##VIDEO ID:sNrKIHeehKI## well there is Bruce yes yes Bruce I'm sorry I had to step away for a moment I'm interested in Jesse's uh transformation into somebody that looks suspiciously like Pam roone but right I wouldn't uh I know maybe I messed maybe I uh somehow changed the zoom invite I'm gonna look at that and know my daughter is here which is a well hello there's Jesse dud Jesse's no waiting I'm I'm in I think and maybe oh interesting Pam you're me I know I'm I'm I'm delighted it's true I should try this technique the link that's weird that shouldn't work that way does it yeah mate I I'm going to ask if you would put me in the in the pan uh back in the audience because I thought you had a discussion last time that that it was not appropriate for us to be panelists unless we invite everyone so I'll be back for now and then U so J Jennifer also reached out to me and said that might be more appropriate at least for the two of you and probably moving forward we'll do that and just the raise thank you yeah all right uh I think we're good to role I think so okay thanks Nate um hi everyone uh welcome to the immer py award sub commit housing sub committee meeting it is January 29th at 11:36 we'll get started um I did not have any announcements Nate do you have any announcements for us uh I think you know the state had updated its rules and regulations for adus and I sent that to the planning board and be discussed next week um so people can look at it they're kind of updated they're not the final RS but they are going you know I mean they could be they're they were submitted to the state for approval great great also thank you for sending all the info on foot no M to us as well that'll come up in a few minutes um okay other announcements from anybody any of the members oh we need to do a vote to see who's here right or not a call uh okay we'll just go in order uh please indicate if you're here Bruce Cen I am here red Harwell I am here I Jesse major I'm here Karen winter here great thank you all right um I know it was last minute I did manage to send around PDFs of the minutes as requested last time um we can discuss you guys can tell me any edits or send them to me or we can talk about proving some of them if we're ready for that any discussion about any of the sets of minutes I didn't get the last ones yet I'm trying to do that before we meet next I didn't uh I spent my time looking through all of those Nate attached uh files and then I noticed it but then I didn't have time this morning to take so I'm Derick in that regard not a problem a lot of last minute stuff so uh okay so sounds like we're not ready to move on them at all seems like so let's plan let's all do that as our homework for next time so you can get some more minutes on the books okay uh so we'll jump right into our discussion of footnote M and I think the three of you saw the sort of draft statement I was sending around Nate I didn't send it to you yet um and I added a couple other sentences uh for input as well we maybe just go through the whole thing and again this is to prepare something that we can move forward to the planning board since this is going to be on the agenda for next week's meeting and I think Pam said if I could get it her by Friday it then be included in the packet um Fred you want to start us off with some comments uh well yeah it was uh fascinating to read the uh the 2005 uh report um I have to grudgingly uh give uh Mitchell credit for coming up with a way to get the camel's nose in the tent um I uh did uh review that those uh uh that report very carefully and it is quite correct that uh 6,000 makes General residence zoning uh less dense than uh Village Center but if you uh if you really study the uh the zoning map which I I have done in in response to the um we don't have very much in the way of RVC and the uh segments that we do have that are RVC I think are entirely appropriate for the 4,000 uh square foot parameter somewhat denser zoning so my response to the uh 2005 planning board report is that uh it is true and entirely beside the point um the uh I think that the general resident zoning District needs the 6,000 as the I think that is the correct parameter and um the fact that uh that results in less density than in the rvc's as I said it's that's quite true and besides the point and uh I think entirely appropriate so uh it it was a fascinating exercise also just going back to 1993 when I got this ball in motion that was a that was a trip down memory lane I had forgotten some of that uh but anyway yeah I I think that uh 6,000 should go forward uh for that reason yeah thanks v um unless there's other comments right now maybe I'll share my screen and I'll we can go through what I put together as a group and discuss a little bit um and then I imagine whatever we come up with now I'll share it around again for input and then get a final version to Pam by Friday um just to confirm Nate maybe we're we're that's okay to do within open bylaw right share a document request feedback or not yeah the difficulty would be if there's kind of an offline conversation so typically we'd say you know run it through staff and then we sort the comments um you know we just want to make sure there isn't anything happening offline but typically it's like sorry if it's like language suggestion changes stuff like that just simple edits does that count as conversation or it's okay to to get that kind of feedback or you'd rather go through you you can let's have it go through me just so someone doesn't I don't think it is necessarily but if someone takes a conservative uh approach they might okay uh Brad your hand still up I think that's Legacy Bruce oh sorry uh mine's not a legacy um I I also read through this and and I see that they on paper they're saying well the the center of town should be denser than the perimeter of town and like Fred I don't find that particularly compelling because the center of town is a very large residential district which is also in a historic uh local historic district which of course wasn't established at that time but now is um and the the areas that of of uh of Village Center density increase are very small and and so I don't I I think it's disingenuous to make a blanket statement well of course the center of town should be denser than the village centers and uh but that doesn't apply when when you're talking about small small areas in Village centers and large areas in the center of town large which subsequently