##VIDEO ID:YQ887axzs4g## we are recording Lyn let's just see got no attendees yet okay um well we're going to take the first part of this meeting to do the reorganization of the Community Resources committee so good evening it is January 28th 20 25 and this is the first time that the Community Resources committee has met reorganized under the council in this um year of the Year 2025 so our first responsibility is to elect a chair and then I will turn the meeting over to the chair and I will be exited into the audience and uh the chair will then conduct a the election of the vice chair but before I start that let me just point out that returning to the committee are Pam Rooney Jennifer to councelor haniki and Pat d'angeles and new to the committee are is Cathy Shane and uh Dave Zac you are the ongoing staff to this committee and I know that several of people work with you Christine breast and Nate mloy and of course Athena is here as well so um let me just mention that public comment will also come after this and the rest of the this will be conducted by whoever is elected chair so the floor is open for nominations for chair would you just please confirm that people can hear thank you I forgot that pie so let me make sure that people can hear and be heard um I will go in alphabetical order Patti Angeles present councelor hanii present Pam Rooney I'm here jennif uh Kathy Shane I'm here Jennifer top here thank you and David yes I can hear thank you ly great um all right anything else I missed okay the floor is open for nominations for chair of CRC Jennifer um I nominate Pam Rooney okay Pam do you accept that nomination I do and thank you are there other nominations Pat she's mut mute sorry I haven't asked either one of them but I would love to see um Mandy or Kathy as chair nominate Kathy Shane okay Kathy do you accept uh no I don't because I am interested in chairing another major committee that makes sense and I nominate councelor hanii then councelor hanii do you accept no but I appreciate the nomination Pat okay I should have said that also Pat oh don't don't worry don't worry about that kind of stuff uh Pam are there um is would you like to say anything I would like to say that I have appreciated being the chair for the past year and have learned an extraordinary amount um also appreciate the work that Manny joh hanaki did before me in setting up templates and examples of um processes and things like that which I've relied on heavily so I I have leaned on the shoulders below me or how you say that before you before me thank you right okay are there any other comments from counselors okay then I'm going to again go in alphabetic order and ask for people to vote I'm going to begin with Pat d'angeles abstain uh I'm going to go to councelor haniki I vote for councelor Pam Rooney Pam Rooney Pam Rooney Kathy Shane Pam Rooney Jennifer top Pam Rooney the vote is four in favor of Pam Rooney one exstension I'm now going to turn this back over to Pam roon and I'm going to ask Athena to place me in the audience along with one other attendee Lyn thank you very much you're welcome enjoy yeah that's the word I'd use but thank you let us open up the floor for um nominations for vice chair um Kathy I will nominate Jennifer tub who I believe has served in that capacity before and my understanding as done watching it has done a great job with organizing interviews and other duties of the vice chair Jennifer do you accept uh yes I would up I accept although if anybody else would like to be chair I you know but thank you but I don't drive anyone else would anyone else like to be nominated or nominate someone else I see no other hands so I think the nomination for vice chair is uh on the table and we'll go uh we'll go in order of my screen uh councelor hanaki I vote for councelor Jennifer tub d'angelus oh I vote for Jennifer Kathy Shane I vote for Jennifer Jennifer to um I vote for myself and pamon would also appreciate Jennifer tab thank you don't everybody rush to be thank you but uh yeah and Pam let me know if there's more I can do to be of assistance thank you I appreciated that um we will move on to item number three which is the public hearing is it six oh we have two more minutes so let's move to the last one of the last items and that's approval of minutes we have had in our packet the March 3 2024 for a while and I literally just noticed the um April 9 and May 14 that were in the public packet posted but were not in our in our uh SharePoint site so if people I'd like to just see hands if people saw those in time to to work on those today okay good um I have a question the March 26th minutes are in the packet but not on this agenda so the agenda is the agenda is outdated because it was done there there was some um they were sort of in the works the the April 30 and May 14 were in the works so are you looking at the public note uh agenda or are in the SharePoint agenda the one that was in SharePoint because I always download the packet from SharePoint yeah me too um I think they were they were not included in that we'll hold them until next meeting I'd be happy to do that yeah so the ones that we do have are March 3 and um yeah march three would be the one um Pam I have on the agenda that's publicly posted March 26 April 9 April 30 and May 14 okay I did not see the April 26 one no I don't think that one is finished but the March 26 is on the agenda oh March 26 I didn't see that one either um and again we just saw them in the I I just happen to bump into them in the public packet so um I have looked at them but I wasn't prepared to force everybody else to read them in short order um let's start with march three and we can decide if there are enough viewers of the other ones to process them so March question again I'm sorry yeah sure yeah that's fine Athena did you just say that March 3 is not on the publicly posted agenda and if that's the case can we vote on them tonight March 3 is not um March 26 April 9 April 30 May 14 so you can vote on [Music] those and I'm just checking which ones were in theack so that's weird because because we had the April the excuse me the March 3 in our packet since last meeting and I'm not sure why that of anything because I thought I sent that to you on the 21st why that wouldn't have been included yeah obviously there was some mix up with what went in the packet and what went on the agenda so apologies for that let me um so March 26 is in there you can approve those if you like um and then April 9 so you can approve those too March 26 and April 9th I think May 14th's in there as well in the public packet oh maybe I didn't see that yeah it's there oh you're right I'm sorry I didn't see that one March 26 April 9 and May 14 you could approve let's take a quick hand raised poll uh are people comfortable voting on these if they were not in our SharePoint packet okay okay so let's let's process these then um are there comments are there corrections to the march three meeting minutes we're not voting on March three you're right it's the one I it's the one the only one I've been holding on to here to to get approved finally okay you're right uh let's let's X out of that one um March 26 any changes or modifications to March 26 and and by the way Athena thank you for for getting these finally processed comments or motion to accept I move that we accept the minutes of the March 26 2024 CRC meeting is there a second second all those in favor will go in visual order councelor hanaki hi Pat d'angeles hi Kathy Shane St I think I Jennifer yes and Pam is a yes so that is four yes and one abstain we are looking now at April 9 are there any corrections or additions probably Corrections or comments and if not would someone like to make a motion to accept I moved to adopt the April 9 2024 meeting minutes second uh second all those in favor um Pat d'angelus councelor hanaki um I but I did not hear councelor d'angelus is is my audio a little slow no I saw her mouth move by okay thank you have to watch what I say when I'm muted you gotta work with what you have oh let's see where' we leave off Kathy Shane uh didn't hear her either but I think um I'm I'm G to abstain on all the minutes but I will do it I'll remember to do it each time I wasn't there and I didn't read them right Jennifer yes and Pam is a yes so that's four yes and one exstension for the for the April n meeting and last but not least at least for now is the May 14 any [Music] corrections or comments I I will make a comment and that is oh my gosh that was eight months ago and we're talking about some of the same things so we need to get a move on um does anyone want to make a motion uh I move that we accept the uh May 14th 2024 minutes thank you any second second and the vote is councelor hanii hi P d'angeles hi Kathy Shane if Shane Jennifer to yes Pam a yes that is a vote of four to one four yes one exstension and the 514 2024 meeting minutes are approved thank you all for that okay so we don't need to do those later uh we are going to continue the public hearing on University Drive in accordance with the provisions of Mass General Law chapter 4A this public hearing of the Community Resources Committee of the amoris Town Council has been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted and is being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity for interested residents to be heard regarding the following proposed amendments to the zoning bylaw as referred to this committee by the Town Council a proposed zoning bylaw article 17 University Drive overlay District to consider amending the zoning bylaw by adopting the University Drive overlay District as article 17 and amending the official zoning map by adding the University Drive overlay District the overlay District would include properties on the east and west sides of University Drive between Northampton Road and AMD Street and would establish its own requirements for for only mixed use buildings including dimensional standards standards and conditions and design guidelines and I I see Nate and appreciate that you have provided us with a January 2022 version of the overlay Amendment um and we got two versions of it I think they're both in our SharePoint packet and and one is sort of the cleaned up version of what you uh developed after hearing the planning board or what the planning board voted you want to take it from there sure thanks hi everyone Nate Malloy a planner with the town yes uh last week the planning board voted to recommend uh the January I may I may say the 14th on the top um it was updated recently to say the 22nd version of the overlay there are some changes made last week in response to some of the CRC comments and questions uh and you know I can go through those and so they voted to recommend that version uh to council I'll share my screen now um if this is visible for everyone the first is article two um in article two we Define zoning districts and so that hadn't been included before we spoke with attorney Murray at KP law and she thought this would you know was part of the discussion it doesn't need to be advertised or um you know change is kind of included in this that if we talk about a district we can administratively add article two so here we'd have a description of what article two is uh it's really similar to the Preamble that Pam red would say the University Drive overlay District the University Drive overlay district is an overlay District intended to encourage Economic Development and expand Housing Opportunity including housing for undergraduate students by allowing mixed use buildings in an area that is currently zoned limited business and Office Park along the east and west sides of University Drive between Northampton Road Route 9 and Amity Street and so this is actually a pretty thorough description sometimes in Article 2 it's just a one or two line really brief description of the zoning districts and so that's something that the planning board uh recommended so then the track changes in this version capture kind of the last two discussions with the CRC and also with the planning board so um but it is the current version everything shown here in text is what the planning board voted so in the general section you know there's discussion about changing the name adding it to mixed use or changing this to applicability but they they decided not to they didn't think that that was necessary uh they like the inclusion of the statement the overlay District shall apply only to mixed use buildings uh and then they clarified the later part of this paragraph three therefore the standards and conditions in section 3.32 five of the zoning bylaw do not apply in the overlay district and any mix use building proposed in the overlay shall be permitted using the mixed use overlay district and so um you know to clarify that someone couldn't you know it's really they if they proposed mix use building they use the overlay they wouldn't use the base zoning I see there is a hand raised I don't know how that's fine that's good thank you um I was I was reading not looking uh councelor hanaki I I think he just answered this but at least what you just said I think I've got the answer to it the op doesn't allow mixed use buildings but the BL does allow Mi mixed use buildings it was my understanding that if a developer or you know property owner wanted to choose not to use the overlay they could use the underlying mixed juice building standards um this sentence changes that and and that means that in the BL there's no option to use the underlying standards for mixed use right and and you know honestly I don't I know if that was ever the intention that there'd be that option so I don't know why someone would use that given the additional lot area the limitations on the gross Flor area and units and everything so um this just clarifies that okay I just wanted to make sure I understood that yeah okay also you know I think some of it would be you know if in zoning you'd want to have at least some you know I know in some of your comments Manny say some predictability but it would be odd if someone could choose to provide build a mix use one way or the other and then kind of tailor it depending on the situation and try to manipulate