I'm very happy to be here and to be able to connect with you after covering you for more than four years. >> Indeed. All right, we will uh we'll get things started and hopefully um a few more Zach members will join us. I'm going to go ahead and get us started with the
script. Pursuant to chapter two of the acts of 2025, this meeting will be conducted via remote means in accordance with applicable law. This means that members of the public body as well as members of the public may access this meeting via virtual means. Participants
may access this meeting through the remote meeting link as posted on the meeting agenda and through the town's online calendar. When required by law or allowed by the chair, persons wishing to provide public comment or otherwise
participate in the meeting may do so by raising their hand or otherwise signaling their intent to speak. The uh this meeting will be recorded. Please take care to mute your microphone unless you have been recognized by the chair.
We will now confirm attendance of the members. Let's see how we're doing today. Matthew Verona >> present. >> Ron Foysy >> present. >> Uh, Sraan Krishna >> present.
>> Quad Assan >> present. >> Okay, those are the ones I knew were going to be present. Arnold Cohen, Steven Kiy, Sadep Matey, Jacqueline Crowe,
Pervy Avlani, and I am Ted Barker Hook, chair of the zoning advisory committee. I'm present and I make a quorum. Um, I think we expect one or two others to join us from that group based on emails. Uh, finally, staff Aneri Patel, the principal
planner. >> I think you said present. >> Present. >> There we go. All right. Um, the agenda Aneri sent out included looking at meeting uh minutes, but those didn't come together. So, we're going to just
take a pass on that and get right to the reason we are here tonight, which is to talk further about the MBTA Communities Act and adjustments that we meet need to make. Um I was chatting with Aneri a little bit before you guys signed on and I think Aneri is going to share with us
and any members of the public who are with us today um the packet that she mailed out to us. >> I give you the floor. >> Okay. I'm going to quickly share the presentation about the options we discuss and what else we can do and
then we can discuss and ask questions from residents if they have any. Okay. Can you see my screen? >> Uh, I don't see any document yet.
There's a document. >> Okay. Okay. Well done. Can you see now? >> I see MBTA communities multiplaying. >> Yep. Okay.
Okay. So here is our option A which is our current MBTA proposal. I'm just going to rewind quickly. Um the town approved proposal to have like three zone Walcott Valley, downtown and preserve subd district.
Here is the close-up look. Uh I will brief out this proposal. town approved in May last not May um November town meeting went to state uh state send us a letter and gave us a like
conditional approval as we are not meeting with one of the required MBTA requirement which is like 50% of contiguous area so we are here to solve that problem here here is the table of
the current proposal for MBT zoning. So as per this you can see that it's 54.6 acres which we all lot as MBTA zoning and the density and the acreage
in this table. Moving forward to option B. Here is the option we discussed in last Zach meeting like maybe add this parcels into MBDA zoning and convert into one big parcel so we can meet our contiguous
requirement as well as all the other three which is like 750 plus units um acres and um what was the other thing? Yep. gross density and the land area. Um
but the main concern raised during that time that this big parcel and the properties near this area near the cleft lane straight. So we came up with other
two options. One is like adding this area and make a one parcel with the downtown and wall cut. So right now this is like a 13 uh parcels we can add and make a one district MBTA to meet our requirement.
So as for this if we go with this option adding this 13 parcels it's coming up to total contigious area around 28.6 acres um and total MBTA wallet area around 501.5.
So based upon that we have to have 25.75 acres contiguous area and we are meeting the requirement and it's going to increase the unit capacity based upon we going to add the parcels we not
removing anything. This is one of the option. Second option, option D and option E is like um keeping everything as it is and option E is like just add near Walcut
Street which we discussed in last meeting. So um most of the property if we go with adding just this or option D the those are in business district and residential azoning district and this all the
downtown property do have town water and sewer that was one of the question uh committee asked. So I checked all the parcels um they have town water and sewer. So if we compare option D and option E.
So it's pretty similar if we go just with adding like a strip on wall street or go with option D with adding uh three parcels from a street and walk street. So there's
not a major difference in this. So if we go with option D, it's 33.28 28 I mean 21 acres with that combining downtown and Walot Valley district and the total MBTA overlay will come around 56.12 so
based upon that we need 28.06 06 acres. Um and if we go with just adding a strip here that will come up around 32.71 as we are just removing three parcels from option
option D. So there is not a huge difference. Um I recommend both committee to add parcel rather than removing anything on what we have approved already.
That's just my recommendation. >> Great. >> Anyone if have any question please let me know. >> So just for clarification your option C that you put up that removed CVS and the fire station. >> That's correct.
>> That would have necessitated additional properties to connect Walcott and the downtown district in order to get back to the number we needed to get to. But if we keep the CVS and and uh Barber and fire department, those properties there,
then all we really need to do is build a bridge. >> You don't need to add other properties. >> Okay. >> So yeah, and I think keeping uh fire station and the south downtown area, it's useful. If we remove those, it's a
bigger parcel and um then it will affect in the gross density and unit capacity as well as the downtown parcels we trying to like make a gap. They are smaller in the size as just you said less than 5,000 square ft.