have uh had a local historic district designation which uh uh bestows a different set of uh aspirations uh on what that what the look and feel of that part of town should be um and because we we certainly know that the density that the 6,000 uh uh uh opportunity bestows sorry the 4,000 uh brings with it large parking areas because if you have more density of units you have more density of parking and uh I think it's possible that uh that you we could imagine the work that the Redevelopment that would be um appropriate to use the uh the word that is applied to the local historic district and perhaps uh familyfriendly and others in terms of uh the the greater density but it requires uh you know a level of design intelligence and commitment and it's not clear to me that we can rely on on the level of design intelligence and commitment that would require that would be required to make the 4,000 square foot um great current allowance um yield the kind kind of uh uh end result on on the on the densification of downtown's essentially historic districts um although it does the IG does extend out beyond the historic districts of course um but I don't think it's it's uh we can we can rely on it uh um being uh achieving a product that we will we be happy to live with um and I don't know what the uh the student uh housing uh situation was in 2003 I can't remember I don't remember it being quite as fraught as it is now so I think that's another change so we've got the historic district issues that's been added to the mix which wasn't applied then I think that the uh the the the off-campus housing and and the way in which it's uh been uh solved uh in uh particularly in the RG um and thirdly as you point out in your note uh Jesse the uh addition of the um the byright uh entitlement of Adu so all those three things have happened since uh this change of six to four and all of them work uh the the three things that have happened in the interim the three things I've mentioned that have happened in the interim have all worked to uh uh make this change uh less intelligent than it might have appeared to be in 2005 in my view yeah I I largely agree I was struggling with how much to try and put in writing how much of that conversation right yeah so so I was trying to balance what what do we how do we rationalize what we want to do without opening up too many other conversations that could happen that might happen anyway right but in in so far as you're writing a report kind of a report to the planning board not this most of this won't make hardly none of it will make its way into the actual uh wording of the well I guess the wording of the change is simply the change four to six right but I mean it'll it'll probably I mean it has to go to even a planning board let's say PL Bo votes to move forward it then goes to council right yeah so whatever document we do put together now will go to council and that's really what I was thinking about not that what'll get into the eventual bylaw but when it gets to the council stage well I think we could do we or do we not want to include all of these points because then the conversation potentially just balloons even though it might happen anyway well I think we do because we want to give the the uh our our colleagues on the board planning board and then of course the uh the commission the the the counselors uh all of the reasons and I think we don't we can do them as uh as bullets you know because those three bullets that I've mentioned there's probably a couple more that might be appropriate um Freds essentially uh which is that the uh that you can't compare credit you can't making the assumption that you should have greater density in town than the village centers um isn't a logical uh it doesn't have the power of logic behind it because of the difference in areas between the two I think that should be a bullet as well well sorry well I'm blanking on the third one it wasn't the formation of the historic district it was yeah the formation of the historic district added a set of values that uh okay we we basically added uh an expression of value that was not in into a regulatory structure that was not in place in 2005 right okay all right so I'm just making a note here that that needs some work um okay Fred go ahead uh yeah that's a Bruce made an excellent point uh and uh it's it it has definitely struck me that the uh some parts of the RG District uh including your neighborhood Jesse um have some protection as uh a histor district and uh many other parts of town including my neighborhood does not have that protection and um the uh it's it's it's basically not fair uh uh and yeah uh a lot of discussion if you go back to the 2000 uh I mean the 1993 uh uh background that was circulated you can I I had even even as as the central party in it I had forgotten a good part of the amount of research and conversation that took place in 1993 um to settle on uh the 6 th000 square foot parameter and uh I I think all of that is still true uh and it has been exacerbated as uh as uh Bruce has uh very correctly pointed out thanks sorry N I didn't see your hand before go go ahead sure thanks Jesse Yeah I think you know kind of in the way Bruce is mentioned I think the context is important and it's good to have it in this memo I think you know we've also discussed that the uh 2015 comprehensive housing market study talked about kind of you know a an approach that has a you know various strategies and one could be allowing density in some areas and then having other measures in other neighborhoods whether you want to call this you know preserving you know single family residential neighborhoods or not you know I think that you know I would also say that this is part of a discussion the planning board has been having um also you know in response to say Mandy Joe and Pat's proposal the other year to redefine some residential uses and so I would say that this is you know like a one step in you know kind of a a progression of you know possible zoning measures or regulations related to housing and that the planning board has been having this discussion for a while and one of it what you know one result was the um you drive overlay and then there could be others and so I I think that context is important so you know it's just I because I think that if someone were to read those reports and say yeah geez why are we you know reducing the possible density in the RG at face value it sounds counterintuitive U I think