something so here it's really if they want a mix use building it's through the overlay I mean it's similar to say like a 4dr where some of the developments you know it's voluntary to use the overlay but if you do then you have to comply with it so here the mixed use uh building has to do the overlay before before you move off that paragraph um when I was reading it through as a you know pretending to not have ever read it before uh the the internal sentence talking about the overlay District establishes requirements and it says um that including dimensional standards standards and conditions comma and design guidelines that shall be used you say rather than those standards in this bylaw those standards in this bylaw confused me and I wonder if we might want to say something more like uh the the condition the the design guidelines that shall be used in place of underlying zoning requirements I mean or we could you know remove that if we want to do something like that we don't that way we're not right we're not referencing some part of a bylaw we just say it establishes its own requirements yes that would be that would be clearer thank you and as I mentioned before there's a definition of a mixed use building in in the zoning bylaw and so that remains it's a a pretty general definition in the purpose here we say that this area is in close proximity to you Mass this is a change that's been has put in a little bit ago you know the rest of this hasn't changed so hold on just a second hold on just just a second don't scroll too far uh counselor hanaki I just it it reads weird in an area that is currently zoned BL or o and op and is with close proximity Is it supposed to be within or is in it just weird sorry gez thank you yep that was my comment yeah thanks I have I have one other staff person reading this for things like that and she caught a few things today since I I feel like I've looked at it so much I right you don't see it Kathy Shane yeah no I I don't like to uh do wordsmithing but I'm going to jump in here and later I have a more substantive comment um I think it since when I look at the map we've got limited business Zone and offer Park so I would instead of an an area I would in areas that are currently zoned would make more sense to me when I'm look at the map because there's actually one that's sort of Research Park too so so that was just a in area in in areas that are then I'm that's one and everyone can listen to that I'm not sure why the little Clause including housing for undergraduate students is necessary we just said expand Housing Opportunity and it read much cleaner um we it's just a I'm not sure why and I see it's both in the purpose and it comes back later I'm not sure why that closes there it doesn't seem to me it's necessary since there they're eligible so are graduate students so are people who aren't um so I don't think we have any rental properties in town that exclude undergraduate students you know if they want to pay the rent so I didn't know why that close is there yeah the planning board Ed that because in some recent developments there's been some discussion saying well let's try to limit a mix use building to only 85% of the units to students and the rest have to be non- students or if it's over that they have to have like a live-in manager and so they really don't want to have that discussion later on in the overlay so that you know putting this in here is you know there's no surprise that undergraduates may be the target audience for some of the units and so um that's kind of why they had it in there kind you know kind of for emphasis I agree it may be unnecessary in terms of what what's allowed but it's it's just you know for emphasis or Clarity I yeah I guess to me me it's unnecessary and I it's unusual for a zoning bylaw to talk about who's going to be living there unless we're talking about affordable so but um so let me ask you if someone wanted to build one of these would they have to take undergraduate or could they restrict it you know is this saying they must you know so I'm just saying is the close necessary at all and does it do something that we might not want it to do like I said I think it's necessary so that if someone comes in and they ask well okay you're proposing a 100 units and the applicant says yeah and most of them well 90 90 units might be targeted students someone can say oh that's not what we really want here and so because we call it out in the overlay and like I've said we've had these discussions with other projects permitted around town and it becomes you know something you know people don't like the idea that a majority of rental units will be student rentals so be I won't be labor it but you just don't find that in any of the other when we've brought in big housing projects we haven't done that so I I just found it unusual so um if no one else is struck by that I'll to me it's their words yeah councelor hanii and then Jennifer I agree with Kathy um zoning is not supposed to preference the occupants one set of occupants over another when we were reading the Article 2 new insert I thought it was strange that the Clause was there too instead of just expand Housing Opportunity by allowing mixed use buildings so I I agree with Kathy I would delete that Clause both up above in article 2's insert and here in the purpose so if the CRC would like to delete it we can you know the planning board has already made their recommendations and the CRC can make your set of recommendations and have some you know changes to this bylaw so if the C wants to remove it from both sections uh maybe in three sections I'm before before Jennifer I'm going to just ask a a process question um we are expecting a report from the planning board within a couple weeks of the of them closing their hearing I think I understood from listening that they're sending a report to Town Council so that would be um that would be on the 10th of Town Council would probably read it on the 10th of February does that leave us in limbo for making our own decisions Andor um closing the hearing or whatever um prior to that councelor hanii are you responding to that okay what you want to just answer the question sorry Jennifer yeah so so the council can't have its first reading till go has finished with it which go only gets whatever we as a CRC send to go and then go makes its clear consistent and actionability ruling on what we send to go not what the planning board sends it is not unusual to have a few differences um in versions in that case a report from CRC should if there are differences CRC should crc's report should highlight the differences and indicate why CRC chose to add or subtract or change for whatever reason but go has to rule clear consistent and actionability on the version we send over after we finish and make our recommendation and then the council will have its first reading after go has completed that process but the council must have a second reading within I think it's 6 90 days 60 days I'd have to look at the law within a certain time frame of Us closing our hearing but if we don't if we don't if the if the planning board report is going directly to Town Council rather than to CRC it seems like we will have to wait for that to trickle back to us um not necessarily CRC has not NE always waited for the written report um in the past we've generally just gotten a summary from the staff as to what their vote was and and gotten the copy they voted on which is what we have tonight that's true that's true yeah thank you uh Jennifer um yes I'm not um I could you know live with the wording of uh students coming out or keep it in I'm a little agnostic on it but just to provide some context that it came about because how this o whole overlay District evolved in the planning board was they were looking they were talking about how can we relieve some of the pressure of housing being lost in town to llc's you know and their ability to outbid regular folks and losing housing to llc's that rented out for students so I think because they'd always the planning board Just In following their discussions over the last year they were seeing University Drive particularly as being a place that new housing could be built for students off campus since it didn't seem like more was being built on campus so that's how it came to be which may be unusual in the language for the proposed overlay District I'm I'm going to add up I'm raising my hand here um the the way it's written encouraging development and expand Housing Opportunity it says including housing it doesn't say exclusively housing for undergraduate students and so that that is a nod to that conversation and the and the Genesis of of targeting University Drive um in comparison to some of the other archipelago buildings downtown it was always the hope that those would be more mixed than than simply student housing uh that that we would that we would see uh a mix of folks in the downtown whereas in this District it was hoped that students would flock here rather than than necessarily being in town or choosing to live in in um LLC rented places so I again I don't mind we we could take a vote on it but I I don't mind having the clause in here [Music] um again it's sort of six of one half do the other Kathy you know I'm not GNA say this this is a hard and fast but I do understand all of this as a rationale and why we're talking about it but that doesn't make me think the Claus needs to be here you know um you know I watched Barry Roberts talk about his new building and it's going to be for undergraduates graduates and he's helping some families um and it is because it's just down the street from the University you know so but so there are lots so I was just pointing out that it strikes me as very odd in a zoning will to talk about who the tenants might be of the building that was it y thank you uh councel hanaki I move to delete the phrase including housing for undergrad student and undergraduate students from both Article 2 zoning districts University Drive overlay districts paragraph and section 17.1 purpose is there a second Shane seconds um all those in favor let's go from right to left Kathy Shane yes uh Pat d'angelus hi councelor hanaki hi Jennifer to uh yes pamaron is a yes our version will block that out did Mandy sorry did Mandy vote while I was um yeah okay I was okay we can move on all right so this is being called this is this is a January 28 version sure let me change that title great thank you right um Pam yes sir I I have a question of Nate in this um it refers to mixed use show is defined as it is defined in the basic zoning bylaw um I'm I'm going to display my ignorance right now at one point when I was listening to the discussion of misuse we shrank the share of the first floor that needed to be commercial and when I'm reading this one most of it needs to be commercial is there any conflict with the way this mixed juice is set up and the way the standard definition of it is and I I don't I don't have the zoning byw in front of me byos in front of me to see exactly where the way they're wording but we backed off from having the whole floor be right yeah so the the definition of a mixed use building is a building that has say non-residential uses with at least one dwelling unit and so um okay so that definition is nice and clean that way okay yeah I think we actually had that definition put in when we're thinking almost having like w live work buildings uh in the BL or different areas where it could just be one residential unit above like a studio um so it's it's okay I'm fine I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't remembering that here we've got a more expansive we're thinking of really big buildings and mainly commercial on the first floor with except for amen apartment amenities okay thanks actually Kathy the the BW says No More than 70% of the gross floor area of the first a ground floor shall be residential oh shall be residential use that's what the existing one says and here we're talking about 75% um it's a different measurement of the non space yeah yeah so here's the you know this purpose statement the establishment of the district and so you know it encompasses um it hasn't changed I'll just share a screen here um I don't know how visible that is for everyone but um you know it's Amity Street on the North Route nine on the south and then you know basically a property over on either side of University Drive the area zone business uh limited and Office Park and so you know there had been discussions about including the BL property North or you know anyways really this has been the boundary for most of the discussion the planning board that okay this is where I have a substantive uh comment and I don't think I'll get agreement as quickly I Mayan not get any agreement but I would like not to have both all of the East and all of the West Side be the overlay I would like to make it uh less expansive and I studied this map and I went back and did lots and so basically on the west side that the overlay would come down to around where the Cur current post office is or the edge of Big Y and would not go all the way to Route n and on the east side it would come down to that top of where it's um Office Park but that's where uh the clinic kly Dickinson Clinic is there there's a nursing home there's an urgent care Center there's a primary care center and what I'm yeah so it's it's a funny yes you you're you're you're redrawing my thing and I made a list of all the lots that to be specific and what I'm concerned about is unless unless we would if we really want to keep those Services where they are because we highly value them I don't see why you do an overly and particularly well I'll speak to each separately a lot of primary care doctors have moved out of town because of the property taxes and the rent so they've moved further toward Northampton along Hadley um you know my mom's doctor move out of there and coie for a variety of reasons has expanded that that complex and I'm worried that the margin on the outpatient side of kolie is not the same margin as they get on the inpatient side and at some point they might want to move away and someone would be want to build a