>> So um >> so it might impact that. >> Yeah. Then it might impact other requirements. >> Right. Right. So just adding on to our current MBT approved zoning is a good option than removing anything from what
we already approved. >> Um to the committee members before I offer some of the work I've done and thank you Aneri and thank you for adding option E because that was new this afternoon. Um >> yes >> so thank you for that. Um, before I offer some of the work that I did, do
you uh does anyone have clarifying questions for Aneri? Just going to pause a little bit. Anybody from the public have clarifying questions for Aneri? >> No. Okay. Um, so I wonder Amir, you and I were talking about this ahead of time.
I wonder if you could let me share my screen so that I can kind of manipulate a map a little bit and share some of the work that I did today. And everyone, I haven't done this since teaching during COVID. So, I hope that it comes back to me like riding a bike,
but we'll see. I need to go to share. I'm going to wait for you to tell me when you think you've given me the power. >> Yeah. U maybe you need to click on share option. clicking now. Oh, I got to send the request. >> Yes. And I allowed you.
>> Great. >> So, you can share now. >> I can share. Share. >> Yes, we can. >> Do you guys all see the zoning map? >> Yes, we can. >> Beautiful. So, what I wanted to do is I I went back and I looked at some of the
regs for both the MBTA overlay and um for downtown business and the neighborhood, trying to remember, we've often said that the downtown business is less permissive, no, is more permissive for dense housing than MBTA. Um and so I
took a look at that to try to remember what things say. Um and here's what I found. Um, one of the biggest things that jumped out to me, unless I am misreading it, and I encourage anybody
to correct me if I'm misreading it, is number one by right in the downtown district. Um, is this my MV? This is MDTM. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, here we go. Number
one, in the downtown business district by right, um, somebody may put in a mixeduse building, but not a purely residential building by right. A purely residential building, be it single family or multif
family, is by special permit in the downtown business district. So, in some respects, um, the MBA MBTA communities allows only residential by right. It doesn't require the mixed use, the kind
of thing that I'm think we're getting at Hop Drug with some commercial properties on the ground floor and apartments above. Anything in the downtown business district that we make MBTA communities, and we already have made a bunch of it, does allow for only residential
development, not mixed use. I bring that up only because it made me think of the CVS. I have no idea if there's truth, but I heard chatter from my neighbors that there was talk of CVS moving into the commercial across the street and then I don't know what that land could
be. But given that we've zoned it MBTA communities, it is possible that CVS and Marty's could choose to leave that spot and then that could become residential only housing. And I think that's worth keeping in mind. The other thing, if I'm
reading it correctly, is by right in the downtown business district, the minimum lot area is 15,000 square ft. Now, we have a lot of lots that look smaller than that to me. So, I don't know if I'm reading that correctly, but it's what I
see in 210 20.1A. The following size and setback requirements shall apply. In the downtown business district, minimum lot area 15,000 square feet. Um, in the MBTA
communities, the minimum lot size is 5,000 square ft. Um, so in that respect, MBTA allows a little bit more chance for development. Aneri, can you tell me if I'm reading our current downtown
business correctly in the 15,000? >> Yes, that is correct. Uh, as per the business, um, downtown district is 15,000 minimum and as per MBTA, uh, we approve 5,000 square ft as a minimum lot size.
>> So, that's worth us thinking about. Um, I don't think it means that we've done anything wrong or right, but it's worth reminding ourselves what some of the differences are. With those things in mind, I did some math today looking at some of the lots
that are on our different proposals. Now, this one is not colored in like a ner was. Um, but right now in our current MBTA overlay, these lots are already included,
right? Oh, wait a minute. I think I'm wrong. >> No, you are right. >> Oh, no, I am right. These are already included. >> Yep. >> We are and up here. >> Mhm. >> Is included. So, we're talking about building a bridge. And plan D includes
these lots as well. >> Yep. >> So, what I did, and I did not look into setback requirements. I didn't go that deep in the weeds. I simply was looking at what lots are 5,000 square ft or larger so that by themselves they could
become residentially developed. Does this make sense? I see Matthew kind of nodding following along. And here's what I found. First of all, all three of these are in excess of 5,000 square feet.
>> Yep. which means a developer if they could convince one homeowner in any of those could by right put in multi-use housing. >> Let me take a side trip to say really quickly we also have this balance we're trying to find where on the one hand we
are looking for more attainable housing, more affordable housing and often not always but often multi- uh family dwellings can provide that. We're also trying to find a way to follow the state's MBTA guidelines without opening
ourselves up to massive rapid development. Maybe development happens down the road. Um, so with those things in mind, these three properties here, I assume you can see my little cursor. Um, I measured those and I didn't they're
not perfect squares and I didn't pull out my protractor. I'm kind of guesstimating. This property I have at 6,000 to 8,000 square feet. >> This one I have at 6,400 to 8,300. This one I have at 5200 to 6,800 square
ft. So these give me hesitation looking up the road where we do feel the need to build a bridge. going up here. This lot here I have at less than 3,000
square ft, but it also isn't necessarily needed to build our bridge to the Walcott Valley Apartments, but it is a lot that is plenty less than 5,000 ft². This one is less than 3,300 square ft.