there's some other pieces there I think it is important to note that the RVC districts you know there's only a few and they are small and kind of geographic area you know say in east ammer and north amest and pomoy um and so you know there's some context there yeah and so my right so the way I see this is this would be like you know an intro MMO to the planning board the planning board has it on the we'll have it on the agenda next week it's a discussion and then if the planning board agrees to work on it or have staff work on it it could become you know a zoning Amendment referred to council right that's kind of the process and so you know it I want to make sure that although it seems perfunctory right we're changing maybe just one number there's kind of a lot of discussion about what that means or does and so I think having a memo like this is important okay so but also what I hear you saying is that this even if planning board discusses and says yes bring this to council it wouldn't necessarily be this document you might then change it yeah I think this would part of the public record but essentially we'd have you know another memo I'd probably draw from this one sure sure and the discussions of the planning board and then you know what the actual language might be which you know like I said is pretty simp might actually be pretty simple in terms of the a bylaw change but right right okay so so with that in mind um I'm still welcome to take input here certainly for other points that you all think we should that should be included I can take another stab I'll have some time tonight to to lay this out a little more detail included I will then send it to you andate and you can circulate it Among Us for additional comments to get it ready for planning board um so maybe we don't need to really go through it right now uh again the main point I have originally included was really just pointing out that recent proposals were not accepted by historic district or his only board of appeals and that that was sort of the rationale I was using but I agree there's a lot more supporting ideas for this change as well to be included um yeah other other thoughts right now about what to include or what not to include go ahead Ken um Nate when was that market study I'm just trying to do the notes the market study oh 2015 2015 okay and and actually Karen if it's up to you if you want to take minutes that's fantastic yeah I pretty easily made the other ones using AI which I thought remarkably well so I think we could probably do that if you have to worry too much about it it'd be great if you want to take notes so that you can then double check what I come up with maybe that's rather than super detailed that's what I'm I'm doing as well okay great okay yeah that that'll be helpful if you all make some loose notes to make sure I and AI get it right okay other content for this memo or other discussion about this potential change all right great pam pam has her hand up maybe we could bring Pam over Nate for some comments and then Fred you could be next hi Thank you Pam roon 42 Cottage Street um I think what I'm reading in the highlighted yellow uh reducing the requirement for 6,000 down to 4,000 square feet uh just to point out that that that applies to tow houses and apartments only if you look at the requirements of square footage for um you know I'm going to say duplexes or something like that it's it's much lighter it's only 200 2500 square feet per dwelling unit so I have kind of a question um back when footnote M was was in the news um in looking at different properties around town it appears that the the 4,000 square ft per dwelling uh in addition to the 12,000 Square ft required for the the first unit um would result in roughly nine to 10 units per acre and that would be examples of tan Brook Apartments which is just off of East Pleasant Street and triangle and uh Spruce Ridge and also Olympia Oaks if you if you only count the area that's uh sort of not the wetlands and the and the back property but sort of the the developed area um so those are those seem to be reasonable densities if we are looking at reasonable locations and when you talk about a slightly larger parcel in the middle of a single family neighborhood um it does not it does not seem appropriate so it wouldn't be restricted just to the 2500 does not seem appropriate um so my one thought is whether it goes from 4,000 back up to 6,000 square feet per unit I would love to hear some discussion about uh what if it's other than an apartment building or or a townhouse that's being considered for development long long statement sorry thank you okay thanks Pam I'm just thinking BR go ahead oh yeah I was uh I was uh trying to uh parse the wording here on uh whether and I'm not clear I have to think about this some more whether if you are creating an additional apartment whether that is covered by uh the actual language of footnote M and I'm not completely clear I want to think about that um because uh yeah she made a good point there I just put the language from two of the documents down here from 2005 I'm just rereading that because that's that's not what I understood but maybe I missed the point Pam was making entirely if you look at the the uh uh rationale that was written up and you you saw it and I it was the The High Street uh development I think it was 22 High Street and uh that was that was a bunch of Apartments uh and it was it was it was clearly addressed by footnote M and uh I remember when we were when I was working on the uh the calculation the area calculation uh I was very clear in my own mind I did not want to create non-conformities and uh so I did spend a lot of time looking at uh densities in neighborhoods both in the Lincoln Avenue area and all so in the Whitney Street area where I live and uh the uh the the 6,000 square foot parameter uh did not create nonconformities uh so uh but yeah there is a interesting question as to if you create an apartment uh because of the uh reference to 3. 