a large housing complex there so I want to be protective of it especially since I don't think we would ever want to see it leave unless it went bankrupt so I'm thinking of putting the rational of the overlay is getting development where we really want it and if we don't want it there I would exclude it the big why um actually when you look you can kind of see it Nate in your piece a part of its building is in Hadley you know it sticks out into Hadley so it's kind of an interest so maybe that protects it anyway because I don't know what the Hadley zoning is but the Big Y has a huge space called Goodwill in it um that a lot of people visit and it's really low margin CVS probably could be on the first floor of one of these complexes not a problem you know so maybe I'm talking about just coming down to the Big Y but supermarkets are in a lot of cities supermarkets are just disappearing because their margins are so low and so even if there's a long-term lease I believe in Market forces that if a large six story apartment building with a commercial bottom and in New York there have been a few attempts to build the supermarket underground and I think this ground surface is so wet that you be crazy to put a food store underneath the building in the ground so some New York have done all the street level everything else so my proposal is to do a less expansive overlay and I can I'll leave it conceptual right now but I did write down wording on exactly which lots I'm talking about and I'll stop and I know I'm com late Kathy just I'm coming in late on this but um I mentioned it at the council meeting yeah Pam if you could if you could have Nate draw your line and continue it so that we understand where you are okay so Nate Nate was drawing it with yeah Nate sorry here's the post office property here's the CVS property so if you're you know willing to um you know go south of CVS then it would um you know it' come along here right so so do we need to stop it at CVS and then he's done the line correct on the on the east side that is where the whole kolie Dickinson where it says op that lot and then north of it is there is a nursing home and way in back is uh the orbas um and in between but but Nate's little blue line did so does this need to go already to the edge of you've done the second blue line a little too low because you're C catching part you're C you're catching part of the Big Y but it's a weird lot the way CVS has a little piece of a lot that's otherwise all the big why but that that blue line is kind of doing what I'm talking about um okay uh councelor hanii I raised my hand for a different issue so people want to speak on this I'll let them first Pat are you on this topic yes I am but I thought Nate was trying to say something in response to Kathy I just I just adjusted the line so it's north of CVS I mean I have a response to Kathy but I can wait no I I wasn't necessarily trying to say CVS shouldn't be part of it but CVS is in the middle of the Big Y parking lot so it's it's just one extra little lot I'm I'm done with why why I think this is important Pat so you can continue okay thanks um basically and I apologize to everybody I cannot remember the name of the company that owns the Big Y property um and um but they have um uh they have said in um communication with uh Nate and with the and and therefore with the committee that they would like to see the overlay go all the way to route nine and in terms of visuals and everything else when we're talking about walkability and tree lines and everything else carrying it all the way to Route N is a really good idea um big why is an incredible Money Maker for and the family that uh owns the property uh that's what they do is they make shopping areas like so uh not extending it feels kind of foolish I have to think about um reducing it on the other side but I'm I'm so I have to think about that one but not bringing it to route nine just seems wrong and I can't support it Jennifer this topic or um this one you know uh um yeah I would like you know I've always wanted I preferred for the Big Y lot not to be included but you know I could the live with the compromise when we talked about that the entire ground floor would have to remain commercial I mean I don't the current owner says they will keep a market there but ownership can always change so that didn't really reassure me um I wouldn't want to do anything that jeopardized the big why or provided any incentive for a current owner to change their mind or for it to be sold in a future owner to think that there would be a more lucrative use for it um so I just I just want to respond to that I mean and we we've all read the email from the owner of that property but you know that's only as long as that owner is the owner so let's not do anything let's just keep it the way it is well no no we're not keeping the way it is because we're talking about the overlay distance and stop trying to to partition everything off and keep it in some kind of restricted way I am so tired of this so there's nothing you want to see protected I'm not surprises I mean I don't understand that but I mean because we're you know we still most of the the buildable area would still be in the overlay District uh could I just I was gonna um comment a little bit pan if I may the yeah did notify all the property owners when the hearing started and so a representative from uh Coy Dickinson attended two hearings I spoke with him on the phone but he said publicly they have no you know just like the owner of Big Y they have no intention of leaving and they don't have a problem with the overlay they'd actually maybe like to take advantage of it on the corner and continue building and have a bigger development in town and so their only concern was with storm water and groundwater and if you know if the overlay was going to do something with that and so really given the town's wetlands and storm water bylaw and the fact that you have to meet post and pre-construction standards they were you know amiliar and so they actually were fine with the overlay and same with the Big Y owner so both the store oper ators and the property owners you know agree to the overlay the property owners think it's great right they are mostly um an eastern Mass and New England they own some Southern you know Mid-Atlantic but their model is a grocery store anchored property and there in a lot of MBTA communities that are doing a similar overlay and so you know we have to take it at face value that for them this is like a you know an A++ property for them they love Big Y CVS Dunkin Donuts and now that we have to require 100% ground floor ret or non-residential space you know even if they were to develop it or redevelop it uh it would still need to be 100% ground floor or something that's not apartments or parking and so you know I think that they welcome this change it's not forcing anything right it's like in the purpose it's an opportunity so you know for instance the R&D overlay has been in place for 15 years and it's never been used I mean this overlay may be put in place and maybe half a dozen properties take advantage of it and the others never do and so from the planning board perspective eliminating the Big Y South is a is a is like is just a really loss of some creative development that you could have units here and still have stores and Retail and so why limit the possibility of a lot that's 100% pavement from having more units or a more creative site design and so it's not forcing coie Dickinson to leave right so if someone approaches and says you know we'll give you 10 million they could say sure 100 million sure I whatever right it's not saying they have to leave they don't have to voluntarily take the overlay and I think the Big Y owners have invested quite heavily in this property so I I Envision that they are longterm owners uh given what they've you know invested in kind of what they've said about this property so again the CC might want to change but the planning board is really comfortable with these boundaries thank you um councelor hanii just checking in this topic or another one Nate said basically what I was going to say on this one um but I will remind the committee that there are long-term leases that cannot be broken no matter whether the property owner sells or not that we've been told about and it would be a real shame if we neutered this overlay district for 40 or 50 years because we fear something that all the owners have told us will not happen in the near future um I'm reminded of something secretary Augustus of the executive office of Housing and livable communities told the councilors at the MMA business meeting for counselors and said zoning is an opportunity but it never happens a 100% And in 50 years it might only happen 20 or 30% exactly what Nate said um but it gives an opportunity and to take this out given the changes we've made to make sure that that area remains 100% commercial on the first floor to give that opportunity to lose the potential for housing above those floors when housing is desperately needed not just in this town but in the Commonwealth would be a real shame when this conversation's over I have another comment on this section okay yep thank you Kathy so I I'm going to uh since I didn't make it as a motion I'm withdrawing I'm not going to make a motion and I will speak to this again at the council I'm concerned about this I do understand what Pat and Mandy have just said um I believe that when you provide really lucrative opportunities they tend to happen and so if I'm still around 20 years from now or 10 years from now I'll be able to see what does or doesn't happen I do think long term and you already youve seen it with what Barry's had to do with this building it's really wet on the west side so we may have already developed um there may be some issues on how tall you can go in terms of what the ground Bel below you can can handle so the hopes for I'm not talking about the Big Y I'm talking about north of it um so we may or may not see a flourishing here just because when people look at what they're going to have to do with the ground it raises the cost of a five six story building so that's that to me is fine you know I mean we've allowed the opportunity and if you can't make it work you can't make it works so I will withdraw this um I am also worried about coie Dickinson but I love the idea if they think they're going to grow that corner Nate and bring more in um we really have a shortage of places to go for either urgent for lab services and it would be um not good for the town to lose it for the amount of distance you have to travel for the next one so so I'm just I'm just G to hope it won't happen and my worst my fears won't happen thank you Nate you want to keep going with your text or are we done with the map no I think Mandy might have a comment on it I do okay um okay before I get to that I just want to respond to to Kathy this overlay is an opportunity to allow coie to to expand their services upwards more than they could now because remember the definition of a mixed use is just one residential dwelling were allowing six stories they could put four or five stories of medical services with one or two of residential and expand the opportunity for medical services on that corner much more than they can do now in a Office Park area in terms of height and what's allowed um I've got a question about the wording here that says in the zoning districts located along the section of urive that is north and south because there are about four Parcels that are not contiguous to U Drive um in the map and so does this wording affect the fact are those Parcels affected by this wording because they are not a long University Drive um there's at least four Parcels that are not towards the South by Route 9 um so I just had some concerns that the wording might conflict with the map could you say something like uh located generally along the section of University Drive could we see those if you pull the map it's the it's the Ginger Garden and the or the um Auto it's an empty lot next to the real estate office and in front of the Medical Offices it's it's not Ginger Garden it's the it's Auto Parts the auto parts and yeah I mean so there's a few properties that don't have Frontage on on um University Drive that right if if we were saying along does that mean that something that doesn't have front edge is not applicable the I mean you know the Building Commissioner looked at this this and so the way we say the BL or office part covers it but if we want to add a qualifying phrase um that's as as as indicated on the map right no there's also one up by emity sorry there's one up by Amity that also doesn't yeah that's over in the little corner yeah that isn't continuous building can you insert the map we don't have a lot of pictures in our thing but if the map was inserted here it would uh at least uh address what Mandy's concerned about there's some pieces that aren't technically on University Drive they have a different address so could the map just the picture of the map be there well go ahead n Nate this is the format that would take in the bi place in the BW and we don't insert a picture it's the text so I mean if we wanted to have something you know here to qualify it I think that you know the way the Building Commissioner and staff has read it you know in these areas zoned in these districts along University Drive so it do not saying like you know adjacent to or only as Frontage on I think but as Pam said if we say located generally along or something uh if you want if you feel better about having some qualifier actually actually it does say shall apply in those limited business and Office Park zoning districts those districts are are a University Drive right so it feels like it covers it Mandy s right I have to pull up the district map the map I have up is the resource area boundaries so I I got to find the right map but I think your point is probably very good it is it covering all of those districts Nate right yeah so whatever is limited business and Office Park okay okay so so the it it does cover fully yeah okay thanks right for instance if there was an intrusion of like you know