This is about 4,400 square ft. This one is greater. This is 5600 square ft. And you can see 51 feet by over a 100 is going to make it over 5,000 square feet. Can you guys see the quick
math I'm doing? As we go up the road, this one here is 47 plus uh and it only has 43 feet of frontage and the MBTA communities law requires 50 feet of
frontage. So, this one strikes out for MBTAs by itself on at least two counts. Continuing up the road, this one is 54 plus. That one is by itself developable.
By the way, we looked at these. Every single one of these is by itself more than 5,000 square ft. All of them have plenty of frontage. So, um, well, this one is barely enough frontage, but they have enough frontage. So, some of our
worries from last week, I think, are just redoubled when we look at the possibility of this side being developed. And again, this massive section out here was something we discussed before as potentially concerning. If we go across B Street, just to finish
what I've done, um, this lot by my estimating math, so I didn't really break it down. It's not a perfect square, but I think I multiplied the bigger numbers. So 72* 68, I got
a little less than 4896 square feet. So, that one I think is under 5,000 square ft. This one is 4,400 square ftish. And this one looks bigger, but the measurements are identical, almost 63
feet of frontage, 63 feet of frontage, 69 ft across, 70t across. Um, this says 54 along the back. And that clearly is at least the same size as this 63. So,
this one gave me pause when you eyeball it versus what the numbers say. But based on what the numbers say, it's also 4,410 square ft. So, if we were to build the bridge, there are
if we throw, sorry, I'm looking at my own notes and then at the map. If we throw these out, we can keep this or throw it out by itself. It's not buildable. But as we go up the road, I see two properties that
have sufficient square footage. Again, I didn't look into setback requirements, so I don't know if they would satisfy that, but there are two lots that have sufficient frontage and sufficient square footage to be by themselves purchased and developed.
I am not saying that that's necessarily a strike against this plan. Um, but it's something we ought to be keeping in mind. Um, it's also true maybe that if we are only trying to connect to this
property, it is possible that all we need is this one. But it's also possible that someone in the state could say that's absurd. That's not really a connection. And we may need to add these. Again, the numbers I get on
these, this is 4,896 square feet, so pretty close to 5,000. But again, I'm estimating. I didn't break it down into whatever shape that quadrilateral is. And these two, according to the numbers on the map, are
4,400 square ft. So, none of them by themselves are developable. um it would have to take multiple homeowners, property owners to sell to a developer to be able to use those properties.
That's the additional work I was doing today while proctoring midyear exams at my school. Um I will be quiet now and hear what kind of thoughts that brought up for the committee members. >> Go ahead, Ron.
even though they could technically be buildable through the MBTA communities, it it still requires somebody going in and acquiring those properties at today's rate of housing.
It it just doesn't make sound economic sense to think that there's going to be a land rush of people looking to to build more multif family homes there. I'm not a developer, so I'm not going to say that you're right or wrong. I'm not a developer, but what you say makes
sense. Before I just realized that in plan D and E, this is also within what a Neri drew. Um, and I didn't tell you that this one I have at 4592 square feet, this one with enough
frontage. Um, I don't know that we need that one to build our bridge. All right. So I I just because I think I left that one off when I was walking through what I did. Uh other committee members, do you have thoughts that that I joged or other things that came to
your mind? I'm looking. Don't see anybody with a hand up. Um, Aneri, do you have any thought or guess or is there any chatter over in the land and
planning offices over downtown? How I'm going to use the the air quotes, how strong a bridge we need to have to connect these, how broad a bridge, um, how much overlap here. Do you have any
sense? Obviously, we can't submit to the state for their feedback. So >> we can so we can ask uh state with the options. Uh I showed the option to John for his feedback like the bridge and the one with the both option option D and
option A and he said it's okay if we calculating and the reason for including that a straight >> two parcels on the side. No, not those streets of one. Yes. To like make it look like a connection rather just
adding like one parcel from the street. That was the purpose. So state don't raise a concern that you just brid the gap and make >> because it looks more uniform. It looks more >> Yeah. >> thoughtful. Not avoiding
>> thoughtful. Okay. Uh but if I'm not wrong, John mentioned if we have any questions, we can reach out to them. So we can send not the actual proposal, but we can send like as a draft saying that we came up with
this. We're going to go in front of um I mean town meeting, annual town meeting. What's your thought? We can we can try that. >> Okay. Then uh if committee agree then I will discuss with John and with the
planning board and then maybe I will send email or even before that I can do that and prepare the actual um sheet and the changes to the vla. >> Okay. >> And then send that to state.
>> Okay. Um before I forget an I wonder if you can help me with one other thing that I thought about while doing my work today. I believe, and I stopped looking because I assumed it was going to happen over and over, but I believe every house
in this neighborhood is older than 1920 or 30, and a lot of them are about 1900 or even 1,800 something. Um, if we were having if if a regular homeowner wanted to buy a home and knock it down or
substantially change it, they'd have to go through the historical commission. Would under MBTA uh communities bylaw would they still have to go through historical commission or is that a waved barrier?
>> Give me a second. It's Maybe they need to go in front of historical commission and ask the question if the board is okay. Just like other downtown area, >> okay, >> parcels.
