't think I don't feel like I am so okay thank you sure um all right uh anything else before we just go to the meeting minutes um I I thought the meeting minutes were a little different this time um weren't as uh before they were very detailed these seem much more simple but Peter says it's the same person which is fine just it it was a different kind of meeting I guess um partially um the one thing I think looks like Peter I didint it out in the oh you print it out for for everybody yeah I feel like I just saw it and now I can't find it okay um for the um for my comments starting on line 9 this is where we're talking about

114the um about uh Kathy Rooney's reappointment I I found my what was written as my statement pretty confusing so Peter I think gave you a print out right gave one um where I was dividing that paragraph it's kind of a big paragraph into two sections one about my statement which was kind of separate and then one um that starts Miss tesinsky which is kind of not all Anna statement but something different so I was just correcting you know my the top part my statement to try try to have it be clear so um I didn't want to have to do it in the meeting because I thought that would be kind of hard so I sent this to him in advance that it'd be easy to see the only other thing I saw Peter was

115somewhere my name's misspelled I have it I have it on found my copy here oh this yeah that's where the paragraph starts oh here yeah 124 oh yeah that's another one sorry so so I have that change in that paragraph line 124 my name is misspelled and then on line 141 and 142 it's about I was just making clarifications on the MBTA it says um this Kindle created an MBTA zoning chart which members received a copy of Miss Kendall reviewed the chart 61 Waverly is listed as a risky option based on being 17 so it's just very specific so instead I've just put Miss Kendall reviewed the chart including possible risks instead of picking out one fact from the chart to review seemed kind of strange so and clearly we all love Miss Kendall so

116there's a lot of Miss kendles on that sence too there is that day I apologize um this meeting minutes on August 22nd but your uh cover sheet has 24th not not be the agenda has 24th oh that's a sorry that's a typo which one was right the 22nd was right right 22 that's mine the 2 yeah it was the 22nd yep 24th this is where my bra right now was sday I wish I had your reason you know maybe I don't actually never mind should I make a motion if everyone's ready I think yeah um I make a motion to approve the August 22nd 2024 minutes with the um specific addition that the chair submitted and these small items we addressed this evening is there a second second that and a roll call vote ey

117Catherine Jersey guy I I don't remember you don't usually vote for that do you Trisha Kendall I so that's three um so those are approved anything before there's a motion to adjourn last chance all right then I will make a motion that we adjourn at 9:15 is there a second second and a roll call vote cther Amanda and Trisha Kendall I thank you everybody e e