neighborhood residents or something then it would it wouldn't cover that but you know the limited business and Office Park are you know contigous zones right along Route you know that section of University Drive in route n thank you okay let's keep going dimensional standards uh 17.31 we simplified it to say there is no provision to wave or modify the dimensional standards of the overlay except as provided below we deleted there had been some uh you know some more you know lines here saying you know except with different principal uses or something and we it's redundant to what's down here in 17.34% to have some of this flexibility and so in 17.3 for the maximum building and lock coverage we have this kind of footnote here the maximum lot in building coverages shall be determined by the permit granting Authority anytime a mixed use building is located in the same on the same lot with another building with a different principal use in no case shall the total building and lot coverage exceed the amount in 17.34% different principal uses in buildings you know what is the maximum lot in building coverage however they can't exceed what's listed here I will say in the limited business the lot coverage is 85% in the office Park it's 70% really the difference now is in building coverage so Office Park only limits building coverage to 20% and bl uh limits building coverage to 35% so it's almost like in those districts we're saying you can have a lot of lock coverage about a small building so put a lot of parking and so to me it's like we flipped that and said you can have bigger buildings here take up some lock coverage and still have some parking but you know if you only allow 20% of a building a lock coverage or building coverage but 70% lock coverage that what that really means is you can have a lot of parking um and so we've kind of you know adjusted that to allow bigger buildings here Nate I'm I'm just wondering if if um you would get the same impact if you said something like uh the ma maximum lot and building coverages shall be determined by permit granting Authority um I mean in a way it's whether it's whether there's a mixed use building and another use or not right councelor hanii I know I sent you questions with this this Nate and that the the question I sent still still has a concern of how how does a building developer get an idea of where it will be within the sort of difference is between the Maxes of The Office Park and the overlay um but but the question I have as I think about this is is is the reason this is here is because there are differences and so if there was another building on and this one came [Music] in would the permit granting Authority not be able to use the 85 at all if there was another one on because or the 60% building coverage because Office Park is only 20% even though it was a mixed use building because there was already a non- miixed use building on it is this here because that lock cover that say that Max building coverage or Max lot coverage here that have gone up wouldn't actually legally be allowed be if the if a non-mixed use building were already on there because that o zoning would take precedence um yeah no yeah I yeah that's what the Building Commissioner and staff thinks so that's why you know there's 17.31 and then 1734 so if there's an existing office building that's you know compliant with the zoning but they have a big property and they said you know what we could put a mixed use building a second building on the property with this overlay they may exceed the lock coverage of 20% they may not exceed or the building coverage they may not exceed the lock coverage but really there's no kind of legal way to do that um given the base zoning requirements and so you know having this provision here allows that so you could have a building that is permitted you know that could be existing or permitted without the overlay and then what whether or not you know there's a second building permitted with the O you know another building permitted with the overlay and so it allows that opportunity so okay thank you yeah Kathy you have your hand up yeah I is this here are there areas where take the where Greenfield Savings Bank is and they have a parking lot is there room that a large housing project could be in part of that parking lot so that would be there's an existing commercial and then one of these comes in do we have some where you could Envision there be this cohabitation of something already there there aren't any homes along this thing but there's some businesses along is that why this is here right and so there's a few prop I mean the Big Y is one for instance right they could put a building up front uh and keep everything else on the site it's big enough that maybe they could put a mix use building or maybe they you know keep Big Y and put a mix use building CVS is and do something creative and so this would allow that you know having those two uses allowed and using this um this you know the LA the maximum lot and building coverage of the overlay and not be confined to the the one in the base zoning so this is it's trying to show that if there's already something there this is what you can do in addition to what's there right so you know like there's an office building on University Drive on the east side it has a pretty big property and are out front where you could have a second building but that second building would probably increase the lock coverage Beyond 20% and so you'd say well gez it doesn't work um but this provision here would allow that to happen for both buildings thank you any other questions on this uh Kathy's hands up no no I'm taking I'm just I've got the dimensions table on the on my lap but and um you're allowing much less Frontage here if that's all they need so you you've got some things where they have to have bigger Frontage on some of the others so I can see a narrow a narrow building a narrow deep building could go in y so that front setbacks you know these are um they're you know the Northampton Road have been changed to 20 feet so there are any changes here for front or um side setbacks the planning board did discuss 17.35% written as a 30- foot buffer that would be vegetated and could not be used for parking they reasoned that they would just have it be a 30 foot setback uh so when the side or rear yard ofs a residential use in a residential district there shall be a minimum 30 foot setback and so they felt that there was already you know an existing building with parking right near the property lines on both the North and South ends of University Drive um a 30 foot setback is bigger than what's there and so they felt that that was um you know appropriate they also think that you know the permit granting Authority most likely the planning board you know would also have the ability to say we want screening between certain uses and so instead of having something as descriptive as was there saying it has to be vegetated and it can't be used for parking this or that that they have that ability anyways to say can we have some screening um it's in it's in 11.24 as part of site planer viiew anyway so they felt comfortable that within this setback they could then ask for additional screening Nate quick question uh so so when it says minimum setback I'm just clarifying or confirming that that is to any structure or does it it still allows um like in residential areas there might be a driveway within a setback is that correct right so a 30 foot setback would be from the property line to a building not to it would so then part would be okay so it could it could feasibly be a lot less than a 30 foot setback to to any kind of um site feature like parking uh less than 30 feet I guess I'm not so you know building could be set at 30 feet and then there's you know some distance there that could be right parking or or you know access would probably want emergency access so if you have if you have a drive lane that's 24 feet wide I mean you might end up with a six foot wide um strip of something to vegetate right so this this do you know doesn't protect the residential terribly well yeah the planning board felt that you know what's there now is almost nothing and so there's already there's screening now and so this actually for more you know land to be used for screening if needed in the future so I agree it's different than what was presented last time but they thought they had the ability during the permitting review to say can you actually you know add screening within the stb hanaki I just want to say thank you for this this makes a lot more sense given what I was staring at because there is literally parking and driveway AB budding the property line that we're talking about right now um and so it's already there um and so a setback for the building makes a lot more sense than whatever was there beforehand that that I had had a lot of concerns at so thank you for this change I appreciate it um Building height uh again 17. 362 uh was um modified so that portion of any mix use building within 150 ft of an abing residential lot in a residential district shall not exceed 40 feet and three floors and so you know before it said that the entire building even if a if a portion of it was within 150 feet couldn't exceed three floors and so now it's saying that you know that portion of a building would be limited in height uh the planning board you know thought about this and they looked at the you know Charles Lane in the north side they said that you know given the height in the depth of the lot you know I done kind of a scale drawing that if even if you put a tall building you know a few hundred feet away near the frontage of um University Drive that the say the Shadows or the the visual um impact is actually still greater from that taller building than a three-story building you know closer to the property line and so they you know they thought this was um was reasonable so they you know they even considered even having something they you know they had a discussion about this in the buffer but they thought you know this this they understand what this is doing is really you know having a a stepped approach from the neighboring property so it's not as if you can have a really tall building at the setback they thought that was that would work ELO hanaki um just just a similar question that I wrote um about route nine um and the use of a budding um AB buddings presumably a legal term um I was deemed an AB budding homeowner when there was a property between mine and a property that's behind me because I was within 300 ft um does route nine um disrupt the word AB budding such that those houses across the street uh that are residential that this provision does not apply to those Route 9 adjacent um um properties and that could be the the sort of single families that are on the east side of Route 9 the southeast side of Route 9 but that could also be the mixed use building on the southwest side of Route 9 because that is technically a residential building in a sense at least it has residential um it's got a residential dwelling in it so does route nine disrupt the a budding part in this definition in this wording it does uh so after the last meeting it was a good question you know and kind of when you're talking about zoning if you say AB budding properties it's really their you know share a property line and so you know a street or um you know would would sever that it's it's it's it's interesting because then you know we give a butter notices within 300 feet but really in a zoning technical term a budding means sharing a property line adjacent is something different unfortunately probably in our zoning bylaw and other regulations some of those terms are used interchangeably but AB budding has a you know kind of a technical legal definition like adjoining adjacent um proximal like all those could mean something similar but really a budding is sharing a property line thank you Jennifer yeah so I you're saying when we give notification we've decided it's 300 ft but it wouldn't be considered so for 17. 362 a budding is adjacent it's sharing a property line so across the street is not an abing property but wouldn't that also be Beyond 300 feet I see but you're not applying the 300 feet that's yeah I think if I I'll just share my screen I'll jump a bit uh you know we're saying is if there's Prof residential profit properties here south of Route n that 150 ft would then impact you could impact a lot all of these properties here and so or we're saying the word abutting is you know doesn't cross the street in in this sense yeah I guess I'm an example of where you said we confuse it because there's a lot of development where I live I get we get a butter notices all the time because we're in 300 feet of something but that's different than being in a budding property I mean the way it's worded is uh master and L says in a butter within 300 feet so essentially they're saying you know you go 300 feet from that property line and every property that's touching that within 300 feet is in a butter within 300 feet so it's basically going property to property so even if your property is 299.00 feet you're still in a butter because you're within the 300 foot abing properties from that the you know the property that's getting up having a permit application um I don't know if there's any discussion on this 362 in terms of what it means or yeah I'm gonna I'm just going to I've been trying to estimate how much of a building would be within the the 150 feet um the 150 feet if we recall your diagram is from the the back door of the of the house the the abing house it is not from from the from the property line if if I thought about it 150 ft from the property line it means that there could be 120 foot depth of building which is pretty reasonable you know it could be two apartment buildings or something like that um if if uh let's say the the back of the house is 50 feet from the property line it means that uh you've already got 80 feet uh there's there's maybe 70 feet of depth of three stories I'm just I'm just trying to say what's a a reasonable um depth of building that could be at three stories and make sense you're not going to have half