>> So for for those in the room, um I believe I have this right. The historical commission's power is limited. um what they are able to do if they decide a home is historically significant and savable, the most they
can do is delay destruction for 18 months. Um they cannot forbid destruction of a home and sometimes they'll delay destruction for less, sometimes 18 months. There is, and I don't know exactly which property it is,
but somewhere over here, you may have noticed that a home has been knocked down and something new is being built. That was one that the historical commission denied initially and then the uh owner of the property waited out the 18 months and then went ahead with the
demolition. Um, I'm pretty sure I have that both the regs and the story with that property correct. Um my wife was on the historical commission when that one was discussed. So I have a little bit of familiarity with it. So
another not barrier but another breaking mechanism. If it's true that the historical commission could delay up to 18 months destruction of any of these homes and if they deemed them historically significant, that would also slow but not necessarily stop
development of those properties into multif family housing. Um, and that might be worth keeping in mind as well. Um, >> did you have something in Erie? No, I just double check with our MBTA and the
state that yes, if your property is in historical district, you still need a local historic commission view. >> Is a historic different district different from a home deemed historical by the historic commission.
I think those are two different things. >> I mean, >> I think so. >> That that I can check. >> Okay. that I'm not aware. >> It and again it it may be something that is immaterial to us, Zach, because we're
looking to find a solution anyway. I see Elise with a hand up. I'm going to come to you in a moment, Elise. It's good to have you here with us, Elise. Um it may be immaterial because we got to find a solution anyway. Um but I would just like us to be able to answer questions when they come up and that may be one
that comes up. Um let me go to Elise. Go ahead. Hi, Alis Mihiloski, 19 Walcott Street. Um, uh, I can tell you at least the strip of Walcott Street between A and B Street is
not a historical area because my house was built in 2001. >> Okay. >> Um, and before it was just an empty lot. >> Which property is yours, Elise? >> 19. So, the little yellow rectangle on a
street, it's the one just I guess north. >> Yeah, that one. >> Oh, well, my house doesn't look like that anymore. But >> it may be that some of the information is as wrong as the measurements on this property. Um, so that's interesting.
When I clicked, they were all older. I'm looking for the date of this house. Um anyway, oh wait, no, look here. It says 2002, but your house >> 2002. Okay, >> so that may have been one of the ones where I stopped clicking. >> Yeah. Um
so I I just wanted to comment that. Another thing is I know uh what you were saying about the historical commission. Um, there's a house on B Street and I'm not sure when it was purchased, but I know it was purchased and then there
was a waiting period and I know they I don't know if it was a way around it or what, but they basically kept the whole front of the house and then gutted the back part and then rebuilt the entire house and just kept sort of like the front,
>> I don't know, skeleton of it. >> Um, but it's a brand new house. If you were to drive down Bee Street, you can tell which one it is. Mhm. >> And I mean, I'm not complaining. It's a beautiful house, but there are ways around >> the rules and people find them. >> So, just wanted to add that in.
>> Thank you. I agree. In my experience with the historical commission, I heard um plenty of stories like that. >> Um Aneri, were you able to get a a find a different answer if it's not a historical district?
>> Yeah, I will I will check with Should >> we just table that for later? Yeah, I will check and do my >> due diligence. >> Matthew, >> sorry. Yeah, I was just going to confirm that if you go north of Alisa's house, they're all 1925 or older. Um, her hers
is the the oddball in that list. So, >> so this is an older one again. >> Okay. Again, I don't know how far to scroll before I find the date again, but okay. Um, but it's unclear whether the age of
the house is going to slow development or not yet. And we'll see if we can get an answer to that. >> Um, Sarah, I think, welcome back. Right. You're our our friend from Claflin Street. >> Yep, that's me. >> I'm glad you're back, Sarah. >> Thanks. Thanks for having me back. I
appreciate it. So Sarah Brophy, I'm at 9 Claflin Street and I wanted to talk a little bit about our experience, our recent experience with the historical commission with about three Claflin Street. So that is a historic prop, you know, historical property that um that
the developer for that lot wanted to, you know, demolish the building, went in, you know, was deemed historical, went back and they, you know, they decided that they wanted that to be preferably preserved ultimately. So they have maintained the structure and this
is probably speaking a little bit to what Elise is has experienced on the house on B Street. It's preferably preserved is what it was deemed and they had the ability to kind of tear down one portion of that house kind of an addition that was made on but to keep
the keep the structure itself holistically. But I agree that that probably is exactly the same thing that happened with the property that Alisa Elise mentioned for B Street. >> Great. Thank you. Thanks very much. Um or again for whichever house it is over
here if you wait 18 months you can knock the whole thing down and you don't >> Correct. Correct. >> Um even so it would be nice to get some clarification whether MBTA means you don't even have to go to the historical commission or not. So we can wait on
that. Um, I I I think generally I'm in agreement with Aner's recommendation that we keep this section in our MBTA map. I think it makes it so we're going to hit our 50% even easier. We don't have to worry
about stuff here. Um, but I am curious if any committee members, um, if I'm reading the rags right, um, have concern that we've included a parcel that right now is commercial, but under MBTA could
become solely residential, multif family. Is that a worry for anybody? Worry enough that you want to talk about that part of the map. I'll just wait a little bit. See if people are looking to put a hand up or get off of pause.