323 that might not catch uh a uh a construction that we may want to catch so I will have to think about that very carefully Nate go ahead yeah I think you know some of it is um the zoning bylaw doesn't do a very good job of providing for kind of middle density right so we had allowed one and two family homes and then we jumped to apartments and Tow houses which can have up to 10 units um and right now the way the bylaw is being interpreted you can't have multiple single family homes or duplexes on a on a single property right so you couldn't have like a cottage style development of two duplexes which may make more sense in terms of density and so what we tell people is just do a 4unit apartment building which may result in a different kind of site design and layout than what would actually be more appropriate and so you know whether or not Jesse want to put this in the memo but I think it's important is that I feel like for a long time right the zoning Bola really hasn't addressed kind of what we're calling accessible housing now where middle density say 8 to 15 units very well and so I think in the new housing production plan staff has talked to Bar Consulting about you know cottage style developments or other you know we've talked about redefining and having tiered definitions of a Apartments you know so it could be it's not all or nothing um and then there's considerations about you know parking or owner occupancy or affordability and so you know staff has thought we could allow you know cottage style development at say a greater density than what this footnote would allow but you know some of the conditions would be that you know some percentage of the units would have to be affordable or owner occupied or both and so I just think it's a really difficult thing I um so to Pam's response I think that yeah right now the zoning bylaw to me doesn't do a great job of providing the ability to have what could be the right density in some areas because you know we we're going to tell someone is do an apartment building by our zoning is three units or more and with that all of a sudden triggers as full Sprinklers and other things and then they try to maximize the number of units to make it cost effective for that the developer and it may not be actually the right character for the the neighborhood it's in but there's not a good way to do you know a duplex two duplexes in a single family home or something um and even now I will say that in our bylaw a lot of these uses that would this would be applied to our special permits anyway so they're discretionary special permits and so I think to me this is one step like I said in kind of a process of reexamining kind of our residential uses and density in different areas of town so I don't you know if you know if we find that this maybe isn't getting to where we want to go to me it's it's one step and we'll you know I think we'll keep addressing it and looking at it yeah I I totally understand what you're saying and to me if we include that that that to me is making an argument that we need to do a much bigger change right that's what you're saying basically so I'm I'm a little concerned if we try and capture that here then the response will be well then just get back to work and do the big change we don't care about this right but yes I I I I agree in general uh Bruce go ahead um I was hoping Nate would say what I thought he was going to say which uh means that I can therefore kind of agree I think here because I I heard uh what fam said and uh it doesn't uh changing from 4,000 to 6,000 doesn't completely put the stopper in the bottle or whatever analogy you want to use but uh so what I'm hearing then is the uh the question before us is should we I guess there are three things we could do there are three options one is that we could simply propose to uh change footnote M and uh as we've been discussing propose a change from 4,000 to 6,000 number two is we could uh not do anything right now and uh I mean not not do anything but but basically say uh footnote uh needs to be changed in a different way it needs to be changed in the way that uh satisfies Pam concerns which is to say um uh follows the Strategic Direction Nate that you outlined in other words enabling let's say cottage style developments I like that phrase It's a friendly phrase and it sounds good and it has a nice image associated with a visual image uh the third option is that we could say we should uh we we we recognize there's a problem uh for the reason that we stated the you know the the the change to the Adu law the the change to the way in which student off-campus housing is being per being satisfied the U the the values associated with local historic districts that uh weren't in wer in place in and that we should at least therefore um go back to where we were because it was more was more fitting uh uh 6,000 would be more fitting with our current situation but that we recognize that more needs to be done and that uh uh this would be the first step in a two-step or a multi-step process and the multi-step the second steps second plus steps would be to uh amend the bylaw to enable multi uh to to enable cage style development um for the reasons that P and Nate have outlined so uh so those are the three options and my sense is that we should uh proceed with option three in other words that we should we should ask for a a short-term simple um protection or Improvement in in the situation but that we have our eye on a more distant ball which is to enable the kind of intelligent uh Redevelopment of large uh uh of the larger RG uh Lots with a a what we will call a ctage style development uh approach and that we should uh as you know we should continue to uh work towards that starting with uh using footnote M as the lever or as the Catalyst that got us started but recognizing as we've have been discussing this that U there is a need um and there's a bigger hole that needs to be stoed and footnote am is not going to do the job and we should continue to explore what is necessary to fully and properly do the job so I don't think the council should be too confused by the by recognizing that there's a a general need that it's identified by the current footnote M we can do something immediately and then we can do something um more constructive and and more beneficial long term great thank thanks BR um Nate can you move Pam out bring Jen in so she can speak after Fred Fred go ahead yeah uh one uh comparatively simple way uh to uh approach this is is to um uh and to some extent this was always the concept although it's not the way it came out uh remove the reference to the apartment section of the bylaw from footnote M and that would thereby allow uh its application to a part Ms in whatever configuration uh rather than simply apartment buildings uh per se uh I don't know uh that's that's that's one uh one way to approach it uh I can tell you in in in my imagination back in 1993 