a floor of three stories and then go up to to five or six you know within um the same section of the building just physically doesn't make a lot of sense um but I would like to I would like to see the 30 the 30 foot three story um box be um be required to you know to a normal depth of footprint I'm not saying this very well yeah no I think yeah I understand what you're saying a developer is not going to arbitrarily put a building and then decide well I'm going to have to have 40 feet at three floors and then I'm G have some random amount or you know at another height I think they would plan it in a way that would work with this um you know as we said the idea is to really get buildings you know as close to the the front of the property along University Drive and not have them to the back and so you know this would allow another a second building on on a few properties that is near the back um that would have to have a limited height and so again you'd still have the ability to put a pretty big building on the front uh but if you wanted a second building then you know it have to comply with this and so I don't you know there's already existing building if we're talking about the the behind Charles Lane there's an existing building you know would they ever redevelop and have two buildings or something perhaps what they'd have to comply with this I mean you know I sometimes I think 150 ft could be made bigger could be smaller this could be worded differently it could be 100 feet from the property line you know I think the planning board kind of decided that for now this you know they understand what this is doing and they think it's you know it works there could be other ways to do something similar in terms of having a um you know stepping back a building height Let's uh let's let's move on um I want to take a note we we talked and gave uh uh notice to the staff that we would switch gears and talk about um the solar bylaw and the the submitt requirements list that Chris breast developed at about 8 o'clock and I'm and I'm wondering we're we're chugging through this we have a new member so we were still raising some different questions I just want to get the sense of the group if we are getting close do we want to continue with University Drive and make our way through it um Pat I would like to stick with University Drive and get through it um I think there's enough going on with the solar bylaw that it would be crazy to switch gears at this point um so I would like to get this through and get it where it needs to go to get voted on by the both by us but also by the council thank you anybody one more thing Chris sorry if that messes you up terribly I appreciate you're being here but um I'm looking to Dave if we were to I'm guessing that we'll take us longer than eight o'clock so if you would Chris has her hand up Pat too uh Pam too so I couldn't see it thank you Chris Chris prri yeah I just wanted to agree I'm fine with you uh continuing on with University Drive I think it's a more um pressing issue that you want to actually have finished and come to some conclusion about and the solar bylaw is um there's really nothing pressing right now so you know we can work on that whenever you have time I'm here if you want me to talk about it but I think it's in my opinion better to continue on with the discussion that you're having thank you thank you thank you David yeah I was just going to add I agree with Chris in addition to that Stephanie chorella who is really the taking the lead on the solar bylaw with with Chris's retirement and uh coming back Limited hours so Stephanie was unable to join us tonight so I I think it is fine oh okay I thought she was all set to come in at 8 and I was gonna ask you to contact her I think something came up in her schedule I perfect could be wrong on that but I think I am correct then I'm not going to feel guilty about cancelling good I can text her as well I'll reach out to thank you yeah thank you okay let's keep going on University Drive sure yeah thanks the um yeah we get to get you know I think we've looked at some of these sections we haven't had much talk about open space and some of the other uh design guidelines so we can try to get there um you know this for 17.4 we have you know this was added previously exclusively occupied by any permitted non-residential use so this 17 . 412 is saying that these properties it's really the area around Big Y shall be exclusively occupied by any non-residential use on the first floor up to however up to 15% on of the ground or first floor may be used as incidental or common space to support the upper floors so that was there previously yeah Nate um a quick question does this include Ginger Garden in the in the auto part store or is um is this strictly the I can't remember the the numbers yeah so the um if the map is visible the this includes you know essentially this whole area of the overlay so from south of the post office essentially all the all the properties in this area so I I'm gonna I'm GNA bring this up then as a question so if I sketched out where I envisioned that buildings could occur um as much as I wouldn't want to lose Ginger Garden because I do like their food um having a a residential or residential slash commercial building across from one South University Drive and the I doctors um actually makes a a reasonable pair of buildings uh along the Route n Frontage and I think from my perspective I I don't want to be hard and fast with the two or three small businesses as much as I appreciate that we have them um if something came along and that rout n portion were to be developed as housing I would I would be okay with that so I want to just ask if there are others that have a similar opinion about those particular Parcels Mandy I think if we're carving in out Parcels we carve out the whole section um across one University Drive South is nearly fully I think commercial on the first floor and that's all we're asking for here it makes sense um in this part I've come around to it makes sense in this particular corner to require fully commercial on the first floor um I wouldn't want these I sort of islanded parcels that have to I think it makes sense to just do the whole the whole section Kathy so Mandy just pointed out that that's a whole cluster the other part of 13d is on the opposite side is there a reason you don't mention so I'm looking at the Lots it's 13 D50 and 13d 49 that's the um and then there's one 13 D9 D 13d 50 and 49 are coie dick and and the nursing home right so it's I think I'm right all the ones listed here are on the west side you don't have the 13d on the other side of the street is there a reason well right so the idea is that it's only that only the west side so they don't you know that's what the planning board wanted there's concerns about if Big Y were to leave and so some of this is a compromise we're saying well that that whole quadrant of the overlay can be redeveloped as long as the ground floor is 100% non-residential space except for this kind of incidental 15% so the um that's why you know they didn't want to consider it across route n or or University Drive well like these make sense to me I'm not saying this doesn't make sense I'm just asking about the other the other side of the street which is Mandy said when you go over to snail it's commercial on the first floor so wouldn't you the other parts are 13d I don't know why they're all 13 DS but they're 13d on the other side too it's 13 13 D9 is a very very narrow parcel and the rest of it is all Wetland right so but then there's 49 and 50 49 is cooie Dick and 50 and 50 is the is the rehab home or whatever it's called so I think for the planning board they didn't want to put this provision of 100% ground floor non-residential anywhere else but the properties that are listed here okay so I mean if if the CRC wants to put it somewhere else they can but the the planning board you know this is how they've looked at it this is kind of their this is where they think it's appropriate to have a 100% ground for non-residential they didn't think it needed to be spread out anywhere else I'm gonna drop it you've answered my question thank you councelor hanaki so I wouldn't support it on the East side but I do want to point out that 13 D50 is already residential it's not commercial a nursing home I believe is considered residential but maybe I'm wrong but it is not commercial in the sense that we're thinking commercial on the west side of Route nine okay so I I don't know how a nursing home because it's in it's in an office park zone Mandy so right but it's not commercial like we're thinking big ycbs ret it's not s selling you're not walking up and buying something absolutely and so what retail and what would commercial what would a Clinic be a lab in a clinic um it's some anyway I just it's the other side of the street and and you're right a nursing home is kind of Quasi residential yeah but it's a business so it's so um multiple buildings and uses there we had added uh essentially um the three 17511 0.512 and 0.513 the plan of War thought these were good clarifications so we had always said more than one building with any permanent use may be located on a single lot it now also has these other standards and conditions more than one mixed use building may be permitted on a single lot using the overlay District more than one building building permitted without the overlay District may be located on the same lot as mix use buildings permitted with the overlay District uh and then there's this third provision additional mix use buildings permitted on a single lot behind a mix use building adjacent to the street May reduce the non-residential space on the first or ground floor to half the required amount provided that the other half be located in the mixus building adjacent to the street and so you know essentially you're not reducing the non-residential space you're shifting it to the building that's along the street and so you the planning board thought these these are relatively new it was things that kind of had been discussed with the CRC and with the planning board and they like the idea that it was just clarified with these conditions Kathy oh no sorry that's a leftover okay I do have a question on that on um 17510 the middle the middle paragraph um I wonder if it said more than one building permitted with underlying zoning may be located on the same mixed use build lot as mixed use building permitted with the overlay District does that make sense it's it it's never the sentence has never really made sense to me it would it would it would read this way then yes and that says to me that we could have two Office Park buildings and one mixed use as long as we don't exceed the lot coverage and and building coverage great great so this is a lot of flexibility uh counselor haniki yeah I appreciate the addition of these they they dealt with some of my concerns um that same 512 section I uh more than one means not one I think given that this is two different under two different zones two different things I think that one should actually read one or more buildings permitted with the underlying zoning may be located on the same because the way it reads now you couldn't have one with underlying zoning and one with mixed use you'd have to have at least two with underlying zoning yep good uh would you repeat what you said I um it's one or more buildings it's just one or more buildings permitted yeah yeah yep thank you that is clear now all right project open space uh 17.52 EXC me hold on hold on excuse me sorry um 1751 three I think you're missing a word it's uh should the first on the first or ground floor it's in the middle of your paragraph thank you all right I'll move on to open space yep yep 520 we've uh consolidated uh there had been a subsequent bullet point and we've deleted it and we've you know kind of expanded 520 so every project shall provide usable open space for residents in the public project open space on the site shall be provided in areas that are not required parking areas driveways the multiuse path service areas or or areas with a steep slope uh and so you know we deleted that it would be on the inside or exterior of a building um and a few other things so you know it doesn't say what I think there's been some questions about what is the open space and what's the right size I think the planning board has done this with other projects you know it could be a small Plaza it could be little El Coes off a walkway and so you know I think that they're comfortable during the permitting to say okay these are this is usable open space you know it's not yes I'm I'm going to make a suggestion that we that we change from with a slope greater than 5% and the reason I say that is that's that sort of minimally accessible whereas 10% is clearly not accessible and therefore would be a really poor choice of public space and five is you know again that's nominally accessible thank you councelor hanaki so I asked this question um there's not a requirement that the 10-ft paths line up um presumably that could get taken care of during site plan review but can you mandate it in site plan review if there's not a requirement here that those paths line up and then um secondly what happens right now right now there's an access drive and this 10-ft multi-use path is intended to be on that access Drive um which would presumably remove that access drive from public motor use if a property is developed except there are some properties that only have that access drive as access and they don't have a curb cut to route nine in front of their property um they are relying in curb Cuts in front of other properties what happens to those properties if the properties with the current C Cuts get developed for the 10ft wide multi-use path how do the properties that are in between there get access to their properties at all and is that something what happens and who would be responsible for providing that access if you know I think I gave you an example of how would parcel 13B 55 or 56 be accessed if Parcels 13B 17 and 19 use the overlay and build their multi- youth path paths how would those other two Parcels get any access at all and who