Uh Aner's hand is up. >> So, uh sorry, not on this point, but I just want to add on the historic commission thing. >> So, I just check on um our state website and it's mentioned that uh if your property is in historic or if your house
is historic, you still need to go through historic commission. >> Okay. So all the local um other boards if it's required you need approval from them if even if you can do multif family by right. >> Okay. >> So yeah
>> and and all the other boards include conservation commission and and if you don't have the proper setbacks ZBA and all of that stuff. >> Yes. Yes. That's correct. >> And as we pointed out the zoning I mean the historical commission has some teeth
but they're not super super sharp. Um, so back on the CBS, no one has any hesitation. Just leave it the way it is and and we'll see what happens. I'm not pushing for a change. I just thought it'd be worth considering.
Okay, I see nothing. Is there anybody um who likes a plan? Can we focus only on plan D and E? Um, I do know from the most recent planning board meeting, Matthew, that
there was some voice on the planning board or voices that really wanted us to consider carbonis again. Would you like, Matthew, to share some of that and then what your reactions were? >> Do you want me to share or you asking if the board wants me to share? Um,
>> I'm asking you if you would. >> Yeah, I can share if people didn't watch that part of the meeting. After all, we are forwarding to the planning board and so >> Yep. Yeah. Yeah. So, there was a suggestion to um look at carbonis again because I think Ted has just stocked up
on Alka-Seltzer and uh the the idea the the thought was that and I don't know if this is accurate um was that the town was or the some agency was acquiring the land
and I don't know what state that's in um to hook up to the AMWR at that point um with the idea that that wouldn't then be developable. Um I was just trying to skim through what actually the impact of that would be. Um because my
understanding was if it's owned by the town or is otherwise non-developable developable um it wouldn't count. But I don't know exactly how that impacts the overall calculation if it's excluded from the 50% or just can't be used for unit development. Um so I'd defer to
Aneri if she knows the model better if that's even a feasible approach. So um before I so I had a little discussion like in general with town manager Ela and she mentioned that probably is
acquiring then you cannot count or do anything. I mean you can convert that property into MBTA zoning but you cannot build and it will exclude from the calculation. So um I think currently
including carbon property seems a little off track. >> Yeah. Okay. >> So we are not in in any agreement or anything but town is planning to buy that or there's some discussion going on. >> Okay. >> For waste water or exactly I don't know
but something with that. So, the two options are it could either derail the current negotiations or it we'd be right back here because it would be invalid once we bought it and we'd have to >> go back. >> As a reminder to the committee and anyone else watching, um what the state
needs to see is the right amount of acreage that is buildable. So if we took just randomly this lot but threearters of it was a swamp, we don't get credit for that full acreage.
We get credit only for the bits that are buildable. So if we were to include a section of land that is utterly unbuildable, we get no credit for adding that. We've accomplished nothing. Um I think that's what we're hearing with Carbonies. Um I think that our committee
was in agreement. we were not interested in looking at carbon again, but since it came up to the planning board, I thought it would be worth airing out again. With that said, um for the committee sitting here, um is it
in your minds down to plan D or E or do we still need to look at A, B, or C? Um A was the original. I think B is the approved right now which is out of of
it's it's against the rules. C included this side of the street and maybe these houses but this side of the street. D is this whole strip if you can see my cursor on a street and then our bridge
as I'm calling it. E would be a bridge that is just here and up. Are we as a committee feeling like it's D or E? >> Yes, sir. >> Anyone pushing for anything besides
those two? Okay, with that, I'll ask anybody in the public, do you have thoughts? Because I do appreciate you're coming and I want you to be able to offer thoughts if you have D versus E thoughts. Can we actually have a ner share her
screen so we can see those mapped out with the color blocks between the >> course? I guess I have to get off. So, let me stop. >> That would help me as just being a visual person. >> Of course. No, that'll be fine. I put mine up so that I could point better and also kind of single out the individual
properties. >> Yeah. No, it made sense. It made sense for that portion of the discussion without a doubt. >> Awesome. >> And actually, I really like that map. >> It's available on the town website. So on the left is D. On the right is E.
And by the way, I I asked Aeri about the yellow spot over there on D. It's nothing. Ignore the yellow spot and it's not there. It signifies nothing. >> That's a good question because I was going to ask that question. >> No, I was I was uh drawing the parcels
and somehow I don't know what happened. it got u selected by itself and if I delete it was like deleting everything so I was like let me just keep there. >> Yeah. So really the only difference between these two plans are those additional like two or three properties
on that corner of a of including those houses on a street. Correct. >> That is the only difference between those two plans is those three properties. Those three properties again were a square footage of 52 to 6,800 square ft², 64 to 8,300 square ft. Th
those are in my estimate range because I didn't do the math to really break down the the quadrilateral. And then the last one, the one closest to Walcott, 6,000 to 8,000 square feet. So those are pretty sizable properties that by themselves would be developable.