I had in mind a much more generic uh approach to Apartments um and that would be a comparatively simple way to uh partially address this I don't know sure maybe maybe that's part of the larger revamp right um Jennifer go ahead if you're here uh thank you yeah I'm Jennifer Tabb um on Lincoln Avenue uh so you know we all know the elephant in the room is Will cottage style you know Cottages which would provide more housing be really just for students so that's so there really has to be a way to articulate that you know I know zoning doesn't like to speak to occupants occupancy but that's what we'll see you know I think in the RGS because they're close to campus and near downtown um and it almost goes back to a couple of years ago when uh the planning there were the planning board in the previous two two councils ago wanted to remove footnote M and they were showing how many Cottages if you want to call it that could fit onto the larger Lots like on Lincoln and sunset so you know that's the overriding concern that we're losing year round population we're building a new Elementary School we're expanding our library and we should not be D you know then looking to drive year round residents and families away because we're going to allow these Cottage developments just for students which what when they come before the you know whenever they come before the planning board or the local historic district commission the developers are always very clear that it's for students so the so when I think about the to housee development on Sunset and fearing we call them tow houses but they're really townhouse style apart Apartments it's at the corner of the neighborhood so it hasn't been disruptive but the reality is the overwhelming majority of residents are students which is fine because of where it is but I think if that was in the middle of a residential street like what was proposed for 98 fearing street that would be problematic I also wanted to add that one of the Town Council is having a retreat on Tuesday I mean it's a 4-Hour meeting Tuesday evening in the town room it's all televised but one of the goals that's being proposed is um to basically weaken the permitting so that two to six unit um developments can be built not just in the RG all over town but so there is an effort to make it easier to build these mid-range units but in a way that and this isn't for this committee to have to really be concerned with but that would try and make it more by right so it you know wouldn't have to go before or a zba or maybe even a planning where Butters wouldn't have to be notified so all to say that you know I think it's I support increasing it to 6,000 square feet and I'm very much supportive of cottage developments for you know yearround that are priced so yearr round residents can afford to live there and my concern is that they will be built and priced for bedrooms and per for students priced by the bedroom and then they'll be Out Of Reach to year round residents and that will not help us achieve our goal of sustaining and expanding our year round population yeah thank you yes thanks transer I think we know that will happen until there's 5,000 more units somewhere else right or beds rather um and again that that was our whole goal with trying to get a student home definition right I agree yes right right and honestly I've lost track of where that is maybe no I know I'm I'm just stating the obvious but my concern is I think there will be support there could be support for this but we would I think we really have to be pretty um clear about that we're in that we want these two the development that this may will enable to happen if there's a way to ensure that it's not just more um student housing price too high for the rest of us yeah uh Bruce go ahead um this is a question for you Nate I think um I'm trying to understand because I've had a conversation with Nate on a totally different topic related to a house on Amity which is interested which habitat is interested in an amous Community Land Trust it's a and I want to compare that project Nate to the 98 fearing and try and understand this uh this inhibition or how the footnote D or whatever is is is characterized so uh what we have on on uh Amity is a three unit house with on a big enough block to have another two units and we thought uh because it's affordable housing and so forth that we could uh put a two units additionally uh uh detached and so forth but Nate says well no that's uh a nice idea but uh it would be outside the purview of the zoning bylaw you can't do it under the bylaw so we may be able to do it through a 40b or a 40R or something because of the nature of the development um so so maybe our situation well that situation is different so I go to fearing street now and I remember that from uh Years A couple of years ago I think um what was proposed there was uh in addition to the three family that's already on the site there were going to be two duplexes added uh and so I'm wondering how was that uh construed in the bylaw how how how will the how was the developer uh proposing the applicant proposing at two at 98 fearing um because I think you've said Mt Nate that we could have a second uh building on the site at uh The Amity Street site instead of having two uh separate units we were to combine them and add a third so that they were basically um uh Apartments so uh which of course is why the cottage style development uh notion appeals to me because if we if all we can do in adding a separate building is an apartment by the way we Define it which could be a Triplex it's cumbersome in the way in which the massing of these pels uh in uh in the IG it wouldn't look as nice as being able to discreetly distribute these building masses uh uh more intelligently but but then I thought that as I recall 98 fearing that's actually a cottage style development if you like to put it that way is what what they were actually uh proposing it was actually quite nice and I would have thought it was a a good idea if it didn't have so much parking and and if the destiny and if the the notion of who was going to be there uh was um was not under consideration so Nate how was the 98 allowable yeah so originally it was you know three extra d three duplexes um in addition to the three-unit home and then it changed to another apartment building so a 4unit building just one big build you know the three so those two duplexes were connected to make a four unit uh is that the way it was