would be responsible for the costs of creating that access sure yeah the the the Western access aisle has easements on it so that you can't restrict access to say that property you're mentioning without agreement from the property owners U so that would have to be discussed in terms of not having a curb cut access that would take a vote of the planning board and then a vote of council to add a curb cut on University Drive so it's not there's not an impossibility there for a 70 University Drive it was a pretty reasonable process to have a new curb cut added uh and so you know as this if this overlay were implemented and as projects came about I think it would become then a discussion with the planning board Public Works and Council in terms of what you know if we wanted to add add curves curve Cuts you know where are the right locations uh you know a long University Drive so there's no there is a provision from a long time ago about having six curb cut Cuts uh but that could be changed with an approval of the planning board and a vote of at that time town meeting so I don't see adding a curb cut access to University Drive as a barrier at all um and I think you know I think that for the planning board they they you know they did talk about this and they said well let's let the developers be creative right let a developer talk to the neighboring property owner and come up with a solution in terms of access to the property and so maybe there's ideas we haven't talked you know they haven't thought about there could be a drive aisle near the multiuse path there could be you know something else uh so they I think they see that this you know again it provides an opportunity and because the access easen has to be agreed upon by the property owners it's not as if you can eliminate the access right away maybe that has to be a phased approach um with a property or two Mandy doesn't it then give veto authority over any project to adjacent Property Owners if they don't want to work with for that easement issue and is that that that doesn't seem right to me completely Authority you have North and South access so depending on where how you manage it uh you know if you still have some access point then you have you know the easan is still viable and so for instance you know Barry Roberts on the corner he's you know can work his way down to a point where he can't you know he could you know he can extinguish the easements because he has control of that and then you know if a neighboring property wanted to do it as long as they don't impede access from north or south to their neighboring properties and they can you know extinguish the easen Kathy yeah Mandy I you know even on Barry's property you see this the 10- foot path goes and then suddenly it ends because the next thing is a road but some of those properties are all owned by the same entity that aren't Barry Roberts if you look at the owners on them so they might get developed as a cluster so Nate's like you could do a a curb cut so I think it's possible to get I guess the intent here is to get this over time if this gets developed to get a 10-ft wide path all the way down to at least Big W the shopping center if it's still there um so you could get there walking um and right now you can do that on the other side of the street but you can't do it on the East Side you can walk in the walkway you can walk in this little inside path okay I was just thinking of the property owners matter here and I think they might take that whole little strip of stores and do it all at once if they were going to do it rather than one by one and I was going to also add that that in Barry's case it it reverts to um the existing public sidewalk which I would love to see go away and be replaced with this 10- foot wide but but in fact we do have the ability to shuttle people shunt people back to the public walkway but that's not ideal obviously it's not the shunting of people that worried about it's it's how you get there of of getting a vehicle to some of these properties if the properties around them are developed and the access Drive disappears because under this zoning you're essentially required to disappear the access Zone in favor of a pedestrian only right of way um and some of these properties don't have any access direct access to University Drive they have to have this side you know Frontage Road um access and so I I guess I I guess my question is is there a way to within the zoning if the access of the frontage road becomes a problem during the planning stage because it just can't be worked out for whatever reason or something is there a way to delay the creation of the 10t wide multi-use path for years um so this 17521 doesn't say you have to get rid of the access drive it just says there has to be a 10- foot wide multiuse path between the front of the building and the property line so someone could swing the proper the multiuse path and have the building be set back even further on their property right I mean there's probably creative ways to address this without you know if we're really concerned about that act but but not have multi- use pathes paths that connect to each other isn't the goal to have them connect and if one swings it back and the other one says forward and the one swings it back beyond the setback you can't force the other one to move their setback in fact right like like I I guess I'm still struggling with how this all works in an incremental development sort of way um and isn't the point of a 10-ft wide multi-use path to not have cars going right around next to you like that's not pedestrian friendly so I I I don't see keeping the frontage road as as a solution when our whole goal is to not have the front edge road sure I agree but I'm saying there's different opportunities or different site plans and there can be many different site plans for one property so I think the planning board is comfortable using this bylaw and staff is comfortable working with applicants and Property Owners to come up with the best solution and so it might be that you need a new curve cut access right so we're not you know we can't you know presume every possible site design or option on a property oh one final question that I don't know you have if you have the answer to on this um how can zoning require a private land owner to open up their private property for public use and what is the liability of the town if someone is injured or an accident occurs on that public mandated open space that a private land owner may not have wanted to do but the zoning bylaw required them to allow public access to in not not limited Public Access but Public Access sure yeah we spoke with an attorney about this and they said you know this is fine through the granting of easements or licenses most likely in easement they would this would be taken care of and so zoning can require this we've asked that and you know we'd work with the property owner and an attorney to negotiate an agreement there so we we do it quite a bit actually have easements on properties for for public sidewalks and bus stops and then it's the town you know the town may may maintain them they may not but then it's in you know a public access easement there a lot of them around town okay thank you including downtown where Where the Sidewalk extends onto public or onto private property okay um we say the planting of Street trees shall be required you know that was a change that was um added a bit ago but it's change from the original version in terms of parking we say the parking requirements of 7.0 do not apply and 7.2 shared parking don't and so there really is no formula for parking we're not saying there's a required two spaces what we are saying is that an applicant is required to submit a parking utilization study in a parking management plan uh for the permit graning authority to determine an adequate number of off street parking spaces so you know we you know if they propose no parking spaces the Penning board could say well give us a traffic impact study parking utilization study to show that to prove that and so really they have to come in with something Nate I have a question where in 17532 the very first line says shared or lease parking is encouraged and yet 1730 says shall not apply shared shared parking shall not apply how do we reconcile this well that section of the bylaw requires you can only do shared parking with a special permit if you have 120% of the required parking spaces on a property and so essentially you can do shared parking you just don't follow the the the 7.2 part of our bylaw say that again so in order to use 7.2 right now in our bylaw it might need you might need a special permit and you'd have to have 120% of the required parking spaces to even you know have shared parking and so what we're saying is you don't need to meet those conditions to do shared parking now you could right have some other agreements so for instance right now 70 University Drive and others may have a shared parking agreement through a permit that you know at certain hours these spaces can be used by residents and other hours by commercial tenants um then we have design guidelines we say the design review principes shall apply and so you know it's always in most of the bylaw even in site plan review we say that and it's the planning board always has the discretion of asking the design review board for an advisory opinion we're now saying that those principles will be used uh 17541 to the extent feasible a majority of the street facing facade shall be built along the width of the lot Frontage and be generally located um uh I think I we missed a building here and be generally located along the minimum front setback line to reinforce the the sidewalk Edge um and so the planning board added the word width here and so really what this is trying to do is have a building with you know the length of their most of the street width being developed as opposed to having a narrow you know the narrow end of a building and most of the lot then undeveloped along the front edge keep going yeah uh overhang awnings has been in there uh so with the street facing facade is you know the term now we've cons consistently used that shall have variations in architectural detail change in plane or other treatment to break down the scale and mass of a large flat facade again the you know planning board felt this was enough to give them the ability to require an applicant to change a design if it was one big flat wall surface or open parking lot shall not face the street and should not be and should be located behind buildings or to the side of buildings a minimum of 30 feet from public ways and shall be screened from adjacent properties so really it's saying you know have parking be set back a bit uh councelor hanaki Greening um why is it the this say I'm I'm just going to use this property the um the the Hang it's not the hanger anymore um but but that property's responsibility to use some of its land for screening to prevent a different property owner from seeing the use um why shouldn't it be the requirement of the property owner that doesn't like to W look at it say the parking lot to use their own own property to screen um so for example why shouldn't it be on each Charles Lane land owner to give an example to use their own property for screening if they don't want to see a parking lot or driveway why is it the you drive owners responsibility to use their property um it's it doesn't appear that the screening right now is on the udrive property it appears that it's on the Charles properties um and there are sometimes times when a property owner might not want it screened and it's being forced I'm talking about a residential property owner may not want it screened and it's being forced on them because of this writing um I grew up in a home that eventually well bordered a cornfield at one point and there was a park built back there but there was a parking lot adjacent to my propert my home uh it was not screened we loved that it wasn't screened because it was not fenced we loved that it wasn't fenced because that parking lot could be additional parking for parties um we could easily without having to walk out of the neighborhood up the street and back in on the entrance to the park get to the park to use it um getting there may be property owners that want to be able to just walk through their backyard to get to that property um and this provision seems to take that option away from those property owners and so I have problems with it thank you Kathy I I had a a different issue with this um not an issue but up up above you can have shared or leased parking if you're sharing your parking across two adjacent properties you shouldn't have to put screening between them so if I've got two and they say we're just going to have all of our parking um think of what I call the mini mall right now um it's just one big parking lot for all those businesses um it doesn't say the hanger in each of these places and I don't know whether that whole building is owned by one owner so would this would this conflict was shared is is my question where you can share it you shouldn't have to screen it if you're sharing it you know so I can really complicated unless you're sharing parking I mean Mandy Mandy wants to know why it's there at all I want to say maybe if you're sharing parking with an adjacent thing you don't have to screen it so that was my question Jennifer yeah I mean I think the least we can do I would not want to put the burden on the residents of charlesfield that those are modest houses I don't I think that the deeper Pockets who are the developers building can afford they have the resources to do screening I think that it is unlikely many of the homeowners that have been living on charlesfield you know some of them for for decades should all of a sudden you know the zoning is changing that the least we can do for them is to ask the developer of these big buildings to put up some screening and I think I may be going out on a limb here but I think if you were to do a survey I feel pretty confident the majority of homeowners would say if it parking lot was going to be adjacent to their backyard that they would