>> Okay. Yeah. I I think I'm uh I'm in alignment with either D or E. I guess I would prefer E on some level just because those properties are larger on A to be developed, but those are also, you know, on Cedar Street in some in some form or
fashion. But I think what's the minimal viable, you know, um uh you know, approach and to me that would be that would be option E. >> Great. We got other hands up. Sraana. >> Hi >> Sraan. Sorry the A gets thrown in there
in your name. I'm sorry. >> That's my bad. So I would like some clarification. So you said the CBS property if we put it into this MBTA zoning and if it gets approved any further development on this pro on
that property if CVS were to leave could only be residential because it's Is that right? >> No. So, it is already approved. What you see is purple on the two maps in front of you are what our current zoning is
and the CVS property is included. Aneri, could you just highlight one of the two CVS properties right there? So, it's already included. What I learned or relearned today is currently in downtown business and that area is also zoned
downtown business by right a developer can put a mixeduse development commercial on the ground floor uh residential on second and third floor under the MBTA communities act a a
developer by right does not have to have any commercial so it doesn't mean if CBS were to leave. It doesn't mean that has to become residential. It could stay completely commercial. It it's up to the the landlord and the land owner to
decide, but it could become purely residential under the MBTA regulations. >> Does that clarify? >> Yes, it does. And and did you say that we have the ability to exclude the CVS
property and still meet the um total size requirement? No. Okay. >> I think that would be really really hard and it would certainly mean including those other three properties um along a street. Um but that CVS property is a big chunk of acreage and it would
require a whole lot of other shifts. >> Right. Right. because you know I I was you know just learning about this town how we cannot predict some things in the future but you can definitely get blamed
if somebody puts in a big residential multif family thing on CVS and they're going to be like oh this was because of the zoning thing that was done right >> the good or the bad news is that's probably true of every town not just Hopinson um at least
Um, I just have a question. Um, and I apologize for not knowing the background of all your discussions for these maps, but is there a reason why in D you chose that side of the street of A
Street versus the other side of A Street? Um because the corner lot that's on Cedar Street that's opposite what's highlighted now is already being developed into four units. So it's
already kind of in the spirit of MBTA. >> So that's the one I was referencing when I said I didn't know which lot it was. I guess it's the corner of A and Cedar. >> Yes. It's directly across from the red. Yep. That one.
Um, I don't think there was any rationale. In fact, last week when I was initially talking about, and I'll keep using air quotes, building a bridge, I was not including those properties. But as Aneri was playing with different models, they got included. I don't know,
Aneri, if you had thought. I assume it was because it felt like it connected to what was already zoned more cleanly than if you went across the street. >> Okay. >> Yes, that is correct. So um like adding those parcels you the main purpose is to
like bridge the gap between two part two zone to district and make it as a one. Um so if like there's a option you can convert here I mean take a street parcel and b street parcel and make it as a one
but that will still not going to meet uh the contingency requirement because the only option for us is to like make downtown and wal street combine and make a one district. So you can include like
that parcel which is in the business district the one you're talking about but then you need to include these two as well to make it look like it's like combined joint district otherwise >> I think what >> that's what I was saying
>> right I think what Elise was asking is why do the south side of a street why not do the north side instead >> but then then it can as a joint not the weird but it will not join to the
downtown district if we >> don't take this side of a street and just include the other one >> right but I think if we still have all the properties along Walcott and then turn left on the north side of a street
>> then you need to >> but then we have three properties that somehow got missed in the zoning and I can't imagine that would look good Yeah. >> Does that answer your question, Elise? >> Um, sort of. Is there a rule that there
can't be a street in between? >> No. >> Okay. Cuz I mean, from what I'm seeing, it could connect. I mean, I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Um, it looks like it could connect across Cedar Street if you did the north side of the street and then it would go up and
connect. I I mean, I have nothing against the way it is now. I'm just curious. >> So, uh, >> go ahead, Anori, please. >> Yes. Sorry to interrupt. So, you can add this three as well from a street and make it as a one like from this side to
where is it right now and include this side of a street as well because otherwise it will be like you are adding here and you left three parcels. So leaving those three parcels unzoned would look unappealing to the
>> Yeah, there are chances. You don't know what goes in state, >> right? >> But yeah, >> that's my >> is that good? >> Yes, I that that's fine for me. I'm also
just wondering if they would be upset with leaving off the south side of a street, wouldn't they also be upset with us leaving off the larger parcel on the east side and Claflin Street?