done yeah it was they they came up with a whole new site design and building design so what they were originally proposing they maybe could have done as a like you know some pre-existing non-conforming but I actually think they they couldn't and so that's why they switched to you know basically two apartment buildings okay um but you know like in terms of that cyle development like I said we could have conditions that there' be some percent affordable or owner occupied I think it is difficult to say well let's you know allow even with the change in footnote we're still allowing some density it's really hard to control end users typically you know it's like we talked about this at CRC you know there's certain you know classes or things that are we could say like seniors affordable housing or other things for cottage style um maybe that's a way to you know try to have a balance of who the you know the residents are but it's a difficult thing to do yeah well owner occupancy seems like a a lever that could be pulled yeah I mean I actually think the fearing Street one with the three duplexes the duplexes were big um and so some you know communities instead of units they do it by like gross floor area or other things just because you know one unit could be a small two-bedroom it could be a big bigger you know floor area bigger unit with four bedrooms um but yeah I thought that if the fearing Street was say two duplexes and they had a little either not as M they were pretty big buildings but if they were smaller it could have actually been a nice sight plan um you know but then there's issues say with parking and other impacts with the design but it's like okay if you took that one for example and it's three qus of an acre I don't know how big it was if we think okay six units there look pretty good or seven is that you know to me once you start getting around nine or 10 it seemed pretty crowded uh and so then what you know that's why to me adjusting this footnote is a good nice step and then I think I do think there's other studies that need to happen uh and I think we still need to talk about where do we want you know multi-unit density in addition to University Drive I mean we could talk about eamus or Gateway or wait to see what you mass what their process looks at uh you know I think like I said there's multi kind of a multi-prong approach here thank you um before before we shift topics Fred I see your hand you be next where is the student home definition yeah so the ad regulations clarified that the student home definition just can't work uh they said you can't require occupancy or other things but in any unit whether it's the principal dwelling or the Adu so it can't be used with adus at all um given the new regulations and so I think you know the definition I think we have to talk about then how do we how do we work that definition at one point we said could we have it or something similar be part of the rental registration and maybe that's you know where we have we start collecting information that way first uh and so I that's kind of what I was thinking I don't I think we have to um you know we could be discussed at the planning board next week but it's not they Adu it's really clear now you know unless they change their regulations but they I think enough people ask that question about occupancy or use or other things that they made changes to address that but but even though we weren't specifying the Adu it doesn't matter now you can't require any owner occupancy or anything in any the principal dwelling or the Adu so you can't say given on this property you know that the principal dwelling or some unit has to be for seniors and Adu can be for anyone they would say that's a use we can't but again the way we worded it was two dwellings only one can be student home so we weren't prescribing anything say that's that's unreasonable who who's the that the state yes it's really clear in updated regulations okay I'll go have a look I think in the previous regulations it could have been allowed but given the updates that came out last week it's okay um Brad and then Jennifer you be next uh yeah um I just want to point out one thing and that is that uh uh with the Adu you can't specify owner occupancy I get that but uh just in terms of of Market um a uh a rental unit is a really good way to uh for a a young family to be able to afford a mortgage and uh excuse me but anyway so I uh I don't want to lose track of of that thanks red um J Pam your hands up go ahead thanks can you hear me yeah okay I didn't unmute so um while you're on the topic of us I wonder if Nate could um uh tell us if our occupancy cap is going to be able to be upheld uh which in our adus we allow three occupants uh and also would the state allow the more generous 1,000 square feet of space um that we currently have in our in our bylaw thanks yeah that well you just mentioned the first part Pam about occupancy or occupants everything that's that can't be um applied to adus or the property can can it be applied by the building inspector or the Building Commissioner with some square footage per occupant um minimums because uh you know there's sort of a health and safety standard there no yeah no The Building Commissioner said you know it's the plumbing code I think has the smaller square foot per occupant it's like 150 for the first and then 100 100 for each additional so you know three occupants you only need 350 square feet so uh building code is um you know is different so yeah he said it's you know given the way the regulations are written we we you know that won't work so there's been a few communities in Massachusetts at their fall town meeting approved a new Adu bylaw that said you know restricted to three occupants and you know I'm assuming the AG's office is going to have to deny those because or that section because given the new regulations you can't have any any limit like that sorry sorry so just as a followup um will our four-person capacity hold and that's in general but in this case specifically to the adus uh I think that is would have to be tested I'm you know we don't really enforce it much now it's a really difficult thing to enforce we should be well you know a family unit it's a you know it's a funny definition um so yeah I actually don't think that would be I think if someone wanted to they make they could make a case at it also is unreasonable and is in you know not in compliance with the new state regulations for adus so