probably not welcome that uh they would like there to be screening I think I would even go I I think that that's a fairly good assumption so I feel like it's a little heartless to say well if the somebody who's been living on charlesfield and they're you know these are small houses this isn't that when this building gets built adjacent to them that if they don't like it that the onus is on them to incur the expense to do the screening I think that's not a lot to ask of the developers that are going to be building on University Drive and I think if two property owners are fine you know if we're talking about two buildings that are being built they could probably decide amongst themselves they don't need screening and go to the planning board and the planning board would probably not make them have screening from the two new buildings from each other thank you um I was going to suggest that we have the wording go and shall be screened from adjacent Residential Properties uh to to Kathy's point I had the same thought you're trying to you have parking lots um the the similar uses are um the commercial slash are the mixed use buildings that we're trying to build so those are you know there's really no reason to screen one mixed use building from another uh just like you wouldn't screen a small Bank from the convenience store so really I think we're trying to deal with Residential Properties and I and I would totally agree that um let let the let the adjacent land owner ask for a gate uh this is this is a very different use than than going to the park um so I I I will definitely support having a screening be required uh councelor hanii there's already a parking lot there there might be some trees at least the gis looks like there's some at least in the northern part I absolutely agree with Cathy um but Residential Properties if you put a mixed use building in it's a residential is property right what what what are you referring to what are you worried about the Big Y already shares parking lots across across property lines um should we think we assume too much about property owners and what they want or don't want um yes a commercial property is much different than a park but that doesn't mean a property owner doesn't want to minimize their walking to that commercial property from a half mile to 20 or 100 feet that doesn't mean they wouldn't choose that um I think I said they could add a gate if they wanted to they can't if they don't own the fence for it well this is my thing they can't force another property owner to add a gate or pick the the the the screen that would allow them to cut through because you're telling the land owner that that they have to screen from people that they don't necess you know I think it's on I think the burd's being placed on the wrong person because the Charles Lane if if we're going with residential here the Charles Lane not every Charles Lane res president might want a fence not everyone might want a particular type of hedge if they were choosing stuff because maybe they would choose something else but they have no choice in what goes up if you require the University Drive owner to put it all in why why is it on the University Drive owner to do it all and not the person who actually wants the screening thank you you might want to reply to that wasn't you know this wasn't generated just for the Charles Lane it was really you know to screen parking in general and so typically it's the the person who's making the impact the applicant who provides the mitigation we don't ask someone who's not an applicant or a project proponent to mitigate impacts right so that's the way all bylaws are written whether it's the Wetland bylaw or zoning it's the applicant who mitigates impacts and so whether or not we put it in here 11.2 24 as part of site planin inter viw requires screening as part from parking and so at some point it's like what is reasonable it doesn't mean you can have you're going to have 100% Opa wall screening parking maybe it means there's some plantings there can be openings in those plantings for people to walk through there could be variations in types of plantings it may be a low wall in plantings right so I think the planning board again is comfortable using this and applying it and and making it reasonable and so I I don't I don't think we need the word residential we could say like we've done in other conditions to the extent feasible or possible um but I think the planning board is comfortable you know working with this so Shelby screen it doesn't mean that you know it's a continuous 8 foot tall fence um a solid wooden fence to screen the parking uh Nate I I don't believe I don't believe you need the words to the extent feasible um if it is the if it is in the purview of the permit granting Authority they typically go through a checklist and they will talk I mean it's it's really in the hands of the PGA to acknowledge uh neighbor neighbor impact you know a butter impact and they have to go through that checklist so if someone says holy cow you're going to have lights SC screaming into my backyard from from the the sixth floor um there may be some request to be doing some mitigation for that as you use that word um but I but I think we really are I think we really are just talking about in this case it's single family Residential Properties that are um that that we're talking about uh Jennifer um yes I would like to see this stay in as it is think that's the least we can do for the residents in particularly of Charles Lane and that it just feels mean-spirited to take to take it out and I um you know again I'm going out on a limb I think that the residents would appreciate that I suppose they could you know always go to the planning board and say you know I don't want to be screened I want to be adjacent to their parking lot if if we're going to say this I would part of my scroll I would mirror the language above to say um a residential use in a residential district or something and so that we qualify it a bit more as opposed to just a residential property so you know something like a I don't think we need to do that person I mean this we don't have to change it I mean we can V we don't have to say residential but it's in there now so I don't know if if if if you like the word residential or just adjacent properties or do we remove this addition Alto together it it makes it clearer gal if he says residential district because we're going to have a whole bunch of this is an overlay Zone and we haven't done that it just makes it clear yeah I would say something like adjacent residential uses in a residential district y okay but I guess what councelor hanii just said that if you're putting up Apartments those are residential too but they're not in the residential not considering District they wouldn't be in a residential district so everyone's talking about the permit granting Authority could do something and and work with it and all except it says shall so Nate could it be waved it can't be it can't be so there is a must it's not an option it's not oh if if the residential neighbor says I don't want it the PGA can't say okay we won't require it it says shall I think it's so unlikely that that would happen that I'm personally willing to risk that Kathy um I think the change you just put on residential district solves my problem of inconsistency because the very next one 17545 it said share parking lots so you across property lines so you definitely don't want screening between property lines um on the type of buildings you're envisioning we've got you know that's the issue we've got a lot of mixed juice mixing you know between what exists so I think this reording solves my but we want them to share it we want them to consolidate it we don't want to have any barriers to lots of little teeny tiny parking lots um and I don't know what to do with Mandy's sh uh unless unless the per the other people don't want it I'm I'm okay with this wording um H or Hani so section 7.11 I guess still applies if I read this correctly Nate which would mean the barrier has to be not less than 3 feet tall it's not in this bylaw right right but you're saying um that still applies right the parking lot design standards would still apply so the landscape standards so what do we need this screening sorry for the scrolling so how does do 7112 apply how does that work with shared parking in the overlay District Blake how did how did Big Y with their two separate Lots between CVS and Big Y have no screening between on that parking lot if 7112 applies or was it built before we had these landscape standards and how would this apply to shared parking in an overlay District in the zoning by law itself right and so that was one project and so really it becomes you know what's the what's the next property right um in terms of having that screening and there's also the provision in our bylaw 7.9 that those can be wave for site design Aesthetics or other reasons and so given that it was one project they probably had a waiver request for that so it could be waved in section 7 but this Section 5 17.542 cannot be right right now this the way this is written 17.542 has a limited application and that it is only necessary when it's you know adjacent residential uses in a residential district and so if you're providing parking on the west side of University Drive there's no requirement for this provision because there's no adjacent residential use in a residential district is the Hadley District a residential district there's no residential uses in that District No it's yeah no it's not I don't have the Hadley map in front of me Hadley Hadley doesn't like residential on Route n ever you know yeah right um I'm going to interrupt because I just finally looked at looked at the clock it is 8:33 we have um we have parking and we're in design guidelines sorry um so very we have almost nothing left yeah so uh do can people raise their hands if they feel comfortable pursuing this to the end of the document okay Nate thank you for sticking with us sure so we had three more standards or conditions you know 17545 hasn't changed you know as as um we're saying you know how consistent is it with the one above but you know to the extent possible parking lots behind building shall be Consolidated across property lines to maximize efficiency of pace space um and curb Cuts 17546 mechanical equipment should be screened as determined by by the permit gring Authority rooftop mechanical equipment and then uh 547 loading docks dumpsters mechanical equipment and utility meters except as required by the public utilities shall be located in low visibility locations and screened from view by architectural landscape elements compatible with the site and building design so these have always been there we removed this over here in 546 that said louvers and other mechanical systems we said shall not be visible and really that's you know almost an impossibility so really the screening is what we are um what we can do and we just kind of clarified as except required by public utilities and so you know with bigger buildings they may be all electric you're going to have a bank of meters a Transformer box compressors and so we work as best we can with the applicant and the utilities to put those in locations that aren't as prominent um but sometimes the public utilities have you know have requirements in terms of say where a Transformer box is located we really try to put those away from the you know front facade of a building Kathy I I have no comments on the remaining I just have a question since I'm new to the process this looks to me other than my major except uh proposed change that no one liked that we've done some word smithing Mandy has one area that she's not happy with but do we vote this out with these changes and then we made the one n that you said the planning board had put in on the um including undergraduates and we removed that Clause so that's just a clause but it wasn't substantive so what's the process on uh to me getting to yes so this can move to the next stage um if I'm not if I'm not mistaken we can vote tonight to close the public hearing and then we de we still would have some time for deliberation and um to come up with a document that we can vote on and I'm just double-checking if that's the correct statement Chris hi you're still with us I'm still here I just wanted to know if you had any um thought of taking public comment before you close the public hearing we we have we have no attendees okay thank you otherwise yes uh councelor hanii um I'm happy to make the Motions whenever people are ready so yeah Kathy to your point this CRC can have its own set of recommendations to council so you know there could there's a few other changes here and if there's other considerations it doesn't necessarily have to be the exact same version recommended by the planning board and so it seems like there will be some differences um and so that you know that's okay uh you know some you know I think it's you know we've always shared the same document so that everyone knows what each each group is looking at and we try I've tried to explain where the changes come from so it's not as if the CRC has been looking at a version that the planning board has hasn't seen so there is you know some agreement generally about changes that's that's clear you know so thank you councilor Hani are we ready for motions uh it feels like there's a consensus that we have pretty much wrapped our public hearing portion of it at least I move to close the public hearing Shane seconds let's take a vote uh councelor hanii hi Jennifer tab yes I was gonna call on Dave Zac because he's next in line H Kathy Shane yes Pam roone is a yes Pat d'angeles public hearing has been closed unanimously um thank you Nate yes so it is now now 8:39 and I'm I'm going to suggest that we not do more deliberation tonight because we've already talked a great deal about it um but we need another motion to uh we don't need another motion to continue do we so I was going to make a motion that is that would finish deliberation because we are now with that hearing closed under a Time deadline to get the council to vote um so I don't know if PE we we