I think if you if I'm understanding your question, if you color in red the west side of Walcott the way it is, >> and then move those the red shading on the south side of A and move it into the
pink on the north side of A, >> then we have a funny island of pink surrounded by zoned area. And that funny island of non MBTAz zoned area could cause a hiccup
in the state house. >> Okay. All right. Thanks. >> Does that make sense? I >> Yes. Yes, it makes sense. >> Since we don't have a paper map in front of us that we can point to, I'm trying to make sure we're talking about the same thing. >> No, no, it makes sense. Thank you for
clarifying. >> Sure, Matthew. >> Thanks. I mean, just following on that, although I had a separate point. Um, like if we got rid of one option along what Elise was saying, right, is we get rid of the the anything bordering A
Street there and instead just connect along B Street and we don't have an island. We just have a different shaped gerrymandering. Um, but if we're looking at D& which was my original point, right, the the only thing we're really talking about here and with Lisa's other proposals, right, is whether we're doing that minimal strip or if we've got
something that's connecting it back laterally or or westwardly, right? So, that's that's really what we're talking about is whether we want just that minimal approach or if we want something that fills in the block. Is that >> right? I think so. I we I think we're a
little bit guessing at what the state will approve, but it sounds like we do have a little more time than I feared and Neri can run a map by some folks at the state. It won't be the same thorough look we had for the original map that got voted down at town meeting, but we
can get some feedback. I think the question mostly that we're wrestling with is if we do E or even if we do E and eliminate the two properties that don't even touch Walcott, does that look like too thin a connection to be
accepted as a one area? If we expand along a to those three properties that might be um appetizing to a developer, it's an even stronger bridge, but it's also a bigger I think a bigger uh
enticement to developers, which is one of our concerns. I think I see your hand in the area, but hang on, Matthew. Does that address what you were asking? >> Yeah. No, it does. I just want to make sure that like it the these aren't the we're not really looking at two completely different plans here. It's
it's really what what what is it that we're focusing on? >> Yeah, I think so. And really the difference between these two plans is those three parcels that I mentioned a couple times. >> Yeah. An >> uh just my thought after Matthew and I's
point if if committee wants we still can add the other three from other side of a street parcel which is in business district which are like two looks like a more than 5,000 square ft in a size and
make it look like um connecting from here to here and then going as a bridge. and we can include those. So we have or we can say that we include business district parcels and we did not
touch the residential a >> zoning district >> residential a a bit right we have >> yeah like couple of parcels from um >> after the B street but that is one more option I mean
>> Matthew is your hand pop up again or is that a >> yeah just to spur a discussion like should we just focus on whether we like E or whether we think That's too thin, right? That's really the question. And maybe the best thing we should >> pretty much where we are right now >> is do we like E because it offers
a less juicy map to developers? Do we like D because it feels safer for the state to approve. I think that's where we are right now. And there are a couple questions I think that although we have the historical
commission question answered. So, actually that one's done. Um Sarah, I'm happy to hear what you have to say. >> Yeah, I've got a question actually. I I know this plan needs to be approved by, you know, town meeting. Um whatever we
discuss here today. Does this has to get approved by the state before the town meeting or after the town meeting? >> It would be after town meeting. So, that I mean that was a little bit what we ran into last time. We approved what we thought was going to be okay. >> Okay.
>> And then the state took a look and said, >> "Not enough." >> And some of the reason that happened is we had to rush a map through and we couldn't have the very thorough vetting we got the first time we took a bite of this apple. >> Right. So, I guess to to knowing that answer, I guess I wonder since you need
to get the town to approve first, which is going to be more, you know, more uh desirable for the town to approve that also might still also meet this the state needs, >> right? >> That's kind of my where my head's at ultimately. >> Yeah. >> And I don't know which one, you know,
the town um to me we're we're talking about, you know, basically, you know, the addition of three properties. You're not >> right. Um, I'm looking at our committee members. Is there anyone who hasn't spoken up that has some thoughts that they want to share? Let me get us back
to where I think we are. We're all okay. Well, I'm circling the map, but you can't see my cursor. We're all okay with every property that's already been zoned, including the CVS. I think that we're all fine with that. We're down to
do we want to propose to the planning board plan E. I keep using my cursor, but I keep forgetting you can't see it. plan E, which is the narrower bridge over to Walcott Valley, or do we want to push to the planning board D, which
includes three more properties, or do we want to do D version two and and have the other side of A Street, which I think would look funny if we excluded those three, but Elise is
right. One of those three properties on the other side of A is already effectively been MB MBTA community, if you will. >> I know you asked the committee, but I makes me wonder about that property. Do you just expand and clo and and you
include an option F that does include those other three properties on the other side of a street to again to make a bigger bridge if that property on a and and Cedar is already part of that? Do you do all of that? I know there was another property on that street that you were concerned about though, Ted.
>> Right. The other side of A. So what we learned from Elise, thank you. So that go to the west one more, please. Aner, to the corner of A Street, the northern corner of A Street in Cedar. Bingo. Right there. So that's the one
that has already been leveled in their rebuilding as a four um four apartment place. The one to the right of it looks like it's over 5,000 square feet.
So that would be a developable property. Oh boy. >> So Ted.15 acres is about 5,000 square feet if it helps since the acreage there. >> Oh good. I can't do the acreage at all. I was looking at the the street frontage times the depth and then the next one is
clearly so all three of those properties on the north side now one of them has already been developed but the other two would be by themselves without looking at uh uh setbacks and stuff developable.
My own inclination, if we can try to move this along, is to have the narrower bridge and exclude the properties that right now. Oh boy.
Okay, so that would be even more land. And of those, we have now six properties that are not along Wall Street, all of which are developable, although one has already been developed. Um, I would right now and I think that I
would say let's include the two properties that are closest to Wall Street but are not on Wall Street or Walcott Street. Yes, keep those on because it does make the map look more normal and less uh gerrymandered.
But I would propose then plan E to the planning board. I think that we've done a lot of discussions. Um I don't think we need to add more properties to get us to the 50% at all. Um as long as we're
keeping CVS and I'm in favor of keeping CVS. Um and then we can leave it up to the planning board to discuss uh and then can check with the state and instead of reporting back to us, report to the planning board what the state says about
that plan. How does Zach feel about that proposal? I saw some drifting thumbs up go by my screen and as our um although we have a lease here as well, but um Matthew, as our
planning board rep, does that feel like the kind of thing that the planning board can work with? >> Yeah, I mean I think the minimal change is going to be easiest to sell. Um, I don't know if you're going to be up there talking again, Ted, or if you're going to be sick that day. Um,
>> uh, we need your votes. >> Got a little >> uh, yeah, we'll get you a mask. Um, no, I I I think I'm curious if Elise has has has commentary as well, but I I think E is going to be the easiest sell here. Um, I think >> the planning and the town.