and what was sorry was the second part of the question the question you asked um the the thousand square feet yeah so we can't the regulations say you can be more permissive than what the regulations State and so what I was going to discuss with the planning board is possibly keeping our ex existing bylaw and changing it a bit but allowing a bigger Adu but it would still you know require owner occupancy and could be by a different permitting path and so the state is defining a protected Adu as you know half the gross flare area or 900 square feet whatever is smaller and that's allowed that's you know just it has to be basically by a building permit um and then you can always do other things so I guess for some you know it's interesting the new regulations have this Clause near the end of them that say you could be allow you know have more flexibility essentially and all the previous things they said if you allow adus up to a th000 square feet that's not a protected Adu because it's different square footage but the new regulations almost say that if you are more generous than the protected than it could be so I feel like there's still some questions on how to interpret the regulations but I think an approach could be to allow a bigger Adu and say it has to be by site planner view or special permit or we just have enough conditions in there that it's allowed uh we can have design standards on it you know occupancy or affordability or whatever we want and I think that could be a good way to go it still could be just by build permit but in our bylaw we you know enumerate a number of standards and conditions that have to be met um but the new regulations by the state essentially make it seem like you can't do anything but issue a building permit for the protected Adu you know you can't have any more dimensional standards than you would for a single family home you can't have any design guidelines anymore than you would for a single family home you know and so you know if anyways I think that the state really wants to encourage adus and essentially what they're saying through the regulations thank you I did not mean to De derail oh no I mean it is interesting though it it does I think it's part of this conversation because the way they Define it a principal dwelling is one unit but it could be that you know a 10un apartment building in a residential district could now have an Adu by right essentially any any any property that has one dwelling unit in a residential district could now have an Adu so it can apply to a lot of properties so I I see that could be a benefit for us getting what we want meaning an owner who wants to build an Adu it's bigger than we have that requirement but then the question is who would actually do that and most certainly developers are not going to do that they're just going to go with the protected one but might be a good thing to have on the books I agree yeah I think what I see happening is single family homes could now become duplexes essentially or two families could become three families because you could do a detached and it's not an apartment so you don't trigger sprinklers or other things so great uh Jennifer your hands up yeah I'm sorry I I did not it hadn't even occurred to me that we could not enforce or keep on the books are for Resident unit for non-related tenants I would hope that our Town Council will I mean our our attorney not the Town Council but would I I hope that we we hold that and that if it's challenged we defend it because that will be chaos if you can now have five six residents in the Adu and and we could certainly make the case that the four tenant limit applies to single family homes as well it's not just to adus okay I'm sorry I yeah no I think there's a way to I think the town could support it I I just think you know if you read it like I said kind of at face value it's you know it's something we like I said we'd have to support um Brett yeah I was just going to say that uh if the if the standard is you you can't impose on an Adu any conditions that are more severe than you impose on a single family house our for unrelated applies to single family houses open and shut so should be should remain enforcable yeah agree should is the big question uh Bruce go ahead um I guess a landlord can uh make the least terms they can limit the number of people I mean a landlord can decide that they don't want yeah it seems to me kind of preposterous I it seems to a real outlier to imagine that there would be four or five people living in a 900t Adu as possible I suppose but it seems like it's a a real outlier and I would imagine that most uh landlords would uh not want that sort of thing to happen so so I imagine that the the uh Adu law uh establishing them as protected uses doesn't uh limit the behavior of the landlord in any way is that correct I mean the landlord can do what they want in terms of the uh rental agreements I assume I don't I the question is are the rental agreements um in any way uh constrained by this uh this new state law no it's more about how municipality regulates it I just you know there's some language in the regulations about right you can't be more restrictive than a single family home they also say you you know you you can't be more restrictive than building code or or codes and so you know that's where you know there could be some inconsistency or interpretation of how local uh regulations are applied um but you know I think I think all you know if we want to Circle back to footnote M I think it all you know relates to you know kind of what we think is appropriate density in the RG and I think it's yeah I think it's worth pursuing and then um you know I think it'll be a good discuss to have with the planning board to see I'm sure it'll be a very similar conversation um you know I think there's other parts to look at and this might you know have a you know some other kind of offshoots you know so Bruce was saying with this Amity Street property the owner would actually like to try to make it affordable and they're trying to work with you know Amis Community Land Trust to make that happen our zoning right now is actually an impediment in terms of what would be a good um site design and number of units for the property and so you know we don't have a provision to allow five units or six units and so you know the options are a small comprehensive permit uh change the zoning so that something like this could be allowed if if so many units are