had a lot of discussion right we went through this sort of line by line I don't know if there's more discussion needed but I'm prepared to make a motion I don't see any disagreement go ahead I move to recommend the council adopt changes to Article 2 zoning districts the addition of article 17 University Drive overlay District and the um amending the official zoning map by adding the University Drive overlay District um as amended at the meeting on January 28th 2025 second um hold on point of order um that amended should have not related should be clearer to not the official zoning map I did it in the wrong spot ah and also can you make sure that you include section two that was Article two you already said article I missed it I missed that Chris bestr has her hand up I see that thank you Chris hey I I don't know if I understood correctly but you would be changing the official zoning map sorry let let me rephrase this motion I'm moveed to recommend that the council adopt revisions to Article 2 zoning districts as amended at the January 28th 2025 CRC meeting revisions to well the addition of article 17 to the zoning bylaws as amended at the January 28th 2025 CRC meeting and amendments to the official zoning map by adding the University Drive overlay District as presented at the January 28th 2025 CRC second dangeles okay thank you um let's take a vote let's start with uh Pat d'angelus hi Jennifer toab yes councelor hanaki I Kathy Shan yes and Pam roon is a yes and we'll get that exact warning and we will great so I uh Chris you still have your hand up you're free to speak sorry I don't need to speak I okay residual or vestigal Jennifer I'm sorry I think I asked this last time I just want to be clear so the council's going to get the planning board referral and the CRC referral so we don't want them to send it back to us the two because we've reviewed so I feel like it's like the senate or and Congress so there'll be a Reconciliation at the meeting or they'll accept or the majority will vote one or the other like I'm just trying to say how will that procedurally the planning board will come and make their both are going appear in the in the council meeting packet and then we'll discuss both I'm going to go to Chris and then and then Council hanii I think what's going to happen is that each group The CRC and the planning board will submit their report to Town Council and then Town Council will have a first reading and a second reading and during one of those readings I imagine that well the first reading Nate will probably present this document and then the um the Town Council will discuss it and they'll discuss what's different in the CRC report from what's different in the planning board report and then the Town Council will resolve those differences and it won't come back to you all as far as I know yeah counc hanaki thank you Chris the in theory the document that is put in the motion sheet for adoption will be whatever comes out of go which might not even look like what we recommended just now because go will make clear consistency and action ability type changes so sometimes they add commas sometimes they actually at that point it probably goes to Legal because I'm not sure there's been a formal legal review yet a legal might have some changes they might a KP law loves to add provided that's all over the place um so what what gets put in the motion sheet will be whatever comes out of go uh the chair of CRC should be writing a report that indicates what our conversation was where our concerns were where there weren't what the vote was and also probably highlighting some of the changes we made from the planning board version the planning board report will talk about what they did but it would be good for the council to know what those changes were just like go always produces a track change version of the document they got and what they sent out so that Council can see what changed from what we recommended right um that that always goes and then once that motion is on the table in the second reading anyone can make motions to amend um to add back in something that we got rid of that the planning board had to change completely that wasn't recommended at all that happens on the floor at any time but the the version that goes in the motion sheet is what go forwards out produces yeah yeah Y which Pam needs to Pam needs to forward this version to go right and so I'm gonna ask Nate I have I have the version that we worked on that that came from the planning board and we'll get we'll get your version from tonight um with appropriate whatever headers and stuff like that and um and then we'll use that for so I'm not going to plan to send it to to go um until I have my report in hand I don't I mean sometimes go doesn't want a report they just want to read it as actionable um I always think it's helpful to have a report so it depends on how long your report will take um because we literally now have a deadline to vote at the council and that's a second reading there's at least two weeks generally between a first reading and a second reading you should so and go takes probably two meetings like it should get on Go's agenda as soon as possible um because if we don't hit that deadline to vote we have to hold another public hearing with the mon monetarily noticed requirements and all H yeah thank you Kathy and I took notes all the way through and marked up we made relatively minor changes so I think your report Pam can be doesn't need to be more than a page we took the document after having met and then made the following changes um and to extent we have a rationale on them say the rationale so I I I think that's often helpful because it it does signal the thing that it was nearly complete and then we did some I not most of them are non-substantive but they were clarifying and then some were more substantive so so I'm I'm going to I I think I'm clarifying my action and that will be to actually forward the document once I get it from Nate and I will say I will follow up shortly with a report so at least that time is not ticking um while I hold it for a report report councelor hanii I I would actually ask that the report be more than just what changes we made from the planning board version because it should include per our rules it needs to include oh things in favor and and so I think it I think in some of the stuff we spent more time on particularly sections related to um where we added 100% commercial like rationals and discussion summaries of discussions we had about these sections I think are very important for the council because we don't want to rehash those discussions from the start at the council they they have a they should read what we did so that they know what we talked about and we can potentially move the discussion from there not from the beginning so it really does need to be a summary of the last four five meetings that we've had right yeah Mandy so I did you know it was tonight's meeting it to me was a short and so you're saying there were really some basic substantive things and just yeah thanks yeah that made it easy on me and we have and we have the wonderful Report Form formats that are in our pack or you know whatever in our SharePoint so we we'll go from there um one other item and that is um meeting schedules for the re for the the oute and uh I think what I heard from Athena and I was trying to look for my email from her um she was what she heard back and forth from people that it looked like it was a a Thursday and it was a Thursday afternoon like 4 to 6 and I wonder if we are in a basically in agreement with that and I don't know any other committee um I don't know any other committees uh Pat you're on go I have we have not met or talked about it and there's not any we've been passing dates but nothing's been solidified I'm trying to get it moved to Tuesday which to our old slot because councelor is still on it in the evening yeah Pam just did we settle on four to six or whe there's a question whether we could meet earlier I I have no preference but I'm just if we settle we jcpc has not set a time yet so I just need to know did everyone agree that 4 to six is better than two to four for example and my only my only concern about two to four is that if in fact there are people in in the community who want to okay weigh in on zoning it's really awkward in the middle of the afternoon okay I would love to have it I would love to have it then but I'm fine and with four to six any any that is that a is four to six is fine I could do 3 to five I could be do 2 to four I'd love to have it earlier I understand the rationale by trying to bleed after five um it it doesn't help those that work a night shift necessarily but um um you know um you know no time works for all of our residents um you know there's always going to be people who have jobs during the time we meet no matter when is the next meeting actually but the question is when is our next meeting yeah yes so I'm looking if it's the um does anybody remember that atha said maybe the second and fourth Thursdays does that ring a bell I don't know whether she said one and three or two and four uh I thought it was two and four so just for example in February uh February 10 is Town Council February 13 is the 2 Thursday do we want to alternate from Town Council I don't have a preference one way or the other so it will make reports easier if you do them the same week as the council well until Council meets two weeks in a row but um it makes reporting easier if you're not one business day before the council yeah so let's can we agree that the 13th of February and the 27th of February will be our next at least two meetings and then I'll I'll send this to Athena and she can give us an official map so 4 to 6 on the 13th is our next meeting yeah and I'm GNA write that down so I don't forget and I'll hope that um TSO meets on the other Thursday and then if if well Athena will do this anyway if we look at the council meetings if we're trying to do the week the council meets every once in a while it's not every two weeks so just taking that into account um because I I I need to put it on my whole calendar um you into the summer anyway for sometimes so we're agreed right now it'll be at least for now we're going to Target for the 2 and fourth Thursdays 4: to 6:00 p.m. starting on February 13 it would be great to have a full calendar a proposed calendar for us to actually adopt at the next meeting okay so can we we have to vote for the next meeting or not no okay okay so I will work with Athena and then we'll we will send this out for everybody to adjust and then we'll talk about it at our next meeting we'll confirm it and adopt it at our next meeting and and Pam and everyone so the next meeting the major topic will be the solar bylaw or is there anything I'm just looking I will catch up if I know what I need to catch up on okay we had for next for next meeting um we had a potentially University Drive overlay zoning which is now moot I think um uh zba and planning board vacancies I would like to start talking about that um because it takes a while uh the 2025 schedule was on the list and Adu update was on the list so so not not solar so solar would be oh well solar no no I'm I'm literally I don't want to be a drag so I will spend time getting to uh where you are where you last were on each of these and solar and solar was there didn't read it thank you okay okay everybody uh any motion to uh adjourn so I have a request before we do that go for it the SharePoint folder and the public packet online are supposed to match um including agendas um and it appears that more often than not they don't including agendas and that makes it really hard so I would request the chair and the vice chair make sure that whatever in SharePoint is whatever is posted online I don't have the control over that because what I do is I send everything for the packet to Athena asking it to be posted so last week I sent it on the 21st with all the attachments and it got posted on the 24th uh and it wasn't until I went to the public posting that I noticed that there were some additional um meeting minutes then I ask that you work with Athena to make sure whoever's whoever's doing it does it and that could be you that could be her but but it as chair you need to have some responsibility to make sure it does it whether that's a conversation with atheno or you doing it yourself but I I would when I was chair of go and um and the audit committee I Al I put things in the packet and so I don't know how to do it in the packet I do it in our into our SharePoint folder well that's the pack that's I do that all the time that's well then I think a conversation with Athena about where she's pulling the the documents from is in order and that is something you should do yep thank you I mean I I actually attached them all to the email I sent so there shouldn't have been changes from that also the solar bylaw there's stuff that needs to be called the there's a staff version that's active there's a very old back to November version that I was uh looking at I've been working off of the current staff uh reviewed version so that it's uh that doesn't need to be in the packet I'm you know we need to kind of get up to date I will be sending some changes and stuff but it will be on the current version that's been reviewed which is version eight which is version eight by the way y yep yeah I just have to say because I'm copied on what you send I mean you're very timely about sending things to be posted I'm not you know sure where the disconnect is but well listen the the last council meeting wasn't posted several people yeah it you know so there's there's there's a a a a glitch happening somewhere I don't know what you know so it may I don't know where it's happening but that's the first ever that I found you want to move that we adjourn the meeting is there a second it's 8:58 and this not necessary thank you thank you and I want to thank Nate for hanging out with us and David also thank you uh second I hear a second yes uh quickly Jennifer tab yes Pat d'angelus hi Pam roon is and I Mandy Joe Han I Kathy Shane yes Jour thank you all thanks for hanging in bye bye thanks Dave