>> I I think to both. Yeah, I think whatever is going to be easiest sell to the or seems like the easiest sell to the town is going to be the easiest sell to the planning board. Um, something that's minor increment like well as minor as possible uh incremental to what we currently have and has a clear
explanation for why we're doing it and just that we missed this last time versus any changes by the state because I know that was something that people had a lot of fear about that this has always been there. we just kind of missed it and we didn't have time to run it by the full validation process.
>> Elise, I know you're not a Zach member. Um, you're always welcome back as far as I'm concerned, but you are a planning board member. Do you concur? >> Yeah. Um, the feedback that we pretty much got was that
people don't want more development. So, I think if we put the minimum change to the current plan, which would be option E, I think like what Matthew said, it would be the easiest to sell at town meeting.
Um, and I think it would have the most minimal impact in the short term at least. >> Okay. Um, Matthew,
>> just to comment on the one aspect of that is that in the last in the special town meeting and I think actually at the end of uh one of the budget commentaries, there was concern about the spurts of growth being uneven and as we mentioned I think last week last time
we met uh the potential declining class sizes as you know we had a huge increase as we did a lot of building and then it's slowed down. Um, and so I I I think there's mixed opinion on on growth. And one of the things we need to
pay attention to is just how do we how do we keep it smooth and not uh not generate a whole bunch at once. I think that's what we've been doing with these plans. And I don't think this is likely to upset that. Um, even if CVS were to be redeveloped, the rest of this I don't
think will spread to a lot everything being redeveloped at once, for instance. Uh, I think I agree this is not a counterpoint, but I will remind that in plan E, according to my measurements, two of the lots have the minimum square
footage. Again, I don't know about front edge and stuff, but the size that can be put there versus town and school stress and stuff would be pretty minimal. It could feel big to the neighborhood. I don't want to discount that. But as far as stress on town resources, um it would
be fairly minimal even if those two got developed quickly. And really, I don't know what other options we have. Um okay, so I guess um let me just click through, make sure I'm not missing a
hand anywhere. I don't think I am. I'm wondering if I could get um we haven't done this for a while. Um a motion to present plan E to the planning
board um for our solution to our current MBPA um uh shortcomings. If I could get a motion in a second and then we'll do a roll call vote.
>> Was that a so moved? and a second. >> A second. >> Great. Um, is there any more discussion before we vote? I'm looking through my attendance. I see no more discussion.
All right. To have a roll call vote. Do we pass along our recommendation of plan E, as we're calling it? Uh, Matthew. >> Yes. >> Ron. You're cutting out, but I think you said
yes. >> Okay. Sraan, >> yes. >> Quad. >> Yes. >> Yes. And Ted Barker Hook is also a yes. That is a unanimous.
>> Ted, uh, Jacqueline also signed on. >> Oh, Jacqueline, I didn't see you here. Jacquellyn, we need to get your vote. Thank you, Matthew. Jacqueline, are you there? One more try. Jacqueline, >> sorry, I was looking for the mute
button. Yes, I'm here. And I And yes, >> and your vote is a yes. >> Yes. For um proposal E >> for E. All right, Aneri, that is a six nothing vote to pass along the planning board. Um, and then I think again just to recap, Aneri, the planning board
would probably be grateful if you could run that plan by whomever it is at the state that could give us some feedback about whether that bridge is going to be successful. >> If not, I would imagine that the discussion would stay at the planning board level about what you do with a
street that it would not come back to us because I don't think there'd be enough time for that. But that's up to the chair of the planning board, I think, not me. With that, um I think that we are done with our work for 2026.
Um do you guys want to hold off? We we certainly have plenty more on our agenda. And if you watched the last planning board meeting, suddenly ideas were flowing like out of Mount Edna for stuff for us to work on. But should we
hesitate on booking our next meeting? I don't see anyone dying to book it right now. Okay. So, so long as um those who are here will promise to look at your email and respond when Aniri sends out proposals for our next Zach meeting
date. Um as long as that's true, then I would love a motion and a second to adjourn for the night. >> So moved. >> Second. >> A second. One more roll call vote. Before we vote, I want to thank members of the public. um who came along and
helped us out with this discussion. Um you're always welcome at a Zach meeting. All right, motion to adjourn and a second is out there. Matthew, >> yes. >> Ron, >> yes. >> Son, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Jacqueline,
>> yes. >> And Ted Varker Hook is a yes, making it unanimous. Um thank you everybody for your work. Um I encourage you to watch the planning board meetings. Um, Matthew, if you feel the need for me to attend planning board, um, please let me
know. I can probably find a way to make that work, but I honestly have faith that you've been listening to our discussions and can represent our committee pretty well. >> And yeah, uh, within an area's maps, I'm sure we'll >> be fine. >> Great. I wish everyone wonderful
holidays and a happy new year. We'll see you in 2026. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Happy holidays. >> Happy holiday. Take care.