affordable or unoccupied um or do two apartment buildings two three unit buildings which may or may not work and so I think changing foot m is piece then some of it is and what are the use types the residential use types that are still could be permitted in on a property and right now it really is only limited to town houses or apartments I mean there's converted dwelling or subdividable dwelling but you know there's a few residential use types that this would apply to or could be used anyways because the way we limit duplexes in single family homes so I think it's you know one step and I think then there'll be others to follow okay um let see other hands even though I feel a little deflated I will still do what I said and put together uh try and capture a lot of these points for discussion on planning board I'll send around the revised version uh later tonight hopefully and we'll get something don't don't feel deflated I I think that uh it's the the task is expanded that's true so the pressure I don't mean just about m i mean about yeah ad all that um okay I've got 10 more minutes I'm not sure there a lot of time to get into the I have a question then if I may um this has to do with something that we will get on to which is the uh the multif family overlay that we've been discussing as and and thinking that it we would start with the north amist uh um Parcels U my wife pointed out uh last night uh as we were having dinner that um the townhouse uh is condominium Arrangement and so condomini arangement suggest multiple ownership or you know disaggregated ownership uh the question then is if uh if that's the case can we how can we imagine that a developer could take advantage of an overlay if it's not an aggregated ownership and you don't have to answer the question but that in the 10 minutes I thought I would put that question out because it seems to me to be a potentially serious impediment to being able to get off you know get off the first get off first base or even home base with this with this idea because a developer you know a condominium uh suggests that it could be a whole lot of single uh uh parcel or single property owners and extending the the story from two to five is going to be meaningless to uh to such a a type of ownership um and so not worth the effort yeah they'd have to approach the condominium board and have an agreement with everyone you know it's a it changes it a a bit Yeah they kind of minimized I don't know how many years ago but yeah but the board doesn't own the units no they'd have to right approach all the multiple owners basically you you would be basically doing what the the the London barers in my days I was in London for five years in the 50 in the 70s and and uh one of the ways in which my organization managed to create uh value was in the five or eight years that it took the council to aggregate a parcel which is to say negotiate with all of the owners and and buy all the parcels and create an aggregated single ownership um we had a whole lot of things that we could do in the parcels that the council had aggregated had purchased but weren't yet able to use and of course in a situation like that uh you've got the perfect opportunity for holdouts and uh so that's um somebody who recognizes that they've got you over a barrel because short of their PCH their sale to the the Consolidated entity nothing can happen and so they've got everybody over a barrel it seems like a a very inauspicious um situation certainly something we should factor into our considerations it's a very good point okay so well before seems like we never have enough time just like planning board often I did want to talk about scheduling a little bit because I don't think we have anything else scheduled for us um my memory is we went to this kind of a time slot partly to respect Nate's evening times and it seemed to work better for most of us it's less good for me but I can still do it but I was thinking maybe for February um February March April maybe we can try and Alternate an evening and a midday and stay on a every 3 week roughly schedule um so if that's agreeable to all I'll put together some dates and send those around for your availability I'm I I I recognize how difficult it is for you Jesse to make make these happen so my commitment to you is to be available anytime you want great thank you um so yeah I'll I'll send around some dates if you can look for that email and get back to me uh or to Nate and I about what could work and uh I do think next we meet we really should put everything else aside and talk about the next overlay idea or the multi-unit so that we can get something in better shape to then bring back to planning board to try and help move that along that's what uh we were hoping to do next unless there something else burning that pops up um so we could spend a few minutes on the increased density or not I'm I'm feeling a little like maybe moving on for today but I don't I'm good I made my i i i lobed my okay now go ahead Nate say it's on the planning board agenda for next week so I think the planning board can talk about it um you know oh it is the increased density yeah I you know they we already talked about North amorist I think we should have another conversation like Bruce said to talk about some of the other considerations or factors and it'd be nice to get a sense for okay if we want to really do focus on this I feel like we didn't spend too much time as the planning board and then we can you know I think that will help give direction to staff in the subcommittee so you know as is there say A you know a few parameters that we like or is there another place to investigate and then that can help us with you know the next step okay great I I thought we subcommittee was going to try and go through that old document and revamp it for current like I thought we were gonna try and get to some detail stuff but maybe time anyway yeah I think it'd be good too to have the planning board just talk about as a as an entire board you know they kind of said they liked it but maybe just talk about a bit more with you know a bit more understanding and then okay sounds great all right then um uh I think we're supposed to ask for public comment uh anyone in the public want to make any more comments don't see any hands so any I don't think there are any unanticipated items not for me Nate do you have anything for us okay then we will journ at 12:41 thank you all I'll see you next week at planning board